Poll: is the evolution of humans stagnating?

[Blue Musician]

I am a misanthrope, so you can already tell what I am going to answer: yes.

But it hasn't stopped, it just will take quite a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time to show that we are evolving as humans.

 

[Zacharine]

i was more thinking along the lines of us developing into a new species. i understand the evolution doesnt pop limbs on animals and that all changes are incrementally small. the explanation u give is change within the species but we are still essentially the same species. im just wondering if we indeed lived long enough, would we become something else?

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

Now, sometime in the future, there might become a separate subspecies of humans. But they will be identifiable as humans. And since so much of speciation occurs via geographical isolation, that would practically require humans to establish a colony (somewhere on this planet/space) that would be genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for several thousand, if not tens of thousands of generations with some serious evolutionary pressures applied to the population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[UBERfionn]

Or maybe God did it...

 

[chaos order]

i was more thinking along the lines of us developing into a new species. i understand the evolution doesnt pop limbs on animals and that all changes are incrementally small. the explanation u give is change within the species but we are still essentially the same species. im just wondering if we indeed lived long enough, would we become something else?

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

Now, sometime in the future, there might become a separate subspecies of humans. But they will be identifiable as humans. And since so much of speciation occurs via geographical isolation, that would practically require humans to establish a colony (somewhere on this planet/space) that would be genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for several thousand, if not tens of thousands of generations with some serious evolutionary pressures applied to the population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

well i wasnt suggesting that humans would change to the point at which we wouldnt fit in our classification of mammal. more or less change to the point at which we could be classified as a different genus. kind of like how homo erectus and homo sapiens r very similiar but r different species

 

[Naheal]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Second, the average human today is stronger, taller, fitter, and healthier than the average human of any period before us. Not that this is due to genetic evolution, but cultural and intellectual evolution as well

I'll take this a bit farther and say that intellectually we're evolving at an astounding rate. Really, if we want to-

We're gona develop mental powers via nano chips in the brain. You only stop evolution if you lack imagination.

Damn. She got my idea already.

 

[brodie21]

no, evolution just takes a long time

 

[Turbo_Destructor]

of course evolution is slowing down, perhaps even going backwards, as in we are becoming less suited to the environment. This is because medicine and care facilities and the like are keeping people alive and functioning who would normally die out not be selected for reproduction (e.g. mentally impaired people, people with chronic diseases). Instead these people are being taken special care of, and since they can be taken care of, they are more likely to be chosen as mates as "fitness" is not as important as it used to be.

I'm not saying I disagree with taking special care of impaired people. There are still plenty of "fit" people in case of some kind of catastrophe. I'm simply saying that evolution generally evolves the population's genotypes and/or phenotypes shifting in accordance with environmental change. Which means I suppose you could call what is happening to humanity evolution of a kind, but it's not really a positive form of evolution.

 

[Jfswift]

I would say it's going faster now. Consider how much progress technology has made in the last 100 years compared to history overall. Genetic tampering will probably lead to the next era of humanity in the near future.

 

[RN7]

There have been several...interesting points brought up.

Seeing as humans have evolved and sustained life by keeping their numbers up instead of letting the weak die off (a discussion for another day), we have already been sent in on an unusual evolutionary path. Instead of adapting to the environment, we survive by altering our surroundings to suit our needs. We rely solely on our capability to create what we need to convenience ourselves.

The next logical step would be to have humans integrate themselves with the technology they oh so need to survive today. These new creatures would be much more powerful than any human existing today. All those who do not ride upon this self-evolutionary path will be crushed, or enslaved. The homo-sapiens will lose all dominance and eventually die out, just as the neanderthal did so long ago.

 

[Ancientgamer]

Evolution is not a linear process. Survival of the fittest is certainly almost irrelevant to us now, but evolution is still happening. Evolution isn't something that's "on" or "off", it just "is". it comes with the package of being organic.

 

[crudus]

Yes in the way that medical technology doesn't let the "weak" die out. No in the way that technology is going to give us new traits.

Edit: I guess I should ask if you mean natural selection or Evolution. Natural selection is the first sentence. Evolution is the second.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

i was more thinking along the lines of us developing into a new species. i understand the evolution doesnt pop limbs on animals and that all changes are incrementally small. the explanation u give is change within the species but we are still essentially the same species. im just wondering if we indeed lived long enough, would we become something else?

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

Now, sometime in the future, there might become a separate subspecies of humans. But they will be identifiable as humans. And since so much of speciation occurs via geographical isolation, that would practically require humans to establish a colony (somewhere on this planet/space) that would be genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for several thousand, if not tens of thousands of generations with some serious evolutionary pressures applied to the population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

For what is it that defines mammals, apes and humans in the most objective sense? Why our genetic coding of course.

However, with the advances being made in fields of nanotechnology and genetic manipulation, is it really safe to assume that ALL of our descendants will be "human" in our sense of the word?

What if there comes a time where genetic coding is being changed even in the egg and sperm stage of our species lifecycle, by nanomachines splicing and transplanting different strands of proteins and acids that make up our very DNA in order to alter he growth and attributes of a human being long before conception even takes places?

Could you really consider the offpsring of such a process "human" as in human the way humans are today?

If technology reaches that far, I for one think we are going to need new names to classify our species with.

 

[Danzaivar]

...

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

Err, you're quoting the wrong guy mate. It's SakSak you'll want to quote, not me.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

/thread

EDIT: Forgot to actually post my opinion.

Humans (and every other species) are always evolving. People are taller than they once were, and people are living longer (although that might be atributed to outside influences).

 

[Danzaivar]

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

Err, you're quoting the wrong guy mate. It's SakSak you'll want to quote, not me.

My bad. Fixed.

 

[manaman]

Evolution doesn't work that way.

Aww... I saw the title of this and I just knew there would be a serious misunderstanding of evolution involved by the OP. I was looking forward to saying that.

You stole that from me.

 

[Zacharine]

i was more thinking along the lines of us developing into a new species. i understand the evolution doesnt pop limbs on animals and that all changes are incrementally small. the explanation u give is change within the species but we are still essentially the same species. im just wondering if we indeed lived long enough, would we become something else?

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

Now, sometime in the future, there might become a separate subspecies of humans. But they will be identifiable as humans. And since so much of speciation occurs via geographical isolation, that would practically require humans to establish a colony (somewhere on this planet/space) that would be genetically isolated from the rest of humanity for several thousand, if not tens of thousands of generations with some serious evolutionary pressures applied to the population.

I don't see that happening anytime soon.

well i wasnt suggesting that humans would change to the point at which we wouldnt fit in our classification of mammal. more or less change to the point at which we could be classified as a different genus. kind of like how homo erectus and homo sapiens r very similiar but r different species

mmh, perhaps, but only because that (or extinction) is the eventual future for any species. The species-classification simply moves one tier up once sufficient changes has occured. But again, I strongly object to the use of the words "something else" when describing such a situation, as such a descriptor is fundamentally flawed in that evolution never produces "something else".

 

[Zacharine]

...

And that shows a somewhat fundamental misunderstanding regarding the mechanics of evolution and classification of species.

No, we will never become 'something else'. Once a mammal, always a mammal. Once an ape, always an ape - including us. Our descendants will always and forever be humans. The point being, a species never produces offspring that themselves are not part of that same species.

So do we class dinosaurs as birds, or are birds classed as dinosaurs?

Birds are dinosaurs, as simple as that. Just like we are apes. Just like we are mammals. "Dinosaur", "Bird" etc are not species classifications, but rather higher-tier classifications. Just like "vertebrate" or "mammal". One is simply a subset of the other, with subsets of its own.

 

[Zacharine]

I wouldn't be too sure of that.

For what is it that defines mammals, apes and humans in the most objective sense? Why our genetic coding of course.

However, with the advances being made in fields of nanotechnology and genetic manipulation, is it really safe to assume that ALL of our descendants will be "human" in our sense of the word?

In that case, it can be argued if it is
a) evolution at all (changes in the allele frequence of a population over successive generations, heritable to the next generation)
b) or even our descendants, instead of our creations.

If technology reaches that far, I for one think we are going to need new names to classify our species with.

Only if such modified humans reach a stable population level and the changes made to them can be inherited without further genetic modification. That would make them a new species, but it is entirely dependant on the magnitude of the changes if they would still be humans or not. Or, if it could be stated that they evolved at all from a previous generation.