Physical Evolution & Cultural Merge?

I believe in the theory of Natural Selection and the standards for Gradual Evolution, both set by Darwin. However, I have been studying evolutionary biology for years (not professional, but from intense interest) and I have also accepted ideas such as Stephen Jay Gould's Punctual Equilibrium.

But I notice and agree with many anthropologists that technology and our growing cultural merging have made a serious impact on the "natural path" of evolution.

To explain this with more clarity, I'll pose these ideas in questions.

Do you believe that our recent ability to tamper with DNA and genetic processes have actually grown enough to become a threat to Natural Evolution?

More so, has our tampering with genes become so grand that they induce inherited characteristics within our own species?

Are we using genetics to mold our future and actually ALTERING our own physical evolution?

If this is the case, then we would be the only species on earth that has ever altered our very physical evolution via un-natural means - through technology that is.

With recent trends in gene-tech proposing options such as determining what color your baby's eyes could be, or creating glow in the dark fish and rabbits, what other side-effect could gene experimentation produce?

The premier purpose for genetic alterations has been in creating and strengthening crops and isolating genes that cause disease. I feel this is a benefit to mankind. However, I do not know if there is a real danger in continuing these types of genetic experiments.

Does genetic altering pose a threat to natural evolution, or is that notion a paranoid theme from science fiction?

Originally posted by darkriddle
Do you believe that our recent ability to tamper with DNA and genetic processes have actually grown enough to become a threat to Natural Evolution?

so long as people still procreate normally, we wont stop evolution from impacting our species. All of our technology merely changes what genotypes/phenotypes have more or less of a probability of passing their genes on, we are not changing the fact that variance in genes causes evolution.

I think the closest thing you might be suggesting would be some sort of equilibrium set by cultural taste as opposed to survivability in the natural environment, to which I would say you have too narrow a view of what the environment is.

Originally posted by darkriddle
More so, has our tampering with genes become so grand that they induce inherited characteristics within our own species?

we might have the ability to do very mundane things at this point in theory, but in practice we are not yet altering the genetic code of humans

Originally posted by darkriddle
Are we using genetics to mold our future and actually ALTERING our own physical evolution?

sure, but we have been doing that since the discovery of fire. Every change our technology has made to the environment people have to survive in has had an impact on our biological evolution

Originally posted by darkriddle
If this is the case, then we would be the only species on earth that has ever altered our very physical evolution via un-natural means - through technology that is.

yes and no. If you are insisting on "technology", then we might be restrained to speaking only of great apes or other animals with tool use, but for sure, these cases are species that have been able to alter their own environments which then alters their genotype in response.

However, some of the most incredible genetic engineering has happened by nature in plants. The distinction between natural/un-natural means is something I'd say is a false dichotomy, unless you want to bias the anthropic condition. Basically, your statement is "humans are the only species that has altered their genetic structure through behaviours only humans are able to perform", which is tautological.

Originally posted by darkriddle
Does genetic altering pose a threat to natural evolution, or is that notion a paranoid theme from science fiction?

well, its more of a threat that doesn't understand natural evolution. evolution has nothing to do with producing the best or the biggest or the strongest. It is about which genes are more likely to survive and be passed on in which environment. All we can do with technology is change the environment in which those genes are passed on.

Originally posted by inimalist
evolution has nothing to do with producing the best or the biggest or the strongest.

Clearly, I agree on that very much, but for some reason it's very hard to get this idea across. I think the old adage "Only The Strong Survive" is such a hugely popular saying, but ultimately fails in explaining what natural selection is. --And it's this idea, that stifles people from understanding that evolution doesn't have a direct, targeted purpose.

I think you're right on pretty much all your responses here. However, I may have limited my questions to the present, when I intended them to portray our future.

I realize why national measures have intiated legislative repsonse to genetic experimentation in many countries. If they have done so, there must be very credble reasons to enact these laws. (apparently there is a huge lose of money in doing this as well)

Obviously cloning has cultural and social implications to deal with, so that is easy to understand. But the banning of genetically enhanced produce and the constant rejection of genetic experimation in the field of Stem Cell research is bordering on national paranoia.

Is this because they fear something on a more "grand" scale?

actually, most bans of GMO (genetically modified organisms) foods have been in response to campaigns from Greenpeace or other left wing environmental groups, which are backed by fear tactics and the like rather than real science.

There are some things that are a reason for concern, sure, but in most cases, these bans have prevented potentially fertile crops from getting to those who need them most.

I didn't know that. That's good to know actually, because it shifts the blame from government. I think a lot of people automatically blame the government for such restrictions.

But what do you think is holding back the much needed progression into Stem Cell research?

I understand that the U.S. has a stern affirmation between Church & State, so I would have thought that restriction of genetic experimentation regarding Stem Cell research would have dropped (as Obama once promised.)

So, is there some other factor as to why genetic testing has been banned in Stem Cell research?

well, there is still a lot of stem cell research going, and in fact, because of the bans, it forced research groups to look for other places to generate stem cell lines from. So, now scientists are able to generate adult stem cells from a person's skin, totally side stepping the moral concerns of the ban.

The reason it seems like it is going slow is because science isn't magic. Things need to be understood to a huge degree before human testing can even begin, and then, it is still years before any therapy will be available to people. The Japanese appear to have some of an advantage in stem cell research, but that might be more perception rather than reality, as there are very numerous discoveries in terms of stem cells in America.

The ban was only ever on using embryonic stem cells, not on genetic research. That research is less abundant because a) there are legitimate ethical concerns, b) we honestly just aren't there yet and c) most scientists are driven by the "I wonder how this works" or "I want to discover/help", not by "how do I make designer babies?"

Yeah, I've heard a lot about over-seas liberal views towards genetic experimentation. I just wonder if America can catch up to them in terms of gaining beneficial breakthroughs.

As it is, I think it's a fair example of tweaking non-technical attributes of natural evolution - I think.

Originally posted by darkriddle
Yeah, I've heard a lot about over-seas liberal views towards genetic experimentation. I just wonder if America can catch up to them in terms of gaining beneficial breakthroughs.

actually, what I am trying to say is that the ban actually forced american scientists to make amazing breakthroughs that were, even 2 years prior, thought impossible. Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes.

For instance, the research that shows stem cells can cure spinal paralysis in rats is American iirc.

America is for sure among the top nations in stem cell research. There is no doubting this.

could you imagine a world with only beautiful looking people in it? Hitler did.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, what I am trying to say is that the ban actually forced american scientists to make amazing breakthroughs that were, even 2 years prior, thought impossible. Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes.

For instance, the research that shows stem cells can cure spinal paralysis in rats is American iirc.

America is for sure among the top nations in stem cell research. There is no doubting this.

Yeah I mean were do you think all this stuff came from? NASA and you know how that started...

It is impossible to cease being subject to the laws of natural selection and there is no such thing as a natural or proper source for it to follow. That the fit survive is a tautology, whoever survives is fit. Even rocks and ideas bow to this pressure.

Originally posted by darkriddle
If this is the case, then we would be the only species on earth that has ever altered our very physical evolution via un-natural means - through technology that is.

Except for the fact that all the aspect of that which aren't totally meaningless are entirely untrue, yes.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, most bans of GMO (genetically modified organisms) foods have been in response to campaigns from Greenpeace or other left wing environmental groups, which are backed by fear tactics and the like rather than real science.

There are some things that are a reason for concern, sure, but in most cases, these bans have prevented potentially fertile crops from getting to those who need them most.

The most serious problem I know it is that since GMO DNA is owned by someone courts have said that cross pollination gives them the authority to have cross pollinated crops destroyed.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The most serious problem I know it is that since GMO DNA is owned by someone courts have said that cross pollination gives them the authority to have cross pollinated crops destroyed.

that is a little bit absurd...

where is that happening? are they normal food crops that are cross-pollinating, or are any of the weird things, like insulin-corn, getting crossed yet?

Originally posted by inimalist
that is a little bit absurd...

where is that happening? are they normal food crops that are cross-pollinating, or are any of the weird things, like insulin-corn, getting crossed yet?

It was a Monsanto weed-killer resistant crop that cross pollinated with nearby canola. Monsanto sued for copy right infringement. The guy counter sued and lost. Then was told on appeal that he didn't have to pay but had still infringed on the copy right. Crazy, it's like the MPAA downloading music onto your computer and forcing you to pay for it.

A summary is here:
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

They're wearing their agenda on their sleeve but you can skip down to the end and see the ruling of the courts.

There might be more recent case law, though.

Originally posted by darkriddle
Do you believe that our recent ability to tamper with DNA and genetic processes have actually grown enough to become a threat to Natural Evolution?

1. Genetic tests that result in the option to "abort" the baby and try again.

2. Gene therapy which allows us to actually change our genes.

3. Genetic Engineering which we are already doing with other species.

So, yes, in the most direct way possible. It was theorized that there were "gene dopers" in the 2008 olympics. Since it actually changes your genes, there would be no way of determining who "gene doped" and who didn't. That's just a term for someone that went through gene therapy to get a competitive age. I read that gene therapy is not the only way to "gene dope": you can simply take something that alters your gene's expression resulting in an athletically desired outcome.

We have been "threatening" evolution for a few decades, now. I believe the first time humans did this was via the Spartans: they did a form of eugenics by killing their sickly/weak/retarded young. That would quickly weed out many bad genes if done for a few hundred years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Genetic tests that result in the option to "abort" the baby and try again.

2. Gene therapy which allows us to actually change our genes.

3. Genetic Engineering which we are already doing with other species.

So, yes, in the most direct way possible. It was theorized that there were "gene dopers" in the 2008 olympics. Since it actually changes your genes, there would be no way of determining who "gene doped" and who didn't. That's just a term for someone that went through gene therapy to get a competitive age. I read that gene therapy is not the only way to "gene dope": you can simply take something that alters your gene's expression resulting in an athletically desired outcome.

We have been "threatening" evolution for a few decades, now. I believe the first time humans did this was via the Spartans: they did a form of eugenics by killing their sickly/weak/retarded young. That would quickly weed out many bad genes if done for a few hundred years.

nothing is new under the sun.. just the ways of going about it might be