Evolution vs. Creation: Are we overpopulating?

JerryL said:

Natural selection (what you refer to as "survival of the fittest") is an attrition process, yes; though it's not about "killing off" neccessairily. It essentially says that critters with more traits benificial to reproducing are more likely to reproduce.

But natural selection is only part of the equasion. You also have a mechanism which introduces new variety into the pool... mutation.

Click to expand...

The whole of evolution states that a gene will have more of a chance than another. Evolution comes about when that gene kills the rest of the genes... Or beats out the rest of the genes. So lets say, in your example, you have a bird with the 6" beaks as opposed to 3". We call this a mutation. It does not cross over into evolution until the environment changes or something changes that gives the bird with a 6" beak a leg up. Even in your example you give a situation where it makes the 6" inch beak birds able to live there where 3" beak birds have a tough time... Eventually the 3" beak birds will die out, taking away their genes... If birds just went about mating randomly, one bird getting one mutation and leaving it at that would not bring about evolution. Again, you need genes taken out of the picture in order for evolution to happen... IE for evolution to happen one needs the environment to be hostile to the bad gene and to accept the good gene... Then the bad gene will go away and the good gene will flourish.

JerryL said:

Was a trait gained or lost? Neither, it was just changed. The concept of "loss" and "gain" is mostly ours. Mutation is just about changes.

Click to expand...

Right, mutation is about changes, evolution is about a species losing or gaining a trait. If a species evolved from no hair to some hair, you would say the species gained hair wouldn't you? If a species went from 4 legs to 2 legs, you would say the species lost 2 legs... This is how it works...

My argument is that without something to kill off the "bad genes" evolution will have a hard time coming about... So because humans are all concerned about saving everyone, we are slowing down evolution.

My argument is that without something to kill off the "bad genes" evolution will have a hard time coming about... So because humans are all concerned about saving everyone, we are slowing down evolution.

Click to expand...

Ignoring much of your post to comment on your issue.

Yes, removing natural selection will change the effect of evolution.

Though, in reality, we have not removed natural selection. There are still traits which make it more likely that you will reproduce, they are just not ones we might consider "good".

For example: a lack of intelligence, as well as anything which would result in a learning deficincy is likely to mean you have more children, both out of the less effective use of birth control, and out of the lack of other driving ambitions. That's still natural selection (unnatural selection?)

Ryan2065 said:

Ok, I ask you exactly what Fade asked you... =)

Click to expand...

Man, I thought I was lazy

Ryan2065 said:

My argument is that without something to kill off the "bad genes" evolution will have a hard time coming about... So because humans are all concerned about saving everyone, we are slowing down evolution.

Click to expand...

So? Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) posits many many centuries of relative stasis punctuated by change.

This is only true if the gene turned is a dominant gene... If the mutation is not a dominant gene then this statement is completely false. Just in general this statement is bogus. Evolution comes about from less variation, not more. You know this because in order for a species to evolve, survival of the fittest says that a change must come about that kills off all of the species that doesn't have a certain trait... Hense you have less traits and the species becomes more "specilized"

Click to expand...

This is a semantic argument, not a scientific one. (By the way, you misused the definition of a dominant gene. In a Punnett Square, the allele that is dominant has little correlation to its effectiveness in helping the survival of the creature. Sickle-cell anemia, for example, is a codominant set of genes, even though it has little desirable effect.) Should a genetic variation occur, it has the possibility of being passed on to offspring, whether the trait it corresponds with is desirable, undesirable, or neutral (this is assuming humans avoid natural selection altogether). Increasing genetic variation WILL have an effect on the evolution of humans. This is inevitable. Your definition of evolution is inadequate; evolution is not simply the refinement of species to fit their environments, but on the genetic level, inherited variation in the genome. Of course human beings are 'evolving' - they just aren't evolving to fit as hostile an environment anymore. New branches are opening up to humanity that never would have existed if the sole determinant in producing offspring were the neolithic "as fast as possible, with the strongest possible, so as to avoid being killed by a bear or moose."

Sorry, that seems a little convoluted in retrospect. Still, the point made sense in my head.

The whole of evolution states that a gene will have more of a chance than another.

Click to expand...

That's the problem, there.... the "whole" of evolution does not state that. That is a PREDICTION of evolution, one of many.

I think people are argueing a point they don't mean to... Who here is actually argueing my point of "Technology is slowing down evolution." So far people seem to be thinking im saying that evolution is going to stop completely.

We're asking what "slowing down" means. How is technology 'slowing down' evolution?

Fatmop said:

We're asking what "slowing down" means. How is technology 'slowing down' evolution?

Click to expand...

It will take more time now to see a change due to evolution to humans than it would have thousands of years ago? Like it will take more time to see changes in many people, not just one (because just one is a mutation)

It won't take any more time for a genetic mutation to show up in the population than it ever would have. Just because people are living longer doesn't mean they're necessarily reproducing later (though some are). Is that what you're getting at?

Mutations will happen. The entire population may not adopt the mutation, but offspring will. What we're seeing with the advent of technology is an increase in the level of genetic variance that can survive to the next generation. This certainly could not be construed as a slowing down.