Which is the more powerful force on human evolution: Darwinian natural selection or cultural selection?

Question

Which is the more powerful force on human evolution: Darwinian natural selection or cultural selection?

Answer 1

TG - I have to disagree.

I doubt if smoking will have an effect on the success of a apecies. The effects of smoking are evident only much after the person has procreated. So the species continue inspite of bad habits.

Answer 2

if you can combat nature you can get away from natural selection. In other words, while humans were at a pre-technological level they were subject to natural selection, survival of the fit, strong and smartest. Once consciousness and technology flowered, we escaped natural selection and cultural selection took over: we have various means of surviving despite being weak foolish fat nerds: social security, weapons of mass destruction agasint others, warm clothing, etc.

Answer 3

it's personal selection basically because you nor any of us would be here if our parents didn't hit they preverbial hay -so to speak -with each other, and that goes with animals also  just look at animal mating rituals . you think animals just do it? well maybe some do but on a whole most animals have rituals

Answer 4

Darwinian certainly was more powerful on the early part of our evolution before culture because such a powerful force.  We were nearly identical to modern humans before most of the culture developed.  Homo erectus had a smaller brain but was fully upright and might pass as a human if you saw one.  Since then the cultural selection was probably more important.  There was a gradual increase in intelligence, perhaps to cope with the greater cultural importance in the latter evolution of our species.  It does act in a similar way.  Obviously, if a cultural trait has advantages over other cultures, it should eventually dominate in the same way that a genetic characteristic might.

Answer 5

In our case (westeners), I would guess for cultural selection, but across the world, the natural selection is still working.

Since we formed 1/3 of the world population, I should say that natural selection is predominant vectors in global human evolution.

Answer 6

I could be wrong, but is not the basis of all all life change? Or another way of looking at it, could life be that which changes? Does anything remain the same, forever? I don't think there is such thing as a "dead" thing. Everything changes, nothing stands still. You are a "changling." That was Shakespeare's word!

The Universe didn't just spring out of thin air without a thought (the first part in a three step process of creation, are thought, word and action).... It didn't just spring from nothing, could it? Again the Bard so eloquently expressed; "Nothing can be made out of nothing."

Let me digress; take the smallest particle in the universe and cut it in half, what have you got? How many times can you divide something before it becomes nothing. The answer I come up with is an infinite number. What do you think?

My answer to the question "Which is the more powerful force on human evolution?"  If I had to chose from the two choices provided I would say cultural selection. However, those are not the only choices we have to make.There is another way.

We must expand our way of thinking. Our old ways are no longer working.

I think conscious evolution is determined by creating with more conscious awareness and since consciousness is everything in terms of experiencing a desired result, (evolution) the higher our consciousness, the more functional will our life experiences be! There is no right or wrong in these matters, but by our decisions we paint portraits of who we are. They can be either united or divided. It will work or it will not work.

Of course I am speaking of conscious choices where people are aware of the consequences of their actions, which I do not observe the people on this planet capable of doing very well. We are getting there. The process is slow. We must acknowledge we are not there. We think we are, but our actions demonstrate otherwise. We say we wish to go to a place of peace, joy, acceptance and love, but, our actions do not announce that preference to the world.

When we realize that what is good for you is good for me, and what is not good for you is not good for me and that your pain is my pain - that will be a time of tremendous healing and evolution on the planet.

Problems do not go away unless we address them at the level at which they were created.  Therefore to solve a problem we must first understand their true nature.  What we need is an evolution revolution.

If you are thinking in terms of your body, the answer to that question would come from and be about your body. If who you think you are is coming from your mind you will make a mental evaluation from that perspective and repeat what was taught to you by others. When you answer that question from your spirit you come at last to the truth of who you are, which is Love. Love that needs no protection, and love that cannot be lost.

When you come from all three perspectives at once you will have achieved the evolved human perspective; Homo-universalis as Barbara Hubbard wrote...  "You will have attained unprecedented powers to affect, control and change the evolution of life on Earth. Conscious Evolution means that we must improve our ability to use our powers ethically and effectively (consciously) to achieve a positive future (evolve)."

Indeed, love is the answer to every question you could ever ask. What would love do? That question if asked at decision making time, (There is no time that is not decision making time.)  can transform you into a master faster than anything you could imagine.

When we realize that everything we do as a speciesystem affects the whole. We will stop killing each other in order to stop killing. That does not work. That is insanity. That is what Einstein meant when he wrote; "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." - Albert Einstein

What question is your life the answer to?

~ Paul

Answer 7

Define cultural selection.  Even other primates have "culture".

I would say, in general, that cultural selection has nothing to do with creating humans physically as they are today.  But is sexual selection culture?

Answer 8

I've never heard of 'cultural selection', it must me another politically correct distortion.

Answer 9

Cultural is faster but Dawinian is more fundamental.

Answer 10

it is very interesting to see that many of you are aware of the connection between culture and selection. Culture selects for traits; who will have off-spring and creates a gene pool. Given this, why aren't more people concerned with what our culture is valuing and saying? What about the proliferation and DOMINATION of other cultures? Does anyone think that this is the beginning of the end of "white" (Brit-euro related) culture? This seems to be the case in America.

Answer 11

Natural selection & cultural selection are tied to each other... a gene mutation that doesn't offer an advantage in a culture will not be selected over other genes & therefore has a lower probability for selection. Two recent brain genes that have undergone positive natural selection among Europeans, Amerinds & East Asians are...

"Within modern humans, a group of closely related haplotypes at this locus, known as haplogroup D, rose from a single copy 37,000 years ago and swept to exceptionally high frequency (ca. 70% worldwide today) because of positive selection. Here, we examine the origin of haplogroup D. By using the interhaplogroup divergence test, we show that haplogroup D likely originated from a lineage separated from modern humans 1.1 million years ago and introgressed into humans by ca. 37,000 years ago. This finding supports the possibility of admixture between modern humans and archaic Homo populations (Neanderthals being one possibility). "  

The other gene identified by the same research group appears to have surfaced in the Mid East 5,600 years ago & is thought to have something to do with the agricultural revolution of the period... 85% of Europeans have at least one copy of this gene.

So the question you need to answer is "did culture select the gene or did the gene select the culture?"

I like your question, but if I could give you a definitive answer, I'd be a Nobel Prize Candidate.

Answer 12

Your question is ill posed. Natural selection " selects  " for variation in organisms, set against environmental conditions. A common mistake among social scientist is to put culture into its own realm, when it is merely part of the environment of the organism. Naturally, environment effects selection; thus. Remember, agriculture brought on malarial conditions by leaving denuded forests and standing water. Which in turn, brought about sickle cell trait. Cultural, via agriculture, but that goes into the environmental presentation to natural selection, as the organism mutated and was consequently selected for sickle cell trait. Cultural selection is well encompassed within natural selective forces.

Answer 13

So, TG, maybe we should send all our smokers to China!  GREAT idea!  It would keep OUR streets cleaner!

Answer 14

I would argue that there's no difference.  Cultural traits develop because they contribute to the success of human beings.  Traits that don't eventually fade away.  There are lots of examples, but here's one:  Smoking has become culturally unacceptable in the United States.  Visitors from other countries think we're obsessed.  But while cancer is soaring in China, for example, rates are dropping in the US.  Americans will live longer, produce more children, and have more biological success because of a cultural trait.

Answer 15

I believe in survival of the fittest. Evolution from the amoeba to man is likly most dependent on the strength of the organism.