Re: evolutionary success of humans
- From: "JoeSP" <olegp@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 00:21:17 -0500 (EST)
<whitesickle@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dmjifi$11te$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution
> From: "JoeSP" <o...@xxxxxxxxx> - Find messages by this author
> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:18:39 -0500 (EST)
> Local: Tues, Nov 29 2005 1:18 pm
> Subject: Re: evolutionary success of humans
> Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
> original | Report Abuse
>
> People are generally more gratified by being a mythbuster than a
> follower of
> status quo, therefore we see a lot of theories which proport to claim
> that
> everything that was believed before was wrong. One such theory which
> has
> flip-flopped many times is the conjecture about the quality of life in
> neolithic times. Some envisioned it to nasty, brutish and short, then
> it
> was seen as some sort of perfect socialist utopia, then again as as a
> very
> tough environment that allowed a good deal of natural selection. I
> believe
> all of these were true at times, but not the rule. I believe that
> archaeological evidence supports this and often flies in the face of
> those
> who prefer to believe in one particular theory over another.
>
> Response:
> You talk like a scientist. Not a believer in generalities but on what
> the evidence presents. I can't comment since I'm not familiar with the
> archaeological evidence of Neolithic Times. However, you refrained from
> answering my question, "Assuming we are essentially the same as our
> Neolithic ancestral brothers and sisters yet have all the stockpiled
> nuclear weapons and advances in weapontry, does this not represent a
> real threat to our viability as a species?" Perhaps the answer was so
> obvious to you that it didn't merit answering.
>
Mass graves dating from neolithic times speak to genocidal warfare in the
past that match anything seen in modern times in Nazi Germany, the Soviet
Union and Bosnia. The only thing different now is the efficiency of the
weapons. Perhaps the fact that we have managed that deadly stockpile for so
long and survived is mute testimony to our advancement over our neolithic
brothers and sisters.
>
>> The second thing I want to ask is what do you think of the possibility
>> of "guiding" our own evolution through continued advances in genomics,
>> proteomics, genetic engineering, etc., etc.? I don't believe in
>> intelligent design in the creationist sense but it is also used by some
>> in the engineering field. Why not intelligently designing our evolution
>> once we have enough knowledge and means to do so? This is a pipedream
>> now but given the advances in science it may not be a pipedream in 200
>> years. I acknowledge this would be far from easy but compared to the
>> continuation of "Neolithic Times" I reserve my hope for "intelligent
>> design".
I don't share all your hopes. I believe we can repair genetic damage, and
select those traits from the genepool most desirable, but only nature can
craft an organism with a strong survival advantage.
We've been doing genetic manipulation for thousands of years and the
products such as corn, wheat, watermelons, sheep and dogs, are much
"improved" over their ancestors with the traits we consider desirable, but
if mankind were to suddenly disappear, most of those modified organisms
would likely also disappear from the ecosystem within 50 years or so.
Mother nature has tougher rules than those of a farmyard.
> But then again these future genetic changes will be a product of
> evolution. Technology and science keep changing but people don't. The
> key, as I see it, is to uncover the deep recesses of our DNA and
> remove, alter, modify, etc. parts of them so that we don't have to
> worry about the Far Right in the future co-opting genetic engineering
> to fulfill their agenda and many other things for that matter. I don't
> think genetic engineering is a panacea and perhaps I'm giving it more
> hope than it deserves but considering the way the world is and is
> heading there desperately needs to be intervention. All the marches and
> calls for love and unity and proposals for peace, however well
> intended, will not suffice and you should know that. Of course, I'll be
> dead before there is genetic engineering of people most likely (maybe I
> will see some single gene diseases tackled) so I consider myself the
> dish of ice water on the face before I retire.
We've reduced it now to semantics. Let's leave it at that. My definition
of evolution includes becoming more fit for your environment through natural
selection. Genetic manipulation by humans doesn't fit that definition for
me.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Interrelation between Sex and Death
- Next by Date: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution and Love
- Next by thread: Re: evolutionary success of humans
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
