Biological Energy Redistribution?

No, frankly I have the feeeling that mankind will be reduced to a few lucky individuals, pockets protected from hordes of millions and millions ants in swarms with poisenous bites, killing every living thing in its path. Or a swarm of locust passing by, leaving your environment absent of life and crops.

Humans seems to evolve mentally, but we are by no means the fastest, keenest, sensory superior over most our smaller distant cousins, whose whole evolution consisted of hundreds of millions of years of specialization, survival techniques in all areas, such as an instant launch of millions of individuals with but one single purpose (program) then to eat everything edible thing in sight, but did not result in an expasion of the brain in a very limited area which has specific functional abilities, but not capable of creating abstract concepts.

There is one clear piece of evidence, DDT and its derivatives had to be outlawed because they were more toxic to humans than to the insect it was supposed to kill. Our chemical defenses are more harmful to humans than to the pest insect, which apparently can learn to digest our poisons as food. Neat trick.

Just like humans, insects are invasive species, some day we'll meet in a serious situation, a battle for living space.......think of it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Domes comes to mind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would also add"natural selection" which may appear in rarer, more random exterior events.

IMO, evolution is a result of long term , large distances, and climate zones which required specific survival skills. Natural selection I see more as an Ice-age or an accidental meteor impact. Something which drastically alters the ecosystem and is unsuitable for life for many species in all areas of the globe.

Some say we are already at the beginning of the Sixth mass extinction. Gives me pause.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If all individuals were equally fit, then Darwinian style biological evolution by natural selection couldn't happen. Natural selection occurs by selection among heritable variations existing in a population. The only way to make all the individuals genetic duplicates of each other would be to have a population of clones.

Sure, but we aren't all genetic duplicates.

That disease and misfortune occur in life.

If some heritable genetic variations make individuals more resistant to particular kinds of misfortune, like falling prey to certain diseases that might otherwise increase mortality and decrease reproductive success, then those generations are likely to be better represented in future generations.

 

Sickle cell anemia in Africa is a defense against malaria. Here in the US it is a life threatening disease.

 

Not really - it was outlawed because the of the devastating effects it had on fish eating birds. DDT would build up in the systems of the birds and it had the effect of making the egg shells so thin that they would break when the birds sat on them to brood.
It would have eventually become toxic to humans as it built up in our systems.

As a side note - in some lakes in NY it is recommended to only eat something like 1 lake trout a month from the lake because of DDT. It takes so long to break down that it is still in the environment.

 

You could say that the evolution of intelligence allowed us to develop technologies like burning carbon for energy, and a sedentary lifestyle, and that these are destructive. But they are also cultural traits. Not every aspect of human life is explained by evolution. We can transcend our "programming". Human culture could just as easily promote manual labor and agriculture instead of robots, and in some places it does. But even industrial society, although destructive to other species, are not destructive for humans. They result in wild success in terms of higher life expectancy and lower infant death rates.

The evolutionary solution to this would be the evolution of less intelligent people. How would that have to happen? The only way it could work (the way evolution works) is that less intelligent people would have to gain some significant advantage in reproduction. This is the premise of the movie "Idiocracy". I don't see how this could happen naturally except through eugenics (artificial selection). Intelligence is still an advantage in a modern industrial society. And by the way, if there is a reproductive advantage to stupidity, it's by definition also not destructive. Evolution will always favor those genes that lead to greater reproduction of genes in a gene pool. And greater reproduction translates into success of a species.

 

The statement still holds true then?

The crime was when we sold the excess DDt to So-America, where it worked its way in cattle feed and contaminated the meat which was then resold to the US.

 

It is a life threating disease in Africa too, but it is less life threating than malaria.

 

DDT was outlawed because of the effect on fish eating birds not people, was I unclear?

 

Yes, but we now appear, either already got or getting self destructive evolution... Somewhat disruptive selection instead of directional selection due to consicious evolution not natural biological evolution.

 

No, DDT was developed to combat crop infestion from locusts.

But, does it matter how it got in human food and created debillitated mutant humans, and the insect were using it as food!

 

I agree, and that is due to our shaping our own environments, which are incompatible with natural evolution.

 

It is really problematic for you to use the term self destructive evolution. It is a bit of a an oxymoron. Your values cause you to think it is self destructive. Nature does not care in the slightest what your values are.

 

I think, natural selection is subject to nature is maintained. But it is not maintained currently. Therefore we now need to also look non natural selection. Somewhat, disruptive selection instead of directional selection leading to consicious evolution should be relevent to my feeling of self destructive nature.
Btw, how dissimilar offsprings of same speci at same previous environmental exposures can be possible in survival of fittest consideration?All should equally survive at least upto their reproductive age because all took birth as fittest.

 

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. You bring that up to change the subject so you do not have to admit you were incorrect about why DDT was outlawed. It is such a minor thing - you could say, "oh, yeah that is why it was outlawed". You won't though you will enter post after post droning on and on just so you do not have to say, oops made a slight error

It is rather funny how you are incapable of admitting any errors you make. That is why I put you on ignore, and why you are going back on ignore.

 

I get the feeling that the word 'evolution' is being used in two different (but related) ways in this thread, and that might be causing some confusion.

1. 'Evolution' as change over time. We commonly see this usage in physics, as in 'the evolution of spiral galaxies' or 'evolution rules in dynamical systems', where the 'evolution rule' of the dynamical system is a function that describes what future states follow from the current state.

2. 'Evolution' in the biological Darwinian sense of change over time in the genetic makeup of biological lineages and the origin of new species by natural selection. It's interesting to note that this is the explanation of a particular kind of (biological) change over time by applying a non-formal evolution rule to it. So #2 would seem to be a particular instance of #1.

But it's important to note that not all changes over time (imagine billiard balls striking each other) are instances of Darwinian natural selection. Not even all changes over time in biological organisms or biological populations are instances of Darwinian natural selection. If lots of efficient predators (human hunters say) or a new disease enter a wilderness area, that might drive other animals to extinction. That is certainly a change in time in population numbers, but it isn't Darwinian evolution. It would be an example of 'evolution' #1.

We will only see Darwinian natural selection (evolution #2) if the species in question has some genetic variants that are better able to tolerate those adverse environmental conditions and those hardier variants are able to pass on those qualities to their offspring who survive and become more numerous in succeeding generations.

 

It did not cause "debilitated mutant humans". I quote the part of the Wiki article on the human toxicity of DDT:

"DDT is an endocrine disruptor.[72][73] It is considered likely to be a human carcinogen although the majority of studies suggest it is not directly genotoxic.[74][75][76] DDE acts as a weak androgen receptor antagonist, but not as an estrogen.[77] p,p'-DDT, DDT's main component, has little or no androgenic or estrogenic activity.[78] The minor component o,p'-DDT has weak estrogenic activity.

Acute toxicity[edit]
DDT is classified as "moderately toxic" by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP)[79] and "moderately hazardous" by WHO, based on the rat oral LD50 of 113 mg/kg.[80] Indirect exposure is considered relatively non-toxic for humans.[81]

Chronic toxicity[edit]
Primarily through the tendency for DDT to buildup in areas of the body with high lipid content, chronic exposure can affect reproductive capabilities and the embryo or fetus.[81]

• A review article in The Lancet states, "research has shown that exposure to DDT at amounts that would be needed in malaria control might cause preterm birth and early weaning ... toxicological evidence shows endocrine-disrupting properties; human data also indicate possible disruption in semen quality, menstruation, gestational length, and duration of lactation."[38]
• Other studies document decreases in semen quality among men with high exposures (generally from IRS).[82]
• Studies are inconsistent on whether high blood DDT or DDE levels increase time to pregnancy.[60] In mothers with high DDE blood serum levels, daughters may have up to a 32% increase in the probability of conceiving, but increased DDT levels have been associated with a 16% decrease in one study.[83]
• Indirect exposure of mothers through workers directly in contact with DDT is associated with an increase in spontaneous abortions[81]
• Other studies found that DDT or DDE interfere with proper thyroid function in pregnancy and childhood.[60][84]"

Thus, it was thought it MIGHT cause a number of problems, none of which include birth deformities. It is also only LIKELY to be a human carcinogen.

In other words, as far as human health is concerned, taking it out of use was a precautionary step rather than a response to a demonstrated human health problem.

 

You're right, that was Thalidomide.
another one of those wonder drugs.
But I think the list you provided is a clear indication that DDT is harmful to humans directly or indirectly .
I hope you are not advocating continued use of this pesticide.

 

The directed evolution Kumar speaks of is simply called artificial selection (as opposed to natural selection) - or selective breeding.

But it's the same thing, it still results in the most fit specimens getting to breed more, it's just that the criteria for what is considered "fit" is determined consciously. Dogs that are friendly to humans get bred more than dogs that are not friendly. The environment of these dogs is "among humans", so they re well-adapted to that niche.

If however, humans lose interest in keeping dogs as pets, those dogs will end up in the wild, where they will once again be selected for survivability.

Kumar, there is no such thing as negative or destructive evolution. It always works the same way: individuals who are better adapted to their environment will get to breed, producing more offspring like themselves; individuals who are not adapted well will breed less, and be winnowed from the population.