Poll: is the evolution of humans stagnating?

[SimuLord]

To suggest that evolution is "slowing" is to confess a certain ignorance of just how evolution works. We are rapidly adapting to a new environment of our own creation, so not only are humans continuing to evolve but we are basically playing in god mode, manipulating the very rules of the evolutionary game.

The species impresses me. I'm quite proud to be part of it, even though the 300 million Homo sapiens specimens in my own section of the ecosystem are such imbeciles.

 

[Estocavio]

We havent stopped or slowed - Remember, it took 1000 years to get out of the Medieval Era, in which there was a new invention every lifetime or so...

That's not really evolution...

Thats the point - It isnt evolution, its just existing.

 

[Duruznik]

We have evolved to adapt to the new world we have built.

Unfortunately, we are treating it as a disease to be medicated.

Modern man has developed the ability to multi-task more easily than any generation before him, jumping back and forth between ideas as they are presented to him- a very important skill in the world of today. We call it ADD, and give you medication to "cure" it.

Uh, ADD doesn't work that way. True ADD (And by extension, ADHD) is not the ability to multitask, it's finding it difficult to focus on anything at all, even if one wants to. Taking medication such as ritalin doesn't stop one from multitasking at all, it simply allows one to focus on something (be it one thing or several simultaneous things).

People who give ritalin to children who can focus on several things at once are idiots, that's not ADD at all.

And yes, I am talking from experience.

 

[Beat14]

It is a slow process, so I don't think it is stagnating. However in todays world with modern medicine and technology I think humans as a race don't have a "need" to evolve as much, and in my eyes this would make evolution harder to spot (both directional and stabilising).

My point is that a favourable characteristic that may be due to an evolution is as is as likely to be passed on as the genes of someone who has the more unfavourable characteristic because modern medicine and technology can make up for more favourable characteristics.

At my attempt of a summary I think I'm trying to say that modern medicine and technology mean that the survival of the fittest isn't exactly true.

 

[acosn]

Hi, anthropologist here.

Evolution is still continuing. Actually take a class or two on it before you talk about it. We have genetic conditions that fundamentally didn't exist 1000 years ago.

 

[XJ-0461]

You now you really can't say either way. Evolution is slow. Very slow. No single generation can say that they've seen evolution stop in their species. And even if you could see it, it sounds like it'd be a very gradual process anyway.

For example, Giraffes. I highly doubt that in the past thre were a bunch of giraffes with necks say, 1 foot long, then there was a giraffe born with a 6 foot long neck and that giraffe with the really long neck would be the one to survive. It would be a gradual change from the giraffe's neck going from 1 foot long, to 1.0000001 feet long, to 1.0000002 feet long, etc. etc.

As far as my understanding goes, changes in a species are generally very small and built upon over time. Again, as far as I know, a species doesn't go from flightless to having wings with a single mutant being born.

 

[OtherAlex]

Our minds and our technology are evolving at an astonishing rate. So much so, that our technology is now eceeding our physical and intellectual capability to wield it comfortably.

 

[TimeLord]

It takes 1000s of years to evolve, if you were expecting to grow wings in 3 years then you are gonna be disappointed!

 

[garjian]

EDIT: quoted wrong person (stupid late-loading avatars... whats up with firefox lately?)

Evolution is split into two eras: biological evolution and technological evolution.

The "goal" of biological evolution is biological adaptation: to take humans as an example, our bodies adapted to changing conditions until we achieved sentience.

The goal of technological evolution is technological adaptation: humans using their ability to manipulate their surroundings and create things that allow us not just to survive, but to flourish.

In essence:

biological evolution: survival until sentience is achieved
technological evolution: continued survival until civilization is achieved

is it really anyones place to mark the goal-post of evolution?
there could be things unconceivable to us now, that may be understood later... there was a time it was unheard of to read without moving your mouth... and now its something just about anyone can do.

things we dont have words for yet, say... if a new emotion came about, that none of us here today could describe... and i dont think theres anyway of proving that, or something similar, cant happen.

 

[Flames66]

My opinion is that survival of the fittest has been abolished and it is weakening the species as a whole. There's not much anyone can do about this because it would be immoral to cull the weaker population, but I do believe that somehow the human race has to stop increasing it's population.

 

[cieply]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Second, the average human today is stronger, taller, fitter, and healthier than the average human of any period before us.

What you are writing about is heredity of acquired characteristics, so called Lamarckism. The fact that we are fitter and healthier is due to our lifestyles, not genes. Height is a constant variation within the genotype, as it's not beneficial or harmful; it just sticks around as a random trait.
However, I believe you don't know what you are talking about when you say we are healthier. Our population is ridden with illnesses and disabilities; we just use medicine to constantly amend that, saving weak infants via advanced machinery, helping having kids to those who are not fertile. Our sight is getting worse, our tolerance to climate and harsh conditions as well. Medicine negates natural selection, a vital part of Darwin?s theory of evolution.
What is even worse is that the most successful members of our species do not procreate. Wealthy, educated families have 1-2 kids. Poor, uneducated families have around 5. Muslim families in Europe (and this is a number confirmed in statistics) have 8.1 fertility rate.
We devolve, not only as a species, but also as a culture.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Evolution doesn?t just stop and stagnate.

Also you have to remember we are the ones on the inside with our very limited perspective. Even so we are aware of some changes. We are taller and our mouths have gotten smaller I believe. If we have changed enough to notice ourselves then you have to wonder what changes will or have occurred that we have too limited a range to see.

 

[MrMullet]

Well to start off with, evolution is a slow process, humanity is adapting itself because nature works too slowly for our tastes. We are able to laugh in the face of diseases that would have had people booking a funeral a century ago. It used to be that humans would sleep under the stars and forage for food because it was a necessity. Now we do it because we can.

 

[cieply]

My opinion is that survival of the fittest has been abolished and it is weakening the species as a whole. There's not much anyone can do about this because it would be immoral to cull the weaker population, but I do believe that somehow the human race has to stop increasing it's population.

Despite from what I wrote above, survival of the fittest is still present, we just changed fighting ground. That's where Hitler went (horribly) wrong. We are no longer normal animals and our strife for survival is not through fighting and killing, but through education and careers. We compete for places in university, which then gives the edge while competing for jobs. Survival of the fittest changed into prosperity of the fittest.
The real problem is that in this case, evolution shot itself in the leg as those "successful" representants of our species do not procreate and pass on the good genes. In fact, those with the lowest iq and worst jobs have most kids. It gets even worse as in democracy their voice is the loudest.
Normally, if a poor family would have to many kids, they would starve while those who were able to support their children would pass on their genes. Now poor people just breed and the state supports them, while middle and upper class just stopped. This is what's really a problem as social Darwinism, as cruel as it is, works. And right now our culture devolves.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

We devolve, not only as a species, but also as a culture.

No. I get what you?re trying to say but still it is wrong to describe it as devolving. There is no such thing, it doesn?t even really work to make your point of you knowing what you are talking about. Evolution has no goal; evolution is just change over time, whether it if for better or worse is only due to our perspective on the matter.

 

[i7omahawki]

personally, i do think so. i mean this isnt necessarily a bad thing, but i think that we has humans have "Stopped" or at least slowed the incredibly slow process of evolution. we as humans change the environment to suit OUR needs, and there fore reduce selective pressures that allow for certain adaptations to permeate into populations so that they can survive better in changing environments.

i mean in a "natural" environment selective pressures weed out the weak or disabled and the individuals with "strong" traits are able to pass there genes on into their progeny, and after a certain number of generations the "strong" traits become "normal" within the population. but with humans, i find that the "weak" and disabled live perfectly fine and no one is trying to kill them. ( now please for god sakes im not saying we should cull the disabled, this is why i said that humanities stagnating evolution isnt necessarily A BAD THING) what im trying to say is that due to the fact that we altar everything to suit the characteristics and needs we have now, that there is not need for any change in out biology to survive "better". however I am curious as to how we would evolve further.

so back on topic do u think that our evolution has stopped?

(yes i know i used a very general way of describing natural selection and evolution, but i really dont like getting into the nitty gritties, ill save that for my bio classes)

Read some Nietzsche, he develops his philosophy of culture based on the back of the theory of evolution. Darwin himself pondered as to how evolution carries off into culture, and it is in this way that we humans are evolving.

It seems pointless to advance our basic genes, when we really haven't done the best we can with the equipment we have. Think about if tetris was the only game available on a playstation 3 for example, although it is a crude allegory, the 'software' of our minds is nowhere near as sophisticated and useful as the 'hardware' of our body allows.

Dawkins too picks up some of this and develops the idea of a 'meme', but Nietzsche really is the place to look for this, in my opinion.

 

[Phatnpround]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Second, the average human today is stronger, taller, fitter, and healthier than the average human of any period before us.

Evolution also doesn't work THAT way. The reason we are stronger/fitter etc etc is because of diet and healthcare and such. We haven't suddenly evolved to be fitter than our ancestors, we just live in a healthier environment.

 

[garbutt]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Second, the average human today is stronger, taller, fitter, and healthier than the average human of any period before us.

Yes, we are healthier than previous generations... but I doubt that has very much to do with us evolving. It has everything to do with us developing better medical techniques.

People with weak hearts who in prehistoric times would have died young dont survive because these days they have evolved healthier hearts - they survive because we have the medical technology to keep them alive.

Technology is not an evolved trait.