ChatterBank1 min ago
Evolution
Do you think that the human race is going to evolve anymore? I mean if you think the ability of being psychic as evolution, then it would be pointless, as we can get in contact with anyone pretty much anywhere is the world, either by phone, email or other form of electronic communication.
And physical evolution doesnt seem like its going to happen as we make things to benifit every type of person.
I dont know im just thinking out loud, but it intriuges me.
And physical evolution doesnt seem like its going to happen as we make things to benifit every type of person.
I dont know im just thinking out loud, but it intriuges me.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Homer55. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Its an interesting question.
There has been a recent article published by a researcher at the Darwin Unit of the LSE which suggests that the population will split into a dimorphic population ; A healthy, tall, fit,good looking elite, and another population which are short, fat, unhealthy etc. over the next 1000 years or so.
Not so sure you will see any significant changes in the human phenotype over that short a time span myself, bearing in mind that the pace of evolutionary change is generally controlled by predator/prey interaction, gene selection through failure to reproduce before death (which is significantly reduced in human society thorugh advances in general living conditions and medicine), and adaptation through significant environmental pressure.
There has been a recent article published by a researcher at the Darwin Unit of the LSE which suggests that the population will split into a dimorphic population ; A healthy, tall, fit,good looking elite, and another population which are short, fat, unhealthy etc. over the next 1000 years or so.
Not so sure you will see any significant changes in the human phenotype over that short a time span myself, bearing in mind that the pace of evolutionary change is generally controlled by predator/prey interaction, gene selection through failure to reproduce before death (which is significantly reduced in human society thorugh advances in general living conditions and medicine), and adaptation through significant environmental pressure.
Evolution, as in natural selection, has effectively been halted by mankind,however it could be argued that technological progress is a sort of evolution overdrive. I don't think mental or physical attributes will change but increased learning and social oppertunities will form a sort of societal evolution.
Why do you say human evolution has halted Loosehead?
Do you have some sort of reference? I'm no biologist but the University of Chicago geneticists beg to difffer
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07ev olve.html?ex=1299387600&en=03aecd6036986b0e&ei =5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Do you have some sort of reference? I'm no biologist but the University of Chicago geneticists beg to difffer
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07ev olve.html?ex=1299387600&en=03aecd6036986b0e&ei =5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Very interesting (and difficult) question Homer.
Minor changes will always occur but a new species evolved from humans is highly unlikely outside of a major disaster (like the KT event which saw off the dinosaurs) or perhaps successfully colonising space. The basic reason for this is the very human trait of migration:
We do continue to evolve (get taller; live longer) but this visible evolution is mostly not down to darwinian natural selection and fitness as much as our shared knowledge in healthcare. Our local gene pool- the differences between, say, two englishmen - has about the same variation as, say, an englishman and an african. Speciation - the emergence of new species - relies heavily on reproductive isolation which has not occurred and is unlikely to occur for humans on earth. A massive disaster could lead to reproductive isolation on earth or presumably some group could find reproductive isolation in space.
Minor changes will always occur but a new species evolved from humans is highly unlikely outside of a major disaster (like the KT event which saw off the dinosaurs) or perhaps successfully colonising space. The basic reason for this is the very human trait of migration:
We do continue to evolve (get taller; live longer) but this visible evolution is mostly not down to darwinian natural selection and fitness as much as our shared knowledge in healthcare. Our local gene pool- the differences between, say, two englishmen - has about the same variation as, say, an englishman and an african. Speciation - the emergence of new species - relies heavily on reproductive isolation which has not occurred and is unlikely to occur for humans on earth. A massive disaster could lead to reproductive isolation on earth or presumably some group could find reproductive isolation in space.
What I mean Jake is that mankind has interfered with natural selection, genetic faults are allowed to propegate, where as in nature they would not survive long enough to breed, hence inferior genes are being passed on randomly. Imagine a Zebra with dodgy eyesight, they would get eaten very quickly, that's what I mean. Many people live long lives with various conditions that would not survive in nature. So in that sense natural selection does not apply to mankind.
I was going to say perhaps that we would become less physically developed and more mentally adept. Since we now rely on our minds and less on our bodies (e.g office job). But surely we're limiting mental evolution as well, being clever is important, but in today's society it has little effect on your ability to pass on your genes.
I'd agree that mankind is interfering with natural selection but I think that to conclude that that interference has stopped human evolution in it's tracks is too much of a jump.
After all large percentages of the world's popultaion do not have access to sophisticated medecine and many illnesses are incurable and result in the death of the sufferer before they can reproduce.
After all large percentages of the world's popultaion do not have access to sophisticated medecine and many illnesses are incurable and result in the death of the sufferer before they can reproduce.
Its arguable whether man actually interferes with natural selection since as a species we have Evolved the ability to accumulate and share our knowledge and this gives us an advantage. (or put another way we are part of the natural world so anything we do is essentially natural).
Much of medicine is directed towards extending life after a person has been useful in a breeding capacity. Genetic defects that don't disadvantage an individual so as to hamper or stop breading will not effect natural selection and so can accumulate much as they would in another species, this is known as genetic drift.
What we are looking for with Evolution is natural selection, a mechanism which occurs through those people who reach maturity and bread. The genetic evidence suggests that the gene pool is remarkably global hinting that speciation is unlikely. Small changes occur through genetic drift which is not Evolution in the strict sense but is evolution in the sense that things change.
Much of medicine is directed towards extending life after a person has been useful in a breeding capacity. Genetic defects that don't disadvantage an individual so as to hamper or stop breading will not effect natural selection and so can accumulate much as they would in another species, this is known as genetic drift.
What we are looking for with Evolution is natural selection, a mechanism which occurs through those people who reach maturity and bread. The genetic evidence suggests that the gene pool is remarkably global hinting that speciation is unlikely. Small changes occur through genetic drift which is not Evolution in the strict sense but is evolution in the sense that things change.
I would agree to a certain extent that we are interfering with evolution.
Evolution is about survival of the fittest. Yet modern medicine actively seeks to beat nature meaning that even those who would have died and failed to pass on their genes get to live and procreate. Genes that should have failed, through our meddling, succeed.
Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating eugenics or euthenasia I'm just trying to make a point.
Evolution is about survival of the fittest. Yet modern medicine actively seeks to beat nature meaning that even those who would have died and failed to pass on their genes get to live and procreate. Genes that should have failed, through our meddling, succeed.
Don't get me wrong I'm not advocating eugenics or euthenasia I'm just trying to make a point.
It is almost definate that we will evolve is some way, shape or form. For istance it is likely that humans will lose their little toe and little finger as these are not needed. Another example of this is our appendix. The appendix is in our bodies since the time when humans ate grass and the like, it helped us to digest it. We dont tend to eat grass anymore so it is likely we will lose this organ inside our bodies.
There is also the possibility that our technology will evolve to the point that we are no longer needed. We are becoming more and more dependent on technology for our survival already to a point where many of us could not live without it. Perhaps we will be the next 'god' to be tossed on the trash heap of uselessness. Oh well, progress marches on. Hopefully some of us will make good pets!
Less intelligent humans seems to reproduce more than the highly intelligent ones. Will this not lead to 'evolution' towards chaviness?
Seriously, I think evolutionary time spans are so enormously long it is impossible to predict specific changes. Just trying to imagine tens of thousands of years is difficult enough.
Seriously, I think evolutionary time spans are so enormously long it is impossible to predict specific changes. Just trying to imagine tens of thousands of years is difficult enough.
1 to 14 of 14
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |