Progression Inhibit Natural Selection

953 Words4 Pages

Human-kind’s Progression Inhibits the Process of Natural Selection
“How did your existence come about?” Is that a question you’ve ever pondered? Well the answer is very simple to that proposed question: for the most part all living species alive have been a direct result of natural selection. Natural selection - The process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution. Now the point of this essay is to assert how this process, as it applies to humans, will be nearly completely subverted by way of human advances in technology, life-saving medicines, along …show more content…

Well, no, but to conform to the consensus that it’s a positive would be foolhardy. Issues with this primarily lie in how it will affect the overall world’s population, coupled with its long-term consequences on generations and the possible
Coats Page 2 route it could lead evolution in. Such issues include the already rapidly growing population size, along with the human gene-pool.
Firstly, because of life-saving technologies it would allow those who would otherwise perish to natural causes, without interference, to rewrite nature’s original course of action. Why is this bad? Mostly because it enables those with genetic, hereditary diseases, a better chance to procreate and thus pass down more negatively mutated genes to the next the overall human genepool. Which statistically is a big negative to the continuance of the human species, this does not help or aid mankind in any immediately foreseeable way. This is an example of something that would nearly never occur within the constraints of natural selection. Genome-wide gene-deletion in the experiments with information about the fitness of each deletion strain had been performed in the bacterium Escherichia coli and in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisae. …show more content…

That’s a growth of roughly .2999 per year. It would stand to reason that in another hundred years, if this growth was consistent, that the average life expectancy for males would again increase by nearly 30 years, averaging out at around 105.4 years by 2107. At such a rate humans will have ruined Earth to the point of being uninhabitable if the population problem persists.
All in all, as evolution is an ongoing, constant thing it should be made perfectly clear that evolution will not be halted or even substantially slowed by natural selection’s descension from the forefront role of propelling evolution. Also its important to note that there are counter arguments for the reduced role of natural selection. For example, while some harmful mutations won’t be deleted from the human gene-pool, it allows educated people to study that genome, and also how it interacts with human’s non-mutated genes; potentially enabling mankind to gain more information about its own inner and outer workings. On the other hand though, it could argued that the same could be done if the gene was simply isolated and studied at a cellular level, rather than to let it persist within the population. Most simply, it implies