De-Evolution?

[DRes82]

Reading the forums, I've seen so many people say that they've "lost all faith" in the entire human race. It got me thinking. Is our species De-evolving? I know it wouldn't happen over the course of a century, but its an interesting thought.

I have a genetic abnormality called PKU, or phenylketonuria. This defect makes me unable to metabolize phenylalanine, one of the key amino acids needed in human biological function. Only 100 years ago, I would've most likely died in infancy. If PKU isn't diagnosed at birth and treated accordingly, toxins accumulate in the body, destroying nerve and brain tissue.

PKU is only expressed in a person with double recessive PKU genes. This means that my children have a 1 in 4 chance of being afflicted with the same problem. If natural selection still applied to me, I probably wouldn't have made it passed the age of 2 with my brain intact. Much less lived long enough to procreate.

This is just one example of us beating natural selection. People genetically predisposed to heart problems are living longer and reproducing, as are people with cancer-prone genes. People with spine issues and thyroid problems have children. Natural Selection is non existant for us! Does anyone believe that this will eventually lead to a degradation of our species? We are the only animal on the planet to have circumvented evolution. Will we have to integrate with machines to maintain our viability in the future? (I like that idea the best) Maybe instead of a plague or a nuclear war wiping us out, humanity will just quietly de-evolve into blobs of goo.

thoughts?

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Reading the forums, I've seen so many people say that they've "lost all faith" in the entire human race. It got me thinking. Is our species De-evolving? I know it wouldn't happen over the course of a century, but its an interesting thought.

I have a genetic abnormality called PKU, or phenylketonuria. This defect makes me unable to metabolize phenylalanine, one of the key amino acids needed in human biological function. Only 100 years ago, I would've most likely died in infancy. If PKU isn't diagnosed at birth and treated accordingly, toxins accumulate in the body, destroying nerve and brain tissue.

PKU is only expressed in a person with double recessive PKU genes. This means that my children have a 1 in 4 chance of being afflicted with the same problem. If natural selection still applied to me, I probably wouldn't have made it passed the age of 2 with my brain intact. Much less lived long enough to procreate.

This is just one example of us beating natural selection. People genetically predisposed to heart problems are living longer and reproducing, as are people with cancer-prone genes. People with spine issues and thyroid problems have children. Natural Selection is non existant for us! Does anyone believe that this will eventually lead to a degradation of our species? We are the only animal on the planet to have circumvented evolution. Will we have to integrate with machines to maintain our viability in the future? (I like that idea the best) Maybe instead of a plague or a nuclear war wiping us out, humanity will just quietly de-evolve into blobs of goo.

thoughts?

And the answer is, there is no such thing as De-evolution. The concept relies on the misconception that evolution always implies progress, when in reality it simply means adaptation to an organism's environment. Since your environment currently includes ways for you to get treatment for your disease, you're still well suited to it. That said, it's been noted for quite some time that modern medicine has allowed traits that would have otherwise resulted in those who carry them not surviving to pass on their genes to continue to propagate, and that we're less robust as a species because of it. However, it really doesn't matter. The strong genes are still in the pool as well; if we were to somehow get knocked back into the stone age, it wouldn't take long at all for us to get back to being a very robust species.

 

[Dinwatr]

"Devolution" is not possible. The entire concept is based on a misunderstanding of evolution--specifically, that evolution is directional, and has human beings as the end-goal in mind. So no, we are not "devolving". We, like all other species, are evolving. And we cannot "beat" natural selection. We adapt, just like anything else--the only difference being that we adapt via our minds, and on a much shorter timescale.

 

[ZeroMachine]

You say these things as if our technological and medical advances aren't a part of our own evolution and natural selection.

You can't "de-evolve" (as much as many of us wanted to when we chose the wrong Eevee evolution). Even if it gets to the amorphis goo-blobs (reaaally not gonna happen) it is simply another evolution.

But the way I see it, these technological and medical advances will eventually cause us to artificially destroy these gene issues. Gene therapy already exists. Eventually, we'll be able to get rid of all those genetic abnormalities.

Oh, and people who have "lost all faith in humanity" are just pessimistic people who were either legitimately dealt a bad hand in life or are just too jaded to see that life isn't as bad as they make it out to be.

 

[ZeroMachine]

There is no such thing as de-evolving. Evolution simply depends on change. There is no 'direction' involved. Any change is enough. Evolution does not need to be helpful.

Edit: Damn it, ninja'd by the first reply.

Eh, I'd argue that evolution does "need" to be helpful.

But, I have a friend of mine who "needs" to start acting his age, stop constantly lying, and get a job so he can better support his daughter. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Yeah, this sounds like the sort of wild misconception that results from having only a partial understanding of the evolutionary process. Specifically, a misplaced belief that the end goal of evolution was to create human beings. I can't remember who said this, and I am (by all means) paraphrasing, but the gist of the quote was that "human beings are an experiment to see whether or not the combination of a frontal cortex and opposable thumbs is a viable evolutionary option." It could be, but if it's not we won't "devolve," we'll just go extinct.

 

[DRes82]

So basically, even if we evolve into something less than we are now, its still evolution.

So I guess my question then is are we degrading as a species? Helpful or harmful variations have no bearing on whether or not the carrier passes on the trait. Will this cause a negative evolution?

 

[Geoffrey Harrell]

de-evolve is kinda the wrong word there. evolution is really just a series of mutations. they do not necessarily have to be benefical mutations; they just have to be changes in our genetic code. that said, we, humanity, have been allowing those who in another time would have died to live and pass on their genes. that's not really a bad thing to me. it spirs on humanity to advance medical science and find new ways to heal people. medical science may one day even advance so far as to make genetic shenanigans possible and render all your fears of 'de-evolution' a silly daydream. or a more silly one, at any rate.

 

[the spud]

It is kinda frustrating when you see some dumbass walk out into the front of a car, but doesn't get killed due to new breaking technology, or medical science or some shit. Your first instinct is to think "Well if that guy had been alive in the stone age he would have been mauled by a bear or some shit, and he would have no way to pass on his genes!". Also, did you know that people with high intelligence are less likely to pass on their genes? Highschool dropouts on average have the most children.

 

[Saltyk]

Okay, I think the people smugly telling you that there is no such thing as de-evolution are missing the point and using a technical argument. Hey, I can legitimately argue that there is no such thing as "The Big Bang Theory". And before anyone asks, that term was coined to discredit the theory that the universe rapidly expanded and then slowed. It was then kinda adopted into our lexicon. The more you know.

It's an interesting idea. You have a good point. People like yourself would never have survived even 100 years ago, which is nothing in terms human history or even recorded history. In a sense, you are weakening the species (no offense). Of course, they are already talking about actual genetic engineering to eliminate such problems, though I'd like to call that human ingenuity rather than evolution.

I wouldn't expect us to de-evolve into blobs of goo or even primates, but with modern medicine, people will likely be living with more medical problems and medicines. I've seen people that had numerous medical ailments, so that's already happening.

So, I'll end this by saying that you have an interesting concept for debate. I actual love these kinds of questions and debates. Think I'll find someone to ask this one day.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

I don't think that our technological breakthroughs and our "circumventing" the evolution will have any measurable impact on the general shift of values, the loss of responsability the social degradation we are facing right now.
While science still makes awesome progress in some areas (combustible lemons, anyone?) we humans fail to take responsabilities as a race.

Some things that I think are worth mentioning:

- Our school systems (globally - I just presume) degenerates every year. Less money is spent by the government for public schools and one could probably argue that people might be getting dumber over the years. (Ideocracy reference anyone?)

- Speaking of politics, people all over the world seem (my personal subjective perception) to be far less interested in politics and are resigning or reluctant to chose their decision making government. Some hundred years ago people listened to 4h long speeches without falling asleep or start being drunk after the first paragraph.

- Our technological inventions can completely get out of control, an exploding microwave oven might be bad, but what about Fokushima or Tschernobyl?

- Most of our grandparents/forefathers fought for rights and freedoms (and died for this cause) while we now voluntarly give them away because well I don't know, because we are wealthy and like feeling secure or something. (Privacy or labour contracts or the like)

- I think the majority of mankind is still dominated by religious believes and self-centered progress - there is still no real pereception of "the greater good" - Sorry but we still wage wars over whose religion has the bigger d*ck or something. That's just disgustingly stupid.

- take a stroll and watch those people around you, did you never wonder that nature would have probably been right to remove them from the genepool but we stupid humans had to intefere and keep that genepool garbage alive.

So, these are some of the reason while I think humanity is doomed, and it actualy deserves to be doomed (rather sooner than later) But I think its mainly a social problem and technology can't fix that (if you exclude mind control or that fancy DEUS EX 2 "every is happy" ending) But these are just my thoughts here.

 

[lacktheknack]

There's no such thing as -

Dammit, ninjas everywhere!

 

[Soluncreed]

I was gonna come in and talk about how devolution is not possible.... Clearly I am not needed.

 

[remulean]

and that, is why we need genetic engineering. i have gluten allergy, need glasses and turned bald when i was 18. not to mention a family history of heart problems. i dearly hope that i can influence those defects in my progeny.

 

[Xanadu84]

To an extent, there's a problem here, with certain genetic flaws. However, there's still reasons to not be too concerned.

First, many defects still require treatment and make the individual still be selected against. Yes, an individual with a degenerative diisease will survive, but he may not get chicks. Harsh, absolutely, but it does remove a percentage of the problem from the gene pool.

Next, remember that to evolution, you are a gene-filled sack of meat that is almost useless after 35 or so. Most major genetic issues don't really come into play until after 35. We have survived without evolutionary pressure selecting against those diseases, so many of those provide no additional risk, and in many cases, we CAN evolve to MINIMIZE the instances of these conditions. More on this later.

Next, remember that if people survive because of science, we will still have science. In your case, if you pass on PKU, and the worst happened and suddenly most of the world had this deficiency...well, we would become REALLY good at treating PKU. It would not be a threat. The science that treats it will advance faster then de-evolution hurts us. Especially since you have to remember that though not selected against as much, these defects are also not selected FOR. Hypothetically, with no additional interference, the occurance of PkU will remain stable. Unless one of these last 2 happen.

We have treatments for many defects and importantly, one of the treatments in the pipeline, and destined to happen MUCH sooner then any evolutionary scale can compare, is gene changing. Someday, PKU can be removed from your kids manually. And then we basically evolve one Gene (In evolution, it is more realistic to consider evolution from the perspective of the gene rather then the perspective of the organism) many hundreds of generations in the space of 1. More then enough to counteract any evolution from sexual reproduction.

And lastly we have something I expect we will see within a generation or 2: Self-directed evolution. I think we will start seeing people who say, "Well, I like the idea of passing on my offspring, but my genetic predisposition shows a higher instance of cancer and a chance for Parkinson. We should go to the sperm bank instead". If we do this, we can probably evolve in a desirable direction thousands of times faster then normal evolution, as well as evolve in directions that normal evolution just can't facilitate. In the wild, for example, you always get aggressive, violent members of a species because if there are too many passive, non violent members, aggression has huge advantages. This takes down the well-being of everyone, but technically benefits the aggressive animal. If we did self-directed evolution, undesirable aggression may get the violent party more resources, but always be selected against by individuals trying to direct evolution. Genetically, we could functionally solve the Prisinors Dilemma. This has the added bonus that this evolutionary force could spread at the speed of Memes (Dawkins Memes, not cat picture Memes [though the second kind is technically part of the first]) rather then be stymied by the practical limitations of gene technology.

So there you go. De-evolution isn't going to end the human race. At worst it will cause a few inconveniences on a global scale, at best it will be one step back to counteract a hundred steps forward. I think its time to start looking at your genetic predispositions, weigh exactly how much of a hindrance PKU really is in your genetic code, and be on the lookout for mates who are either extra healthy and genetically desirable, or predisposed to some bad traits but willing to adopt.

 

[Saltyk]

de-evolve is kinda the wrong word there. evolution is really just a series of mutations. they do not necessarily have to be benefical mutations; they just have to be changes in our genetic code. that said, we, humanity, have been allowing those who in another time would have died to live and pass on their genes. that's not really a bad thing to me. it spirs on humanity to advance medical science and find new ways to heal people. medical science may one day even advance so far as to make genetic shenanigans possible and render all your fears of 'de-evolution' a silly daydream. or a more silly one, at any rate.

I wish people would explain evolution as mutations more often. Seriously, I had to learn that myself because my school's always seemed to be worried about offending religious people and students by even bringing up evolution. I move that we all just start calling evolution mutation from now on. I think most people would understand THAT a lot better. Also, I love how you brought up that people being born with genetic defects are evolution just as much as us evolving opposable thumbs. I use this same example when explaining evolution.
[small]Why does spell check say that opposable is spelled wrong?[/small]