if i wanted to explain Bane Shift I would have become a teacher but i will give it a try ya cheeky bugger. Evolution is the change of genes (traits) and their spread in large populations over time Sokolov says that relieving selective pressure against certain traits you fundamentally change evolution, in this he is wrong. genetic traits will continue to spread and change regardless of selective pressure. he also completely discounts genetic drift which are changes in the prevalence of genetic traits based more on random chance ( for example a couple with blonde and dark haired genes having only children with just dark hair genes) and the fact that most diseases affect people who have passed breeding age and so the lack of medicine would not affect the passing on of genes by these people. there is also the matter of psychological traits and partner choice in conventional human reproduction. Evolution remins fundamentally the same, even if the changes happen at a slower pace or in a direction it did not previously go. like how digging a canal or building a dam does not alter the fundamental way in which water works.
I don't think anyone is denying that the genetic make up of the human race is changing, just that we are the only species on the planet for which evolution does not follow "survival of the fittest." The change of our genetics no longer has much to do with our immediate environment. That seems like a pretty fundamental difference to me. Okay actually maybe animals that humans breed don't follow survival of the fittest, but that's only due to out intervention. Edit: I've assumed it so far, but just want to clarify, I'm talking about 1st world countries here. Clearly the environment is still the cause of many human deaths worldwide.
I really don't want to go into a discussion about social groups and how their behaviour does get selected in and out because it gets people confused and misunderstandings can lead people into social darwinism which is bullshit.
@Geressen Let's just say that your argument isn't compelling enough considering the manner you present it in.
Why would I compell people? if people do not care about the truth who am I to stop them? we got a new puppy today, a 2 month old tatra dog. she is cute. now thats something that is compelling. here it is telling you all to listen to me
Social Darwinism is not only idiotic imo because of its erroneous extrapolation based on a misleading phrase of Herbert-f**king-Spencer but also because the "survival of the fittest" (with the common meaning and emphasis that people invest in that phrase) is not entirely true since animals become "fittest" more due to co-operation rather than competition.
I suggest you read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid to get rid of that silly myth about survival of the "fittest" in your head.
that;s why I don't want to go somewhere where someone who doesnt understand what I mean thinks those things are correct.
My point isn't that genetic drift no longer occurs. Of course humans are still impacted by these things. My point is that humanity's increasing ability to manipulate genomes and change what genes gets passed on, etc. has fundamentally changed our species' relationship with these things. With my own wife, we were able to choose the sex of our baby, along with being able to pre-emptively discard embryos which had certain genetic abnormalities. These kinds of things are already happening and I don't see it slowly down. We are increasingly exercising more control over our genetic destiny instead of being subject solely to evolution's random whims. I believe we are very close to actually being able to selectively choose these of things. We are already able to choose many factors, particularly when it comes to our crops and pets. This is actually quite interesting in that our "partner choices" are likely to be far more impacted by "culture" than any other speices on earth, lending more creedence to my argument that human's relationship with evolution is quite different than how other species' interacts with evolution. But how it impacts the human species has changed. But it does alter the course of the river, in some cases creating wetlands out of nothing, and can severely impact the surrounding environment in ways that "nature" alone wouldn't have done.
the mistake you keep making is that you think changing a river changes what water is. I have no idea how to make this clearer to you.
I'm well aware that the truth it probably more complicated than the strong having more children and passing on their genes, but the general principle is the same, no? That article doesn't really seems to dispute that (granted I only skimmed it).
you mean more complicated than the fittest ( as in the ones that fit into the niche they occupy within the world the best) etc etc?
Yes, I know. I just didn't want to get into the whole "all we've done is change the parameters of fittest" thing again. Strongest seemed like an okay fit, but yeah, I realise it doesn't really work.
so when we finally develop the autonomous robot race, should we program it to self replicate with random variations or with variations that have some purpose?
I don't think it changes water's own nature, but I do think it changes what the actual impact of said water is on our environment. I have no idea how to make this clearer to you. You seem to have decided that I believe X even when I am trying to explain I believe Y, but instead of listening you instead that I believe X even tho I repeatedly explain otherwise.
There's a lot of examples of how humans disrupt, mitigate or modify natural processes. I don't understand why this is such an impossible concept.
