I never realized how many retards didn't believe in evolution

[shlver]

the article certainly supports my notions...the study that article is based around is too long for me to read atm.

did you read that entire study?
Sorry, but the author is Jason Koebler, a freelance writer that I can follow on twitter. His interpretation holds zero weight to me. The fact you gave that as a source to support your position reflects on how badly misinformed you are.

No, I'm not going to read the study.

[~primetime~]

Sorry, but the author is Jason Koebler, a freelance writer that I can follow on twitter. His interpretation holds zero weight to me. The fact you gave that as a source to support your position reflects on how badly misinformed you are.

No, I'm not going to read the study.
There is no reason to believe that Koebler falsely represented the study and if you feel like he did the onus is on you to show that.

Not sure what Twitter has to do with anything either... You can also follow Neil deGrasse Tyson and Steven Hawking on Twitter.

[shlver]

There is no reason to believe that Koebler falsely represented the study and if you feel like he did the onus is on you to show that.

Not sure what Twitter has to do with anything either... You can also follow Neil deGrasse Tyson and Steven Hawking on Twitter.
That's his credentials on the site. Freelance writer with a twitter page. It wasn't meant to be disparaging.
No the onus is not on me you idiot. I never said he falsely misrepresented anything.

[~primetime~]

Okay well I believe the article... If you don't idgaf

Maybe you can tweet him and tell him about sickle cell.

[jstern]

How would our DNA suffer? You're making zero sense because you have no idea what you're talking about.

It would suffer because modern day medicine keeps people who in the past would have died, alive and reproducing. That would actually have a big effect after just a couple of generations. And it will probably get worse as we keep advancing in medicine.

[Nanners]

It would suffer because modern day medicine keeps people who in the past would have died, alive and reproducing. That would actually have a big effect after just a couple of generations. And it will probably get worse as we keep advancing in medicine.

What you and primetime need to understand is that modern medicine is not a new development in terms of giving people who would have died without human intervention the ability to reproduce. This kind of thing has been going on since the dawn of civilization.

Agriculture, engineering, chemistry, nutrition, metalworking....every single human invention and technological advancement since the beginning of civilization has essentially done the same thing to our genetics that modern medicine is doing. Our DNA has been "suffering" ever since humans first gained the ability to use tools and control their environment.

In reality our DNA is not "suffering" at all. DNA doesnt "suffer", it changes in response to selection pressures. What is really happening is that we are changing our environment on a massive scale, which changes the selection pressures we must face. While this does change our genetic makeup, it doesnt mean we are any weaker. Yeah it might be harder for the modern genome to exist in a hunter gatherer society from thousands of years ago, but the modern genome exists in the modern world.

[~primetime~]

The DNA changes for the worse nanners..."suffers", "gets weaker", etc may not be the best words but you get the point. We are now "more prone to disease" and it will likely get worse.

But hey, I'm happy you grasp the concept lol.

IMO modern medicine isn't really like simple tools and agriculture, those things don't cure deathly illness, but youre probably right about that. The more advanced we get the less we have to rely on physical health to survive... "Less fit" DNA can now survive due to advancements.

I would guess that modern medicine would speed the " suffering" up a great deal faster than those other things you listed though.

[Nanners]

IMO modern medicine isn't really like simple tools and agriculture, those things don't cure deathly illness, but youre probably right about that. The more advanced we get the less we have to rely on physical health to survive... "Less fit" DNA can now survive due to advancements.


Wow, cant say I have ever seen you say that I could be right about something :oldlol:

And you are right, I am right.

I am not just talking out of my ass when I talk about biology and evolution. I have actually spent significant time studying shit like this at a high level. Shlver knows what he is talking about too.

Sure there are differences between the effect caused by agriculture vs medicine, but the bottom line is they have both influenced the selection pressures humanity faces, and they have both allowed individuals to survive who would have otherwise perished.

[~primetime~]

Wow, cant say I have ever seen you say that I could be right about something :oldlol:

And you are right, I am right.

I am not just talking out of my ass when I talk about biology and evolution. I have actually spent significant time studying shit like this at a high level. Shlver knows what he is talking about too.

Sure there are differences between the effect caused by agriculture vs medicine, but the bottom line is they have both allowed individuals to survive who would have otherwise perished.
According to that article we are much different than we were from just the 1800s... And they point to medicine

[Nanners]

According to that article we are much different than we were from just the 1800s... And they point to medicine

I read that article, and shlver is correct that it was written by someone who does not really know what they are talking about (or if they do know, they do a pretty poor job of explaining it for laymen such as yourself).


"Traits influencing survival are no longer evolving, because with medicine, they're less important today," he says. "What's more important today is what makes you able to find a partner and how many offspring you have. Today we're probably evolving psychological personality traits, which are more important today than they used to be."

So while people might be passing along genes that turn children into impeccable guitar players or star athletes, they are also passing along things like susceptibility to cold weather or lackluster endurance.

"Natural selection is a bit like politics, there's tradeoffs. You can't be good in every aspect," Courtiol says. "If we're selecting based on cognitive traits, you put less stock into your physical body, your strength."

I have quoted the important part of the article. Now if you had actually read this, you would have realized that this article is basically saying the exact same goddamn thing that I am saying. Traits that influence survival have become less important, traits that influence personality have become more important. That does not mean that humans are weaker, it doesnt mean our DNA is weaker or suffering, it means that our environment has changed.

Yes, modern humans might not survive as well in a hunter gatherer society than ancient humans did, but it is completely irrelevant because we arent hunter gatherers anymore. Being more prone to disease doesnt mean that our DNA has become weaker, it means that our DNA has adapted to an environment where being strong against diseases does not matter anymore.

[jstern]

What you and primetime need to understand is that modern medicine is not a new development in terms of giving people who would have died without human intervention the ability to reproduce. This kind of thing has been going on since the dawn of civilization.

Agriculture, engineering, chemistry, nutrition, metalworking....every single human invention and technological advancement since the beginning of civilization has essentially done the same thing to our genetics that modern medicine is doing. Our DNA has been "suffering" ever since humans first gained the ability to use tools and control their environment.

In reality our DNA is not "suffering" at all. DNA doesnt "suffer", it changes in response to selection pressures. What is really happening is that we are changing our environment on a massive scale, which changes the selection pressures we must face. While this does change our genetic makeup, it doesnt mean we are any weaker. Yeah it might be harder for the modern genome to exist in a hunter gatherer society from thousands of years ago, but the modern genome exists in the modern world.

I don't know, you're going off into something else and moving away from my simple point. It's best to ignore it and just disagree.

[Nanners]

I don't know, you're going off into something else and moving away from my simple point. It's best to ignore it and just disagree.

No, my post was 100% on topic and responded directly to your point.

DNA does not "suffer". Evolution does not go backwards.

[~primetime~]

I read that article, and shlver is correct that it was written by someone who does not really know what they are talking about (or if they do know, they do a pretty poor job of explaining it for laymen such as yourself).



I have quoted the important part of the article. Now if you had actually read this, you would have realized that this article is basically saying the exact same goddamn thing that I am saying. Traits that influence survival have become less important, traits that influence personality have become more important. That does not mean that humans are weaker, it doesnt mean our DNA is weaker or suffering, it means that our environment has changed.

Yes, modern humans might not survive as well in a hunter gatherer society than ancient humans did, but it is completely irrelevant because we arent hunter gatherers anymore. Being more prone to disease doesnt mean that our DNA has become weaker, it means that our DNA has adapted to an environment where being strong against diseases does not matter anymore.
You ignored my 1800s comment, oh well. Yes I understand that none of it matters because our environment is now different. That is beside my point though.

Our DNA is more prone to disease now because of medicine. It is a change for the negative. That's my point, and the point of that article. If you don't like that being referred to as "weaker" that's fine. Being more prone to disease is a change for the worse.

[Nanners]

becoming more prone to disease is not really a change for the worse if you can control your environment so well that the importance of being resistant to diseases is greatly reduced.

[GimmeThat]

for all that is constant

has allowed us to evolve

[jstern]

No, my post was 100% on topic and responded directly to your point.

DNA does not "suffer". Evolution does not go backwards.

Like I said before, evolution is continuous, is happening all the time with every new baby, every change in our environment and culture has an impact. Of course modern humans are different than they were 100,000 years ago, and in general wouldn't thrive back then.

But my comment was about one little simple thing, that people now, in the United States, who have specific diseases that would have meant a death sentence 70 years ago are now living and passing down those genes. Nothing else.

That's my point, that's the simple logic, nothing else. It's not saying that humans are weaker or stronger, just specifically talking about passing down genes that otherwise wouldn't have been passed down before modern medicine of the last few decades.

If you want to go on further about what you were talking about, you might say it's not a disadvantage that those humans get to pass down their genes because modern medicine is part of the environment and so it's manageable and treatable. That's perfectly fine in a scientific view of it, and I have no problems with it.

But when you're talking to regular people, like here on ISH, when we use their definition of being stronger and weaker. (Again, I wasn't talking about that in my original comment, I just started to in this one.) When we go by their opinion of what they might find weaker, then they will find people whose whole life depends on being hooked up to a machine for a couple of hours a week to be weaker. Or who can't travel far because they can't take the chance of being stranded somewhere without their medicine that they will die without to be weaker. If they see that one era doesn't have those issues, and another has them in abundance and more often as the years go by, then by their definition, they will find that the society with the more genetic problems will be weaker.

[~primetime~]

becoming more prone to disease is not really a change for the worse if you can control your environment so well that the importance of being resistant to diseases is greatly reduced.
It can only be seen as a change for the worse IMO. It can't be seen as a change for the better. We would be better off less prone to disease regardless of our environment IMO.

[Nanners]

Like I said before, evolution is continuous, is happening all the time with every new baby, every change in our environment and culture has an impact. Of course modern humans are different than they were 100,000 years ago, and in general wouldn't thrive back then.

But my comment was about one little simple thing, that people now, in the United States, who have specific diseases that would have meant a death sentence 70 years ago are now living and passing down those genes. Nothing else.

That's my point, that's the simple logic, nothing else. It's not saying that humans are weaker or stronger, just specifically talking about passing down genes that otherwise wouldn't have been passed down before modern medicine of the last few decades.

Well to be fair what you are saying here is not really the same thing you said before, especially considering your comment that I was responding to came within the context of the argument between primetime and shlver.

Anyway, I do agree with basically everything you have said in your latest post. :cheers:

[NumberSix]

It can only be seen as a change for the worse IMO. It can't be seen as a change for the better. We would be better off less prone to disease regardless of our environment IMO.
It can only be seen as it relates to our environment.

Sure, maybe humans used to be less prone to disease, but those "less prone to disease" people would still die of the flu or pneumonia. They were weaker to their environment then we are.

[Nanners]

It can only be seen as a change for the worse IMO. It can't be seen as a change for the better. We would be better off less prone to disease regardless of our environment IMO.

Its not a change for the better or the worse, its an irrelevant change.

The only way it can be considered a change for the worse is if humanity gets sent back to the stone age, in which case selection pressure would resume with pushing our genome toward traits like disease resistance, and the problem would correct itself.

[~primetime~]

Jsterns simple point was the same as my simple point... He was just repeating me.

Medicine allows people who would have died to live on and reproduce and pass on those genes...the end.

The debate between me and Shvler was pretty much just me trying to get him to grasp that simple point lol. He finally got, then went on to transform his argument into "that article holds no weight with me"

[~primetime~]

Its not a change for the better or the worse, its an irrelevant change.

The only way it can be considered a change for the worse is if humanity gets sent back to the stone age, in which case selection pressure would resume with pushing our genome toward traits like disease resistance, and the problem would correct itself.
Hmm this is probably where we will have to agree to disagree and call it a day.

IMO being more prone to disease can only be seen as a negative, regardless of environment. Even if all the cures are out there you still have to acquire those cures, you'd be better off not needing them at all IMO.

[bdreason]

I think the biggest misconception about evolution is that the evolution of life always leads to something 'better' or 'improved'. Evolution only leads to something 'different', typically out of necessity (survival), but that doesn't mean it's improved, or more advanced. The same evolution that leads to the survival and evolution of a species... could very well seal its fate as well.


As for God, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of its existence, and I don't think any scientist would either. We know a lot about the universe, but we don't know everything, and I wouldn't rule out the existence of a superior life form or entity that created or even controls the universe.

[bdreason]

As for humans, we have definitely slowed and altered the process of natural selection. While we are still evolving, it's in different ways, because it isn't predicated on survival.

For example, I remember reading an article that talked about how people in Europe, North America, etc. have become lactose tolerant as a (farming) society, while people in other places like South East Asia are still lactose intolerant.

I think the ability of intelligent people to choose to have, or not to have children is also steering natural selection. To put it simply, the dumb people are out-breading the smart people, because the smart people have realized our desire to have lots of children is genetically driven.

Of course, that always leads me to the question, are the 'smart' people really 'smart'? Or is the intellectual 'advancement' that allows us to control our desire to have children really a disability? If the goal of life is the survival of our species, or our genes... then the logical action would be to have as many children as possible, so as to increase the chances that our genes survive.

[GimmeThat]

I am uncertain of whether or not we'll ever satisfy the craving to differentiate ourselves from animals

[KyrieTheFuture]

Holy shit humans aren't more susceptible to disease, strains of virus have evolved too to be become far stronger than they were 1000s of years ago. Its not like only complex organisms evolve. Jesus Christ why do people feel the need to sound intelligent at times just admit that you don't know something

[jstern]

Holy shit humans aren't more susceptible to disease, strains of virus have evolved too to be become far stronger than they were 1000s of years ago. Its not like only complex organisms evolve. Jesus Christ why do people feel the need to sound intelligent at times just admit that you don't know something

Who has said that? What does passing down genetic disorders have to do with getting infected by a virus? I haven't read anyone said that.

On another note, you also seem to be one of those who thing that things only evolve to be stronger, better. In this case viruses, when it's all about how the particular virus interacts with the organism. A random virus is not going to be any weaker or stronger just because it's a million years older.