Have we halted evolution?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

damocles

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,105
5
81
As a biological Anthropologist i'm generally going to stay out of this- just a few notes though

Species don't evolve at a simple level- change occurs within generations of individuals (individuals dont evolve), upon whom selection acts.

Evolutionary forces will always be occuring, whether the outcome be for positive or deleterious. To in anyway halt 'human evolution' every single human would have to be created in a lab

You can't really accelerate evololution, because there is not perfect state of evolution. Within their environment insects like cockroaches have evolved differently, but are still highly evolved
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0


<< Species don't evolve- evolution occurs within individuals, upon whom selection acts. >>



Could you explain? This is an interesting thread.
 

damocles

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,105
5
81
Actually i explained that wrongly, as individuals dont evolve 'per se' (it's 1 am here and i'm sleepy, i'd already changed it )

Basically evolution occurs when, for whatever reason, a change occurs between generations of individual- which is then passed on genetically. Basically I was meaning is that evolution is a process. Even if we were scientifically to alter aspects of evolution, natural evolution would still be want to occur at any given time - you could never halt it
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<<

<< Species don't evolve- evolution occurs within individuals, upon whom selection acts. >>



Could you explain? This is an interesting thread.
>>

The DNA of one individual changes first, then the mutated genes can make it into offspring, depending on how successful the individual with the mutated genes is.

If it are 'bad' genes, the offspring will suffer from illnesses. If it are 'good' genes, the offspring will be better prepared for whatever dangers faces them and they'll spread the 'good' genes through the species.
The offspring with the 'bad' genes will get killed more easily, while those with the 'good' genes survive.

Most mutations in genes are neutral, though.
 

damocles

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,105
5
81
If you want to consider other races as separate species (for arguments sake),

Biologically you can't in anyway consider them to be a seperate species. In fact biologically they can't even be defined as a different race, but only as a different ethnicity- as ethnicity relies more on social cultural rules and identities.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Though we may affect human evolution through genetic manipulation we can't stop it. damocles had it right: how can you stop a thing that measures time in eons? We're adapting to a changing environment. Sure we may be tweaking the environment, making it more safe and free of disease but the forces of nature still apply.

Why are all aliens short, frail and large headed? Because they don't need to pull down fruit from tall trees and don't need to wrestle sabre-toothed cats. But they do need to come up with the means to beam food directly into their bellies and that takes some cognitive abilitiy! But even for them a random genetic weakness affecting their large brains will reduce their fitness to their environment.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,232
5,807
126
The question is moot.

Assuming that evolution occurs(it's a fine sounding theory, but I'm not 100% convinced), it occurs at such a slow rate that we couldn't possibly know if/when an evolutionary event occurs during our lifetime. The theory hasn't been around long enough to have witnessed any kind of definite evolution. Perhaps the case of anti-biotic resistant bacteria could be an example of evolution, but then perhaps not. Did bacteria evolve? Did the fittest survive? Or did the misuse of anti-biotics act upon bacteria how a TB shot work on humans, thereby making previously "weak" bacteria now immune to anti-biotics?
 

Cooltech2k

Banned
Feb 9, 2001
2,001
1
0


<< Assuming it is real...evolution essentially occurs due to survival of the fittest. Well, in the human society today, everyone can survive regardless, does this mean that we can't evolve anymore? >>



No We Just are not evolving to be better at surviving nature... Now we are getting better at what we do most... For instance if we went 5 generations of ATOT only breeding the 5th generation would have longer faster fingers for typing, & a Bigger ass to give more padding while sitting in front of a PC all damn day....
 

Retro2001

Senior member
Jun 20, 2000
767
0
0


<< i doubt smart parent will have smart offspring, it like a roll of dice. >>



There is a big problem with this argument. Even if intelligence is not genetic (I'm not sure either way here), the up bringing of a child is critical to the final intelligence. An intelligent, well educated parent is more likely to read daily to a child than the inverse. Also, for consideration, my parants (esp. my mom) both have IQ's well above 100. Myself, my brother and my sister do also. IQ testing is not a pheonominal messure of intelligence, but its one I have available.

Peace,
Will
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
well iq alone isn't much of a measure, there are people with high iqs and no social skills whatsoever. iq only measures one area of intelligence. evolution only cares if your good enough to get it on with a mate and do well
 

HOWITIS

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2001
2,165
0
76
evolution is a sientific fact. the flu virus evolves every year.

so are we. were getting taller and losing our wisdom teeth. just remember it takes quite a long time, your not going to notice it happening.


survival of the fittest means who has the most kids.

fit= how many kids you got.

logicly those having more kids pass the most genes along. remember there is no goal in evolution. such as intelligence. its just who can pass on their genes.


and our technology will make us evolve. once things are no longer needed, and there is no consequence for not having them, they will be weeded out.


 

daddyo

Senior member
Oct 9, 1999
676
0
0
It seems everyone here has it all backwards, with the exception of BigDee.

Evolution hasn't halted, in fact, I believe we're pushing it faster. Bad eyesight isn't a "weeding-out" quality anymore because we have solved the problem ourselves, we decided on our own evolutionary course.

In every case of man-originated technology helping a deficiency, we're changing our course of evolution, and in a timeframe that is faster than Earth's history has ever seen.

We're evolving faster people, not slower.
 

Retro2001

Senior member
Jun 20, 2000
767
0
0


<< Bad eyesight isn't a "weeding-out" quality anymore because we have solved the problem ourselves, we decided on our own evolutionary course. >>



I think the problem with that statement is that we are replacing a physical trait with a technological one. I think there are two differant points. First, on a whole, we are 'evolving' per se because of our technological advances (in that case, corrective eyeware). Second, this does not equate nessisarly to biological evolution because we have removed the 'fault' of poor eyesite, there by preventing 'nature' from continuing to refine and correct poor eyesite through natural selection. I think the thing at hand here is that there are two arguments being meshed into this thread: tech evolution and biological evolution.
Just what my tired mind can make out.

Peace,
Will
 

GuySmiley

Member
Sep 20, 2001
121
0
0
hear me, where natural selection has stopped, man has taken up the slack. we now have the French and European courts slapping lawsuits on doctors and hospitals who fail to screen for genetic problems during pregnancies, with the emphasis placing on aborting those with abnormalites. Handicapped groups are outraged, but they are quietly being hushed off the human rights stage, along with the sick and elderly...medicine is only good these days to those who are useful in society, as Elledan would agree.
No one can pretend this isn't eugenics. here's looking at a brave new world...


 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
People think evolution and natural selection are gone because technology is like a crutch to us. This is untrue. Natural selection and evolution themselves have evolved.

Natural selection is no longer when we die because we arn't the biggest beast in the woods. Wouldn't you consider AIDS a form of natural selection? What about man made wars? Natural selection? If nazi's were crocodiles and jewish people were some sort of little birds in a swamp. Then even the holocaust would have been considered natural selection, correct? I'm not trying to be cold or cruel... just working on a point of view. Natural selection is survival of the fittest and even though we protect our weak, we still have a survival of the fittest in this world; it just isn't as RAW as it was many years ago. If a comet slammed into the earth tomorrow and killed off all of the humans, wouldn't it be natural selection just like it was for the dinosaurs (if you buy into that theory).

Evolution also still exists. People could probably say since we have technology as a crutch we don't evolve as we should. Since we can use a flashlight, we don't need to the ability to see in the dark. But that doesn't mean we don't evolve. We evolve to the technologies we use. And besides, if technology someday allows for forced/selective evolution through gene manipulation... won't it all be worth it?
 

killface

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2001
1,416
0
0
It's easy to think we are in a in a state of arrested development. It seems like the dumber you are, the more offspring you produce. With medicine today being able to save even the weakest members of society are able to survive, which seems like a bad idea on the surface because we're just not following the laws of nature.

Biological evolution is slow, and only speeds up when it has to. If there is some global disease, or other catastrophe, we most certainly would notice human evolution when only resistant humans are left to survive and reproduce.

However, it all depends on how you define "evolution." With books and other ways of storing information, we are able to evolve outside of our bodies. Each generation has the potential to be more intelligent than the previous because less work needs to be done to gather information.

 

skace

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
14,488
7
81
Also, another thing that hasn't been brought up yet. Natural selection isn't perfect by any means. Let's say natural selection killed out all the people with poor eyesight because they couldn't keep up with our visual life styles. That same group of people with poor eyesight, could have been the people with the ultimately best hearing. Natural selection only focuses on the traits needed at any one given moment, it is an average, it cuts out the best and the worst traits. This means that just because we protect our weak, doesn't mean they are weak in every manner, only in 1.

As we protect our weak we preserve our strength and variety. Variety is also the biggest key to survival. Without variety, a common weakness kills all. I guess if all things were left alone, natural selection would thin out the best and worst traits until everyone was the same and then they would be killed off. Be glad we protect our weak
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
It's still survival of the fittest to a degree, but a lesser degree than before. There are many many spontaneous abortions of humans that could not survive full term in the womb, I think evolution & it's principles are in effect, but medical science has lowered the bar & allowed the survival of previously "unfit" humans.

Mutations will continue to occur & if they help the creature adapt, the offspring will survive & flourish, if it's a mutation that's beneficial.

Genetic manipulation is the wild card, it'll make the electronics revolution look like child's play, and the 2 combined will be awesome... One only has to look @ what we've done in the field of agriculture to see how much crops have improved, plants are hardier, more disease resistant, etc.
 

killface

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2001
1,416
0
0


<< Also, another thing that hasn't been brought up yet. Natural selection isn't perfect by any means. Let's say natural selection killed out all the people with poor eyesight because they couldn't keep up with our visual life styles. That same group of people with poor eyesight, could have been the people with the ultimately best hearing.
Natural selection only focuses on the traits needed at any one given moment, it is an average, it cuts out the best and the worst traits. This means that just because we protect our weak, doesn't mean they are weak in every manner, only in 1

<<
I see what you're getting at here, but this is only an example of the way animals compensate for a loss. It's not really a genetic advantage.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
It truely depends on your working definition of evolution.

If we're talking purely natural physical evolution, and not even considering genetic engineering and cyber enhancements, then we're going our usual course, and we'll likely be a dead species before we move on. We've reached that critical mass where our environments dont control us, we control our environment. We're still animals, but we're the masters of this world, something our large brains have given us the opportunity to achieve. We are at the utter top of the food chain.

From here on in, we control evolution. Natural physical evolution is still occuring, but at a ridiculously slow rate compared what we're able to achieve and control using engineering. Besides, we are not competing with other species anymore. We've won the battle against them. We have guns, pesticides, you name it, we can kill it and totally eradicate it. Since we're the masters of this world, selection is going to occur within us. It not species vs species, its race vs race, society vs society.

Even though one can argue that ethnicity and race is culturally based, you cant tell me that africans look the same as asians or as europeans. Equality is great and all, but realize that theres some physical differences there. Those differences run deep enough that you can tell a southern american from a northern american just by looking at them.

Its not going to be selection for who's the strongest, or who has the best eyesight. Its ALL about intelligence. Our intelligence allows us to make up for any other deficiencies. And since we're a social animal, and we share our knowledge, what one man creates, we all share in. Someone figures out a cure for cancer, and everyone gets to take it.

Ex. Stephen Hawkings (sp?). Far from being able to survive in the wild, but his intelligence is incredibly respected, and he's contributed to our knowledge in ways most of us could ever dream of, and he's bound to a wheelchair, and can barely even talk. I'd say he's quite fit for survival, even given his obvious physical disadvantages.

Intelligence is what gets us ahead, as a species, and among our own species. 3rd world countries arent starving because they arent physically strong enough to farm, they just dont have their sh*t together and created this vast web of technological and scientific achievements shared among us.

The next species to evolve is going to be our own creation. AI. Dont believe it if you dont want to, but within a few decades, computers personalities will have the capability to be indistinguishable from a real person. Eventually, we will get to the point where we have robots and AI, controlling the production of other robots. Once we have that down, humans wont have to work anymore, because the robots will do all the work for us, and that includes maintainence and creation of their own.

At first sight, it'd appear that they'd be our slaves, but its the opposite. We're going to rely on them, and eventually, even though its hollywood material, they will realize it. Our reliance on them will make us THEIR slaves. We already rely on technology to such a degree that we have already become a slave to it. I hope by that point the people in charge will have been smart enough to put in some sort of fail-safe mechanism to shut those bastards down when the time comes, but you never know.

So, we havent halted evolution, far from it, we control it, and its up to us to make sure it wont be the end of us. If it is, it might not necessarily be a bad thing.
 

Pocatello

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,754
2
76
The earth is changing all the time, some species evolve to adapt to changes, yet some are so perfect that evolution is not necessary. Take our friend the cockroach, for example. I'm sure human will continue to evolve, perhaps not greatly, perhaps even revolutionary changes will happen like the changes in our brain a few millenia ago. It has happened before. We should wait a few million more years before we should decide whether human evolution has stopped.
 

damocles

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,105
5
81
Even though one can argue that ethnicity and race is culturally based, you cant tell me that africans look the same as asians or as europeans. Equality is great and all, but realize that theres some physical differences there. Those differences run deep enough that you can tell a southern american from a northern american just by looking at them.

You can't just biologically define race by skin colour or how someone looks- there has to be an actual significantic genetic variation. More genes contribute to height than skin colour, so you would be more' technically correct' to try and define tall people as a seperate race, biologically

Genetic admixture is very high among humans, what we see as expressed physical trait does not in anyway reflecy our potential for development. In terms of looks- South Africa used to use that to define who was black, white or coloured, to the extent where people from the same familiy could potentially be split in to 3 'races'

How would you 'racially' define these different groups? Many people would have trouble differentiating a North American from a South American for example- How would you write down the differences on paper so that others could see at a glance?
 

AreaCode707

Lifer
Sep 21, 2001
18,445
128
106
Very interesting thread here guys. Assuming evolution as an absolute fact (which I don't, some of you know), and barring genetic engineering, what do think would be the next forward step in human evolution? Many of you argue that it wouldn't be physical but instead intellectual. How so, specifically, do you imagine? Also, do you think that we would recognize this mutated, advanced individual? What if such evolution has occurred intellectually (Einstein etc.) and we have benefited from it but it hasn't been passed on to benefit the gene pool?
Just tossing out questions randomly off the top of my head to keep the conversation going, I'm quite interested in the posts here.

[Edit] Also, as some have pointed out, evolution works by the weaker, or disadvantaged, dying off and not contributing further to the gene pool. Since that doesn't occur in human society today in the way it used to, does natural selection still exist or would evolution have to circumvent that and find another way to promote the fittest? It's been asked but I don't really see any answers to this here yet.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |