It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by miriam0566
You are hilarious. Really. Please stay out of threads discussing evolution if you can't even understand it, as it's impossible for you to add anything of any value to anyone else participating in it. Harsh, but fair.
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Well I more meant that education (or the lack there of) is synonymous rate of pregnancy.
Edward O. Wilson: I think that’s fundamentally right. Where the birth control, you know, organized birth control methods and making contraceptive methods available comes in is that it enables people, particularly women, but it’s apparently a universal human response and particularly female response, that once one gets a certain level of security in their lives, and in the case of women a sufficient empowerment so they make their own decisions, they opt for a small number of quality children as opposed to, well, just producing big families.
One sign of hope is that the worldwide average of children per woman fell from 4.3 in 1960 to 2.6 in 2000. (The number required to attain zero population growth is 2.1.) The primary factor in this decline is the gradual empowerment of women, which has led them to choose to have fewer children, a development which Wilson describes as a "fortunate, indeed almost miraculous gift of human nature to future generations." It could have gone the other way, he notes, with liberated women choosing larger families: "Demographers of the future will, I believe, point out that humanity was saved by this one quirk in the maternal instinct."
But the fact is that the vast majority of mutations are completely neutral. They’d have to be because, according to the National Center for Biotechnology Information, there is an overall average of 128 mutations per human zygote! So apparently, in creationist terms, “very rare” means “more than a hundred per person right from the point of conception”. Because those are just the mutations we start out with. Our cells will mutate again 30 more times over the course of our lives, and some of these subsequent mutations can be passed on to our children too –usually with no more effect than those we recognize as family traits.
Its hard to find one rigid set of numbers from any laboratory for a constant rate of how many mutations are beneficial versus those that are detrimental, because these are determined by variable environmental conditions. But there is a general consensus that they’re nearly equal with deleterious mutations being slightly more common. They’re also more profound too. But there are plenty of cases where a definite advantage has been identified and positively linked to a specific mutation.
Originally posted by Grey Magic
If there will be any more physical evolution it will be genetically engineered and not by natural selection.
(for example removing the appendix genetically)
Originally posted by Good Wolf
Yea, I see what you mean. I didn't much think about the cyborg, 'transhumanist' aspect.
[edit on 9/15/2008 by Good Wolf]
Originally posted by Grafilthy
reply to post by Good Wolf
Everyone knows that the only way is abstinence.....
God says so.