My point was that the "same process as any other organism adapting to its environment" won't continue for very long for humans. Once you have people that don't die, DNA that can be edited at will, or even entirely non-biological bodies, you no longer have the ingredients required for natural selection.
Got it, thank you. I'd love to see a good pointer to worked out examples of natural selection happening at non-organism levels if you have one handy. It sounds pretty fascinating.
No, he's wrong. Natural selection doesn't speed up or slow down, it just is. Each passing generation there are pressures put on the spreading of human genes, and those pressures are the manifestation of natural selection. Whether those pressures are different now than before, or whether they shape "the future" is irrelevant to the biological impact of natural selection.
Are you basing this on research you've seen that runs counter to the unbridled optimism of Sinclair and others, or is this belief of yours just a consequence of your belief about "natural selection never had a reason to favor any other approach"? I'm just wondering for myself, as an outsider to all this, what reason I would have to take your view rather than theirs.
You can hear his arguments and draw your own conclusions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798
reply