Evolution on mankind

[Caoimhan]

are we as humans evolving are the weak minded and bodied being outbreed or is it exact opposite occuring? or is that irrelevant

[Quacky]

Well in general we have stopped evolving in that just for an example you had diabetes and previously you might die and not pass on any defective genes you can now live a normal life. For evolution to work you need a pressure from people surviving who have a mutation and people dieing who don't. The only recent one I know off is sickle cell anemia where the heterozygous form is resistant to malaria and doesn't have the disease symptoms of sickle cell anemia.

The problem is that defective disease causing genes remain in the gene pool now so the chances of acquiring them increases although its quite possible there will be a treatment for it albeit requiring constant use of medicines.

[Chaigidel]

technology has taken the place of our natural evolution.

[NaptownKnight]

We aren't evolving, problem solved.

[VALIS]

Humans are bigger and stronger than ever before. Compare humans to 100 years ago, we are more athletic, faster and physically more impressive.
The human population is on average probably more intelligent but that might just be down to education from governments instead of actual brain evolution.

As someone said, science and medicine is taking the place of natural evolution and speeding it up ten fold.

[Blau&Gruen]

Evolving in the sense of evolution means gain a natural advantage as specie that explores ecological niches. The picture of ascending a ladder is missleading. Homo Sapiens is part of that process and cannot escape it.

[Gary88]

from Orville and Wilbur wright to Harrier Jump Jet in 100 years is possibly the single greatest evolutionary step that will ever happen...ever

[Blau&Gruen]

from Orville and Wilbur wright to Harrier Jump Jet in 100 years is possibly the single greatest evolutionary step that will ever happen...ever

Na, that is technical progress, not evolution in the sense of biology. Nevertheless, there are a few species that have the ability to explore their ecological niches by behaviors, that are supported by something that lays the ground for technics in the case of the Genus Homo.

[Simetrical]

All evolution requires is descent with modification, and we still do that. What is true is that many of the strongest selection pressures from earlier eras (resistance to disease, for instance) have become far less important now, at least in the developed world.

But other selection pressures remain. Some groups choose to have few if any children: major selection pressure against them. Some genetic disorders and predispositions remain that cause selection pressures: some people are more vulnerable to cancer, for instance, or heart disease. New selection pressures are even arising, due to things like pregnancy screening, and those pressures are likely to increase as technology to select "designer babies" improves.

In short, we're most definitely evolving, and we will continue to do so until we no longer reproduce, if that ever occurs.

[Quacky]

People choosing not to have children is not a selection pressure. Sure they wont be passing on their genes but its not the result of a certain modification that they have.
Vulnerability to diseases is basically cured by modern medicine, sure you might be likely to die from cancer but by the time you actually do you may have already had therapy to keep you alive and passed on the defective genes.
Pregnancy screening for the purpose of "designer babies" as you put it is illegal and only used for detecting babies that would have a terminal disease like if both parents are carriers for a disease its quite likely the baby will have it.

[Simetrical]

People choosing not to have children is not a selection pressure. Sure they wont be passing on their genes but its not the result of a certain modification that they have.

I was assuming that there's some slight genetic predisposition involved. It seems likely that there is, although certainly it's going to be mostly environmental (since it typically is due to a set of beliefs).

Vulnerability to diseases is basically cured by modern medicine, sure you might be likely to die from cancer but by the time you actually do you may have already had therapy to keep you alive and passed on the defective genes.

Yes, you're right there, at least in most cases. I slipped up. It's still true that some selection pressures exist due to genetic diseases, but mostly not cancer and heart disease, I suppose. Tay-Sachs comes to mind, although that's recessive, and nowadays often caught by pre-marriage screening.

Pregnancy screening for the purpose of "designer babies" as you put it is illegal and only used for detecting babies that would have a terminal disease like if both parents are carriers for a disease its quite likely the baby will have it.

In theory, yes. In practice, hah. Remarkably few girls being born in India recently, aren't there? It's used, all right. (It's not illegal everywhere, either, is it? Some places even have constitutional protection for abortions.)

[Quacky]

Remarkably few girls being born in India recently, aren't there?

At the risk of going seriously off topic, I really cant see that this would be the result of pregnancy scanning and then abortion I guess. More likely they are born and "discarded", similar problem in China with the 1 child per family rules.

[PacSubCom]

If Darwin is anything to shout about
the Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.


Maybe mankind is even "devolving", returning to the atavistic past. Who knows.

Chinese will have nothing of that, of course, with their tiny little trees, their zen, their ping pong, their yin and yang ease.

[Juvenal]

I don't think there is such a thing as Devolution (except in the political sense). All species evolve to better fit the available ecological niches.

It has been fashionable in recent years to say that Mankind has stopped evolving because technology protects us from the effects of Natural Selection. I think this is a shallow concept - technology is just another part of our environment, it provides a different set of niches for us to evolve into.

Evolution is not in itself a good thing - or a bad thing, it doesn't necessarily make us "better". Evolution is also not a single dimension (as alluded to by the phrase "highly evolved"). Evolution is just the process of changes whereby a species becomes better fitted to a particular environment.

A good example of this is that the human body, even after 10 million years of evolution since Rama-pithecus, still starts breaking down after about forty years. Evolution has been very good producing a body that will operate well until the our children have attained sexual maturity. After that, our continued existence has much less effect on the success of our children, so the various maladies of advancing age are not weeded out by natural selection.

Evolution acts gradually, random mutations are tested against the environment and, provided they breed true, those which are advantageous result in the survival of gradually increasing numbers of descendents.

For Humanity you could think of society and technology as the new environment. It changes much more quickly than anything short of an asteroid strike, so mutations are not likely to be a significant factor in our response to it.

However, natural selection can work at any speed, so people who can't cope with current society will get selected out, and those who thrive in it will have more opportunity to reproduce. There is no knowing whether the ability to thrive as say a stock-broker in the square mile is likely to be an inheritable trait. And even if it were, the next generation would probably be facing a different set of conditions.

It seems to me that these days, natural selection is selecting for the ability to fit-in with society, so intellectual prowess is not a guarantee of reproductive success and nor is bodily strength.

Perhaps we are going to evolve into a species of diplomats - or maybe a species of drones (like those in Metropolis). Of course there is always possible we make a really big mistake and die out altogether.

[eventhorizen]

Agree with Juvenal, but there are some observable trends even now, such as the ratio of births and children reaching maturity between the successful and unsuccessful in economic and career livelyhood.

The most startling thing has to be the rate at which mankind is determining its own environment, which is immensely important the natural selection aspect of evolution. Concrete jungles is a phrase which comes to mind.

The fact is, like our relationship with the natural environment, we are most definatly having a massive impact, but we do so blindly, without management or consideration for future repercussions. The cult of must have now is all well and good for those alive and fortunate, now, but there will be repercussions, and what form they take is something we have not planned for, planned to influence, or can predict with much certainty.

Abortion, and the controversy surrounding it, is likely to have much deeper repercussions that we can anticipate. The destruction of nuclear families is something that is deeply personal to the individuals involved, involving deep seated problems in the relationship, yet at the same time it is becoming a growing trend in human reproduction and familly patterns.

Another aspect on the evolution of humanity is how we deal with our children. Previous evolutionary landmarks are the development of the nuclear family with some extensions, gender role differentiation etc. Today however we see a reversal in gender role differentiation, combined also to a radically new way of dealing with children; School. Children are essentially looked after together, fairly isolated from the real world of adult life to a reasonable, stateable degree. This may not be much different from the 'aunty' looking after multiple children seen in other animals and derived as likely from human habits in previous eras, but the education, adults responsible, and formation of child social patterns isolated and irrelevant to the real world itself cannot be unnoticable and minute, and they are not. Look at the examples set by the behaviour of inner city children, the issues regarding discipline, absent parents.

Not all evolution begins with genetics, technically speaking evolution begins nowhere except the very instance of the emergence of life. Technology changes society, society places new pressures upon individuals, individuals are the source of genetic material and genetic evolution. All of life is essentially an aspect of the evolution of individuals and of the race both slow and longterm through genes, and short term throughout life of an individual, e.g. social change, technological advance etc.

When you view evolution in that respect, even being alive is evolution at all moments, every thought and act has some effect, on you, on others, and so determines change in relation, and drives evolution. Evolution cannot be denied, nor can it be simplified to merely a genetic and enviromental level as if climate/habitat and genes are all that matter.

I suppose ultimatly evolution is the natural order of the Universe. Throughout life and even in death all things have an impact in the change of all things.

Should we attempt to interfere with our own biological evolution? My own view is simply that we should be allowed to do anything, after we are born and reach an age or level of maturity where we are capable adults. Genetic interference with the unborn is potentially so dangerous and ethically questionable that perhaps it is better left undone.