Poll: is the evolution of humans stagnating?

[Ancientgamer]

Evolution is not a linear process. Survival of the fittest is certainly almost irrelevant to us now, but evolution is still happening. Evolution isn't something that's "on" or "off", it just "is". it comes with the package of being organic.

 

[crudus]

Yes in the way that medical technology doesn't let the "weak" die out. No in the way that technology is going to give us new traits.

Edit: I guess I should ask if you mean natural selection or Evolution. Natural selection is the first sentence. Evolution is the second.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

i was more thinking along the lines of us developing into a new species. i understand the evolution doesnt pop limbs on animals and that all changes are incrementally small. the explanation u give is change within the species but we are still essentially the same species. im just wondering if we indeed lived long enough, would we become something else?

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

Now, sometime in the future, there might become a separate subspecies of humans. But they will be identifiable as humans. And since so much of speciation occurs via geographical isolation, that would practically require humans to establish a colony (somewhere on this planet/space) that would be genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for several thousand, if not tens of thousands of generations with some serious evolutionary pressures applied to the population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

For what is it that defines mammals, apes and humans in the most objective sense? Why our genetic coding of course.

However, with the advances being made in fields of nanotechnology and genetic manipulation, is it really safe to assume that ALL of our descendants will be "human" in our sense of the word?

What if there comes a time where genetic coding is being changed even in the egg and sperm stage of our species lifecycle, by nanomachines splicing and transplanting different strands of proteins and acids that make up our very DNA in order to alter he growth and attributes of a human being long before conception even takes places?

Could you really consider the offpsring of such a process "human" as in human the way humans are today?

If technology reaches that far, I for one think we are going to need new names to classify our species with.

 

[Danzaivar]

...

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

Err, you're quoting the wrong guy mate. It's SakSak you'll want to quote, not me.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

/thread

EDIT: Forgot to actually post my opinion.

Humans (and every other species) are always evolving. People are taller than they once were, and people are living longer (although that might be atributed to outside influences).

 

[Danzaivar]

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

Err, you're quoting the wrong guy mate. It's SakSak you'll want to quote, not me.

My bad. Fixed.

 

[manaman]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Aww... I saw the title of this and I just knew there would be a serious misunderstanding of evolution involved by the OP. I was looking forward to saying that.

You stole that from me.

 

[Zacharine]

i was more thinking along the lines of us developing into a new species. i understand the evolution doesnt pop limbs on animals and that all changes are incrementally small. the explanation u give is change within the species but we are still essentially the same species. im just wondering if we indeed lived long enough, would we become something else?

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

Now, sometime in the future, there might become a separate subspecies of humans. But they will be identifiable as humans. And since so much of speciation occurs via geographical isolation, that would practically require humans to establish a colony (somewhere on this planet/space) that would be genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for several thousand, if not tens of thousands of generations with some serious evolutionary pressures applied to the population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

well i wasnt suggesting that humans would change to the point at which we wouldnt fit in our classification of mammal. more or less change to the point at which we could be classified as a different genus. kind of like how homo erectus and homo sapiens r very similiar but r different species

mmh, perhaps, but only because that (or extinction) is the eventual future for any species. The species-classification simply moves one tier up once sufficient changes has occured. But again, I strongly object to the use of the words "something else" when describing such a situation, as such a descriptor is fundamentally flawed in that evolution never produces "something else".

 

[Zacharine]

...

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

Birds are dinosaurs, as simple as that. Just like we are apes. Just like we are mammals. "Dinosaur", "Bird" etc are not species classifications, but rather higher-tier classifications. Just like "vertebrate" or "mammal". One is simply a subset of the other, with subsets of its own.

 

[Zacharine]

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

For what is it that defines mammals, apes and humans in the most objective sense? Why our genetic coding of course.

However, with the advances being made in fields of nanotechnology and genetic manipulation, is it really safe to assume that ALL of our descendants will be "human" in our sense of the word?

In that case, it can be argued if it is
a) evolution at all (changes in the allele frequence of a population over successive generations, heritable to the next generation)
b) or even our descendants, instead of our creations.

If technology reaches that far, I for one think we are going to need new names to classify our species with.

Only if such modified humans reach a stable population level and the changes made to them can be inherited without further genetic modification. That would make them a new species, but it is entirely dependant on the magnitude of the changes if they would still be humans or not. Or, if it could be stated that they evolved at all from a previous generation.

 

[Spoonius]

evolution has stagnated. there is no real natural selection occurring.

We still have natural selection, but it takes the form of social generalisation and categorisation. For example, how much more likely is it that a beautiful/handsome person will end up as a parent, when compared to a person that is considered "ugly" by modern standards?

Attractiveness serves an evolutionary role. For example, women with fitter bodies and larger breasts are instinctively considered to be better evolutionary stock, because they display all the signs of being a promising child-bearer. On the other hand, men with better physiques and "manly" personalities are more likely to be better protectors.

In other words: as long as people keep discriminating against ugly and fat people, the human race is safe...

 

[Slick Samurai]

A common misconception of evolution is that it is purely biological. People view evolutionary processes as the classical survival of the fittest. However, what most fail to realize is that evolution has roots in body and mind.

Take a primate, for example, the long term evolution is obvious, from ape to man. But somewhere, evolution adapted the animal to climb trees. Physical changes were needed to better climb, and evolution provided the biological alterations to better help it. Although, to use the new quirks, the animal needed to know how to climb. This was a relatively minor change in the mind and thought process, that altered the instincts of the animal to climb the trees.

All of this was played by the classical process of elimination, and was primarily biological. However, here's where the real changes began. The ape learned how to use tools. Although still primarily driven by biological evolution and survival of the fittest, the evolution of the mind was quickly taking center stage.

And so began what I like to call, "The Evolution of Evolution". As that ape became that modern human, biological evolution took a backseat to mental evolution. No longer did this new form of evolution need the weak to die to evolve, now it but needed to think, adapt to the sponge that was the human mind, and grow.

Now, biological evolution has all but completely been eradicated in humanity. The evolution of the mind still thrives as much as when the caveman discovered fire, or built the first monument to humanity.

Which brings me to my point, evolution cannot be stopped. This is because evolution evolves even itself to adapt to the mind, and although we probably won't be winged-purple-space-men in the future by natural means; the technological means by which we achieved it were brought by mental evolution.

 

[Peteron]

I think we will slowly continue to change as we have, and due to the fact that our environment is changing, we may have to evolve to fit those climate changes. However, improved technology may make this unnecessary.

 

[Andothul]

The average human is about 5 or so inches taller and stronger on average than the average human 2000 years ago so you tell me.

 

[benoitowns]

I think that we are probably going to stagnate for a long time. We have spread across the entire planet. We have a huge population that will continue to interbreed, and we have such an abundance of food and things like vaccinations and doctors and antibiotics, we aren't exactly giving natural selection much of a chance here. We got to this state because of punctuated equilibrium so it is pretty possible that absolutely nothing will happen to us for a very long time. Or maybe world war three or something very very stupid will happen that will kill most of us and drastically change the environment, giving evolution a great opportunity to make us change.

 

[reinersailer]

It feels so, for the way out of this stagnation in decadence, i wrote the content of my website, you find the link on my profile.

 

[L-J-F]

Well evolution won't have stopped, there will be just as many mutations as before, if not more. However, with no real natural selection there's no refining as it were. So as a whole the species won't move forward it'll move outward. If that makes sense. All mutations are kept, or nearly all, rather than just the useful ones.

Exactly, I don't think many people actually understand what evolution is or how it works somehow ...

Also, we're more intelligent today due to previous human knowledge and EDUCATION. We're not GENETICALLY more intelligent, we're just using more effective methods of bringing out the intelligence we have.

Picture it like a spunge: the greater the education the more water you can squeeze out of it. Hypothetically if you squeeze ONE spunge really hard you can get more water out of it than you could a "fuller" spunge (one with more water) that is squeezed softer.

The average human is about 5 or so inches taller and stronger on average than the average human 2000 years ago so you tell me.

I think that's very debatable - strength-wise I mean. Also, being taller isn't necessarily an advantage.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I just wish evolution would hurry up.

Our bodies need to realise that we don't need to store fat for the winter any more and flush it from our systems when there's an excess, we'd be a much happier and healthier race if that happened. Yeah, I could use my own self control, but dammit, evolution should do it for me!

Also, 'Dilbert' writer Scott Adams put forward the theory that pale balding guys in IT would be the new 'strongman' ideal for women, as we no longer need defence from tigers and bears at the cave, but we DO need our networks operational to order our groceries online, making intellect and IT skills more useful to the survival of the family than just strength and fighting skills.

Of course, might take the human race a while to shake off the obsession with musclebound steroid heads.

 

[martin's a madman]

Yes, natural evolution will still occur, IE: the theorised eventual loss of the pinky finger.
But at the point where we gained significant amounts of technology, we no longer needed to wait for evolution to do things we can accomplish ourselves.

Our biological machine has been refined over thousands of years of existence, and is continuing to be done as our needs change.


But, that is what essentially makes us different from the other species on earth.
We aren't necessarily limited by our physical abilities, and, if we need something, we can use our own innovations to satisfy them.

Our bodies are going to change, but it will be very gradual.

Any drastic change will be because of our own augmentation, either through Genetics, or Robotic additions to our bodies.

In fact, it's theorised that humanity is evitably going to become infused with technoloy if and when it becomes a spacefaring species.