PDA

View Full Version : Are Humans Still Evolving or Is Evolution Coming to a Halt?



Thrymheim
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 06:00 PM
Human evolution is grinding to a halt, according to a leading genetics expert.

The gloomy message from Professor Steve Jones is: this is as good as it gets.

Prof Jones, from the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London, believes the mechanisms of evolution are winding down in the human race.

At least in the developed world, humans are now as close to utopia as they are ever likely to be, he argues. Speaking at a UCL Lunch Hour Lecture in London, Prof Jones said there were three components to evolution - natural selection, mutation and random change.

He said: "In ancient times half our children would have died by the age of twenty. Now, in the Western world, 98% of them are surviving to the age of 21. Our life expectancy is now so good that eliminating all accidents and infectious diseases would only raise it by a further two years. Natural selection no longer has death as a handy tool."

Mutation rate was also slowing down, he said. Although chemicals and radioactive pollution could cause genetic changes, one of the most important mutation triggers was advanced age in men. "Perhaps surprisingly, the age of reproduction has gone down - the mean age of male reproduction means that most conceive no children after the age of 35," said Prof Jones. "Fewer older fathers means that if anything, mutation is going down."

Random alterations to the human genetic blueprint were also less likely in a world that had become an ethnic melting pot, according to Prof Jones.

He said: "Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now - about the size of the population of Glasgow.

"Small populations which are isolated can change - evolve - at random as genes are accidentally lost. Worldwide, all populations are becoming connected and the opportunity for random change is dwindling. History is made in bed, but nowadays the beds are getting closer together. Almost everywhere, inbreeding is becoming less common. In Britain, one marriage in fifty or so is between members of a different ethnic group, and the country is one of the most sexually open in the world. We are mixing into a global mass, and the future is brown."

He added: "So, if you are worried about what utopia is going to be like, don't; at least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you are living in it now."

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20081007/tuk-human-evolution-coming-to-a-halt-6323e80.html

So inbreeding is required for improvement :) quick grab a cousin

GroeneWolf
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 06:41 PM
Probaly not that extreme. But I do read alot that the present massimmigration across the globe, comming arm in arm with racemixing, does slow evolution severly down. If it doesn't stop it at all.

Pino
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 07:57 PM
the reason it's coming to a halt is because the system which promotes evolution has come to a complete halt.

The best genes mateing with the best genes dont take place anymore, it seems to be the best female genes mateing with the best money.

rainman
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008, 08:05 PM
This actually is a cornerstone argument of the need for folks communities and small scale organization (tribalism, familialism, "cells" however you want to do it).

The cells or small communities should not be completley isolated but should relatively breed within themselves. Another big reason is social altruism.

In a large transient society it is beneficial to have uncivilized traits. Lying, cheating, stealing, being a rude *sshole. It all gets you ahead. Which leads to worse citizens and a weaker, less civilized, basically third world society.

Good social behavior must be reinforced both socially and genetically through small groups. Groups where everyone knows everybody else and actions that are bad for the community are well known and punished. You know if someone is a liar, theif etc. It allows for trust and cooperation. In a city you cannot trust anyone or you are a "sucker" for instance.

Basically small churches that are family based can fullfill this function. Or large organizations that split themselves into small local groups would work. Whatever. The Amish have a good model.

lei.talk
Thursday, October 9th, 2008, 02:14 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=855475#post855475

Nachtengel
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 07:06 AM
Modern Homo sapiens is still evolving. Despite the long-held view that natural selection has ceased to affect humans because almost everybody now lives long enough to have children, a new study of a contemporary Massachusetts population offers evidence of evolution still in action.

A team of scientists led by Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns suggests that if the natural selection of fitter traits is no longer driven by survival, perhaps it owes to differences in women's fertility. "Variations in reproductive success still exist among humans, and therefore some traits related to fertility continue to be shaped by natural selection," Stearns says. That is, women who have more children are more likely to pass on certain traits to their progeny.

Stearns' team examined the vital statistics of 2,238 postmenopausal women participating in the Framingham Heart Study, which has tracked the medical histories of some 14,000 residents of Framingham, Mass., since 1948. Investigators searched for correlations between women's physical characteristics - including height, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels - and the number of offspring they produced. According to their findings, it was stout, slightly plump (but not obese) women who tended to have more children - "Women with very low body fat don't ovulate," Stearns explains - as did women with lower blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Using a sophisticated statistical analysis that controlled for any social or cultural factors that could impact childbearing, researchers determined that these characteristics were passed on genetically from mothers to daughters and granddaughters.

If these trends were to continue with no cultural changes in the town for the next 10 generations, by 2409 the average Framingham woman would be 2 cm (0.8 in) shorter, 1 kg (2.2 lb.) heavier, have a healthier heart, have her first child five months earlier and enter menopause 10 months later than a woman today, the study found. "That rate of evolution is slow but pretty similar to what we see in other plants and animals. Humans don't seem to be any exception," Stearns says.

Douglas Ewbank, a demographer at the University of Pennsylvania who undertook the statistical analysis for the study, which was published Oct. 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), says that because cultural factors tend to have a much more prominent impact than natural selection in the shaping of future generations, people tend to write off the effect of evolution. "Those changes we predict for 2409 could be wiped out by something as simple as a new school-lunch program. But whatever happens, it's likely that in 2409, Framingham women will be 2 cm shorter and 1 kg heavier than they would have been without natural selection. Evolution is a very slow process. We don't see it if we look at our grandparents, but it's there."

Other recent genetic research has backed up that notion. One study, published in PNAS in 2007 and led by John Hawks, an anthropologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, found that some 1,800 human gene variations had become widespread in recent generations because of their modern-day evolutionary benefits. Among those genetic changes, discovered by examining more than 3 million DNA variants in 269 individuals: mutations that allow people to digest milk or resist malaria and others that govern brain development.

But not all evolutionary changes make inherent sense. Since the Industrial Revolution, modern humans have grown taller and stronger, so it's easy to assume that evolution is making humans fitter. But according to anthropologist Peter McAllister, author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, the contemporary male has evolved, at least physically, into "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet." Thanks to genetic differences, an average Neanderthal woman, McAllister notes, could have whupped Arnold Schwarzenegger at his muscular peak in an arm-wrestling match. And prehistoric Australian Aborigines, who typically built up great strength in their joints and muscles through childhood and adolescence, could have easily beat Usain Bolt in a 100-m dash.

Steve Jones, an evolutionary biologist at University College London who has previously held that human evolution was nearing its end, says the Framingham study is indeed an important example of how natural selection still operates through inherited differences in reproductive ability. But Jones argues that variation in female fertility - as measured in the Framingham study - is a much less important factor in human evolution than differences in male fertility. Sperm hold a much higher chance of carrying an error or mutation than an egg, especially among older men. "While it used to be that men had many children in older age to many different women, now men tend to have only a few children at a younger age with one wife. The drop in the number of older fathers has had a major effect on the rate of mutation and has at least reduced the amount of new diversity - the raw material of evolution. Darwin's machine has not stopped, but it surely has slowed greatly," Jones says.

Despite evidence that human evolution still functions, biologists concede that it's anyone's guess where it will take us from here. Artificial selection in the form of genetic medicine could push natural selection into obsolescence, but a lethal pandemic or other cataclysm could suddenly make natural selection central to the future of the species. Whatever happens, Jones says, it is worth remembering that Darwin's beautiful theory has suffered a long history of abuse. The bastard science of eugenics, he says, will haunt humanity as long as people are tempted to confuse evolution with improvement. "Uniquely in the living world, what makes humans what we are is in our minds, in our society, and not in our evolution," he says.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091024/hl_time/08599193175700

frippardthree
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 07:39 AM
Despite evidence that human evolution still functions, biologists concede that it's anyone's guess where it will take us from here. Artificial selection in the form of genetic medicine could push natural selection into obsolescence, but a lethal pandemic or other cataclysm could suddenly make natural selection central to the future of the species.

I believe & support the theory of Evolution, but I would argue, as some of the contributors to the article above, would suggest that our medical technology and other advances are speeding up the process. Human Evolution is not totally organic anymore.


Bioengineers are focused on advancing human health and promoting environmental sustainability, two of the greatest challenges for our world. Understanding complex living systems is at the heart of meeting these challenges.
The mission of Stanford's Department of Bioengineering is to create a fusion of engineering and the life sciences that promotes scientific discovery and the development of new biomedical technologies and therapies through research and education.

The Department of Bioengineering is jointly supported by the Schools of Medicine and Engineering. It includes, in a single department, research and teaching programs that embrace biology as a new engineering paradigm and apply engineering principles to medical problems and biological systems.

Bioengineering faculty, staff, and students are inventing the future of biomedicine.

Retrieved From:http://bioengineering.stanford.edu/

VergesEngst
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 04:47 PM
Since the Industrial Revolution, modern humans have grown taller and stronger, so it's easy to assume that evolution is making humans fitter. But according to anthropologist Peter McAllister, author of Manthropology: the Science of Inadequate Modern Man, the contemporary male has evolved, at least physically, into "the sorriest cohort of masculine Homo sapiens to ever walk the planet." Thanks to genetic differences, an average Neanderthal woman, McAllister notes, could have whupped Arnold Schwarzenegger at his muscular peak in an arm-wrestling match.

Things like this make me wish I could go back in time, and whisper in Darwin's ear: "Hey.... this is a great theory and all, but just for publicity and marketing purposes, why don't you use a different word than fitness."

I don't know if this is a misunderstanding on the part of Mr. McAllister, or merely on the part of the author of the news article being quoted; but either way, the assumption that evolutionary "fitness" has anything to do with "not being a wimp" is just... wrong.

velvet
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 05:53 PM
Ah, the beloved fitness misunderstanding :D

Fitness is a term that has a lot of meanings, and the newest of them is in connection with sports.

"It fits in" is the meaning Darwin implied, an organism that fits into his environment, carries a bunch of useful traits fitting for this environment etc.

Fit doesnt mean 'superior', fittest (in the sports or more stupid, German sense), strong, or whatever there was interpreted into, it just means that the organism is optimally adjusted to the requirements of the specific environment.


With regards to the article, I think humanity isnt evolving, it is devolving. Indeed, humanity as a whole gets weaker, who could imagine walking hundreds of kilometers today? Some thousands years back people crossed entire continents. 200 years ago caring for a household was really heavy work, today such an amount of real labor is done only by smiths maybe or similar jobs. In that sense, people some hundred years ago indeed where more fit in the sport sense too. Traits benefical back then are today quite unimportant, and this will leave its print on the human genome.

In addition, selection doesnt happen at all any more. Every child born survives, no matter how weak or ill it is or was born four months too early. Retards survive and every child illness is survived by the most. All these people who were not really supposed to survive now reproduce themselves, spreading defective genes.

The micro selection described in the article will not change the negative impact of the non-existing real selection process that bared people in recent ages from reproducing, for good reason.

Right now we breed indeed the weakest human that ever walked the earth.

rainman
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 06:44 PM
Fitness means it is fit for survival.

I love this quote-

The bastard science of eugenics, he says, will haunt humanity as long as people are tempted to confuse evolution with improvement. "Uniquely in the living world, what makes humans what we are is in our minds, in our society, and not in our evolution,"

According to this a horse fly, a pig, and a gorilla can all become humans if we just change their minds and drill enough education into their heads. Once they are part of our culture they are human. Genetics plays no role in their capacity to understand or fit into that culture hahahaha

Maybe this answers a question in another thread: why they push anorexic sick looking models on us. Probably because they are infertile. Anything to push the birth rate down.

VergesEngst
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Velvet says,


I think humanity isnt evolving, it is devolving.

Well, in the technical scientific sense, evolution is not directional, so there is no real (scientific) distinction between "evolving" and "devolving": both are merely changes in response to the opponent processes of variation and selection.

What you're getting at, though, is that the selection factor is becoming less constrained. Indeed, you say,


Indeed, humanity as a whole gets weaker, who could imagine walking hundreds of kilometers today? Some thousands years back people crossed entire continents. [...] Selection doesnt happen at all any more.

Again, in a technical sense, it isn't that selection isn't happening -- simply that we have been able to alter environment in a way that makes selection less restrictive.

It isn't necessarily a bad thing... as long as our influence on the environment remains intact. If the environment changes in a way that we can't control any more, the loosening of selection criteria may screw us (that's a technical term ;) ).

But ultimately, it becomes as "why do we need good eyesight if we can guarantee the availability of glasses?" type of argument. The problem only arises if you question the "if we can guarantee..." part.

velvet
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 11:31 PM
It isn't necessarily a bad thing... as long as our influence on the environment remains intact. If the environment changes in a way that we can't control any more, the loosening of selection criteria may screw us (that's a technical term ;) ).

But ultimately, it becomes as "why do we need good eyesight if we can guarantee the availability of glasses?" type of argument. The problem only arises if you question the "if we can guarantee..." part.

I have to disagree. That selection doesnt happen IS a bad thing.
Life is struggle, and the overall absense of any struggle makes us weak genetically.
The animal kingdom regulates this with prey and predators, humans dont have a predator anymore that keeps him in check, in recent centuries this was regulated by wars and plaques. Although many 'humanitarians' say otherwise, it was a good thing that the population got regularly thinned out.
This doesnt happen anymore. Neither wars nor plaques have a significant impact on the population. Struggle doesnt exist, however unfit someone is to live.

The environmental change we call civilisation will be the genetical death of humankind. We are so arrogant to believe we could trick out the rules of the universe. We are so arrogant that we believe nature must show consideration for us. And that this civilisation will protect us magically from all evils.

We are not fit anymore for the struggle ahead. We will be runned over by people who arent interested in civilisation. They bring perdition. And they'll wipe us off. They will have it easy, because we believe in our arrogance that civilisation will save us.



evolution is not directional

Devolution is sort of a pun. evolvere is latin, it has the prefix 'ex' and therefore indeed a direction. The prefix 'de' on the other hand has the meaning of dissolving something. Devolution is the development to disintegration, to decay, to ruin.

VergesEngst
Wednesday, October 28th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Velvet says:


I have to disagree. That selection doesnt happen IS a bad thing.
Life is struggle, and the overall absense of any struggle makes us weak genetically.

I understand what you mean. And certainly, intelligence and civilization and all of the things we tend to value and think set us "above the animals" would never have evolved at all had there been no selection pressure in the environment. When things are too easy, innovation has no function or benefit.


But..... but...... I still have a nagging feeling that we may be having a slightly reactionary or romantic idea about what "environment" means. The environment today is different than it was 1000 years ago, and this is the case exactly because we made it so. There no longer is any selection pressure for people to be able to walk across continents, but the question is.... will that matter as the future unfolds?

It depends on how the future looks. If it looks like the past, it will be a big problem. As you say, "We will be runned over by people who arent interested in civilisation."

But technology DOES advance. Very few of us run our day to day lives thinking, "Am I prepared in case the electrical grid collapses?" Very few of us run our day to day lives thinking, "Am I prepared in case the transportation infrastructure of food in the country collapses?" But the fact that we are NOT prepared for that doesn't matter... because the chance of it happening is so low.

Should we be worried about that? Should that be counted as a "point against" our fitness? I don't know. I'm honestly not sure.

velvet
Thursday, October 29th, 2009, 01:38 PM
But..... but...... I still have a nagging feeling that we may be having a slightly reactionary or romantic idea about what "environment" means. The environment today is different than it was 1000 years ago, and this is the case exactly because we made it so. There no longer is any selection pressure for people to be able to walk across continents, but the question is.... will that matter as the future unfolds?

The environment did not change, it is still the same, but we built up an illusion that makes us think it would be different.
And then there is a huge hurricane and wipes everything off we made and built, there is a Tsunami and wipes off everything we made and built, there is a earth quake that wipes everything off we made and built.
It is a dangerous illusion to believe the environment would have changed. It didnt.

In fact, we do even have a predator, but our illusion bubble makes us think we could civilise this predator.


It depends on how the future looks. If it looks like the past, it will be a big problem. As you say, "We will be runned over by people who arent interested in civilisation."

But technology DOES advance. Very few of us run our day to day lives thinking, "Am I prepared in case the electrical grid collapses?" Very few of us run our day to day lives thinking, "Am I prepared in case the transportation infrastructure of food in the country collapses?" But the fact that we are NOT prepared for that doesn't matter... because the chance of it happening is so low.

Yes, technology does advance. Our entire lives are dependend on technology. And when someone pulls the plug, we will find ourselves from one day to another in the hostile environment for that we arent fit anymore.


Should we be worried about that? Should that be counted as a "point against" our fitness? I don't know. I'm honestly not sure.

Yes, it should.
We live in an illusion bubble that paints a reality into our heads that really doesnt exist. We think we could solve all problems with technology. Or even worse, people think the possibility of something collapsing wouldnt exist, or if it still happens that someone magically will find a technical solution so quick that we even dont notice that there was something wrong.

That's nonsense. This 'all is fine' bubble will burst within the next few years when millions of hostile immigrants will have wiped off civilisation. They will wipe us off including our illusion bubble just like we once wiped off more primitive forms of humans.
This time the primitive will wipe off the advanced though, because our advance cannot compete anymore with brute force.

And dont fall to the illusion that this will not happen. It will. And our chances are quite low anyway, we stand with half a billion people against 6,2 billion, who are only dependend on their instincts. We on the other hand need our civilisation bubble, we will be busy with pure survival in the now hostile again environment, when this bubble collapses due to sheer numbers. The most of our people will only then wake up and realise that civilisation will not save them from the predators, but quite the opposite, that civilisation has made them unfit for the struggle ahead.

There will be no more complexity, there will only be kill to live or die. As things stand right now in our suicidal culture of self hatred, most people will chose to die. We are, at large, unfit for survival.

rainman
Thursday, October 29th, 2009, 06:27 PM
Well consider in the past people grew wheat. They didn't even have potatoes or any of that in Europe. So about 75% of the population were wheat farmers and they did it by primitive means. Back then an "evolved" person would be someone naturally great at producint wheat. Today even if we scaled back technology maybe 5% of people would need to grow wheat. We could say that it is more useful to be good at math, computer, engineering, or fixing machines (like cars). Definately in some ways there is no going back, or rather its unlikely. Even if civilization fell we would still have other plants, and primitive technology.

The main problem is that today people who are unfit for today's environment are allowed to breed. They are given welfare and support. It is one thing to say well our people today aren't well adapted at foraging for berries, but it is another to say well our people today aren't adapted for what their ancestors did, nor adapted for the modern world. They can't read, they can't walk, they can't hunt and forage, they can't use a computer etc. they are mental retards and total ingraits. This all stemming from the fact that exess resources in society are used to support life that is unworthy (unfit) for life.

The reason is that it is easier to screw something up than it is to improve it. In any generation most children will be average, a good bit will be below average, fewer will be above average. A nice amount will be utterly sick and defective, a much smaller amount genius. Since there are always more defective or below average births (since its easier to make a random mistake than random improvement) you need some force to take the defects out of the population pool. In the past when people needed to take care of themselves or with animals nature kills the defective. In human society since we are all a giant functioning group humans must remove the defectives from the gene pool. Our ancestors called this "good breeding". We call it today "Eugenics" which means "Good breeding" in Greek. Its thousands of years old. Our modern Chirstian/Marxist/Degenerate culture rejects it but it a neccessary principle to return to for human health.

Feyn
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 12:44 AM
I think we are all aware how the theory of evolution works in its basic principles. Now if you consequently think this through you realize the human race has a big problem ! Through our modern lifestyle and especially through medicine we have nearly stopped the human evolution !!!
I have an easy example : a couple has trouble getting kids, and they are treated with hormons. She then gets twins. Chances are that at least a part of her problems where genetically, and now this "bad" genes are passed on into the next generation, odds are her kids will also need help in that area.
Through the wonders of modern medicine we are today able to heal many defects with which a child would have no chance of survival in nature.
Now of course with the possibilities we have today we do not need to be 100 fit for survival, but over time the less then good results accumulate, so our gene pool gets worse with every generation, since the bad mutations are not weeded out any longer.
So i wanted to ask around what you people think we could/should do about this ? As i see it we have to do something about it, but anything we could do would mean a relatively drastic intervention into human procreation. I am very curious what ideas you have to handle that problem ? DISCUSS !!!

Hersir
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 01:37 AM
Now if you consequently think this through you realize the human race has a big problem ! Through our modern lifestyle and especially through medicine we have nearly stopped the human evolution !!!

Our species has many problems. But with modern age we are still evolving, now mutations are spread faster over the world because of racial mixing.

If it gets worse we all end up as half brown muts.

In my ideal society we would not travel all the world and airplane travel would be limited for important political meetings and similar. Normal travel would be limited to collective transport such as busses, horses, walking, bicycles, small ferries... You would not be able to have a car for personal use. I am inspired by Pentti Linkola in this view.

Because of this mixing with foreign races would be extremely limited by natural causes. We would of course deport all race strangers.



Modern Homo sapiens is still evolving. Despite the long-held view that natural selection has ceased to affect humans because almost everybody now lives long enough to have children, a new study of a contemporary Massachusetts population offers evidence of evolution still in action.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html


the bad mutations are not weeded out any longer.

Many bad mutations were never weeded out. A lot of them doesn't manifest until old age. A lot of the bad mutations are not dominant, so they have to expressed in double to manifest. So they can be passed on without being weeded out.

In Norway there has been controversy caused by doctors checking the foster water of pregnant women to see if their child will have downs syndrome. This is just one example, I think many of the mutations are weeded out.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 01:52 AM
I think we are all aware how the theory of evolution works in its basic principles. Now if you consequently think this through you realize the human race has a big problem ! Through our modern lifestyle and especially through medicine we have nearly stopped the human evolution !!!


It seems you have a very narrow view of Evolution.
Physical Human evolution more or less came to a halt when we became able to manipulate our environment through technology.



I have an easy example : a couple has trouble getting kids, and they are treated with hormons. She then gets twins. Chances are that at least a part of her problems where genetically, and now this "bad" genes are passed on into the next generation, odds are her kids will also need help in that area.
Through the wonders of modern medicine we are today able to heal many defects with which a child would have no chance of survival in nature.

I think you have missed a point.
With genetic selection you can pretty much weed out in one or at the most two generations what it would take evolution millions of years o accomplish.

Evolution by modern standards is Dumb Change, Technology is Designed Change. Evolution has no ability to think through the best solution, design has the ability to eliminate the dead ends. Evolution today is technological NOT Natural.

If it were not for the Anti Eugenics people there would be no reason that modern humans could not be 100% physically perfect, if modern science were applied in a logical way.



So i wanted to ask around what you people think we could/should do about this ? As i see it we have to do something about it, but anything we could do would mean a relatively drastic intervention into human procreation. I am very curious what ideas you have to handle that problem ? DISCUSS !!!

If you are talking about weeding out disease, then that is being done by genetic therapy, they just remove the defective genes. And in the future they will be able to modify genes to fit specific uses.

Personally I’m less worried about humans evolving and more worried about the abuse of genetic technology. That could make a world of difference for Germanic’s as well as everyone else.

As for Germanic Populations, the issue will be who and how Genetic traits that started as Germanic are employed in future generations.

Meaning, you could easily have a blue eyed black person, or a blond Asian person. Or maybe even worse, Anime looking people with pink, purple or blue hair depending on how far it is possible to bend natural genes.

Not sure how that world will look.

Feyn
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 01:56 AM
First of all thanks for the article, it was a quite interesting read !
I did not doubt that we still evolve (though a lot slower rate then we would during a hard struggle for survival). The problem i see is how we change. For example one big problem is that our best and brightest usually have max 2 kids, many donīt have any kids at all, or just one, since carreer is more important. On the other end, the other side of the bell curve, aka white trash, has on average way more kids. So following evolution we will develop a worse genetic pool over time. Can and should we steer against that, and if so how ? I mean we do have the best genetic pool out there, so how should be protect it ? Should be interfere with our own evolution, and if so, how ? What meassures would you use you you where say the dictator of northern europe with non restricted powers ?

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 02:01 AM
Our species has many problems. But with modern age we are still evolving, now mutations are spread faster over the world because of racial mixing.

If it gets worse we all end up as half brown muts.


Not necessary.
Genetic Evolution is irrelevant in the modern world. If you can clone animals and maybe one day people, then you can for sure implant any gene in any person you want.

We have no way of knowing what the "Muts" as you call them, will do with any genetic code they have taken from other races, and that includes Germanic and Scandinavians.

Feyn
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 03:26 AM
QUOTE:"I think you have missed a point.
With genetic selection you can pretty much weed out in one or at the most two generations what it would take evolution millions of years o accomplish.

Evolution by modern standards is Dumb Change, Technology is Designed Change. Evolution has no ability to think through the best solution, design has the ability to eliminate the dead ends. Evolution today is technological NOT Natural.

If it were not for the Anti Eugenics people there would be no reason that modern humans could not be 100% physically perfect, if modern science were applied in a logical way.!"


The one missing the point here is YOU, not me ! That was exactly my question, what we could/should do to influence our genepool. If you are an advocat of technological evolution, then thatīs fine, but you should also think about how you could implement that within a population. Should we force people to do that ? With whom should we do that ? Every pregnancy, or just say the artificial ones ? etc.etc.etc.
Thatīs exactly what i wanted to discuss here, and what i wanted your opinion on. So how did i miss anything ? I simply stated the facts we have now, and asked how we could /should change that in the future, and how we could/should implement that in our society



QUOTE:"It seems you have a very narrow view of Evolution.
Physical Human evolution more or less came to a halt when we became able to manipulate our environment through technology. "

Sorry, but that is simply not correct. Read the article hersir posted above. Humans do still evolve, there is no halt, although for sure things go quite a bit slower then in an all-out battle for survival . Its simply different factors today that influence evolution. For example the fact that the higher social classes have less children then the low classes (which is a quite disturbing development in my eyes)

Svante
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 03:40 AM
.

Our species has many problems. But with modern age we are still evolving, now mutations are spread faster over the world because of racial mixing.

In my ideal society we would not travel all the world and airplane travel would be limited for important political meetings and similar. Normal travel would be limited to collective transport such as busses, horses, walking, bicycles, small ferries... You would not be able to have a car for personal use. I am inspired by Pentti Linkola in this view.

Because of this mixing with foreign races would be extremely limited by natural causes. We would of course deport all race strangers.

.
This is true and open borders in our countries and the push for multiculturalism is increasing the problems of our modern age. The recent blow to Danmark's DPP party and Sweden Democrats has set back any efforts to change this.

EQ Fighter
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 04:34 AM
If you are an advocat of technological evolution, then thatīs fine, but you should also think about how you could implement that within a population. Should we force people to do that ? With whom should we do that ? Every pregnancy, or just say the artificial ones ? etc.etc.etc.


As I said I think it is already happening. You have two forms of evolution occurring.

1) Natural Process, which has never disappeared as the artificial states.
2) Rapidly advancing Medical Science, which is fast learning how to manipulate genetic material.



Thatīs exactly what i wanted to discuss here, and what i wanted your opinion on. So how did i miss anything ? I simply stated the facts we have now, and asked how we could /should change that in the future, and how we could/should implement that in our society

I’m not sure that is an answerable question.
Here is the reason why, I have no idea who will ultimately gain control of and utilize the genetic technology first.

If Germanic's continue the way they are going, they will be last through the door, and will not benefit from or have a hand in the control of the issue.

As far as my personal view, which is not really relevant, if I were in control of it personalty I would limit most physical evolution of Humans to traditional forms, and rely on natural evolution to take its course in most cases. In the case of faulty genes I would use genetic engineering to replace the genes.

I would outlaw the crossing of animal forms with humans, and would not allow the creation of "Unnatural Races" or odd hair and eye colours beyond what nature designed.

When It comes to Animal Life, I would be far more liberal, because I think at some point humans will have to move off world to survive.

There is no reason we should not engineer some forms of earth life to live on other worlds. Moons such as Europa, could have life transplanted from earth to live in the frozen oceans under the ice.

Halldorr
Saturday, January 28th, 2012, 11:47 PM
The basic ways in which micro evolutionary change happens is Mutation, migration, genetic drift and natural selection. The most powerful one is Mutation. The only people on Earth in the last 10,000 years that were undergoing evolution were the ancient Nordic peoples. The recent discoveries of the genetic mutation that caused blue eyes and the mutation that caused pale skin were 2 examples of genetic mutation that they were undergoing. There are threads on both of these. Both of these mutations were traced back to approximately 4500 BC. The scientists that did the pale skin study said these people were undergoing evolutionary change. They were also traced to the climatic refuge around the northwest coast of the Black sea , near the Danube river. They appeared to be undergoing other mutations as well. This large increase in height had to be a type of mutation because there was little non-random mating going on.

For the last half million years the average height of humans was 5'7" with variations from time to time. Then in a very short time the Nordic peoples had a big increase in height. There is little actual measurement of their height, but the Romans said the Goths were a head and more above them. That would put the Goths at around 6'10" or more depending on whose head was being measured. They were also described by a man from the middle east as tall as a date palm. Their genes were in a dynamic state of change for all these changes to take place in such a short time.

Then you have this incredible beauty the women had. There is little evidence of this amazing beauty, but there is a very definitive description by the Roman Ausonius of a slave girl by the name of Bissula. She was captured by the Romans possibly from the Suevi tribe around 378 and presented to Ausonius as a prize. He wrote a poem about her and described her beauty as so great that neither the painter or the sculptor could duplicate her beauty. He had a portrait done of her and freed her. Unfortunately, it didn't survive the sands of time.

This had to be another type of genetic mutation to make these people so incredibly beautiful at a time when almost everyone else on Earth was ugly. If these people were able to be geographically isolated from gene flow from other populations, these is a good possibility that in a few thousand years they could have turned into a new species. Unfortunately it never happened.

Vindefense
Sunday, January 29th, 2012, 03:16 PM
I think we are all aware how the theory of evolution works in its basic principles. Now if you consequently think this through you realize the human race has a big problem ! Through our modern lifestyle and especially through medicine we have nearly stopped the human evolution !!!

Yet, Heraclitus has given the world a truth that nothing stops, progress moves ever onward and upward in a spiral where periods of degeneration (which give the appearance of decline) must be followed by periods of regeneration, and in this cyclic manner everything improves as a whole.


I have an easy example : a couple has trouble getting kids, and they are treated with hormons. She then gets twins. Chances are that at least a part of her problems where genetically, and now this "bad" genes are passed on into the next generation, odds are her kids will also need help in that area.


Genes are mere potentialities and there are many other factors which play a part in the actualization of race progress beyond genes which are just as if not more important. Michelangelo sculpted his masterpiece "David" out of what was considered inferior marble. Yet Michelangelo himself was but a potential, without direction in the hand of a Giovanni. What you consider to be bad genes does not lend to any certainty and this is why we err when we base our judgments on preconcieved notions of chance.

Two volumes by Samuel Royce (http://archive.org/details/deteriorationele01royc)attacked these questions over 100 years ago and this gives us an ideal of the conditions then as compared to now which is vital in placing "degeneracy" in perspective.

Feyn
Monday, January 30th, 2012, 02:03 PM
I admit the example with the couple having trouble getting kids was not really ideal ^^ What i wanted to show is that through todayīs medicine we help many people to procreate that do have certain mutations in their genpool, that would not allow them to procreate in nature. That way their mutations live on and have the chance to spread. I think the danger from recessive genes is even worse. They can spread through the population without us noticing, till one day so many people have this gen that the chance of 2 people having both this recessive gen is quite high. Then we have to help more and more people to procreate, with ever higher costs for society.
Another big problem for the white race in general is that our best and brightest often have only very few kids, quite many have no kids at all or adopt kids. On the other hand white trash procreates at a much higher rate. Just look at teenage pregnancies, and look from which social layer most of them are. Or look at birth rates, and compare them to the social status of the parents. I think we do have a big problem there. The theory of evolution shows us that this will inevitably lead to less kids that are the proud of our race. The genetic pool of our race slowly but surely degrades.
Now of course we do have the technological means to influence DNA, especially with artificial pregnancies. So i believe that this is the point where we have to influence our genetic pool. The problem is that the population in general is not really a friend of genetic engineering. If parents already donīt want to eat genetically influenced food, do you think they would accept genetically influenced children readily ?
I believe we do have to do a lot of information campaigns here to slowly public opinion on this. If we donīt our genetic pool will one day have degraded to that of lesser races.
At the same time the negro pool slowly grows better. They still have a higher evolutionary pressure, there we still have the principle "survival of the fittest" at work much more due to famines, far less medical care etc. which leads to a quicker evolution within their populations. Of course they wonīt evolve to our level any time soon, but we will get more and more equal over time if we do not take our evolution into our own hands. The biggest problem is how to convince the public of this.
Hitler realized this quite early (which i think is one of his best intelectual achievements) and implemented eugenics. The big problem nowaday is that due to this eugenics has a bad reputation (because nothing those evil nazis did could be correct of course, as we are told all the time by propaganda). I am not the biggest fan of the nazis, but to reject an idea simply because someone one does not like had it as well is beyond stupid. It does not matter who had an idea, it matters how good this idea is, and eugenics was brilliant (although i think we have better methods today to implement it).

vive la yorkshire
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 11:03 AM
What concerns me is the advancement of medicine to a level where the weakest individuals are allowed to procreate. Hell, I'll be honest, I had terrible asthma as a kid and if I lived in the 'Darwinist' wild like the rest of the Great Apes, even I'd have been dead long ago.

Hersir
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012, 12:55 PM
What concerns me is the advancement of medicine to a level where the weakest individuals are allowed to procreate. Hell, I'll be honest, I had terrible asthma as a kid and if I lived in the 'Darwinist' wild like the rest of the Great Apes, even I'd have been dead long ago.

Many types of sickness does not manifest until old age, long after most people get kids. How do you want to exclude them?

Feyn
Monday, February 20th, 2012, 10:04 PM
Those where the sickmess appears not before old age are fine by me. They are fully able to be productive members of our society, so why should anyone want to do something about them ?

What I was thinking about is how to improve the general gen pool. You canīt force people to procreate just because they have ideal genes. On the other hand forbidding certain people to procreate because they are at the shallow end of the gen pool would also be a bit harsh, and you would never get any majority for that in a democracy.

I believe easiest would be to introduce improved gen pools for people who decide upon an artificial pregnancy. Since here everything happens in vitro its ideal. You take out the genome and change a few things, and put it back in (as of yet we lack the technique for this , but thatīs just a matter of research and money. We already do similar things in bacteria).

In that scenario i think parents are willing participants once they know its safe and they wonīt get a kid with 2 heads or so :D . Since we have quite many such kids every year already i think this could already be enough to make up for the weakening through medicine hersir and i mentioned earlier. I know it sounds hard, but nature is hard, and we have to make up for all the "bad gene pools" we "allow" to perocreate. I think the method i explained here is pretty much the only one you could realistically implement into a free society.

Catterick
Sunday, February 5th, 2017, 06:53 PM
On the contrary people evolve all the time. In the absence of immigration the Icelandic IQ has declined as a result of modern living conditions. Something similar has happened in Israel. Genes for things such as IQ are changing frequency as a result of social/behavioural changes.

Bill Noble
Sunday, February 5th, 2017, 07:23 PM
Evolution is a constant, in that everyone is an individual with their own unique blend of their mother's and their father's genes, plus whatever original mutations they chanced to acquire. Whether or not these individual differences happen to include any significant new features is another question; and whether, if they do happen to include any significant new features, those significant new features will be carried into another generation and propagated far and wide, thus becoming a new evolutionary racial feature, is yet another question.

Little Frankie McGraw gets born with a unique face never seen before because it blended features from his mother and his father in a new composition not seen before in either parent's families. But it is still the result of pre-existing genes passed down. An individual evolution with no significant consequences or new genes.

Little Damian Johnson is born with a genetic mutation that allows him to use echolocation by clicking his tongue and feeling the echoes bouncing off his forehead. He can measure the dimensions of any room he walks into with a single click of his tongue. He finds this very useful, but the gene does not happen to carry on to any of his children, and the ability is lost in the next generation.

Little Tim Sanders is born with a genetic mutation that allows him to hold his breath for up to twenty minutes, even if he physically exerts himself. This makes him an amazing diver and swimmer. It even saves his life when he is in a boating accident. This can easily be recognized as a mutation which could easily be beneficial to an entire race of people. However, Tim is unfortunately eaten by a grizzly bear before he gets a chance to have children, and the mutation is lost.

Little Charlene Pettigrew is born with a mutation that causes her hair to be naturally pigmented a bright shade of green. She grows up to be quite promiscuous and has eighteen children be various men. Six of her children have the same green hair. Three of them have children and two of them grow up to have children with the green hair. But by five generations later the green hair gene stops showing up. The mutation, while spectacular, served no practical survival purpose, and ultimately did not happen to prevail.

Little Kevin Potter is born with a mutation very similar to Tim Sanders'. He happens to love swimming and lives by the ocean. All his children carry the gene and, eventually, a large population covering several towns in the region flourishes. Some eventually develop the ability to hold their breath over even longer periods of time than Kevin originally could. Some individuals and, later, some entire families begin to spend most of their time in the water. Eventually a new species, Homo Aquaticus, emerges.

So, we're always evolving, but sometimes the degree of evolution isn't particularly noticeable or significant. Other times it could be downright astonishing, or vital to the survival of a group.