Humans, can we evolve any more?

[DocHorror]

Simple question, can we as humans evolve anymore. Given that we understand evolution as Darwin & Dawkins put it.

Would we accept random mutations as part of evolution or would we attempt to stop them.

Can we accept mutation as an advantage or are we doomed to view any deviation as unacceptable.

[Vendetta]

Yes. Mutations are inevitable. You can't stop them, most of them you wouldn't even realise they are mutations, because on their own they don't appear to do anything, and it's only when the right environmental conditions, or other gene patterns are present that they actually become active and expressed.

[Johonebesus]

I've read that mutated X chromosomes are appearing that function as Y chromosomes. Which is a lucky thing, since the Y chromosome is gradually degrading. Eventually, so the theory goes, there will be no Y chromosome, and males will just have the modified X.

[Lord Zentei]

I've read that mutated X chromosomes are appearing that function as Y chromosomes. Which is a lucky thing, since the Y chromosome is gradually degrading. Eventually, so the theory goes, there will be no Y chromosome, and males will just have the modified X.

Just the one? Or two X chromosomes, one of which is "modified"?

In the latter case, it would also prevent recessive genetic defects that are on the X-chromosome being expressed in males.

[Admiral Valdemar]

For the first time, a species can control its evolution on Earth. We can evolve a lot more, but it won't be down to Darwinism, it'll be artificial. Natural selection is too weak in our society to have much effect.

[Lord Zentei]

For the first time, a species can control its evolution on Earth. We can evolve a lot more, but it won't be down to Darwinism, it'll be artificial. Natural selection is too weak in our society to have much effect.

Though I agree with you, I suspect that this may unfortunately be very hard indeed to accomplish politically.

[SCRawl]

For the first time, a species can control its evolution on Earth. We can evolve a lot more, but it won't be down to Darwinism, it'll be artificial. Natural selection is too weak in our society to have much effect.

Though I agree with you, I suspect that this may unfortunately be very hard indeed to accomplish politically.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but I think that the Admiral is trying to say that we no longer select our mates using the same criteria as our primitive ancestors. It's no longer a matter of "survival of the fittest", with the fittest and best mates passing on their genes. These days it's easy for humans to survive into our fertile years; food is (for the most part) plentiful, disease is largely under control, and the predators we have to worry about most already walk on two legs.

As a result of this, natural selection isn't as natural as it used to be, and the whole process of evolution is decidedly non-Darwinian.

(I apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted someone's post; as I said, I'm not sure what LZ was getting at.)

[Admiral Valdemar]

Though I agree with you, I suspect that this may unfortunately be very hard indeed to accomplish politically.

In a way, it's already happening. But I'm thinking the more exotic stuff will happen in a few centuries from now.

[Lord Zentei]

Though I agree with you, I suspect that this may unfortunately be very hard indeed to accomplish politically.

In a way, it's already happening. But I'm thinking the more exotic stuff will happen in a few centuries from now.

Ah, in a few centuries I can see greater things happening. Potentially.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying, but I think that the Admiral is trying to say that we no longer select our mates using the same criteria as our primitive ancestors. It's no longer a matter of "survival of the fittest", with the fittest and best mates passing on their genes. These days it's easy for humans to survive into our fertile years; food is (for the most part) plentiful, disease is largely under control, and the predators we have to worry about most already walk on two legs.

As a result of this, natural selection isn't as natural as it used to be, and the whole process of evolution is decidedly non-Darwinian.

(I apologize in advance if I've misinterpreted someone's post; as I said, I'm not sure what LZ was getting at.)

Natural selection is still going on. We also have sexual selection and yadda yadda, to be sure, but "fittest" does not neccesarily mean "strongest". It just means "most able to survive/pass on offspring in this particular environment".

[Frank Hipper]

Evolve more?

Look at your hands.

Notice how the 5th digit isn't simply smaller than the others, but it's significantly smaller?

Ask yourself what's going on there, what percieveable pressures could bring about this state of affairs and you should be able to extrapolate a likely chain of events for the future.

[Balrog]

Evolve more?

Look at your hands.

Notice how the 5th digit isn't simply smaller than the others, but it's significantly smaller?

Ask yourself what's going on there, what percieveable pressures could bring about this state of affairs and you should be able to extrapolate a likely chain of events for the future.

...

Off-topic, but why is my pinky smaller then the rest of my fingers?

[loomer]

Hell, I'm breaking my vow of non-typingness, but it's worth it.

Humanity IS evolving. If you take a look at IQ test results, we've apparently been getting smarter as a species (While having idiots governing us in half the world, ironically.), and I think I read somewhere, though I can't remember for sure, that our teeth and bones are far, far weaker than those of our ancestors. If anyone's read something similar, or something that states that I'm wrong there, please post it so that I can brush up on my knowledge.

On a side note, wouldn't people in Africa and some parts of Latin America still be evolving as well? All the diseases and malnutrition there has got to be resulting in survival of the fittest situations.

[FedRebel]

Off-topic, but why is my pinky smaller then the rest of my fingers?

Because it doesn't do a damn thing

Your ring, index and middle fingers coupled with the thumb do all the manipulating while the pinky just hangs there

Given it's uselessness the pinky is gradually shrinking

[K. A. Pital]

We're obviously evolving. Not like the X-men wankafiction, but we are.

Mutations should be accepted. After all, if we stomp them, we can bring death upon populations - for ex., 40% of West Africa coast has the anti-malaria sickle cell mutation, so if we stomp that, we just wipe out tons of humans to malaria.

Genetic adaptation also get people accustomed to alcohol - imagine what happens if we wipe it out, making people zero-tolerant to alcohol.

And there are many, many mutations that already happened in various human populations and are important for times present and the future evolution of man.

[Lord Zentei]

Mutations should be accepted. After all, if we stomp them, we can bring death upon populations - for ex., 40% of West Africa coast has the anti-malaria sickle cell mutation, so if we stomp that, we just wipe out tons of humans to malaria.

Genetic adaptation also get people accustomed to alcohol - imagine what happens if we wipe it out, making people zero-tolerant to alcohol.

And there are many, many mutations that already happened in various human populations and are important for times present and the future evolution of man.

The Ordo Hereticus has been notified of your deviancy.

[Havok]

Aren't people whos wisdom teeth don't come in slightly more evolved than the peoples who do?

[Stuart Mackey]

Off-topic, but why is my pinky smaller then the rest of my fingers?

Because it doesn't do a damn thing

Your ring, index and middle fingers coupled with the thumb do all the manipulating while the pinky just hangs there

Given it's uselessness the pinky is gradually shrinking

So...we are all going to look like The Simpsons then?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Off-topic, but why is my pinky smaller then the rest of my fingers?

Because it doesn't do a damn thing

Your ring, index and middle fingers coupled with the thumb do all the manipulating while the pinky just hangs there

Given it's uselessness the pinky is gradually shrinking

So...we are all going to look like The Simpsons then?

No, no, you must have missed the episode that covers this. They are going to look like us.

Lisa : "Scientists say that in the future, people will evolve pink skin and five fingers." < shows picture of a normal looking person >

Homer : < grabs head > "AAAAAAAAH !"

[defanatic]

I use my pinky for plenty of things... Like, uh... Holding things to allow my other fingers to do stuff, or holding up when drinking coffee.

[Broomstick]

Simple question, can we as humans evolve anymore. Given that we understand evolution as Darwin & Dawkins put it.

Of course we will.

Would we accept random mutations as part of evolution or would we attempt to stop them.

First of all, most mutations are invisible, so we aren't even aware they are there.

Second, many mutations - such as red hair - are already accepted as normal human variation.

Can we accept mutation as an advantage or are we doomed to view any deviation as unacceptable.

Some mutations ARE unacceptable - they cause disease and horrible suffering. Very, very few mutations will be even neutral, much less advantegous.

I've read that mutated X chromosomes are appearing that function as Y chromosomes.

These actually aren't new - we're just newly aware of them. A fragment of a Y chromosone, the part that determines physical gender, breaks loose and hooks onto a X chromosone, leading it to act as a Y. Generally found only when an affected person undergoes chromosomal analysis for some reason, as otherwise they appear to be entirely normal males. There's probably quite a few of these folks walking around with no one the wiser.

Which is a lucky thing, since the Y chromosome is gradually degrading. Eventually, so the theory goes, there will be no Y chromosome, and males will just have the modified X.

Not a proven theory, though - there is some evidence that the essential parts of the Y may have a correction mechanism. In any case, not something we have to worry about in our lifetime.

Just the one? Or two X chromosomes, one of which is "modified"?

In the latter case, it would also prevent recessive genetic defects that are on the X-chromosome being expressed in males.

Not if you get two X's that have the same recessive... which is how you get women with red/green colorblindness and factor VIII hemophillia, both of which have occured in the medical literature. Will just make those defects much rarer, it won't eliminate them.

Off-topic, but why is my pinky smaller then the rest of my fingers?

Because your ancestors were not fatally impaired by it being smaller than your other digits.

Because it doesn't do a damn thing

Your ring, index and middle fingers coupled with the thumb do all the manipulating while the pinky just hangs there

Given it's uselessness the pinky is gradually shrinking

The pinky finger actually does contribute to the strength and stability of the hand's grip, particularly in men, who typically have slightly proprotionally larger pinkies than women do. Having known a few people who lost a finger, it's surprising just how much losing even one can dimish the strength of the human grip.

Humanity IS evolving. If you take a look at IQ test results, we've apparently been getting smarter as a species (While having idiots governing us in half the world, ironically.), and I think I read somewhere, though I can't remember for sure, that our teeth and bones are far, far weaker than those of our ancestors.

Depends on which ancestors you're referring to. Our hunting/gathering ancestors of 50,000 years ago - those that lived to adulthood, at least - tended to be exceptionally healthy by our standards and because they were constantly engaged in heavy labor/exercise, they would have the muscle mass and bone density of our most elite athletes. Their teeth... well, fewer cavities but more breakage and wearing down from using teeth as tools. And most people didn't live much past 35-40, so they didn't live long enough to develop osteoporosis or outlive all their teeth.

Starting with early agriculture, people consumed more calories, but a less healthy mix of food. More people lived to adulthood, but they were more likely to lose their teeth to decay and were not so robust - but then, they didn't need to be super-atheletes to survive anymore, and even if all their teeth fell out they could still survive on mush.

It's only in the latter half of the 20th Century that we've reduced cavities to pre-agricultural levels, and that only in areas with appropriate flouridation and dentistry, where parents give enough of a damn to take their kids to the dentist. Because of improvements in diet, the 20th Century also saw an increase in bone density, on average, for children and young adults - but most of us can also count on living long enough to experience at least the early stages of osteoporosis

On a side note, wouldn't people in Africa and some parts of Latin America still be evolving as well? All the diseases and malnutrition there has got to be resulting in survival of the fittest situations.

We're all evolving, everywhere. Just under different pressures. As an example, in parts of the world where living into middle and old age are now common, diseases and defects that never impacted reproduction before are now starting to matter. If a population carried a mutation that doesn't manifest until 45 or 50, and most people died at 35-40, there is no selection pressure against it. Most people will never suffer from the mutation because they won't live long enough to do so. On the other hand, if that same population routinely lives to 70 or 80, there can be a significant impact on those who have the affected gene - they may be at a disadvantage in employment, seen as a less desirable mate, and some may choose to forgo reproduction rather than pass the gene on to the next generation. That is evolution in action.

Disease is still a factor in evolution. Certainly, disease resistance is important in parts of the world, particularly the tropics, where disease is a significant cause of death in the young. But other parts of the world, where acute disease is now a much less significant problem, there is still evolutionary pressure. Right now, conditions are starting to favor mutations that allow better handling of lipids in conditions of plentiful food, as just one example. Resistance to environmental toxins may become more and more significant, as will geneotypes that make the individual more resistant to cancer, which causes siginficant death and sterility in North America, Europe, Australia, and parts of Asia. These are not visible mutations, but they do exist and they do have enormous impact on their carriers.

Aren't people whos wisdom teeth don't come in slightly more evolved than the peoples who do?

No one is "more" or "less" evolved than anyone else - all living creatures on Earth are equally the products of 4+ billion years of evolution. You don't have some lineages with an extra billion years tacked on, or that have only been evolving 2 billion years.

You have to ask why the teeth didn't come in - there are some genetic disorders, such as the one that leads to "wolfmen", hypertrichosis, which lead to fewer teeth, and of poorer quality, that confer no advantage whatsoever. In other cases, it's just human variation which may or may not confer an advantage. Wisdom teeth are an interesting conundrum - some people have no problem finding room on their jaws for them, others have no room and suffer excruiciating pain until they are removed, and others never get them. In earlier times, when people tended to have already lost a few teeth by early adulthood, the loss of other teeth might have made room for the wisdom teeth, which would provide new teeth and allow better eating for a few more years. In which case those who never got wisdom teeth would be at a disadvantage, as they would become toothless sooner.

[Lord Zentei]

Just the one? Or two X chromosomes, one of which is "modified"?

In the latter case, it would also prevent recessive genetic defects that are on the X-chromosome being expressed in males.

Not if you get two X's that have the same recessive... which is how you get women with red/green colorblindness and factor VIII hemophillia, both of which have occured in the medical literature. Will just make those defects much rarer, it won't eliminate them.

Well, yes - obviously. I am aware of Mendelian inheritance laws, ma'am.

Perhaps I worded my post poorly. But your answer would seem to indicate that the "new" males would have two X chromosomes, correct? That would then provide a reasons for it being selected in preferance to the Xy system.

Follow up: what happens when an individual gets two "male" X chromosomes? Is this viable?

[Johonebesus]

Perhaps I worded my post poorly. But your answer would seem to indicate that the "new" males would have two X chromosomes, correct? That would then provide a reasons for it being selected in preferance to the Xy system.

Follow up: what happens when an individual gets two "male" X chromosomes? Is this viable?

I don't think it would happen. The modified X chromosome just replaces the Y. Males are XfXm, and Females XfXf (I have no idea what the correct notations is, but this will work here). Females wouldn't possess the modified chromosome, so couldn't pass it on.

[Lord Zentei]

Perhaps I worded my post poorly. But your answer would seem to indicate that the "new" males would have two X chromosomes, correct? That would then provide a reasons for it being selected in preferance to the Xy system.

Follow up: what happens when an individual gets two "male" X chromosomes? Is this viable?

I don't think it would happen. The modified X chromosome just replaces the Y. Males are XfXm, and Females XfXf (I have no idea what the correct notations is, but this will work here). Females wouldn't possess the modified chromosome, so couldn't pass it on.

<facepalm> True, I had a brainfart. Sorry.

[Havok]

Aren't people whos wisdom teeth don't come in slightly more evolved than the peoples who do?

No one is "more" or "less" evolved than anyone else - all living creatures on Earth are equally the products of 4+ billion years of evolution. You don't have some lineages with an extra billion years tacked on, or that have only been evolving 2 billion years.

You have to ask why the teeth didn't come in - there are some genetic disorders, such as the one that leads to "wolfmen", hypertrichosis, which lead to fewer teeth, and of poorer quality, that confer no advantage whatsoever. In other cases, it's just human variation which may or may not confer an advantage. Wisdom teeth are an interesting conundrum - some people have no problem finding room on their jaws for them, others have no room and suffer excruiciating pain until they are removed, and others never get them. In earlier times, when people tended to have already lost a few teeth by early adulthood, the loss of other teeth might have made room for the wisdom teeth, which would provide new teeth and allow better eating for a few more years. In which case those who never got wisdom teeth would be at a disadvantage, as they would become toothless sooner.

Doesn't that work the other way as well, where you could say that the people that don't get wisdom teeth have adapted to the way we live now in which there really isn't a need for extra teeth since we don't constantly knock them out chewing on and breaking open bones?

Sidenote: My wisdom teeth came in and I had room for 'em, so I'm not trying to imply I am more evolved.

[Shinova]

Why don't our pinkies grow longer so they help the rest of our fingers instead?




How sad. I thought only corrupt politicians and greedy businessmen cut corners but apparently evolution does too!! AAAAAuuugghh!!!