Viagra & Evolution

That's the most important point of your post. If everybody lives long lives and reproduce, we end up with a population explosion which cannot persist forever (The Earth is afterall finite). Something's got to give. Be patient, and you are bond to see evolution comming back with vengence.But you are right. Human evolution has stopped, but for a different reason

Thanks subbie Yes, that is what I was thinking of originally. Wonder if there was any affect on fertility as well, or would "erectile dysfunction" be a result of mental response to this same pattern in a homophobic society?Or it could just be a similar mutation to "disable" breeding when population density became high.Also it may not be genetic but developmental, due to high hormone levels at certain stages of development caused by population\breeding stress on parents\mothers. Except that the population as a whole can benefit.Consider a third "sex" such as worker bees, that allows for a large population with fewer breeders competing for mates. Which of course is no rebuttal to the concept. Consider that our social institutions have made survival of many extreme variations less problematic, so that they in effect become neutral in our ecology. Such a variation could be ages old, and a recessive gene (see Rrhain's comments)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi, Fallacycop. Granted. I never intended that answer to be a universal declaration about every death and birth in the world's population of humans.Do you disagree with me that there are many "unfit" phenotypes that are persisting and reproducing in our populations as a direct result of medical, sanitational and agricultural practices? Clearly, these cannot be the result of natural selection.That was my thesis: the ToE is not responsible for all variation that is being maintained in human populations these days.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

If this sort of "crowding" mechanism works in humans I think it would have to be because we've carried it from waaaaaay back in our evolutionary past.I doubt very much that any of our genus (or close relatives) have had much crowding of population in the last 10 million years at least. That is until the last few 1,000.Rats have been subject to this for a very long time I'm sure.

Thanks Granny Magda Rather than genetic, they could be developmental changes due to hormones and stress. People talk about stress levels in teens being high, and this is when sexuality matures.It could be something like the cues that tell non-alpha males and females in packs that they are not the breeders - look at gorillas and male dominance, if you want one close to home. Imagine this is your morning commute, every day. The last from College of Humanities and Sciences — Virginia Commonwealth University

quote:

---

Anxiety Disorders are a group of serious- yet treatable- disorders that affect behavior, thoughts, feelings and physical sensations. Anxiety disorders can be caused by a combination of biological and/or environmental factors like many other disorders such as heart disease or diabetes.

---

What would be interesting would be to see if there is a correlation between incidence and population density.Another interesting thing would be to compare countries to see if there is a correlation across country borders or if there is another variable involved (like the amount of chemicals in our diet compared to Europe)Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : changed last picture

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey Ned,Just exploring an hypothesis here, That is one possibility. Gorillas have a dominant male pattern, so it is possible that this is a shared ancient trait.But it is also possible that it is a new trait caused by developmental cues rather than genetics - stress and hormones affecting development at critical stages, such as reaching sexual maturity.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Define unfit. Does the fact that primates are unable to produce their own vitamine c make them unfit?

I'd say people with down syndrome, and people born with severe disabilities.Now, I'm not saying I don't WANT these people to live, I'm saying that if we didn't have intelligence, such individuals would have a much lesser chance to survive to reproductive age.

---

I hunt for the truth

People with dawn syndrome don't reproduce. Many severe disabilities will also prevent reproduction. You didn't answer my question about the fact that you and me are not able to produce vitamine c. Are we unfit?

First of all, some females with down syndrome CAN reproduce, given that the male counterpart is normal. I can't say I've heard of a case where a down syndrome male has been able to reproduce. Anyway, the offsprings have a very high chance of having down syndrome as well. While this is true, the same can be said about severe disabilities that don't prevent reproduction. It's an inconvienience that primates have apparently been able to overcome.

Fit or not depends on environmental factors. This includes the care they receive from the society they live in. Some of them DO reproduce, so apparently they are fit enough to survive and reproduce.That said (and you have my permission to call me heartless), I don't want them to reproduce.

Well, if you see everything humans do as natural, then of course, yes, you are right. I don't, so I guess we'll just have to differ in opinion here, as there really isn't an argument that will convince either and this basically come down to semantics then. I'm not going to call you Heartless, for I see it in the exact same way.

---

I hunt for the truth

Semantics or not, exactly where do we draw the line and say this is natural and this is not? We have found skeletal remains of neanderthals that lived for years with debilitating diseases. They would have died if it weren't for others in their communities caring for them. They certainly weren't human.

Whether the behavior of humans is natural or not, there are several aspects that are relevant:(1) this is learned behavior, and only applies to humans that have learned it or where the learning is incorporated into their society. There are places in the world where this learned behavior is not applicable - they have not learned it (incorporated it into society).(2) selection on the basis of learned behavior is still selection. This still affects the change in hereditary traits from generation to generation, it just includes more variety in the {select for reproduction (if they survive)} group and has the effect of neutralizing otherwise deleterious traits.(3) remove the learned behavior and the benefit will cease, and populations will revert to selection based on survival and reproduction without such behavior.(4) we are approaching the threshold of being able to sort through genetic material of zygotes, and remove\replace known genetic disease sections. This will result in negative selection of those traits.(5) the (over)size of the population is more critical than medical ability to allow people to survive, and as long as people starve to death, or die without medical attention, then selection is operating based on natural "fitness" for those individuals.(6) diseases still cause (natural) selection, both in developed and undeveloped portions of the world, and the spread of disease is facilitated by the global economy and overpopulation, such that a local disease can easily become a global epidemic. Bird flu as an example.Personally, I think natural selection is alive and well in the human race, in spite of our efforts to neutralize it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : dblword

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

quote:

---

That said (and you have my permission to call me heartless), I don't want [people with Down Syndrome] to reproduce.

---

Let's have a bit of fun, and see if we can give the cdesign proponentists a little ammunition. (Seems to be the least we can do since they give themselves so little to work with.)I'm assuming the reason that you don't want them to reproduce is because they reduce the overall fitness of the species and are, on the whole, a drain on resources.What steps, if any, would you be willing to accept for society to discourage them reproducing? I have my own conclusion to this question, fairly firmly held, that I'll share. But I'm curious to hear what you (or anyone else) has to say on the matter.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat