Evolution and Man

[Hobbes]

It is now generally accepted among scientists, that evolution mechanisms have stopped functioning in modern humans. The animals however are constantly adapting to new enviroment and still evolve. For example: Polar Bears (who are in fact a category of brown bears) are mating with brown bears in order to adapt to climate change. Could it be possible for the animals to become better than us in order to survive from changes caused by humans?

[Mr. Pink]

As long as we continue to help the sick etc then we won't see any real signs of evolution, as far as I know.

And no, I doubt animals will become 'better' than us.

[Hobbes]

As long as we continue to help the sick etc then we won't see any real signs of evolution, as far as I know.

And no, I doubt animals will become 'better' than us.

When I say better I mean become more evolved, and therefore dominant.

[KingOfTheIsles]

For example: Polar Bears (who are in fact a category of brown bears) are mating with brown bears in order to adapt to climate change.

What's all this about, then?

[Acco]

It is now generally accepted among scientists, that evolution mechanisms have stopped functioning in modern humans.

Since when?

[Simetrical]

It is now generally accepted among scientists, that evolution mechanisms have stopped functioning in modern humans.

No, it's not. The only time evolution will stop is when reproduction stops. Any form of descent with modification will give rise to evolution by natural selection (plus genetic drift, etc.).

The animals however are constantly adapting to new enviroment and still evolve. For example: Polar Bears (who are in fact a category of brown bears) are mating with brown bears in order to adapt to climate change. Could it be possible for the animals to become better than us in order to survive from changes caused by humans?

No. Evolution is orders of magnitude too slow. Millennia would be a ludicrously short timescale for such changes to occur. In even a single century, we'll likely be so dominant that nothing would be able to destroy us except ourselves, or the Sun blowing up.

As long as we continue to help the sick etc then we won't see any real signs of evolution, as far as I know.

You drastically underestimate the variety of selection pressures. Any gene that directly causes more reproduction will be favored by natural selection, for instance. Genes that make you attractive or otherwise improve your chances of getting a mate. Genes that make you less likely to use birth control or more likely to want to have offspring altogether. Genes that make you more fertile. Survival is ancillary to reproduction.

On the other hand, just because we help the sick doesn't mean we do so perfectly. There are plenty of risks of early death that are genetically influenced. Anyone who's more reckless, or prone to early-onset diseases like diabetes, for instance. Some diseases are outright genetic, of course: sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs, and hemophilia will all make you pretty likely to die young despite modern medicine.

And you have evolution not caused by natural selection. Modern technology has reduced some selection pressures, but weak selection pressures mean more genetic drift. If two sets of genes are equally useful for survival in a given environment, dumb luck will determine which one becomes prevalent. You'll have genetic makeup shifting over time perhaps even more dramatically without the guide of natural selection than with it.

When I say better I mean become more evolved, and therefore dominant.

"Better" and "more evolved" are not recognized scientific terms without further qualification. They should be avoided in serious discussions about evolution.

[chamaeleo]

Thank god, Symetrical got to this thread before I did! He sums it up nicely.

Everyone who studies evolution agree that humans are still evolving, in fact, the only critters not evolving are those that are extinct. Natural selection will always be at work in mankind, the only things changing are the selection mechanisms and which traits confer an advantage. Unfortunately, from the evolutionary perspective we are selecting for those individuals who have lotsa babies and invest relatively little into improving their offsprings' success: you might call it the "shotgun spread" method. We've also removed many diseases, genetic disorders and parasites from the equation, further weakening our genetic stock.

Will nature, as you postulate, respond with super-adapted organisms that will give humans a run for their money? No. The most important selective pressure on the planet is mankind, and nothing will evolve to counter it. Look to generalist animals like: crows, squirrels, pigeons, coyote, etc. These are successful, in that they have adapted to coexist and take advantage of the new regime.

Now, before anyone accuses me of advocating eugenics...nowhere do I mention anything about mandating selection. I am simply pointing out the unfortunate side-effect of habitually saving as many lives as possible with no regard to the long-term. Besides, I believe that we're long overdue for another massive bottleneck event that will most likely make the bubonic plague look like a common flu outbreak. No need for us to get involved! Nature has an uncanny habit of smoothing exponential growth curves...

Perry Farrell sings it best: "Some people should die, that's just unconscious knowledge."

[Phier]

It is now generally accepted among scientists, that evolution mechanisms have stopped functioning in modern humans. The animals however are constantly adapting to new enviroment and still evolve. For example: Polar Bears (who are in fact a category of brown bears) are mating with brown bears in order to adapt to climate change. Could it be possible for the animals to become better than us in order to survive from changes caused by humans?

I've solved this by mating with brown bears myself.




Anyways, as others have pointed out your entire premise is wrong, so your questions can't really be answered. Don't feel too bad, most "scientists" don't understand evolution either.

[Copperknickers II]

It is now generally accepted among scientists, that evolution mechanisms have stopped functioning in modern humans.

That is just not true, in any way. Where do people even get these ideas?

Sim is more or less right, please listen to him and do not make these mistakes again for other people to read.

And just to enunciate this: Evolution does NOT (neccasarily) = get better!

[IndianPrince]

And just to enunciate this: Evolution does NOT (neccasarily) = get better!

It does mean getting better at reproducing and passing on genes to the successive generation.

Not neccessarily getting better as we humans see it true

Also, the application of medical technology and knowledge to help cure and heal does not 'intervene' with evolutionary mechanisms IMO. I mean, if developed brains are a trait we've inherited then its several applications in technology and life-saving procedures shouldn't be considered 'artificial' or 'out side of the domain of nature'. We see ourselves as a species too high above the pedestal from other animals, and have WAY too much self-importance. We should refrain from doing so and accept a more humble world-view in which our cognitive abilities dont make us 'better' than other living organisms. Definitely will help stop the environment crisis, and massive extinction events triggered by human actions.

Why doesn't medical technology count as a trait? We're not immune from death are we ? The evolutionary arms race still exists, if not in the form of savannah predators and prey, but in the form of patients and bacteria or viruses. The continual genetic mutation of these species continues for the best antibiotics and cures we come up with are quickly turned out of date by ONE chance mutation.

So evolution continues

Prince

[Il Soprano]

The process of evolution is never going to stop, short of a major disaster wiping out all life. Humans will continue to evolve over time, there is no way that animals could ever hope to get near to us on the evolutionary scale.

I believe that we're long overdue for another massive bottleneck event that will most likely make the bubonic plague look like a common flu outbreak. No need for us to get involved! Nature has an uncanny habit of smoothing exponential growth curves...

That is a terrible thing to say but you may just be right. Although with our technology and resources today I think we could minimise the damage pretty well so such an event won't be as effective as previous disasters.

[Hobbes]

Even if human evolution hasn't stopped (however humans have less difficulties to face, so it has slowed down, that's for sure), it is undeniable that we are interfering with our planet, causing damage, killing other species etc. So I believe that it could be possible for animal to develop new abilities and skills in order to survive in a human ruled world.

No. Evolution is orders of magnitude too slow. Millennia would be a ludicrously short timescale for such changes to occur. In even a single century, we'll likely be so dominant that nothing would be able to destroy us except ourselves, or the Sun blowing up.

Good point, however I don't recall mentioning destruction of the human species in any post. What I mean is that animals may become more adapted in the future (when the enviroment will be very harsh) and be the only living beings that will survive. Human evolution has slowed down. Deaths are fewer than ever, there is medicine so there is not much pressure for evolution. Animals however, are experiencing the loss of their habitat and some are close to become extinct. So there is more pressure on animals. More pressure means rapid evolution (rapid in logical terms not -for example- a couple of years). When we will start experiencing pressure it may be too late, while animals who are already experiencing may be ready for the difficulties that lie ahead.

Besides, I believe that we're long overdue for another massive bottleneck event that will most likely make the bubonic plague look like a common flu outbreak. No need for us to get involved! Nature has an uncanny habit of smoothing exponential growth curves..

The last bottleneck events occured when people where in the stone age and medieval times. They did not know how to cope with these situation. Germs and viruses are stronger of course (due to the development of medicine) but it is impossible to know how prevention mechanisms will work when such a thing occurs. Bottleneck events usually affect large populations so the most possible scenario is that they will affect humans, while the fauna will preserve.

[Phier]

Even if human evolution hasn't stopped (however humans have less difficulties to face, so it has slowed down, that's for sure), it is undeniable that we are interfering with our planet, causing damage, killing other species etc. So I believe that it could be possible for animal to develop new abilities and skills in order to survive in a human ruled world.

No its not for sure its slowed down. In fact I think it might have sped up. While we have removed the 'classic' selection pressures such as basic diseases, parasites, and starvation in the West, we have added a whole group of new ones. For example, I spend 1/2 my waking day sitting on my ass in front of a computer give or take. This will put new selection pressures on us. Some people do well with this, some people turn into unattractive blobs. Some will get so lost in online activities that they will forgo reproduction, others won't. End result is selection pressures and changes in genetic % which is what much of evolution is.

Will species evolve to live in a human dominated world? They already have. Body lice only evolved 30-65k years ago when humans were wearing clothes, they can't exist without them. I'm sure their have been genetic changes to rats and cockroaches to favor living with humans as well, though I'm not entirely sure. Moths in England (classic evolution taught by every biology teacher in 7th grade or so) evolved from mostly white to mostly black in order to hide in the soot from chimneys. Now that there is less soot they are reverting back to mostly white. Don't worry about the planet, it will do fine with or without us.

Try to think of it all this way. For 10000 years, since the invention of civilization, humans have been exposed to the SAME pressures (civilization itself added a bunch of new ones), before that for 100k years humans were under the SAME pessures. In the last 400 or so years we have added a bunch of new selection pressures, especially in the last 100 years. That should speed things up.

Good point, however I don't recall mentioning destruction of the human species in any post. What I mean is that animals may become more adapted in the future (when the enviroment will be very harsh) and be the only living beings that will survive. Human evolution has slowed down. Deaths are fewer than ever, there is medicine so there is not much pressure for evolution. Animals however, are experiencing the loss of their habitat and some are close to become extinct. So there is more pressure on animals. More pressure means rapid evolution (rapid in logical terms not -for example- a couple of years). When we will start experiencing pressure it may be too late, while animals who are already experiencing may be ready for the difficulties that lie ahead.

Funny thing about medicine, is that its affects on evolution are a bit misunderstood. Staying alive longer normally doesn't change evolution paths as much because people have already reproduced by then. Abortion has had far more effect on humans evolutionarily than most medicines. And back to your first point about slowing down evolution. By a segment of humanity actively killing their children via abortion we have added some pretty strong evolutionary pressures as well as screwed with the sex ratio. Again human evolution is NOT slowing down, its speeding up.

I think the problem you are having is you don't understand why humans are what we are. We make the environment adapt to US far more than the other way around. Humans are the most successful large animal species because of this. We can live near the arctic circle and the heart of the tropics. Sure we evolve over time to better suite those environments, but we had to get there and survive in the first place without that evolution, something other animals don't do well. A polar bear could never live in the tropics without inventing refrigeration, and unless the polar bears brain undergoes some major evolution thats not going to happen. We on the other hand can even manage to live on the bottom of the sea.

The last bottleneck events occured when people where in the stone age and medieval times. They did not know how to cope with these situation. Germs and viruses are stronger of course (due to the development of medicine) but it is impossible to know how prevention mechanisms will work when such a thing occurs. Bottleneck events usually affect large populations so the most possible scenario is that they will affect humans, while the fauna will preserve.

No bottleneck events affect small populations by default not large ones. The plagues in medieval times were not bottle neck events, they were not global, they did not concentrate human genetics except for locally. The real bottle neck event was believed to be the Toba eruption some 70k years ago, when the human population was small and much of it died out. There may have been as few as 1000 breeding pairs after that. THATS a bottleneck. Had humanity not been a small population to start with, living in one area, the Toba eruption could not have caused such a bottleneck.

If anything the only major slow down to human evolution is our population size. It takes far longer for things like genetic drift to work in a spread out population of billions if there is free breeding between them. I think their will be some interesting long term changes to this in the 'near' future, but that goes beyond the scope of this post into 'future speak'.

[IndianPrince]

The last bottleneck events occured when people where in the stone age and medieval times.

The Bubonic Plague can be considered a 'bottleneck' only for European populations. Not the entire human genome.

edit: sorry just noticed Phier already mentioned it ... my bad

Prince

[Adar]

You think that mankind have stopped evolving?
http://www.kovideo.net/music/video/K...tion/2007.html

Edit: It refuses to become embedded. Sorry about that...

[Simetrical]

Don't feel too bad, most "scientists" don't understand evolution either.

If so, only because it's not relevant to most scientists' work.

Even if human evolution hasn't stopped (however humans have less difficulties to face, so it has slowed down, that's for sure)

That doesn't follow. Less pressure doesn't mean less evolution, just less directed evolution. Mutation rates haven't changed, genetic diversity hasn't decreased (well, I don't think it has). We just get a lot of genetic drift. People who would otherwise have died will survive, increasing genetic diversity.

it is undeniable that we are interfering with our planet, causing damage, killing other species etc. So I believe that it could be possible for animal to develop new abilities and skills in order to survive in a human ruled world.

Sure, but not to supplant us, or to survive if we want to wipe them out. If humans decide a hundred years from now that it would be most convenient to pave the oceans, scour the entire planet with deadly poisons, and live in a completely inert environment so everyone can go stay in their VR headsets 24/7 without having to worry about bacterial infections, no animal will stand a chance.

Good point, however I don't recall mentioning destruction of the human species in any post.

I don't know what "better than us" means from an evolutionary perspective, if not "better able to survive in competition". If we aren't competing, then I don't see what "better" means.

What I mean is that animals may become more adapted in the future (when the enviroment will be very harsh) and be the only living beings that will survive. Human evolution has slowed down. Deaths are fewer than ever, there is medicine so there is not much pressure for evolution. Animals however, are experiencing the loss of their habitat and some are close to become extinct. So there is more pressure on animals. More pressure means rapid evolution (rapid in logical terms not -for example- a couple of years). When we will start experiencing pressure it may be too late, while animals who are already experiencing may be ready for the difficulties that lie ahead.

You're ignoring technology here, which is the key thing. Give us a couple of centuries, and who says our bodies will actually matter anymore? If we harvested Earth's resources efficiently enough, and had sufficient technology, it's entirely plausible that we'd be able to spot and avert large meteors, stop major volcanic eruptions, etc. There wouldn't be anything at that point that could wipe us out short of, as I mentioned, the Sun exploding, or ourselves.

The most dangerous thing likely to happen to animals, on the other hand, is humans, and no amount of evolution will help them in the long run. They can't win: their side of the arms race makes significant leaps on the timescale of tens of millennia, while ours is revolutionized every few tens of years. At best they can adapt to human presence and be tolerated as harmless, but that might not work forever.

[Phier]

If so, only because it's not relevant to most scientists' work.

A pet peeve of mine is global warming and how they always talk about 'scientific consensus' when the least amount of consensus were the scientists who actually were qualified to understand global warming.

But regardless, evolution is so fundamental that anyone who thinks of themselves as scientifically educated should understand how it works and quite frankly most don't, even in biology fields.

[Hobbes]

The Bubonic Plague can be considered a 'bottleneck' only for European populations. Not the entire human genome.

edit: sorry just noticed Phier already mentioned it ... my bad

Prince

It was a still a bottleneck though....
And please, think about: We are indubitabely under less pressure than animals. No predators, less deaths and more comforts (no need to develop new abilities in order to survive). Compare the population of mankind with a species of animal (I don't want to hear about chickens or sheep, since they share the many of advantages with us). The humans are more.
I agree that we alter our enviroment. However the enviroment that we are creating may be leading us to our destruction. Enviromental change does not affect us now because of the comforts we enjoy. It is affecting animals, though. When we realise it (when the planet will become unfriendly, for example) the animals will be able to confront the hostility. We won't have much time to adapt. A bottleneck may occur (enviromental change might be proved to be just this) and our numbers will decrease. Animals will be more because they adapted.

[chamaeleo]

Sorry to have come off so harsh! I have formally debated this topic as Devil's Advocate, and slaughtered my opponents, so I know what you're saying by:

I find it rather telling that you immediately attack the character of those that disagree with you, claiming they were bought off or just need to maintain their false claims to save face. They get forced out of scientific debate as if science were decided by the majority, resign from the rubber stamp committees in protest and then get dragged threw the mud by people like you who say they had to be bought off for not agreeing with you?

...but honestly, while preparing for the debate I had to work all kinds of voodoo on the primary literature to make my points. Anticipating what my opponents would use, and custom-tailoring my counter arguments didn't hurt either! At any rate, I came away with a great appreciation for the work that GCC skeptics must go through to keep their liferaft inflated. When I read stuff like:

Abortion has had far more effect on humans evolutionarily than most medicines.

...I tend to underestimate the author. Please forgive me.

At any rate, as a hydrogeologist who's practically married to a biologist I've dragged my eyes across hundreds of studies which, taken on their own, are pretty unconvincing since NOBODY studies "global climate change" per se: rather, they're too busy working within their particular pigeon-holes on narrowly focused studies...which might have far-reaching implications. However, after you take this cumulative knowledge and start comparing trends, a definite pattern emerges...and the timing is just too coincidental for me to believe that humanity can behave as it has over the past 150 years, causing no climatic consequences whatsoever.

Besides, what's so bad about taking precautions that will, at worst, cost money while improving our living conditions?

[Phier]

When I read stuff like:

...I tend to underestimate the author. Please forgive me.

I forgive you for not understanding evolution

Its reproductive success that defines evolution. Its not quality of life, length of life, or anything else. Did you breed successfully? No? You fail. Did your offspring breed? No? You still fail.

Abortion attacks this directly which is why it has such an effect. There have been 45 MILLION legal abortions in the US since 1973. Thats just the US. That is going to have very interesting effects both socially and evolutionarily. Basically if you have social/genetic traits which promotes you killing your young, those traits will be less represented in the next generation, etc etc.

Without getting too philosophical, about the only thing I can think of that would come close to effecting evolution as much as abortion would be antibiotics and I'm not sure how many breeding age people this saves a year in the US but it would have to be close to a million a year to equal abortion.

Curing cancer would have far far less evolutionary effects than say outlawing birth control or abortions.

However, after you take this cumulative knowledge and start comparing trends, a definite pattern emerges...and the timing is just too coincidental for me to believe that humanity can behave as it has over the past 150 years, causing no climatic consequences whatsoever.

As a rule, meta analysis sucks. Personally I think they are just a way for people get get a M.S. degree who are to lazy to even do a survey 'study'. They take far to many liberties and guesses, if anything their only use is pointing out possible avenues of real study. What you are talking about is a mental meta analysis followed by an opinion that it can't be coincidence. Thats not science, even if you were right, its just a guess. We have had peaks before, there is no reason to assume this has to be a peak caused by us, unlike all those other peaks.

Besides, what's so bad about taking precautions that will, at worst, cost money while improving our living conditions?

Because thats not what its about for a lot of these people. Its about transferring wealth in the cases of big governments and ends up lowering the quality of life as most plans reduce engery output. Energy = quality of life in this age. Its about suppressing human growth in the case of a lot of radical enviromentalists, dealing with THESE idiots is why I left environmental studies for honest work.

I've got nothing against hybrid cars, or solar power or whatever, but what I am against is giving up quailty of life for unproven theories being forced down our collective throats by people with personal agendas.