Natural Selection

[Shreddedwheat91]

Hello everyone, I am currently a Sociology major at UW-Parkside, and I am currently taking a Human Evolution course. I am working on a paper right now about how morals and medical technology is disrupting the nature of stabilizing selection. I am new the the anthropology field, and look forward to comments and constructive criticism.

I will have the paper posted around April.

[kolean]

disrupting the nature of stabilizing selection

Or further opening up the potential for genetic expression. . . .

[JackBean]

just think about, how long would in nature (or civilization w/o todays medicine) survive people with e.g. Down's syndrome, HIV, many infectious deaseases, but also broken legs, defective eyes etc.

[jwalin]

yeah its true that we do disrupt the stabilizing selection to our benefit.

think about it

as jack says that medicine have helped reducce the pressure caused by diseases and other facilities like guns have reduced the pressure from predators

[JackBean]

are you sure, that to our benefit?

[jwalin]

i could think of anything not done to our own benefit

there would be something but very less of such things


if someone says we built zoo's and what no we can argue it down to that we were the need to do so. earlier no zoo's were required

[mith]

we also use genetic screens and sometimes abort/not implant embryos which might have bad diseases.

[Shreddedwheat91]

The point of the paper is to show that sure, technology allows individuals or even generations as a whole to live happier and more healthy, but it does not solve the problem. By allowing those with harmful mutations to keep up their fitness, the harmful mutations continue to flourish, whereas stabilizing selection would slowing eliminate the problem.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with new technology, I'm just showing the cause and effect relationship, and where ethics comes into place.

[kolean]

I still am sticking with the potential for genetic expression.

Such as we have cancer now, but one day the mutation might be just for regeneration. You have to give mutations a chance to become somehow 'fit' for the species.

You never know when a certain mutation may be beneficial.

[rocklobster]

just think about, how long would in nature (or civilization w/o todays medicine) survive people with e.g. Down's syndrome, HIV, many infectious deaseases, but also broken legs, defective eyes etc.

While it is true that people with down syndrome or other similar disorders may live longe, they do not all necessarily reproduce. In order to have an effect on selection they must contribute to the gene pool and have their mutations or disease passed on to each following generation.