(December 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The apparently increasing prevalence of caring behavior for the incapacitated as humans evolved  suggested whether that particular band survived is a mere quibble.  That trait, survived and prospered.

I'm not convinced that it is a "trait" as much as a cultural phenomena which was itself an outgrowth of the development of language/symbolic thinking.  Again, where else does that appear in the natural world?  In this humans are quite unique... not because of some stupid god story!

I am not sure we are that unique.  When you break it down, what we do is we tend to conduct ourselves towards crippled or dead members of social group that appear to damage the interests of the living members.   Elephants seem to exhibit similar behavior over crippled or dead herd mates that couldn't possibly contribute to the survival of the living members.  But the key thing is evolution does not act right off the bat with surgical precision.  The behavior in question may well have considerable benefit when undertaken upon living members of the social group who would soon fully recover.  However evolution is not so precise as to immediate confer upon us the instinctive ability to recognize the boundaries of where such behavior stops being advantageous.

So we gained the instinct to care for the crippled regardless of whether they would soon fully recover.  Natural selection would then weigh the overall consequences to determine whether the harm in caring for the permanently crippled outweigh the benefit of caring for the soon to recover.   If it does, then there might be strong selection pressure to terminate the gene for this behavior, or force modification of the gene to also confer the instincts to more sharply delineate where and when such behavior manifest itself.    Iffy does not, then there is less pressure to refine the precision of the this behavior.

(December 7, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:The apparently increasing prevalence of caring behavior for the incapacitated as humans evolved  suggested whether that particular band survived is a mere quibble.  That trait, survived and prospered.

I'm not convinced that it is a "trait" as much as a cultural phenomena which was itself an outgrowth of the development of language/symbolic thinking.  Again, where else does that appear in the natural world?  In this humans are quite unique... not because of some stupid god story!

Cultural phenomena themselves rely on supporting traits...and ofc it's not restricted to a god story, but it;snot unique either.  Most domesticates also care for their injured.  Their wild counterparts engage in similar behaviors.  Sick to the center, young and strong outward.  It's a fairly common herd behavior.  No, bison don't mend bones with a cast...but they cant so that's irrelevant.  They do what they -can- do to protect their weak.  We do "more" because we can do "more"...but the effect is the same.  

It;s not a divergenece from ns or darwinian evolution...hss was selected for and now selects among themselves (ss/as) for cooperation, for cohabitation and co-dependency, among other things.  We sure as shit weren't selected for strength or speed or individual heartiness. Not even individual intelligence. Were born and also bred to endure, to outlast, not necessarily to win outright....but always together.....that's what worked, for us, so far.

Quote:hss was selected for and now selects among themselves (ss/as) for cooperation, for cohabitation and co-dependency

Um...no we don't.

(December 7, 2016 at 6:59 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:hss was selected for and now selects among themselves (ss/as) for cooperation, for cohabitation and co-dependency

Um...no we don't.

How do you know the US is not at the very moment undergoing natural deselection, or the the HSS gene pool a few hundred year hence would contain any significant remnants of trump voters?

It's unnatural deselection man.  Sort of like unintelligent design!

It may very well be going through natural selection. The disabled are usually the first to go, amirite Min? I'm one of those of the herd that is sick beyojd repair, and take wayyyy too much resources to keep alive. Does that mean I should just be left to die?

If its up to Drumpf and his republicunt buddies you're a goner.

(December 6, 2016 at 5:32 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Caesarean births are leading to the genes preventing vaginal birth not being eradicated. This means that a higher and higher percentage of births need to be by C section.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-38214665

I'm sure modern medicine of all kinds is changing the human genome. What about people who need glasses or contacts just to function? People who would be dead without antibiotics? What anout premature births? They are much more likely to survive now. Children of rapists not so much. The thing is that we and the tech we create are the environment and of course that affects whose genes make it to the next generation. Brains matter more, physic less. We are probably also changing in ways that eliminate people more susceptible to toxins and pollution generally.

Are ppl actually suggesting that we refrain from saving lives when we can for the sake of not "messing" with evolution?

(December 7, 2016 at 10:36 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Are ppl actually suggesting that we refrain from saving lives when we can for the sake of not "messing" with evolution?

That's why I thought the web article I saw was a little click-baity.

Evolution is an interesting topic but not performing C-sections in the name of Darwin is a bit of a stretch.