Can human history be said to operate via natural selection?
>>1029044
No, to some extent we are still subject to natural selection, but we have been able to mitigate the vast majority of the pathways that natural selection operates through as it applies to ever other species.
>>1029044
>human nature
Seriously fuck off.
>>1029075
>I don't know what natural selection is
You should probably read a book sometimes. It's a nice experience.
>>1029057
I think it is still working on us. You may escape the channels that animals are selected through, but only by being exposed to new ones.
Norms of society play a big role nowadays and are a facror if some one gets to fugg or not.
>>1029092
>Norms of society play a big role nowadays and are a facror if some one gets to fugg or not
But are these explicitly tied to particular genes being selected preferentially over others? the lack of unanimity in fuggin preference seems to suggest that the directions we are being pulled are so numerous that it wouldn't count as natural selection for x trait. Also how often do societal norms shift, 10 years, 50 years 1000 years? these scales are far too short for a sustained long term selection pressure to influence the gene pool.
>>1029044
You can't 'escape' natural selection as natural selection is, by definition, what there actually is.
>But muh people with weak sickly genes don't die because hospitals exist
Exactly. The criteria for survival and breeding have changed.
>>1029191
Wat?
>>1029085
The only way in which selection could be "natural" in humans would be if humans had a "nature" ie: if they were behavioural rather than decisive. You have to essentialise the human in order to support your supposition.
Thus my statement against your specious reductivist bullshit.
>>1029191
>And memes just like genes are subject to natural selection.
No
Meme are explicitly non-genetic and hence not subject to natural selection.
>>1029194
Not that anon, but 'human nature' whatever this consist of (including ever last bit of deviation from the norm) arose through evolution, this isn't really related to whether history can be said to operate through natural selection.
>>1029194
>making their own decisions is human nature
>>1029200
With your mastery over English tenses I really trust you to comprehend and explain the argument.
>>1029194
No you don't. The only two notions you need for a concept of evolution are: a. resource scarcity, and b. hereditary traits. That is all. Those traits don't ever have to be innate and can be acquired (i.e Lamarck). Come to think of it, you also don't necessarily need an idea of sexual reproduction.
If anything, the very idea of evolution goes against the notion of human "essence".
>>1029240
Do you understand the point I was making or is my english too triggering for you?
>>1029251
Your English is incomprehensible. Your first gambit is to reduce a term to meaningless indicating you have no idea what you're talking about. You then proceed to indicate that you can't differentiate "natural" selection from conscious human decisions.
>>1029245
Go ask Wittgenstein about whether you need language for concepts. And stop imputing causes to external reality, that's deistic.
>>1029291
>Your English is incomprehensible.
Perhaps because you don't understand the biological terminology?
>You then proceed to indicate that you can't differentiate "natural" selection from conscious human decisions.
Concious human decisions influence natural selection but the ability to make conscious decisions arose due to evolutionary processes, or are you suggesting that humans were created/always existed in their current form divorced from the influence of natural selection?
>The only way in which selection could be "natural" in humans would be if humans had a "nature" ie: if they were behavioural rather than decisive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
>Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time
>>1029303
No it isn't, otherwise controlled breeding would be natural selection you fucking idiot.
Citing wikipedia or dictionaries should be a bannable fucking offence on /his/.
>>1029303
>Concious human decisions influence natural selection
The entire point about evolution is that it's not determined by individual conscious decisions but by indirect and largely unconscious behavioral patterns.
>>1029195
But that would be the only context in which "history can be said to operate via natural selection", if we talking genes we are just talking about human biology.
>>1029331
THUS TO POSIT HUMANS AS NOT CONSCIOUS, IE: AS THE RESULT OF THE ARBITRARY SELECTION OF BEHAVIOUR IS TO ESSENTIALISE THE HUMAN AND DECLARE IT HAS A NATURE.
FUCK ME DRUNK YOU DUMB ESL CUNT.
>>1029339
you seem upset son
>>1029044
No because what happens in history is too broad to classify in terms of biology. And generally has nothing to do with phenotypes. Also often actions performed by a group that makes them seem like they're "winning" over a period of time end up utterly ruining them. It's a little bit more complicated than bacteria realizing that they're getting killed by a toxic substance and their descendants growing resistant to it due to their madman biology.
>>1029314
>No it isn't, otherwise controlled breeding would be natural selection you fucking idiot
The distinction between natural and artificial selection is artificial, both result in non random changes to the gene pool.
>>1029314
>The entire point about evolution is that it's not determined by individual conscious decisions but by indirect and largely unconscious behavioral patterns.
When you respond to a painful stimuli is this unconscious behaviour, or is the form your response takes influenced by evolution, i.e avoid pain rather than seek it regardless of whether your conscious decision is actually beneficial or not, see drug addicts avoiding the pain of withdrawal by taking more drugs. And for the particular example of drugs, OD's are a selection pressure which result in a decreased frequency of gene's which predispose individuals to addiction however slight it would be.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715956/
>>1029331
>if we talking genes we are just talking about human biology.
non-humans don't have genes?
>>1029331
>But that would be the only context in which "history can be said to operate via natural selection", if we talking genes we are just talking about human biology.
Just look at the origin of the term meme. You can't discuss natural selection without genetics. Using natural selection in any other way is pseudo scientific.
>>1029349
You seem to have misquoted the first post there.
>>1029354
What is your point?
>>1029365
Your large, unsubstantiable metaphysical claims.
>>1029379
Guess which fucking board you shouldn't be on then, cunt?
>>1029379
"Human nature" really isn't a biological concept though.
>>1029390
It isn't a defined concept, but it's assumed to have come about due to evolution for the simple fact that modern humans haven't always existed..
>ITT only like 1 guy understands evolution
>>1029392
>Apparently it is to the scientific racist trolls we get.
Spend some time here, most of the biology thread have multiple people debating against the racist trolls, myself included. Biology isn't a bogeyman, but people with an agenda can manipulate it like anything else.
>>1029397
To be fair evolution is an extremely broad concept which doesn't cover merely the mechanism of gene transmission through sexual selection. The Darwinian theory is basically an application of the concept to a particular set of objects, but Darwin didn't come up with anything all that ground-breaking.
>>1029402
Why in the fuck aren't you reporting those threads as off topic? WHY ARE YOU ENCOURAGING OFF TOPIC POSTS?
WHY IS GOMER PILE NOT IN HIS BUNK AFTER LIGHTS OUT?
>>1029408
Anthropology is a topic for this board, including biological anthropology, and I find it fascinating.
>>1029408
Off topic is a relative concept
>>1029415
It is shit posting in the academy and it is shit posting here.
>>1029438
Stay triggered
>>1029438
Dunno about anthropology but EvolPsy made some amazing progress in the last couple of decades. Anthropology has been an SJW echo chamber since the sixties anyway.
>>1029447
>Go report on cranial measurements, quack.
Cranial measurements and phrenology is absolutely complete pseudo-science. Glad to see that we agree.
>>1029447
Evolutionary psychology is /x/? What are you on about
>>1029458
>Just so stories are /x/?
Yes Mildred, that is how the elephant got its trunk.
>>1029465
That's not evolutionary psychology.
Virtually all of psychology was 'evolutionary' in the sense of explaining behavior through adaptive mechanisms (with or without the physiological grounding) until around the middle of the 20th century. Now it's coming back in style because of progress in neuro and all that stuff. I reckon it has certain empirical lacunae, but again this is why it collaborates with other fields.
>>1029477
>I reckon it has certain empirical lacunae
This is British understatement at its best.
>>1029092
In the modern era though if you're a women and reallty want a child for whatever reason you can always just go to a sperm bank no matter how undesirable you would be to a man. It probably won't be long until men can do the same thing via artificial wombs too.
