How much further can humans evolve?

[Venats]

So, while saying that I'm wrong about species adaptation, you go on and describe the process of species adaptation.

Just sayin'.

I feel like this is arguing semantics to some degree. Evolution in and of itself is not adaptation; adaptive species/lifeforms that survive simply tend to have the biggest sway in how evolution moves. Again, though, I feel like this is semantics except for one key detail: evolution can go backwards, adaptation doesn't tend to do such.

 

[Robert Ewing]

Humans are always evolving. QI says that the fastest evolving part of us is the nose, and then the chest.

The nose is currently evolving the ability to detect, and warn us about dangerous chemicals that it couldn't always pick up. It's also making sugary things smell nicer.

The chest on the other hand is evolving in two ways. In some people it's evolving to become much more sturdy, and broader. In others, the muscles are becoming thicker, but the bones are becoming weaker, and more hollow.

So yeah, Evolution is too slow to notice in hundreds of life times. You can live a thousand years and only notice minute differences in Humanity.

The most notable differences are our height. And our penis sizes. They have changed the most radically over the past thousand years.

 

[Venats]

I dont think those in the western world can do much evolving for the simple fact, we dont need to anymore. In evolution, the environment changes the organism, but in our case, we simply change the environment. Nature is second to US, instead of the other way around. If there comes a particularly nasty disease, instead of breeding, and eventually finding individuals who are resistant, we just engineer a cure, and the epidimeic is over in weeks.

This is why i dont think we're evolving. I would say that if we chose to live outside of our protected world, we would once again carry on evolving, but liklihood is that most of us wouldnt last a week without what we have now. Myself included.

Nature always, always bats last. Always. Never get ahead of yourself to think that we can dictate what lives or dies on anything longer than a day-to-day basis. All other times scales are owned by nature.

 

[Karma168]

The natural selection process has been kinda trashed because we aren't solely focussed on desirable traits (strength, speed, etc.) and make more intellectual choices of mate. Along with the fact that people that should die don't due to medicine and that pressure has been removed.

Of course that doesn't stop genetic mutation, humanity won't alter drastically (short of moving to a new world and being isolated there) any mutations that do occur will spread throughout the gene pool long before speciation occurred. As a few people have said our immune systems may evolve to combat diseases or cancers though at the pace of scientific advancement we could probably do it ourselves faster.

Evolution will still carry on but maybe for us it will happen more through genetic alteration rather than nature.

 

[spikeyjoey]

was going to make some points, but this guy says it better

[youtube]93JkzfCW2yA[/youtube]

filter through some of the babble, and he makes some excellent points..


HOWEVER.. evolution requires the "survival of the fittest", with our current society, thats not happening- if anything the stupid ugly people are breeding more.. therefore were perhaps more likely to devolve

 

[TimeLord]

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.

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.

When our descendants become so different to us that they become truly new species, we'll most likely end up with a number of different species diverging from their basal form, modern Homo Sapiens. For example, in more technologically dependent populations, we will see more of a shift towards greater intellectual capacities and with it, the gradual atrophy of our bodies, for example smaller muscles, bones and organs in order to make up for the greater amounts of energy consumed by the increasing brain size.

Evolution is a slow process, so any divergence probably won't be apparent until hundreds of thousands of years down the line. By that time, if our species isn't wiped out before then, our descendants will probably have at least a few other planets to call home, which will cause further divisions as they adapt to their new environments.

But who know what the future holds for the human race? At one point we needed tails, now we don't. If there is a nuclear war and the world is transformed into a rocky wasteland that is easier for us to climb around on all fours. We would teach our children how to do that. And they would teach theirs. And with each new generation we would have adapted more and more to moving on all fours (for sake of example). This new way of moving could eventually alter our spines, and shoulder blades to compensate for the strains of four limbed movement. That is evolution.

 

[crepesack]

apparently we are getting taller. Thats evolution right?

It's more because of better living conditions and nutrition in developing countries than anything else.

 

[Venats]

But who know what the future holds for the human race? At one point we needed tails, now we don't. If there is a nuclear war and the world is transformed into a rocky wasteland that is easier for us to climb around on all fours. We would teach our children how to do that. And they would teach theirs. And with each new generation we would have adapted more and more to moving on all fours (for sake of example). This new way of moving could eventually alter our spines, and shoulder blades to compensate for the strains of four limbed movement. That is evolution.

Bipedal motion is far more advantageous over just about every sort of terrain, just saying. Quadrupeds are designed for speed and have restricted biomes in which they can survive/thrive, bipeds are designed for stamina, endurance, and long period of movements and thusly can move as the weather/climes dictate it necessary.

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

I dont think those in the western world can do much evolving for the simple fact, we dont need to anymore. In evolution, the environment changes the organism, but in our case, we simply change the environment. Nature is second to US, instead of the other way around. If there comes a particularly nasty disease, instead of breeding, and eventually finding individuals who are resistant, we just engineer a cure, and the epidimeic is over in weeks.

This is why i dont think we're evolving. I would say that if we chose to live outside of our protected world, we would once again carry on evolving, but liklihood is that most of us wouldnt last a week without what we have now. Myself included.

Nature always, always bats last. Always. Never get ahead of yourself to think that we can dictate what lives or dies on anything longer than a day-to-day basis. All other times scales are owned by nature.

When did i ever say that we will dictate who lives and dies? I said that we are taking control of our environment, not that we have harnessed the power of god, or whatever it is youre thinking of. Yes, things die. Thats the raw essence of nature. But we wouldnt last HALF as long as we do without the help of medical attention and various pharmeceuticals.

And this is the point im trying to get across: its because of our control of the environment that has an impact on our evolution. We change the environment, not the other way around. We no longer NEED to hunt, our food is provided for us. We no longer NEED to have children, it has become a choice.

Do you see what im saying? Im sorry if you got the wrong idea, i didnt mean that we had complete control over nature, just a lot of control over our environment.

 

[Uszi]

From someone who studied Biology at college, evolution [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution] only takes effect when there is a allele [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele] frequencies change over time, and unless there's some sort of virus that wipes out most of humanity or a natural disaster, the most likely thing that will cause human allele's to change in frequency is differential reproduction.

Thing is, most of the things people have mentioned do not effect how many kids and grand kids you have. If the trait you're talking about isn't going to give you more grand kids then another trait, then it isn't going to "evolve."

For instance, we might continue to get taller, if and only if, taller people have more grand kids on average than shorter people. That sort of thing.

Problem is these relationships aren't always simple. For instance, people with Blue eyes might have more grand kids on average than someone with brown eyes, but brown eyes are a dominant trait and will make it very hard for a population of humans to become universally blue eyed. Or, take my height example: there are physiological limits on body size. There have been humans who are 7+ feet tall, but they start having serious health issues. And then, something like height specifically, is effected not only by genes but by environment, diet and what not.

Personally, I doubt very much that we'll evolve much more, especially since we're hopefully moving into an age of increased education and social awareness, which usually translates to smaller family size.

We could evolve a predisposition against cancer and other deseases. A predisposition to be better at business. A predisposition to be promiscuous. There are always more ways to evolve.

The only things that are going to cause us to evolve "biologically" are going to be things that effect our reproductive rates.

If people who were better at business, better at surviving cancer, or more promiscuous had more kids---or specifically, had more grand kids---then that might be a trait that evolves, sure.

But I think you'll find little correlation between number of grand children and business sense, or if you do,you'll find a negative correlation.

I know for a fact you won't find people who are more resistant to cancer having more grand children, since most cancers set on past when most people reproduce. Therefore, cancer has a negligible impact on human reproduction. Maybe an immunity to testicular cancer or breast cancer which might set in before people reproduce, but that's a bit of a stretch.

The predisposition to promiscuity is an interesting one, except in an age of contraception and social awareness, I don't think many promiscuous people are popping babies out. This would also have to be an inheritable trait, and your kids would have to survive long enough to reproduce and pass it on themselves.

and i suppose eventually someone will be born without an appendix.

You do realise that the appendix actually has a function right?

Function aside, the appendix does not effect how well you reproduce, it won't get passed on. True, someone might be born without one, and they might even have kids without one. But for the human species to evolve, that trait would have to become widespread in the population.

Again, unless there's some sort of disaster and half the surviving humans are of the no-appendix variety, I doubt we will evolve past the appendix.

The human race is devolving in the modern world, and evolving in developing countries. Take bad eyesight for instance. How many do you think has that problem in Africa? They have better disease immunity, some places even have a large part of the population with AIDS immunity.

Evolution happens because only those fit to live survive. In the western world, we keep everyone alive with technology. The natural system is overruled and unfit genes survive.
There is one "evolution" that the western world does have, and that is when the smart marry the smart, and get smart offspring. That is the only notable part of humanity that evolves on our part, the problem is that it's a select group, and might even end up making the differences huge in the future.

Devolving isn't a biological term. I suppose if you mean that negative traits are being removed from the population by differential survival and differential reproduction then... yeah. Course, I wouldn't really count this as a bad thing. I'd rather have to wear glasses (like I do) then get eaten by the lions and shit I couldn't see.

I'd be interested to see if people in the developing world are less likely to be near of farsighted. To my knowledge, the rate is exactly the same. Besides, since people in the developing world are dying of starvation, preventable illness and pollution, I'd be surprised that having better eye sight would allow them to have more kids.

The only additional disease resistance that I am aware of is Malaria [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria] resistance, which is a trait linked to Sickle Cell disease [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_disease]. I'd rather worry about malaria, personally.

So, do you think that, from the economic divide between First and Third world areas, two separate sub-species of humanity might evlove? (P.S. I'm studying genetics, so I know that any organism will develop a divide between species if separated by say a geographical event, but could the same thing come about today, in an age of easy long-distance travel, and would it happen before technological advances could be shared that would allow developing countries to catch up to us?)

No. We would need to be completely isolated for millions of years. Since that isn't the case now (there's a lot of legal and illegal immigrations between countries), and probably won't be the case in the future, it won't happen.

The developing world doesn't need to catch up technologically. Interbreeding between the developed and developing world already exists on a scale sufficient to prevent isolation. Think about this: for the millions of years that human populations were isolated from one another in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe and the Americas, we still didn't split into multiple species.

 

[CommanderKirov]

Humans will continue evolving untill we all become immortal and posses ability to alter time and space to our whim.

Essentially I'm hoping we will become Q kind.

 

[AT God]

I don't think evolution will allow us to become evolved humans, like with extra abilities, my guess is humans will evolve to a different form, like how humanoids were until they became current humans. I doubt a thousand years from now, assuming we survive, humans will be substantially better than they are now, some will probably advance more, like if you believe we evolved from monkeys, we will still be here but wont be the most advanced form of evolution. Must suck to be a monkey knowing that you could have been a complete asshole like us and own the world.

EDIT: At least not natural evolution, since humans have such high life spans survival of the fittest isn't a big problem yet. However I think with science we may force evolution through chemical altering or, and I hope this happens, augmentation. I want some bitching sunglasses and the ability to jump 50 feet up in the air to save the world from Bob Page.

 

[spartan231490]

Essentially, you are correct, we have eliminated natural selection, and so evolution is unlikely to happen.

 

[GeorgW]

I'd say you'll continue to evolve to a point beyond imagination and it is futile to hypothesise.
Yes, natural selection has become less prevalent, but it'll always be there.

 

[the spud]

See, people, this is why we should all genetically augment ourselves to be the best that we can be. Also, why have we not gotten rid of genetically transmitted diseases yet? It seems like they would be easy to get rid of them, seeing as you could just prevent the carriers from reproducing. Most carriers don't want kids, anyway.

 

[Niq Chambers]

I heard this somewhere, not sure where and at first I thought it was stupid. But I read that dolphins are evolved humans. Silly, I know. But a cool thought non-the-less.

 

[gentleben]

There's a lot of people making a lot of fundamentally incorrect claims about biology in this thread. Too many to address in a single post.

 

[Uszi]

Essentially, you are correct, we have eliminated natural selection, and so evolution is unlikely to happen.

Correct.

Other folks have stated the popular science fiction convention that we will evolve into useless blobs with big brains that rely completely on technology.

If you could make a case that a blob like that has both more sex appeal and better child rearing skills, then I'd concede that future is likely. Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that future is merely part of the social criticism made by science fiction authors.

There's a lot of people making a lot of fundamentally incorrect claims about biology in this thread. Too many to address in a single post.

I tried! [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.309560-How-much-further-can-humans-evolve?page=3#12498392]

 

[Dreaming Dan]

There's a lot of people making a lot of fundamentally incorrect claims about biology in this thread. Too many to address in a single post.

Ill agree with this, jump on the inter-web and read up on some Darwin for a start...

Of course we are still evolving, natural selection is still exerted by our interaction with varying diseases to name just one factor. Don't expect us to suddenly sprout an extra finger any time soon....

 

[Venats]

When did i ever say that we will dictate who lives and dies? I said that we are taking control of our environment, not that we have harnessed the power of god, or whatever it is youre thinking of. Yes, things die. Thats the raw essence of nature. But we wouldnt last HALF as long as we do without the help of medical attention and various pharmeceuticals.

I am not talking about the power of god; I am talking about only the biological system on Earth that contains trillions of units and possibilities (if I wanted to invoke the power of 'God', I'd point out that we (and all life with it) can be wiped clean off this Earth at any moment by the black hole at the center of our galaxy). We are taking control of our broader, day to day environment but we are also losing control of parts of the bacterial and viral level because of our over use (an attempt to control) of pharmaceuticals. We have created and are continuing to create more and more diverse bacterial strains each of which are becoming more and more resistant to our medicines. Its an arms race, if you want to call it that, between pharma and bacteria... and its quickly becoming a question of which will kill us first. (Because, as you'll notice, pharmaceuticals are become all the more double-edged as they become more potent to fight the ever more potent diseases we ourselves have created.)

We are also losing control of our macro environment... unless you think that we're not changing it faster than even we can adapt.

And this is the point im trying to get across: its because of our control of the environment that has an impact on our evolution. We change the environment, not the other way around. We no longer NEED to hunt, our food is provided for us. We no longer NEED to have children, it has become a choice.

Do you see what im saying? Im sorry if you got the wrong idea, i didnt mean that we had complete control over nature, just a lot of control over our environment.

I would argue that with each step we take to controlling one aspect of our lives/environment, we are losing control of another. People are obsessive with making their own lives better but tend to be blind to future and its repercussions.

We have created a great society, sure, and its has eliminated many of our past needs but its hardly done all that you say it has: We still need to have children (in fact, an average female needs to have 2.1 children in her life time to maintain the human population at a static number! The reason people can make choices about it one way or the other now is because many third world countries and older cultures still have many, many kids per female.), in changing our environment we will inevitably have to change to whatever it is we end up causing (so, in a way we force ourselves to change), and so on.

I wasn't really arguing about overall control, I just think you overestimate what we've done but maybe I'm underestimating it.