Humans can't evolve.

[Bluntknife]

Humanity is evolving. The average height two hundred years ago was a lot smaller then the standard height today.

Survival of the Fittest is gone (for now...) but that doesn't mean we are not changing as a species.

That isn't evolution, thats just better dieting and medicine.
200 years is nothing in the grand scheme of evoltuion

Edit. I dont believe humans will evole physicly anymore, But not for the reason OP said. I believe its because we no longer have to adapt to our enviroment. We change our enviroment to suit us.

 

[sequio]

Define what direction you think humans should evolve in and then decide whether or not natural selection through physical prowess is the best way to achieve that goal.

EDIT: if you control breed the population on a massive scale, that is not natural selection/evolution. All that is is some dickheads avoiding natural selection.

 

[spuddyt]

Humanity is evolving. The average height two hundred years ago was a lot smaller then the standard height today.

Survival of the Fittest is gone (for now...) but that doesn't mean we are not changing as a species.

actually thats probably environmental factors - diet and so on

 

[Alex_P]

This thread is basically the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy.

Where stupid breeds, intelligences does not and on the whole the intelligence of the world inevitably drops.

Leading to the possibly conclusion that we have already hit a possible intelligence peak already.

And, like Idiocracy, it's based on half-remembered bits of ninth-grade biology and a poor understanding of "smart".

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

What about the average height four or five THOUSAND years ago? What about all the stories about giants, and the giant-sized stuff that archiologists (sp) keep digging up? What about documentation in ancient texts about giants?

Like this?

-- Alex

 

[Grenbyron]

Evolution is the forced mutation within a species in response to an environmental trigger. This is why Africans are black, Asians have almond shaped eyes, and Swiss women are hot. Humans breed for entertainment. We are one of a few on the planet that do. The issue is that it is the poor that end up adding to the population. The rich can afford many different birth control methods even abortion. Poor can only afford Condoms, if they can afford a condom. It also does not help that the second most used form of entertainment among the poor is drug abuse. Be it hard drugs or alcohol. Nither of these promote the memory of using a condom. Rape is also high among the poor, again not promoting birth control and adding to the population. You want to improve the general intelligence and value of the people in the world, start at the bottom and work your way up. Simply isolating the best without solving the social dynamic will only breed in more weakness.

 

[Uncompetative]

Stephen Hawking.

Ok. I'll explain, because you're all thick...

Hyperevolution has supplanted evolution with the onset of language, oral tradition and the development of writing.

Memes not Genes.

Case in point: if the OP's hypothetical Huxley-esque world held sway an amniocentesis of Mrs Hawking may have lead to an abortion, or a social segregation of Stephen due to his ALS. Yet, it is because we live in a just society that doesn't immediately give up on the disabled that we can be surprised to find that some are merely physically disabled and can generate memes (replicatable ideas) that lead to progress.

How many great thinkers have been deaf, blind, schizophrenic, manic-depressive.

I invite the rest of this forum to suggest some names...

 

[Limos]

People! Pay attention for just a moment.

People still CAN evolve, the question is ARE they evolving. And the answer is yes.

Your problem is that you think of the "unfit" as the stupid or the weak. That is not the case. To be Fit you just have to have a lot of offspring. Many stupid people are doing that quite successfully, so are many weak people. Just because they are traits you think are not beneficial does not they are not being selected.

Some adaptations have come to light among humans only recently. Such as the immunity to AIDs. People with the immunity survive, their neighbours that don't die. Soon only the population with the immunity will be around, and that is evolution.

That is all, go about your buisness.

 

[axia777]

Human will genetically manipulate our selves in to evolving. Nature may have stopped us evolving more, but Science will pick up the job. If I could have I would have gotten my daughter genetically enhanced. This is the way of the future. Many will not able to afford it, but oh well. That will be the new system of selection.

 

[Alex_P]

Aye, well Idiocracy has its flaws but it did make me laugh because the observation is sort of valid. The more intelligent families have less children, the lower classes in the UK at very least tend to pop them out as fast as possible.

See what you did there?

-- Alex

 

[Faroese-alcoholic]

Thinking like a real nazi

 

[TwistedEllipses]

Evolution isn't necessarily progressive and directional, but changes are always happening.

-We are getting taller
-we're living very slightly longer
-our mouths are getting smaller and our canines are becoming more redundant
-the very weak and ill are still dying before reproducing, although this is to a lesser extent than in wider nature

 

[countrysteaksauce]

The only way Humanity will evolve to be stronger, faster, smarter etc

Its not the strongest of the species that survive but the ones most responsive to change
--Darwin

I'd say humans are pretty good at adapting to their environment or, if not, changing it to suit their needs.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

This thread is basically the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy.

Where stupid breeds, intelligences does not and on the whole the intelligence of the world inevitably drops.

Leading to the possibly conclusion that we have already hit a possible intelligence peak already.

And, like Idiocracy, it's based on half-remembered bits of ninth-grade biology and a poor understanding of "smart".

-- Alex

Aye, well Idiocracy has its flaws but it did make me laugh because the observation is sort of valid. The more intelligent families have less children, the lower classes in the UK at very least tend to pop them out as fast as possible.

And so those lower classes are obviously more successful than the "intelligent families" as they are more prevalent in the gene pool. Evolution never stops, it is folly to think so. Humans are changing for the better as they always will until extinction.

 

[videonerd250]

This:

Evolution isn't necessarily progressive and directional, but changes are always happening.

-We are getting taller
-we're living very slightly longer
-our mouths are getting smaller and our canines are becoming more redundant
-the very weak and ill are still dying before reproducing, although this is to a lesser extent than in wider nature

And this:

Some people seem to think that if a stupid person and a stupid person reproduce it makes a stupid person. This isn't always the case. Several of the most intelligent people I know come from families of 'backwater, unemployed welfare monkeys'(one of them is a little sarcastic). Genetics will always throw you a curveball. Therefore, the 'forced breeding' of intelligent people may hardly produce the results you want.

Would be my main points.
While genes are shown to have some influence over how smart someone will be, it doesn't guarantee that person's intelligence. The child's upbringing also has a huge influence. And even if it were genes alone that determined intelligence, how can you prove that the people in question are actually unintelligent on a genetic level, and not just ignorant/have made bad decisions?

 

[Valiance]

We wouldn't evolve anyway, we change our enviroment to suit us.

There ya go.

That pretty much sums it up. Our evolution involves on how we create and use tools and technology, not on physical growth.

 

[Matsamu]

By the same logic that you share, sadly, Humans and a lot of other species would have died off by now, if only because there are diseases that are only cured by sciences we've developed, and if those diseases were allowed to flourish without any pause or blocking, we would all die. The only ones left would be too wasted by the viri or rendered impotent because of them.

And i'm a little baffled by the fact that you are saying that people with cancer or AIDS are somehow inferior beings because they were genetically "stupid" enough to catch those diseases. If you had a terminal illness, would you let yourself die for the "good of evolution?" or would you do everything in your power to save yourself or your loved ones?

 

[OutlawV]

Shoulda said that in your first post. Now who's flaming? Cause how am i supposed to know what you're talking about when you DONT say it. And then you fly off the handle with "Durr you're stupid and flaming because I didn't make clear what i meant to say in MY post"

Try reading what he does say.

Oh yes, and maybe it's because this thread is about DISEASES, MUTATIONS, and OTHER GENETIC DISORDERS that have to do with GENES and not CAR ACCIDENTS and other non-related-to-this-thread.

I thought it was about evolution and natural selection, that said, a creature too stupid to run from a predator, or look both ways before crossing, would be part of the process. Thus promoting more intelligent genes. Oh, and you don't have to CAPITALIZE the BIG WORDS, we're out of preschool now and also have italics. Stop flaming.

Stephen Hawking.

Ok. I'll explain, because you're all thick...

Hyperevolution has supplanted evolution with the onset of language, oral tradition and the development of writing.

Memes not Genes.

Case in point: if the OP's hypothetical Huxley-esque world held sway an amniocentesis of Mrs Hawking may have lead to an abortion, or a social segregation of Stephen due to his ALS. Yet, it is because we live in a just society that doesn't immediately give up on the disabled that we can be surprised to find that some are merely physically disabled and can generate memes (replicatable ideas) that lead to progress.

How many great thinkers have been deaf, blind, schizophrenic, manic-depressive.

I invite the rest of this forum to suggest some names...

They aren't doing anything for evolution until they make babies, until then they're just intelligent irregularities.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

This thread is basically the first 5 minutes of Idiocracy.

Where stupid breeds, intelligences does not and on the whole the intelligence of the world inevitably drops.

Leading to the possibly conclusion that we have already hit a possible intelligence peak already.

And, like Idiocracy, it's based on half-remembered bits of ninth-grade biology and a poor understanding of "smart".

-- Alex

Aye, well Idiocracy has its flaws but it did make me laugh because the observation is sort of valid. The more intelligent families have less children, the lower classes in the UK at very least tend to pop them out as fast as possible.

And so those lower classes are obviously more successful than the "intelligent families" as they are more prevalent in the gene pool. Evolution never stops, it is folly to think so. Humans are changing for the better as they always will until extinction.

Skewed definition of success, as without the Intelligence from others they wouldn't be able to avoid Natural Selection.

I would not think that less intelligence would be deemed beneficial.

No, not skewed. Passing your DNA on = success. If you don't think so then it is you who have the skewed view of success.

Less intelligence can be extremely beneficial, ask any cockroach. Having said that I do not believe that lower classes have less intelligence.

 

[johnman]

Who says that we will have limited resources in the future?

Well we are running out of oil pretty fast.....