Will man continue to evolve?

[Stravo]

I was thinking about this the other day when looking over a story I wrote years ago that takes place in the far future. People are still people, no real changes I never bought into the whole future peoiple will be faster, smarter and stronger than us thing that some sci fi does.

Since we've essentially overcome natural pressures and challenges through our technology it seems we've also taken ourselves out ofthe evolutionary cycle in terms of evolving under natural pressures.

If that is so does that mean man wil stay as we are for the foreseeable future? This is of course absent any tinkering on our own part with our genetics and such. Is man essentially no longer evolving or do other pressures exist that I'm not aware of?

[SirNitram]

Evolution is moving in strange ways now. It's Unnatural Selection now; the pressures have changed. We are evolving, yes. What will become dominante in a million years? Damned if I know.

[Molyneux]

My money's on intelligent design; we're almost at the point where we can tweak our own body structure with some degree of skill.

Barring theocratic rule (which would tend to frown on altering the human body), I'm expecting, oh, extra limbs, cybernetic enhancements, and quite possibly extreme cosmetic modifications within the next 100-200 years.

[Darth Wong]

I was thinking about this the other day when looking over a story I wrote years ago that takes place in the far future. People are still people, no real changes I never bought into the whole future peoiple will be faster, smarter and stronger than us thing that some sci fi does.

Since we've essentially overcome natural pressures and challenges through our technology it seems we've also taken ourselves out ofthe evolutionary cycle in terms of evolving under natural pressures.

If that is so does that mean man wil stay as we are for the foreseeable future? This is of course absent any tinkering on our own part with our genetics and such. Is man essentially no longer evolving or do other pressures exist that I'm not aware of?

Artificial and sexual selection are "evolution", just as much as natural selection is. We will continue to evolve, just not in the same direction that we would have evolved without all of this technology and artificial intervention.

Of course, outright genetic engineering of offspring would represent the first true deviation from the process of evolution, and then we could truly say that we're no longer evolving.

[Darth Raptor]

Does sexual selection even have a significant impact on the human gene pool? It seems like the ugliest people still manage to breed, and that normally hereditary traits deemed desirable can be attained via surgery and cosmetics.

[Stravo]

Artificial and sexual selection are "evolution", just as much as natural selection is. We will continue to evolve, just not in the same direction that we would have evolved without all of this technology and artificial intervention.

Of course, outright genetic engineering of offspring would represent the first true deviation from the process of evolution, and then we could truly say that we're no longer evolving.

I take the sexual and artificical selection to mean something along the lines of say taller people breeding with taller people moving humanity towards a taller average height due to women's preference for taller men.

That's fascinating. However something like affluence seems to throw that into wack with rich troll like men able to score with gorgeous models hence passing on their troll like genes despite the fact that all things being equal the model would rather have Julio the Pool Boy.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Since we've essentially overcome natural pressures and challenges through our technology it seems we've also taken ourselves out ofthe evolutionary cycle in terms of evolving under natural pressures.

We still compete with each other, and always have. There's the argument that that's the real driver of evolution; after all, bears don't eat all deer, just the slowest/clumsiest ones. A deer can be said to be competing against other deers' slowness, not the bears swiftness; it can survive even if the predator can kill it easily, as long as the other deer are weaker still.

By the same token, the biggest competitors of humans are other humans, and have been for a long, long time.There are plenty of ways that modern humans compete that would have an evolutionary effect. Most obviously, the spouse who cheats on his/her partner, and has a child with the interloper, or the fellow who's good at seducing women, married or not. Or consider war; if person A volunteers and person B doesn't, guess who's more likely to survive and produce offspring ?

Of course, outright genetic engineering of offspring would represent the first true deviation from the process of evolution, and then we could truly say that we're no longer evolving.

That's debateable. Evolution is about the differential propagation of genes, not about how they are propagated or come into being.

If people start choosing genes, I think it's safe to assume that some will be more popular/successful than others, therefore some will spread in the population faster, both by old fasioned breeding and direct genetic engineering. Rather similar to sexual selection, really.

In the case of direct GE ( as opposed to breeding with someone whose ancestors were engineered ), it won't be Darwinian evolution, which is why I called it debatable.

Does sexual selection even have a significant impact on the human gene pool? It seems like the ugliest people still manage to breed, and that normally hereditary traits deemed desirable can be attained via surgery and cosmetics.

Some can, not all, and not everybody can afford it. It's hard to fake being a tall, large muscled man, or being graceful.

However something like affluence seems to throw that into wack with rich troll like men able to score with gorgeous models hence passing on their troll like genes despite the fact that all things being equal the model would rather have Julio the Pool Boy.

And if the factors that made the person rich have any genetic component, sexual selection still works.

[Stravo]

However something like affluence seems to throw that into wack with rich troll like men able to score with gorgeous models hence passing on their troll like genes despite the fact that all things being equal the model would rather have Julio the Pool Boy.

And if the factors that made the person rich have any genetic component, sexual selection still works.

Where's the genetic component to a rich trust fund baby that hasn't worked a day in his life? Granted that is a very small portion of the population but there are many rich people who inherited their money and didn't make it which sort of makes their own genetic worth valueless since the woman is looking at his money not what he can do or look like as the prime motivator to have his chidren.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Where's the genetic component to a rich trust fund baby that hasn't worked a day in his life?

The genes he inherited from his parents. Just because he's not doing much with them doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I was thinking about this the other day when looking over a story I wrote years ago that takes place in the far future. People are still people, no real changes I never bought into the whole future peoiple will be faster, smarter and stronger than us thing that some sci fi does.

Since we've essentially overcome natural pressures and challenges through our technology it seems we've also taken ourselves out ofthe evolutionary cycle in terms of evolving under natural pressures.

If that is so does that mean man wil stay as we are for the foreseeable future? This is of course absent any tinkering on our own part with our genetics and such. Is man essentially no longer evolving or do other pressures exist that I'm not aware of?

Yes. In fact, recent scientific studies indicate human evolution is still ongoing. The genes controlling brain growth and development have changed much faster, and much more recently than many of our other genes (within the timespan of human civilization, even.)

[Surlethe]

Humans don't have any serious external selection pressures; for all intents and purposes, we will, intentionally or unintentionally, direct evolution for the rest of our existence. However, internal selection pressures still exist; since the basic human form has been hardwired as desirable for millions of years as evolution, I don't see us altering our fundamental shape. However, design, such as resistance to cancer, enhanced sexual characteristics, resistance to diseases, and other useful traits, will certainly modify us marginally over the next millennia or so, and it's quite possible the idea of desirability will slowly change. As a minor note, I'd also predict the concept of "race" will become increasingly blurry as increasingly easy transportation brings different cultures into contact.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's been mentioned, but anyone wanting to read more can look for a study brought up in New Scientist the other week about the genes that are being said to give selective pressures to humanity still. Nothing radical like in the olden days when we got hunted by just about anything out there, but certainly interesting reading.

[Lord Zentei]

Does sexual selection even have a significant impact on the human gene pool? It seems like the ugliest people still manage to breed, and that normally hereditary traits deemed desirable can be attained via surgery and cosmetics.

It is still easier to look "pretty" - whatever that means - if you do so naturally. I'm not sure how significant it is today, though there was a thread some time ago that discussed an article where it was suggested that sexual selection was responsible for blond hair in northern Europe (hunting was the premier source of food, since gathering was hard in that climate. Since men were better at hunting, and hunting was dangerous, there were fewer men than women, and women needed a man to eat. Men were then more likely to select blondes due to their striking apperance: it payed for them to stand out of the crowd - or so the theory went).

Also, people of a given culture or ethnicity are generally more likely to mate with others of the same culture or ethnicity - and if a given culture or ethnicity produces more children per capita than others, that will affect the ethnic makeup of the population as a whole.

[LadyTevar]

That's fascinating. However something like affluence seems to throw that into wack with rich troll like men able to score with gorgeous models hence passing on their troll like genes despite the fact that all things being equal the model would rather have Julio the Pool Boy.

What you've never heard of having affairs with the PoolBoy and fostering the child off on hubbie's money?

Sweetheart, we women have been marrying the 'well-off' men for centuries, and having babies by the stronger, handsomer, more virile men on the side. "A mink in the closet, a jaguar in the garage, a tiger in bed, and a jackass to pay for it all."

[Broomstick]

Shhhhh! LadyTevar, you aren't supposed to TELL them about our Secret Strategies!!!

[Ryushikaze]

Well, if that was a secret, it's one of the worst kept ones I've seen in a good long while.

In response to the original question- Yes. Evolution is a process, not a chart. Where we're going beats me, but we're heading there all the same.

[God Fearing Atheist]

For those interested:

Voight, B.F. et al. 2006. A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome. PLoS Biology 4: 446-458.

[Spoonist]

Of course we will continue to evolve.
Mutation will always occur and could easily create new evolutionary paths.

Look at diseases like HIV which has a devstating effect on the certain populations, a single trait which makes you survive that would make a tremendous evolutionary advantage.

Also regarding faster/better humans, I think that this will be more of cultural evolution where the new generation adapts to the new technology and creates faster cultures.

[Winston Blake]

Where's the genetic component to a rich trust fund baby that hasn't worked a day in his life?

The genes he inherited from his parents. Just because he's not doing much with them doesn't necessarily mean they aren't there.

Also even for people who are rich without work or genetic inheritance, they're just outliers. The fastest deer can trip and break a knee, the worst shot in the regiment can get lucky. Evolution works on averages, and on average, success indicates with good genes.

[Lost Soal]

My own personal belief is that we're seeing a glimps of the next stage in a few individuals already.
I'm thinking of Savant Syndrome.

In its current form it exists as compensation towards mental deficiencies, but I see no reason why it would remain as that.
Savant's occur primarily amoungst people with either Autism or Mental Retadation, although there are cases of people suffering injuries or infections to the brain and developing savant syndrome.

The syndrome occurs as the brains of the affected are missing or have damaged key areas, so in order to compensate if a few rare cases the nural pathways of the brain reroute, unlocking the abilities demonstated by Savants.
These include the specialists musicical or mathmatical savants, as well as the memory and observational capabilities. The movie Rainman shows some of the enhanced abilities such as the memory and counting the toothpicks. While no one Savant has all those abilities, Hoffmans Rainman was a composite of three different savant who combined had demonstrated all those abilities

While their currently being triggered by brain damage, these cases show that the brain has these capabilities, it just requires a reason to unlock them. The increase in world knowledge could well be what is required.
As scientific and technical knowledge increases, the next generation will need to learn more and more in order to continue the advance. I can see the need to simply store all this knowledge as a trigger towards increased mental capacity.

I had considered those proposition as its own thread, questioning whether a form of Savant Syndrome would be the next step in evoltution, but will place it hear and leave it for Mods to decide if it becomes worthy of its own thread or should remain simply as part of the greater question as posed by Stravo.

[SirNitram]

My own personal belief is that we're seeing a glimps of the next stage in a few individuals already.
I'm thinking of Savant Syndrome.

I'm sorry, but are you.. How to put this lightly... Completely out of your gourd? Fucked in the head? Insane? High as a kite?

Look, Savant Syndrome and all other compensation attempts the body does when your brain gets damaged can make it easier to exist, but it's not any evolutionary positive! Hell, it's certainly not going to help propagate; you ever tried getting a date with Asperger's fucking your social skills? No. We're not the next step. We're at best an interesting rest stop.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

My own personal belief is that we're seeing a glimps of the next stage in a few individuals already.
I'm thinking of Savant Syndrome.

Hah, no. As has been gently pointed out, such individuals don't reproduce well. The only thing which will delimit the "next stage" of human evolution is when a divergent population develops with whom we "modern" humans cannot produce viable offspring with. They're not guaranteed to be any more or less intelligent than we are now.

[Lancer]

I think what Lost Soal is trying to say is that Savant Syndrome is giving us glances of just how much our brains can do; and that the next step in evolution is a means of unlocking that potential without having to undergo the conditions that set off Savant Syndrome.

[SirNitram]

I think what Lost Soal is trying to say is that Savant Syndrome is giving us glances of just how much our brains can do; and that the next step in evolution is a means of unlocking that potential without having to undergo the conditions that set off Savant Syndrome.

Unless you think you can do what amounts to exploratory brain surgery with genes alone, by chance, not happening. Engineering humans may go that way, but evolution is still driven by reproduction.

[Lagmonster]

"A mink in the closet, a jaguar in the garage, a tiger in bed, and a jackass to pay for it all."

Aw, crap. Now I have to figure out which one I am, am my wife ain't telling.