Why are some humans evolving faster than others?

  • Thread starter grimlove527
  • Start date
In summary, the people who have scientific mysteries with their bodies are the ones who are evolving. Thousands of years ago, humans were able to outsmart evolution by crossing races, and today we still have a lot of interracial marriage which tends to bring the races together. However, I don't think humans will evolve too much farther because there is already a lot of interracial marriage which tends to bring the races together. Brasil is a good example.
  • #1
grimlove527
9
0
Question: Why aren't humans evolving? I know this might sound stupid, and I can see the progression from caveman to common day man, but we have lived, looking kind of the same, for sooo many years?(please correct me if I'm wrong

Are the people who have scientific mysteries with their bodies the ones who are evolving?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You have to wait millions of years.

Shor term, you can look at all the inter-racial people of the world.
 
  • #3
Because, so far, our intelligence has allowed us to trump evolution, giving to everyone more or less the same chances of passing on his or her genes. There can't be evolution without enough pressure for it to happen.
 
  • #4
I saw some (journalist's summary of a) study that suggested that a person that is the ancestor of every living human being could have lived as early as the end of the ice age. Assuming some veracity to that and that that person came from a homogeneous group of people, that's a lot of evolving we've done. However, I don't think humans will evolve too much farther because there is already a lot of interracial marriage which tends to bring the races together. Brasil is a good example.

Edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Cyrus said:
You have to wait millions of years.
I don't think homo sapiens has been around that long.
 
  • #7
Cyrus said:
You have to wait millions of years.

Shor term, you can look at all the inter-racial people of the world.
Well, thousands anyway.

But we are taller than people just a few hundred years ago. That's mostly a matter of nutrition, though.
 
  • #8
We are evolving.

Evolution is very difficult to see on a human timescale. You have to see it on the scale of hundreds or thousands of generations.

We are taller than we were a few thousand years ago, we have cross-breeding happening everywhere, we have genetic mutations that are becoming more and more common in the population (suggesting that those particular mutations are not harmful.)
 
  • #9
russ_watters said:
Well, thousands anyway.

But we are taller than people just a few hundred years ago. That's mostly a matter of nutrition, though.
Doh!
 
  • #10
Im tall. Evolution works! I am biologically superior to you peons.
 
  • #11
Sickle cell anemia (mostly in African races) making for a partial immunity to malaria is a common beneficial mutation cited.
 
  • #12
jhicks said:
However, I don't think humans will evolve too much farther because there is already a lot of interracial marriage which tends to bring the races together. Brasil is a good example.

Short of extinction, a species never stops evolving. Changes are always happening; they don't need to be huge and obvious to the naked eye to be part of evolutionary processes.
 
  • #13
We still have an affinity for violence that is probably not necessary for survival anymore.
I hope we don't have to go through thousands of years to get rid of that trait.
 
  • #14
You're judging evolution based on just physical appearance. I don't know much about biology, but I think the genetics that determine how we look are a very, very small part of our total genetic make-up.

Think of all the microbes that assault our species every day - MRSA, flu, HIV, on and on. Some unlucky people die from these infections, some get sick but don't die - there's natural selection, right there.
 
  • #15
jhicks said:
However, I don't think humans will evolve too much farther because there is already a lot of interracial marriage which tends to bring the races together. Brasil is a good example.

I'm not understanding why that would stop anything.

Moreover, as someone pointed out, we no longer care about superior traits like nature does in the wild. Today, people who are born disabled or otherwise "inferior" (say naturally shy or small-statured) still have a good change of having kids. The miracle of Society!
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Doh!
You'll have to learn to make shorter posts... :tongue:
 
  • #17
Poop-Loops said:
I'm not understanding why that would stop anything.

Moreover, as someone pointed out, we no longer care about superior traits like nature does in the wild. Today, people who are born disabled or otherwise "inferior" (say naturally shy or small-statured) still have a good change of having kids. The miracle of Society!
Your term "superior" is subjective and only meaningful in context. In the human eco-system, able-bodied is not a survival trait.
 
  • #18
grimlove527 said:
Question: Why aren't humans evolving? I know this might sound stupid, and I can see the progression from caveman to common day man, but we have lived, looking kind of the same, for sooo many years?(please correct me if I'm wrong

Are the people who have scientific mysteries with their bodies the ones who are evolving?

Mainly evolving is for addapting to are sorrounding's... for example if you were to breed 5 gen's of people in 0gravity in space, are heads would expand and we would start evolving to addapt to are new sorrounding's.. mainly the it's what drive's the need for change for self presaverance of are self's and collectivly.
 
  • #19
DaveC426913 said:
Your term "superior" is subjective and only meaningful in context. In the human eco-system, able-bodied is not a survival trait.

Being tall isn't a superior trait? Okay, hot-shot, remind me about that next time you can't reach something on the top shelf.
 
  • #20
Poop-Loops said:
Being tall isn't a superior trait? Okay, hot-shot, remind me about that next time you can't reach something on the top shelf.

The Information form the DNA could not create itself to its preset from, because of the lack of Folic acid's in there diet's, mainly dark-greens, vegetables, liver, dried beans and pea's are primary source's, and they lacked them which leads to a deficiency disorder which would create stunted growth (especially of the fetus during pregnancy and of infant's) that's one of meany reason's why they lacked are fine looks :)
 
  • #21
Poop-Loops said:
Being tall isn't a superior trait? Okay, hot-shot, remind me about that next time you can't reach something on the top shelf.

Long and lean builds aren't so good for those dwelling in very cold climates.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_091.html

Eskimos are compactly built, which minimizes loss of body heat. The average Eskimo's height is only about 5'2", and most of that consists of a massive torso. The lower portions of their arms and legs are shorter than the upper halves, and their hands and feet are distinctly petite. That means they don't lose a lot of heat through their extremities, which are most vulnerable to the cold.
 
  • #22
Math Is Hard said:
Long and lean builds aren't so good for those dwelling in very cold climates.

It would be if they had any tall shelves.
 
  • #23
Poop-Loops said:
Being tall isn't a superior trait? Okay, hot-shot, remind me about that next time you can't reach something on the top shelf.

And you remind me the next time you bump your head or walk into a spider web :eek: .
 
  • #24
Poop-Loops said:
Being tall isn't a superior trait? Okay, hot-shot, remind me about that next time you can't reach something on the top shelf.
I alway get a tall person to reach for me. They're the first to know if it's raining and the last to know if there's a flood.
 
  • #25
Noone said:
Mainly evolving is for addapting to are sorrounding's... for example if you were to breed 5 gen's of people in 0gravity in space, are heads would expand and we would start evolving to addapt to are new sorrounding's.. mainly the it's what drive's the need for change for self presaverance of are self's and collectivly.
It's considered very bad netiquette to criticize spelling and grammar but your posts are almost illegible. Is English not your native language?

(And just to keep it on-topic, skill in communication is a survival trait. :biggrin: )
 
Last edited:
  • #26
Eskimos are compactly built, which minimizes loss of body heat. The average Eskimo's height is only about 5'2", and most of that consists of a massive torso. The lower portions of their arms and legs are shorter than the upper halves, and their hands and feet are distinctly petite. That means they don't lose a lot of heat through their extremities, which are most vulnerable to the cold.
An excellent example of manifest evolution.
 
  • #27
DaveC426913 said:
It's considered very bad netiquette to criticize spelling and grammar but your posts are almost illegible. Is English not your native language?

Hehe that never stops anyone. But it's true, I think it's fine to ask for clarification if you can't understand what someone means, but pointing out it should be you're not your, is pretty petty really. Everyone makes mistakes, the worst example I've seen is someone taking someone to task for a typo :rolleyes:. If it's any conselation I'm not sure of his drift either.

In English I think he means in humans the drive to change or evolve is ourselves. Rather than the environment as it is more commonly in animal species, or something like that.
 
  • #28
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Hehe that never stops anyone. But it's true, I think it's fine to ask for clarification if you can't understand what someone means, but pointing out it should be you're not your, is pretty petty really. Everyone makes mistakes, the worst example I've seen is someone taking someone to task for a typo :rolleyes:. If it's any conselation I'm not sure of his drift either.

In English I think he means in humans the drive to change or evolve is ourselves. Rather than the environment as it is more commonly in animal species, or something like that.
Well, the 'are's instead of 'our's really threw me. I rolled with them but kept tripping over all the apostrophes. I'm not sure asking for clarification would have eliminated the problem.

I'm not trying to bash him. He's got intelligent ideas, I just think they're getting lost in translation.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Since I spell everything how I hear it, it seldom proves a problem to me, poor grammar and spelling are pretty much the norm in my familly.

But yeah there's nothing wrong with asking someone to be more clear at all. In fact that's good netiquette not bad nettiquette.
 
  • #30
Cyrus said:
Im tall. Evolution works! I am biologically superior to you peons.

I never had "wisdom"teeth (or as I call them, "knuckle-draggers' teeth").
 
  • #31
None of this discussion has much to do with evolution, per se. Evolution in it's simplest explanation is change in a species over time. There is no provision for direction of change, for positive or negative, for superior or inferior, simpler or more complex, just change.

What the rest of this discussion is getting into is selection...natural selection, artificial selection (though evolutionary biologists would likely argue if this is a real thing and not just an extension of natural selection), sexual selection, etc. There is no such thing as "superior and inferior" in the selection process...something either confers fitness for survival and passing on one's genes, or reduces fitness making it harder to survive to pass on one's genes, or is neutral. There is a wide spectrum of heights which have no effect on one's ability to find a mate and pass on one's genes. The extremes on either end do affect ability to pass on one's genes...on the extremely short end, some forms of dwarfism would prevent one from passing on one's genes, at least if you are female, simply due to there not being enough space in the pelvic and abdominal region to safely carry a pregnancy to term, and on the extremely tall end, the endocrine disorders that lead to giantism would also hinder fertility. For the rest of the height spectrum, the tall couple who raises their countertops a couple inches to avoid sore backs while working in their kitchen have no less chance of having children than the short couple who keeps a step stool out at all times to reach the top shelves in the cabinets (or just doesn't use those shelves).
 
  • #32
The real reason humans have stopped evolving is because God died. either that or he made me and knew he had finally got it right.
 
  • #33
Moonbear said:
There is a wide spectrum of heights which have no effect on one's ability to find a mate and pass on one's genes. The extremes on either end do affect ability to pass on one's genes...on the extremely short end, some forms of dwarfism would prevent one from passing on one's genes, at least if you are female, simply due to there not being enough space in the pelvic and abdominal region to safely carry a pregnancy to term, and on the extremely tall end, the endocrine disorders that lead to giantism would also hinder fertility. For the rest of the height spectrum, the tall couple who raises their countertops a couple inches to avoid sore backs while working in their kitchen have no less chance of having children than the short couple who keeps a step stool out at all times to reach the top shelves in the cabinets (or just doesn't use those shelves).
Well, as you point out, one must find a mate in order to pass on ones genes. Physiologistics aside, only time and retrospect will determine if extremes in height will have been a sexual selection factor.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
Well, as you point out, one must find a mate in order to pass on ones genes. Physiologistics aside, only time and retrospect will determine if extremes in height will have been a sexual selection factor.

I've always found some real puzzles with this model. There kind of test cases. Whilst it's been determined for example that homosexuality at least has some sort of genetic component (see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn9413-male-sexuality-may-be-decided-in-the-womb.html") but is not solely caused by genetics as far as we know. How does a gene or set of genes or a hormonal genetic effect that reduces the possibility of having children to almost 0, get passed on from generation to generation? And that's in humans. In animals it's obviously an even more strongly genetic component. What on Earth is the point of homosexuality? I mean no offence if you're gay at all? But why is it obviously not detrimental to the genome? Nature does not allow something to survive if it is detrimental to the number of offspring a species has, when it reduces it to practically zero, it is even more baffling?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Schrodinger's Dog said:
How does a gene or set of genes or a hormonal genetic effect that reduces the possibility of having children to almost 0, get passed on from generation to generation?
Perhaps as a form of genetic altruism i.e. it furthers the species rather than the individual.

In lab tests, overpopulations of rats produced an increase in this behaviour (IIRC, sorry, no citation). One could argue that it would help the species as a whole by lowering competition for mates.

As to how it gets passed, well one could hypothesize that groups deficient in this gene too easily wiped themselves out in mating competition, thus favouring populations that had the gene present. (So you see that, while the manifestation of the gene might limit offspring for the individual, the lineage that had that gene (including their childbearing siblings) would less likely be killed before bearing offspring.)
 
Last edited:
<h2>1. Why are some humans evolving faster than others?</h2><p>The concept of "evolving faster" is not entirely accurate. Evolution is a slow and continuous process that affects all populations, but the rate of change may vary depending on various factors such as environmental pressures, genetic variation, and reproductive success.</p><h2>2. Is evolution a random process?</h2><p>While genetic mutations, which are the basis of evolution, may occur randomly, natural selection acts on these mutations in a non-random manner. This means that individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes, leading to gradual changes in a population over time.</p><h2>3. Are some humans more evolved than others?</h2><p>No, all humans are equally evolved. Evolution does not have a goal or endpoint, and all living beings are constantly evolving and adapting to their environment.</p><h2>4. Can humans control their own evolution?</h2><p>While humans have some control over their environment and can manipulate their own genetic material through technologies like gene editing, natural selection still plays a significant role in shaping the evolution of our species.</p><h2>5. Will humans continue to evolve in the future?</h2><p>Yes, humans will continue to evolve as long as there are environmental pressures and genetic variation. However, the direction and rate of evolution are impossible to predict as they are influenced by numerous complex factors.</p>

1. Why are some humans evolving faster than others?

The concept of "evolving faster" is not entirely accurate. Evolution is a slow and continuous process that affects all populations, but the rate of change may vary depending on various factors such as environmental pressures, genetic variation, and reproductive success.

2. Is evolution a random process?

While genetic mutations, which are the basis of evolution, may occur randomly, natural selection acts on these mutations in a non-random manner. This means that individuals with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and pass on their genes, leading to gradual changes in a population over time.

3. Are some humans more evolved than others?

No, all humans are equally evolved. Evolution does not have a goal or endpoint, and all living beings are constantly evolving and adapting to their environment.

4. Can humans control their own evolution?

While humans have some control over their environment and can manipulate their own genetic material through technologies like gene editing, natural selection still plays a significant role in shaping the evolution of our species.

5. Will humans continue to evolve in the future?

Yes, humans will continue to evolve as long as there are environmental pressures and genetic variation. However, the direction and rate of evolution are impossible to predict as they are influenced by numerous complex factors.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
240
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
958
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
788
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
4K
Back
Top