Are we still evolving?

[TinCow]

I just saw it stated in another thread that humans have essentially circumvented evolution due to the fact that most people now reproduce, regardless of genetics. This seems to be a common opinion amongst a great deal of people that I have spoken to, but it also seems to be a rather blatant violation of the laws of nature. So that's the question; are we still evolving?

[InsaneApache]

I am.

[Ja'chyra]

Some people never started

[English assassin]

I just saw it stated in another thread that humans have essentially circumvented evolution due to the fact that most people now reproduce, regardless of genetics.

Whoever said "most people" reproduce regardless of genetics seems to have forgotten the world outside North America and western Europe.

Yes, we are still evolving. A concrete example is the massive selection pressure being exerted in Africa in favour of people whose immune systems can process HIV effectively. No doubt in time many people in Africa will be immune to HIV, or, more accurately, will not be made ill by being infected by HIV. In the same way that the black death killed essentially everyone in Europe whose immune system was not very good at responding to the plague bacterium. Its evolution in action and you can see it today.

[Mouzafphaerre]

I just saw it stated in another thread that humans have essentially circumvented evolution due to the fact that most people now reproduce, regardless of genetics. This seems to be a common opinion amongst a great deal of people that I have spoken to, but it also seems to be a rather blatant violation of the laws of nature. So that's the question; are we still evolving?

.
I'm pretty certain that some homo sapiens around my habitat will grow excess hair and tails in a few generations. Whether I'll be around to cheer "I told you" is ambigious.
.

[TinCow]

.
I'm pretty certain that some homo sapiens around my habitat will grow excess hair and tails in a few generations. Whether I'll be around to cheer "I told you" is ambigious.
.

HAH! I had actually heard somewhere that evolution seemed to be tending towards increased baldness. I'm not sure how anyone would determine this, but at least it makes my father feel better when I tell him he's 'advanced'.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, it's been proved that centra for egoism and evil shrewdness has increased after civilization, mostly because limited egoism and evil shrewdness is favored strongly by today's society. Luckily enough to most evil aren't favored, but being a mini-devil is very benefitial.

[Duke Malcolm]

I was recently at a lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, who said that humans have stopped evolving because we have little need to evolve. Also, it might be reasonable to say that further evolution in humans would be somewhat impared due to the avoidance of survival of the fittest (or most well-adapted).

[Rodion Romanovich]

A more thorough answer than mine above is:
1. All species that have no evolutionary pressure devolves sooner or later, in the particular fields where it has no evolutionary pressure. Of course, when it loses ALL abilities to survive, it must regain them because then an evolutionary pressure is again created. So usually it's only certain skills/properties that are lost when pressure disappears.
- This means we'll lose many natural skills eventually, if there's no pressure to keep them

2. Depending on how the lack of pressure is, and how the implementation of the property is, the devolving will take different shapes. For instance if the genetical construction for a certain property is simple because it comes automatically from genes for other properties, then it might be kept even if it's no longer needed. That's why rudiments such as the sacrum bone etc. remain, and toes, which become more unnecessary when shoes are used.

3. If there's a new evolutionary pressure, it'll result in different properties being favored.

4. An organism is usually a reflection of it's evolutionary pressure. Once can predict how it'll evolve by looking at it's evolutionary pressure.

No. 4 is interesting because it gives suggestions about how society should be formed. If too much evilness and dishonorable behavior is favored, we'll change our own species. The worst scenario is if a changed human species is changed in a way so that it changes the society in a way that changes the species more in that direction, so that the species then changes the society etc. in absurdum until it's created a very strong development in one direction, if that direction is a bad one, for example one that leads to more violence and destruction.

I'm too lazy to elaborate on No. 4, but I think it's a very interesting field of philosophy. I can at least say that it's a much more complex thing than it seems at first, as every evolutionary pressure may get a response in that the next generation changes society and thereby the evolutionary pressure again, so that there's feedback in the system. Add to that the extreme importance of society factors for creation of behavior, and the system gets very, very complex. I can't describe this entirely without some 100 pages or so, which wouldn't fit here. Many political ideologies implement thoughts based on No. 4 without admitting it's based on it. I think many of the ideas are interesting and contain some truth, but most of them are wrong because they fail to see the big picture - it's much bigger than most people can realize. Some examples of ideas that are based on No. 4 without exlicitly admitting it:
- death penalty for or against?
- should criminals etc. have right to have an offspring?
- priority systems in health care
etc.

Most of the questions are controversial because most ideologies implement solutions that favors only certain groups of people. I'm not talking races mostly (even though racial discrimination occurs), but instead based on certain properties in how you behave and look etc., many very subtle things.

I think the only fair way to handle such questions is to make sure the pattern of who are favored shouldn't be different from that in nature. While some say this would disfavor some weak people, they fail to see that the current system disfavors many biologically strong but in society weak people, and that they thereby are just as bad in that they oppress those who are weak according just another view on who's weak and who's strong. But this view of mine doesn't mean anyone should be forbidden to live or killed, or course, but rather that the selection should be based on reproduction so that the reproduction pattern creates the same evolutionary pattern as in nature. Choosing any other system would be oppressing those who are disfavored by the system, and make those oppressed and give them full reason to turn tables and start oppressing the others instead. All evolutionary pressure patterns will disfavor some group, so the only pressure pattern that could be justified is the natural one. This particular question I'd like to hear opinions about - is there any answer that could be justified, or am I wrong choosing the natural pattern as the one justified one? Or should we research which pattern gives greatest chances of success for the species, and choose as pattern? Well, the latter is quite complex. Physically we must only reproduce if we're strong and healthy, and still maintain genetical variety in the population. Mentally, we must evolve in a way so that we won't change the society system to in the future create an evolutionary pattern that will result in a destructive development, or result in an offspring one thousand generations ahead that will change society in such a way. This solution of using a manmade evolutionary pattern is IMO too complex and difficult to handle and also controversial, in that everyone will probably try to favor their own genes.

Still, I think it's a question that mankind will repeatedly be posed, no matter how hard we try to hide it because of it's being so controversial, and it's better to once and for all find an answer. Why not use the natural pressure pattern, but with letting the actual sorting only be handled by reproduction, and still trying to save lives as hard as possible so as to avoid sorting caused by death? If we refuse to choose a balanced middle opinion of that type, we might face more mass-murdering future dictators trying to breed us to what he thinks is best. My system would cause least pain. It might not be a good axiom, but I find minimizing pain and increasing the chances of survival of the human species is the objective of any society philosophy.

[Lazul]

ofcourse we are, how ells would you explain Me becoming an Über-human!? uh? uh? uh?

[Fragony]

We are evolving but not for the better. All those medicines are making us weak.

[yesdachi]

Whoever said "most people" reproduce regardless of genetics seems to have forgotten the world outside North America and western Europe.

Yes, we are still evolving. A concrete example is the massive selection pressure being exerted in Africa in favour of people whose immune systems can process HIV effectively. No doubt in time many people in Africa will be immune to HIV, or, more accurately, will not be made ill by being infected by HIV. In the same way that the black death killed essentially everyone in Europe whose immune system was not very good at responding to the plague bacterium. Its evolution in action and you can see it today.

This is interesting and requires some more investigation.


I think we are still evolving but it is a long process and we are in the age of the microwave and want to see results NOW. But IMO evolution is subtle and slow moving in humans and difficult to measure in decades or even century’s. I do think we have, or are close to evolving past the need to evolve. We can create, invent, produce, or alter just about anything we need that is not ours naturally. But that doesn’t change the fact that evolution is going to keep happening.

The thought that we are basically past survival of the fittest is kind of disappointing to me. I think a human sized mousetrap may be called for.

[Adrian II]

We are evolving but not for the better. All those medicines are making us weak.

Fragony, you are the original Backroom Man. Look at the topoi you manage cover in two short sentences. A smattering of environmental concern mixed with Social Darwinism, resulting in inverted evolution with a hint of Armageddon looming around the corner.
Bravo!

[Viking]

We evolve by the fact that our genes mutate, and that we take care of everyone no matter how mis-shaped they ought to be by birth.

[Hurin_Rules]

Are you talking about purely biological (i.e. genetic) evolution or cultural as well?

We continue to develop new tools and technologies. So evolution has not halted on the cultural level, nor will it for the forseeable future.

I also find it hard to understand (maybe the scientists can enlighten me) how any species could stop evolving (short of it being extinguished completely). People still make choices about when and how much to breed. Some segments of the population have more offspring than others. Diseases still kill off more people with less immunities to them. All of these ensure that the next generation is different than the last and that humans keep changing.

Our cultural and socio-economic systems (environment) still favour certain traits, don't they?

[TinCow]

I was only referring to biological. Personally, I believe that it's impossible to remove us from the laws of nature since we're nothing more than smart apes. I thought it would make an interesting discussion though.

[Xiahou]

Fragony, you are the original Backroom Man. Look at the topoi you manage cover in two short sentences. A smattering of environmental concern mixed with Social Darwinism, resulting in inverted evolution with a hint of Armageddon looming around the corner.
Bravo!

Not to mention, a very succinct argument against state-run healthcare.

[Rob The Bastard]

Umm, not sure... check back with me in 40,000 years.

[Mouzafphaerre]

I was recently at a lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, who said that humans have stopped evolving because we have little need to evolve. Also, it might be reasonable to say that further evolution in humans would be somewhat impared due to the avoidance of survival of the fittest (or most well-adapted).

.
That sounds, on philosophical ground, to me as XIXth century Euro-centric romanticisme with potential racisme added. In short, κραπ. Notice on philosophical ground.

It's the hierarchy of species single cell virii on the bottom and humans at the top, white Europeans being on the topmost. I'm not accusing the lecturer of anything but his theory sounds to much under the influence of that linear evolution nonsense.
.

[Soulforged]

A moralist would say no. I say yes.

[Byzantine Prince]

We have no more need for biological evolution. In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?

Anyways humans have always been somwhere between animal and god. When we reach god evolution and mother earth can kiss our behinds.

[Papewaio]

Unless we make unmutated clones of ourselves we will continue to evolve. It might not be significant changes as we aren't under a die or thrive environment... then again look at the decreased fertility rate of the west. Westerners who cannot juggle a job and a family and go just for a job will die out, they would die out even faster if it wasn't for IVF.

[Byzantine Prince]

Unless we make unmutated clones of ourselves we will continue to evolve. It might not be significant changes as we aren't under a die or thrive environment... then again look at the decreased fertility rate of the west. Westerners who cannot juggle a job and a family and go just for a job will die out, they would die out even faster if it wasn't for IVF.

Pape, even if in a thousand years every white person dies out(quite unlikely but I'm speaking hypothetically) then other groups would take over as ecomical powers and they would do the same thing.

So my question reamins supreme over what you said, 'In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?'

In 40,000 years every group would have gotten up and down economically culturally etc, or even mixed together. The question is would you need a body by then. 40,000 years is a very small amount of time to evolve BTW. The differences in genetics would be tiny.

[Togakure]

Yes, we are still evolving.

[Papewaio]

Pape, even if in a thousand years every white person dies out(quite unlikely but I'm speaking hypothetically) then other groups would take over as ecomical powers and they would do the same thing.

So my question reamins supreme over what you said, 'In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?'

In 40,000 years every group would have gotten up and down economically culturally etc, or even mixed together. The question is would you need a body by then. 40,000 years is a very small amount of time to evolve BTW. The differences in genetics would be tiny.

I referred to Western Lifestyle, Japan and other nations are rapidly adopting some of our key lifestyle points which decrease fertility.

The frequency of genes will change.

Those who can reproduce on a diet of fast food, while working long hours under artifical light will have their genes increasing in frequency compared with those who cannot survive the modern lifestyle.

[Ice]

Yes we are still evolving. We will continue evolve indefinately. We will always find a better way to be suited to our environment. Speaking of evolution, I saw on the discovery channel, a while ago, about what animals would inhabit the Earth a couple million years from now (If we don't destroy it and the current evolutionary patterns progresses) and they were pretty interesting. I don't remember exact details, though.

[solypsist]

once a populations hits a certain mark, evolution stops. we're at that point as a species, just like the norway rat is. our population levels are not expected to decrease dramatically in the future, so there's no way for 'advantageous' genes to overtake the less advantageous ones. from here on out, it's all about good health and education insofar as humans increasing their potential.

[Fragony]

Fragony, you are the original Backroom Man. Look at the topoi you manage cover in two short sentences. A smattering of environmental concern mixed with Social Darwinism, resulting in inverted evolution with a hint of Armageddon looming around the corner.
Bravo!

[English assassin]

I was recently at a lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, who said that humans have stopped evolving because we have little need to evolve.

No disrespect but he can't have said exactly that since "need" to evolve does not drive evolution, (unless you are a Lamarkian which Dawkins certainly is not.)

If there is genetic change and selection pressure there will be evolution, as sure as night follows day. In a population of 6 billion I think we can be pretty sure there will be plenty of genetic drift. As Mouzafphaerre suggests it is only possible to imagine that there is no selection pressure if you live in the west (and don't read newspapers).

Therefore there must be evolution. QED.

It may well be true that there is a lot less evolution than you might expect, since rather than adapting to the environment man is rather good at adapting the environment to him. But we aren't above the laws of nature yet.

In 40,000 years(not so long from now) do you really think we'll need bodies to survive?

This is really pushing Keynes famous comment about the long term to the limit. Yes I do, but lets play with it because it introduces an interesting idea. According to Dawkins evolution is the process in which information carriers (in our case DNA) are differentially selected on the basis of their abilities to get into the next generation.

Your disembodied future would, obviously, be DNAless. At some point therefore DNA, selected for on the basis of its ability to make more DNA, would have had to bring about a situation in which DNA was redundant and no longer produced. (This may have happened once before, if you believe there were RNA genomes in early organisms. Certainly its next to impossible to see how the original information carrier could have been DNA, its too complex, and too specialist) Its quite difficult to see how the supplanting of DNA would come about through evolution as Dawkins would understand it, unless you take some rather abstract view that its the "information" that somehow matters, and not its physical form.

My favourite mad scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, http://www.sheldrake.org/ could take that position and call it morphogenetic fields, but Dawkins couldn't.

(OT, read Sheldrake, kids. He may be mad, and he's probably wrong, but what if he isn't? Also, note he is still able to get debates with big hitting scientists, and have other labs test his ideas, which shows that whilst the lunatic fringe may like his ideas he himself is still some sort of real scientist)

[Ironside]

Are we going to look almost exactly the same in about 10.000-100.000 years? If no, then you've got evolution.

And about adapting to the modern society. Do you actually think that the current society will last to 2205, let alone to 12005?

Personally I suspect that we will bypass most evolutionary laws when the genetical manipulation has becamed good enough. Or to be more speciffic, we will adapt in the way we want, not the way that is best for survival.