Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans

This is a good article, please read and then give your opinions.

Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans
By Ker Than
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 02 November 2005
09:28 am ET

The evolutionary process that Charles Darwin discovered almost 150 years ago, responsible for transforming dinosaurs into birds and allowing the walking ancestors of whales to take to the seas, is still quietly at work in humans today.

Darwin's natural selection is the process by which nature rewards those individuals better adapted to their environments with survival and reproductive success. It works at the level of genes, sections of DNA that encode for proteins serve as the software of life.

In one of the most detailed human DNA studies ever conducted, researchers analyzed nearly 12,000 genes from 39 people and a chimpanzee, our closest living relative.

The findings suggest that about 9 percent of the human genes examined are undergoing rapid evolution.

"Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome," said Carlos Bustamante, a biologist at Cornell University.

A separate study announced last month indicated the human brain is still evolving, too.

Compared to chimps ...

Bustamante's team found that the genes most affected were those involved in immunity, sperm and egg production and sensory perception. A comparison between human and chimpanzee genomes found that these genes have undergone more changes in humans than in chimps, despite the fact that the two species shared a common ancestor some 5 million years ago.

The genes for a group of proteins important for switching other genes on and off, known as "transcription factors," were found to vary significantly in humans and chimps. One reason for this could be that turning a gene on or off is easier than changing the gene itself.

"We believe that if you want to evolve a system, it's usually easier to tweak when the protein gets turns on or the total amount of a protein as opposed to the amino acid itself," Bustamante said.

Negative selection

The validity of Darwin's natural selection has been attacked lately by a small but vocal group who argue that it cannot explain all the complexity seen in nature. They advocate a concept called "intelligent design," in which a higher being is responsible for the variety of life. Scientists dismiss intelligent design as cloaked creationism and say that there are no significant problems with the widely accepted theory of evolution.

While mainstream scientists do not need further evidence that natural selection occurs, Bustamante's work provides examples of its pace and extent and offers the promise of medical advances down the road.

Another 13 percent of the genes examined in the study showed evidence for negative selection, whereby harmful mutations are weeded out of the population. These included some genes implicated in hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy and Usher syndrome. The latter is the most common cause of congenital blindness and deafness in developed countries.

Medical geneticists are interested in finding genes sensitive to negative selection because they might one day be useful for predicting an individual's likelihood of developing a disease if the types of mutation to a gene and the environmental conditions are known.

Being able to determine which classes of genes are particularly vulnerable to negative selections is a first step, Bustamante said.

The findings were detailed in the Oct. 20 issue of the journal Nature.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051102_natural_selection.html

totally interesting.

But I am not convinced that intelligent design is in opposition to evolution. Actually, I would argue that it's not. I think in a way that the universe is a myriad of evolving intelligent designs. Hence the gene thingy. Technically couldn't intelligent designs be mathematically infinite and thus evolution possible?

This is interesting, though I don't know much about evolution... 🙂

I used to think that Evolution and the whole concept of Genes is a Physical reality, but now I know that Genes are effected and affected by the mind and the soul in each living being, and that Evolution is merely a karmic rebirth process. In short, the Metaphysical spawnes the Physical.

Originally posted by StrangeDays
totally interesting.

But I am not convinced that intelligent design is in opposition to evolution. Actually, I would argue that it's not. I think in a way that the universe is a myriad of evolving intelligent designs. Hence the gene thingy. Technically couldn't intelligent designs be mathematically infinite and thus evolution possible?

Technically..all evolution really means is "change." Human beings, like most organisms that make up this earth, are highly adaptable to their surroundings. More adaptable than any other species.

It's quite obvious, that an Intelligent Creator would design creatures that could rapidly adapt and "change" to survive in a multitude of environmental conditions that make up this earth.

Over the past several 1,000 years or so, technology has rapidly progressed. Most people today live in Industralized societies, that are not as dependent upon the environment as most were ages ago.

With mankinds rapid advancements in technology/medicine/..etc..we've been able to almost rid ourselves of many of the physical ailments that plagued us long ago. This explains why so many diseases that existed in the past, are not as prevalent as they were years back.

So yes..human beings are still "changing", however, not in the way that Darwins theory attempts to rationalize. Case in point..we ain't going to change into a different species of human in the near future.

The foundation of Evolutionary theory is based on a philosophical ideology. That ideology being..matter somehow formed sentient physical beings, without having any "intelligence" guiding it. Where is the hardcore empirical evidence used to support this claim? Well..to be quite frank..there isn't any. It's just another religion, that masks it's philosophical outlooks on life with scientific jargon/half truths in order to substantiate it's credibility.

Woo...metaphysical....Lot's of truth in metaphysical stuff.

No because people can be defended from the weather now. It is even possible to preserve the life of a severely handicapped person.

shaber ??? Defended against weather?

With mankinds rapid advancements in technology/medicine/..etc..we've been able to almost rid ourselves of many of the physical ailments that plagued us long ago. This explains why so many diseases that existed in the past, are not as prevalent as they were years back.

Ever thought about the fact that the very life-enhancing technology is also killing us and making us more sick and ill than ever?

Also, the effect of technology is absolutely relative, meaing that it does not enhance our lives or make us feel more comfortable than people before us, because one is used to what one is used to, unless you lived 200 years ago and you still live today, you would not feel any different from someoe who lived in a previous generation. Also, I don't believe that there is any measure of enhancement to our lives with technology - think of this: Cars do not save us more time in the sense that it takes us so much quicker to where we need to be, that we have more time on our hands - in fact, we just do more things now, because we travel faster.

Technology has no advantage to the enhancement of life, because we cannot experience the actual advances.

Anyone who classes evolution as a faith or other kind of religion is dweeling in the realm of the cretin. There are massive amounts of suppoorting evidence for it that qualifies it as a viable scientific theory, in stark contrast to matters of faith and religion where evidence is irrelevant.

The acceptance of scientific truths is not dependant on evidence, but on meaning. It all comes down to what measure of meaning there is in a given theory or fact. We can never know the real meaning of anything, unless we have faith in it. Seeing is not believing, but feeling is believing.

Philosophical scepticism- a useless path.

Fact is, in our modern world today we very sensibly live in a place og logocal reasoning and reasonable standards of evidebce. By these standards that our world lives by, evolution is a workable theory to be convinced by, NOT a faith to be believed in regardless of evidence one way or another.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
...So yes..human beings are still "changing", however, not in the way that Darwins theory attempts to rationalize. Case in point..we ain't going to change into a different species of human in the near future...

Before you can make a statement like this one, you have to define what being human is. There was a time in the remote past when we were quite different, but we were still human, humans were just different. You can go back even further, to a time when we were more like rodents, we were not rodents, we were still human, and we still had the same potential. Species don’t change like names on a chart; we grow and divide when the conditions are right.

That's like saying Pikaia was a human too.

EDIT: For you guys who never heard of Pikaia.
Pikaia is the first vertebrate animal.
So you can say it's our very first ancestor.

God, i think it's so interesting..............😛
Anyway our first ancestor :

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The foundation of Evolutionary theory is based on a philosophical ideology. That ideology being..matter somehow formed sentient physical beings, without having any "intelligence" guiding it. Where is the hardcore empirical evidence used to support this claim? Well..to be quite frank..there isn't any. It's just another religion, that masks it's philosophical outlooks on life with scientific jargon/half truths in order to substantiate it's credibility.

Bullshit.

Religion is based entirely on faith, with no evidence. Evolution blatantly isn't.

Very interesting.

It is not necessary to deny Darwin´s theory to a higher intelligence come to exist, even evolution could be designed by a higher intelligence.

Exactly trickster,

There is proof!
Religion is a matter of ignorance!
The people in the prehistory made up the Gods to explain everything.
Nowadays we don't have to! Most things are already explained, with proof.

And still there are these ignorant people who ignore all evidence and believe in all the shit some guy said in the years 1-20 AC.

I really can't understand how u can still believe in God in the 21st Century for Christ sake!

Originally posted by Da preacher
That's like saying Pikaia was a human too.

EDIT: For you guys who never heard of Pikaia.
Pikaia is the first vertebrate animal.
So you can say it's our very first ancestor.

I use this way of describing evolution as an expedient means to show how we are connected. I have found that people who know nothing about evolution get hung up on the idea of changing from one species to the next, as if one day we wake up and we are a new species. So I illustrate the connection by saying that in a fundamental way Pikaias were human, also, they were potentially every other invertebrate.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Anyone who classes evolution as a faith or other kind of religion is dweeling in the realm of the cretin.

"If you don't believe in Darwins theory..your stupid"

That's the translated version of what you've posted above.

Incredibly dogmatic and subjective POV for one who considers themselves to be an intellectual.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There are massive amounts of suppoorting evidence for it that qualifies it as a viable scientific theory, in stark contrast to matters of faith and religion where evidence is irrelevant.

Must we go over the definition of what qualifies a concept as scientific again Ush?

Okay here we go..

Originally posted by whobdamandog

Scientific method def

1. The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

2. Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

3. a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses

The "scientific method" can be applied to any concept which embodies the "systematic pursuit of knowledge", which utilizes a "collection of empirical data through observation/experiment" upon the "formulation of a hypothesis"

So in lamans terms anything that has a hypotheis, is observed, has data supporting it, and has experimentation done on it qualifies as a "science."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The foundation of Evolutionary theory is based on a philosophical ideology. That ideology being..matter somehow formed sentient physical beings, without having any "intelligence" guiding it. Where is the hardcore empirical evidence used to support this claim?

Noone is debating humans/animals/plants abilities to adapt and "evolve"(meaning change) to accomadate to their surroundings...ID supports this.

The true debate lies on which life origin "Philosophy" is the more logical one. Current Evolutionary theory..or ID.

Current Evolutionary theory implies that spontaneous generation and random mutations created life as we know it.

ID theory implies that all life was specifically designed by an intelligent force guiding it...

Without even bringing the religion argument into play..which particular theory sounds like the more logical one?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
"If you don't believe in Darwins theory..your stupid"

That's the translated version of what you've posted above.

Incredibly dogmatic and subjective POV for one who considers themselves to be an intellectual.

Must we go over the definition of what qualifies a concept as scientific again Ush?

Okay here we go..

Noone is debating humans/animals/plants abilities to adapt and "evolve"(meaning change) to accomadate to their surroundings...ID supports this.

The true debate lies on which life origin "Philosophy" is the more logical one. Current Evolutionary theory..or ID.

Current Evolutionary theory implies that spontaneous generation and random mutations created life as we know it.

ID theory implies that all life was specifically designed by an intelligent force guiding it...

Without even bringing the religion argument into play..which particular theory sounds like the more logical one?