Has Human Evolution Stopped?

[jyl]

Conversation with a friend tonight.

Question is whether the evolution of human beings has stopped or is in the process of stopping, such that the physical and mental attributes of human beings will not change from now until the species expires?

One argument (mine) is that sometime within the past couple hundred years, an individual's ability to produce offspring ceased to be determined by his physical attributes (how strong, how fast, etc) or mental attributes (how intelligent, how creative, how fast-thinking). A weak, slow, not real bright person with bad eyes and a predisposition to cancer is as likely to have children as a strong, fast, very smart person with 20/20 vision and a low risk of cancer. Those children may not have a very good life and their parents may die prematurely, but as long as the genes get passed on, does it matter how good a life the carrier has?

Another argument (his) is that different races are mixing to an extent never before seen - 1000 years ago, what were the odds that a woman of French descent would bear the children of a Chinese male, yet here we are - which is creating new genetic combinations and may affect future human attributes.

What do you think? 1,000 years from now, will human beings be biologically - their bodies, their brains - different than today? Why and how? How about 10,000 years from now? 100,000 years?

Understand, we're not talking about what the humans of 100,000 years hence will "know". Maybe they will have knowledge and skills inconceivable to us. But if humans have not evolved, then a newborn from 2010 should blend right in, in the year 102,010, and should be able to learn all the same skills and knowledge as the other kids. If humans have evolved, then he'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Try, please, to refrain from doom-saying rants about how the USA is going to hell and this generation is so much worse than the last blah blah blah. I'm asking about evolution over time frames that make the USA irrelevant. In 1,000 years, the USA will be no more relevant than the Holy Roman Empire is today, and in 10,000 years, no-one will ever remember that the USA ever existed. Try to think big here.

[Jim Bremner]

see the movie IDIOCRACY!

[RoninLB]

it's almost a philosophical question

[Evans, Marv]

1,000 or 10,000 is too short of a time for any noticeable evolution to take place, at least under normal circumstances. I think the future holds possibilities of a sort of evolution, but not what we usually think of. There will be a combining of humans (& probably other animals, bacteria, insects, etc.) with mechanical/electronic/genetic engineering enhancements. At least that's the way I see it. When you think about it, it's already starting. In the distant future, actual humans may not exist. It could be something like an enhanced nervous system piloting a space ship. The possibility of evolution through genetic engineering is real though. We're living in the good old days.

[JavaBrewer]

Evolution is an ongoing process.


Going to PARF in 3.....2.......1.......

[dewolf]

Aren't we in a constant state of change. I read that women now have larger boobs overall than say 50 odd years ago because big boobs have been the flavor of the last 20 or so years. Teen boys are growing taller, earlier, because girls like big guys.

In 1000 years we will be cyborgs.

[tabs]

Being a devine creationist I refute your unsubstantiated claims of evolution.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

We artificially select for traits that make our species weaker and less capable. This (right now) is more than offsetting the natural selection that would normally make us stronger and more capable.

We coddle the weak. We artificially extend lifespans. We reward over-breeding by the poorest and least productive among us. Etc. etc. etc.

The very practice of medicine at all is contrary to the "natural order" of things from a strict evolutionary biology point of view. If we really were interested in selecting for stronger and more viable human beings, we'd stop dispensing medicine to the weakest and most frail members of society and let them die - preferably before breeding. Those with genetic disorders or diseases would be ostracized, etc. It would be a very cold and callous world indeed...

+1 to the Idiocracy comment above also - for every kid born to a stable, well-to-do, two-parent home with good values, involved and supportive parents, etc. in a decent situation that will have a realistic shot at being successful and productive there are probably 1,000 or more born elsewhere in the world into less-than-ideal circumstances (third-world crushing poverty, war zones, disease-stricken regions, etc.) Right here in the good old USA that ratio is probably 1:50 (as a guess off the top of my head) just by itself - not too many kids being born into homes with worthy, supportive parents as opposed to those born to breeders who just have them as unintended consequences of f*cking.

[Tobra]

P-o-P that is 100% true. Kind of reverse Darwin, selecting in favor of adverse traits.

Originally Posted by RoninLB

it's almost a philosophical question

or a matter of genetic distribution, depending on how you look at it.

[Crowbob]

If you acept the premise that evolution is a function of the environment, then whatever the environment offers will determine who or what survives and thus evolves. The natural environment for most people is being inundated with unnatural substances, probably toxic, in addition to all new forms of radiation and other kinds of electromagnetism, etc. Since one of the factors that contributes to the survival of a species is the frequency of reproduction. A global analysis of human population by race would seem to me to indicate where we are headed at least in the short term and barring some sort of global cataclysm, such as nukular war. Evolution does not automatically result in improvement. Humans could be evolving downward just as easily as upward.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

We artificially select for traits that make our species weaker and less capable. This (right now) is more than offsetting the natural selection that would normally make us stronger and more capable.

We coddle the weak. We artificially extend lifespans. We reward over-breeding by the poorest and least productive among us. Etc. etc. etc.

The very practice of medicine at all is contrary to the "natural order" of things from a strict evolutionary biology point of view. If we really were interested in selecting for stronger and more viable human beings, we'd stop dispensing medicine to the weakest and most frail members of society and let them die - preferably before breeding. Those with genetic disorders or diseases would be ostracized, etc. It would be a very cold and callous world indeed...

+1 to the Idiocracy comment above also - for every kid born to a stable, well-to-do, two-parent home with good values, involved and supportive parents, etc. in a decent situation that will have a realistic shot at being successful and productive there are probably 1,000 or more born elsewhere in the world into less-than-ideal circumstances (third-world crushing poverty, war zones, disease-stricken regions, etc.) Right here in the good old USA that ratio is probably 1:50 (as a guess off the top of my head) just by itself - not too many kids being born into homes with worthy, supportive parents as opposed to those born to breeders who just have them as unintended consequences of f*cking.

I don't buy this argument, it is essentially the foundation for the "science" of eugenics. It isn't like selective breeding of the best of the best worked out for royalty, why do you think it would be beneficial right now?

Individually/genetically I think we're doing fine. Sure a weak specimen like Stephen Hawkings should be dead in a survival of the fittest paradigm, but it isn't like there are no benefits to protecting the weaker members of the species. Socially, I do not see how we are improving our species, and I think there is going to be significant evolution in our social development, but there will be ample superior genetic material with which to work.

[Aurel]

This is an interesting topic. There are two ways of having evolution in a species: 1. Natural selection of the fittest and 2. Passing on genetic mutations or new combinations.

In our case, as the OP mentioned, even the unfit get to pass their genes now, so option #2 is the most likely. Interestingly, we may be now affecting our own evolution by the way we modify our environment, through our exposure to mutagen chemicals or electromagnetic radiations.

Another possible mechanism is the changes in radiations coming from space, especially from the sun. Since this is a process we have no control over, one could see this as the way our creator can control our evolution, by controlling solar activity for instance.

The beauty in all this is it suggests the interrelation of everything, and possibly the intelligence of the universe which can design the evolution of its inhabitants, through DNA changes induced by cosmic radiations.

[Bill Verburg]

Just look at who's having lots of kids these days to see the direction evolution is headed

[VaSteve]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Aren't we in a constant state of change. I read that women now have larger boobs overall than say 50 odd years ago because big boobs have been the flavor of the last 20 or so years. Teen boys are growing taller, earlier, because girls like big guys.

In 1000 years we will be cyborgs.

Boob size is a function of what we eat. Look at some old photos from the past, people didn't eat as much junk....they are just fat repositories. Thus, if you like a girl with big boobs when she's young, check her out a few years later...trying to keep off the weight.

I wish I could grow taller just because girls like that.


There will be a lot of "mixing" going on...it already happens a lot. But there are places where it doesn't an thus the prevailing trait will still be there. Being from a major metro area in the US, I find it interesting to see photos of people from other countries and recall in my mind people that I know and how similar they look. My wife's 96 year old Polish grandfather just passed and boy did a lot of folks at the funeral look similar. It was pretty cool.


In the grand scheme of things, who cares? I won't be here to worry about it, neither will my kids. I don't think about how bad the cavemen had it or people in the 1800's with their tiny hands and small stature. It's interesting, but life goes on.

[Nathans_Dad]

P-o-P is correct.

It has nothing to do with eugenics. That is more taking certain traits from healthy people and selecting those traits over other healthy people.

If you look 100 years ago, people with Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, etc. never made it to reproduction. With modern medicine, we keep those folks alive much longer and thus they have an opportunity to reproduce and pass on the genes.

It's not PC, but it's true.

[JonT]

All depends on how you define evolve in this context.

[GDNF2ET]

The last I heard was we are evidentially loosing body hair and pinky toe..

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by GDNF2ET

The last I heard was we are evidentially loosing body hair and pinky toe..

if I stub my pinky toe many more times it'll fall off by itself!

[Gogar]

We are still evolving - but not like the fools in "idiocracy."

We are evolving like the genetically altered chickens in "Food, Inc."

Grown bigger in half the time, with larger breasts and smaller brains, barely able to walk.

[VINMAN]

Honestly, I think its starting to reverse.