Are human beings done evolving?

[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.

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]

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. 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]

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

 

[ViewsofMars]

He said global.

Hi xxChrisxx, let's get the record straight, I'm not a "he." I was born a baby girl whose now become a woman. I've been told by plenty of men throughout my life that I'm good looking. And, I surely don't mind them looking if they are good looking, smart, and kind.

You posted your reply back in December 2009. I haven't posted a message on the Interent since, except for the two today on physicsforums. This being the the second one and the most important to me. Why? Because I'm proud to be a woman.

Please forgive me for being late. Happy New Year to you and everyone. :)

 

[magnusrobot12]

after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection. whatever trait gives folks the advantage to live in a nuclear winter or those individuals who have genes that make them more likely to survive in elevated background radiation, will have an advantage. homo-superior inspires racism so i would stay away from that term unless you are a skin-head.

 

[ViewsofMars]

after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection.

Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball.

I can answer that: a very high mortality rate due to an extremely hostile environment would drive evolutionary changes harder than they have been in the past. As to what changes might infer an advantage, well, that's anyone's guess.

Do you not think this is not straightforward?

 

[magnusrobot12]

Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball.

Thank you ViewsofMars for your sarcastic answer. But if you must know, my crystal ball says that you will NOT be one of the people who keeps the human race going after the nuclear holocaust.

I can answer that: a very high mortality rate due to an extremely hostile environment would drive evolutionary changes harder than they have been in the past. As to what changes might infer an advantage, well, that's anyone's guess.

Thank you Dave. This is exactly what i was trying to say. Perhaps i used the word "acute" loosely thereby allowing sarcastic folks (such as ViewofMars) who like to bury their sands in the hand in the face of religion, but what you wrote is precisely what i was trying to say. We are all armed with slightly different genetics (we are ~99.99% identical to each other). The 0.01% differences will come into play when the human race is faced with a drastic acute change. So, I agree with Dave and disagree with pompous ViewofMars who thinks he knows everything about natural selection.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thank you Dave. This is exactly what i was trying to say. Perhaps i used the word "acute" loosely...

No, you said it just fine. I pretty much said what you said, just more verbose for VoM's benefit.

I'm not sure what her objection is; perhaps she could elaborate.

 

[ViewsofMars]

No, you said it just fine. I pretty much said what you said, just more verbose for VoM's benefit.

I'm not sure what her objection is; perhaps she could elaborate.

Dave, magnusrobot12 said,"after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection." I surely don't consider magnusrobot12's statement to be altruistic nor informative. Maybe magnusrobot12 might like to read How Evolution Works by Douglas Futuyma. I've left a link below.


DaveC46913:2613246, speculating or predicting in advance, in light of the fact, that in the future a nuclear war will be because of religion isn't scientific. There isn't an observation of it as of yet nor does it support "humans will be tested with acute natural selection" due to the fact that it hasn't yet happened.

Hence, my (Mars) response to magnusrobot12, "Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball." David replied "I can answer that: a very high mortality rate due to an extremely hostile environment would drive evolutionary changes harder than they have been in the past. As to what changes might infer an advantage, well, that's anyone's guess."

Let's hope empathy and altruism is truly the sign of humans' evolving and there won't be another Atom bomb aka nuclear war.

Perhaps it would be best to review Natural Selection: How Evolution Works by Douglas Futuyma. I'll add this tidbit from the document but I encourage everyone to read the entire document.

Futuyma: “Survival of the fittest” is a slogan that is really very misleading. First of all, it’s not an adequate description of what really goes on in nature for two reasons:

“Survival of the fittest” is a misleading term.•Sometimes there isn’t a “fittest” type. There may be several different types that are equally fit for different reasons. Perhaps they’re adapted to different facets of the environment. One is not going to replace the other because each has its proper place in the environment.

•Moreover, it’s not just a matter of survival. Natural selection is a difference in reproductive success that involves both the ability to survive until reproductive age and then the capacity to reproduce.

The notion of the survival of the fittest is also unfortunate because it has been viewed as a kind of tautology, a kind of empty statement for those who say that the fittest are those that survive and so there’s no real predictive content to the notion of natural selection. That is simply false.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html

Thank you ViewsofMars for your sarcastic answer. But if you must know, my crystal ball says that you will NOT be one of the people who keeps the human race going after the nuclear holocaust.
[...]
So, I agree with Dave and disagree with pompous ViewofMars who thinks he knows everything about natural selection.

p.s. I don't consider my statements as being sarcastic or pompous! magnusrobot12, calling me a man after I stated beforehand to another member that I was a woman is plain mean and making a public statement directed at me as he wrote above is rude and honestly I can't take it too seriously because it's infantile. LOL! Ok, THANKS for CONFIRMING AND publically ADMITTING you are a fortune teller of sorts with a crystal ball. I'll be honest with you, I don't believe what your crystal ball "says" to you. What a bunch of pure poppycock!

Please remember this is a Science Forum- Biology. Women should be treated with respect and not put down by men in public forums. We have to consider there are women and future young girls who become or are scientists. This is my last comment to this topic. Thank you,
Mars

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, magnusrobot12 said,"after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection." I surely don't consider magnusrobot12's statement to be altruistic nor informative.

DaveC46913:2613246, speculating or predicting in advance, in light of the fact, that in the future a nuclear war will be because of religion isn't scientific. There isn't an observation of it as of yet

OK, I thought your sarcastic response was addressing the "evolution" part of his post, not the "nuclear war due to religion" part. Conceded.

p.s. I don't consider my statements as being sarcastic!

The fortune teller / crystal ball comment was.

magnusrobot12, calling me a man after I stated beforehand to another member that I was a woman is plain mean.

No, it was merely inobservant. The woman comment was buried in text more relevant to the topic.