Has Darwin damaged history?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Natural selection does not apply to humans as it does to animals. Weak, unfit people can have offspring while strong and healthy might die childless.

 

Of course, natural selection applies to humans. Darwin's theory isn't that the "strong survive." That's just the comic book version of Darwin's theory. Darwin's actual theory is that changes in species are driven by competition among traits that differ in their effects on inclusive fitness, including reproductive success. If Darwin's theory didn't apply to people, it would mean that people who are less successful at reproducing somehow have their phenotypes spread throughout a population with greater success than people who are more successful at reproducing. Surely you don't believe that that's possible, do you?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Natural selection does not apply to humans as it does to animals. Weak, unfit people can have offspring while strong and healthy might die childless.

That might happen (and happens) in animal populations too. As MPC said, Natural selection is not unidirectional; you may be the "fittest" against one threat and quite vulnerable to others. And BTW, if any population dies childless, it was clearly not the fittest by any biological interpretation of that word.

 

Of course, natural selection applies to humans. Darwin's theory isn't that the "strong survive." That's just the comic book version of Darwin's theory. Darwin's actual theory is that changes in species are driven by competition among traits that differ in their effects on inclusive fitness, including reproductive success. If Darwin's theory didn't apply to people, it would mean that people who are less successful at reproducing somehow have their phenotypes spread throughout a population with greater success than people who are more successful at reproducing. Surely you don't believe that that's possible, do you?

I would simply say natural selection influences human History, but it's not the only influence.

Edited June 28, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Kosmo]

Transmitted traits do not change the human species because no trait can give an advantage in the competition among traits. The advantage has to be significant enough as those who have it to replace those who don't have it. This never happened until now since the appearance of our species. The fact that not all members of a species successfully reproduce it's irrelevant because this is not adding new traits, so the species remains the same, it does not evolve.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Transmitted traits do not change the human species because no trait can give an advantage in the competition among traits.

 

Of course traits can give an advantage in the competition among traits, and there is no reason why this shouldn't be true of humans as well. Indeed, population geneticists have identified several genes that spread in human populations where they conferred an advantage. A good example is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, a genetic change that occurred as recently as 3000 years ago (for background, see HERE). If natural selection is not the source of this evolutionary change, I'd love to hear what you think it is.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Transmitted traits do not change the human species because no trait can give an advantage in the competition among traits. The advantage has to be significant enough as those who have it to replace those who don't have it. This never happened until now since the appearance of our species.

Au contraire, there are many examples. Probably the best known are the multiple mutations that give partial immunity against malaria, specially Plasmodium falciparum (the deadly one); that includes variants of Hemoglobin ( the famous S and also E, C and D, plus many diminished production traits called Thalassemias), an enzyme (Glucose-6 phosphate dehydrogenase) and a red blood group (Duffy). The prevalence of these traits increase exponentially among populations coming from historically endemic areas (including a good share of the classical Roman world), sometimes even 40% or more of the general population.

 

 

The fact that not all members of a species successfully reproduce it's irrelevant because this is not adding new traits, so the species remains the same, it does not evolve.

If the members of any species don't reproduce, it's relevant because that species doesn't remain the same; it gets extinct.

Edited June 28, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

The fact that not all members of a species successfully reproduce it's irrelevant because this is not adding new traits, so the species remains the same, it does not evolve.

If the members of any species don't reproduce, it's relevant because that species doesn't remain the same; it gets extinct.

 

And it doesn't even have to 'get extinct' to count as species change. If half the red male cardinals evolved blue feathers instead of red ones, that would be a classic example of species change in spite of the fact that red male cardinals didn't go extinct.

[caldrail]

I'm not too sure about that. I think that until Darwin's time people in the West liked to think of themselves as inheritors of the Roman Empire, and stood in awe of its achievements. However, with Darwinism taking hold, it's hard to believe that the Romans - or anybody else - could have achieved things we do not understand, simply because we are the 'survivors' in an obviously superior age. Therefore, although a minority understand that we actually don't know as much as we think, a large proportion can't really believe that, for example, the Romans could have a highly-developed medical service for the army, or that they could put an awning over the Colosseum, and it's obvious that everybody thought that the Earth was flat until Columbus proved it wasn't! The 'Antykthera' (please don't correct my spelling!! ) mechanism couldn't have been built by ancient people without the use of modern technology - it's obvious!!

 

Reading the very old histories (eg Gibbon and before) makes me think that they thought that the Romans and possibly the Egyptians and Greeks could surpass the modern world. Now, thanks to Darwin, modern people are convinced that prior to the Renaissance the world was a very backward one.

 

Even now Terry Jones (ex-Python and neo-historian) can make a series of programs about the 'Middle Ages' and attempt to correct our distorted view. Again, I'd suggest that at least some of the blame lies with Darwin, as 'everybody knows' how backwards they were even as late as the Middle Ages with regards to disease etc.

 

Although the Greeks are seen as advanced 'politically' in some respects, and the Romans as advanced beyond their time, they still are seen as pale shadows of what we are now. Darwinism lives!!

 

Darwin made observations about the natural wold. he observed that animals tend toward specialisation in their enviroment and therefore those better suited stod a better chance of passing on their characteristics to their young, thus species specialise and diverge. Those observations are correct - 3 billion years of life on earth has essentially provided the evidence. You, for instance, aren't actually likely to be gods handiwork as described in the bible. Why would god give you a stunted tail? The bones for one are atrophied compared to our ancestors but they're still there.

 

But why has this anything to do with ancient cultures? True, civilisations are a crude analgue of natural life. They grow, flourish, wither, or get consumed by bigger stronger cultures, and eventually die of old age anyway. I just don't unerstand why Darwin is being blamed for peoples opinions of ancient cultures. We can actually emulate very easily their achievements - if you want to spend the money doing so. I don't recall the greeks or romans making any serious effort to put a man on the moon. Their emphasis was different. They had whatever technological level and we have ours. the romans were intensely proud of themselves for their culture and would sneer at ours as effiminate. The reason people once liked to see themselves as inheritors of the romans are psychological. Rome stood for power and glory, something buried deep in the human psyche, and there have been cultures that deliberately imitate romanesque aggrandisement. I'm reminded of the german newsreel showing a model of Hitlers 'new' Berlin, as if Hitler had found Berlin in brick and would leave it in marble. Why else is europe hell-bent on creating another franco-german facsimile?

 

Leave Darwin alone. He was an intelligent man who made a clear observation that was socially unacceptable in his day and even now he gets sneered at for suggesting humans and animals are essentially no different. What view could be more roman?

[sonic]

But why has this anything to do with ancient cultures? True, civilisations are a crude analgue of natural life. They grow, flourish, wither, or get consumed by bigger stronger cultures, and eventually die of old age anyway. I just don't unerstand why Darwin is being blamed for peoples opinions of ancient cultures. We can actually emulate very easily their achievements - if you want to spend the money doing so. I don't recall the greeks or romans making any serious effort to put a man on the moon. Their emphasis was different. They had whatever technological level and we have ours. the romans were intensely proud of themselves for their culture and would sneer at ours as effiminate. The reason people once liked to see themselves as inheritors of the romans are psychological. Rome stood for power and glory, something buried deep in the human psyche, and there have been cultures that deliberately imitate romanesque aggrandisement. I'm reminded of the german newsreel showing a model of Hitlers 'new' Berlin, as if Hitler had found Berlin in brick and would leave it in marble. Why else is europe hell-bent on creating another franco-german facsimile?

 

Leave Darwin alone. He was an intelligent man who made a clear observation that was socially unacceptable in his day and even now he gets sneered at for suggesting humans and animals are essentially no different. What view could be more roman?

 

I'm not having a go at Darwin. If anything, his principles have stood the test of time and he should be highly regarded for his thoughts. What I am saying is that, to a greater or lesser degree, later writers/historians etc. have hijacked his work and used it to promote their own views. Furthermore, the general acceptance of his views without acknowledging the caveats he placed in them has tended to promote the assumption that modern man is the superior in all ways to those that went before him. This to some degree has warped our view of the past - except for those who have studied that past in depth and know what surprising things the ancients knew and, until recently, had been forgotten. For that, I think (misunderstood) Darwinism is to blame.

 

As for humans and animals being essentially the same, all you have to do is watch a group of 'thugs' surrounding a defenceless individual and it will remind you of jackals round a wildebeest.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Leave Darwin alone.

Salve, C Good idea; here comes Descent of Man, cp. 4 (1871):

 

"With mankind, selfishness, experience, and imitation, probably add, as Mr. Bain has shown, to the power of sympathy; for we are led by the hope of receiving good in return to perform acts of sympathetic kindness to others; and sympathy is much strengthened by habit. In however complex a manner this feeling may have originated, as it is one of high importance to all those animals which aid and defend one another, it will have been increased through natural selection; for those communities, which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members, would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.

."

[Kosmo]

The fact that not all members of a species successfully reproduce it's irrelevant because this is not adding new traits, so the species remains the same, it does not evolve.

If the members of any species don't reproduce, it's relevant because that species doesn't remain the same; it gets extinct.

 

And it doesn't even have to 'get extinct' to count as species change. If half the red male cardinals evolved blue feathers instead of red ones, that would be a classic example of species change in spite of the fact that red male cardinals didn't go extinct.

 

Yes, but then you will have a species with different traits and all species have trait variations among the populace. Lactose tolerant people did not eliminate lactose intolerant ones and it's unlikely that they will do. The species it's the same having both lactose tolerant and intolerant so natural selection did not create a new species with the advantageous trait. The same can be claimed for the origins of races, that they are adaptations to different climatic conditions, but they are local trait variations not different species. BTW great link, thank you.

Maybe a disease could have let survive only those that had genetic immunity to it.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, K There's a good and easy review on biological Evolution's current concepts HERE.

 

Yes, but then you will have a species with different traits and all species have trait variations among the populace.

True, of course; so?

 

Lactose tolerant people did not eliminate lactose intolerant ones and it's unlikely that they will do.

You're thinking in something like Marxist Class struggle.

Natural Selection means that it's the environment which favours ("selects") one biological variation ("the fittest") survival over many other ("the unfittest").

Overall survival will depend on the sum the net effects of each specific trait.

In your example, it would depend on if lactose tolerance is beneficial or detrimental for actual survival (nowadays, it's trivial).

It's quite uncommon that the selecting environment includes actual physical annihilation from other members of the species (ie, cannibalism among some predators).

 

The species it's the same having both lactose tolerant and intolerant so natural selection did not create a new species with the advantageous trait.

Now that's absolutely anti-Darwinian; his theory is called "Natural Selection", not "Natural Creation".

It's the accumulation of diverse genetic traits by sex and mutation which is constantly making any related individuals progressively more and more different; given enough time (Megayears), such individual will become different species as they become unable to produce fertile offspring by interbreeding.

That's how all of us living beings come from a common ancestor.

 

The same can be claimed for the origins of races, that they are adaptations to different climatic conditions, but they are local trait variations not different species.

Right, there are currently no races in biological terms within Homo sapiens. What we commonly call "human races" are socio-cultural constructs in the best case, plain bigotry in the worst. The main differentiating trait, Skin colour (ie, epidermal melanocyte density) it's a quite transitory adaptation in biological terms (tens of kiloyears at most).

 

Maybe a disease could have let survive only those that had genetic immunity to it.

Now you got yourself into Darwinian theories. If you don

Edited June 29, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Kosmo]

Salve A. I would read that link later, now it's 3.14 AM. Thank you for the link anyway. My replies are numbered after the quotes you used.

1. So no new species. Is not what natural selection must do? Create new species by selecting traits?

2. I did not think that competition must mean direct extermination but it could mean deadly competition for the same resources. If the bearers of the "advantageous" trait did not become the sole population it means they did not win the competition with the bearers of the "unfit" traits.

3. Poor choice of words on my part. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

5. I said maybe because we don't know if that happened. I'm an evolutionist, but I believe that after our species took it's current form the biological evolution of the human race stopped. Our civilization shields us from many natural factors. The competition it's played in other areas: technological advances, social and political structures etc and usually those "defeated" simply adapt to his changes and don't physically end.

[ASCLEPIADES]

1. So no new species. Is not what natural selection must do? Create new species by selecting traits?

2. I did not think that competition must mean direct extermination but it could mean deadly competition for the same resources. If the bearers of the "advantageous" trait did not become the sole population it means they did not win the competition with the bearers of the "unfit" traits.

3. Poor choice of words on my part. Agreed.

4. Agreed.

5. I said maybe because we don't know if that happened. I'm an evolutionist, but I believe that after our species took it's current form the biological evolution of the human race stopped. Our civilization shields us from many natural factors. The competition it's played in other areas: technological advances, social and political structures etc and usually those "defeated" simply adapt to his changes and don't physically end.

1. Yes, in the same way an Olympic competition "create" winners.

2. Natural Selection selects because the competition is always deadly.

If the bearers of the "advantageous" trait did not become the sole population it means one or both of the following:

a. Competition has not ended.

b. That trait was not so "advantageous" after all (traits advantage depends largely on the environment).

5. Human Mortality from any disease can be measured in a matter of a few years.

Differential mortality from genetic traits has been widely documented and is one of the fundamental bases of modern preventive medicine (ie, genetic counselling).

Edited June 30, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Salve A. I would read that link later, now it's 3.14 AM. Thank you for the link anyway. My replies are numbered after the quotes you used.

1. So no new species. Is not what natural selection must do? Create new species by selecting traits?

To some extent, yes. However, if a creature is comfortable in its enviroment, the pressure to change and try new things such as food, feeding habits, behaviour etc simply aren't there, so the change is very small. Also, the creature has adapted toward a certain niche and it exploits that. When nature provides new enviroments - such as after extinctions when old niches become available - the creature sees opportunities and attempts to exploit it. In these cases even a small mutation may make a particular individual better able to exploit the new enviroment, and life rapidly evolves.

 

2. I did not think that competition must mean direct extermination but it could mean deadly competition for the same resources. If the bearers of the "advantageous" trait did not become the sole population it means they did not win the competition with the bearers of the "unfit" traits.

In nature there is always competition. To my recollection there was only one example of mass domination, during the early triassic period after the great extinction at the end of the Permian. 95% of species died out, and its not entirely certain why. Various theories - a sudden ice age, rapid spread of arid enviroment, meterorite impact - nobody has mentioned disease or irradiation - but one species - The lystrasaur, a herbivore/scavenger the size of a pig, made up 50% of life on land. In the deserts of Pangaea, they were the only species there. Thing is, life is a jungle out there. A hungry creature will try to eat your next meal before you do. Thats why creatures are often territorially concious and willing to be violent to defend it.

 

5. I said maybe because we don't know if that happened. I'm an evolutionist, but I believe that after our species took it's current form the biological evolution of the human race stopped. Our civilization shields us from many natural factors. The competition it's played in other areas: technological advances, social and political structures etc and usually those "defeated" simply adapt to his changes and don't physically end.

Human beings are still evolving. But because we live in a 'safe' and resource rich enviroment (at least in the modern west anyway) the rate of change has slowed. Eyesight has declined in human beings for the last two hundred years for instance. It simply isn't necessary for human beings to have sharp eyes anymore. Perhaps as the enviroment warms up in our current interglacial, we might see some small adaptions as those unsuitable for the new conditions die out. Make no mistake - humanity is lucky to be here. The massive volcanic explosion of Lake Toba in Africa 75,000 years ago nearly wiped us out.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The massive volcanic explosion of Lake Toba in Africa 75,000 years ago nearly wiped us out.

Salve, C Lake Toba is in Sumatra, Indonesia

 

and a brief review on Ambrose's Toba catasrophe theory.

Edited June 30, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES