Has Human Evolution Stopped?

[Jim Bremner]

YouTube - "Idiocracy" introduction - the future of human evolution

[Moses]

We are evolving very rapidly at this point in time. Just as any population does when selective pressures are removed.

Although chromosomal mutation rates are fairly constant, the survivability of genetic variations is at an all time high.

If you eliminate the wolf population from Alaska it won't be long before you have a burgeoning population of fat, slow, diseased caribou.

[VaSteve]

Re: the chickens.... that's a couple generations for humans, but likely 100+ generations for chickens over that timeframe. We certainly are engineering ourselves, but not nearly in as drastic proportions.

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by VINMAN

Honestly, I think its starting to reverse.

Just look at PARF!

Seriously, if you buy into theory of evolution then you cannot accept that it can end. The theory is based on principles that requires it to continue.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by 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.

Evolution is a process of change over time and cannot be stopped as long as living things exist, be they human or microbe. To argue that the results of evolution are good or bad (will we be smarter or dumber, stronger or weaker) is a human conceit.

For human biology to change to such a degree that current humans would "stand out" physically, would likely take tens of thousands of year (the current biological form of modern humans dates back 100,000-190,000 years, depending on the veracity of the dating.) The variations in the current human specie is such that physically, if you could drop a 130,000 human into our midst today, they would be virtually indistinguishable from the rest of us.

What must be remembered is that humans have become the dominant specie on earth because of adaptability to the environment through culture, not physical changes. The great evolutionary changes in human history are cultural changes, which will continue to evolve, and they will evolve to best meet the needs of humans as a specie living in a natural environment. Until mankind completely controls the forces of nature (and I am not arguing that this would ever be possible), his survival is dependent on successful adaption through cultural changes. Here is where we might "stick out like a sore thumb" in a thousand years. We would look the same but behaviorally, socially we would not fit in. You would not be able to recognize a Cro-magnon man if he was dropped in our midst tomorrow--that is, until he began to interact. Then, it would be obvious.

Will the physical human form ever evolve to something far different from today just as pre-humans did? Certainly, given enough time and now were talking millions of years.

[Hugh R]

Interesting topic. You have to remember that genetic information transfer stops after you quit having babies. Life extending treatments, medicines and devices in later years neither add nor subtract from that transfer. If you quit making babies at say 30 years old, its only the fact that you were able to procreate up to that point that is relevant. So it seems to me that drugs to treat heart disease, cancer in later life, etc. are irrelevant to altering evolution. Medical treatments, diet and what not that allow you to live long enough to procreate will affect evolution.

Although maybe only partly relevant, I notice in former Soviet Bloc countries like Hungary and Czech, that the 20 and 25 year olds (male and female) are a lot taller than people in their 40s-60s. I mean a lot taller. I think improved diet over the last 20/25 years since the fall of the USSR played a role in this.

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is eugenics. You are making the case for a master race, not necessarily racially pure, and certainly not in a Nazi sense, but you are basically saying that the genetically inferior in intelligence or physical health will cause the species to decline by reproducing (which was/is the foundation of eugenics). Do you see evidence of this? Do you see humans, as a species, getting physically weaker, having increasingly shorter lifespans, and having less intelligence? Conversely do you see the opportunity for selective breeding to produce a strain of humans with superior health, strength, industry, and intelligence?

[Racerbvd]

OK, just 30 years ago, 50 was considered old, look at Edith Bunker on All in the Family, now we have smoking Hot 50+ year old women, and us men are staying younger as well.. So from that stand point, and the fact that people are living longer, are larger (I'm not ride bikes, many of us who were riding when BMX & MTB began and the 2nd surge of skating have seen those sports really evolve, not just because the equipment, but the athletes as well. Then look at Basketball, another sport that shows how we have been evolving, players are much taller & much faster than in years past, but in a reverse evolution in the mental department, same with many Football players..

[nota]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Interesting topic. You have to remember that genetic information transfer stops after you quit having babies. Life extending treatments, medicines and devices in later years neither add nor subtract from that transfer. If you quit making babies at say 30 years old, its only the fact that you were able to procreate up to that point that is relevant. So it seems to me that drugs to treat heart disease, cancer in later life, etc. are irrelevant to altering evolution. Medical treatments, diet and what not that allow you to live long enough to procreate will affect evolution.

Although maybe only partly relevant, I notice in former Soviet Bloc countries like Hungary and Czech, that the 20 and 25 year olds (male and female) are a lot taller than people in their 40s-60s. I mean a lot taller. I think improved diet over the last 20/25 years since the fall of the USSR played a role in this.

for females yes there is a limited time of fertility
BUT egg harvesting, surrogates , fertility DRUGs and other new tricks
are pushing the limits
and men have far less time limits
and new drugs toooo

[nota]

and yes more food = bigger people
BUT is that a good or even healthy thing

some believe a balanced but portion limited diet
that produces thin smaller people who live longer
and have far less heath problems
and use far less resources too

and while the idea of hard controls on who is allowed to reproduce
is not a good goal
there does need to be less people over all instead of ever ever more
and less plus smarter would be a bonus
BUT VERY HARD TO DO

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by nota

and yes more food = bigger people
BUT is that a good or even healthy thing

some believe a balanced but portion limited diet
that produces thin smaller people who live longer
and have far less heath problems
and use far less resources too

and while the idea of hard controls on who is allowed to reproduce
is not a good goal
there does need to be less people over all instead of ever ever more
and less plus smarter would be a bonus
BUT VERY HARD TO DO

I'm talking taller, not just fat.

[Hugh R]

Unless women preferentially have babies with taller men you won't drive that trait forward.

[jyl]

Human adults are changing due to better nutrition, medical care, and other conditions. But that, it seems to me, is not the same as evolution. Take a newborn baby from a prior era, feed them and give them medical care at today's levels, would they grow up indistinguishable from current humans? If yes, it is not evolution in my understanding of the term.

Remember all the sci-fi stories in which future humans had evolved to have big brains, small bodies, or whatever? That's what I'm talking about. And my theory, or question, is whether that can happen if all humans, regardless of individual traits and mutations, have essentially equal ability to pass on their genes.

The point Moses (?) made about more random mutations being able to survive, is interesting. But if those mutations dont affect the owners ability to pass on genes, will they really spread such as to cause humans to evolve, or will it simply mean more randomness in the genetic makeup of future humans?

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by jyl

Human adults are changing due to better nutrition, medical care, and other conditions. But that, it seems to me, is not the same as evolution. Take a newborn baby from a prior era, feed them and give them medical care at today's levels, would they grow up indistinguishable from current humans? If yes, it is not evolution in my understanding of the term.

Remember all the sci-fi stories in which future humans had evolved to have big brains, small bodies, or whatever? That's what I'm talking about. And my theory, or question, is whether that can happen if all humans, regardless of individual traits and mutations, have essentially equal ability to pass on their genes.

The point Moses (?) made about more random mutations being able to survive, is interesting. But if those mutations dont affect the owners ability to pass on genes, will they really spread such as to cause humans to evolve, or will it simply mean more randomness in the genetic makeup of future humans?

Actually, it is as humans evolved to be able to do those things Unless at wal-mart, those are missing links...

[RWebb]

biological evolution = genetic change in populations of organisms over time; individuals do not evolve, pop'ns do

many changes in outward appearance or behavior (phenotype) may NOT be due to changes at the genetic level

humans are still evolving, yes

even "after you quit having babies" you can still affect evolution of your lineage - providing child care to relatives (who share your genes) is the most obvious way - it is called kin selection

if all organisms have equal ability to pass on their genes, then there is no selection

even if all selection were zero, evolution could still continue due to genetic recombination (the reshuffling of the genome), by the mating system (different from some not mating as well as others -- that is a type of selection) and by "mutation pressure"

It takes me 4 months to teach this to a biology grad. student (who already has majored in biology) so please understand that it is not the simplest thing in the world...

I hope you all have a highly evolved holiday

[dewolf]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Unless women preferentially have babies with taller men you won't drive that trait forward.

I'm not sure that is true. I see a lot of kids walking around shopping centers with their parents and quite a few of them are taller than their parents. Even shortish parents these days seem to have teens that are bigger than them.

[Aurel]

We are evolving into the stage of homo informaticus:



Or is it homo obesicus...?

[Por_sha911]

What I don't understand is if we supposedly evolved from monkeys and apes then why are there still monkeys and apes? (but that's a topic for another day on a different forum)
Remember, its the theory of evolution.

[RWebb]

nope on both comments

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

nope on both comments

???