Replies

But I would like to point out that though we may have some more control than we’ve had in the past over “what we become”, we don’t have control over what genetics and our environment “allow” us to become.

I think that a very high degree of control over genetics is not that far off - even if it were by the standards we use to judge technological advancements, it'll happen in the blink of an eye compared to the evolutionary forces required to show a visible reduction the size of the average human's jaw.

As long as we can maintain the science and civilization necessary for technology to thrive and grow, we've basically placed ourselves outside of a lot of evolutionary processes. This has been true as long as man has developed and used technology (e.g. I use my 20/15 LASIK eyes to scan this web page, instead of being eaten by some hyena I didn't see coming), and the impact grows greater as the technology grows greater. Our own genetic manipulations and nano-technology based modifications to our bodies will have far more impact on the human race over the next 100 years than evolution could have on us over the next 100,000 years. For example, I'd be very surprised if human aging weren't under serious assault, if not completely conquered, by the time 2107 rolled around.

I can't disagree with that.

Although I like these evolution arguments purely for entertainment value,
As far a science is concerned, I can shrug my shoulders and say we are only discovering what God already made, and leave it at that.

We are unlocking the mysteries of our biological nature and are at a point now where we can manipulate it, perhaps to our own undoing if we don't proceed with extreme caution.

The potential to unlock a biological disaster is very real. We've already seen the potential danger of how a mutation can cross the species barrier and have the potential to wipe out all those susceptible to that DNA sequence (prionic diseases).

We have to be careful.