Natural Selection
-
Well you never know if even worse diseases that have absolutely no cure will result if we force viruses and bacteria to mutate. Horrifying thought. You know that little indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why can't they make the whole plane out of that stuff? Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
No, not really. Considering that viruses and bacteria have been mutating since they first came into being, I will gladly take a world where we at least understand them. The crux of the problem is that your logic is flawed. "If it wasn't for science, then we wouldn't have these killer bugs." That just isn't true. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Oh yeah. I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. :laugh: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
I'm not arguing with that, I'm just hypothesising? (spelling?) on the long-term effect of our medical/technological advancements. It seems that we humans usually have very little concern for the future. We are consumed with the present.
-
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
Jonny Newman wrote: This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. Well i agree that we are not allowing ourselves to evolve but that is because we have reached a stage where we can evolve faster on our own than by waiting for nature to take it's toll. Natural selection basically means that the species which are smart enough to survive will continue to be. So basically we have achieved the status of dominant species and don't really need to evolve further naturally unless something comes along that we cant handle(killer viruses for eg.) But the point that i was making is when we try to protect endangered species we are stopping their evolution and since they are not the dominant species thus maybe we are harming them in the long run. All species are experiments of nature, humans turned out to be quite sucessful , but there maybe some species that are really not fit but we are preventing nature from improving upon it's design. It's like in genetic algorithms, you take a intial random string and then mutate and reproduce to make strings of better fitness until ultimately you reach a string which has high fitness. What we humans are doing is not allowing the unfit strings to be eliminated thus possible preventing generation of strings of better fitness. (Hope everyone gets the crux of it) :) :) Logically speaking we should not be interfering wioth nature unless it is to enhance or protect ourselves, but my heart says save the animals. :) :) User - a technical term used by computer pros. See idiot Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. I think I should be glad natural selection hasn't applied directly to me. If it had, I'd be a gonner.
-
No, not really. Considering that viruses and bacteria have been mutating since they first came into being, I will gladly take a world where we at least understand them. The crux of the problem is that your logic is flawed. "If it wasn't for science, then we wouldn't have these killer bugs." That just isn't true. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
One thing I would add to your statement, though. YES they have been mutating since they first began. However, the science we apply to them, is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans?
-
Sijin wrote: By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Fitness is always relative to an environment. Species that are fit for one environment may not be fit for another. Human beings change the environment and thereby change the selection criteria. Selection is always operative no matter what humans do. Sijin wrote: Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), then the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity (principally the destruction of habitat). Thus it is interference with Nature that is causing the extinctions in the first place. As for the risk that we are stopping "superior" organisms from appearing by seeking to prevent extinctions, the reality is that, through habitat destruction and the like, we are creating a hostile environment for most existing non-human species. This may favour the evolution of some species (such as insects that eat our crops, parasites that live in our livestock and bacteria that spread in urbanised communities) but there is no reason to think that such species are "superior" in any sense that human beings care about. John Carson
John Carson wrote: If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), No. No. it is you who are excluding humans from Nature. If Lions kill all the deer are they not changing the enviorment??..if deer eat all the plants are they not?.. If elephants eat all the trees then what?.. I think the basic reason why we do go in for protection of the enviorment in general is 1. Prevent greenhouse effect and global warming(saving rainforests) 2. There maybe a yet undiscovered cure to cancer or some disease like that in the rainforests. 3. Animals ( To maintain eco system balance in rain forests) To support 2 and 3 4. Sentimental reasons ( We want our children to see a paticular species alive, we are compassionate, we can emphatize etc.) So you see basically the only reason we do it is because we are selfish :) :) CONSOLE: What one does to a depressed computer Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Sijin wrote: By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Fitness is always relative to an environment. Species that are fit for one environment may not be fit for another. Human beings change the environment and thereby change the selection criteria. Selection is always operative no matter what humans do. Sijin wrote: Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. If you are excluding humans from Nature (as you appear to be), then the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity (principally the destruction of habitat). Thus it is interference with Nature that is causing the extinctions in the first place. As for the risk that we are stopping "superior" organisms from appearing by seeking to prevent extinctions, the reality is that, through habitat destruction and the like, we are creating a hostile environment for most existing non-human species. This may favour the evolution of some species (such as insects that eat our crops, parasites that live in our livestock and bacteria that spread in urbanised communities) but there is no reason to think that such species are "superior" in any sense that human beings care about. John Carson
John Carson wrote: the fact is that most species are going extinct because of human activity Infact you never know how many species were eliminated because of being excessively eaten by carnivores or herbivores. Money is the root of all evil (Send $30 shareware fee to use this tag line.) Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Jonny Newman wrote: This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. Well i agree that we are not allowing ourselves to evolve but that is because we have reached a stage where we can evolve faster on our own than by waiting for nature to take it's toll. Natural selection basically means that the species which are smart enough to survive will continue to be. So basically we have achieved the status of dominant species and don't really need to evolve further naturally unless something comes along that we cant handle(killer viruses for eg.) But the point that i was making is when we try to protect endangered species we are stopping their evolution and since they are not the dominant species thus maybe we are harming them in the long run. All species are experiments of nature, humans turned out to be quite sucessful , but there maybe some species that are really not fit but we are preventing nature from improving upon it's design. It's like in genetic algorithms, you take a intial random string and then mutate and reproduce to make strings of better fitness until ultimately you reach a string which has high fitness. What we humans are doing is not allowing the unfit strings to be eliminated thus possible preventing generation of strings of better fitness. (Hope everyone gets the crux of it) :) :) Logically speaking we should not be interfering wioth nature unless it is to enhance or protect ourselves, but my heart says save the animals. :) :) User - a technical term used by computer pros. See idiot Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Weaker or less fit species are the ones that are first in line for the chop as far as extintion goes. But extiction due to the fact they happen to be less fit (in the darwin sense) to their kin, is just one of the natural occurances of nature and should be let to nature. For example, if there were two members of one Species of the Cat family were to be so weak in comparison to the others in the Genus that it is being left behind, then I believe we should not have anything to do with their extinction. However if humans were the direct cause of their endangering then we should have a part (even a small on) to play. But this is an ethical dilema not a natural one and opinions are varied. On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? ... -> Homo Erectus -> Homo Sapiens -> ......
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
One thing I would add to your statement, though. YES they have been mutating since they first began. However, the science we apply to them, is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans?
Matt Gullett wrote: is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans If anything, by creating new vaccines against bacteria/viruses we are helping their evolution.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
Weaker or less fit species are the ones that are first in line for the chop as far as extintion goes. But extiction due to the fact they happen to be less fit (in the darwin sense) to their kin, is just one of the natural occurances of nature and should be let to nature. For example, if there were two members of one Species of the Cat family were to be so weak in comparison to the others in the Genus that it is being left behind, then I believe we should not have anything to do with their extinction. However if humans were the direct cause of their endangering then we should have a part (even a small on) to play. But this is an ethical dilema not a natural one and opinions are varied. On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? ... -> Homo Erectus -> Homo Sapiens -> ......
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
Jonny Newman wrote: On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? Why should we ignore technology?..technology is what makes us the dominant species and technological innovation should never stop. The next stage of our evolution will be bionic and genetically enhanced. Premature optimization is the root of all evil Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Matt Gullett wrote: is it causing them to mutate into forms which are more lethal to humans If anything, by creating new vaccines against bacteria/viruses we are helping their evolution.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
This I would agree with. We are helping them. However, the black plague wasn't exactly a walk in the park. The family that includes ebola isn't exactly a nice one either. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Jonny Newman wrote: On the same note of human evolution, what would have been the next step for us ignoring technology? Why should we ignore technology?..technology is what makes us the dominant species and technological innovation should never stop. The next stage of our evolution will be bionic and genetically enhanced. Premature optimization is the root of all evil Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Natural Evolution. By taking technology into account we are not loooking at our biological evolution, but only our brains evolution. However, our brains have not evolved for centuries even millenia. We are the same now in theory as the first Homo Sapiens. Only we have a better understanding of our environment through our knowlage being passed on through language.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Futile. You will be approximated. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
It depends what mans involvement has been with making an endangered species, endangered. :rose: Janice :rose:
Well how about if the species is endangered because we are killing it too much?..Should we then try to protect it?.. It's like telling the Tiger hey don't kill all the deer they are an endangered species. The reasons that we should protect these species i have outlined in an earlier post. You know that little indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why can't they make the whole plane out of that stuff? Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
-
Matt Gullett wrote: any new species would be better at surviving around humans. That is already happening, there are bacteria and virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics, mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. Planet of the Apes :-D "I believe OS/2...to be the most important OS...of all time" Gates '87 Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Sijin wrote: virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics... Sijin wrote: mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. < anal retent mode > well virii arn't particularly likely to be affected by an anti-biotic (which is why any idiot who takes strepsils for a sore throat is generally wasting their time and money) and quinine...well its an anti malarial agent - works not on mossies but rather on the plasmodium vivax parasite < / anal retent mode > Bryce
-
In theory most of the humans alive now should be dead according to the survival of the fittest. What happens to all the fat buffalo? They are the first to be eaten, this would be true of humans had we not inventer such novel ways of defending ourselves. And so are anyone suffering from disease of disability. This would be stopping/slowing our evolution because we are not allowing ourselves to better ourselves genetically or physically but instead we are keeping every member of our species alive. I am not however suggesting he start killing everyone with a disability :-D My two cents.
Jonny Newman Liverpool, UK Sonork: 16257:Jonny Newman MSN Msngr: jonathann4@hotmail.com ICQ: 37606329 I'm out there! Feel free to contact me about anything.
-
By preserving the endangered species are we going against Natural Selection/Survival of the fittest?.. Are we preventing Nature from taking it's own course?.. I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Futile. You will be approximated. Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
Well my very informed opinion is that if the species has become endangered directly as a result of the activities of man then we should help to preserve it, protect it, breed it in captivity and return it to the wild type thing (and protect its environment etc etc) ..... but if it has become endangered because the species is not capable of surviving then we should let it die out in the wild at least.... but keeping specimens in zoos and game parks and things is ok because if we have the resources and the technology then we may as well keep the species alive in captivity for interests sake :) and thats what I think :) an anyway it is all "survival of the species" just a different definition... fittest now means richest, cutest, most prolific an all that an it all gets really complicated an stuff.... an I gotta do work cause I'm confusing myself with my conflicting opinions :) wot do u think? bryce
-
Oh yeah. I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. :laugh: Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Tim Smith wrote: I just cherish the memories of smallpox, polio, and the black plague. Now those were the good old days. Yeah and what does not kill you only makes you stronger... oh but wait, those killed whoever got it, so nobody got stronger... oh yeah, now I remember why the vaccines were good... :rolleyes: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
Sijin wrote: virus strains which are immune to current anti-biotics... Sijin wrote: mosquitoes which are immune to quinine etc. < anal retent mode > well virii arn't particularly likely to be affected by an anti-biotic (which is why any idiot who takes strepsils for a sore throat is generally wasting their time and money) and quinine...well its an anti malarial agent - works not on mossies but rather on the plasmodium vivax parasite < / anal retent mode > Bryce
bryce wrote: which is why any idiot who takes strepsils for a sore throat is generally wasting their time and money Strepsils really just anethitise (sp?) the sore area, then when the person gets better they attribute it to the strepsil. You are right, it is idiotic to think the strepsil actually helps but they definitley cut down on the sore throat feeling. bryce wrote: and quinine...well its an anti malarial agent Works brilliantly with gin as well :-D regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. I think I should be glad natural selection hasn't applied directly to me. If it had, I'd be a gonner.
Matt Gullett wrote: This reminds me of a discussion 1-2 weeks ago when someone asked the question "are humans animals?". People notice me? Woohoo! ;) Matt Gullett wrote: Are humans subject to natural selection? If not, is this a differentiating factor distinguishing us from animals. Once again I argue that we simply have extended existing rules and situations. Now in the human-animal world natural selection is more subtle, more controlled and less rife, but it still exists. We have simply pushed the boundaries of it. People still die from natural causes and people still mate with other people based on physical and environmental traits. Matt Gullett wrote: OR, have we just slowed down the process of natural selection? Even if we have just slowed it down, though, does this still distinguish us from animals. Yes slowed down but I don't think it makes us any different to other animals. We are still trying to survive. We build a house for shelter. Rabbits build warrens for shelter. But we consider the rabbits subject to natural selection and us not? Hmmm, sounds like yet another hypocritical human stand. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."