Reversed Evolution

K

kwhilborn

Banned
Banned
The law of evolution "survival of the fittest" no longer applies with humans.

Forrest Gump was successful and had a smart child so this fictional character would not be the best example.

We now have a society where people with deformities and mental deficiencies are protected from early demise by a society that will provide for them.
Historically people with disabilities may have been killed at birth or at least thought of as more of a burden and less likely to breed.

Now we have disabled couples hooking up and not always with the best results. A dwarf couple has a 25% chance of having dwarf offspring and some couples WANT this deformity in their children.

Here is example
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1629965...er-babies-made-to-order-defects/#.UKk84Ifen4I

Disabled people argue that we play god if we tell them, but are we not playing god by supporting them. If we cut off their disability would they survive like others?

NOTE: Some dwarfs and disabled are Doctors, Lawyers, or otherwise educated. I guess this does not apply to all.

Should people on disability stop having kids if they can pass on their disability?
 
Evolution isn't about the fittest. It's about reproduction, and passing genes. The only difference is that society and civilization are now part of the environmental pressures that determine that selection.

Aside from the political correctness, disabled isn't really a good term anymore, as science more and more can help people with problems of birth, genetics, or accident live a more natural life.

There are some cases where you can argue how much responsibility parents have if they know they have some genetic factor that would give their child issues to deal with. But that is a decision between them and their doctor, not anyone else's.
 
Rhaedas said:
Evolution isn't about the fittest.
Click to expand...

The fit will survive. Survive to evolve.

It's about reproduction, and passing genes. The only difference is that society and civilization are now part of the environmental pressures that determine that selection.

science more and more can help people with problems of birth, genetics, or accident live a more natural life.
Click to expand...

Ever see an autistic, or a child with down syndrome turn straight face or walk straight up because of the Know I mind-synced to them? I have.
 
kwhilborn said:
The law of evolution "survival of the fittest" no longer applies with humans.
Click to expand...

As Rhaedas pointed out, it's not survival of the fittest. If you want a catch-phrase then "survival of the most adaptable" is leaps and bounds more accurate.

kwhilborn said:
We now have a society where people with deformities and mental deficiencies are protected from early demise by a society that will provide for them.
Historically people with disabilities may have been killed at birth or at least thought of as more of a burden and less likely to breed.
Click to expand...

I don't know that either of those statments are true.

kwhilborn said:
Now we have disabled couples hooking up and not always with the best results. A dwarf couple has a 25% chance of having dwarf offspring and some couples WANT this deformity in their children.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the way people breed dogs, we are now breeding ourselves?

kwhilborn said:
Disabled people argue that we play god if we tell them, but are we not playing god by supporting them. If we cut off their disability would they survive like others?
Click to expand...
I don't know if that argument is true, but if your question is really "would a disabled person whom is collecting a disability beneift survive if that benefit were to be terminated?" then the answer is "unknown". It likely depends on the disability.

kwhilborn said:
NOTE: Some dwarfs and disabled are Doctors, Lawyers, or otherwise educated. I guess this does not apply to all.
Click to expand...

Stephen Hawking comes to mind.

kwhilborn said:
Should people on disability stop having kids if they can pass on their disability?
Click to expand...

*Should* questions are subjective, so it's kind of silly to ask them to begin with. What I can tell you is that people with defective genetics can choose on their own whether or not to reproduce.

If your concern is that DNA is persisting in our gene pool that would result in survival failure in a natural outdoor environment then your concern is based on a valid premise. If humans suddenly lost their tools and knowledge and were placed in the savannah then many would die. As we live in a different environment, it's not an issue; however, I'll specualte that genetic engineering will eventually get to a point where we can weed out fatal genetic defects pre or post reproduction.
 
Rhaedas said:
Don't want to derail the thread, but no, that's not a guarantee at all.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day the fit will have been those who survived. To the All those loving, perfected, and passive are the fit. These are the people who will evolve.
 
Valences

At what point does fitness apply to the species instead of the individual? One could reasonably argue that the compassion and empathy humans show is a product of our natural selection; if we were a stronger species without it, we would function as such.
 
kx000 said:
At the end of the day the fit will have been those who survived. To the All those loving, perfected, and passive are the fit. These are the people who will evolve.
Click to expand...

That's all fuzzy and feel good, but isn't the rule. Definitely not in nature, and not in societies in general either. It's good to be the nice guy, but again, no guarantee you get to have descendants.
 
The responses so far seem more fitting for the biology / genetics area of the forum, and Crunchy cat (and everyone) made good points for that including our ability to weed out deformities. Steven Hawking is a good example because ALS has been linked to Genes (I think).

Since we are in Ethics/Morality I will simplify the question.

Should parents be allowed to have children that have an above average chance of being deformed or mentally handicapped?

It would be cruel. I think. Yet some parents (as in OP link) even hope for deformity. A dwarf couple wanted to have a dwarf child of their own. I do not think it sounds sane.
 
Assuming we skip over the abortion issue, then if genetic testing can be improved to detect potential problems within a time frame where the parents can make that choice, then it should be up to the parents with their doctor's counsel. I don't think parents should ever be told they cannot have a child because of a reason, because like anything that reason can be altered to exclude things beyond just physical/mental problems. Would it be right for a doctor/government to outlaw blue eyes, if we could test and terminate those pregnancies? So as a law, no, but as a precaution to parents, absolutely.
 
kwhilborn said:
The responses so far seem more fitting for the biology / genetics area of the forum.
Click to expand...

It's still on a science site...

kwhilborn said:
Should parents be allowed to have children that have an above average chance of being deformed or mentally handicapped?
Click to expand...

Your question is subjective but it's worded as if you are expecting an objective answer. Humans do not posess the means to prevent parents from choosing to have sex. Humans do posess the means to punish or kill parents and / or their offspring. If society were to start punishing or killing parents and / or their children because of parental sex then I'll speculate that it would result in war.

What you are left with are the potential pros of having less (or no) parents passing certain genetic issues on and the potential cons of war. If you personally think the pros outweigh the cons then support / show liking for the idea. If not, don't. A generic *should* question consequently dosn't have an answer.
 
Society could demand people with phys/mental deformity be "fixed" prior to receiving welfare/disability payments. There would be other ways to encourage sterilization as well.
Guess popular opinion is reversed evolution until we can weed out defects.
 
kwhilborn said:
Society could demand people with phys/mental deformity be "fixed" prior to receiving welfare/disability payments. There would be other ways to encourage sterilization as well.
Guess popular opinion is reversed evolution until we can weed out defects.
Click to expand...

Would that actually have any benefit? The people with severe mental/physical deformity that require benefits from the start are not going to reproduce anyway. The people whose defects don't cause problems until alter in life (such as MS, some forms of schizophrenia, etc.) can reproduce many times before they need any benefits. Then there is the issue of witholding benefits unless someone undergoes a surgical procedure that (like any surgery) might result in secondary injury or death. I suspect a large part of the population will interpret that as a punishment for a crime that was never committed. Another large portion of society may additionally interpret that as invasion of a persons "temple"... something that should never under any circumstances be desecrated with surgical procedures. In this scenario, I am not seeing any pros.
 
I guess there is no way to enforce child protection until they are born then. I agree there is not much hope for society in that regard. It's a shame though that someone could be allowed to purposefully screen out healthy embryos in order to bring a deformed baby into the world (link from OP).
 
I think the future of genetic engineering will at least help us eliminate terminal genetic defects from the gene pool. Of course if people choose to breed features such as dwarfism then it is what it is. It may be possible one day for genetic engineering to produce complete body customizations... wild hair colors, tails, ... who knows.
 
Kwhilborn, in what way is this to do with "reverse" evolution?
And are you seriously a proponent of sterilisation of people with phys/mental deformity? Many would see religious people as suffering a mental deformity... as well as those who hold to claims of paranormal activity.
Fortunately forced sterilisation is seen as a crime against humanity, so such people are (on the whole) safe from proponents of eugenics.
 
We live in a temporary condition where the genetically disabled can survive and reproduce. Nevertheless, a disability will likely result in a decreased chance of successful reproduction. So evolution will still tend to result in a decrease of the genes that cause disability to occur. This filtering isn't as strong as it has been in the past, when even bad eyesight would lessen your chances of survival, but who cares? A gene pool full of variations can only be a strength. Who knows what selections pressures will exist in the future? It could be that the future of the species depends on some variation of autism, schizophrenia, or dwarfism.
 
Im going to sue this site for its namesake. Science is great, you can't possibly science the mere mention of reverse evolution except for a know, maybe nature. How bad is that, reverse evolution? Could you imagine one day Charizard was Charmander again? Hell no I'd never play Pokemon again, serious. If you want to talk on a science board, we talk getting rid of the filth.

Liar, cheats, and steals wear the emotion on their face like happy, and good. Science says lets get them all tonight. Further, liars, cheats, and steals do not survive around me except they be helled*.

*One in, or headed for Hell.

Sciforums has great potential to science the whole world if ye be smart to Science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top