Natural Selection

Mickmeister

Registered Senior Member
Do you think that natural selection is being greatly hindered due to technology and economics? By technology, I mean such things as plastic surgery, makeup, prosthetic devices, etc. Economics can also play a role in enticing a mate that would normally not be a selection. Is interfering with natural selection going to cause humanity to suffer more illness because bad traits today can often be disguised?
 
Not at all. I think that MONEY is the reason that women do not choose men based on natural abilities but based on status and wealth. What people do with that money is the big problem for most of them only want more and become money whores.
 
Do you think that natural selection is being greatly hindered due to technology and economics?
I believe you have misunderstood the nature of natural selection. Your question seems to assume that there is some 'best' condition to which natural selection tends to drive organisms. You imagine that in a modern, 'protected' environment, 'weaker' traits will become more common. Well, these 'weaker' traits will become more common, but this is precisely because of natural selection.

Natural selection is a process that tends to favour organisms that can function efficiently and effectively in a particular environment. They select organisms that are fittest for that environment, not for any other environment. Thus 'fittest' is a relative term, not an absolute one.

Economics can also play a role in enticing a mate that would normally not be a selection.
Economics is one of the best indicators of fitness on the planet. Physically, mentally and socially 'fit' individuals are generally the most successful economically. Moreover females look to a mate who will be able to provide excellent support for their children. This is solid natural selection.

Is interfering with natural selection going to cause humanity to suffer more illness because bad traits today can often be disguised?
Once the environment changes, but that has also been the case.
 
Interesting question. I would like to know how it is being hindered when it in fact does nothing.
Will Provine perhaps described it best in his book:
The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics
From page 199 (see above link):
As John Endler has argued eloquently in Natural Selection in The Wild (1968), natural selection is not a mechanism. Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push or adjust. Natural selection does nothing. Natural selection as a natural force belongs in the insubstantial category already populated by the Becker/Stahl phlogiston (Endler 1986) or Newton's "ether".
Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes.
Natural selection DOES NOTHING. The true agents of change are cellular mechanisms. Mechanism, mechanisms, mechanisms, all wrapped up in a near universal and superbly optimal genetic code (wait for the discoveries on the epigenetic code) driven by biomolecular machines, quality control programs and variation inducers. Nano-intentional entities capable of manipulating information and biasing evolutionary trajectories.

The intelligent set up of our genomes also allow us to adapt to future situations.
For example:
Although Our Genetics Differ Significantly, We All Look Alike
ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 2009) — The genetic variation within a species can be significant, but very little of that variation results in clear differences in morphology or other phenotypes. Much of the diversity remains hidden ‘under the surface’ in buffered form.
This has been revealed by research conducted by the University of Groningen, Wageningen University and Research Centre (both Netherlands) and the British research centre Rothamsted Research.

The researchers crossed two ecotypes of Arabidopsis and investigated the offspring for molecular and phenotypic differences, for example the number of proteins and metabolites that are formed and susceptibility to disease. It turned out that of the hundreds of thousands of differences in the DNA, only six ‘hotspots’ had major molecular and phenotypic effects.

Variation

The DNA of the two crossed ecotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana, a small plant that serves as a model organism in genetic research, differs on no fewer than 500,000 points, i.e. there is significant genetic variation. Of the offspring of the crossbreeding, 162 plants were investigated on 139 external characteristics (classic phenotypic traits such as the height of the plant, flowering time or resistance to disease) and 40,000 molecular traits. The latter category covers the products of the genes, i.e. the transcripts and proteins formed in the plant cell and the healthy or toxic compounds (metabolites) that these proteins generate in their turn. Many of these traits show substantial phenotypic variation.

Clusters

Research leader Prof. Ritsert Jansen: ‘You’d expect the mutations – the genetic causes of these phenotypic differences – to be evenly divided over the DNA, that they would be spread out over the whole genome, in a manner of speaking. This was clearly not the case in this experiment. We could point out exactly six areas in the genome where the genetic causes of thousands of differences were located. In other words, the genetic causes turned out to be clustered into six hotspots. The other 500,000 mutations in the genome only had a relatively very minor influence.’

Buffering

As described in the publication, this is a type of buffering – the 500,000 genetic differences do influence the activity of thousands of genes, but that diversity gradually diminishes the further you move away from the genetic source, the DNA; it is buffered. Eventually, only a small number of hotspots remain and these cause phenotypic differences at the highest levels, in metabolites and classic phenotypic traits. ‘The genetic variation is significantly present deep in the cell but is muffled more and more the further you move towards the outside’, Jansen explains.

Evolution

Although buffering has a muffling effect on the evolution of a species, it certainly does not hinder it. Jansen: ‘I’d say that it’s lucky there’s buffering. Just imagine if each of the 500,000 differences was immediately expressed in the next generation. From the point of view of the “robustness” of a species, it’s necessary that the offspring do not vary too dramatically. But if there’s a change in the environment that requires an evolutionary adaptation, then the necessary genetic variation is ready and waiting.’

Hotspots

The discovery means that life scientists should in particular examine the hotspots in the genome when searching for the causes of genetic disorders. In that regard the results of the current research agree with the results of Prof. Cisca Wijmenga of the University Medical Center Groningen, which was published in Nature Reviews Genetics in December. Her research revealed that only a limited number of hotspot genes are involved in the development of numerous immune-related diseases, such as type 1 diabetes, coeliac disease, Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Just like Arabidopsis, people differ from each other in millions of positions in their genome, but it’s the genotype in the hotspots that is the most relevant. ‘When it comes down to it, we are more similar to each other than the major differences in genome sequences suggest.’

Thanks to buffering, the necessary genetic variation is present to unfold to the needs of a given environment. Adaptation. No need for culling of weak genomes, the agents and mechanisms of change are present in living organisms to cope with future conditions. Seeing that natural selection does nothing and is myopic, it is striking to see these robust mechanisms being present in the genomes of organisms that prepare them for future adaptation... preadaptations.
 
There will still be selection, but it could be based on different requirements than existed in the past. One example is eyesight, few people are prevented from thriving due to poor eyesight, so it has become very common. New selection factors might include things like resistance to cancer from all the new chemicals we interact with, obesity and diabetes...
 
Back
Top