but the human raceis stalling evolution with it's life preserving techniques
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:41,
archived)
good pointthe same thing is also giving many problems with pensions and the like, it appears there is such a thing as too much health care
(
wjh31,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:49,
archived)
I'm not sure we're stalling evolution...... it's more that we've modified the selective pressures.
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 14:59,
archived)
we're no longer physically evolvingother than getting slightly taller and heavier (not obesity, average weights have been rising for the last two hundred years or so as we've lived healthier lifestyles)
there's a hive evolution occuring in that the species is becoming more intelligent, and probably will be able to manage interplanetary travel if it survives a mass extinction event, but mutants are not surviving instead of those not carrying the mutation, nor are they dying instead of carrying on the mutation.
in short, survival of the fittest no longer applies to individuals of the human race, and hasn't done for a good few hundred years.
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:03,
archived)
there's a hive evolution occuring in that the species is becoming more intelligent, and probably will be able to manage interplanetary travel if it survives a mass extinction event, but mutants are not surviving instead of those not carrying the mutation, nor are they dying instead of carrying on the mutation.
in short, survival of the fittest no longer applies to individuals of the human race, and hasn't done for a good few hundred years.
I definitely disagree with that.For instance, I believe there's an allele which is now very common in Africa, which was unknown a few decades ago, which confers a much greater protection against malaria.
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:20,
archived)
yesin the 'developed' world there are less extreem selection processes, the most prevelant diseases, diabetes, heart attack etc, dont typically prevent reproduction, so more resistant genes cant be selected for
( wjh31,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:30,
archived)
that'd besickle cell
if you're a carrier of the gene then you're protected against malaria, however if you've got two copies of it you've got an incredibly painful (and terminal if i remember correctly) blood disease, it's not a great mutation to have.
although, i get the point that the developing world isn't benefiting from the advancement of the human race, but i'd say that aid agencies and civil wars are still preventing evolution
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 15:41,
archived)
if you're a carrier of the gene then you're protected against malaria, however if you've got two copies of it you've got an incredibly painful (and terminal if i remember correctly) blood disease, it's not a great mutation to have.
although, i get the point that the developing world isn't benefiting from the advancement of the human race, but i'd say that aid agencies and civil wars are still preventing evolution
No, it's not sickle cell.That's been around for a long time. There's a new allele that's more effective against malaria and has no known bad side effect.
Edit: oh, and the blood disease you refer to is sickle cell anaemia.
(,
Sun 3 Jun 2007, 17:20,
archived)
Edit: oh, and the blood disease you refer to is sickle cell anaemia.