How much further can humans evolve?

[Pat8u]

wow some people are like super villians here saying things like cull the bad genes don't let handicapped people procreate. really... I mean really we don't need natural selection anymore we have machines, the future will probabley see smarter evouloution in developed countrys and if there are the circumstances that it is now for the third world, the more physical evouloution will take place there.

(I know I'm probabley spouting bullshit here...)
also whats with the ever so present naysayers on this forum give me insight why you are so worried/depressed about the world

 

[Da Orky Man]

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?

It's unlikely that mankind will evolve naturally much more. There just isn't any reason to. however, that doesn't rule out the possibility of genetic modification.
My best guess is that we're going to artificially evolve into transhumans. Essentially, use technology to improve our bodies, much like what Deus Ex is based around, though the general idea has been around for yoinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

 

[Uszi]

Wrong.

Evolution is not the same as Natural Selection. They are closely linked but not the same. Natural selection is if your not suited to your environment you dont pass on your genes (or are less likely to). Evolution on the other hand is just caused by mutations affecting a speciesn for good or for worse
If you think about it Evolution wasnt really needed to begin with yet still happens. assuming life started off as single celled microbs, then how does joining together with others ultimately help? If you (the single cell) die then yh the others may continue but you still died so evolution didnt help that mauch but it still happened.
Anyway what i mean by that is that evolution just happens due to mutation which WILL happen almost every single time you reproduce so humanity WILL evolve, some changes may help others wont but it is still evolution which WILL happen.

I mean, evolve in the strictest sense of the word. Technically if 5% of a population is blue-eyed 1 year and 4.9% of the population is blue-eyed the next year, then the population evolved. But almost no one in the thread is talking purely about changes in allele frequency over time, everyone is talking about major changes.

So, wrong, I guess, if you're going to be picky about semantics. I still think I am correct if we're talking about major changes, especially the major changes people are talking about (i.e. large human populations lacking an appendix, human populations gaining better or worse physical features, etc).

You are not going to evolve "significant" changes without some directional force shaping how allele frequencies change from one generation to the next. As a species we've removed all of those directional forces through science and technology.

 

[spartandude]

I'm going to say this one more time then il leave before the lack of knowledge most people here possess drives me insane.
Evolution is NOT based in need.
Evolution is NOT linear and heading towards some ultimate point.
Evolution is NOT the same as natural selection (very closely related but not the same).
Evolution is NOT slowing down or stopping because we are at the top of the food chain.
Evolition IS going to continue very very slowly.

Evolution occurs due to tiny little mutations which happen everytime you reproduce. Over hundreds of thousands of generations these add up to so something substantial for better or for worse.
Also there is little chance the entire human population will evolve in the same way.

There im going now.

 

[Je Suis Ubermonkey]

(Massive Snipping abound)

From someone who studied Biology at college

I know for a fact [citation/multiple reputable sources needed] 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.

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.

*cough*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo *cough*
I count fourteen different kinds of human over two million years in that list. Wikipedia isn't exactly well known for accuracy, but I think we can trust it not to be out by 1300% when counting numbers.

Your stated qualifications from the start of your post should mean you know a lot about doing research and providing sources. Please try to do so when making statements involving such words as 'know' and 'fact'. They are words which belong in the field of mathematics, not science.

OT: We will continue to evolve so long as there is the need to adapt. There will be the need to adapt so long as there is environmental change. Even were there not any natural environmental change, which there always has been for the past billions of years, we would create our own change, like we are doing now.

Some people are saying we are 'top of the food chain'. We are not. Diseases use us as hosts all the time, with ease. We are caught in a perpetual 'arms race' of sorts with microbial life, a race with no foreseeable end. In many cases we are losing.

The only thing that stops evolution is extinction. The only thing that will stop human evolution is extinction.

Oh yes, and all the medical/ social changes that keep people alive, somehow 'stopping' natural selection, can make it possible for a mutation which is not necessarily beneficial to become widespread as it no longer harms chances of reproduction; all it needs is to be dominant and lucky. With mutations like this spreading one could reasonably expect evolution to accelerate.

 

[Joseph Alexander]

no it hasn't and frankly we are about to change what evolution means in the coming decades.
in the future we will be able to CHOOSE our evolution and augmentation.
we will cease to be homo sapiens.
the only possible point where evolution would "end"(more likely slowing to the point of centuries between generations) is when we reach a point similar to the protoss from SC, the dreanei for WC or the ancients of SG, where our life cycles span indeterminate and don't self terminate.
effectively we become immortal, then yes our evolution will slow to the point that it seems to stop.
and we cease to be bound by the "laws" of the universe as we see them today.
and after that? we will likely end up moving to the point the protoss are at, becoming beings based on pure energy.

I think you've lost some connection with reality to the ideas of science fiction.

I'd like to point out, how often does science fiction stay just that fiction?
time and time again what was deemed impossible notions in fiction has become solid reality.
flight, space travel, reaching the moon, and lately a panacea that fight any infectious disease.
the point i'm making here is; that if we can dream it we can make it.

 

[Valkyrie101]

We could evolve a predisposition against cancer and other deseases. A predisposition to be better at buisness.

They'd be useless from an evolutionary perspective. Cancer overwhelming tends to affect older people, at least people reaching the limit of, or past childbearing age. It would seem logical, but once they've dumped their seed they're no longer necessary. It's not about who survives so much as who survives long enough to mate a lot. As with business: poor or unsuccessful people have just as many kids.

 

[Venats]

I agrue not so. Admittedly, i did overlook the idea behind MRSA and various other super-bugs, and how thats a problem to us, but you can surely see that, at least in the short to mid term, the way we have utilised medicinal drugs is a symbol of our influence of nature? Drugs can cure a person who would die without them, now, tell me that that isnt going against the very fundementals of the idea of natural selection.

In a way, I agree we have undermined natural selection (on the immediate to very short term) but what I was asserting was that in surviving one aspect of what was once fatal, we have now created another thing that is fatal. Think of it this way: someone gets ill, and by natural selection they would have died, but human doctors intervene with strong medical cocktails and save the person. However, in saving him, a strand of the disease survives, mutates, and now spreads from him to others who would have NOT died from this disease before (in its original form, as they were immune/resilient) but cannot defend themselves against the new strain.

You've stopped natural selection in one state but in doing so created it somewhere else. This is my point and why I said that humans have control of the day-to-day world but not much else.

I will concede however drugs as we know them are becoming far more risky affairs, with some drawbacks that actually seem WORSE than some of the symptoms.

My personal favorite was something my mom was given for her fractured ankle. Side effect: Death. She laughed and threw it away.

As for our control of the environment, im talking species wise, not just in the familly. We will never lose control of a particular area just by focusing on a different one, the idea is a little strange. It would be like learning to cook better, but at the same time losing the control of your blader. Whatever advances we make in one particular aspect of our lives, be it sanitation or comfort of whatnot, they arent going to disapear when we start looking at others.

Family? I am speaking macro changes to our environment which are happening, which we have sped up, and which we can (probably) no longer control/stop.

Lastly, the number at which you say women must have 2 and whatever children to maintain, is too high as it is. Look at other organisms in our environment (discounting bacteria). A lot of them have EXTREMELY low populations in comparison to ours. We have over populated a planet that can house plenty. The mind boggles at how we do this... that is until you consider our grasp on the environment, changing things for us so that older people survive longer, and so that conditions for birthing are greatly improved as well. Also, why would some family in africa having seven children influence my choice as to having children of my own or not? They need to have more children because of the much more hostile conditions they face. We face no such problem (coupled with the fact that we aren't exactly about to become extinct any time soon), which gives us a lot more choice in the matter. Ordinarily, in nature, producing offspring would be the very meaning of life, in order to ensure the contiued survival of our species... but now, survival is almost garunteed, because any problems presented can be overcome without having to first adapt.

Think (if you know of it) the childrens story about bears in the woods ("if you go down to the woods today..." no?)

"we cant go round it, might as well go through it." except it's more "We CAN go round it, so im sure as hell not going through it."

The number I quoted is not for maintaining our current billions it is the number needed to maintain ANY number of humans at a steady position (no growth or decline) without massive and damaging generations gaps (see: China). As for what I said about other cultures/peoples having more children, that was my telling you as to why human populace continues to increase as many people have more than the 2.1 per woman. I wasn't specifically speaking of Africa or places where children don't live past 13.

 

[Kevin7557]

The limit lies within us.

 

[Randomosity]

We can always continue with Micro-evolution but as for Macro-evolution (such as us coming from apes) that is scientifically impossible, Macro-Evolution is pure sci-fi seeing as both the Law of Biogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics both go against Macro-evolution. Though Micro-evolution is a very well proven thing and is constantly happening.

 

[Uszi]

*cough*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo *cough*
I count fourteen different kinds of human over two million years in that list. Wikipedia isn't exactly well known for accuracy, but I think we can trust it not to be out by 1300% when counting numbers.

Your stated qualifications from the start of your post should mean you know a lot about doing research and providing sources. Please try to do so when making statements involving such words as 'know' and 'fact'. They are words which belong in the field of mathematics, not science.

Homo is genus, not a species.

I was talking about humans as a species, homo sapiens. I was not talking about other species within our genus.

The only thing I did wrong was say "millions of years" when I showed have said 200,000 years. Of course, I was also responding to people talking about how we're going to be born without appendixes in the future, so it wasn't a distinction that I was very careful with.

La-di-da, dude. You should go see a doctor about that cough.

 

[Venats]

I'd like to point out, how often does science fiction stay just that fiction?
time and time again what was deemed impossible notions in fiction has become solid reality.
flight, space travel, reaching the moon, and lately a panacea that fight any infectious disease.
the point i'm making here is; that if we can dream it we can make it.

Uh... most things in sci-fi have remained sci-fi. There are exceptions wherein science marches on but much of sci-fi is based on misconceptions of science or psuedo-science, whereas the things that have come to pass from sci-fi were themselves grounded in popular science at the time. Just look at what people thought was possible of the future (World of Tomorrow) in the 60s. Almost none of that has come to pass because it was either stupid or a gross misconception of reality.

I can for certain tell you that most space opera sci-fi from the 60s to today, is artistic not scientific. I am still of the impression that most transhumanists are also lost in their own fantasy worlds driven by a fear of death that they believe just about anything from the mouth of Ray Kurzweil. The idea of 'next gen' humans has merit (and is innevitable if we live long enough as a species) but not to the extremes that people seem to take it. Yes, augmentation is nice and would help people with disabilities, but mechanical parts while resilient to damage tend to have problems with magnetics and electromagnetism in general and have no reason to be used to replace fully functioning organic limbs.

... Of course, if it does come to pass and robot-humans become the new norm. Magnets will become the new guns, and carrying an electromagnet will be consider a capitol offense.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

well technology isnt actual evolution.
we can evolve to have perfect immune systems, or to have perfect metabolisms, or to not be twats or remove genetic defects or have superpowers.

 

[intheweeds]

I hate it when scientists and others alike say thing like "humans can't evolve." They don't look at the bigger picture, humans have evolved from neanderthals (is that how you spell it?) over millions of years and the CAN evolve, just not while natural selection has gone out the window with handicapped people and those with less desirable natural traits can roam around breeding. Personally I'd like the old meat and two veg to be refined a bit more, it always looks a bit of an after thought.

We didn't evolve from neanderthals, they were a completely different species that died out though certain characteristics of the neanderthals did outlive the species due to in breeding with homo sapiens (us)

The point I'm trying to make is that we're expecting humans to evolve over a period of ten thousand years, being generous, but that is a tiny number in comparison to how many years it's take us to get to here and still pathetic when looking at a species that has evolved fast, like certain types of fish, their name escapes me right now.

Oh I know that, as a species humanity has evolved massively faster than other species where changes take millions of years.

You think that's fast? Look at dogs. They evolve over a few generations.

OT: I can't remember where i heard this, but it has been said to me that science has a theory that we will eventually lose our pinky fingers. Sorry to all musicians.

 

[Raioken18]

Blue eyes a genetic mutation? Isn't that technically how all evolution happens? Sexual reproduction is an imperfect process and the changes that allow someone an edge in continuing their genetic line are those that eventually are considered a true part of the evolutionary process.

Blue eyes may have been considered a defect in the past, however blue eyes tend to be fairly desirable in our current society, green more so. Meaning that individuals with blue or green eyes would have an advantage in the selection of a partner.

Brown eyes being the dominant gene doesn't mean that it is more likely for the next generation of a blue-brown pairing to have the outcome of being brown, it just means that at the moment more people have brown eyes. If blue eyes continued to be prioritised sexually over thousands of years it may become the dominate gene itself.

However with billions of people across the world this process may take substansially longer.

Anyway this may be easier to explain in relation to height, individuals whos genes mutate in such a way that increases their height have a higher opportunity to breed than those who do not, this also applies to looks and other details, tall, dark and handsome, people who's genes mutate to give them those traits are valued much higher than those who have not.

The counter to this process is that the mutation must also occur within acceptable parameters, as any looks that deviate too far from the norm are usually considered undesirable. For example an extremely tall man will often be considered a freak, like I have a mate who is 7' and he is constantly ridiculed about his height.

Anyway that's how evolution happens. There are other factors that can influence it, but it would take too long to explain them all. Also, this is based around the classic model where weaker or inferior mates are often ignored, and desirable males mate with multiple partners for the purpose of sexual reproduction, (which is why it is technically flawed).

Also since money can also be a determining factor in sexual selection, it is likely to influence this process. So harder workers may be bred into society as opposed to lazy jobless types.

Again the exceptions are like bogans who have lots of children, this is also a stratergy to enable more of a chance for further cultivation of a genetic line... So bogans who have lots of children may be breeding fertility into the lower classes.

-ugh this would take forever to explain properly..

 

[Jacob Haggarty]

I agrue not so. Admittedly, i did overlook the idea behind MRSA and various other super-bugs, and how thats a problem to us, but you can surely see that, at least in the short to mid term, the way we have utilised medicinal drugs is a symbol of our influence of nature? Drugs can cure a person who would die without them, now, tell me that that isnt going against the very fundementals of the idea of natural selection.

In a way, I agree we have undermined natural selection (on the immediate to very short term) but what I was asserting was that in surviving one aspect of what was once fatal, we have now created another thing that is fatal. Think of it this way: someone gets ill, and by natural selection they would have died, but human doctors intervene with strong medical cocktails and save the person. However, in saving him, a strand of the disease survives, mutates, and now spreads from him to others who would have NOT died from this disease before (in its original form, as they were immune/resilient) but cannot defend themselves against the new strain.

You've stopped natural selection in one state but in doing so created it somewhere else. This is my point and why I said that humans have control of the day-to-day world but not much else.

I will concede however drugs as we know them are becoming far more risky affairs, with some drawbacks that actually seem WORSE than some of the symptoms.

My personal favorite was something my mom was given for her fractured ankle. Side effect: Death. She laughed and threw it away.

As for our control of the environment, im talking species wise, not just in the familly. We will never lose control of a particular area just by focusing on a different one, the idea is a little strange. It would be like learning to cook better, but at the same time losing the control of your blader. Whatever advances we make in one particular aspect of our lives, be it sanitation or comfort of whatnot, they arent going to disapear when we start looking at others.

Family? I am speaking macro changes to our environment which are happening, which we have sped up, and which we can (probably) no longer control/stop.

Lastly, the number at which you say women must have 2 and whatever children to maintain, is too high as it is. Look at other organisms in our environment (discounting bacteria). A lot of them have EXTREMELY low populations in comparison to ours. We have over populated a planet that can house plenty. The mind boggles at how we do this... that is until you consider our grasp on the environment, changing things for us so that older people survive longer, and so that conditions for birthing are greatly improved as well. Also, why would some family in africa having seven children influence my choice as to having children of my own or not? They need to have more children because of the much more hostile conditions they face. We face no such problem (coupled with the fact that we aren't exactly about to become extinct any time soon), which gives us a lot more choice in the matter. Ordinarily, in nature, producing offspring would be the very meaning of life, in order to ensure the contiued survival of our species... but now, survival is almost garunteed, because any problems presented can be overcome without having to first adapt.

Think (if you know of it) the childrens story about bears in the woods ("if you go down to the woods today..." no?)

"we cant go round it, might as well go through it." except it's more "We CAN go round it, so im sure as hell not going through it."

The number I quoted is not for maintaining our current billions it is the number needed to maintain ANY number of humans at a steady position (no growth or decline) without massive and damaging generations gaps (see: China). As for what I said about other cultures/peoples having more children, that was my telling you as to why human populace continues to increase as many people have more than the 2.1 per woman. I wasn't specifically speaking of Africa or places where children don't live past 13.

This is going nowhere fast. In no particular order:

-You DID however say third world, which africa fits nicely into.
-I agree, thats a very interesting point.
-Whether its billions or thousands, the point is that the earth is overcrowded because of what we have achieved in order to preserve older people longer, and usher in new ones faster.
-Im not sure we're on the right page (about the whole chchchchanges thing). You say macro changes that are happening which we cant control, i'm talking about the way we control different areas of our lives as humans. Not how we control the planet. That responsibility rest soley with fish-people.

Shall we just put a stop to it here? This debate will go on until the trumpets sound, and god descends on a flaming chariot to say that we're both wrong. And that we should probably start praying or someething.

 

[health-bar]

No.

the earth only allowed us to live so we could invent plastic.
after that we are useless to it and shall be the first to go in the next great cataclysm.

but the plastic will remain so the planet can finally build the master race...

 

[Artic Xiongmao]

None, because macroevolution is false.

We can always continue with Micro-evolution but as for Macro-evolution (such as us coming from apes) that is scientifically impossible, Macro-Evolution is pure sci-fi seeing as both the Law of Biogenesis and the second law of thermodynamics both go against Macro-evolution. Though Micro-evolution is a very well proven thing and is constantly happening.

You guys are kidding... right?

Wow. Education is really fucked up wherever you people are from. Statistically you lot are bound to be either from an islamic state or from the USA. Eitherway... holy fuck. Can't you just read the Wikipedia page to know why you are so utterly wrong and there is nothing but a "time-scale" difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

Just... wow. I don't know where to begin. If someone wants to get a stab at it, okay. Or just recommend this people to read a fucking book.

 

[Venats]

This is going nowhere fast. In no particular order:

-You DID however say third world, which africa fits nicely into.
-I agree, thats a very interesting point.
-Whether its billions or thousands, the point is that the earth is overcrowded because of what we have achieved in order to preserve older people longer, and usher in new ones faster.
-Im not sure we're on the right page (about the whole chchchchanges thing). You say macro changes that are happening which we cant control, i'm talking about the way we control different areas of our lives as humans. Not how we control the planet. That responsibility rest soley with fish-people.

Shall we just put a stop to it here? This debate will go on until the trumpets sound, and god descends on a flaming chariot to say that we're both wrong. And that we should probably start praying or someething.

You know, you don't need to quote the whole thing.

I apologize if I made it seem like I was talking purely third world, I was saying it more as an inclusive of the third world but also cultures even in first world countries that have many more than 2.1 children per female. As for overcrowdedness, decreasing on the global scale by dropping our birth rate below 2.1 would certainly drop our populace but it creates generation gaps, which are largely negative to society and culture. There's no "best" way to fix overcrowdedness, either we leave the planet or a lot of people need to die/suffer/not be born.

I'm fine with stopping.

 

[Thetwistedendgame]

Give me some goddanged angel wings on the spot here nature! We already broke the rules that you made up beyond repair AND I WANT SOME AMUSEMENT!