Are Humans done evolving?

That was pretty ignorant, Griffin. xDiesel did say "enlighten me", and Pork obviously knows what he is talking about. When someone knows what they are talking about, so long as they speak humbly, not like a snooty prat, others should listen and try and learn.

And yes, what Pork said was correct. Training someone to run fast or ride a bike fast does not mean their offspring will run or ride fast also. That kind of thing does not drive evolution. Now, Lance Armstrong has been said to have a lung capacity greater than pretty much anybody else, this means he can get more oxygen into his body, and the body uses a lot of oxygen during the Tour de France, yes? So this would be useful, yes? This is a trait that could be passed on. If winning bike races were to increase ones possibility of having children (I'm sure it greatly increases your chances of getting laid, but we are, of course, talking about a small percentage of the population) and passing on genes to kids, we could maybe evolve to be like Lance and have bigger lung capacity.

 

we will evolve, however it takes loads of time. you dont realize it but we do pass on the good genes needed to survive the difference can be height, can be sight. you dont know it but we pass them on.

 

Evolution was in a sense survival of the fittest. If a particular quality gave you an advantage in your environment you would be more likely to survive to pass that quality on to your offspring, same with your offspring to their offspring and so on. In todays society with the advancment of culture, even the unfit will survive to pass on their genes. It doesn't matter if your slow, weak, retarded, etc., you will likely survive because of the system (government and social services for example) that we have in place. Genes needed for survival arn't really necessary anymore, and there wouldn't be a "fit" gene to dominate the gene pool for evolution. Maybe because of this evolution is partially frozen in a sense and may take longer then usual or may even cease for a time.

Or perhaps as culture and technology progresses life will become easier then ever. We will have more time to allocate on intellectual pursuits and we will become smarter and pass that on to our children. Consequently our brains and heads may grow in size over time. Perhaps our mental faculties will require more nourishment and energy and the body will redirect said resourses from our muscles (since our ease of life makes them less useful) and as a result we become thin and atrophy. We may in effect become walking candy apples. Lol just a thought.

 

Lol, that's an excellent point, and could become true, but I hope not. However, historical records do indicate that men were more physical fit and more active before we become more smarter and sophisticated. Of course everyone knows the reason for their great physical shape was because of a lack of technology. I don't think technology is bad, but people should still learn to stop lazing around and such. Maybe if they do we won't become walking candy apples.

 

True in many ways, but if you think about it, technology is what makes traits of physical prowess less required for survival, as we no longer need strength when technology takes its place.

Of course a major issue comes to light when we're detached or taken away from the technology that we rely on, and if it happens somehow on a mass scale, those reliant on it will likely come to be replaced by those physically empowered who are still among us. Either way humanity as a species could survive most things (probably), a good thing about genetic and trait variation.

 

I think we are at the point were we are done evolving in the physical sense, now we must evolve in a spiritual or mental sense. I think the next phase of evolution, which we proboaly won't reach for quite some time, is when we begin to put less emphasis on our physical bodies and we start to rely on our being.

At some point we must move on from communicating in just words, I mean there must be more to express than just simple letters. If you think about it we only really have 6 letters we can pronounce "a, e, i, o, u and y" the rest of our alphabet uses these basics and adds in wind from our breath to create the sound.

If we reach the next phase, communication will most likely be through feelings which can be expressed by anyone and then anyone can feel the same thing. It will be a point where each person is not an "island" by themselves anymore feeling, seeing, and hearing only from their own perspective of reality, it will be more a collective conciousness.

 

i think our next evolution stage is reptilians

 

You're answer will be found in the movie "Idiocracy".
lol

 

i highly doubt it. mammals evolved from reptiles, not the other way around. so that would be "going backward."

ha, yea that was a funny movie

 

Good article on the topic:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/health/stories/2009/02/12/evolution_darwin_scientists.html

And Mr Morrison--Yeah, that's the way it seems to me. If there's no pressure, with some individuals surviving long enough to have descendants and others not--then the engine isn't running.

But in some parts of the world, it's running full speed. Where malaria is common, people who have traits that protect them against it have a better chance of surviving, and lots of people die. I was thinking that maybe as the earth's atmosphere changes, people with darker skin are going to have an advantage over people with fair skin, but skin cancer gets you later in life, so maybe that doesn't count. If there's natural immunity to AIDS, then any African who has it is going to have an obvious advantage over the millions who don't--and that definitely is a killer of young people.

 

Humans will be at an evolutionary dead end when they become entirely Dependant on medical technology to survive and reproduce. When the next global catastrophic event like a meteor impact sends the the reaming survivors into the next stone age it might be just a little important for the females to be able to survive giving birth vaginally! Lucky for us most of the human race still lives in third word poverty.

Evolutionary advancements only really occur during great hardship. In a modern developed world society the weak are free to multiply in drones. It's not like our most intelligent and physically fit are the ones shacking up on welfare and having half a dozen or more kids.

 

Personally I think hippies are the latest advance in human evolution.

 

The human species will continue to evolve, but it won't be naturally. Bio-engineering will transform all life on earth in one way or another.

 

It's worse than you think. The human race is now evolving in reverse. There are at least two reasons for this.

Every species encounters random genetic mutations. Some are subtle, and some are not, but most (>99%) are unfavorable. When society finds a way to insure that almost everyone survives, the worldwide gene pool slowly degenerates over time. We will not see evidence of this in our lifetime, but the trend is inevitable.

Second, it has been well documented that in wealthy countries, the most intelligent individuals tend to have the fewest children. Again, this is not long-term good news for the human race.

Perhaps we have bumped into the natural upper limit of evolution. In other words, maybe the discovery of compassion, and the means to make it reality, breaks evolution in that species.

In your mind, project this trend into the distant future. Eventually, society and living conditions degrade to the point where insuring survival for all is no longer possible. The resources to make it happen are not there. Natural evolution takes over again, and the species once again starts to improve. Logically, this cycle could repeat itself any number of times.

A few times in history, people have tried to convert this line of thought into political action, with catastrophic results. This is another piece of evidence that this upper limit of evolutionary progress may be an absolute line that cannot be crossed.

If this theory is true, it would be unethical to make any use of the information, except for one's own personal knowledge and understanding.

 

When society finds a way to insure that almost everyone survives, the worldwide gene pool slowly degenerates over time.

What you say is true, but I don't think your conclusion is correct. It's true that there are individuals alive who wouldn't be under strict Darwinian natural selection, but those aren't necessarily the ones who fuel the evolution of the species. The overall gene pool may deteriorate, as you say, but the top 1% isn't getting dumber or weaker, and those are the ones who matter, evolutionarily speaking. The "deterioration" affects the remaining 99%.

I also think that future human evolution will be driven by bio-engineering anyway, and not by the traditional process of natural gene mutations. Natural selection isn't the main driver anymore, and actually hasn't been for a long time in the case of domesticated animals, for instance. Selective breeding does the same thing that natural selection would do, but much faster. Bio-engineering takes the same concept to the next level.

Bio-engineering obviously hasn't been applied on a wide scale to humans yet, but I think it will be. Ethical concerns will eventually give way. Throughout history, revolutionary new technology has almost always faced ethical opposition. It takes a generation or two or three before the opposition dies down, and this will be no different.

A century from now, people will look back with amusement that anyone could possibly have ethical concerns about bio-engineering humans.

Acceptance of new technology is controlled, as is most everything, by economics. If there is money to be made from a technology, then it will succeed. And for that matter, who is going to tell parents that it's possible for them to select the characteristics of their unborn children, but that they're not allowed to because of "ethical concerns"? If an unborn child carries the genes for autism or MS, for example, and it's possible to re-engineer those genes in vitro, then who's going to tell those parents that it's not "ethical" to do so?

Since such engineering would benefit the society as a whole as well, what argument will you mount against it?

Returning to the original question, this kind of bio-engineering represents a new kind of evolution, because you are modifying genetic characteristics which will therefore be passed on. Evolution by natural selection will have been replaced by evolution by bio-engineering.

 

I hope that my conclusion isn't correct, because it is so bleak. However, I do believe that the "bottom" 99% counts, and they are important. We all have to share the same planet, so when the masses are having a bad millenium, everybody suffers.

The one advancement that could truly break us out of this trap would be a method of genetic engineering that enhances intelligence, made relatively easy and inexpensive for everyone. That would be a game-changer. I can't even think of a downside to it.

The darker first cousin of that scenario is a return to Nazi-era reproduction control exercised over those whose genes have not been upgraded. I'm sure there are those who fear this option but dare not even give breath to it.

None. How could a parent want his or her child to suffer needlessly? The challenge is going to be getting this benefit distributed to those who live in areas where 1950's technology is still a luxury.

 

You make good points. I don't think they're enough to stop the process, though. Advanced technology never manages to filter down to everyone. I don't think the Nazi scenario will happen, either ... rather, it will be haves vs have-nots, as it usually is.

I don't know how this will all play out, any more than anyone else does. I just don't think there's any way the bio-engineering thing won't happen, one way or another.

 

Hey, lots to read, I skimmed.

Humans are DEVOLVING.

When we breed ANIMALS, we (hopefully) breed OUT bad characteristics, using selective breeding. Many times this includes line breeding (inbreeding). We can usually line breed several times before things start to go awry. But humans do NOT selectively breed. Every genetic flaw gets into the mix via MODERN MEDICINE. Humans cannot inbreed without creating havoc. We must ALREADY be too inbred. AND weak genetically. At the rate we are going, humans could be headed for near-extinction.

 

....bio-engineering life. I am POSITIVE this will come to no good as it takes the natural process out. This is what is wrong with the world today. People thinking they can manipulate things that were never intended to be manipulated. Yes, I think there are some things we should NOT dabble with. Natural processes, natural selection, happens for a reason. That reason is BALANCE, which is the one thing that keeps things going smoothly. If we disturb the NATURAL BALANCE too much, we have no idea what might happen, but we can see a bit of a glimpse into the answer to that question every day of our lives, because human manipulation has messed with so MANY natural functions already.

 

I am POSITIVE this will come to no good as it takes the natural process out.

EarthMother, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But again I ask, if you were carrying a child that you knew was going to be born autistic or with MS, and there was a way you could fix the child in vitro, wouldn't you do it?

Furthermore, by removing the bad genes, this would also eliminate the possibility that the descendents of this child would have those conditions. Isn't that a good thing?

Also, not to be overly cynical, but I don't think there's any doubt that this will happen in some fashion, despite any objections that you or I may have. Throughout history, people have always opposed technological advances, for all kinds of reasons. Their objections almost always fall away in a generation or two.

As soon as there have been a couple of generations that have grown up with the idea of bio-engineering, there will be a comfort level with it and the ethical concerns will be a thing of the past. That's the way it's always been.

Just as an example, it wasn't that long ago that many people vehemently opposed widespread computerization because they were convinced it would lead to a grotesque "homogenization" of human societies. That didn't happen, at least not in the way they predicted, but more importantly, most people have now accepted computerization of everything.

In a couple of generations, the attitude totally changed and the old objections disappeared. I suppose you could still argue whether or not computerized databases are a good thing, but you can't stop them. As long as somebody somewhere can make money from a new technology, it will flourish.

I think it will be the same with bio-engineering.