Are we at an evolutionary dead end?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-07 01:02am

WARNING: This topic is started by someone who has only a partial interest/knowledge in biology (year 10), the thread starter would like to apologise in advance if he over-simplifies a very complex issue and hopes that more learned people will correct him when necessary.

This is a thought that has been interesting/occuping my attention for some time. Are we at a point where we have reached an evolutionary dead end? Now I know that with each generation there is the potential for change but hear me out;

Darwin's theory (as far as I know it, read the warning before you flame) can best or at least mostly be described as 'survival of the fitest'. However we have reached a point in our evolution where this theorm isn't as applicable to humans as to other animals on this Earth. We have the ability to 'circum-navigate' our disadvantages (my problem poor eyesight male patern boldness <I think I have another 7years of hair time left>, herditary deseases which in the past could prove fatal) with our advanced knowledge in medicine.

So are we no longer able to 'evolve' since we use knowledge to our advantage? Or will evolution still be served but at a somewhat slower rate?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-07 01:08am

Crown wrote:Darwin's theory (as far as I know it, read the warning before you flame) can best or at least mostly be described as 'survival of the fitest'. However we have reached a point in our evolution where this theorm isn't as applicable to humans as to other animals on this Earth. We have the ability to 'circum-navigate' our disadvantages (my problem poor eyesight male patern boldness <I think I have another 7years of hair time left>, herditary deseases which in the past could prove fatal) with our advanced knowledge in medicine.

We merely change the criteria for selection. The criteria for selection are now primarily artificial and sexual, rather than natural/environmental. Selection still happens, and selection is the driving mechanism behind evolution (in conjunction with species variability, of course).

So are we no longer able to 'evolve' since we use knowledge to our advantage? Or will evolution still be served but at a somewhat slower rate?

Evolution will simply move in different directions. For example, in the past, a stout constitution was far more important than a charming personality and good looks. However, today, evolution selects people who can successfully find a mate, since they will have offspring.

If you want true evolutionary dead ends, look at career women who wait until they're in their late 30s before they try to have kids, and then discover that they waited too long. Also look at ugly people, Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, anybody who's ever won a Darwin award, confirmed bachelors, Darkstar, etc.

Or, to put it another way, unless you have children, you are an evolutionary dead end. Evolution still happens; we have just changed the criteria of selection, that's all.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-07 01:11am

Darth Wong wrote:If you want true evolutionary dead ends, look at career women who wait until they're in their late 30s before they try to have kids, and then discover that they waited too long. Also look at ugly people, Catholic priests, Buddhist monks, anybody who's ever won a Darwin award, confirmed bachelors, Darkstar, etc.

You bastard, there should be some kind of warning before you make me laugh so hard that my sides split!

So we are heading for a future, where we are all brainless, vapid, good looking models with eating disorders. How depressing.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2002-12-07 01:13am

If your looking for changes in the population your far more likely to get them from genetic engineering then you are from evolution. Humanity dosen't really have any seperated populations for large scale evolution and speciation to occur to us anymore.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-07 01:22am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:If your looking for changes in the population your far more likely to get them from genetic engineering then you are from evolution. Humanity dosen't really have any seperated populations for large scale evolution and speciation to occur to us anymore.

Speciation won't happen because of heavy intermingling. But that doesn't mean evolution stops; the species may not split, but it can still change.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-07 01:23am

I read somewhere that the average teeth size for the human race is decreasing.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-07 01:25am

Shinova wrote:I read somewhere that the average teeth size for the human race is decreasing.

Good. I am looking forward to the day when the damn things just fall out so that I don't have to clean them anymore!

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-12-07 01:26am

Crown wrote:
Shinova wrote:I read somewhere that the average teeth size for the human race is decreasing.
Good. I am looking forward to the day when the damn things just fall out so that I don't have to clean them anymore!

You mean we can't chew anything then

You like steak?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-07 01:29am

Shinova wrote:You mean we can't chew anything then

You like steak?

We're smart. We'll genetically engineer softer cows.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-12-07 01:30am

Darth Wong wrote:
Shinova wrote:You mean we can't chew anything then

You like steak?
We're smart. We'll genetically engineer softer cows.

Why not just genetically engineer teeth that never need cleaning?

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-07 01:31am

Darth Wong wrote:We're smart. We'll genetically engineer softer cows.

That's twice! In the same thread no less!

Shinova wrote:You mean we can't chew anything then

You like steak?

What are you kidding, I'm Greek of course I love my meat!!!!

Hang on, I just realised a contradiction!

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-07 01:33am

I've heard of such thing as memetic evolution: The evolution of the species based on the transfer of knowledge. It makes perfect sense too. When we went from no language to language, it was for the purpose of transfering knowledge and information. Language was something that vastly increased human intelligence and vice versa. When we gained the ability to write and to keep records, whole new concepts flooded human societies. We invented the printing press, then the telephone, then the radio, the tv, the computer, the internet.. All of these are pushing for faster better transfer of knowledge and information, and all of these are changing the way we as a species evolve. I doubt I've mentioned even the most fundemental of memetic evolution theory so heres a link,

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... +evolution

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-07 01:36am

Evolution is a widely bastardized term, but in this context, we're speaking specifically of biological Darwinian evolution.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2002-12-07 02:04am

oh true enough, but memetic evolution is actually fundemental to biological evolution. You point how we now evolve through different means includes things like intelligence selection. Intelligence is driven by the spread of knowledge, increasing ability to comprehend and think rationally. The ability to spread memes. Its even been theorized that our evolution as a species was triggered by the spread of the use of tools. Our hands are perfect for holding and grasping, which is how we first used those tools. The spread of knowledge, the meme of tool using, may have been the driving force in the evolution of humans as a species, in the BIOLOGICAL sense. Pure Darwinian evolution, on a whole different level. Not merely the fitest genes, but the fitest ideas.

As well as the virii of ideas aka religion

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2002-12-07 03:36am

Shinova wrote:
Crown wrote:
Shinova wrote:I read somewhere that the average teeth size for the human race is decreasing.
Good. I am looking forward to the day when the damn things just fall out so that I don't have to clean them anymore!

You mean we can't chew anything then

You like steak?

Yay, no more braces! Or they might engineer those too.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2002-12-07 05:46am

I remember somewhere that the fastest period of evolution for humans is directly related to the evolution of our hands. Meaning that as we began to use them for manipulating tools, rather than to walk on, we just exploded into the dominate species on the Earth.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-07 09:22am

The Innerbrats' little spool on human evolution (commenting on the entire thread so far):

The two most important morphological changes in our evolution so far have been bipedalism (which did free up our hands, yes) and our large brain size, which was enabled mainly by a shift to a more carnivorous diet.

Today we are still evolving in, for example, the following ways:

It's clear that biological evolution (such as food processing and sexual selection) is influenced by culture (which is driven by memetic evolution), but this can be more accurately viewed as a kind of symbiotic coevolution between human beings and human culture. So in that sense, we are evolving, b ut not directly through memetic evolution.

Our teeth are getting smaller, and so is our number of teeth - fewer and fewer people are actually growing wisdom teeth -(I've only got 1). this is probably to do with an improvement in food processing (we don't need to chew hard raw nuts and veg) and possibly sexual selection favouring a smaller jaw size.

And childhood is getting shorter - also a nutritional cause - look at the rise in teenage pregnancies at a time of life that most of us old fogies weren't even thinking about that kind of thing...

Crown wrote: So we are heading for a future, where we are all brainless, vapid, good looking models with eating disorders. How depressing.

luckily, no, because brainless, vapid models with eating disorders are not sexy. we're (hopefully) heading towards a future where we are all despartately good looking, ultra-intelligent and able to hold a witty, enjoyable conversation.
With any luck, we should be getting sexier.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-12-07 01:32pm

I think for the most part evolution in humans is at a standstill. The vast majority of us reproduce regardless of characteristics. ie) bad eyesight, tall, short, etc.

We use technology to adapt to our environments and there is no pressure at this time on us. ie) predation, climate change, etc.

I would think that any big threat to us would be viral based. ie) Some really bad Flu of 1918 type deal. Then you would see natural selection put pressure on humanity.

Of course Im speaking for the developed world. My ideas probably dont yet apply to the third world.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2002-12-07 01:34pm

Evolution never stops and it doesn't have an "end" since it has no objective.

But humans will remain the same I'd say for now due to our lack of natural selection and being dominant on the planet thus negating some genetic variability to adapt to problems we no longer have.

Other than our intelligence, we aren't really the best organisms in existence.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-12-07 02:15pm

Evolution has been kinda bobbled with by mankind's extelligence(Term for what you get when lots of intelligences start interacting). Think about it. What happens if someone is 'different'? They get ostracized. Any noticable advantage may well be the victim of that. Instead we're going to progress towards.. What? Well, whatever's en vogue sexually, but that changes too fast for it to become dominant(Indeed, if it did become dominant, humanity would probably crave the minority.. OY!). There are changes, of course, still happening, but the whole system's been bobbled with.

Oh well. The next flying rock to hit the Reset button should be along in a few million years..

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-07 02:39pm

But our medical sciences are certainly not perfect - we may still evolve a protection against cancer, for instance, at least juv-onset varieties.

lgot · Post by **lgot** » 2002-12-07 09:58pm

Well for once Darwin teory cannt be better reduced to the "survival of the fitest"...its is more "change, adapt, survive".
In I remember that Gould once pointed that human specie achived such level of equilibrium and that we so conected with everyone that turns very hard very big changes (and anyways, those changes are actually not to happen in a lifetime, so..) to happen. Some say that can lead to a stop that may lead to the specie be unable to adapt to any drastic change, some say otherwise...
But then, Humans are not the only , wont be the last specie to achive such level of stability. And we are too young, so do not worry...In one century you many not have to worry about cleaning teeth...

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 10:34pm

I think that since macroevolution is such a long-term process, we probably would have a hard time identifying it within homo sapiens sapiens even if it were occurring. It's possible that we are slightly different from humans of the past. 2000 years ago, the average male was 5'2". Is all the height difference due to nutrition, or are there other reasons as well? We can't really be sure.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2002-12-07 11:03pm

Face it evolution is selecting for Catholics and Mormons. No matter how you dice it they are the most fit in evolutionary terms.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-12-07 11:09pm

tharkûn wrote:Face it evolution is selecting for Catholics and Mormons. No matter how you dice it they are the most fit in evolutionary terms.

Amish. They're the fastest growing in terms of birth rate

.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Are we at an evolutionary dead end?

Are we at an evolutionary dead end?

Re: Are we at an evolutionary dead end?