Are their people in society that are farther on the evolutionary scale than others.

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Mechapixel, Jul 10, 2009.

  1. mike47 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,117
    Take your " if " and you are left with nothing....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. s6nculve Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    that's pretty funny GeoffP
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What is 'more evolved' ? What is 'the evolutionary scale' ?
    How much do you know about evolution ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. s6nculve Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    I believe Mechapixel means to say; are there people in the world with favorable mutations through recombination of genes and/or mutation(s).
     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    That goes without saying. Unless you want to claim that all people have the exact same DNA, which is of course nonsense.
     
  9. s6nculve Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    So if it goes without saying then you know what Mechapixel ment then, and there was no need to ask.

    When people have favorable mutations through recombination of genes and/or mutation(s), those mutations are ment to be bred into the next generation. That is not always the case.. sadly

    Natural selection, whereby harmful mutations are weeded out of the population seems to be lessening in the human population. Many things are just given to us or made available to us. We need less to gain more. Again very sad.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2009
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    :bugeye:

    I implied that I don't think he meant what you thought he meant because that would go without saying.
    And if he did, because it goes without saying there's no point in starting a thread about either.

    They are MEANT to bred into the next generation ? By who ??

    Do you have health insurance ?
     
  11. Salamander7 Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    I dont think its correct to say that someone can be more evolved, all humans are at the same evolutionary level in the sense that they have survived and they inherited genes that kept their ancestors alive. Of course this puts the refined university professor with two phds who ends up winning a nobel prize, on the same level as a chain smoking, moonshine-drinking, 6th grade education hillbilly with no teeth who ends up on Jerry Springer, which does not seem right. In the context of evolution they are the equal, but not in terms of how society values them.
     
  12. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    There is hardly any environmental pressure on humans anyway, so it's not easily established.
    And without environmental pressure a lot of 'good traits' tend to disappear from the population, or at least massively decrease in frequency.
     
  13. Salamander7 Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    In terms of the elements, and predatory environmental pressures, you are correct there is little or no natural selection pressure on humans. But there is a great deal of selection going on for desirable traits in the form of mate selection.
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yes, sexual selection. But I fail to see how a more beautiful person is more evolved than a less beautiful person.
     
  15. s6nculve Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    "They are MEANT to bred into the next generation ? By who ??"

    I mean natural selection by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

    Beautiful people do seem to thrive in our society. But that is another subject.
     
  16. sentrynox Registered Member

    Messages:
    55
    This is a biaised question

    evolution scale as you say is a biaised terminology, because it supposed that there is a better level of evolution, which isn't the case, because evolution is about adaptations to the living environment.
    Yes, some environment have changed less than others, but thats not because evolution is slower and less advance, its just because the peoples living in some place are very well adapted to THEIR environment!
     
  17. s6nculve Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    I'm not saying that evolution is based on a leveling system only that there are favorable mutations that may pass on with each generation and can, over time, cause substantial changes in the population. Unfavorable mutations may and should be weeded out through natural selection
     
  18. Salamander7 Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Everyone alive today has those traits in their genes or they would not be here.
     
  19. s6nculve Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    Well if you are talking about a set genetic trait that everyone in our whole population has, that is not true. Not everyone is "genetically normal", if i may. I.E. genetic disorders, favorable mutations, genetic diseases, ect..
     
  20. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I know you meant that. But evolution doesn't have any goals, so favorable genes are not meant to be passed on to the next generation.
    Besides, what is now favorable might be unfavorable in a couple of generations anyway.
     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    There you go again.. Who says that unfavorable mutations should be weeded out ?
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You should look at species level, not below.
     
  23. Salamander7 Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    People with genetic mutations or with recessive genes that cause disease, e.g. spino bifada, sickle cell anemia etc, are not less evolved just because of their genetic fate. They can procreate and have normal healthy children who might not even inherit a genetically based disease. You would not say that an accident victim who becomes paraplegic is less evolved, just because they do not have full use of a healthy body. Same holds for people who have accidentally messed up genes.
     

Share This Page