Are human beings done evolving?

[rokag3]

Genetic evolution probably never came to an end. But is it important anymore? My point is, genetic evolution is so slow, that we have hardly varied at all since we became human (guess some people will complain about that statement). However, human species have evolved a lot by other means, mainly communication and society, the knowledge we keep as a species in overall. Genetic changes take generations, while we all have seen knowledge and beliefs changing incredibly fast. Some people even consider thoughts to be evolving beings, though they obviously don't qualify for living things. Evolution stumbled upon a great hazardous discovery, thinking, and that chosed us as species over the rest. Rational communication has hacked natural selection, because it allows us to survive, by building communities. And there is a chance, which I strongly believe to be possible, that this knowledge will progress to the point of allowing us to regulate the cell's metabolism, or even to redesign it if required (ver sci fi, I know, but it is definitely not impossible), leaving us control of traditional evolution. So I don't think evolution dissapeared, it just found the fast lane

I agree and if we compare Neanderthal and Sapiens sapiens while Neanderthal was much more robust it does evolved only by traditional genetic . As well we can spaeak aboul social insects we should refer to man as a social mamal

 

[edpell]

You have a bias towards intellegence, which genes don't have.

I admit to said bias. I would prefer a world of smart people to a world of dumb people.

I would think that intelligence is a survival trait that would lead to more surviving descendants. It would seem that "education" is the new environmental hazard that humans have to mutate to deal with by not loosing reproductive success in the presents of education (an environmental toxin that limits human reproduction?).

 

[lisab]

I admit to said bias. I would prefer a world of smart people to a world of dumb people.

I would think that intelligence is a survival trait that would lead to more surviving descendants. It would seem that "education" is the new environmental hazard that humans have to mutate to deal with by not loosing reproductive success in the presents of education (an environmental toxin that limits human reproduction?).

I would prefer a world of smart people too !

Educated women generally have better access to birth control, which allows them to exercise control over how many children they have. No big surprise, most women with that choice choose small families.

 

[edpell]

I understand why people make the choices they make. It just seems to me that from an evolutionary point of view a mutation that drives educated people to have many children would be a winner (more surviving descendants). Of course likewise it would be a winner for non educated just as well.

I think it is more than just has the money and/or education/access to use birth control I think it is education 1) takes a lot of time and energy to get 2) once one devotes all that time and energy one wants to use ones education. I think this is an effect on both women and men. But of course men can have their cake and eat it too. That is use their education and have kids with no time lost from work (if they choose to life that life style). The impact of having kids is harder to separate for women. Though the rich seem to do a fair job of it.

 

[lisab]

I understand why people make the choices they make. It just seems to me that from an evolutionary point of view a mutation that drives educated people to have many children would be a winner (more surviving descendants). Of course likewise it would be a winner for non educated just as well.

I think it is more than just has the money and/or education/access to use birth control I think it is education 1) takes a lot of time and energy to get 2) once one devotes all that time and energy one wants to use ones education. I think this is an effect on both women and men. But of course men can have their cake and eat it too. That is use their education and have kids with no time lost from work (if they choose to life that life style). The impact of having kids is harder to separate for women. Though the rich seem to do a fair job of it.

Hmm...that made me think of this:

• Educated people invented birth control,
• Birth control is used more by educated people more than uneducated ones,
• The number of babies born to educated people decreases.

Maybe educated people aren't so smart, haha.

 

[qedprigmosyno]

Here is my contribution which will be short and simple;
evolution will stop when dynamic environments become static environments

 

[DaveC426913]

I've been struggling with this:

Doesn't evolution grind to a halt when evolutionary drivers change with a frequency that is on the order of the generations?

i.e. one generation drives for Rubinesque figures, the next drives for athletic figures, the next drives for wealth, etc.

This works for animals as much as humans - their environments are changing too rapidly.

Basically, if the selection pressure changes each generation, then no particular trait will accumulate.

 

[DavidSnider]

Hmm...that made me think of this:

• Educated people invented birth control,
• Birth control is used more by educated people more than uneducated ones,
• The number of babies born to educated people decreases.

Maybe educated people aren't so smart, haha.

What's good for our genes is not necessarily what's good for us =)

 

[DavidSnider]

I've been struggling with this:

Doesn't evolution grind to a halt when evolutionary drivers change with a frequency that is on the order of the generations?

i.e. one generation drives for Rubinesque figures, the next drives for athletic figures, the next drives for wealth, etc.

This works for animals as much as humans - their environments are changing too rapidly.

Basically, if the selection pressure changes each generation, then no particular trait will accumulate.

I can't think of any selection pressure that changes in the rate of human generations. The example of ruben would be 20 generations. Also, both "athletic figures" and "rubenesque" are synonymous with wealth in their respective time periods. (Though it's not really about time, certain places in the developing world still have the rubenesque beauty ideal because it is associated with wealth)

 

[rphenry]

The key mechanism of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection means that a significant number of newborns in the species must either die before reaching adulthood, or fail to create offspring for whatever reason. That way, the fittest survive and mate, and the unfit die childless.

That's the way things work in the animal world, and that's the way things worked in the human world up until 1800 or so.

Starting around 1800, first developed countries started hitting the early stages of what came to be known as "demographic transition". It's a transformation of society from high birth-rate, high death-rate (think 8 children/woman, infant mortality 20%, etc. - ugly) to low birth-rate, low death-rate (1.5 children/woman, infant mortality zero). Once the demographic transition is complete, evolution stops. It stops because children no longer die and there are enough mates for anyone who's willing to mate. In some sense, what we have now is de-evolution of sorts - because intelligent and successful people voluntarily have fewer children than welfare moms.

The same transition process is underway in almost all developing and third-world countries, it started much later (1950's or so), but it's going at a faster rate and within 50 years many third-world countries will join us at the dead end of the evolutionary tree.

Nonsense.

 

[hamster143]

This is wrong. To raise a family I need things like shelter, food, clothes for me and mine. These cost money. I do not see anybody willing to give me money so I must work. If I need to work only a small amount to get enough money to raise a large family then I would agree with "impediments to mating are few and far between". But I find I must work long and hard to raise just a small family. Where are you getting your money from?

Many people start a family first and worry how to raise it later.

If you don't see anyone willing to give you money, you're not looking hard enough.

If you're an unemployed single mother, government will give you and your children free shelter, food, and healthcare as long as your children are under 18.

I personally know an unemployed mother of four whose husband is in the military. He comes back from Iraq once in a while, makes her another baby and leaves. She lives in free military housing, healthcare is free, food is cheap, clothes are cheap.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can't think of any selection pressure that changes in the rate of human generations. The example of ruben would be 20 generations. Also, both "athletic figures" and "rubenesque" are synonymous with wealth in their respective time periods. (Though it's not really about time, certain places in the developing world still have the rubenesque beauty ideal because it is associated with wealth)

"Wealth" is not a selection trait; money doesn't get passed via genes. True, there may be traits that commonly lead to wealth in a given society; it would be these traits that are propagated. But that does not mean the path to wealth has been the same for dozens of generations. If the path(s) to wealth are changing then the traits being selected for are changing.

 

[hamster143]

Genetic evolution probably never came to an end. But is it important anymore? My point is, genetic evolution is so slow, that we have hardly varied at all since we became human (guess some people will complain about that statement). However, human species have evolved a lot by other means, mainly communication and society, the knowledge we keep as a species in overall.

That too is an important point. Genetic evolution is exceedingly slow. If we were to travel 50,000 years back in a time machine, take a random newborn Homo Sapiens baby (taking care not to get a representative of a separate and distinct species, Homo Neanderthalensis), bring it back to the present time, and raise it in the modern environment, that baby would probably have a darker skin than us Europeans, he'd lack resistance to a few important diseases and ability to digest a few important modern foods, and he'd probably be 20 or so points short of an average modern human in IQ tests, but, other than that, he'd fit right in. And these changes are all that evolution and natural selection were able to achieve in 2,500 generations.

Personally, I have a lot of faith in direct genetic manipulation and human augmentation. Humans are getting to the point where they can basically design themselves. Evolution becomes irrelevant at that point. Unless humans are knocked back into the stone age by WW3, within a few hundred years we should have the capability to tailor our own genomes and augment our bodies with electronic equipment. Transhumans of 2200 (if there are any left as separate entities, and they are not all merged into the hive mind) will be able to fly, breathe under water, survive in vacuum, will have redundant key organs (such as hearts and brains), and will be able to survive extensive damage to their bodies in information-theoretical sense (in other words, it will be possible to reconstruct consciousness of a transhuman whose body is damaged beyond repair and put him in a new body).

 

[Phrak]

The evolutionary pressures today would favor an individual with more butt padding for extended sessions on the computer, and one or two more digits on the right hand.

 

[hamster143]

The evolutionary pressures today would favor an individual with more butt padding for extended sessions on the computer, and one or two more digits on the right hand.

Would those pressures make such individual more likely to reproduce?

One important lesson about evolution - it does not care if you suffer, it only cares if you make babies.

 

[Phrak]

Would those pressures make such individual more likely to reproduce?

Well, or course. Don't forget raising and nurturing and all that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Would those pressures make such individual more likely to reproduce?

Extra fingers and a big bum? Ooh yeah. I'll be havin' some of that.

One important lesson about evolution - it does not care if you suffer, it only cares if you make babies.

Well, suffering manifests as a compromise on health, which will compromise reproduction and offspring.

 

[hamster143]

Well, suffering manifests as a compromise on health, which will compromise reproduction and offspring.

Suffering also manifests as a drive to eliminate suffering, forcing the person to go out there and do something, as opposed to spending 16 hours a day glued to the computer screen...

 

[mgb_phys]

Extra fingers and a big bum? Ooh yeah. I'll be havin' some of that.

 

[gato_]

Personally, I have a lot of faith in direct genetic manipulation and human augmentation. Humans are getting to the point where they can basically design themselves. Evolution becomes irrelevant at that point. Unless humans are knocked back into the stone age by WW3, within a few hundred years we should have the capability to tailor our own genomes and augment our bodies with electronic equipment. Transhumans of 2200 (if there are any left as separate entities, and they are not all merged into the hive mind) will be able to fly, breathe under water, survive in vacuum, will have redundant key organs (such as hearts and brains), and will be able to survive extensive damage to their bodies in information-theoretical sense (in other words, it will be possible to reconstruct consciousness of a transhuman whose body is damaged beyond repair and put him in a new body).

gato_ likes this, LOL.
I've always wondered how having our minds connected would affect society. I think that would change our species far beyond any genetic change. No matter how social humans are, we've always been isolated deep in our heads. So what would we be like if we shared thoughts?

 

[oanadoledo]

One of the most important threats for human’s health is, undoubtedly, the http://www.genetic-diseases.net/"
What a genetic disease is? It is a disorder caused by genetic factors and especially abnormalities in the human genetic material (genome). There are four main types of genetic disorders.

 

[DaveC426913]

So what would we be like if we shared thoughts?

Well, I'd be spending a lot more time sleeping on the couch...

 

[baywax]

No.
But remember that evolution isn't aiming at superior - it's aiming for more babies. So you might be evolving to be immune to the pill


The term is a bit pseudoscience, you would presumably be able to mate with it - so it's not really a new species.

Homo Superior wouldn't let most of us mate with it... so it would die out.

 

[JerryClower]

We aren't done evolving and we never will be but humans are evolving at a slower rate than other organisms. The reason why is because humans are the "best species". They are the most fit for the environment.

 

[xxChrisxx]

We aren't done evolving and we never will be but humans are evolving at a slower rate than other organisms. The reason why is because humans are the "best species". They are the most fit for the environment.

It really depends on how you'd describe best. Humans alone are pretty average everywhere, we aren't best suited at anything in a physical sense. That is until you take into account our technology and knowledge. Both of which are pretty recent in the timescales involved with evolution.

Man was never the 'best' our technology simply allowed us to change/bend/break the rules where natural selection is concerned. In the broadest sense, we are still evolving but natural selection does not apply to us in the same way (or to the extent) it does to other animals.

 

[DaveC426913]

The reason why is because humans are the "best species". They are the most fit for the environment.

Wwwwwwhat?

 

[Proton Soup]

Wwwwwwhat?

our big brains allow us to "adapt" without adapting

 

[BoomBoom]

... humans are the "best species". They are the most fit for the environment.

:rofl: Most fit for what environment?? Most people I know would perish if left in the woods to fend for themselves for a couple weeks!

 

[JerryClower]

:rofl: Most fit for what environment?? Most people I know would perish if left in the woods to fend for themselves for a couple weeks!

That is because they are modernized and live in buildings. If we lived in a natural environment we would know how to survive in the wild. Around the 1800s natural selection started to slow down a bit because of advancements in technology. Hence the fact that people that are out of shape live so much longer than they should. :rofl: If we as humans did not modernize the things around us we would be able to survive in the wild just like all other animals. Of course, more people would die, but we would know how to survive in the wild. It would be something that was taught. Instead of adults teaching kids about education, they would teach them how to survive in the wild. Some parents do teach their kids how to survive in the wild, but it would be a normal everyday thing.

We are getting less and less natural by the moment.

 

[hamster143]

That is because they are modernized and live in buildings. If we lived in a natural environment we would know how to survive in the wild.

But we know how to survive in the wild. We simply build buildings there. If that's unnatural, tell that to beavers, chipmunks and nesting birds. The only difference between us and them is that we engage in social labor to build durable buildings that take multiple man-years to construct, and birds tend to build individually from scratch.

 

[baywax]

:rofl: Most fit for what environment?? Most people I know would perish if left in the woods to fend for themselves for a couple weeks!

This is true. Although many would clear cut the woods and pollute the water before dying as a result of their actions.

Edit: note to this: The Northern Great Blue Heron nests in a tree for as long as the tree can withstand its huge amounts of defecation. The tree will die within 2 years and the herons move on... the difference here is there are 6.6 billion humans and, at most, 6,500 herons in existence today. (http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=3717)

 

[Proton Soup]

you guys should read the story of Ishi sometime. even a "wild indian" doesn't fare so well in the wilderness after you steal his bows (technology).

there are plenty of environments on Earth where you could toss a naked human out and they would do just fine, as long as there is easily gathered fruit, fish, and the temp is fairly warm. but generally, we live in some environments that are pretty hostile to us, and we simply would not survive long without the proper tools and education, which require civilization.

 

[baywax]

you guys should read the story of Ishi sometime. even a "wild indian" doesn't fare so well in the wilderness after you steal his bows (technology).

there are plenty of environments on Earth where you could toss a naked human out and they would do just fine, as long as there is easily gathered fruit, fish, and the temp is fairly warm. but generally, we live in some environments that are pretty hostile to us, and we simply would not survive long without the proper tools and education, which require civilization.

Well, I think you'd see instant, spontaneous reproduction with the naked human in the wild. Just like coat hangers. Pretty well the whole measuring stick of "best in evolution" is based on how well and how fast a species reproduces... this allows for a higher survival rate... until maintaining the population means killing off the rest of the environment. Then there is a problem.

 

[Proton Soup]

Well, I think you'd see instant, spontaneous reproduction with the naked human in the wild. Just like coat hangers. Pretty well the whole measuring stick of "best in evolution" is based on how well and how fast a species reproduces... this allows for a higher survival rate... until maintaining the population means killing off the rest of the environment. Then there is a problem.

yeah, in a food-rich environment, things can be fun. for a while.

 

[baywax]

yeah, in a food-rich environment, things can be fun. for a while.

For sure, clean fresh water helps too!

But, take the example of natural gas exploration and you can see how our fresh water is under some serious attack from certain unethical practices in communities from NY, Fort Worth all the way over the boarder to northern BC (just google "natural gas exploration damaging fresh water {sour gas}.

Communities in Jeopardy

It used to be that wells were sunk in the bush, more or less away from populated areas. But the convenience of drilling next to people's homes, where access to roads, power, and water reduces start-up costs, has companies sinking wells so close to residences the noise of compressors and smell of flared gas are now constant companions to daily life. Although industry and government both talk about new technologies for gas exploration that have minimized the potential of disaster, people remain at risk from both long-term low-level and catastrophic exposure from leaks, explosions, and routine flaring.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=10328