Have we halted evolution?

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
11
81
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?
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Evolution is only relevant as it effects a species up to adolescence. The nature of evolution is to ensure survival of a species, it tries to get you to a point where you can reproduce after that it's done with you and doesn't care. So no we haven't stopped evolution we've just polluted the gene pool. Not a big deal. It would be back to "normal" within a few generations.
 

Unsickle

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2000
1,016
0
0
Actually the gene pool has been getting more resilient with globalization and interracial mixing.

As far as natural selection... that has changed for the worse with regards to the gene pool.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
Unsickle - That's to broad of a statement to be defended, all we've done is made the gene pool in that sense more moderate. I doubt there is sufficient evidence to prove we've made it better.

I used the word polluted and that, perhaps, has a negative connotation I did not intend. To define my statement a litte: Medical science has improved to such a degree that we have begun to preserve lives that would not normally make it to an age sufficient for reproduction, One might see this as a kind of pollution. Natural selection would have ended those lives before they had the ability to add thier gene's to the pool.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Genetic Engineering is going to be incredible. It will evovle humans at a rate unseen before in any period. Imagine when they can just engineer better white blood cells that can kill every major disease... that is a feat that may take billions of years in nature. Genetic Engineer holds the key to human's evolution.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Technology improves just as causes of disease and ill-health increase. They seem to go hand-in-hand. At times one may be more effective than the other. The "trick" is to be alive during an upswing and not a downswing. Living in 13th century Europe when the bubonic plague moved in is an example of a downswing.

While I feel it's folly to think we'll have a significant impact on universal evolution we will surely affect human evolution if only slightly. This will bring about new dangerous but as I said new technologies will arise to combat them and we'll be far wiser in the end.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
I think we've definetly halted evolution in some areas. Take eye-sight for instance. If you were near-sighted before, you were eaten by the saber-tooth tiger before you got to reproduce. Now, with surgery and contact lenses, it's not even a disadvantage in terms of how you look. There have already been studies that show that people who need glasses are on the rise. (Although I'm sure it's too early to use that as some sort of proof).
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
You can never "halt" evolution. Nature won't allow that.

Soon it will be easy to correct just about any eye problem. And later on we ought to be able to identify the genes causing eye failure and adjust those to prevent problems in the future as well. Looking at the Big Picture we have a very minor effect on human evolution as a whole but scale down to the individual and it's quite dramatic.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,688
17,119
146
Natural selection has, for all intents and purposes, been stopped dead.

We help the weakest to live, we have the stupidist among us producing the most offspring, and the smartest among us producing the least. As thomsbrain points out, those of us with severe eyesight impairments are given the ability to live to reproduction age. The same with mentally and physically deformed individuals.



<< Technology improves just as causes of disease and ill-health increase. >>



Um, did you pull this out of your ass? Becausre there has been no increase in the causes of disease or ill-health. In fact, our life expectancy continues to rise (even in third world countries), not fall.

We live longer, and therefore have a greater chance of contracting different diseases, but the number of diseases has not increased signifigantly. Old ones go away, and new ones crop up. Germs and viri evolve much like we do, but at a much faster rate. Technology has done little but help us live longer, so we have more of a chance of contracting a disease. Cancer is a good example. The overwhelming majority of cancer cases occur in patients who, just 100 years ago, would be far past the average life expectancy. But today, they live long enough to get it.
 

djheater

Lifer
Mar 19, 2001
14,637
2
0
It's interesting to observe that people have a natural tendency to ascribe some sort of moral prupose to natural selection and evolution. A force of nature does not care whether it is making a "better" person. It simply kills you if tou are not biologically able to overcome it. Species do not evolve into "better" animals, they just manage to survive.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
A bit about the nearsightedness "problem". I've head in several places that the increase in the incidences of nearsightedness are due more to a large increase in the amount of close-up work being done in advanced societies. Long ago, people did not spend large amounts of time focusing on something less than 3 foot away, but with the advent of available books and, more recently, computers, we have found ourselves sitting for hours focusing on close-in objects. The current theory is that we become nearsighted because we do not use our distance vision as much. There is some basis for this too, persons who hunt and do a lot of distance work are, according to my opthamalogist, more likely to have 20/15 or 20/10 vision than persons who work in an office. Of course, this correlation cannot prove causality, but it is interesting to note. Also, industrialised countries seem to suffer from nearsightedness more than non-industrialised nations. Again, correlation does not prove causality and there are not doubt many other factors at work, but the relationship is a good one to note.

ZV
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
<<Another Bush. Another War. Another Recession.>>

You know, at first that sig almost made me angry. I then realized there was no point in getting mad about an inference so blatantly idiotic.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,688
17,119
146


<< It's interesting to observe that people have a natural tendency to ascribe some sort of moral prupose to natural selection and evolution. A force of nature does not care whether it is making a "better" person. It simply kills you if tou are not biologically able to overcome it. Species do not evolve into "better" animals, they just manage to survive. >>



Bingo. And a person with extreme myopia is not going to survive in the wild. A person with severe mental retardation is not going to survive either. Nor is the welfare queen who refuses to work, refuses to keep a mate and pops out more kids than she can support.

There is no morality to evolution, and no, it isn't a one way street, but some rules are obvious. Unless the person could have survived until shortly after puberty, and then raised their children to self sufficiancy, their genes would not have survived.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,688
17,119
146


<< <<Another Bush. Another War. Another Recession.>>

You know, at first that sig almost made me angry. I then realized there was no point in getting mad about an inference so blatantly idiotic.
>>



Funny, isn't it?

The war is obviously caused by a decade of inaction by the US concerning terrorism, and the recession began a nearly a year before Bush took office.

Yet those with limited memory can only see the present, and have no clue what led up to it. :::eyeroll:::
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81


<< there has been no increase in the causes of disease or ill-health >>

By simply having large numbers of people living in closer proximity than ever increases the odds of illness. Also, the greater potency and resiliency of modern diseases makes them more lethal than in centuries past.

<< Natural selection has, for all intents and purposes, been stopped dead. >>

Not really. The process still occurs and always will. Intelligent being like our race with benefit of technology can tweak it but the most fit will always have an edge in passing on genes. It's just that with technology more and more of us are considered "fit" relative to our environment.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,688
17,119
146


<<

<< there has been no increase in the causes of disease or ill-health >>

By simply having large numbers of people living in closer proximity than ever increases the odds of illness. Also, the greater potency and resiliency of modern diseases makes them more lethal than in centuries past.
>>



No more so than before the 1950s invention of antibotics. Centuries past my ass. The only thing germs are more resiliant against now is antibiotics. A very resent discovery.



<<

<< Natural selection has, for all intents and purposes, been stopped dead. >>

Not really. The process still occurs and always will. Intelligent being like our race with benefit of technology can tweak it but the most fit will always have an edge in passing on genes. It's just that with technology more and more of us are considered "fit" relative to our environment.
>>



Thus stopping natural selection. If you're going to counter my argument, at least try not to support it. :p Unless, of course, you consider technology "natural," (a valid argument) then you'd be correct.

Besides, the first part of your rebutal does not take into effect the social class separation in the number of children produced. The least productive members of society are, on average, having more children than the most productive members. Something that could not take place without social suport, and therefore ending natural selection and begining a controlled (be it haphazardly) selection

If anything, (un?)natural selection is taking us onto a course of negative (de?)evolution. A reverse in a million plus year trend for humans.
 

ucdnam

Golden Member
Jan 28, 2000
1,059
0
0
There's no way that evolution by natural selection is halted. I don't know what you're thinking. Even if our society currently buffers unfit people (low reproductive success, high mortality rate, small family size), it still works on our population because we cannot solve every natural problem that exists.

There are a lot of viruses, bacteria, and diseases that still kill off many people and along with limited space, food availability, and other resources, natural selection will continue to work.

Our society just has not reached a "natural" event that would invoke selection. We hope that does not happen neither. Just think what would happen if temperatures changed 10-20 degrees either way, oxygen levels increasing a tiny bit, a new bacteria or virus that transmits through air and is highly contagious and is lethal, etc..

In these cases, only those who could adapt to the changing environment would survive, if any.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
nature provides animals with means of survival... we eat to survive.. its something we figured out :D... same with other stuff... medicines/etc... survival of the fittest... where the fittest is the most able to keep itself alive :D
 

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
I'm just thinking and throwing things out, please don't flame. Just post your opinions. I don't mind being wrong as long as I better my thoughts.

It might be that we're advancing AND devolving, depending on the way you look at it. Rich people who have the looks and physical body do a whole lot of reproducing. With today's society though, birth control is rampant and so those genes are kept to a minimum. Inteligent people are usually moderate and have maybe one or two kids. Now, the supposed "trailer-trash" population is reproducing at a high rate. Kids that aren't exactly the best and brightest are usually getting pregnant early having families before the ones that continue with their education. Just some thoughts.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
ugh yeah.. we really need some reproduction laws in the us... (average IQ of the 2 parents / 100 * 2) = amount of kids able to produce... normal rounding rules .1-.4 down .5+ up
 

cuteybunny

Banned
May 23, 2001
628
0
0
i doubt smart parent will have smart offspring, it like a roll of dice.
when someone have a bright child it just mean he/she is more perfect then other people.
the dumbest parent in the world may have kids much brighter then the average folks and even make their parent very very proud. have you seen normal folk who had kid that have learning disability, it has soething to do with defect and not everyone is born perfect just because their parent are gifted.
well sometime nature screw up and what you get is not normal kids.


<< ugh yeah.. we really need some reproduction laws in the us... (average IQ of the 2 parents / 100 * 2) = amount of kids able to produce... normal rounding rules .1-.4 down .5+ up >>

 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
hmm.. actually.. i think some intelligence is a genetic trait... plus, the chances of a better learning environment could be better.. i mean.. if your parents can help you do your calculus.. then bueno!
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
I think you guys are missing the point. Physical evolution isnt the issue anymore. Its likely we'll all be long dead before we see the next step of physical evolution, although given the time, it will happen. Over millions of years, not the paltry couple hundred thousand humans have been around for.

Our brains have allowed us to take control of our own evolution. In a sense, we are stronger, because even though one will surely die with myopia in the wild, since we have the power to take that away, very few of us will be myopic. It wont automatically be selected against in the wild, and we make sure that its not an issue.

So as a species, we're stronger than we ever were, even a mere few thousand, or even hundred years ago.

Throw genetic engineering into the mix, and then youll see an even bigger difference. If you want to consider other races as separate species (for arguments sake), then there will definitely be the haves and the have nots, and they will definitely be selected against.

It kinda sounds like cheating or bending the subject a bit, but if you like at it from the right angle, you'll see what I'm saying.

And dont even get me started on A.I. . Going to be our biggest enemy in the future.