Humans vs Evolution

[Moloch]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

[1715365821]

1715365821

[1715365821]

1715365821

[poptok1]

About dog argument:
Bull Terrier - extensive breeding with strong accent on jaw and teeth "power" caused heavy retardation in breathing department, to a level of lungs underdevelopment.
Bulldog - cant breed on its own due to oversized head, very susceptible to cancer as a result of artificial selection.
German Shepard - used to be slim and agile up to 25kg, now oversized has trouble with joints.
As you can see breeders using "retarded" gene pool more than it is expected. Look for pictures of dogs from 19 century and you will spot the difference at first glance.
About bad genes:
There where few people before that loved the idea of sterilisation for handicapped... we do know how it ended.
In my opinion we as civilised society should be ready to make some sacrifices, some bits you keep and some you loose, no one has the power to dictate who is worthy of procreation.

[TreasureSeeker]

There used to be a dog licence in the UK.

Should be a parenting licence. There are so many nasty yobs, violent criminal or semi-criminal types and plain awful people having kids, often just to get more benefit money that the UK's population is getting worse and worse.  The benefits system effectively pays people to breed.  People with criminal records toward people or property, and violent tendencies should be banned from breeding. or at least fined, but no, off they go having multiple kids who learn their parents violent and nasty ways and multiply the problem.  And all the time extra child benefit money is thrown the way of the irresponsible parents encouraging them to create these problem offspring.

Survival of the least fit.

[Lancusters]

Guys! This is similar to the signs of fascism. Hitler killed the mentally retarded and with cerebral palsy. You want to accept his ideology? He also cultivated a pure Aryan race. Only this attempt on the contrary led to the genetic problems in Germany.

[TreasureSeeker]

I probably joined the wrong thread as I've nothing against the genuine mentally retarded or those with cerebral palsy, in fact many are absolutely lovely people who add a lot of positivity to the world. My main argument is against violent and nasty people.  Hitler himself would come under that heading.

[Fortify]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

[BADecker]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Let's avoid the religious debate and look at evolution from the standpoint of science.

1. Cause and effect says that there can't be any random, gene mutations or otherwise;
2. Beneficial gene mutation has never been found in nature, even once;
3. Genetic mutation in the lab is man-made mutation - not random;
4. The term "natural selection" contradicts random mutation; "selection" indicates design; "random" indicates no design;
5. Having no mercy on people who are sick, even genetically, is a genetic flaw.

Now, if you add to all this the points that:
A. Probability math proves scientifically that evolution is impossible;
B. Irreducible Complexity leaves a gigantic opening in evolution theory that science cannot fill;
you see that there is no way to scientifically bolster evolution. The only way to have evolution at all is to do it via religion.

[canah17]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Well, some of the people now a days are not thinking straight they just burst their minds into some crazy thinking but really they just can't think of a way to have a good idea to that certain problem but to create it even more dangerously but really i think of that bad genes is really dangerous.

[criptix]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

You are talking about eugenics.

Always remember: There is just one step between genius and madness.

500 years ago we burned the greatest minds on earth alive.

[HOT_HEAD]

I was just about to enlighten you about eugenics, but I see the guy above me was faster.
I am majoring in ecology/biology, so I happen to know a bunch about evolution and I also happen to know a lot about eugenics. What humans are doing to evolution is reversing it up to the point where we nurture those who are incapable of living on their own more than we help out those who are.

The last sentence might seem strange to you, but it is the core of eugenics and I'm a firm believer of it.
Nurture those who can give back to the society and nature. Nurture those who will make the humans better in any way possible.

Nature is fierce and people need to toughen up. People need to stop being so egocentric and think about the human specie as a whole. No one's right to live won't be taken away, but will simply be castrated in order to prevent more weakness coming in to our specie. We're given the power and it's up to us how we use it.

[zend7]

Why assume Evolution is real when this theory has been put down since 1920 in US and in 1950 in EU. The only country which still insists in this theory without arguments is the UK and I can understand them, being Darwin from there. Why don't monkeys become men right now ? Or why don't water turtle become a cat ? Can't you people see the extreme stupidity in this theory ? Of course there are some other 4th world countries which still believe this shit called evolution.

[leademepls]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

We're talking here about a change in human environment and habitats which are factors that affect evolution. Specimens that are more suited for their surrounding environment are more successful and desired by the opposite species, therefore they procreate and leave heirs and others that are ill suited for the world don't. In our world it's no longer so necessary to be in a perfect physical condition, it's more desired to be successful in life, therefore the new evolution will favor qualities like entrepreneurship, quick and creative thinking and so on which will eventually become more than just personal qualities that people develop during their life cycle. Human brains will become more and more suited to the demands of this kind of world, while human physique will probably begin to deteriorate.

However our political situation means that this can change in literally hours and we can go from a peaceful world where the threat is that you may lose your job, to a world where you're scavenging for food in the irradiated rubble of a town and fighting for survival is the everyday way of life. An outcome like this will instantly erase the previously well suited branch of newly evolved humans and make physical toughness a prime quality once again.

[Xester]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

[BADecker]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

Good! Because there is no argument.

All things are a product of cause and effect. This means that everything is programmed. Once we understand the parameters that the Programmer uses to program, we will realize our inherent humbleness, and our dependence on God.

[criptix]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

Good! Because there is no argument.

All things are a product of cause and effect. This means that everything is programmed. Once we understand the parameters that the Programmer uses to program, we will realize our inherent humbleness, and our dependence on God.

What is the cause of god? A greater god? 

[BADecker]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

Good! Because there is no argument.

All things are a product of cause and effect. This means that everything is programmed. Once we understand the parameters that the Programmer uses to program, we will realize our inherent humbleness, and our dependence on God.

What is the cause of god? A greater god? 

Cause and effect only apply to things within this universe... that we know of.   

[Gronthaing]

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I am ok with letting individuals decide this for themselves. Would you prefer society dictates who you can start a family with? For whatever reason is the norm at the time. Whether you agree or not.

Why assume Evolution is real when this theory has been put down since 1920 in US and in 1950 in EU. The only country which still insists in this theory without arguments is the UK and I can understand them, being Darwin from there.

Evolution hasn't been put down in any of those places. It is still the most accepted scientific theory on the subject. Stop making stuff up.

Why don't monkeys become men right now ? Or why don't water turtle become a cat ? Can't you people see the extreme stupidity in this theory ? Of course there are some other 4th world countries which still believe this shit called evolution.

That is not how evolution works. There is no great chain of being that dictates the next step up for monkeys is to become men. Or cats for turtles or whatever. And populations don't all undergo evolution in the same direction at the same time. Environment plays a part. So different animals end up having different niches. Dung beetles aren't going to stop existing because humans showed up for example. We aren't competing for the same resources.

[criptix]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

Good! Because there is no argument.

All things are a product of cause and effect. This means that everything is programmed. Once we understand the parameters that the Programmer uses to program, we will realize our inherent humbleness, and our dependence on God.

What is the cause of god? A greater god? 

Cause and effect only apply to things within this universe... that we know of.   

If you are going this way it is mute to talk about god. He is outside of our universe anyway so there exist no way to understand him.

[Slow death]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

Good! Because there is no argument.

All things are a product of cause and effect. This means that everything is programmed. Once we understand the parameters that the Programmer uses to program, we will realize our inherent humbleness, and our dependence on God.

What is the cause of god? A greater god? 

Cause and effect only apply to things within this universe... that we know of.   

You come to talk about the existence of God, where are the photos of God that I asked you to show us?

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Feelings and laws prevent us from making decisions to kill whoever

[BADecker]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

I will not argue with the theory of evolution and with the principle of the survival of the fittest. We are existing on this planet because our dna is the result of constant adoption and adjustment to the environment. But lets proceed to the bad genes you are talking off. Its not actually a problem of bad genes but the problem on not exposing the right medicines and exact therapy to cure diseases. For example the sickness called cancer, the cure was already found out long ago but it was not hidden by the medical society and the reason is the multi-billion profit from treating cancer.

Good! Because there is no argument.

All things are a product of cause and effect. This means that everything is programmed. Once we understand the parameters that the Programmer uses to program, we will realize our inherent humbleness, and our dependence on God.

What is the cause of god? A greater god? 

Cause and effect only apply to things within this universe... that we know of.   

You come to talk about the existence of God, where are the photos of God that I asked you to show us?

God is so great that a simple photo of Him would at least drive you stark raving mad... if not destroy you altogether. God is having mercy on you by not granting your request.

[muffinbiller]

The first step was standing upright. This enabled primitive apes to move out of the forests onto the Savannas where their upright posture enabled them to see further for their own protection and the identification of potential pray.
The use of the opposable thumb is another significant factor which had already been achieved by apes enabling them to grasp things. Standing enhanced this quality as they were now able to run with their hands free to use weapons. Standing tall, in a group also makes you look stronger to predators, and rivals such as baboons. The other advantage is that you expose a smaller percentage of your body (top of head and shoulders only) to the sun, and whilst most animals are seeking shade in the hottest part of the day, humans were able to keep going for longer.
Tool making can be seen in chimps and benobos. But this again was a vital ingredient in evolution.
More brain power is an expensive commodity in evolution, but bipedalism seem to have given early man the best possible reason for this attribute to be useful.
Once growing brain power became useful with upright, tool carrying humans, this aspect of evolution has enabled the ballooning of the brain. This seemed to have stopped about 6 thousand years ago, with the invention of sedentism and agriculture. Evolution now seems to occur in the abstract realm of knowledge. Sadly many have not kept up and still want to repeat the "knowledge" of our primitive ancestors and continue to believe in Creation

[BADecker]

The first step was standing upright. This enabled primitive apes to move out of the forests onto the Savannas where their upright posture enabled them to see further for their own protection and the identification of potential pray.
The use of the opposable thumb is another significant factor which had already been achieved by apes enabling them to grasp things. Standing enhanced this quality as they were now able to run with their hands free to use weapons. Standing tall, in a group also makes you look stronger to predators, and rivals such as baboons. The other advantage is that you expose a smaller percentage of your body (top of head and shoulders only) to the sun, and whilst most animals are seeking shade in the hottest part of the day, humans were able to keep going for longer.
Tool making can be seen in chimps and benobos. But this again was a vital ingredient in evolution.
More brain power is an expensive commodity in evolution, but bipedalism seem to have given early man the best possible reason for this attribute to be useful.
Once growing brain power became useful with upright, tool carrying humans, this aspect of evolution has enabled the ballooning of the brain. This seemed to have stopped about 6 thousand years ago, with the invention of sedentism and agriculture. Evolution now seems to occur in the abstract realm of knowledge. Sadly many have not kept up and still want to repeat the "knowledge" of our primitive ancestors and continue to believe in Creation

Evolution has always been an exciting science fiction story.

[SamPo]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Human vs evolution. Evolution of what? If human vs evolution of technology, human is behimd thia texhnology. If our technology becomes powerful than human. What will happen to us. If there is robots ,upgraded machines. Our society do not need human any more to work with those jobs. Humans will be replaced by machines.

[Jerry_Hype]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

If we settle such phenomena, we can get rid of diseases in the future

[ttbd]

Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns. Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Fьhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.

[Sniar]

Surprisingly that thread is filled with wise and adequate answers and discussions (except that religious troll but let's forgive that man).
Have never been expecting to see such a scientific dispute on cryptocurrency forum. Wish to see more interesting answers and assumptions.

[Bitcoininspace]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

partly agree but I think that evolution is an inevitable process

[BADecker]

Just evolve yourself a car. Humans are so complex, that only after you evolve yourself a much simpler thing like a car, might you be able to even start to think about evolving a plant... much less a human.

Of course, Volvo is close to evolve. 

[bacardibacani]

Did you know that Diabetes was a genetic mutation that kept the Western ancestors alive during the ice age? There is no such thing as bad genes. Everything in the genetic pool was a result of adaptive evolution.

[gabmen]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

partly agree but I think that evolution is an inevitable process

Evolution doesn't happen in a single lifetime so it probably is still in process, we're just not noticing it. And there are evidences of evolution still in effect today. Although not in the highly observable environment

[wxxyrqa]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

partly agree but I think that evolution is an inevitable process

Evolution doesn't happen in a single lifetime so it probably is still in process, we're just not noticing it. And there are evidences of evolution still in effect today. Although not in the highly observable environment

but there is a lot of controversy about the theory of evolution from Darwin today. I understand that people did not descend from monkeys, but many animals develop with the influence of external factors, which I, too, can be called evolution.

[rhyajelle]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

I agree, humans are taking so much natural resources to overuse it is a waste. because there are still many things to do with it.

[WhaleHunter]

Yes, humans are clearly trying to go against nature on the evolution issue, but in the end nature will prevail. This is not necessarily a good thing for us

[S.Sandberg]

EUGENICS !!! HITLER

The future may surprise you.


i know most people here answering this topic are mostly from the americas, europe, and maybe middle east/africa.

but i would like to give some facts, some you may never have seen before.


1/ there are about 20k genes in human genome.

and changing one of them can lead deadly or ugly diseases.  exemple : Huntington's disease , cystic fibrosis, Marfan syndrome...

 2/ European people the "whites" have between 1 and 2% or Neenderthal genes. Asians mainly chinese and japanese area have between 1 to 4% to Neenderthal genes.

Neenderthal never lived in africa. so basically black african have 0.000% Neenderthal genes.

so basically we can sum up has following.

Native africans have 0 Neenderthal genes.
Native europeans have about 200 to 400 Neenderthal genes.
Native asian have about 200 to 800 Neenderthal genes.


connect this to the fact number 1/ which shows how important the change of a single gene can affect your body abilities on any organs etc.

that will give you an insight of how big interracial difference really are.

3/
Here comes 2 POLITICAL and ETHICAL approach.

WESTERN aproach :
USA, Canda, Europe and Africa and south america.

the ideology teach you that no races exists. Genes doesn't affect IQ, nor other mind and body abilities at all, only environement and education does.

i'm not gonna expand this part since i'm pretty much sure, wether you are a liberal or right-wing reader, you pretty much already know all of this.


EASTERN Approach :
China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea.

the ideology teach you that nothing is really known about genes, therefore the path to solves genetics diseases, adding modifications to human genome, and selecting, races, and lineage is not excluded at all.
progress must be made at all cost.

Exemples :

Basketball star Yao Ming has been the result of selected chinese lineage, basically marrying tall men and women to have a taller child. Since Yao  Ming became very tall and earned some respect in the basketball field, we can conclude the experiment succeded.

an other exemple : BGI Genomics, a company based in Shenzhen , China is studying genomes of thousands of chinese people who had very hgh IQ and schools results.
trying to find the genes responsible for such IQ, and then improve performances of next children if possible.

the priority of BGI Genomics though is to solves every genetical diseases.

the fact of having not enough Neenderthal genes, or having a too low IQ being considered a disease, is up to their choice, not mine.



4/ CONCLUSION

evolution is gonna take two paths simulataneous path in the 21th century :

interracial mixing between white / black africans in europe and usa; leading to a decrease of eliminiation of neenderthal genes in these area.
eugenics of eastern countries that are actually trying not only to slow down mixing, but also to select the best lineage and genes.


5/ note that eugenics in eastern countries are highly-experimental. the average asian citizen raely hear about eugenics in their countries, unless they get interested by genetic field.


6/  May the best win. the future will tell us who was right i guess.

what do you think about this ?

[spongegar]

If humans rely more on our intelligence and solely create technology to actually do the heavy lifting. Then we will evolve into those large headed lanky alien grey types. Where eyes and the head are huge because we will value these aspects and wont use our muscles to lift things rather we will just build automatons to help us out. Thinking about it, we will develop weaker genes since we prolong our health artificially

[Mobshady24]

according to my professor in college is that our species is in a continuous evolution but a lot slower than our predecessor maybe because of the technology since we have a means to fight the nature from getting disease or extreme climate. Try to observe kids today than before, they are a lot smarter and fast learner, my professor even said that in thousand of years there will be a time that human has a wings.

[zoran.drobnjak]

2) in short time-frame, 1) in long time span.
None can be deemed prevailing, they simply complement each other.

[randal9]

there is the evolution of technology...but the degradation of morality...people are less appreciating the quality of character and increasingly appreciate the external factors...

[Bumbr]

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Now we solve another problems, we changed environment and it's more friendly. And nobody knows what can happen tomorrow. So, you can't call some genes "bad". Friendly environment helps to create diversity , which is opportunity for new changes and progress! 

[jeremiah_woffy]

There is only onething I Know, i am made by God on his own image and nothing can change that, i beleive in science but science is nothing if God did not made them.

[Tuvualala]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Nazis agree with you.
But who decide what genes are bad or good? In Third Reich only nazis decide it! May be mankind with 2 head can be more succesful in future? Or people with stone skin? We can't know it. So I prefer that mother-nature decide it then some fanatics...

[randal9]

I don't think that there is an evolution as it is shown...I believe that people existed a very long time...why then don't monkeys become people now, if this was before?