Biological evolution is irrelevant to humans.

[Drag]

Lebowski's post about de-evolution reminded about one idea.

Some definitions:

'Biological evolution' is the normal Darwinian process that we see in nature. Mutations create variety, natural selection leaves only the most fit.

If the variety is created not by random mutations or the selection operates not by the survival of the most fit, then I'd call it a 'technological evolution'. Creating the mutations in mice by introducing new genes and choosing the mice not by the survival rate, but according to some parameter is an example of 'technological evolution'.

Time scales:

The relevant scale for a 'biological evolution' is about 100 000 years. The relevant scale for a 'technological evolution' is much smaller. I am not sure what it really is, as we haven't created a new species by this process, but I'd guess that if we would try we would be able (even by present means) to genetically engineer a separate mice species in less than 1000 years.

Conclusion:

With such a difference in characteristic time scales 'biological evolution' becomes irrelevant (for humans). The next change in humans will be because of technology, not because of biology. We will change our genes, or we will integrate with AI. (Probably not in 20 years as some predict, but in 10000 years for sure.)

If you agree up to this point, then all the talk about stupid people giving birth to more children, than smart people is irrelevant. There is not much genetic difference between these children (see relevant time scale), what matters is culture/education/science/technology which they can understand and develop.

Agree/disagree?

[ZeeJustin]

Agree, but then again I'm a trans-humanist and I think that "the singularity" is near, so it should be obvious that I think natural human biological evolution is basically "a thing of the past".

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree, but then again I'm a trans-humanist and I think that "the singularity" is near, so it should be obvious that I think natural human biological evolution is basically "a thing of the past".

[/ QUOTE ]

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure what it really is, as we haven't created a new species by this process,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes we have. Cattle and sheep are two examples.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
selection operates not by the survival of the most fit

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in general (though I'm not a transhumanist), but I'm going to pick this nit. Selection always works by survival of the most fit, based on the definitions of "survival" and "fitness." This is true even of "technological evolution" and genetic engineering.

[Drag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
selection operates not by the survival of the most fit

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree in general (though I'm not a transhumanist), but I'm going to pick this nit. Selection always works by survival of the most fit, based on the definitions of "survival" and "fitness." This is true even of "technological evolution" and genetic engineering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you.

I just wanted to point out the difference, as the survival in a 'natural evolution' will be different from survival in 'technological evolution'. As an example, we can select for a certain quality, such as red eyes, and we will be able to engineer red eyed mice much faster than it could occur in 'natural evolution' (if the 'red eyes' gave some advantage to the mice). In other words, the influence of chance in the 'technological selection' is smaller than in a 'natural selection'.

[soon2bepro]

Yup though I think madnak is right.

We beat natural evolution because we can produce more result-oriented mutations, and because we can apply more intense selection pressures. But the two principles still apply.



Btw - I don't agree with the concept of "chance", I think whatever looks random probably is just something we don't (or can't) understand (and thus can't predict nor identify any significant pattern in it's behaviour, thus it looks random). I don't want to turn this into a determinism thread, so I'll stop here. But I don't think natural mutations are random. I don't know if they include a minor element of adaptation or not, but that's besides the point. Different influencing factors (including different cells) create different mutations, that's my opinion.

So fundamentally it's pretty much the same we're doing in artificial mutation.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
natural selection leaves only the most fit.


[/ QUOTE ]
That phrase is quite wrong, and it's a fundamental mistake I would not expect from anyone who has studied evolution scientifically.

[ QUOTE ]
The relevant scale for a 'biological evolution' is about 100 000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't.

First, human subpopulations are believed to have evolved much more rapidly, by at least an order of magnitude.

Second, bacteria which are quite relevant to us evolve much more rapidly, by several orders of magnitude.

Maybe you are confusing evolution with creating species.

[Drag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natural selection leaves only the most fit.


[/ QUOTE ]
That phrase is quite wrong, and it's a fundamental mistake I would not expect from anyone who has studied evolution scientifically.

[ QUOTE ]
The relevant scale for a 'biological evolution' is about 100 000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't.

First, human subpopulations are believed to have evolved much more rapidly, by at least an order of magnitude.

Second, bacteria which are quite relevant to us evolve much more rapidly, by several orders of magnitude.

Maybe you are confusing evolution with creating species.

[/ QUOTE ]


I haven't said that natural selection leaves only the most fit.

I don't know if there is a rigorous way to establish a relevant time scale for an evolution. The charachterisic time of new species formation seems to be a good choice. You can propose other measures, they all would be fine as long as you apply them in the same way to the changes brought by 'technological and natural evolution'.

How do you measure the degree of evolution of human subpopulation?

As for the relevant time scale of bacteria evolution, sure it is smaller than for multicellar organisms. You need to compare the relevant time scales for 'technological and natural evolution' for the same species. If we want to develop a new kind of bacteria for some purpose the relevant time scale will be years if not months. (I think it is hard to define speciation event for bacteria, so we'd need another measure. Percentage of genome change, for example.)

P.S. You are right in that I should have said the relevant time scale of human evolution (or mammals evolution).

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natural selection leaves only the most fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]I haven't said that natural selection leaves only the most fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF? Maybe you should get your story straight before talking to others.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if there is a rigorous way to establish a relevant time scale for an evolution. The charachterisic time of new species formation seems to be a good choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's an absurdly bad choice when you are talking about evolutionary pressures within the human population, as you did. Did anyone claim these pressures would lead to the creation of a new human species first, and only then have an effect?

This looks like a waste of time. I will ignore you henceforth.