[FRIAM] semi-idle question

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It means something larger, more diffuse. 

If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback.

Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires seems quaint, provincial.

On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 
> On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
>>
>> Pieter said:
>>
>>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/
>>>
>>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future?
> 
> And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil.


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ