How do you think we are evolving?

[Pearl Trade]

All living beings are constantly changing, we call it evolution. We've been evolving since the beginning of time. No matter what you believe in, this is a fact.

My question is: how do you think humans are evolving now? What are we gaining, what are we losing, what is changing to adapt to the environment of today? Do you think humans evolved and progressed too fast for our own good?

My lesser question is: are any races, ethnicities, or groups of people more equipped to pass down traits to offspring that gives them a better chance of survival? Traits like darker skin, better vision, stronger muscles and things of that nature. I realize this question is walking a fine line, so hopefully my wording prevents any misunderstandings.

I think humans are becoming weaker in mind and body. With all of our advancements in medicine, the people who used to die off are now being kept alive to breed more weak people. For the most part, at least here in America and other Western countries, we have removed natural selection or drastically changed the conditions of it. Strong humans used to mate with other strong humans, resulting in the children being strong themselves. And if they weren't, they were quickly taken out of the gene pool. We have idiots with low quality genes making more idots with low quality genes. The cycle continues and weak genes are continually being passed down through the generations.

Our minds are becoming weaker because of poor education and thirst for knowledge. I've witnessed the others around me becoming less and less aware of the world around them. I don't know the factors that are making this happen, but I'm sure there are hundreds. As a society we are not being forced to think as much as we used to with the creation of the internet, allowing us to look up information without retaining what we know. Instant gain, long term loss. These people who aren't educated by themselves will have children with presumably the same problem as the parents.

Oh, don't limit yourself to changes unseen. If you think we are going to grow a third leg because it will help us walk, say so. Be speculative and creative or you can back your theories up with some hard science and fact. There is no right or wrong.

[FelixP]

I'll have to disagree with the whole "people are dumb" theory. We're not dumb. We're just self-absorbed. That, combined with our general lack of critical thinking/problem solving skills, has made us helpless at best. As far as physical fitness goes, the gap between fit and unfit is rapidly increasing. Pure speculation, but it seems to me that alot people are either overweight or in damn fine shape, with the majority leaning towards being overweight.

One thing I was curious about was our collective resistance to chemicals, theoretically brought about by harmful materials in our homes (fiberglass, certain plastics), food (growth hormones, pesticides), and of course our enviroment (air pollution, oil spills).

[Willravel]

We don't evolve anymore, at least not in the sense we have for billions of years. 12,000 years ago, humans started domesticating plants along with animals and developed technology and medicine. Now, environmental factors change moment to moment, so fast they're irrelevant to natural selection. A few hundred years ago, being overweight indicated wealth and security and as a result was favorable from a reproductive standpoint. Now being overweight indicates poor health and possibly bad genes and is less favorable. A few hundred years in an evolutionary timescale is nothing, a pittance.

Before too long, we'll start in with eugenics and then we'll be, generally, strictly separated from evolution. We'll probably always have random mutations, but because of technology and medicine natural selection will no longer have any bearing on our development over time as a species. It raises a lot of questions. We will soon have the power to significantly influence the direction we move in as a species, but should we? What right do we have to become our own gods? Should my child have gills or live for 1000 years? What are the broader implications of creating people immune to disease?

Regarding humans becoming weaker, I don't think that makes any sense. We'd be weaker if we lived during a time when humans were hunter-gatherers and needed higher strength and such, but we don't. We live in the time of cubicles and computers. I don't need to run 12 miles a day and track a mastodon in order to earn food, shelter, and creature comforts. We're not weaker, we've adapted to our artificial surroundings. And we're actually ridiculously smart compared to our distant relatives. We're highly specialized, though. I can play a piano and market a product and drive a car and a million other things, whereas many generations ago all that was needed was to hunt, track, protect, and procreate. We're asked to solve problems that require knowledge of systems withing systems within systems. Let's see an Aztec write an operating system or perform brain surgery.

[Craven Morehead]

Isn't adapting evolutionary? If we don't adapt we don't survive. We're replacing one set of essential skill sets (how to slay a mastodon) for another (how to drive a car to work). Both are essential for our survival. We're capable of performing both however for the most part, modern man has moved on from the less civilized set of skills to something more refined. We've unlearned the more rudimentary survival skills. But we're still capable of both. Finding a mastodon would be a challenge though.

[Plan9]

I dislike the notion that acquiring food in a way that many still do to this day is somehow less civilized.

That kind of philosophy is evidence of how fragile modern society is based on individual survival skills.

Take away the modern conveniences from 1000 people in America and how many would survive? 100?

We live in an age where most people have never had to make a fire even with the help of matches.

As long as humans require food, clothing, and shelter... basic survival skills should be maintained.

[Baraka_Guru]

Humans' ability to adapt is legendary. There have been failures, but if you look into the details of them, you'd likely come to the conclusion, "They lasted that long?"

We are generalists. We are the one of the most proficient generalists in the known world. Sure, the cockroach has the ability to survive nuclear apocalypse, but you should see some of the crap they eat.

Being a generalist means we have the capacity to adapt to rapidly changing environments. 9er's scenario of 1,000 Americans thrust out into the hunter-gatherer position I think would yield different results. I'd say at least twice as many would survive: 200 at least. It wouldn't surprise me if double or triple that actually did. But, of course, we're speculating.

Willravel makes excellent points regarding our human intelligence and knowledge. Most of our adaptive stresses have been with regard to technological changes. Our world is strikingly different than that of our grandparents. Try getting by in today's society without knowing how to use a computer. A hunter-gatherer doesn't need to go through a K-12 education system to do what they do to thrive. They go though a different kind of practical education, and, of course, they too learn the "soft skills" related to arts and history.

No, humans aren't dumb or weak. We're generally selfish, motivated, lazy, and greedy, but not dumb or weak. It's natural for us to maximize our leisure. It's natural for us to only work as much as required until we fulfill our needs, if not our desires.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Pearl Trade, regarding being less aware of the world. I'm far more aware of the world thanks in large part to the Internet and global news sources, films, stories, and literature.

We like instant gratification, but we don't always go for it. What separates the successful from the unsuccessful is one's ability to regulate that. Regardless, most of us crave stable environments. That's what specialized species need: stability. Any major changes could wipe them out.

Humans, on the other hand, adapt. We've been doing it decade to decade. To reiterate some points and to add some more, since the 20th century, we've learned how to drive cars, use computers, navigate ever-changing organizational behavour, constantly update job skills and knowledge, learn and relearn new and emerging technologies, abandon old practices and begin new ones, etc.

The 20th century, and even today, has seen rapid social, cultural, and technological changes not seen since the Victorian period with the industrial revolution. But it's more apt to say that the changes of today are as profound if not more than the change that occurred during the Renaissance. And I'm not speaking merely of Renaissance arts and culture. I'm also speaking of how navigational expertise opened up world trade, which lead to a huge shift in the makeup of the world.

The parallel today is the opening up of computing technology and quantum physics. As we progress down these avenues, the way our societies work will continue to change. What we know now will be strikingly different twenty or thirty years from now. And between now and then, we'll need to keep changing with the times.

In terms of evolutionary theory, however, it's difficult to say what's happening on a grand scale. With technology, we are now allowing most traits to be passed on, some of which may otherwise have not. With technology, we are able to now deal with some of the problems that arise with certain traits. The curing of diseases is just one example. Those genetically resistant to certain diseases no longer have an evolutionary advantage.

It's all very interesting to think about.

[raging moderate]

I agree with most of what you're saying, Baraka, and I like to call attention to what your saying about the difference between us being adaptive vs changes on an evolutionary scale.

One example of a purely evolutionary change in humans is the fact that we have grown taller. I don't know why, but the human has gotten taller throughout the ages. I think our brains have grown larger also. Presumably, our brains growing in size have allowed us to do the aforementioned car driving and program writing over the mastodon hunting. although I actually would like to hunt a mastodon. I think that'd be cool.

[Baraka_Guru]

Yeah, that's an important distinction, r m, and it's one I tried briefly to distinguish with my last paragraph I posted.

These things are difficult to measure because the unit of measurement is each generation.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

OP Trade: Many of your speculations & prejudices I share, but I think our current situations are part of the process. We're evolving as fast as we can.

[Lasereth]

I think there's a chance that gay people are evolution's population control.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I think there's a chance that gay people are evolution's population control.

That's an interesting thought. So is the thought that gays have kids all the time.

Oh, the wonders of science.

[roachboy]

change is everywhere continuously. it has directions. but A Direction? i suppose that's a function of what you leave out.

[Pearl Trade]

Does anyone think there is a limit to our evolution or change? Is it possible for us to hit a plateau? Maybe our evolution is a massive bell graph; we progress, hit our pinnacle, and fall back down, inevitably to rise again.

Baraka, do you think adaptation and evolution are different? I believe they are the same, if you adapt to a change in your environment and you like where that led you, you will stay there. Evolution is the same way, we just can't control it (yet).

On another point you made, you said you have become more aware because of news, movies, and literature. But how much of the population takes advantage of these knowledge outlets? We all watch movies, but do we actually gain anything from them besides "that movie was great"? To gain knowledge of what you've read or seen, you must think about it. When I read, whether it be a novel or newspaper, I stop to think about what I just read rather than only seeing words on paper. This is something I fear the majority of people aren't doing. We're becoming the "mindless mass", taking in information at an extraordinary level but not retaining or thinking about it.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

Baraka, do you think adaptation and evolution are different? I believe they are the same, if you adapt to a change in your environment and you like where that led you, you will stay there. Evolution is the same way, we just can't control it (yet).

Adaptation is a function of evolution. Evolution is the term we use to describe the changes within a species over time. Adaptation is a measure of a species' capacity to deal with environmental change. The traits that have allowed a species to survive is what shapes its evolution. Look at the differences between a lion and a human. There are many differences in how we respond to our environments. If you take a lion out of its natural habitat, or if you remove its access to its main food source, it will likely die. Do the same to a human and its chances of survival are greater. However, lions have evolved into proficient and deadly hunters. You will also notice that they sleep for long periods of time---up to 20 hours a day, apparently. None of this is random. One theory explains that lions need to conserve their energy in between the times they go without food.

On another point you made, you said you have become more aware because of news, movies, and literature. But how much of the population takes advantage of these knowledge outlets? We all watch movies, but do we actually gain anything from them besides "that movie was great"? To gain knowledge of what you've read or seen, you must think about it. When I read, whether it be a novel or newspaper, I stop to think about what I just read rather than only seeing words on paper. This is something I fear the majority of people aren't doing. We're becoming the "mindless mass", taking in information at an extraordinary level but not retaining or thinking about it.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of the human brain. The benefit we get from a steady exposure to film, literature, newspapers, etc, does not require an active stop-and-think; however, I will say that there is much more you can get out of these things if you do. The human subconscious is an incredible thing, and I'm constantly surprising myself in terms of being able to make connections and leaps based on certain triggers that bring things I've consumed to the fore.

The problem isn't that many people are incapable of critical thought; I think the problem is that they have no motivation to think critically. They're complacent and don't feel that anything is at risk. If you light a fire under them, then you might be surprised. However, the danger always remains where people get swept up into herd mentality, which tends to happen when a fire is lit under several people at once. This is a substantial difference.

People are social beings, and so find commonalities to confirm their own desires and fears. It's when you isolate them and put them to the test that you might get what you're referring to.

This doesn't say anything about the outright ignorant. I'm referring to those who "should know better" based on their education and exposure to social issues, art, media, and the like.

It's such a complex issue that I don't want to derail too much from the OP.

[Manic_Skafe]

"Darwin’s idea had been born as an answer to questions in biology, but it threatened to leak out, offering answers—welcome or not—to questions in cosmology (going in one direction) and psychology (going in the other direction). If [the cause of design in biology] could be a mindless, algorithmic process of evolution, why couldn't that whole process itself be the product of evolution, and so forth all the way down? And if mindless evolution could account for the breathtakingly clever artifacts of the biosphere, how could the products of our own “real” minds be exempt from an evolutionary explanation? Darwin’s idea thus also threatened to spread all the way up, dissolving the illusion of our own authorship, our own divine spark of creativity and understanding." -Dan Dennett

Slightly off-topic and it's a pretty dickish to leave just a quote but the part in bold sums up what I'd have to say on the topic. Taken from a blog post about art and universal acids.

[Xerxys]

Originally Posted by 2812486

...One example of a purely evolutionary change in humans is the fact that we have grown taller. I don't know why, but the human has gotten taller throughout the ages. I think our brains have grown larger also. Presumably, our brains growing in size have allowed us to do the aforementioned car driving and program writing over the mastodon hunting. although I actually would like to hunt a mastodon. I think that'd be cool.

Well, this is all because of preference amongst the females. A perfect human mate in the animal kingdom is tall. A woman will always pick a taller man for a mate over a shorter one. They just prefer them that way. I don't know why this is. I think it has to do with the same way men picked women with genitalia on their front for a more intimate mating session over women who had to take it doggy style.

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I think there's a chance that gay people are evolution's population control.

Nope. There are animals that are gay. Nearly extinct animals and insects even that are gay. Nature does not have population control. At the very core of nature is survival which overrides all forms of "preservation" (which is an artificial concept BTW) and seeks to populate the planet with as many of a certain species as possible.

[Lindy]

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

Does anyone think there is a limit to our evolution or change? Is it possible for us to hit a plateau? Maybe our evolution is a massive bell graph; we progress, hit our pinnacle, and fall back down....

Are we not men?
We are DEVO!

Lindy

[Iliftrocks]

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Well, this is all because of preference amongst the females. A perfect human mate in the animal kingdom is tall. A woman will always pick a taller man for a mate over a shorter one. They just prefer them that way. I don't know why this is. I think it has to do with the same way men picked women with genitalia on their front for a more intimate mating session over women who had to take it doggy style.

Most of my readings on the subject and the two anthropology classes I had pretty much said we are getting taller because of the abundance of more nutritional foods. Not because of selective breeding, or mutations.

A general preference towards tall men just isn't as effective in producing a taller population when just about everyone gets to mate. In other species where you have to be the alpha, or very quick to not get caught, to mate, then yes it would be more selective for these traits, but we are not like that. Oddly enough with the so called alpha men taking all the so called alpha women, you would think we would be more stratified in nature, with superior genetic lines and inferior, but sometimes the best and brightest come from the dregs, and our elite give birth to subpar human beings.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Pearl Trade

Does anyone think there is a limit to our evolution or change? Is it possible for us to hit a plateau? Maybe our evolution is a massive bell graph; we progress, hit our pinnacle, and fall back down, inevitably to rise again.

There won't be a peak because evolution has no direction. We're evolved the intelligence and ability to reason that gets us past most hurdles so short of a world-changing catastrophe we're going to keep on going. Even then, we staved off a pandemic this past year because we were able to develop a vaccine and take proper precautions. Our survival now depends on our ability to foresee disaster and be prepared; right now we have to do something about our role in global warming, then keep looking out for the next disaster. We think of simple biological traits like "runs faster than the other guys" as evolutionary traits, but what's going to make or break us is "ability to detect and intercept mile wide asteroids headed for us" and "ability to rapidly respond to a potential pandemic." I guess you could call it a plateau that our intelligence has gotten us to where a lot of things that make the difference for animals and our ancestors, don't.

[Amaras]

I think natural selection will cease to be important, and "planned" evolution will
rapidly increase. By "planned" I mean the use of genetic selection, and technology
in general will drive our next significant changes.

[kramus]

I have no idea how we are evolving right now. There is a chance that there is an unseen/invisible change that is happening. That is, the change is subtle, pervasive, and without a large scale physical footprint. Perhaps some social accommodation or intellectual domain or new way of intuiting emotional reactions among our fellows.

There was an explosion in the arts and in the abstract concerns of humans about 50,000 years ago which we see in the sudden existence of petroglyphs, paintings and carvings that have survived. These things didn't exist for the first 150,000 years of our species as homo sapiens sapiens. Coincidence? Maybe, but there are people who image fossil skulls and dig up caves and look for physical characteristics who don't yet see the gross physical changes that possibly would accompany some major evolutionary shift in our immediate ancestors. There could simply have been a series of geniuses who managed to bootstrap our ancestors into the the amazing, creative people that have left us such things as the Altamira, Lascaux and Chauvet paintings. Or it was a brain evolution of a more subtle sort than we can currently determine.

Evolution in the future. Count on it. So long as we don't exterminate ourselves through war, get eliminated through some souless lottery (solar hiccup, dinosaur killer or inner-mantle shrug that flips the planets crust upside down) or run into an insidious killer like the degraded plastics that are finding their way into our very cells.

If humanity can get a permanent foothold away from Mother Earth evolution will be a certainty. Don't tell me that the folks who's ancestors have lived in the Asteroid Belt for 30,000 years will be genetically identical to the ground huggers who never left the Earth. Not to mention the micro environments that will exist in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud. The folks who eventually live out there will be totally different from us. Radically different environmental pressures coupled with an enormous variety of mutation agencies allowing evolutionary alternatives to spring up.

I think the self-directed evolution that genetic tinkering may lead to will be less impactful in some ways because it will be inside the box. Unless of course some of the results escape the box and evolve again outside of the labs. That could be pretty freaky, actually.

As Baraka points out so clearly we are adaptive as opposed to specialized. Which allows us to explore environments and changes in those environments that kill off more specialized species. That adaptability will allow evolutionary change in one way or another.

As for height - at least in the British Isles over the last 1,000 years it has been shown that diet and opportunity have a greater impact than anything else. Tall Medieval Men People in the time of Alfred the Great were on average the same height as today's average Englishman. If a general population tends to be short that does not reflect an evolutionary change except that poplulations with a lessened dietary surplus tend on average to not grow as tall as populations where the amount of food available is a non-issue.