Are Humans Still Evolving?
X_Stickman
Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Or is technology stopping us?</div> Evolution is based on death and mutation, and that's all it ever will be. If you don't fit in the evironment, you die. That's why you don't see many lions in the North Pole (it's too cold, ya see).
Basically, evolution is when a mutation arises that is actualy useful. Take, for example, a made up species that lives on ground plants and grass. Eventually, they eat most of the grass in the place, and there's not enough food to go around, yet there are some bushes that have tasty leaves a few inches higher than <i>most</i> of the creaturs can reach. however, some of the creatures have longer necks from a bit of variety in the genepool etc, so they can reach this tasty snack. What happens? The creatures with longer necks survive while all the others die out. This means that there are only long-necked animals left, with the long necked gene, so their necks get longer and longer etc... That is a very broad way of putting it, but it basically shows the pattern of evolution.
The opposable thumb was probably a mutation (come on, it looks like a deformed finger), yet it allowed the creature to hold onto things and grip them better. Result? They didn't fall out of trees as often, could use weapons to defend themselves etc... so they didn't fall prey to predators as often.
So what's my point? Humans no longer have any major natural predator (apart from desease, and of course, each other). So what is there killing off the weak? And more to the point, what is there left for us to evolve into? If we didn't have technology, and some monster came along that only ate people over 5 ft tall, eventually there would only be midgets left. But because of technology, we'd probably shoot it or something. So, of course, tall people would not be wiped out. You see my point? Because of technology, we are no longer dying out to the things that would force our species to evolve.
This is by no means a bad thing. But there are still some debates going on about what we will eventually evolve into. My question is, will we actually evolve at all? There are some theories that we will evolve into super-beings with telepaphy and stuff, but we won't, because "Evolution" is not a smart thing that thinks "Wow, this species could do with the power of mind reading." The only way this could happen would be if some disaster struck and only "Pyschic" people survived, they would bread and eventually there would only be physchic people left.
Anyway, this is the kind of thing i come up with on a boring friday night. Am i insane, or does this actually make sense? There's some smart people out there, and i want to know if i can patent this and make some money <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Your Thoughts?
Basically, evolution is when a mutation arises that is actualy useful. Take, for example, a made up species that lives on ground plants and grass. Eventually, they eat most of the grass in the place, and there's not enough food to go around, yet there are some bushes that have tasty leaves a few inches higher than <i>most</i> of the creaturs can reach. however, some of the creatures have longer necks from a bit of variety in the genepool etc, so they can reach this tasty snack. What happens? The creatures with longer necks survive while all the others die out. This means that there are only long-necked animals left, with the long necked gene, so their necks get longer and longer etc... That is a very broad way of putting it, but it basically shows the pattern of evolution.
The opposable thumb was probably a mutation (come on, it looks like a deformed finger), yet it allowed the creature to hold onto things and grip them better. Result? They didn't fall out of trees as often, could use weapons to defend themselves etc... so they didn't fall prey to predators as often.
So what's my point? Humans no longer have any major natural predator (apart from desease, and of course, each other). So what is there killing off the weak? And more to the point, what is there left for us to evolve into? If we didn't have technology, and some monster came along that only ate people over 5 ft tall, eventually there would only be midgets left. But because of technology, we'd probably shoot it or something. So, of course, tall people would not be wiped out. You see my point? Because of technology, we are no longer dying out to the things that would force our species to evolve.
This is by no means a bad thing. But there are still some debates going on about what we will eventually evolve into. My question is, will we actually evolve at all? There are some theories that we will evolve into super-beings with telepaphy and stuff, but we won't, because "Evolution" is not a smart thing that thinks "Wow, this species could do with the power of mind reading." The only way this could happen would be if some disaster struck and only "Pyschic" people survived, they would bread and eventually there would only be physchic people left.
Anyway, this is the kind of thing i come up with on a boring friday night. Am i insane, or does this actually make sense? There's some smart people out there, and i want to know if i can patent this and make some money <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Your Thoughts?
Comments
Unfortunately, one of those conditions is the ability to use birth control effectively - hence my theory that we'll evolve into stupider, clumsier forms over time.
The only real evolution I see comming up in the next thousand years or so is maybe a complete immunity to alcohol <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Turns out that some people living in a small town in England had immunity to the disease. I've forgotten the name of the city, like always, but it had to do with their genes. A genetic mutation, or "evolution"; you can look at it either way, had taken place in some of the towns inhabitants causing them to be immune to not only the Black Plague, but also to most STD's, including AIDS. If both of your parents had this gene, you were likely to be completly immune to the plague and AIDS now. If one parent had this gene you would feel slight effects from the plague and AIDS' effects would set in later in life.
And now, hundreds of years later, a scientist has determined that up to 3-5 million Americans have at least 25% of this gene, and worldwide estimates are still coming in. The point of this rambling post? To show you that evoluton is STILL going on. While diseases aren't known as natural enemies of humans, they are the biggest threat. Human immune systems and disease will continue to evovle till one beats out the other. It's tough to find out who exactly is winning but with this new gene discovered and how well SARS was handled it looks like mankind has a slight lead.
I don't think we'll ever stop evolving in the foreseeable future. There are still so may challenges to overcome, so many boundries to break, and of course, so much space left for the human brain to grow. We're on a roll now, why should we stop?
If evolution is indeed true and I guess to post in this thread we are going to have to take that as a presupposition lest we descend into another evolutionairy flamewar, then it seems we aint going anywhere fast.
We use our technology to save our weakest members, which in terms of natural selection and evolution isnt cool. Preserving your down sindrome child is actually bad for the population as a whole, because s/he will breed and carry on the bad gene. In a more primitive society, natural selection would have ruled against your child, it would probably have died young, and thus wouldnt spread/continued its problem.
The one way to foster evolution is to isolate a small group as traits in that group will be found in greater amounts than in the normal population (this is know as the founder affect). Given such isoloation regardless of other pressures, evolution will occur (however slighty). Another way is for non-random mating. If all tall guys only marry tall guys, evolution will also occur. The last way is though genetic engineering.
But WHERE are we going to evolve? In what direction will evolution take us?
We could take evolution into our own hands by transferring consciousness to machines, or we could allow evolution to take it's course. Judging by past trends, this would indicate more dextrous and sensitive hands as well as a larger mind.
Perhaps we will expand into the universe where each planet will have it's slight variation of "Humanity" and only earth will have the original template, or perhaps we will transcend physical existence itself.
The question here is not IF we will evolve, but rather, WHAT we will evolve into...
Exactly. Except for diseases that unpreventably kill before puberty, genetic diseases will continue to be in our gene pool because of medical treatment.
We use our technology to save our weakest members, which in terms of natural selection and evolution isnt cool. Preserving your down sindrome child is actually bad for the population as a whole, because s/he will breed and carry on the bad gene. In a more primitive society, natural selection would have ruled against your child, it would probably have died young, and thus wouldnt spread/continued its problem.
Exactly. Except for diseases that unpreventably kill before puberty, genetic diseases will continue to be in our gene pool because of medical treatment. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well technology always screws with natural selection (I mean look at all those tech rushing marines <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). Yes, preserving a child with a genetic disease isn't good in terms of traditional natural selection, but because of technology we can keep that child alive. Now by doing that, we actually keep the gene pool wider. Maybe in 30 years time, we find out that a child with down sindrome has a genetic capacity to resist cancer. Who knows? But through technology, traits that usually would be fatal in the wild become non fatal: a baby crying for example, which would be suicide in an environment filled with predators.
Using technology to preserve or encourage traits that would get us killed in the wild isn't nessassarily a bad thing. Look at Stephan Hawking: crippled by a disease that would have seen him dead in a few days in the wild, yet possessed of a remarkable brain.
What technology can do however is completly reverse natural selection. Wild peas grow their seeds in a pod, which, when the seeds are ready, breaks open, showing the ground with seeds. Yet a few mutant plants have pods that never open. In the wild, this is a suicidal trait, as the plant can't reproduce. However, humans gathering peas can't harvest peas that have fallen to the ground, but they can harvest unopened seed pods. Hence, humans select the mutant plants and, once farming begins, plant the mutant seeds that result in more mutant crops. The end result is that humans have reversed natural selection by propegating a plant that would otherwise die out in one generation. We do much the same thing with human evolution now, evolving traits such as a babies' cry, the lack of sharp claws or teeth, and the large scale removal of insulating fur. These are all things that in the wild would spell our doom but thanks to technology, we can safely evolve.
(about the polar ice caps - there is no need to worry about the north pole ice cap melting - the ice there is floating and will not change the water level. it is only the south pole you have to worry about.)
So there doesn't have to be some monster killing us to make us evolve. Also we are getting taller all the time.
there is a gene that makes some people immune to AIDS, believe it or not. found mostly in caucasions with family lines that stayed in europe for the last 800 years. well well, guess what, the ones who survived the bubonic plague bred into their children this resistance that today is manifested as white blood cells being immune to the HiV virus. its rare, because that family trait was so many centuries ago and in most cases has been bred out, but it exists. we are still evolving.
on the other hand we are evolving in a much different manner than ever before. in the year 300 my parents nearsightedness would have made them die of starvation at age 15 or so without ever having any offspring. now we let these bad genes breed in just fine. technology weakens us like that. instead of letting the next plague wipe out weaker humans we spread antibiodics and let all of our weaklings survive anyway. real physical evolution stopped with the advent of pennicillin, however there are social aspects.
still, people wih downs syndrome dont breed very often, and people with very optimistic social attitudes, or better social skills advance in business and get rich and have lots of children. this is not a genetic thing, it is nurture, and they will likely raise their children to be similar people, so it works with natural selection outside of the genetics.
m'eh.
As i said, Evolution is not so much about life, it's about death. We won't evolve to be sexy because it looks good, evolution is not a "thing", and as such it cannot decide anything. When i started this thread, i didn't so much mean evolution to be immune to disease, which is still (and probably always will) happening. I meant more along the lines of Physical evolution. Some people seem to think that in a 1000 years we will all have 5 arms or something. My point is that, we are no longer dying off in large ammounts to anything other than disease, and therefore we have no physical need to evolve (apart from diseases, but that isn't really a major physical thing, it's more to do with DNA or sommat).
So basically what i'm asking is: Are our bodies (not our immune system) "perfect" for living as we are now? Is there anything in our world that is causing us to change still?
Africa especially is <i>definitely</i> evolving due to its epidemic diseases.
The starving parts of the world have potential to evolve. Imagine, for instance, that only those with slow burning metabolism would survive, or people smart enough to figure out how to get food, or people cute enough to get sympathy - these are only imaginary but you see how it works.
Civilization up till now can be said to have effectively been nothing more than figuring out more ways to stop evolution.
You might find it interesting that people have not been getting taller, as some idiots may proclaim, but instead have been getting skinnier and weaker, more 'gracile', than their ancestors. People of long ago, however much they may have been like us, were much more heavily muscled than we are and were just as tall.
And although these heavily muscled people of about 100,000 years ago were *very* similar to us ( except for the Neandertals and remaining H. erectus ), nothing really happened for another 50,000 years. Nothing. Barely any advance.
I really wonder what changed to destroy all the muscle bound people. Perhaps it may be that people today just do not do the same things that their ancestors did in order to get hugely muscular. Just like some people's recent ancestors did not eat well and so did not grow as tall as they could have. *OR* it could be genetic, which I find very intriguing. Why is it inherently bad to grow muscles? Neandertals were even more muscular than ancient humans and they are completely gone now.
Side note: That is why I said only idiots think people are getting taller nowadays; these idiots - er, excuse me, uneducated people cannot tell the difference between environmental influence on an individual's development and actual environmental genocide, the killing of incompatible strains, allowing only certain kinds to survive.
Genetic diseases will be 'fixed' in the future. Techniques are in development now to directly alter patients' genetic code. Whoever's gene template the doctors/scientists use to fix will spread around. It's not such a big deal though. And perhaps the scientists will use an alternate way. Perhaps construct an artificial version.
Also sexy people. There are two kinds. If I'm stupid correct me, but I am pretty sure that you can only assume two.
1] people whose actual genetic expression in, for instance, their appearance, are an honest indicator of their capabilities.
2] people who pretend to be those people. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
What are these mystical capabilities? They are merely, the average, general direction the species as a whole is going. The average direction our species is <i>improving</i>.
however it is an expression of what was needed in the past. There could easily be some difficult challenge that only ugly people are good at. And now suppose that some random mutated dudes thought ugly people were beautiful. So let's imagine a few dudes actively chase ugly people, and have kids. Let's imagine that these ugly kids are better at whatever enormous challenge is facing the species. Let's suppose they kick the **** of all the beautiful people. Let's say, they live and beautiful people are killed. Now, even if there's only a few ugly people, they'll just keep having sex and having more kids and grandkids and so on until all that's left in the future is a bunch of ugly people who think they look sexy.
that is how the notion of beauty can change. that could well be how the Neandertals died out. Not because they're ugly, but because we're better. I hope you can understand. They probably thought they were sexy, and we were ugly. But we won.
It might even be that we could interbreed. In that case it could also be that somehow our genes affected mate choice more strongly than the Neandertal genes, so that the children of Neandertal and human would prefer human looking people rather than Neandertal looking people. That is also a way of being 'better'.
Anyhow sexy people are presumably headed in the direction that allowed our ancestors to survive. however there could be fake sexy people, in that they have genes that allow them to look good but don't really help them out at all, these are the 2nd kind of sexy people referred to above.
====
I really don't think I have spelled it out clearly for some people, but for the ahem more qualified people <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> I think you will enjoy thinking about these matters.
Neanderthals and Homo-Sapiens did compete for land/hunting grounds etc. Homo-Sapiens won because of larger brain mass and more advanced tools. Nobody knows the exact story for certain, but thats probably the gist of how things happened. Neanderthals were comparitively not as smart and thus got replaced.
Judging by past trends in evolution, I would venture to say that more dextrous hands and larger brain mass would result over the long term.
Factor in Genetic engineering, and then humanity can go in a whole load of different directions.
I dont have a problem with GE, as long as specific subspecies of Man aren't tailored for specific jobs, and as long as we keep the original template of man intact should any future problems arise as a result of GE.
Anyone here ever read "The Future Trap"? Describes a future filled with genetic engineering, yet the inhabitants need the original genetic code of man if they are ever to eradicate a disease of genetic origin...
In any case, yes, man is still evolving. The only time our evolution will ever stop is when we become extinct or transcend to some higher plane of existence...
Actually Neanderthals had a larger brain than modern humans or Homo sapiens sapiens. We are fairly certain that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens sapiens didn't interbreed to produce any viable offspring. The reasons why Homo sapiens sapiens won is probably due to more advanced tools, culture and hunting techniques. An interesting thought may be that Neanderthals became unable to bear children due to their larger brain and skull sizes. Seeing the trouble women do have giving birth, it's not an impossible scenario. But more likely is the other reasons listed above.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Neanderthals are a related species to man<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am sorry to say this, but scientific evidence now shows that Neanderthals are not our human ancestors, but rather Cro-magnons.
So:
Common Ancestor --> Homo Sapiens
Common Ancestor --> Neanderthals
Not:
Ancestor --> Neanderthals --> Homo Sapiens
Ryo, I think it was to do with the frontal lobes. Although Neanderthals probably did have larger brain mass (I am no expert) it was the frontal lobes, the place where planning, reason, logic and the knowledge of death reside that gave homo sapiens an upper hand.
Could be wrong though, as I said, I am not an expert...