Has the Modern World Put an End to Human Evolution?

[BoomBoom]

Why?

Is someone that chooses to teach for a living less 'fit' than someone who chooses a career as a corporate executive? ...just one small example.
People's compensation levels rarely have anything to do with their genetic fitness.

 

[DanP]

Maybe because genes have no such preference. I hear the same sentiment from people who think Darwin was wrong, because "look at all the poor uneducated people having so many kids!" "Survival of the fittest" isn't quite right. The fittest (or richest, or smartest, etc) aren't selected; the "breeders" are.

Evolution is not (and never was) about the survival of the fittest. That is the biggest misnomer ever told about evolution. Evolution is about reproduction. So anyone who says Darwin is wrong because of this,does not have even a cursory understanding of evolution processes. (btw I know that you Lisa got the picture right, I just wanted to reinforce the idea from your post)

And about genes. Genes modulate the behavior of individuals. And while there is no gene which is solely responsible for status seeking behaviors, complex of genes might modulate those behaviors. Power and status are powerful signals in human sexual selection. So genes "do show such a preference" after all.

In the end, all the cliches about men and women are true. Men prefer younger females. Women show preferences towards males with higher status. Man look at resources as means to an end, women like resources for what they are. Both sexes values cues of genetic health. Both sexes desire someone who treats them nice. Non-reproductive sex might also play a role as a currency in social exchanges between men and women.

This all may sound cold and trivializing to the "wonder of love", but unfortunately most studies in human behavior start to point to the fact that this is true. Humans like to ******** themselves with things like " Oh, I so like her inner beauty and that's the only thing which is important to me" or " I would be with a man who loves and respects me whatever me no matter how it looks and if he is poor", but when all is said and done the actual facts of our mate choices pretty much contradicts all the nice platitudes we throw out.

 

[DanP]

Is someone that chooses to teach for a living less 'fit' than someone who chooses a career as a corporate executive? ...just one small example.
People's compensation levels rarely have anything to do with their genetic fitness.

You can't "choose" to be a corporate executive. You may dream of it, but it may never happen to you. Simply because you lack what it takes. You can dream to be an elite sprinter as well, but the truth is that you cannot "choose" to become one.

Humans are not born equals. Neither genetically, neither socially. Some are necessarily better than others. While genetic differences to not equate genetic determinism, the genes you get will affect your propensity for different behaviours in life, and may limit the performance you are capable to display in certain areas.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Effective contraceptive methods are a recent phenomenon. Society has existed for millennia.
Plus I would consider any apparently social behaviour that gets more sexual partners, a byproduct of sexual selection.

True but now that we have contraceptive it's interesting to think how human evolution works from now on

You can't "choose" to be a corporate executive. You may dream of it, but it may never happen to you. Simply because you lack what it takes. You can dream to be an elite sprinter as well, but the truth is that you cannot "choose" to become one.

Humans are not born equals. Neither genetically, neither socially. Some are necessarily better than others. While genetic differences to not equate genetic determinism, the genes you get will affect your propensity for different behaviours in life, and may limit the performance you are capable to display in certain areas.

Genetics really aren't that determinant of personality, if they were then we would see significant strong correlations between the personalities of family members. However given the wide variety of personalities and behaviors humans display both in and out of personality groups it seems sensible to conclude that nurture has more of an effect than nature. I agree that humans are not born genetically or socially "equal" but It's ridiculous to propose that some people are better. Some people are more capable of doing things (e.g digest milk, buy a mansion etc) but to suggest that people's career and skill sets are purely determined by biology is nonsense.

You say contradictory things, at first you suggest that it is impossible to learn to do certain things and that you have to be born for it (i.e sniper) yet at the end you admit that " the genes you get will affect your propensity for different behaviours in life, and may limit the performance you are capable to display in certain areas".

Evolution is not (and never was) about the survival of the fittest. That is the biggest misnomer ever told about evolution. Evolution is about reproduction

This is a misunderstanding. Survival of the fittest pertains to an organism(s)'s ability to survive and reproduce in it's environment. An organism that easily survives to die of old age but cannot reproduce is not a fit individual.

In the end, all the cliches about men and women are true. Men prefer younger females. Women show preferences towards males with higher status. Man look at resources as means to an end, women like resources for what they are. Both sexes values cues of genetic health. Both sexes desire someone who treats them nice. Non-reproductive sex might also play a role as a currency in social exchanges between men and women

There are many things wrong here it's hard to know where to start. The most obvious are the fact that homosexuality exists, sex enhances pair bonding and that there is a wide variety of mate preferences humans have (not everyone wants to be treated nice).

 

[thorium1010]

This is a misunderstanding. Survival of the fittest pertains to an organism(s)'s ability to survive and reproduce in it's environment. An organism that easily survives to die of old age but cannot reproduce is not a fit individual.

I think you kinda proved his point there. i.e. evolution is about an organism ability to reproduce (referring to the last sentence).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think you kinda proved his point there. i.e. evolution is about an organism ability to reproduce (referring to the last sentence).

Yes but he was suggesting that survival of the fittest had nothing to do with reproduction

Evolution is not (and never was) about the survival of the fittest...Evolution is about reproduction.

In actual fact reproductive success is an inherent facet of fitness

 

[mishrashubham]

I think you kinda proved his point there. i.e. evolution is about an organism ability to reproduce (suffering to the last sentence).

Well not really. It is more of a semantic argument where both understand that evolution is heavily based upon ability to reproduce. However one also includes "reproductive success" when he says "fitness" while the other does not.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Indeed but it's not just my definition. The various http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)#Measures_of_fitness" we use in evolutionary biology include reproductive success

 

[thorium1010]

Yes but he was suggesting that survival of the fittest had nothing to do with reproduction
In actual fact reproductive success is an inherent facet of fitness

Or that reproduction drives the ability to survive in an environment.ie the traits that makes organism fittest in a given environment is driven by the ability for reproduction.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Or that reproduction drives the ability to survive in an environment.

How? I'm not sure what you mean, the first point was fairly simple. Reproductive success is a necessary part of how we measure fitness.

 

[mishrashubham]

Indeed but it's not just my definition. The various http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)#Measures_of_fitness" we use in evolutionary biology include reproductive success

I understand. I prefer to include reproductive success in fitness as well. In fact that is what Spencer understood when he first coined the phrase "survival of the fittest".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest#Is_.22survival_of_the_fittest.22_a_tautology.3F
A lot of controversial matter in here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest#Is_.22survival_of_the_fittest.22_a_tautology.3F
A lot of controversial matter in here.

Definitely! I never see why people feel the need to apply principles from biology to how they should approach their morality. Especially when it's grossly misunderstood.

 

[thorium1010]

How? I'm not sure what you mean, the first point was fairly simple. Reproductive success is a necessary part of how we measure fitness.

iam simply saying the traits that increase an organism's ability to reproduce, would also make that organism the fittest or increase its chances for living in the environment (survival of fitttest ).
also it could be argued that the individual with the abilty to survive would also give it the ability to reproduce. But that's the whole point the traits won't continue if reproduction is absent. So reproduction is a primary driver of evolution.

 

[mishrashubham]

True but now that we have contraceptive it's interesting to think how human evolution works from now on

Yeah, that would be a pretty interesting thing to study about.



*I got involved in a discussion so realized it late.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

iam simply saying the traits that increase an organism's ability to reproduce, would also make that organism the fittest or increase its chances for living in the environment (survival of fitttest ).
also it could be argued that the individual with the abilty to survive would also give it the ability to reproduce. But that's the whole point the traits won't continue if reproduction is absent. So reproduction is a primary driver of evolution.

I agree though I have a slight quibble, reproduction isn't a driver of evolution its a mechanism through which evolution works. Evolution, by definition, being over reproductive generations

 

[thorium1010]

I agree though I have a slight quibble, reproduction isn't a driver of evolution its a mechanism through which evolution works. Evolution, by definition, being over reproductive generations

Ok so a better thing would be to say is reproduction drives traits that increases the organisms ability to survive in a environment. ( imo that's one of the reasons religion exists )

 

[DanP]

. I agree that humans are not born genetically or socially "equal" but It's ridiculous to propose that some people are better.

No. The plain basic truth of life is the some humans are better than others. Smarter. Better looking. More attractive. Healthier. Stronger. Faster. With more endurance. With a better development of the PFC.

Yes, some humans are better than others. Besides, look at what enormity you wrote. You accept that humans are not equal, not born with same genes, nor having access to the same social nurture, but you don't accept that some are better. Embrace the truth my friend, some humans are orders of magnitude better than others :P And yeah, some men will get more women in a year than others in a lifetime.

Some people are more capable of doing things (e.g digest milk, buy a mansion etc) but to suggest that people's career and skill sets are purely determined by biology is nonsense.

If you read my post carefully, you will realize that I didnt said that genes are the only determinant of the behavior. This is something you imagined in your head. You have to start to differentiate between modulation and determination.

You say contradictory things, at first you suggest that it is impossible to learn to do certain things and that you have to be born for it (i.e sniper) yet at the end you admit that " the genes you get will affect your propensity for different behaviors in life, and may limit the performance you are capable to display in certain areas".

The contradictions are only in your head. I never suggest that is impossible to learn some things. I suggested that when you reach elite levels, genetics become important. You are naive if you believe that a human can do anything he wants to do and raise to any level. Some simply don't have what it takes. Let's face it , we are not living in a world full of elite sprinters, elite scientists and extremely successful businessman which all have incomes of over 7 zeroes / year. The average humans are beings with no particular success in anything, but to bring some food at home. Blank averages. Nobody will remember them for anything but their immediate family.

Genetic propensities are important. Get a lower development of the PFC than your high school playmate, and chances are that you will end lower in the social hierarchy then him. As idiotic as it may seen, development of PFC in childhood are a very good predictor of where you will end on the social ladder.

This is a misunderstanding. Survival of the fittest pertains to an organism(s)'s ability to survive and reproduce in it's environment. An organism that easily survives to die of old age but cannot reproduce is not a fit individual.

No. Take any course in evolution at any university worth its salt and you will be told the same thing as I did told you. Survival of the fittest is a idiotic misnomer. Something for pop science on Discovery and the likes.

There are many things wrong here it's hard to know where to start. The most obvious are the fact that homosexuality exists, sex enhances pair bonding and that there is a wide variety of mate preferences humans have (not everyone wants to be treated nice).

You would think that is wrong, but again, you fail to understand it. First , you can lave homosexuality apart. I was talking about heterosexual relationships. Second, all those things are pretty much statistical significant. This ofc does not exclude the existence of deviant behaviors, such as humans who don't want to be treated nice, or man who prefer to sleep with women overflowing masses of fat.

 

[thorium1010]

but you don't accept that some are better. Embrace the truth my friend, some humans are orders of magnitude better than others :P And yeah, some men will get more women in a year than others in a lifetime.

some men will get more women, but that does not automatically make him a reproductive success. what about polygamous cultures/societies where women are forced into marriage and they have high reproductive rate.

I am talking of reproductive success here, if you are talking about certain personalities or traits then that's fine.

 

[mishrashubham]

No. The plain basic truth of life is the some humans are better than others. Smarter. Better looking. More attractive. Healthier. Stronger. Faster. With more endurance. With a better development of the PFC.

Yes some people are better than others, but only with respect to certain characteristics. You will very rarely find all those qualities in a single man.

Plus there is more to the brain than just the pre-frontal cortex.

 

[DanP]

Yes some people are better than others, but only with respect to certain characteristics. You will very rarely find all those qualities in a single man.

Plus there is more to the brain than just the pre-frontal cortex.

True. Our social world is a complex one, with many different social hierarchies, and acquiring a high position in one specific hierarchy may require only some qualities. However, make no mistake humans are far from being equal. Some are necessarily better than others. Those climb to the top in their respective hierarchies. Some may go in teaching and end up as high school teachers, while others will end up teaching and doing research at top tier universities. Some will run little business while others will swim with the sharks on Wall Street. Some will raise in sports to state level , while others will excel in international level competition.

We, humans, are not born equal. Nor will those humans benefit from access to same resources during upbringing. Yeah, some are btter than others. Some are orders of magnitudes better of others. Some are shining like stars while others are pretty much natural born loosers.

 

[DanP]

some men will get more women, but that does not automatically make him a reproductive success. what about polygamous cultures/societies where women are forced into marriage and they have high reproductive rate.

What about that ? I miss your point.Polygyny is a very successful reproductive strategy for male who gets access to those females. Perhaps you want to insinuate that the key to reproductive success is access to no females ?

Second, the prerequisite to reproductive success from the pov of a male is access to as many females as possible, save for specific conditions when monogamy makes sense, for example in situations in which it takes two to raise the offspring.

 

[mishrashubham]

However, make no mistake humans are far from being equal. Some are necessarily better than others.

You managed to completely miss the point yet again. Here the keyword is better in "certain areas".

Those climb to the top in their respective hierarchies. Some may go in teaching and end up as high school teachers, while others will end up teaching and doing research at top tier universities.

A University professor is not more successful than a high school teacher. It depends upon one's passion. Teaching takes talent. And teaching high school is just as difficult as teaching university students.

Some will run little business while others will swim with the sharks on Wall Street. Some will raise in sports to state level , while others will excel in international level competition.

Again there are innumerable factors deciding one's course in life. Who knows? If the small businessman tried his luck in may be arts he might excel. May be he took a wrong decision early in life.

We, humans, are not born equal. Nor will those humans benefit from access to same resources during upbringing.

That however is a valid point.

Some are shining like stars while others are pretty much natural born loosers.

Again you missed the keyword, 'losers in certain areas.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Me and a friend were talking in the pub the other day about evolution, and how some people hold the view that, because of modern engineering and medicine, human evolution by the process of natural selection has stopped.

What do you think? Has evolution stopped? If not, how are "good" or "bad" genes selected since it is rare these days for people to die before sexual maturity.

I don't think evolution has stopped. There was a great article by Scientific American back in December of 2007 entitled Culture Speeds Up Human Evolution. You may like to read it and tell me what you think. Here's the link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=culture-speeds-up-human-evolution

Perhaps discouraged from reproducing is the wrong approach, I for one would absolutely loath the idea of the government being entrusted with the responsibility of deciding who should and should not have kids.

I agree with you ryan. Ottoline Leyser documented Mothers in Science - 64 Ways to have it all. As a woman in my 50’s, it’s darn amazing what women can do! http://www.york.ac.uk/res/chong/pdfs/MothersInScience_bk_finalWeb.pdf

 

[Antiphon]

Like it or not, money is the modern proxy for fitness to survive.

Wealthy people can afford better food, better medicine, and pass all those advantages and more on to their offspring.

If you don't think so, go up against a billionaire in any contest you like and see if money is not a survival advantage.

It's *the* reason sex selection works the way it does. Women are attracted to wealthy men because they and their children will be in a better position to survive.

 

[DanP]

You managed to completely miss the point yet again. Here the keyword is better in "certain areas".

No my friend it is you who miss the point badly. We don't live in a world filled with elite athletes, elite scientists, elite engineers and so on. When somebody raises to the top of his field, he is magnitudes better than another person who never manages to raise from obscurity. No matter that the obscure person may know more math than the star, the very simple fact is that this knowledge never served him to raise to prominence.

A University professor is not more successful than a high school teacher. It depends upon one's passion. Teaching takes talent. And teaching high school is just as difficult as teaching university students.

Actually, the society says otherwise. We pay garbagety wages to high-school teachers. Make no mistake, teaching in a tier 1 university is an accomplishment orders of magnitude higher than teaching in a high-school. Your percpetion about who is better is not important. The reflection of how the society treats the two of them ( and it does not treats them as equals) is the only one which gets to say anything about whatever one is better than the other.

Again you missed the keyword, 'losers in certain areas.

A looser is a losser mon ami.

 

[DanP]

I agree with you ryan. Ottoline Leyser documented Mothers in Science - 64 Ways to have it all. As a woman in my 50’s, it’s darn amazing what women can do! http://www.york.ac.uk/res/chong/pdfs/MothersInScience_bk_finalWeb.pdf

Right. It's not about what "women can do" or "what men can do". It's about what some very particular persons ca do. Face the reality, those women in the link are much better than 99% of the ones living on this planet.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

True. Our social world is a complex one, with many different social hierarchies, and acquiring a high position in one specific hierarchy may require only some qualities. However, make no mistake humans are far from being equal. Some are necessarily better than others. Those climb to the top in their respective hierarchies. Some may go in teaching and end up as high school teachers, while others will end up teaching and doing research at top tier universities. Some will run little business while others will swim with the sharks on Wall Street. Some will raise in sports to state level , while others will excel in international level competition.

We, humans, are not born equal. Nor will those humans benefit from access to same resources during upbringing. Yeah, some are btter than others. Some are orders of magnitudes better of others. Some are shining like stars while others are pretty much natural born loosers.

Unless you can provide references from peer-reviewed publish work that the elites of many different fields got there because of genetics, we're done here.

Genetics does play a role, as does your starting resources in life but unless there is something big holding you back (illness etc) there's no reason why a group of similar people can't all rise to the same position given the same opportunity. And regardless this has no bearing on evolution, again unless you can provide peer-reviewed publish work showing that the elites of different fields have statistically significant higher chances of passing on their genes.

Take any course in evolution at any university worth its salt and you will be told the same thing as I did told you. Survival of the fittest is a idiotic misnomer. Something for pop science on Discovery and the likes.

For the record I have multiple degrees in biological sciences, when I talk about evolution I know what I'm talking about.

 

[PhanthomJay]

For the record I have multiple degrees in biological sciences, when I talk about evolution I know what I'm talking about.

I always wanted to ask an expert a question that has been bugging me for years: When I see a photo of my great grandmother, born in the late 1800's, or a picture of Abe Lincoln, or a child of that generation, I clearly see a difference in overall facial features from present generations ...in bone structure very noticeably different from today's version of homo sapiens. Is this due to evolution, or something else? Most people say I'm nuts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I always wanted to ask an expert a question that has been bugging me for years: When I see a photo of my great grandmother, born in the late 1800's, or a picture of Abe Lincoln, or a child of that generation, I clearly see a difference in overall facial features from present generations ...in bone structure very noticeably different from today's version of homo sapiens. Is this due to evolution, or something else? Most people say I'm nuts.

You're nuts

No in all seriousness I'm not sure what you mean by bone structure difference? I'm not aware (and find it highly doubtful) that there would be such a widespread change in the species over such a short time.

EDIT: I know what bone structure difference means, I meant to ask what difference are you observing?

 

[mishrashubham]

... I clearly see a difference in overall facial features from present generations ...in bone structure very noticeably different from today's version of homo sapiens.

In school I used to think (due to an erroneous observation) that kids were getting shorter and shorter every generation.