It is impossible to believe in Evolution and not be a racist

[tras19]

Different is not better.
Pigeons and doves are both birds. They both have distinct qualities. It's nonsense to say that a dove is a better bird than a pigeon or that pigeon is a better bird than a dove.

Ummm I will straight up say doves are better birds. No contest. Doves are majestic birds that symbolize unobtainable perfection in the form of peace. Pigeons are noisy trashy city dwelling pests that get off on ****ting on people's cars. I guarantee every bird species think pigeons are retarded jerks.

In regards to the original question I think that human beings are still evolving and won't stop until we're extinct. The basis of reproduction involving two individuals swapping genes will always always be evolving as new combinations of genes and mutations are bound to occur during such a process involving a staggering amount of possible combinations.

It is hard to compare human beings to any other animal species on the planet. Once human beings gained sentience, we became a part of nature that didn't belong to nature. We've recognized it and moved above almost every problem every animal species on the planet faces on a daily basis. Steady food and water sources and a lack of any natural predators anymore have basically separated us from the path of traditional evolution, but to think were not evolving is absolutely silly. Not that many thousands of years ago we were not the top of the food chain and didn't have the advantages science and technology have provided us.

[Elldallan]

It is hard to compare human beings to any other animal species on the planet. Once human beings gained sentience, we became a part of nature that didn't belong to nature. We've recognized it and moved above almost every problem every animal species on the planet faces on a daily basis. Steady food and water sources and a lack of any natural predators anymore have basically separated us from the path of traditional evolution, but to think were not evolving is absolutely silly. Not that many thousands of years ago we were not the top of the food chain and didn't have the advantages science and technology have provided us.

Well technically since there is no process of selection it also means that "undesirable" genes also gets passed on with a greater frequency so our evolution could just as well be a devolution. But you're correct in that the process doesn't stop.

[barbrolie]

Well technically since there is no process of selection it also means that "undesirable" genes also gets passed on with a greater frequency so our evolution could just as well be a devolution. But you're correct in that the process doesn't stop.

There is selection, though at a much slower rate than would have happened had we not had the technological capabilities for living with undesirable genes. And it's possible we're selecting for characteristics that do not necessarily augur well for the survival of the species.

[Magn]

There is selection, though at a much slower rate than would have happened had we not had the technological capabilities for living with undesirable genes. And it's possible we're selecting for characteristics that do not necessarily augur well for the survival of the species.

I think people get stuck in a local short-term evaluation of evolution and lose sight of the bigger picture (ie, millions of years from now after the rise and fall of countless cultures). There is a desirable selection happening, it's happening at an incredibly slow pace (think an ossilating graph going in an overall upward direction over millions of years) and more at our expense than it needs to because we chose not to exert intelligent control over it.

If positive selection is not happening locally in a culture, that culture will die and only cultures that evolve in a positive direction will survive.

We have never been so prosperous that we could afford to screw up a lot. Our technological progress has limits and often comes at an environmental cost. We can't afford to apply it mindlessly without careful analysis (the way we have been doing quite often so far).

We could help guide our natural selection: we wouldn't even have to kill anyone or be extremely stringent about it, we'd just have to make sure that say, the bottom x% using broad metrics the majority would agree on doesn't reproduce (ie, extremely poorly adapted individuals in terms of physical health, character or cognitive abilities).

Instead, because we refuse to do any sort of weeding, however humane it would be, we've chosen to let external factors do all that weeding for us and it will be a much harsher taskmaster than we would be. It won't have any qualms about making countless people die in a very non-humane way and wiping out entire societies to ultimately get it right.

Hell with enough research we might be able to learn to control evolution on a genetic level, and yes we've evolved to such a point that we as a species is capable of self extinction, any other form of extinction at this point is unlikely, barring the rise of some super virus/bacteria(which is far from impossible).

I'm not saying extinction of the entire species would be impossible, but I think it accidentally occuring as a result of our actions would be extremely improbable. If we'd wipe out our entire species, it would be quite deliberate, not accidental.

However, we are entirely capable of "accidentally" (most likely by turning a blind eye to facts we have) making our civilisation crumbles, screwing up our ecosystems in such a way that prosperity is not feasible for a very long time and force smaller pockets of populations to subsist on very little for the foreseeable future.

I wouldn't diss on our potential for adaptation. It takes a special kind of infrastructure to provide what we would consider a humane lifestyle to billions of people, but smaller groups with low standards who just want to survive can subsist on very little. It's just not particularly pleasant and not the kind of lifestyle someone who grew in a more prosperous time would like to comtemplate though.

[Elldallan]

Instead, because we refuse to do any sort of weeding, however humane it would be, we've chosen to let external factors do all that weeding for us and it will be a much harsher taskmaster than we would be. It won't have any qualms about making countless people die in a very non-humane way and wiping out entire societies to ultimately get it right.

Nothing even remotely humane about obligated euthanasia/castration. It's been tried for various disgusting and injustifiable reasons. There's simply no way to justify something like that. It would be far easier(because it's pretty much almost in our reach) to start genetically modify ourselves for excellence, artificial evolution/selection, we're not that many decades from when it will be feasible. which would essentially render selection irrelevant, we just engineer traits for excellence instead.

I'm not saying extinction of the entire species would be impossible, but I think it accidentally occuring as a result of our actions would be extremely improbable. If we'd wipe out our entire species, it would be quite deliberate, not accidental.

I agree, I wasn't referring to accidental extermination but we've made up so many various nasty weapons to kill each others with that we can kill of the entire planet literally a thousand times over, a War going overboard into a global conflict could easily turn into a global extinction event.

However, we are entirely capable of "accidentally" (most likely by turning a blind eye to facts we have) making our civilisation crumbles, screwing up our ecosystems in such a way that prosperity is not feasible for a very long time and force smaller pockets of populations to subsist on very little for the foreseeable future.

Screwed up ecosystems won't be what will kill us off as a species, not directly anyway. What is far more likely to happen is that ****ed up ecosystems/resource scarcity will lead to us fighting over the habitable areas or the resources and because of my previous point we can easily exterminate ourselves in that process, one simple acronym... MAD.

I wouldn't diss on our potential for adaptation. It takes a special kind of infrastructure to provide what we would consider a humane lifestyle to billions of people, but smaller groups with low standards who just want to survive can subsist on very little. It's just not particularly pleasant and not the kind of lifestyle someone who grew in a more prosperous time would like to comtemplate though.

Yeah, the requirements for human survival is a far cry from what we determine as "essential" for modern life.