alteredperception said:In principle we could alter our DNA as to eliminate random mutations.....
I don't see how we could possibly do that. <P>
alteredperception said:In principle we could alter our DNA as to eliminate random mutations.....
Well put. This is entirely the point. From an evolutionary point of view, Man-made and random alterations to the genome have precisely the same effect - they may, or they may not, confer selective advantage on their progeny, if environmental conditions change.Roman said:Even if we do start altering ourselves, this does not somehow put us outside the realm of evolution. Our choices in genetic change will still be affected by a changing envrionment.
Yep - evolution takes a lotta time!For real evolution to take place, for humans to occupy an entirely new niche, will take time.
I agree, yet what do you consider a significant amount of time: a human life-span, a couple hundred years, a thousand years? I think every single time-frame you can consider - is an insignificant amount of time when compared to geologic time, and just how short so-called civilized man has been on the geologic time-map [a mere few thousand years].In principle, we can genetically alter ourselves to whatever ideal entity we wish to be. This, of course, is something that will require huge advancements in our knowledge and technology.
I think random mutations will be irrelevant, and moreover they are already irrelevant to human populations. Isolation & severe environmental conditions that facilitate change do not exist in human populations. Homeostasis across the entire human genome/population seems more the rule of the day, and that rule is inapplicable to future genetic self-modification.In principle we could alter our DNA as to eliminate random mutations (or correct any mutations that occur) thus ending natural selection. Until we reach the point where we can determine what we want to evolve into, I would argue evolution is still unpredictable. (Of course we could naturally guide our evolution through eugenics, but this would never happen due to its unethical nature).
Outside evolution? I would say what is evolution? Merely a word that implies change. Evolution by natural selection implies change through a natural processes - evolution by itself merely implies structural change, and the level we are talking about is the blueprint level; DNA.Even if we do start altering ourselves, this does not somehow put us outside the realm of evolution. Our choices in genetic change will still be affected by a changing environment. For real evolution to take place, for humans to occupy an entirely new niche, will take time. Simply because we can modify our genes to fight disease or combat aging at an accelerated rate does not eliminate evolution occurring over long periods of time. I would posit that our ability to modify our genome is not much evolutionarily speaking.
No, but the insects genome is the same. In the case of trans-humans it will be changed.When an insect metamorphizes into an adult, do we call that evolution?
I would say some are and some are not. I would suggest a Christian is implicitly not attached to this world but attached to afterworlds, and that Platonism/Stoicism/Christology/etc has left a major psychological imprint on all western thought. To the many, out there(!) types, humanity represents a base insignificance; an imperfect and rotten to the core nature.I have a feeling that we are very attached to our humanity, and will make no conscious decisions to move away from it.
Real evolution, not just a shuffling of alleles. I mean where humans actually speciate and become something else entirely, something as comparable as apes and man.I would say what is evolution? Merely a word that implies change. Evolution by natural selection implies change through a natural processes - evolution by itself merely implies structural change, and the level we are talking about is the blueprint level; DNA.
But the parts of the insect's genome that turn on and off are radically different. The genome must change; otherwise there would be no metamorphosis.No, but the insects genome is the same. In the case of trans-humans it will be changed.
That's part of it, yes. But you miss my point. We can do all kinds of grafting and genetic manipulation, but the key features that make us human will stay unchanged. I'm willing to bet our literature has the same 50 or 60 so basic themes in 400 years, and I'm also betting that the human condition will remain the human condition.I would say some are and some are not. I would suggest a Christian is implicitly not attached to this world but attached to afterworlds, and that Platonism/Stoicism/Christology/etc has left a major psychological imprint on all western thought. To the many, out there(!) types, humanity represents a base insignificance; an imperfect and rotten to the core nature.
A mouse and man share this same genetic similarity as does ape and man. What is the difference, genetically in mouse and man, not much . . .Real evolution, not just a shuffling of alleles. I mean where humans actually speciate and become something else entirely, something as comparable as apes and man.
Not true. . .But the parts of the insect's genome that turn on and off are radically different. The genome must change; otherwise there would be no metamorphosis.
Unchanged?That's part of it, yes. But you miss my point. We can do all kinds of grafting and genetic manipulation, but the key features that make us human will stay unchanged. I'm willing to bet our literature has the same 50 or 60 so basic themes in 400 years, and I'm also
betting that the human condition will remain the human condition.
I am not implying merely progresses in the medical sciences; that is already happening. And the topology of an organism [the outward look] is not that relevant. The important restructuring will involve all forms of perception, awareness and complexity of mind. If you think that awareness and associated “being” is not scalar [and scalar-up!] you are mildly mistaken.We can replace all your blood with someone elses, all your organs, all your body parts, and you still remain you. This cosmetic evolution is not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the fundamental changes in behaviour and thinking that will be required to create a new species from humans. There must also be a change in the niche we occupy. A bird species getting a new coat because of sexual selection is hardly radical evolution. A dinosaur turning into a bird is.
No - environmental conditions work far to slow and that rule is a dead issue. Extinction of man as a race is not relevant either is it? Where are the australopithecines? Extinct. Nature is self-similar - what remains at this current moment and time is man - a more aware [scalar-up] version of the australopithecine. Where will man be in the age of the trans-human?I'm saying the kind of evolution that transforms us from dinosaur to bird will ultimately be unpredictable and dictated by environmental changes, not rational decision.