Instead of simply adapting to the natural environment, an organism must now attempt to adapt to the pollution, irrigation, and urbanization of human civilization. Is technology and scientific progress actually hindering the all-important process in science that is evolution? Or, are there actually evidence of technology inducing positive changes in an organism's genome?
Please support your specific and detailed ideas with evidence from Coyne, Campbell, and outside sources. Also, please relate your ideas to a biological theme.
I believe that technology itself progresses and hinders the process of natural selection depending on the organism that we are discussing. For humans, our technology hinders the process of natural selection because we have developed technology to bring those that are handicapped back onto "equal footing". Technology has rendered Natural Selection less effective because certain diseases such as Hepatitis A and B, Measles, and HPV may wipe out a group of population eventually having only those that were immune to these diseases survive. Those that are handicapped are assisted through the use of aids such as wheelchairs and prosthetics; therefore, these advances are more of a cultural evolution rather than a biological one. However, even though technology can be viewed as man-made, so therefore not "natural", organisms still must survive under the consequences/conditions that technology has produced in their present "natural environment". I think that we cannot really state whether human technology's impact on other species' natural selection can be stated because humans began to use technology only a couple thousand years ago. Though this may sound like a lot, the technology that people use has not have major impact until a couple centuries when problems such as pollution began to be discovered. To survive, organisms must adapt to the environment that our technology has caused or they will have to flee or die. So, those that can adapt, it will be a positive change to adjust to pollution and other issues humans have caused. I believe that technology has limited human evolution from furthering unless genetic engineering is able to modify human genes.
ReplyDeleteSource http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.bio.evolution/2006-03/msg00009.html
I agree with Andrew that our technological advances have hindered human evolution somewhat, but I disagree that it has stopped it all together. It is true that increases in technology and medicine have greatly increased our chances of survival to reproductive age as Coyne states: "[M]edical intervention has allowed many to lead normal lives who would have been ruthlessly culled by selection over most of our evolutionary history" (218).
ReplyDeleteHowever, Coyne also makes the point that "so long as people die before they've stopped reproducing, and so long as some people leave more offspring than others, there is an opportunity for natural selection to improve us" (219). As long as there are factors that lead to selection, then there will be evolution. For example, in countries where technology and medicine aren't as advanced ,like some places in Africa, diseases like malaria and AIDS are powerful sources of natural selection.
Even in North America a team of researchers funded by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center conducted a study of some 2000 women observing the effects certain genetic traits had on fertility. The conclusion was that even in our technologically advanced world, we are still evolving.
In terms of other organisms, I think that our advancements can,will, and have produced measurable evolutionary effects. For example, pesticides that we use on crops and medicine that we use to rid our bodies of pathogens are sources of natural selection. Since these organisms have relatively short generations, populations resistant to pesticides and medicines have evolved quickly which is why we are constantly developing new ways ways to kill pests and pathogens.
This all relates to the theme of science, technology, and society as well as evolution because our technological advances that we have made contribue to our evolution, or lack there of, as well as the evolution of other species and organisms.
Source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019162933.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909103116.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew and Coyne that we live in an age "gene cultural coevolution" rather than biological evolution (217).
ReplyDeletePeople have learned to be more coy, humorous, and sociable in order to attract mates. Furthermore, intelligence is considered an attractive quality in a spouse, however, 60 years ago women weren't considered very intelligent, but now it is a valued trait in all genders.
Thus in order to reproduce and ensure success of the next generation, rather than survive and reproduce because in this age of technology many more will survive than without technology, people have evolved their personalities, rather than biological systems.
Consequently, a certain cognitive awareness of what is acceptable and encouraged in society help ensure reproduction and act as a selective advantage.
I agree with Brendan that this cultural evolution relates to the theme of science, technology, and society. Through the mass media, many people have pre-existing notions of what they want in a spouse. The internet and the television set help promote and spread stereotypes, and so they imprint certain ideas to the society as a whole.
sources: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-cultural/
Andrew is correct in that there are certain hindrances to evolution produced by technology, but I completely agree with Brendan's qualification that evolution and natural selection of the human race have in no way stopped altogether. Jessica, though it is true that we constantly witness a cultural evolution, this does not replace the biological evolution. Our "personalities" are not evolving instead of our "body systems," rather, as Coyne puts it, they experience coevolution (217).
ReplyDeleteCoordination of Science & Technology
To answer Dennis's question, there is considerable evidence that technology can induce positive changes in an organism's genome. On one hand, genetic technology allows us to be aware of the diseases and disorders we may be passing down. For instance, the BRCA, a breast cancer gene test, tells cancer patients whether there is a mutation in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that can be passed down to later generations; some people decide not to reproduce if there is a high risk of inheritance in their offspring. This becomes part of selection.
Genetic technology (and artifical selection) also help the human race survive by providing more efficient means to a larger quantity of food. Recently, research done on the swine genome has enhanced the selection process by evaluating pigs with a longer productive lifetime and greater immunity to disease (that produce a larger number of antibodies).
http://nationalhogfarmer.com/genetics-reproduction/archive/genome-technology-0215/
http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-brca-gene-test