Poll: Evolution vs Rational Thought

[RJ 17]

Edit: Seems the forum is eatting my poll options, so here's what they SHOULD be:
"No, All Life Is Precious And Should Be Preserved No Matter The Cost"
"Yes, I All Honest I Wouldn't Want To Put Myself And My Family Through Such Misery."

Warning: Large Chunk-o-Text inbound. Don't care if you don't read it, I'm going to write it anyways.

Do you think human evolution has reached stagnation? The process of Natural Selection by which creatures born with more advantageous traits (i.e. stronger, faster, smarter, etc) are able to survive more easily than the rest, ensuring that those with such advantages are the ones that pass along their genes to the next generation, thereby making them stronger, faster, smarter, etc seems to no longer hold affect over the human race. For starters, humans have no natural predators (by that I mean a creature whose lifestyle and diet are hunting, killing, and eating humans) and as such there's nothing to "thin the herd". Of course humans get killed by wild carnivorous animals every day, but to the vast majority of the species such is a thing that need not concern us.

In the wild, such predators play a process in evolution. They ensure that the creature who was born with a better camoflage coloration survive to pass on that coloration. They ensure that creatures able to outrun or outwit the predators survive to pass on their advantageous genes to the next generation. Survival of the fittest: The strong live, the weak die. Every now and then a creature in a species will be born with some sort of random mutation. If this mutation proves advantageous, then the creature survives to pass that mutation on. This is the process of evolution, as that mutation becomes "standard equipment" for the entire species over a long period of time.

But such is not the case when it comes to humans. For starters, as I mentioned, there's no driving force behind our evolution. We don't NEED to be stronger, faster, or smarter in order to ensure our survival and the passing on of our genes. You can be fat and lazy and make it through life just find. Manage to find yourself a mate, and your genes will get passed on whether they're advantageous or not. Beyond that - and getting to the topic's title as well as the poll - is the fact that we're the only species on the planet that actively and vigorously tries to save the weak. There's some herding animals that will help one of their own out if they're being attacked by predators, but for the most part, they prefer to simply write off the one being attacked as a loss. We, on the other hand, go out of our way to save the weak. Why? because we have rational thought which inevitably leads to the fact tha we have morals.

A baby is born with horrible birth defects, defects that can never be fully fixed. The child will have heart complications, breathing complications, and will have to live with a colostomy bag for its entire life. Were this baby an animal out in the wild, it would likely be left for dead, or it wouldn't last very long at all. But we spend thousands in medical bills, drag down an entire family in massive debt, all to save a baby who will never be able to live a normal life. This brings up the question of the poll: if you were to be completely honest with yourself, would you rather live your entire life with unending medical complications that ensure you'll never be able to live a normal life? Or would you honestly rather have simply been left for dead, saving you the perceived misery your family would be put through in keeping you alive?

Which brings us to the topic's title. Has the fact that mankind has rational thought - and therefor morals - brought an end to evolution for the human race? Will we ever transcend to something greater than what we currently are? Or have we officially stagnated, having reached the pinnacle of our species? Can it possibly be that one of the best arguments against the Theory of Evolution (but not an argument for Creationism, to be clear) is the fact that the process of Natural Selection does not apply to us as a species due to us being driven to preserve the lives of the weak no matter what the cost?

Note: I'm not saying that we should let everyone born with birth defects or stricken with illness or injury die. This is just a bit of food for thought and I'd like to hear what other people have to say about it.

TLDR: Is the movie Idiocracy one of the most terrifying films ever because the point it makes in the opening sequence can be seen as frighteningly accurate?

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

Bullshit there's no driving force behind our evolution, its just not in terms of survival any more. Not all people born get to breed, the fact that this isn't because loads of us die before sexual maturity doesn't mean there are no selection pressures.

If anything, morals are causing evolution. People who conform to societal norms and function well in society (that's not the same as morality I know) are more likely to find partners. As a result we're generally getting less aggressive over time. I read a article in New Scientist which talked about a study into the effects of taming animals over several generations of selective breeding. The animals quickly showed different physical characteristics and behaviour. The article went on to say that similar changes had in fact been observed in humans. We are effectively taming ourselves.

As to the poll, that's not something I think I could answer unless I was in that position.

 

[sky14kemea]

I guess that's a tough question, but it's more the parents decision with things like that, since the baby isn't fully aware of their condition.

I think it'd depend on the disability as well, if I was completely paralysed, or dangerously deformed to the point where it'd effect my health for the rest of my life, I'd probably want my parents to... for lack of a nicer word "abort" me so they don't have to go through so much hardship and money just to end up with more sad memories than good ones.

 

[aba1]

Evolution doesn't mean a creature will become better than they were only better suited to their environment. Species have become smaller and weaker because it suited them better before. Also if you look into it we can see things are changing with people. For example our baby toes are getting smaller and smaller with each generation so is our tail bone. Also womens breasts have been shown to be getting larger and each new generation has been able to take in more information than the last. Evolution isn't something that happens fast it can take thousands of years.

 

[Esotera]

The whole point behind evolution is that the best organisms to reproduce get their genes immortalised, and to do that they generally have to be best adapted to their environment. Whilst everyone is technically correct saying that people with serious health conditions wouldn't survive in the ice age several thousands of years ago, we don't need to live at that level of technology and it's unlikely we ever will again.

Also as humans are quite genetically similar as a population, there's a definite argument to be had for increasing our diversity. Populations with a lot of different individuals have more of a buffer against apocalyptic scenarios where 99% of individuals die.

 

[HardkorSB]

Has the fact that mankind has rational thought - and therefor morals - brought an end to evolution for the human race?

Other animals have rational thought too. Our brains are just much more complex so our thoughts are more complex as well.
For example, an animal won't won't attack a stronger animal when hunting, it will attack a weaker one. That's rational isn't it?

Will we ever transcend to something greater than what we currently are?

We will change in time to adapt to our environment better.

Can it possibly be that one of the best arguments against the Theory of Evolution (but not an argument for Creationism, to be clear) is the fact that the process of Natural Selection does not apply to us as a species due to us being driven to preserve the lives of the weak no matter what the cost?

No matter what the cost? Then how come whenever I see a homeless person sitting on the street, the majority of people are ignoring him and passing him by? How come we aren't doing much to make the lives of people in third world countries better? How come so many people are willing to kill/steal/harass/bully/etc. for a piece of paper?
We save the occasional "weak people" not because there's some internal drive in us to save all life but because we can. Other animals would most likely do the same but they can't. They don't have sanitation, medicine or technology.When a pack of animals leaves behind an unhealthy one, it's not because they want to do that but because that unhealthy animal would be a liability to the rest of them. It's the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

This thread makes absolutely no sense, for starters Natural Selection and human evolution are not in stagnation. Environmental pressure is still effecting us. A good example of this are viruses like HIV, people are becoming immune to this diseases through natural selection all over the world, not to mention you completely left out sexual selection.
You should of done a little more research or at least a Google search before claiming something so absurd.

http://www.livescience.com/9983-immune-hiv.html

http://genetics.thetech.org/original_news/news13

"Dr Virpi Lummaa, from the University of Sheffield's department of animal and plant sciences, said: "We have shown advances have not challenged the fact that our species is still evolving, just like all the other species 'in the wild'. It is a common misunderstanding that evolution took place a long time ago, and that to understand ourselves we must look back to the hunter-gatherer days of humans."

She added: "We have shown significant selection has been taking place in very recent populations, and likely still occurs, so humans continue to be affected by both natural and sexual selection. Although the specific pressures, the factors making some individuals able to survive better, or have better success at finding partners and produce more kids, have changed across time and differ in different populations."

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

Sourse - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/humans-still-evolving-7697808.html

 

[DracoSuave]

Survival of the fittest: The strong live, the weak die.

I want to highlight this statement, because nothing more illustrates your lack of understanding of evolution more than this sentence.

Fitness simply refers to a population's ability to thrive in given living conditions.

It does NOT refer to physical strength, speed, cunning, size, toughness, or anything else. It ONLY refers to suitability to the environment.

The example you mention... the only question that matters is: Will he get to impregnate someone?

Whenever someone brings up the question of eugenics (which this is about) they commit the fallacy of tying it to evolution by natural selection. The thing is, you are not arguing to select for traits that suit our environment. You are arguing to select for traits you deem to be better than others REGARDLESS of demonstrated suitability. That's NOT natural selection, that's artificial selection.

Look, all you need to ask is if this guy is less likely to fuck and have a kid or not. Why is that? And what environment allows for that? And where did that environment come from? How did we get to this point?

Humans will continue to evolve regardless of compassion--no, actually human beings EVOLVED compassion because it increases survival and genetic diversity, leading to greater variance, and thus survivability, in the species.

To claim evolution is stagnant is absurd, because evolution only requires reproduction, variation, and selection. And you're an idiot if you're going to tell me mate selection doesn't exist in our highly sexualized culture.

 

[Frission]

That's not evolution! Have you even bothered reading the Origin of Species? No? Darwin warned against this line of thinking in the very first chapter of the " Origin of Species"!
EDIT: Think what you like.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Nope. We're not going to stay the same, even if the changes aren't going to be what people generally perceive as 'better', that's not necessarily what evolution is (which is also why people who talk about devolving are idiots). Evolution is just change, and we're probably almost certainly going to change in some way in the future.

 

[BrassButtons]

Natural Selection is a game you can't not play.