Will Humans evolve?

The way things are going we might end of with 2 species the rate we are going. One race will be intelligent, creative and good looking while the other will be ugly and stupid.
 
But we're evolving all the time, we've evolved our tools, because we can't do it faster organically and because of limited time, so technology is our add-on instant evolution.

Instant evolution add-ons:

- breathing under water (tanks)
- flying in the sky (planes, balloons, rockets)
- seeing very far (telescopes)
- seeing very near (nanoscopes)
- making more space (cyberspace)

and so on, all part of the natural evolution of mankind.
 
Changing environment? Check.
Non-uniform behavior? Check.
All systems go then!

IF evolving means changing then yes.
If evolving means progressing then no.
The poor and the stupid tends to have more children than the rich and smart. Sooner or later economies will collapse like a pack of cards with no-one knowing how to fix/operate it.
 
The way things are going we might end of with 2 species the rate we are going. One race will be intelligent, creative and good looking while the other will be ugly and stupid.

It might already have happened :D
 
IF evolving means changing then yes.
If evolving means progressing then no.
The poor and the stupid tends to have more children than the rich and smart. Sooner or later economies will collapse like a pack of cards with no-one knowing how to fix/operate it.

Yeah there's this misconception that evolution means "getting better". It doesn't. Evolution is adaption. The better part is in the eye of the beholder.

Regarding the people getting dumber, I think that's always been the perception. I don't believe its true. "The good 'ol days" where always in the past. Hell, Google around a bit, even the ancient Greeks thought mankind was going to hell in a hand basket waaay BC.

I think culture will determine a societies prosperity. And looking at the direction where the west seems to be going, I believe the future of smarts will lie more east. Where intelligence and studing is valued more than entertainment, mtv and E-entertainment.
 
there are over 6 Billion people on earth, so any mutation would very diluted.
Nope. The number of mutations scales along with the number people. Even better, with a bigger gene pool the human race can cover more of the potential gene space. i.e. More people more chance of hitting combination XYZ. If combination XYZ is really superior then it will stand out & not get diluted & drowned.

I do think we've got a few problem w/ evolving though.
  • Diseases that strike late are an issue. i.e. Whether someone get Alzheimer @75 doesn't affect whether they pass on their genes
  • Modern medicine catches borderline cases that would have died. wizard mentioned weak immune system....enter antibiotics. Genetic heart defect?....Heart transplant.
  • No natural physical predator. So not evolving for true survival.
  • Suppressing of rabbit like breeding instincts. The fact that we've got countries w/ <2 births per couple and thats voluntarily....thats not normal from a evolution perspective.

A lot of these things could easily be tweaked to make the human race stronger...but it would involve
some seriously dodge moral decisions along the way.

I reckon we'll see some serious natural selection in the next 100 years though. Do you guys remember the matrix scene where agent smith describes humanity as a virus that grows until the environment can no longer sustain it. On the current course we'll hit that constraint with full force & its not going to be pretty.
 
With the amount of estrogen pumped into our bodies through chicken feed etc. we're devolving faster than you can say "amagaaaaaad \o/ ".

With the rapid spawning of cancerous cells and microwave frequencies pulsing through our bodies we have interesting times ahead.
 
So not evolving for true survival.
- What is true survival ?
(the ability to adapt and keep existing in a changing environment ? or is true survival - the ability to adapt and keep existing now and for as long as possible and in any form - long term (cosmic)(forms of immortality or extreme longevity and also mutation)

So in view of the long term, all the strife we've caused ourselves with recent post industrial innovation, gasping poison and sunbathing in radiation and an electronic waste background, nuclear seepage, biochemical war and commercial poisons, all this 'exposure, all this 'die antwoord', is part of our adaptation for long term survival, we've always known we're going to the stars, and truelly what waits out there is going to be very strange, we'll need every trick we have to get from this galaxy to the next or beyond all expectations another utterly mysterious and strange universe !

We're in this for the long haul, we've made that clear, we're a curious lifeform, and I bet you, we'll do just about anything to make it for as long as possible !
So bring on the gene tweaking, the clones, the Ai's, wetware,chimeras, borgs, cyborgs, let's get this wedding between us and our technology off the ground :twisted: (false survival ? or true survival ?)

With our technology we can do it (evolve/mutate/enhance/progress) so much quicker not so ?

Also, we still have plenty of predators around, they're just microbial and not lionesque in scale lol.
 
That makes no sense to me. The more genetic variation the better off it is for evolution has you have more genetic choices. A big gene pool is orsm! Say a virus comes along and chows most of us, the bigger the gene pool the more chance there is for an individual in that population not to be effected by it.

Well, I've studied evolution (not in massive detail though, wish I had :p), and simply put, because there's such a massive genetic pool, is means things like bad genes can be eliminated very slowly because the animals that have these genes will probably die. A human example of this is the hemophilia gene that became present in Queen Elizabeth (I think it was Queen Elizabeth at least). Due to royalty having a tiny gene pool, this mutation became present, and spread wildly. However, if it were in a massive gene pool, the bag gene will either be eliminated or never really 'flare up' seeing as it needs a carrier etc.

So, since bad genes can form from mutations in small genetic pools, good genes can too. This is where homospaniens (sp?) formed because there was an isolated group of Australopithecus or some species like that (sorry, my memory of the exact names is a little vague :p), this isolation resulted in a limited number of genes, and these primates evolved slightly larger brains, more slender bodies, but more importantly, the actual development of the brain increased. Thus, from a small gene pool, these genes were developed because a smarter animal=more successful, the slender body resulted from more energy going to the brain, and also the use of tools, so brute force was kicked out the door by brains power:p.

In very large gene pools, the likely hood for an evolutionary development is very small, because any mutations are isolated and spread, but these mutations won't necessarily develop any further because it will take a fark long time for these genes to spread all across the world, think about it. Also, if there's no genetic isolation, there's a chance these genes won't spread far enough, or wide enough to stay in buoyant in the gene pool. So yes, evolution will remain very small. However, a massive gene pool is better against disease, but not great for evolution since if the gene pool is massive, the species is clearly doing very well at surviving, so it shouldn't change much more then :p

I've also realized that humans will force evolution using technology. We may find ourselves becoming 1/2 organic and 1/2 machine, which if you think about it, will be an evolution of man. Having computer chips in our heads to make us smarter, and inorganic limbs to make us stronger.

As for the space evolution, those people will develop soft bones, have almost no muscle (because it's so easy to move in space), and will die if brought to earth. Possibly a more efficient blood transporting system will develop?
 
Stumbled onto something quite interesting:

Human evolution speeding up

In the past 5,000 years, genetic change has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period, say scientists in the US.

This is in contrast with the widely-held belief that recent human evolution has halted.

The research has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

Professor Henry Harpending, an author of the study from the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, US, said: "The dogma has been these [differences] are cultural fluctuations, but almost any temperament trait you look at is under strong genetic influences.

"Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin," he added. "We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity."

This is happening, he said, because "there has not been much flow" between different regions since modern humans left Africa to colonise the rest of the world. And there is no evidence that it is slowing down, he added.

"The technology can't detect anything beyond about 2,000 years ago, but we see no sign of [human evolution] slowing down. So I would suspect it is continuing," he told BBC News.

New gene selection

Researchers found evidence of recent selection in 7% of all human genes, including lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations.


At the moment we are in an evolutionary interval. We are in between two storms
Professor Steve Jones, geneticist

"Five thousand years is such a small sliver of time," said co-author Professor John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "It's 100 or 200 generations ago. That's how long since some of these genes originated, and today they are in 30% or 40% of people because they've had such an advantage."

The researchers propose that there are two factors causing human evolution to speed up.

"One of them is there are a lot more people - the more people you have the more opportunities there are for an advantageous mutation to show up," said Professor Harpending.

A large population has more genetic variation and allows for more positive selection than a small one.

"The second is environmental change - our diets have changed, we are in radically new environments," he added. "With a large population size comes lots of new diseases."

Happening now?

However, geneticist Professor Steve Jones of University College London said suggesting a large population size could increase the speed of evolution was "a contentious issue".

DNA
Seven percent of human genes are undergoing rapid evolution

"Once a population gets above a very small size it is not very clear if its ability to respond to natural selection depends on size," he told BBC News.

"The general picture that evolution has speeded up in the last 10,000 years as we change from, to put it bluntly, being animals to being humans is clearly true," he explained. "To suggest it is happening at this instant, I would suggest, is probably wrong."

He said natural selection needed difference - either in the ability to stay alive or in the number of offspring born.

"The fundamental observation is that this difference has gone," said Professor Jones.

"At the moment we are in an evolutionary interval. We are in between two storms. One storm has more or less blown itself out, the storm of farming.

"The question is whether we are going to stay in the calms or whether another great storm will start. And if there is one, I would say it is most certainly to do with epidemic disease."

How they did it

The study looked specifically at genetic variations called "single nucleotide polymorphisms," or SNPs. These are single-point mutations, or changes, in the genetic sequence of DNA on chromosomes.

If the mutation is advantageous then it will spread rapidly in the population, along with DNA on either side of the mutation.

The authors argued that if the same chromosome from numerous people had a segment with an identical pattern of SNPs this would indicate that the segment of the chromosome had not been broken up (recombined) recently.

Therefore, a gene on that segment of chromosome must have evolved recently and fast, they believe. If it had evolved long ago, the chromosome would have broken up and recombined.

Source - BBC
 
Our technological developments will far outpace our biological evolution, and as such we will be a fairly cybernetic race within the next 100 years. There will of course always be various groups (such as purists) but methinks we're gonna have a lot of cyborgs running around!

While not agreeing with you 100%, everyone is stuck on biological or social evolution. I agree that within 100 years, we will direct our own evolution and tailor our bodies (if we need them) to our immediate environmental needs.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X