De-Evolution?

[Dags90]

However, it really doesn't matter. The strong genes are still in the pool as well; if we were to somehow get knocked back into the stone age, it wouldn't take long at all for us to get back to being a very robust species.

Also, a lot of stuff the OP mentioned, like people with "cancer-prone" genes, simply isn't affected. Unless it's something like retinoblastoma, most cancers happen well after reproductive ages. Another good example would be Marfan's Syndrome. People with untreated Marfan's Syndrome usually die in their early 40's, well after they have children, though it does increase pregnancy risk for women.

And preimplantation diagnosis would sort of negate all of this for people who carry genetic disorders.

 

[Lenin211]

First off I would like to say that all of the people saying that "de-evolution" isn't real are getting caught up in semantics and are missing the point.

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense). Of course, they are already talking about actual genetic engineering to eliminate such problems, though I'd like to call that human ingenuity rather than evolution.

I wouldn't expect us to de-evolve into blobs of goo or even primates, but with modern medicine, people will likely be living with more medical problems and medicines. I've seen people that had numerous medical ailments, so that's already happening.

So, I'll end this by saying that you have an interesting concept for debate. I actual love these kinds of questions and debates. Think I'll find someone to ask this one day.

 

[octafish]

A serious lack of Spuds on the Escapist it seems. You all need to adjust your energy domes and ask yourselves; Are we not men?

 

[DRes82]

snip

No offense taken. I think that one has to be in a particular position to realize that something like this is possible. A double recessive gene for a negative trait will affect a huge number of people in the not so distant future, and this is only one small example. Like most, I don't really believe that we will all devolve into amorphous blobs of goo or primates, but how will we adapt to the increased abundance of negative mutations?

Also, will we evolve into something more appropriate for our method of adaptation? Evolve into our technology, so to speak?

So there you go. De-evolution isn't going to end the human race. At worst it will cause a few inconveniences on a global scale, at best it will be one step back to counteract a hundred steps forward. I think its time to start looking at your genetic predispositions, weigh exactly how much of a hindrance PKU really is in your genetic code, and be on the lookout for mates who are either extra healthy and genetically desirable, or predisposed to some bad traits but willing to adopt.

As I said, I don't really believe that it will end us. I do think that it will substantially affect us as a species in the future. Maybe not negatively. Also, I've already chosen my mate and she's quite aware of the implications of a double recessive PKU gene. Even if our children don't express PKU, my entire line will always carry it.

I've seen gene therapy mentioned several times. As a matter of fact, gene therapy for this particular genetic defect went into human trials early this year. I was asked to participate but declined. =P

 

[GoAwayVifs]

I wish people would explain evolution as mutations more often. Seriously, I had to learn that myself because my school's always seemed to be worried about offending religious people and students by even bringing up evolution. I move that we all just start calling evolution mutation from now on. I think most people would understand THAT a lot better. Also, I love how you brought up that people being born with genetic defects are evolution just as much as us evolving opposable thumbs. I use this same example when explaining evolution.
[small]Why does spell check say that opposable is spelled wrong?[/small]

Evolution isn't just mutations, the mutations must be passed down and become common within the species. For example radiation can cause mutations in your DNA but those are not passed down. Besides mutation is just one way to introduce variation into a group.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense). Of course, they are already talking about actual genetic engineering to eliminate such problems, though I'd like to call that human ingenuity rather than evolution.

I wouldn't expect us to de-evolve into blobs of goo or even primates, but with modern medicine, people will likely be living with more medical problems and medicines. I've seen people that had numerous medical ailments, so that's already happening.

So, I'll end this by saying that you have an interesting concept for debate. I actual love these kinds of questions and debates. Think I'll find someone to ask this one day.

Semantic or not, it's a valid point. Also, look back up to the first response (the one I posted). It should answer your questions about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things.

 

[JemothSkarii]

While we might seem to be getting weaker as a race due to a reliance on technology and medicine, we're not de-evolving, or at least my understanding of evolution is the body adapting to it's surroundings/lifestyle over millenia through minor genetic changes that gradually build up...I'm tired and haven't read everyone's responses and can barely pull out a coherent thought.

Off topic, I'm reminded of those scenes in The Mario Bros. movie now...I need to find it.

 

[Salad Is Murder]

Okay, first of all, if you reproduce with someone who does not carry the recessive trait for PKU, there is a 100% chance your offspring will not get it; so don't get too bent out of shape, it's a pretty rare thing to begin with.

Second of all, I think you're giving some of these diseases a bum rap. Cancer will kill you sure, but even untreated, it's expected morbidity is far in excess of your reproductive years. I mean, there's stuff like Malaria, which will kill you next week, compared to Cancer witch usually takes a couple years to kick in. Remember, fitness is all that matters.

 

[Saltyk]

snip

No offense taken. I think that one has to be in a particular position to realize that something like this is possible. A double recessive gene for a negative trait will affect a huge number of people in the not so distant future, and this is only one small example. Like most, I don't really believe that we will all devolve into amorphous blobs of goo or primates, but how will we adapt to the increased abundance of negative mutations?

Also, will we evolve into something more appropriate for our method of adaptation? Evolve into our technology, so to speak?

I think we'll use various methods. Gene therapy will likely be the most common method in the future. In the meantime, we'll probably use medicine to combat what we can. I'd say synthetic limbs will most likely be used when someone has an amputation or in extreme cases when someone has is born without limbs or malformed limbs. And yes, the later does happen.

I wish people would explain evolution as mutations more often. Seriously, I had to learn that myself because my school's always seemed to be worried about offending religious people and students by even bringing up evolution. I move that we all just start calling evolution mutation from now on. I think most people would understand THAT a lot better. Also, I love how you brought up that people being born with genetic defects are evolution just as much as us evolving opposable thumbs. I use this same example when explaining evolution.
[small]Why does spell check say that opposable is spelled wrong?[/small]

Evolution isn't just mutations, the mutations must be passed down and become common within the species. For example radiation can cause mutations in your DNA but those are not passed down. Besides mutation is just one way to introduce variation into a group.

Well, I think the mutations being passed on goes without saying. I was merely stating that evolution is badly explained often times (at least it was in my schools) and some people seem to think that a gorilla had a baby human one day. I've even seen comedians make jokes about that. No idea if they realized that there was a whole other joke to their joke.

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense). Of course, they are already talking about actual genetic engineering to eliminate such problems, though I'd like to call that human ingenuity rather than evolution.

I wouldn't expect us to de-evolve into blobs of goo or even primates, but with modern medicine, people will likely be living with more medical problems and medicines. I've seen people that had numerous medical ailments, so that's already happening.

So, I'll end this by saying that you have an interesting concept for debate. I actual love these kinds of questions and debates. Think I'll find someone to ask this one day.

Semantic or not, it's a valid point. Also, look back up to the first response (the one I posted). It should answer your questions about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things.

It might be a valid point, but I think you're stuck in a literal sense of the word. This isn't a discussion for what exactly is evolution. I don't think the OP was asking that. He was asking if we're allowing ourselves to become weaker. I wasn't pointing you or anyone else out, but I do feel that you need to relax a bit. But, hey, I'm just some random loser on the internet. Do you care what I think?

But where did I ask about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things? I reread my comment and still don't see that. I think we actually agreed on that. We just disagree on how important the exact definition of evolution is in this debate.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

No offense taken. I think that one has to be in a particular position to realize that something like this is possible. A double recessive gene for a negative trait will affect a huge number of people in the not so distant future, and this is only one small example. Like most, I don't really believe that we will all devolve into amorphous blobs of goo or primates, but how will we adapt to the increased abundance of negative mutations?

Also, will we evolve into something more appropriate for our method of adaptation? Evolve into our technology, so to speak?

I think we'll use various methods. Gene therapy will likely be the most common method in the future. In the meantime, we'll probably use medicine to combat what we can. I'd say synthetic limbs will most likely be used when someone has an amputation or in extreme cases when someone has is born without limbs or malformed limbs. And yes, the later does happen.

I wish people would explain evolution as mutations more often. Seriously, I had to learn that myself because my school's always seemed to be worried about offending religious people and students by even bringing up evolution. I move that we all just start calling evolution mutation from now on. I think most people would understand THAT a lot better. Also, I love how you brought up that people being born with genetic defects are evolution just as much as us evolving opposable thumbs. I use this same example when explaining evolution.
[small]Why does spell check say that opposable is spelled wrong?[/small]

Evolution isn't just mutations, the mutations must be passed down and become common within the species. For example radiation can cause mutations in your DNA but those are not passed down. Besides mutation is just one way to introduce variation into a group.

Well, I think the mutations being passed on goes without saying. I was merely stating that evolution is badly explained often times (at least it was in my schools) and some people seem to think that a gorilla had a baby human one day. I've even seen comedians make jokes about that. No idea if they realized that there was a whole other joke to their joke.

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense). Of course, they are already talking about actual genetic engineering to eliminate such problems, though I'd like to call that human ingenuity rather than evolution.

I wouldn't expect us to de-evolve into blobs of goo or even primates, but with modern medicine, people will likely be living with more medical problems and medicines. I've seen people that had numerous medical ailments, so that's already happening.

So, I'll end this by saying that you have an interesting concept for debate. I actual love these kinds of questions and debates. Think I'll find someone to ask this one day.

Semantic or not, it's a valid point. Also, look back up to the first response (the one I posted). It should answer your questions about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things.

It might be a valid point, but I think you're stuck in a literal sense of the word. This isn't a discussion for what exactly is evolution. I don't think the OP was asking that. He was asking if we're allowing ourselves to become weaker. I wasn't pointing you or anyone else out, but I do feel that you need to relax a bit. But, hey, I'm just some random loser on the internet. Do you care what I think?

But where did I ask about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things? I reread my comment and still don't see that. I think we actually agreed on that. We just disagree on how important the exact definition of evolution is in this debate.

?

You misunderstand me. The OP's question, boiled down to its simplest form, is basically "is modern medicine weakening us as a species by interfering with natural selection." If you read the post I referred to, I said that it is to an extent, but it really doesn't matter, because a.), modern medicine is a part of the environment that we need to adapt to, and b.), if we were somehow knocked back to the stoneage, it would only take us a few generations to properly adapt to that, because the strong traits are still in the gene pool as well, they're just mixed in with a lot of weaker traits these days.

 

[boyvirgo666]

Actually you can De-evolve, Dollo's law and the process of regressive evolutionary traits do exist.

 

[Nimcha]

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense).

How though? Yes him surviving means he can pass on the harmful genes but since the environment now has ways to combat that rather succesfully, in my opinion there isn't much weakening done.

Besides that, human evolution is still not measured in century's, even though it's going a lot faster than most other animal's.

 

[Erana]

On the bright side, we've developed weapons that could destroy all life on Earth and haven't killed ourselves yet, that's something.

And for all the depravity and weakness to be found in the world these days, most peoples' existence has boiled down to a consciousness existing within layer upon layer of man made rules, both social and mechanical. Now is the human mind, distilled into a manner that sculpts the face of the world. Near everything around us is artificial, created expressed with a purpose to further our wants, needs and actions as dictated by apparatuses of our own design.

Pining for Man of the past is pining for Man at the mercy of the world, which is the same human nature you see now, but with less power.

What are you really after, OP? Because Man hasn't changed and will never change until we have lost humanity itself.

 

[nukethetuna]

A highly developed brain allowing for the best abstract reasoning and problem solving on the planet (and opposable thumbs) has led to human ingenuity. So the medicines that are keeping the "weaker genes" alive are actually the proof that natural selection is working as intended, since certain traits we evolved to have are overcoming whatever weaknesses nature throws at us. Plus, we don't adapt to our environment anymore, we adapt our environment to us.

Now from a philosophical standpoint... that really depends on what you value. If someone with your condition were to grow up to find the cure to cancer, then clearly it's just another example of humans overcoming their environment. It would be a net gain for the species. In that sense it is still natural selection doing its part.

Of course, we're almost as good at destroying life as we are at creating it. I don't see a de-evolution situation happening. We're infinitely more likely to wipe ourselves out. Unless the dinosaurs come back for revenge...

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually you can De-evolve, Dollo's law and the process of regressive evolutionary traits do exist.

I think you're referring to Atavism, in which case it's still not technically De-evolution, or even really a genetic change; it's just an otherwise de-activated genetic trait activating for some reason. Although, granted, if anything could legitimately be termed de-evolution, that would be it.

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense). Of course, they are already talking about actual genetic engineering to eliminate such problems, though I'd like to call that human ingenuity rather than evolution.

I wouldn't expect us to de-evolve into blobs of goo or even primates, but with modern medicine, people will likely be living with more medical problems and medicines. I've seen people that had numerous medical ailments, so that's already happening.

So, I'll end this by saying that you have an interesting concept for debate. I actual love these kinds of questions and debates. Think I'll find someone to ask this one day.

Semantic or not, it's a valid point. Also, look back up to the first response (the one I posted). It should answer your questions about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things.

It might be a valid point, but I think you're stuck in a literal sense of the word. This isn't a discussion for what exactly is evolution. I don't think the OP was asking that. He was asking if we're allowing ourselves to become weaker. I wasn't pointing you or anyone else out, but I do feel that you need to relax a bit. But, hey, I'm just some random loser on the internet. Do you care what I think?

But where did I ask about modern medicine screwing with the natural state of things? I reread my comment and still don't see that. I think we actually agreed on that. We just disagree on how important the exact definition of evolution is in this debate.

?

You misunderstand me. The OP's question, boiled down to its simplest form, is basically "is modern medicine weakening us as a species by interfering with natural selection." If you read the post I referred to, I said that it is to an extent, but it really doesn't matter, because a.), modern medicine is a part of the environment that we need to adapt to, and b.), if we were somehow knocked back to the stoneage, it would only take us a few generations to properly adapt to that, because the strong traits are still in the gene pool as well, they're just mixed in with a lot of weaker traits these days.

Yeah, I know. I read your post in full before I even made my original comment. It had a lot of great points about modern medicine, evolution, and natural selection. I don't think we disagree on these points. I took it for granted that they kinda existed in mine in spirit. I was hoping to add my own two cents.

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense).

How though? Yes him surviving means he can pass on the harmful genes but since the environment now has ways to combat that rather succesfully, in my opinion there isn't much weakening done.

Besides that, human evolution is still not measured in century's, even though it's going a lot faster than most other animal's.

Well, I think we're talking about weakening the human race as an animal. Not as the society we are, but as a mere beast. Think of it this way. Throw DRes82 on a desert island for a year without his medicine or the aid of a doctor (I'm assuming based on the description of his genetic defect that he requires medicine on a regular basis). How long will he last? You don't count that as weakening the human animal? I'm actually quite happy that he's alive (we might not be having this discussion otherwise if nothing else) but I think the question that he was posing and that I was arguing is that we are making ourselves weaker as a species without taking modern medicine or treatment into account. Modern medicine is less human evolution and more human adaption to our environment. You could argue that our adaptability is a result of our evolution, and I wouldn't argue against that. Does that make sense?

And we maybe evolving fast, but simpler organisms make us look slow. Just look at germs and bacteria. But when you bring up the measurement of centuries compared to human evolution are you referring to my statement that 100 years ago he would have died? For one the OP said the same thing. But I was simply stating that modern medicine has prevented natural selection from taking it's course, and that even 100 years ago that wouldn't have happened. As you said, his environment allows his survival.

 

[Saltyk]

It is kinda frustrating when you see some dumbass walk out into the front of a car, but doesn't get killed due to new breaking technology, or medical science or some shit. Your first instinct is to think "Well if that guy had been alive in the stone age he would have been mauled by a bear or some shit, and he would have no way to pass on his genes!". Also, did you know that people with high intelligence are less likely to pass on their genes? Highschool dropouts on average have the most children.

It really doesn't matter if he passes on his genes or not. Walking out in front of a car is not an inheritable trait. It's just ridiculous to talk about passing on genes like that if you're in any way serious.

Wait. Your name is Master of the Skies and your avatar is a chicken. Actually, it's from Animaniacs. That's pretty awesome.

 

[Ben MacGougan]

It's something called maladaptive evolution. Although there is a theory that evolution comes about via a need and with technology meeting all of our needs today their is a possibility that our lack of evolution will result in a constant stream of maladaptive evolution. Don't know how much evidence there is to support this