Have humans stopped evolving?

[RevSouth]

I've been pondering over this for a while. Human breeding no longer relies on the strongest surviving. Between the concept of marriage, and medicine, I doubt that humans are getting stronger through selective breeding. Not that this is a bad thing, and I definetely don't support eugenics, but does anyone share this opinion? Or differ?

[loveme4whoiam]

Perhaps we've got to the point where our technology evolves instead of our human bodies?

Sorry this is a short post, not got a lot of time, I'd like to discuss this more :)

[RebelOutcast]

I agree that humans have at least slowed their rate of evolution, since we do not have to adapt to our environments anymore, simply adapt the environments to us.
The advancement of technology has certainly near negated the need to evolve.

[TheGreatOne]

If welfare and social security were to be eliminated, we would evolve a hell of a lot faster.

[RevMARKSman]

^ Social Darwinist much?

To quote NOFX (hopefully this won't drive anyone insane):

Watson, it's really elementary
The industrial revolution
Has flipped the ***** on evolution...

Okay, maybe the rest of the song has a social darwinist theme, but I just remembered this.

[Sentinel]

Perhaps we've got to the point where our technology evolves instead of our human bodies?

Exactly! I'd like to claim that our species is now in control of evolution, with our technological progression involving genetic engineering and soon a lot more.. Nature simply won't be able to keep up with us for much longer, as we become one with technology and evolve in the directions we prefer. :D

The problem being, of course, capitalism. The obsolete system hindering the fruits of our development becoming common property ..until the revolution.

[lithium]

First of all, evolution itself should be defined. Evolution is the mutation of genes over generations, with the most "useful" mutations being kept. For a simple example, two parents have a baby. A mutation in the genes results in the baby having an extra arm. This extra arm is very useful to that baby throughout its life. The genetic mutation that resulted in that extra arm is now passed onto his/her children. (This is a very simple and fast example of evolution - such a change would occur over hundreds if not thousand of generations.)

Evolution takes place over a long period of time - we're talking millions of years for significant change, in some cases. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution you'll see a table of the history of human evolution. That table spans about 2.5 million years, and, as you can see, we've evolved a lot since then. And yes, there is evidence to show that we're still evolving. Visit an old cottage from the 18th Century and you'll notice that the doorways and ceilings are very low. Most modern adults would have to stoop to get through the doorways. The human body has responded to the development of the human diet and we are now getting taller, whether or not this is due to technology or natural devlopment.

With the advancement of science our brains are getting used to more complicated ideas and concepts (a round Earth, relativity, quantum physics, even evolution itself) and, as a result, we will become more intelligent (compared to modern standards).

So yes, I do think we are evolving just as fast as ever. And maybe the advancement of technology is helping to steer that evolution in certain directions.

And the ultimate end-point of human evolution?

http://evolution.haifa.ac.il/html/html_eng/images/FUTURE%20OF%20HUMAN%20EVOLUTION.jpg

Now that's sexy.

[red team]

If welfare and social security were to be eliminated, we would evolve a hell of a lot faster.

Sure, and if government was eliminated so the greatest wealth goes to the baddest asshole with the biggest and most violent gang we would evolve even faster yet. :wacko:

[red team]

The problem being, of course, capitalism. The obsolete system hindering the fruits of our development becoming common property ..until the revolution.



SKYCAR! :D
http://www.buckminster.info//Pics/Transportation/Travel-Air-Car-Moller1.jpg

[encephalon]

Just because the environment has changed does not mean that evolution has stopped. We're evolving just as we always have.. in fact, since the environment is almost entirely different than just two centuries ago, we could be evolving at a more rapid pace due to the affect of a new environment on an old gene pool.

The key difference is that the environment in which we evolve is an environment we're starting to create--and as some have mentioned, it's becoming more and more a matter of synergetic self-evolution. However, this doesn't change the basic nature of evolution. If a certain trait gives a modern person an advantage in the modern world and its environment, the gene responsible for that trait (provided that person has the means to propagate) will be passed on to the next generation.

People in the modern world, for instance, probably have much stronger immune systems due to evolution in comparison to the tribes we came from not so long ago, because our environment demands a better immune system due to greater numbers in concentrated areas--those with weaker immune systems were gradually replaced by stronger ones.

One problem, though, is that our environment is changing so rapidly now. So even if a helpful gene is passed down the line, it might not be helpful at all to the next generation. If typing became an urgent skill in modern society and lasted a thousand years as a facet of our environment, for instance, a trait that would allow for better typing would probably develop in people. However, it's unlikely that typing (at least as we think of it now) will last 50 years, let alone a thousand. The environment isn't stable enough to solidify such evolutionary traits.

I'm guessing, though, that there are still other aspects of human society that will remain constant enough to spark such trait development.. though what I honestly don't know. Brain capacity, at least, will probably be a trait that will continue to evolve and remain beneficial in our current environment and foreseeable future.

[apathy maybe]

Every generation is a new generation with new traits (mostly minor) that are sometimes passed on and sometimes not. This is evolution. Evolution continues and will continue while animals, plants, etc. reproduce.

In some cases this evolution is guided by humans (or I am sure by other animals in some cases). Thus we get sheep that are woollier and fatter then in the past, and wheat that is more resistant to diseases. This is still evolution, though humans are guiding and trying to get traits that interest them. This has been going on for thousands of years.

More recently humans have been playing with evolution and doing a trick that previously was restricted to viruses and bacteria. Taking genes from one place and putting them into another. This is genetic engineering.


So humans haven't stopped evolving, nor have they slowed down or speed up. The types of changes might be more different and appear more rapidly in the past, but the evolutionary process continues at the same pace it did before. Every generation.

[Trent Steele]

Evolution not only depends on beneficial mutations passing onto the next generation, but also on those with this mutation (who are therefore stronger than others) being less likely to die/more likely to reproduce.
The key thing about human evolution today is that a characteristic that makes a human better (be it increased strength, intelligence, or whatever) does not provide an advantage for reproduction or survival. An ordinary person is just as likely to have children as a person with a slightly improved characteristic. Also, certain traits are becoming less of an advantage because of technology, eg, a person with a stronger immune system will have very little advantage in evolutionary terms due to modern medicine.
Add to this the fact the abnormalities and mutations are regarded almost universally as a bad thing. Look at the child born in China recently with a third arm, it was amputated shortly after its birth.
So, certainly in modern, western society, human evolution has stopped (or fundamentally changed in it's nature). However, in poorer societies, especially third world countries; evolution is still going strong, both due to pressure not to die and lack of technology.

[mauvaise foi]

We probably haven't evolved much in the 10,000 years since the Agricultural Revolution, because the environment has changed so rapidly, there hasn't been enough time in most cases for a selection pressure to take hold for long enough to favor a particular mutation.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:06 PM
Not that this is a bad thing, and I definetely don't support eugenics, but does anyone share this opinion?
Are you trying to suggest that somehow "evolved" means "advanced"?

[gilhyle]

It is certainly wrong to say that evolution is going on as much as ever. While mutations continue to occur, and while some of these mutations may lead to significant social advantage, its impossible to see how that mutation could achieve a preferential rate of reproduction across generations.

Arguably, the whole point of the development of modes of production, is a qualitative transfomration of forms of inheritance other than genetic inheritance. Thus history might be defined as a process of evolution - of economic (and consequentially cultural and other forms) evolution where the medium of evolution is the process of reproduction itself.

If this form of economic evolution has replaced natural evolution, it is also arguably the observation of communism that economic evolution will, in time be replaced by a form of evoluton characterised by the exercise of the human will - we can, Marx argues, reach a point in human evolution where we have sufficient economic resources at our disposal, and have so effectively reduced the political process to administration, that we can choose how we want to evolve.

[Wintermute]

The thing that I think most people take for granted is that evolution results in positive changes in a species. This is not always the case. In the example somebody mentioned about a third arm developing, what if it had been a gradual change and hundreds or thousands of that person's ancestors had been born with a partially formed limb slowing them down? That were less attractive to other members of their species who had not inherited the trait? Chances are, the woman with the third limb would never have been born.

And since our environment is changing so rapidly, largely as a result of our own tampering, couldn't there be evolutionary changes that come too little, too late, and actually ended up being a burden in our species instead of an advantage?
u
For instance, let's say that the increase in the average human height is a reaction of the body to processed foods, which are incredibly unhealthy for the body to process and require more blood and larger organs to safely digest. As mass-manufacturing techniques improve evolution can no longer keep up, and the taller form that was intended to handle the quasi-poison we've incorporated into our diets instead becomes a liability, making the body more fragile and hmans more prone to spinal injuries.

I'd argue that even without advances in genetic engineering we're still in the best position we've ever been in to evolve as a race, just because of sheer numbers. The number of people currently living (around 6.2 billion) constitute the most diverse gene pool ever possible and the greatest number of chances to evolve. Given that our population is supposed to double every 30 years or so, that's 6.2 billion chances to produce offspring with beneficial mutations.

[Umoja]

Evolution happens far to slow for us to really make many assumptions about the direction it's going. Bacteria evolve quickly because thousands of new generations can be born every day.

Besides that, I think the biotech industry will start to take the place of nature soon enough. We're getting very close to being able to edit out genetic problems in developing fetuses.

[red team]

Has human evolution stopped?

No, in the future we will direct our own evolution through technological enhancements.

TranSocialist Alliance (http://transocialism.com/)

[leftist manson]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 01:20 AM



(QUOTE]Visit an old cottage from the 18th Century and you'll notice that the doorways and ceilings are very low. Most modern adults would have to stoop to get through the doorways. The human body has responded to the development of the human diet and we are now getting taller, whether or not this is due to technology or natural devlopment.(/QUOTE)


Very well said. Just for an addition, research shows that the Dutch who are the tallest people in Europe now alongside serbians were the shortest throughout the 19th century. I am trying to find the site that i first read it from.

[encephalon]

The book "Galapagos" by Kurt Vonnegut illustrates very well how evolution doesn't always mean advancement for civilization. I'd suggest it to anyone that would think so.

[Rollo]

I don't think we've stopped. There is a gene in my fathers side of the family I inherited which means most of the men in the family grow very little to no pit hair.

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:07 AM
I don't think we've stopped. There is a gene in my fathers side of the family I inherited which means most of the men in the family grow very little to no pit hair.
That doesn't really matter. It would only matter if a whole bunch of women impregnated themselves with your sperm (or if you're a female, the sperm of a male in your family) because they liked that better and then after a few generations of people preferring this gene, we would have evolved.

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by red [email protected] 23 2006, 09:04 AM

If welfare and social security were to be eliminated, we would evolve a hell of a lot faster.

Sure, and if government was eliminated so the greatest wealth goes to the baddest asshole with the biggest and most violent gang we would evolve even faster yet. :wacko:
No, the greatest wealth would go to the smartest people who could manipulate their resources to fight off the most violent people. Our technological abilities have evolved beyond the point where the biggest and strongest would win.

[Global_Justice]

humans will never stop evolving. our minds are evolving with each generation.

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 10:19 PM
humans will never stop evolving. our minds are evolving with each generation.
Of course they'll stop evolving. The universe has to come to an end at some point.

[Blue Collar Bohemian]

Anyone looked into Transhumanism (a.k.a. H+ or >H)?

[Janus]

I think that our physical forms have pretty much stopped evolving but it's been shown that our brains are still evolving to some degree.

[TedGrant]

We are still evolving. It will probably be apparent in a couple of million years time.
In other words dont worry about it.
We learn and understand evolution by looking at the past. We will be studied in the future.Let them worry about it.

[Devrim]

Of course humans are still evolving, but the evolutionary time scale is so great as to make it unobservable. Also the size of the gene pool will have a tendency to slow down evolution.
Devrim

[TheGreatOne]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 07:04 PM
I think that our physical forms have pretty much stopped evolving but it's been shown that our brains are still evolving to some degree.
Why would the evolution of our physical forms be any different from our brains? They are determined by the same DNA.

[red team]

Natural evolution has for the most part stopped being significant to any degree in driving human progress forward ever since the development of technology. If looked at comparatively hunter/gatherer society introduces an environment that is very much harsher than our present "civilized" society in which the individual is subjected to the darwinian logic of survival of the fittest in the purest sense.

If anybody cared to read history or anthropology books, you'll discovered that everybody including children in tribal hunter/gatherer societies was forced to constantly rely on their wits to avoid being killed in tribal warfare and to secure food sources by hunting and knowing what and what not to eat. Compared to children in the relatively comfortable industrialized societies who have the luxury of letting their brain atrophy by passively watching spoon-fed entertainment, kids in hunter/gatherer societies have no such luxuries and were forced by their environment to be more intelligent.

So how did it happened that we are more advanced technically and scientifically being that a ruthless killed or be killed and hunt or starve environment produced more intelligent children by the logic of weeding out those who are "soft" and "weak"? Answer: technology negates inherent genetic disadvantages by producing substitutes that make those inherent weaknesses of individuals irrelevant to the contributing productivity of the society thus freeing up individuals who would otherwise be consigned as extinction bounded "failures" to be more productive in the area in which they are more inherently competent.

To someone who is egotistical about himself/herself they may attribute all their "success" to themselves, but if an neutral and objective perspective is taken then a distribution of labour and technical innovation was significantly more important in helping shape an individual for social success than any individual effort alone. Think about all the technical innovation and division of labour for tasks that require a different skill set than let say a nuclear scientist or financial genius like Warren Buffet.

Anything that is not inherently part of yourself is a technical innovation that is dependent on a cooperative society with many different skill sets whether you like to admit to it or not. Everything from glasses, tooth fillings, vacines, clothing and storable media are examples of technical innovation without which there would be far less material progress and comfort in our lives regardless of individual competency in any particular area. The above listed items are examples of body enhancements through technological substitutes for individual genetic failures, otherwise only people with perfect teeth and the strongest immune system should have survived. Should we go back to that societal state? :lol:

If taken from an engineering perspective, natural evolution is a wasteful, inconsistent and inefficient method for designing a project to specifications, especially when what it produces sometimes work and sometimes doesn't. Anybody want a computer that sometimes work and sometimes doesn't? This doesn't necessarily have to conform to expected cultural expectations of what "excellence" is either. You can be a mathematical genius and yet suffer from a genetic disorder or be a social disaster when relating to other people.

Technology in the form of more enhancements both external and internal to the body of an individual will be a far more significant factor in shaping the progress of human societies into the future. Far more so than the inefficient, inconsistent, wasteful and morally questionable methods of natural evolution applied to an industrially developed society which is why it won't even be on the agenda except as a flimsy justification for the wealthy and powerful to defend their unearned privileges.

[Physco Bitch]

Humans stopped evolving? No i don't think so. There is papers and books i have read that say that when the human body finds a way that is good for itself and the way it needs to live , then if something happens that means we need to change - Wether it be to get stronger... Whatever - then we begin to evolve again. At the moment there is no need for us to cahnge- we have adapteded to our invorment (or adapteded our invoroment to us is more like it.) So there is no need for us to evolve, at the moment. If you read up about such things, you will find that human beings find a way that suits themselves and the way they need to live and what there living conditions are like- best. Therefore once we have the perfect body that we need for our conditions, we simply- well i suppose you could say- lay dorment for a while. But when the earth and conditions call for us to evolve again we will. It has been a long time since we have evovled- that is through the pure fact we haven't needed to evolve for so long. But a day could (and probably will) come when we need to evolve again , and when that day comes we will evolve. It seems in evolution it takes a long time for something to happen, but when it does it goes from the way it was and leaps forward - usually in a big way. I could have put this all a better way - i will probably think of a better way to put it later :lol: . But for now i have been deprived of sleep and it is early in the morning so i can't be asked. Will probably be back to add more later.

[encephalon]

Well, I'm now thoroughly convinced that very few of you actually understand how evolution works. That's depressing.

[Janus]

Why would the evolution of our physical forms be any different from our brains?
Only certain aspects of your DNA would change. Currently, there is no reason for humans to develop certain physical body parts more; we do not need wings or gills,etc.

[encephalon]

Only certain aspects of your DNA would change. Currently, there is no reason for humans to develop their physical forms more; we do not need wings or gills,etc.

The brain is the physical form.

[Janus]

The brain is the physical form.
Edited.

I meant to talk about other physical body parts but thanks for pointing that mistake out.