View Single Post
Sorry! is offline
Dec7-09, 12:24 AM
P: 571
Quote Quote by xxChrisxx View Post
Evolution does not progress to criteria YOU select as desirable, or what YOU consider to be 'most adapted'.

And what I said isn't my definiton, it's the scientific definiton.
"In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next."
Well put. It should be noted not everything hamster has said is wrong however. Yes natural selection is not a major driving force for human evolution. This does not however mean that evolution has stopped, merely it's slowed down... gotten more refined. Take for instance: The gene CCR5-32, this offers resistance to HIV-1.

@OP, Yes evolution is always going. It used to be a common held position that human evolution stopped around 50,000 years ago. Prior to this 'races' as we know today had not developed yet. The reason the position was held was to ensure in public light that all races are equal... it's more of a political stance than scientific but I'm sure you understand the consequences of saying for instance that 'the --- race evolved further than the others', or 'the --- race evolved this which is better than --- race.' Just leads to a lot of non-sense.

However back when I took anthropology we learnt that humans have indeed evolved, even our modern species has evolved. We humans now are homo-sapien-sapien. There was another sub-species of homo-sapiens, I have forgotten the term but they went extinct.

Research has indicated that modern humans are still evolving, look up these genes: microcephalin, ASPM(All CAPS; so not Aspm), the gene I spoke of earlier CCR5-32, HLA-B27... there are a bunch more.

As well there is such a term as 'reverse evolution' it's not very popular but some people do use it and it does exist out there. It came out when we begun asking this very question, 'if we are still evolving and what effect does technology have on evolution.' Since babies who should have died have been allowed to live we are 'going against' evolution. The argument in this case isn't that evolution has a direction or a goal but we are fighting against evolution entirely but not allowing it to fully take its course. This term is of course up for debate and I'd rather not take a stance on it...

Here are some links to those genes I spoke of incase you didn't feel like looking for them yourselves:
HLA-B27 (This is a 'protected' variant of th HLA-B gene which allows females to better clear HIV infection than those with HLA-A or C gene variants.)

A better question in my opinion is if we well ever face more speciation. Absent large external pressure I highly doubt we will see any further speciation... but things can't stay perfect forever . I wonder if we will ever see speciation occur during our 'scientific observational period' if you will. (so from ancient history to the future when we have been using scientific methods to observe and not just based on fossils...)