Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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?



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.

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.

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..






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? I think for a lot of people ID is quite difficult to beleive. Over the past couple of months I've come to the realisation that ID and evolution could be connected. I've always been a firm beleiver of Darwins theory but I could never quite understand how life first came about on this planet, and ID was really the only way i could see it happening. I mean why is it we can come about by sheer coincidence and luck (to a point) but not by a "creator". Put the two theories together and it just makes more sense (to me atleast).

Originally posted by Magee
I think for a lot of people ID is quite difficult to beleive. Over the past couple of months I've come to the realisation that ID and evolution could be connected. I've always been a firm beleiver of Darwins theory but I could never quite understand how life first came about on this planet, and ID was really the only way i could see it happening. I mean why is it we can come about by sheer coincidence and luck (to a point) but not by a "creator". Put the two theories together and it just makes more sense (to me atleast).

This is how I see the point of the beginning of life. The problem is how we see what life is. We have a very narrow view on life. In Buddhism, we believe that all things, alive or not, have a Buddha nature. In other words, all things are alive, even a rock. Life waits for the conditions to be right, and when they are, life appears.

perhaps even Darwin's theory is evolving ... I think it is maybe possible to redefine his theory into something that works with ID

However, I am also not convinced that we aren't evolving in a traditional sense. Perhaps not quickly. However, there are many things we don't understand about the mind and even tho we can't perhaps see how we are evolving doesn't mean it's not happening on a dna level as the original article suggests.

Not convinced. Not unconvinced. Just curious.

A scientific view of the world can be as blind and ignorant as a religious one based on faith.

NO, how can you think that?

Thats nothing new to me to know that we are still evolving(thats a good thing I think), and it has to happen since evolution is associated with mutation, and mutation must happen in a molecular level, its what molecular chemistry tells. The physical laws that rules over molecules tells that mutation happen.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats nothing new to me to know that we are still evolving(thats a good thing I think), and it has to happen since evolution is associated with mutation, and mutation must happen in a molecular level, its what molecular chemistry tells. The physical laws that rules over molecules tells that mutation happen.

Maybe mutations are not so random. Maybe they are not mutations in the sense of not intensional.

Mutagens are increaing in number all the time.
Things like Xenobiotic hormones are affected human mutation quite severely.

This thread is really to simple to discuss what mutation truly is for a molecular biologist if people wish to discuss it at the cause, effect, frequency v spontaneous level (both happen) i.m. me

Do you really believe in intelligent design?

Originally posted by Da preacher
Do you really believe in intelligent design?

I know you were asking Atlantis001, but I am butting in anyway.

No, intelligent design is just a code word for Christian thinking. To agree with it is to agree with everything else in Christianity. You see, if you find a common truth, you can pile a hole lot of shit on it and every one will eat it, even if it tastes bad.

in my experience with logic, which isn't loads but some. There are flaws in pretty much any premise. Admittedly some flaws seem a little more attractive than others, however, then we open up the ethical/value debate ... and that has got to be one of the most contentious areas of philosophy and everything.

'intelligent design as a code word for christian thinking' ... that is quite a limited view. Scientific thinking is based on cause and effect. If this is the case then science is also grounded in design. The world as predictable, do this and then this will happen. Surely this can only be possible in a predictable world where everything follows a set 'design' if you like. Even if we are not aware of what particular design that is for now.

Da preacher .... I personally like the scientific view of the world. Just think it is good to be aware of its flaws. As all views of the world has its strength and weaknesses. The more adament one is about a particular theory ... well, the more likely to crash and burn really. But aside from personal opinion ... there is evidence, scientific, that the results of an experiment change depending on how it is observed and there is a whole bunch of phenomena that indicate science is not quite as bomb proof as we all would like to think (or some of us any way).

The human mind is a complex thing; and it is with this that we understand science or anything for that matter ... already there is distortion.

Intelligent design's just like 'Christianity goes science' or something.
It's like some Christian trying to look scientific and attract larger masses into christianity.
I tell u, it's shit!

They're now even giving it in Biology lessons in certain schools in the US.
Wacko!

Originally posted by StrangeDays
in my experience with logic, which isn't loads but some. There are flaws in pretty much any premise. Admittedly some flaws seem a little more attractive than others, however, then we open up the ethical/value debate ... and that has got to be one of the most contentious areas of philosophy and everything.

'intelligent design as a code word for christian thinking' ... that is quite a limited view. Scientific thinking is based on cause and effect. If this is the case then science is also grounded in design. The world as predictable, do this and then this will happen. Surely this can only be possible in a predictable world where everything follows a set 'design' if you like. Even if we are not aware of what particular design that is for now.

Da preacher .... I personally like the scientific view of the world. Just think it is good to be aware of its flaws. As all views of the world has its strength and weaknesses. The more adament one is about a particular theory ... well, the more likely to crash and burn really. But aside from personal opinion ... there is evidence, scientific, that the results of an experiment change depending on how it is observed and there is a whole bunch of phenomena that indicate science is not quite as bomb proof as we all would like to think (or some of us any way).

The human mind is a complex thing; and it is with this that we understand science or anything for that matter ... already there is distortion.

I basically agree with you. However, I listen to the right wing radio programs (I do this to keep up on the topics, I listen to both sides) and when they use the term intelligent design, they mean Christian thinking, like Jesus is god and sinners are going to hell.

Yay, ANOTHER religion vs. evolution thread. I never get sick of these.

(Damn us close-minded Christians who just can't seem to open our eyes and even bother to look at a viewpoint from the evolutionists' viewpoint! DAMN US! With their exemplary actions that show how open-minded they are, they should be given awards.)

After studying how hemoglobin works, I was like, "Wow. Lactic acid...aerobic and anaerobic respiration...working together...breaking my mind. No way this happened just by chance."

Originally posted by FeceMan
...No way this happened just by chance."

Nothing happens by chance, it is cause and effect (karma).

People are too quick to use teh word "chance"
It wasn't chance, it was SELECTION. The most effective organism survived. And early on it was the one who could do cellular respiration the most efficiently (this is back in the days of single celled organisms) And from this it simply became more and more efficent. If an organism developed a system that was NOT as efficent, then is simply died out. Simple as that.
And yes, Natural selection is still at work with humans, but we are on too short of a time scale to even begin to notice. And advances technology changes that. Its would be interesting to see how technology affects evolution.

"Natural selection is still at work with humans, but we are on too short of a time scale to even begin to notice."

I noticed that I evolved from instant coffee to percolated ... does this count? *lol*

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

I meant vertebrates.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing happens by chance, it is cause and effect (karma).
Or I could say, "Nothing happens by chance; it is cause and effect, where the driving cause is God's will."

Originally posted by FeceMan
Or I could say, "Nothing happens by chance; it is cause and effect, where the driving cause is God's will."

I would not agree with that. That would preclude free will. Even God has karma.

it's interesting how that study takes into affect changes caused by our changes in diet and exposure to chemicals in our environment, such as the increase in estrogens in our food supply both through geneticallymodified food and plastics in our food chain.

Any possibility that Evolution was God's plan?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I would not agree with that. That would preclude free will. Even God has karma.
*Shrugs.* Maybe I don't agree with karma. (Though, in all honesty, that post wasn't meant completely for you...but don't worry about that right now.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
*Shrugs.* Maybe I don't agree with karma. (Though, in all honesty, that post wasn't meant completely for you...but don't worry about that right now.)

Karma is only the actions of cause and effect. Some forms of Buddhism pack a lot more religious mumbo-jumbo into karma. I mean it in its simplest form, how cause and effect are created and manifested.

I didn't take offence at what you said. I just can't keep my mouth shut; disagreeing with the right person can sometimes be fun.