Poll: is the evolution of humans stagnating?
- Thread starter chaos order
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Was that a futurama reference?selce said:
NOTHING GETS PAST ME BOY.
Ot: You imply evolution has a goal; to this point evolution has favoured the stronger and fitter because, you know, they lived longer. Right now, humans are adapting to an everchanging environment: Of course we're going to keep evolving and changing as time goes on, only this time in far less predictable ways. Evolution has favoured mutations that by chance have enabled a species to flourish in their environment. If Evolution had some rigidly set path then everything would be a lot more homogeneous.
1. How can you say that evolution is stagnating? The whole idea of evolution is that it's to slow for us to see. You seem to be trying to say something else.
2. There are a lot of holes in evolution when you think about it. Things like parellel evolution and junk DNA don't make sense. Really it just scientists saying 'Duh, we don't know' without saying it so they can keep getting funding for research.
2. There are a lot of holes in evolution when you think about it. Things like parellel evolution and junk DNA don't make sense. Really it just scientists saying 'Duh, we don't know' without saying it so they can keep getting funding for research.
Natural selection is no longer a valid theory as far as humans are concerned, so survival oriented evolution is sadly no longer in effect for us. We can only evolve by improving technology or by genetic manipulation/improvement.
Humans being taller, healthier and stronger at this day and age in comparison to earlier humans is not so much due to evolution, rather that food is abundant and medical science is advancing rapidly.
Again, if one considers high intelligence (i.e. people in academic or upper management positions) to be an inheritable trait, there is a smaller chance of this being passed on, seeing as humans without higher education generally have fewer children.
We might evolve in the sense that we develop a resistance to certain bacteria, but I cannot imagine that we're going to see any major changes any time soon. And when I say "soon", I'm talking on a time scale that fits the discussion.
And when I say "evolve", I mean on a visible scale, though evolution is not restricted to this.
Humans being taller, healthier and stronger at this day and age in comparison to earlier humans is not so much due to evolution, rather that food is abundant and medical science is advancing rapidly.
Again, if one considers high intelligence (i.e. people in academic or upper management positions) to be an inheritable trait, there is a smaller chance of this being passed on, seeing as humans without higher education generally have fewer children.
We might evolve in the sense that we develop a resistance to certain bacteria, but I cannot imagine that we're going to see any major changes any time soon. And when I say "soon", I'm talking on a time scale that fits the discussion.
And when I say "evolve", I mean on a visible scale, though evolution is not restricted to this.
Agreed. You can bet that there will be some weird and wonderful things happening with that in the next thousand or so years. I doubt it'll be used for anything beyond curing heredity disorders within our lifetimes though.nick_knack said:
Evolution itself can be stagnant but will always be there. You might call it devolution in some ways, but still, we change for good or for worse. It's all about how you want to see it.
In some ways we might not be as creative or have the drive to succeed as humans in a whole because most of us don't have the struggle to survive day by day as we did thousands of years ago.
Now we put our 'big brain' (stole that vrom Vonnegut) to work on how we can make you a better consumer and don't get any weird thoughts about things that could be wrong. You might call that progress/evolution if you like.
*Edit: I was just thinking about a quote out of the movie trainspotting that could fit quite well on this subject. But I'm not going to post it. If you know the movie, you probably know it already.
In some ways we might not be as creative or have the drive to succeed as humans in a whole because most of us don't have the struggle to survive day by day as we did thousands of years ago.
Now we put our 'big brain' (stole that vrom Vonnegut) to work on how we can make you a better consumer and don't get any weird thoughts about things that could be wrong. You might call that progress/evolution if you like.
*Edit: I was just thinking about a quote out of the movie trainspotting that could fit quite well on this subject. But I'm not going to post it. If you know the movie, you probably know it already.
No.
Imagine this. Let's say that we turned the timeline of life on the planet into a clock. So Midnight would be the very first occurance of life on the planet, and 24 hours later would be right now. Guess where humans fit onto that clock? The entirety of human history is one second before the stroke of midnight. That means that we have only existed for one second out of 24 hours.
Now here's the thing: it was just 200,000 years ago when the sub species homo sapien sapien appeared. But before that, the genus homo appeared 2,500,000 years ago. So all 4000 years of human history is insanely incosequential.
And yes, it is true that natural selection has stopped for this point in time. But for any effects on the species as a whole to be felt, it would take millions of years for any changes to take place. By that time, it is entirely possible that the human species will die out. Could you see this human culture still being around 1,000,000 years from now?
My overall point is that evolution takes a very long time, far longer than any of us could possibly concieve.. Don't worry about evolution stopping for right now, because in the timeline of the clock, our modern non-selective history is just 0.00001 milliseconds out of 24 hours.
(I'm a bio student, by the way.)
Imagine this. Let's say that we turned the timeline of life on the planet into a clock. So Midnight would be the very first occurance of life on the planet, and 24 hours later would be right now. Guess where humans fit onto that clock? The entirety of human history is one second before the stroke of midnight. That means that we have only existed for one second out of 24 hours.
Now here's the thing: it was just 200,000 years ago when the sub species homo sapien sapien appeared. But before that, the genus homo appeared 2,500,000 years ago. So all 4000 years of human history is insanely incosequential.
And yes, it is true that natural selection has stopped for this point in time. But for any effects on the species as a whole to be felt, it would take millions of years for any changes to take place. By that time, it is entirely possible that the human species will die out. Could you see this human culture still being around 1,000,000 years from now?
My overall point is that evolution takes a very long time, far longer than any of us could possibly concieve.. Don't worry about evolution stopping for right now, because in the timeline of the clock, our modern non-selective history is just 0.00001 milliseconds out of 24 hours.
(I'm a bio student, by the way.)
Well i cant say anything about organism eveloution, we havent been around long enough for species wide eveloution on any serious level. But as a society and people we are constantly evolving in hundreds of different ways.
If humans evolved from apes as a spieces more capable of survival, how come apes have survived but not cro magnon, or neandethals or erectus species? Evolution is a flawed, inaccurate THEORY. Nothing more. Mutations NEVER result in a stronger version of the original animal, in fact it usually results in sterility. Fossil evidence has proven that a species starts suddenly and either dies out or survives unchanged. How do they start?...look for a credible answer for yourself, and you'll find it. Then you cannot accuse anyone of influencing your beliefs.
ok ok i already KNOW THAT evolution has no direction. evolution occurs through natural selection and mutations that occur populations. i just didnt feel like i needed to say that. apparently i did, i apologize. (i thought that i could still get my point across without it) ._. but i feel that we as humans live without these selective pressures and therefore i feel that there isnt really anything in our enivronment that would push any change in humans whether this change is towards our intellect or our physical abilities, etc etc. ( yes i know im sounding like evolution has direction, trust me i know how it works, its just that i hate typing long ass posts and im not good with my own words. this is why im not soo good at essays.Dags90 said:
)
i am a bio student as well (well only going into second year of uni) and i did know everything u posted before hand i just didnt feel that i needed to put all that to get my point across (im also incredibly lazyajemas said:
). i understand that any form of evolution is too slow and any real change occur in small increments and not suddenly. i was just wondering if we indeed existed for another couple millions of years, would we change significantly to be considered a new species or would we be essentially the same boring humans. i mean as i said in the original post we really have no selective pressures that force any real change in us.o and sry for double post
a) 'Ape' is not a species classification. Perhaps you didn't know, but we humans are apes. What you are asking is equivivalent to "Since France exists, why is there still Europe?"imgunagitusucka said:
b) Why did Homo Sapiens survive instead of our cousins the Homo Erectus? Well, bigger brains for one (H. Erectus had roughly 75% sized brains compared to ours) likely contributed. If you wish to know more, please check out, for example,
Klein, R. (1999). The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins.
Beck, Roger B.; Linda Black, Larry S. Krieger, Phillip C. Naylor, Dahia Ibo Shabaka, (1999). World History: Patterns of Interaction.
Kalb, John (2004). Adventures in the Bone Trade: The Race to Discover Human Ancestors in Ethiopia's Afar Depression.
Theory, as in a collection of explanations for a broad range of well-defined phenomena, based on empirical observations, facts and repeatable tests that makes predictions which are consistently found to be true.
In science, theory ranks an order of magnitude higher on the truth scale than 'fact' or 'independently repeatable test/observation', because you cannot have a theory without these.
Funny, tell that to the nylon-eating bacteria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
Stronger only means, in the evolutionary sense, 'more likely to produce viable offspring'.
Intriquing. So does that mean you are sterile?
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297
"175 mutations per diploid genome per generation....We observed a total of 199 differences between the human and chimpanzee sequences: 131 transitions (66%), 52 transversions (26%), and 16 insertion-deletion variants (8%). Insertion-deletion variants were less than one-tenth as common as nucleotide substitutions and consisted of changes of 1 bp (8 mutations), 2 bp (5 mutations), 3 bp (1 mutation), and 4 bp (2 mutations). Thus, 15/16 of these insertion-deletion variants would have resulted in frameshift mutations in coding regions. Approximately one-fifth of all single nucleotide mutations were transitions at CpG dinucleotides."
If you are referring to the Cambrian explosion, then 'suddenly'='during roughly 70-80 million years.' and 'survives unchanged' somehow must mean that contrary to evidence all land-animals are just an illusion ; during the cambrian period and immediately after, all animals were pure water-dwellers. The most common phrase heard from a scientist as to what to disprove evolution would be "Finding a fossil of a bunny rabbit from the Cambrian period."
Heck, even a modern day crocodile would be enough. Finding an actual bird fossil that dates to 550 million years would almost be evidence of creationism. Certainly evolution wouldn't explain that.
Indeed. The first stop would be your basic elementary school biology textbook, followed by high-school level textbooks.
Well, yeah, but we also have really, reaaaaly weak immune systems compared to previous generations of humans. So I suppose that could be considered both an upgrade and a downgrade.Pimppeter2 said:
I agree. We may not be evolving biologically anymore, but we are technologically.Applejack said:
A good question, however the answer is simple. Evolution only tends to happen in two cases.chaos order said:
1. A duel relationship of constant evolution. For example the rabbit and the fox. As one evolves the other does also to keep up, this is the one we can no longer take part in due to the reasons you stated.
2. Environmental change/disaster. Here we are. A pandemic (the most likely)will cause only those with a resistance to survive, so while no physical change is aparent humanity will slowly become better at fighting illness and such. Heat/cold will be a factor, nuclear winter or global warming may cause many without natural cold/heat resistance to die, natural selection at work.
Evolution happens most rapidly during times when pressure to survive is very very high. At some point the leopard numbered less than 5000, with an ultimatum evolve or die. Thats when evolution kicks in at its most rapid. we wont evolve yet because we have no need to, so something may arise (im putting money on pandemic) to cause massive evolutionary change in our internal workings more than our physical appearance.
but with the advancements with technology and medicine, and the already rare occurances of global devastation, i kinda think we would be able to prevent such pandemics or disasters from occuring. (or am i being to hopefulBiscuitTrouser said:
)
Our evolution is definitely not stopping. While it is true that we have transfered some evolutionary power away by choosing to develop technology which is a much faster process than is evolution, recorded history is no where long enough to notice any significant evolution.
Though, certain aspect are starting to appear or have appeared.
Case 1: Lactose Tolerance. While most animals can only consume milk during childhood while they are very young, humans have evolved the ability to drink it their entire lives. While it is true some people are lactose intolerant, they could be said to be the last of a dying "species" of humans that can't drink milk.
Case 2: Wisdom Teeth. Now that we no longer munch on un-processed foliage, the wisdom teeth have become utterly useless and actually quite often cause more harm than good (due to crowding of the mouth, perhaps due to the jaw shrinking). There are now several people being born without wisdom teeth or with shrunken ones as it is being evolved out.
Though, certain aspect are starting to appear or have appeared.
Case 1: Lactose Tolerance. While most animals can only consume milk during childhood while they are very young, humans have evolved the ability to drink it their entire lives. While it is true some people are lactose intolerant, they could be said to be the last of a dying "species" of humans that can't drink milk.
Case 2: Wisdom Teeth. Now that we no longer munch on un-processed foliage, the wisdom teeth have become utterly useless and actually quite often cause more harm than good (due to crowding of the mouth, perhaps due to the jaw shrinking). There are now several people being born without wisdom teeth or with shrunken ones as it is being evolved out.