h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

With the great advances of Medical Science, Agriculture and technology, our life hase been made easier. But is this really such a good thing?
Whith the removal of enviromental resistance, the driving force of natural selection, Is our species doomed to extinction?

There's always a bigger fish.

Indeed. However, I don't think that fish is along quite the same line as what I'm talking about.

Perhaps if you actually thought about what I said, you'd see what I meant.

prehaps. I was just expecting more of a response.
I'm thinking more along the lines of our own genetics. Are we devolving?
or does natural selection also take place via the golden ratio (fibonacci sequence), for example, how a female peacock selects a mate with only the most beutiful feathers?

Who says that devolution is a bad thing, if our environment has changed?

well, that would be further evolution and not devolution as such.
but now we're talking!

Wouldn't it still count as devolution, if we were going back to a previous stage?

good point.

I think that that would be evolution as it is the selection of features which facilitates survival in that particular enviroment. Devolution, would be the incorporation of random features which do not nessisarily aid in survival, but rather may hinder it.
Going back to my first point, with the lack of enviromental resistance, weak features are free to mix with strong features - devolution as I term it. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

No, no, no. A chain is only as *weak* as the weakest link. It's as strong as the strongest one.
"There's always a bigger fish". There's always something to fight against, it just may not be immediately noticeable, or fit in with classical evolutionary ideas.

well, say a genetic disease is inherited somewhere along the line, one that would otherwise be eliminated by natural selection. Medical science allows the survival of an individual with this disease, so that he may continue to contribute to future generations.
A weak link is formed that will ultimatly destroy the entire gene pool if left unchecked.

a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I've heard this argument before.
It won't necessarily destroy the entire gene pool. Medical science allows it to continue.
Secondly, the disease wouldn't spread to the whole genepool. Even if it was a dominant allele, there's only a 3/4 chance of a given person having it. And since nearly no genetic diseases are dominant, there's only a 1/4 chance of a person having it, so it would dissapear over time.
Plus, if it was dominant, the parents may very well choose not to have a child just because of the high probability that it'll have the disease.