Evolution is indifferent to what is 'natural' or not: if the results of evolution happen to be a bunch of intelligent apes who can invent things like seat-belts that happen to save lives, then so be it - they are the species best adapted to survival in their environment. 'Natural' doesn't come into it, except as an extrinsic consideration from without the process of evolution itself.

Note also that evolution is indifferent to 'valuing' different species: stupidity has nothing to do with it. If, for argument's sake, there were to be a new plague that would wipe out everyone with an IQ over 80, all those that are left would be the most fit for their environment. There is no teleology of values in evolution (only, perhaps, a teleonomy of increasing complexity - where more complexity <> better).

if the results of evolution happen to be a bunch of intelligent apes who can invent things like seat-belts that happen to save lives, then so be it - they are the species best adapted to survival in their environment.

.

Is it not true to say that even though we, as Humans, may have evolved to create laws which prevent stupidity from killing people of our own race, that is not necessarily the best adaption to our environment? After all, the introduction of such laws has meant populations have boomed, which is now having a detrimental effect on not only our planet, but also our societies, with increased demands of governments to provide pensions/social welfare, etc. Saying that the creation of these laws is the best adaption to our environment really isn't true, especially considering these laws were added into our environment by Humans in a different scenario prior to their introduction.

The index of 'evolutionary success' for a species is simply survival. It's a numbers game, that's it. The 'living conditions' of that species is irrelevant, and if the environment is changed to the extent that we are no longer fit to survive in it, than that isn't anti-evolutionary, that's exactly how evolution is meant to play out. Evolution is dynamic, not static - what may have been the most fit in one situation may not be when that situation changes.

The way I'd put it is to consider what medical science has achieved so far. People carrying genes that are susceptible to disease (cancers, infections, etc.) and death have longer lifespans thanks to modern medicine. These evolutionary rejects are now living long enough to have children, thereby transmitting the defective gene. Isn't this a direct interference in the natural process of evolution?

There are no such things as 'evolutionary rejects' - or rather, the only 'evolutionary rejects' are dead species. If you're alive, you're winning. That's the game.

The whole idea of 'evolutionary rejects' or that medicine and social innovations have somehow 'interfered' with some supposedly more 'natural' course of evolution is junk science and needs to be discarded at once.

Isn't this a direct interference in the natural process of evolution? — TheMadFool

This seems like saying that an aeroplane interferes with the natural process of gravity.

... that is not necessarily the best adaption to our environment? — Javants

Just to add to what @StreetlightX said, evolution doesn't primarily "care" what the best adaptation to an environment is. Any gene that offers a competitive advantage will spread through the gene pool (all other things being equal) even if this perversely leads to maladaptation. Consider a population of birds who hatch their eggs at an optimal time of year with regard to availability of food. Now consider a gene that causes an individual bird to hatch earlier. That bird's young may eat more due to lack of competition for food from other hatchlings thus increasing fitness thus spreading the gene for the suboptimal hatching date around etc. In this way species can adapt themselves away from optimal environments. Once you've accepted that principle, there's no real problem to solve.

There are no such things as 'evolutionary rejects' - or rather, the only 'evolutionary rejects' are dead species. If you're alive, you're winning. That's the game. — StreetlightX

Of course there are (evolutionary rejects) - some unfortunate people are genetically prone to disease. Is it wrong to label them as evolutionary rejects. Of course I'm aware of the ethical aspect of such categorizations. However, in this case ethical ratings are irrelevant to genetic mutations.

The whole idea of 'evolutionary rejects' or that medicine and social innovations have somehow 'interfered' with some supposedly more 'natural' course of evolution is junk science and needs to be discarded at once. — StreetlightX

I think you're wrong there. Natural evolution pits one's genetic composition (its strengths and weaknesses) against the environment (from bacteria to lions). This isn't the case with humans. We use medicines to shore up our immune systems, thereby prolonging our lives - making it more likely to bear children who then are carriers of a particular genetic defect. How is this not interfering with natural evolution?

This seems like saying that an airplane interferes with the natural process of gravity. — Michael

Please read my reply to StreetlightX

No, evolution does not 'pit one's genetic composition against the environment' because individuals and 'people' are not the subjects of evolution. Populations of species, or more specifically, developmental systems are. 'Particular genetic defects' are only relevant to evolution once they begin to manifest at the level of speciation, otherwise they are totally evolutionarily irrelevant.

Of course there are (evolutionary rejects) - some unfortunate people are genetically prone to disease. Is it wrong to label them as evolutionary rejects. — TheMadFool

Yes, because "evolutionary rejects" doesn't seem to mean anything. Evolution is simply "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". How does it make sense to pair the term "evolutionary" with the term "reject" ("inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty")?

At best you could perhaps use the term "evolutionary reject" to refer to any organism which doesn't contribute towards the evolutionary process, which would just be any organism that doesn't reproduce, but even that's a stretch.

Natural evolution pits one's genetic composition (its strengths and weaknesses) against the environment (from bacteria to lions)

No, that would be closer to natural selection, which is the commonly accepted means by which evolution occurs.

This isn't the case with humans. We use medicines to shore up our immune systems, thereby prolonging our lives - making it more likely to bear children who then are carriers of a particular genetic defect. How is this not interfering with natural evolution?

Would you say the same about animals building nests or sleeping in caves to avoid freezing to death?

And I don't understand how you can equate being susceptible to disease with having defective genes.

Yes, because "evolutionary rejects" doesn't seem to mean anything. Evolution is simply "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". How does it make sense to pair the term "evolutionary" with the term "reject" ("inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty")?

At best you could perhaps use the term "evolutionary reject" to refer to any organism which doesn't contribute towards the evolutionary process, which would just be any organism that doesn't reproduce, but even that's a stretch. — Michael

Perhaps I haven't worded it as well as I would have liked.

I guess the point I'm making is that given genetic mutation is random, it is inevitable that some traits will be harmful to an organism's survival e.g. if a polar bear had a mutation that made it furless it would most certainly perish in its subzero temperature habitat. It is they that I'm referring to as evolutionary rejects.

No, that would be closer to natural selection, which is the commonly accepted means by which evolution occurs. — Michael

I don't see how one can sensibly differentiate between natural evolution and natural selection. Anyway the term natural selection is sufficient for me to get my point across which is that humans are interfering with natural selection by preventing deaths of people with genetically transmitted illnesses through the use of modern medicine. Isn't this interfering with the natural selection process - some of us should've died out long ago.

Would you say the same about animals building nests or sleeping in caves to avoid freezing to death?

And I don't understand how you can equate being susceptible to disease with having defective genes. — Michael

Animals building nests or sleeping in caves has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Suffice it to say that genetic defects are present in the population and they're being given the helping hand modern medicine.

No, evolution does not 'pit one's genetic composition against the environment' because individuals and 'people' are not the subjects of evolution. Populations of species, or more specifically, developmental systems are. 'Particular genetic defects' are only relevant to evolution once they begin to manifest at the level of speciation, otherwise they are totally evolutionarily irrelevant — StreetlightX

I don't understand. Isn't a population composed of individuals? The collective drama must be, invariably, played out at the level of the individual. Am I wrong?

Evolution is indifferent to what is 'natural' or not: if the results of evolution happen to be a bunch of intelligent apes who can invent things like seat-belts that happen to save lives, then so be it - they are the species best adapted to survival in their environment. 'Natural' doesn't come into it, except as an extrinsic consideration from without the process of evolution itself. — StreetlightX

But for the concept of biological evolution to be meaningful. we need to be able to differentiate it from what humans do, such as artificial selection, artificial insemination, splicing genes, cloning, bring back species from extinction, CRISPR, etc.

That stuff isn't evolution, it's intelligent design by humans. And the father we go down that road, the farther from natural selection, genetic drift, etc we get. There is talk about being able to use a chicken to reverse engineer a dinosaur back into existence. That's not something evolution does. There's also been a lot of futurist speculation of using nanobots to aid our bodies in various ways. That's not remotely evolution. Or engineering viruses to fight cancer, create smart drugs, etc.

I don't understand. Isn't a population composed of individuals? The collective drama must be, invariably, played out at the level of the individual. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

Yes you are wrong, as far as evolution is concerned. Individual genetic 'defects' mean nothing evolutionarily unless they come to define a species as a whole. Moreover, they are 'defects' precisely to the extent that by definition, they do not do so. So your entire line of reasoning is analytically wrong. Further, the fact that you don't understand the difference between evolution and natural selection - a basic distinction crucial to evolutionary theory - shows that you lack the some very basic understanding of the facts involved.

Why? Provide a reason, not just just state an opinion.

This sounds like someone who does not understand evolution and is also broad brushing the capabilities of everyone who does not like to wear a seat belt or wear a helmet.

1) Evolution would occur anyway, as people who refuse to wear seat belts and helmets would be selected against.

2) It takes one possible trait (prefers not to wear seat belt or helmet) and amplifies that to regard people as stupid. These people might be more "fit" for survival in every way, but this is not included in your model.

3) The natural/unnatural distinction between human societies and nature out there is false.

Why? Provide a reason, not just just state an opinion. — StreetlightX

Technology isn't considered part of biological evolution. Do you disagree that we intelligently interfere with the natural world?

3) The natural/unnatural distinction between human societies and nature out there is false. — Chany

No it's not. We've created tons of things that would not exist in our absence. Twinkies, agent orange, concrete, plastics, splicing plant genes into animals, etc.

Climate change is largely being caused by human activity, not natural processes. Nature wasn't going to dig up all that fossilized plant material and spew it out into the atmosphere on it's own.

Yes I disagree. The Nature/culture divide is bad philosophy spliced onto perfectly indifferent science.

Yes I disagree. The Nature/culture divide is bad philosophy spliced onto perfectly indifference science. — StreetlightX

So technology is considered part of evolution. That's a new one on me.

I don't think collapsing such distinctions is useful. Yeah, we're all part of the cosmos. No, that doesn't help when distinguishing between human technological activity and biology.

Cite a reason, in principle, why it isn't. The onus is on you here. Your disbelief means nothing.

Cite a reason, in principle, why it isn't. The onus is on you here. Your disbelief means nothing.. — StreetlightX

Your belief means nothing.

Ok, thanks for joining.

Evolution is defined by heritable changes in the gene pool from generation to generation. Doesn't matter how they get there. Genes come and go. That's it.

To the degree that the unit of evolution is a developmental system, then yes, there is nothing in principle that would rule out technology from being part of the process of evolution.

Ok, thanks for joining. — StreetlightX

Sure, do biologists consider technology to be a mechanism in human evolution?

Evolution is defined by heritable changes in the gene pool from generation to generation. Doesn't matter how they get there. Genes come and go. That's it. — Baden

I don't think that's true when it's the result of technological means, but if I'm wrong, then human activity would be considered a mechanism of evolution. I've never seen that stated.

To the degree that the unit of evolution is a developmental system, then yes, there is nothing in principle that would rule out technology from being part of the process of evolution. — StreetlightX

Evolution could be stellar, it could be social, it could be sports, it could be evolution of the smartphone, and it can be biological.

What's not useful is collapsing all those into one meaning.

Then you haven't heard of niche construction, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_construction

Again what you call 'collapsing things' is just basic science.