I think we are constantly evolving but, I doubt we will see any noticeable changes any time soon, as really I don't thing there is any need to evolve further. We have no natural predators or anything to adapt to.
I think the biggest mistake most people make when considering humans and evolution is to see humans and evolution as separate; to see humans as somehow outside of evolutionary processes. Yes we made houses and access food easily but how is that any different from a bird's nest, or a bird's ability to fly to various food sources across the world? It's slightly more complex, that's all.Dominic Burchnall said:This is just a thought which came to me the other day. I was looking out the window of the bus and realised how far humanity has come since the early days. Scientific and technological advancements have compensated for nearly all our shortcomings. Cars, heavy machinery, computers, medical achievements, have allowed us to become lords of the planet.
Then a thought struck me; have we taken ourselves outside of evolution? Wild animals have predation, harsh weather conditions, foraging or hunting for food, sickness, and a myriad other worries, but for humans, dangerous animals can be repelled or destroyed, houses (and in extreme cases, bunkers) protect us from the weather, or food is easier to access than ever, and we have a greater understanding of diseases and inherent frailties and how to compensate for them than ever before. So I wonder, do humans have ANY remaining evolutionary pressures, in the First World climate at least, and if so what traits would they select for?
That just means that evolution will be less drastic and less focused. Doesn't mean it will stop. You can never stop genetic mutations. There will be mutations, and they will be passed on regardless of whether we need them to survive as a species or not.Kopikatsu said:Humans can't evolve any further. Evolution happens to further the survival of a species by passing down genes that assist in survival. (There are some evolutionary changes that don't matter much like eye color, but most of it is for survival.)
Because of the medical field and the refusal to 'cull' those with mental/physical deficiencies from the gene pool, humans have hit a plateau where ALL genes are getting passed down instead of just the good ones. It's too bad people were so against Eugenics.
True, but it also means it will be detrimental to the species, so I can't call it evolution.gigastrike said:That just means that evolution will be less drastic and less focused. Doesn't mean it will stop. You can never stop genetic mutations. There will be mutations, and they will be passed on regardless of whether we need them to survive as a species or not.Kopikatsu said:Humans can't evolve any further. Evolution happens to further the survival of a species by passing down genes that assist in survival. (There are some evolutionary changes that don't matter much like eye color, but most of it is for survival.)
Because of the medical field and the refusal to 'cull' those with mental/physical deficiencies from the gene pool, humans have hit a plateau where ALL genes are getting passed down instead of just the good ones. It's too bad people were so against Eugenics.
SWEET! I'm a blue eyed, blonde mutant!! Cue X-Men theme. (Also, I wonder if there is some blonde/blue eye hatred/fear/envy in this thread. )ash-brewster said:defect is the wrong word really, its a genetic mutation, a accident if you will.TheDist said:Realisticaly it isn't, an argument could be made in terms of sexual selection that it could be an advantage or disadvantage, or a non factor. All on how you wanna define it, that is where the arguments come in evolution, the fact evolution happens isn't, it is all the little why's that are.David Huff said:How is having blue eyes a genetic defect
As I say, allelic frequency in a population over time.
The thing is the change doesn't need to be an advantage or disadvantage, there are many that do basicaly nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3323607/Blue-eyes-result-of-ancient-genetic-mutation.html
Except that's where you are wrong. Adaptation isn't the cause of evolution at all. We don't adapt to our surroundings. Our genome changes through mutations and those with the favourable mutations live on in their niche and the others die off. We don't adapt to our niches, instead those who are lucky to get the best genes for survival live while the others die off. That's what natural selection is.DracoSuave said:In this thread:
A lot of people who mistakenly think evolution is about becoming faster, stronger, smarter, taller, or any number of specific traits that have nothing to do with Darwinism... with zero posts talking about the ONE thing evolution is about:
Adaptation.
Are humans becoming better adapted to their environment? Constantly, though both mate selection, as well as through other factors.
Humans will continue to evolve so long as humans have differences and exist in an environment. To claim otherwise is to fail at knowing what evolution is, and thus, have zero stake in the discussion.
Well, there is one. If a race evolves to a point where it no longer dies, then there would be no natural selection and thus no evolution.No_Remainders said:Actually there's no scientific evidence that it does. Everyone's still arguing that.GrungyMunchy said:You do realise that the appendix actually has a function right?Sleekit said:and i suppose eventually someone will be born without an appendix.
There are theories that it MIGHT have something to do with the immune system, but a lot of people think it's entirely useless.
OT: Technically there's no extent to how much any race can evolve.
This. It's why males have nipples despite them having no function at all.teisjm said:Theres no big guiding hand choosing which genes would be most fit for passing on, and which are not usefull anymore, hence we won't loose our pinky toe, or our appendix, unless having those stops us from pro-creating.
But whether that's possible is debatable.kayisking said:Well, there is one. If a race evolves to a point where it no longer dies, then there would be no natural selection and thus no evolution.No_Remainders said:Actually there's no scientific evidence that it does. Everyone's still arguing that.GrungyMunchy said:You do realise that the appendix actually has a function right?Sleekit said:and i suppose eventually someone will be born without an appendix.
There are theories that it MIGHT have something to do with the immune system, but a lot of people think it's entirely useless.
OT: Technically there's no extent to how much any race can evolve.
To be fair, Moore's Law sort of ran out because of physical limitation. So even some aspects of technology have hit a wall (one could argue that pharma tech is on a pendulum trajectory at this point, doing good and bad at the same time) and has been on said wall for the last four or five years. Technology is the quick change in human society, evolution is what keeps us alive on the long run... or kills us. Our own technology has created super viruses, people that cannot live without society, and so on. As the saying goes, mother nature always bats last.BeerTent said:Both, human technology and evolution (Ninja'd on both! Aagh!) is skyrocketing in speed. Faster than ever before, and it will continue to go faster and faster.
There are claims that the Mongols and other such tribes of people were on average 2 meters tall, however the peoples that they tended to conqueror were usually smaller and weaker. So, breed them together and you get people that would be around what is today's average height. Then we have to take into account all the growth hormones in food... Oy.ash-brewster said:It is true that the tallness evolution could be down to lack of nutrition rather than evolution. The other examples do hold up better though.
Heh I'm perfectly happy with my green eyes tbh.winter2 said:SWEET! I'm a blue eyed, blonde mutant!! Cue X-Men theme. (Also, I wonder if there is some blonde/blue eye hatred/fear/envy in this thread. )ash-brewster said:defect is the wrong word really, its a genetic mutation, a accident if you will.TheDist said:Realisticaly it isn't, an argument could be made in terms of sexual selection that it could be an advantage or disadvantage, or a non factor. All on how you wanna define it, that is where the arguments come in evolution, the fact evolution happens isn't, it is all the little why's that are.David Huff said:How is having blue eyes a genetic defect
As I say, allelic frequency in a population over time.
The thing is the change doesn't need to be an advantage or disadvantage, there are many that do basicaly nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3323607/Blue-eyes-result-of-ancient-genetic-mutation.html
So, while saying that I'm wrong about species adaptation, you go on and describe the process of species adaptation.ZiggyE said:Except that's where you are wrong.
Um, no. That can't happen without some serious (and I mean SERIOUS) genetic tinkering. We would never naturally evolve to grow wings or any additional pair of limbs alongside our existing limbs on account of us being tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates descended from late Devonian lobe-finned fish such as Eusthenopteron) for a start, not to mention the sheer redundancy of such features. Human, and indeed any tetrapod, would be ill-suited to even be artificially engineered to be a hexapod (six-limbed animals, none of which are vertebrates) as their anatomies are poorly suited to accommodate an extra pair of limbs.TimeLord said:Apes probably thought that their form was the furthest that they would ever go. Now look at them.
We could evolve to grow wings, have 4 legs, develop psychic powers. We will always keep evolving.
ash-brewster said:Freak!winter2 said:Heh I'm perfectly happy with my green eyes tbh.ash-brewster said:SWEET! I'm a blue eyed, blonde mutant!! Cue X-Men theme. (Also, I wonder if there is some blonde/blue eye hatred/fear/envy in this thread. )TheDist said:* SNIPPETY SNIP *David Huff said:How is having blue eyes a genetic defect
defect is the wrong word really, its a genetic mutation, a accident if you will.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3323607/Blue-eyes-result-of-ancient-genetic-mutation.html
(Oh.. and I wasn't thinking about your post when I was half jokingly mentioning the blonde/blue eye thing)