and I didn't mean to suggest your post was irritating
it wasn't, sorry. I meant the "survival of the fittest" concept, which is misused and misunderstood and isn't really right.

I wasn't aiming the tone of my reply to be aggressive, just to answer your question. No, evolution hasn't and won't stop, human or otherwise. Without getting into complex details, there are still advantages conveyed to humanity by evolutionary mutations, they just aren't always obvious. We're all getting older and taller, for instance.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:32, 1 reply)

ok fair enough
I thought you jumped down my throat a bit because I only have GCSE biology to build my understanding on.

The tall/old thing is true, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking more of the stuff that made us survive when we really needed to, although without a better understanding of biology and science in general I suppose it'll take a long time to explain it all to me.

This would normally be where Psychochomp calls me thick.
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:36, closed)

I've only got GSCE biology as well, if it's any consolation.
I've just somehow ended up in stem cell research. Fuck knows how that happened.

It doesn't really require an understanding of science to get the explanation. The survival of the fittest thing is irritating because it over-simplifies, and I generally despise dumbing down of stuff. But basically, the two major flaws with it are that firstly it implies some form of intention (that an organism somehow intended to be "better" at something and secondly and most importantly, it sees the whole thing as a "one-change, one-effect" thing - i.e. "DNA mutation causes thing to be a bit quicker and that thing escapes a predator to breed and therefore that mutation survives and thrives" ... it doesn't really happen like that. Something might change in the DNA, and lie dormant for eons, while other changes happen around, some that may convey some change in the phenotype (physical properties of the organism, like eye colour or height or whatever) but most won't, but sometime later down the track, some up-regualtion or down-regulation of a system (so, like twisting a dimmer switch on a light) might suddenly cause an effect in the organism when coupled with this dormant DNA does actually help that organism over time, and this may be passed on if enough individuals have the same or similar things happening.

Best example I know of is that the only reason we can give birth is that we accidentally "absorbed" the DNA sequence of a virus, ERV-3, and it became part of the genome but as "introns" (introns are bits of DNA that we used to think didn't do anything). This particular virus is for fooling the immune system, so it blocks white blood cells from attacking things the body thinks are foreign. As far as a mother is concerned, a foetus is foreign because it contains the fathers DNA. So somewhere way back when in mammalian evolution, this virus DNA was incorporated in an accidental mutation. Didn't matter until animals moved towards live births, and then it became the most important mutation there is, because it prevents a mother rejecting a foetus.

who knows what else might happen in the future like this?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:52, closed)

That's interesting
I'm now convinced that God is one special dude.
( Bartleby A dead man on vacation, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 12:56, closed)

he's certainly got l33t nucleic acid manipulation skillzors. Fo'sho.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:50, closed)

wow that's pretty cool
I think I've learned something, thanks :D
( Kitty v1.0 desperately naive, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:16, closed)

no worries.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Tue 6 Apr 2010, 13:50, closed)