[iseason]

Hi Guys.
Haven't been in for a while. I certainly have been busy thinking and arguing theory though. Here's a line of thought that has been asked recently by me which has not been adequetly debated.

If we accept evolution as a fact of science. There are a few things that we as humans can do in a unique way. One of those is to affect the physicality of our species. One thing that is in the news is to do with IVF treatments. In my country of New Zealand, they are going to allow parents to choose the sex of IVF births.

The arguements are that if a couple has three boys and are on thier last child, it would be benifital if they can be sure of a girl. However, This science has a history of marketing leaps in the abilities they have without concideration or concession to morality,or current opinion and then the general public usually accept the changes.

To be clear. I have two 8 year old children that are IVF. My wife and I concieved no other children naturally, so My position is neutral as far as "is IVF a move in the right direction."

The basis of this post is pure scientific "crystal ball gazeing" because the very problem I am presenting may noy even be considered. Ok.

IF we , as a society, decided to NOT birth children naturally, How many generations would it take before evolution followed the
"use it or lose it"
pathway and we could no longer propogate naturally. This is not a morality question and assumes we have already made such a descision.

So it is simply a case of biological function meets evolution.

No other animal can continue to propagate itself in this way, so orangutans or any comparator don't count. If generations of females did not concieve, would the womb go the way of the appendix and become a useless organ?

Cheers
Iseason

[Graybeard]

Hmmmm .... not exactly sure of your post. How different do you see artificial insemination, IVF and natural conception? The mechanics aren't all that different.

Many creatures conceive using similar mechanics as these.

Also regarding 'use it or lose it' would only occur where the 'loss' would be beneficial. If the 'loss' is not beneficial to those who have 'lost it' then their struggle to dominate the gene pool would still be as great as before. ergo: no advantage, no extra percentage increase in the gene pool.

cool bananas ... greg

[iseason]

Hi Greybeard

This is not really about whether advantave exists or the gene pool.

If Births moved into an entirely "out of Womb" scenario. This would be if science and society decided to. But that is not the question.

In this scenario, the only course that reproduction is taking is a mechanical function. so no births are natural.

Evolution says that we progress in the order of most benifit. In nature, no animal can influence the progress of thier own way of propagation. I am not suggesting that This would be the future case for IVF, so no morality is attatched to the question.
We have a way to make the womb as redundant as the appendix. If we chose that course, Pure evolutionary aspects come into play.In it's own unique way, the question is about the only downside that is an actual evolutionary possibility. In every other sense we see short term social changes that make us get fat, go blind , lose brain cells. But I am asking if evolution senses that an organ is redundant(not used generation after generation), would it not follow that it will place less inportance as to keeping it viable.

Cheers
Iseason

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by iseason Evolution says that we progress in the order of most benifit. In nature, no animal can influence the progress of thier own way of propagation. I am not suggesting that This would be the future case for IVF, so no morality is attatched to the question. We have a way to make the womb as redundant as the appendix. If we chose that course, Pure evolutionary aspects come into play.In it's own unique way, the question is about the only downside that is an actual evolutionary possibility. In every other sense we see short term social changes that make us get fat, go blind , lose brain cells.

Perhaps I'm not reading you correctly, or misinterpreting the point you are making.

Many 'animals' can influence the progress of their own propagation. Short term social changes such as obesity are not evolutionary changes.

Originally Posted by iseason But I am asking if evolution senses that an organ is redundant(not used generation after generation), would it not follow that it will place less inportance as to keeping it viable.

No, evolution does not 'sense' anything. It knows nothing about redundancy, all that comes after the fact. I think you have a different understanding to me of how Natural Selection works.

cool bananas ... greg

[Mikal]

Hi Iseason...whether one believes in creationism or evolution has not nature ensured the womb as the place of the feutus from the beginning? If we choose to tamper with that are we tampering with nature? Is it a morality question? I just finished the book "My sister's keeper." Its a hypothetical story about where our tampering with nature could lead. In it a couple conceive and have a child who is born with Leukemia..the worst kind. They meet a scientific doctor who convinces them that the only answer for the child's life is to gentically create the perfect child who will become her blood and bone marrow ensurance to live. In the story the newly born girl has no life but hospitals, blood transfusions, bone marrow transfers and even sacraficing a kidney to her sister. Its kind of a sad tale cause in the book the girl is just becoming a woman with a body scared by endless surgeries and tormented by a love/hate bond with a sister she was born to keep alive. The fact that it is a fiction drives home how the story could become true as we decide to tamper with nature's ways. It leaves the reader to ponder if those words.."don't fool with mother nature" holds some hidden meaning we have yet to understand.
If you were to look at your life from the perspective of reincarnation for instance would it possibly be saying to you that maybe this life was not to be about children but possibly other things...??? Thats just a thought Iseason...

Peace Mikal

[iseason]

Hi Mikal et all

The basis of the thread is not to ask "questions of morality". I can relate very well to the story you have written and opose such an abuse of science.

That said, I want to ask this question because we tend to here the upsides of evolution when value based arguements are put forwards. This is quite another way to percieve the arguements about what we actually allow science to "market" .
There is no doubt that scientific advances in IVF gain momentum because of convenience as well as need. I could not see other areas that would be affected by tampering as much as this basic function. So I'm not trying to be sensational, This is a real question. Can we actually change the evolutionary process in this way, or do we expect that redundant functions continue to be supported despite the fact that we may no longer use them. The arguement that redundant functions affect evolution has long been proposed by science. Here, I am calling a spade a spade.

Cheers
Iseason

[Mikal]

Hi Iseason....I just cannot see the womb becoming redundant. Look at the Pineal Gland or what the ancients called the 3rd eye....we could not say its function was peak after the Dark Ages...it was thought to have atrophied...but of course this is not true as many of us have experienced its true function.... Look at the fine complexity of natures' way to keep building onto the brain...even the primitive brain functions although its use has become more complex still functions in purpose...
Also its true that a small percentage of the population really need to depend on IVF...if people begin to rely on it totally I just think thats insanity...

Peace Mikal

[iseason]

Hi Mikal.

The pineal gland still serves a function in relation to sexual responses in children , but often calcifies in adulthood. I would not expect that the womb would cease to exist. In fact I am playing a bit of a game here in asking at all.

Evolution is seen as a benificial,forwards progression of a species. It is interesting just how function might change depending on need. We would not have needed to see the appendix become redundant for environmental changes to have effect. It is quite different now in that we can monitor actual cause and effect of "lifestyle changes " on physiology.

Cheers
Iseason

[Mikal]

Iseason...I do agree with you that wondering about evolution in that sense is quite thought provoking. I realize that IVF is a blessing in alot of senses to those who yearn to have children yet seemingly cannot. I even went so far as to wonder if there was a connect between IVF occurring and nature on the other hand seemingly producing an influx of twins, triplets and quads...My neice had twins yet no fertility used.. I think life and nature holds its own intelligence so I too wonder about these things...

Mikal

[iseason]

This Question, And my responses has a greater focus. But i'll need to use another thread as the subject doesn't fall into this catergory. Thanks for you reasoned interest.

Cheers
Iseason