Have humans stopped evolving?

[Czesia]

It just sort of popped into my head the other day. All other species that continue to occupy this planet are able to do so through natural selection: it's survival of the fittest.

But what happens to humans now? Humans have established themselves as the most intelligent species on this planet. We have laws and rules that make all humans equal, regardless of race, gender, health, intelligence, etc. Therefore, no one is essentially ever exposed to natural selection as a factor for survival, and therefore no genes are eliminated from the population. Aside from natural, random genetic mutations, all that really happens is continual mixing of those genes to create new, unique individuals.

As a species, have we (humans) just stopped evolving? If so, does this put us at a disadvantage?

**Please note: I am talking about evolution of the entire human race as a unitary entity. I'm interested in seeing what people have to say about this.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

No, different subspecies of the species human still mix, although some freaks would rather see the subspecies stay seperate and die out of the specific weaknesses of each one.

 

[SagaLore]

As of right now we are devolving.

People get married and have kids just to have kids, a lot of genetic disorders are passed on, and we have all sorts of medical procedures/medications to bandaid it. There are fewer plagues and diseases that will wipe out the weak to encourage the strong to procreate. We are basically destroying ourselves... the smarter/healthier/wealthier people have less kids, the dumber/sicker/poorer are baby factories (no thanks to public dependance).

Science will eventually bring us to a point where we will Manually Evolve ourselves, through the use of DNA cut and paste. We'll wipe out genetic disorders, baldness, eye problems, etc. Not in our lifetime though.

 

[Deeko]

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=650039&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=arc

 

[Czesia]

Originally posted by: Deeko
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=650039&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=arc

Oh, didn't see that one.

 

[B00ne]

I a way I would say yes. Biological evolution has been replaced with cultural evolution - which still is survival of the fittest in a sense - see economy(ies), wars

But in an catastrophic event which would destroy civilization, it would go back to survilval of the (biologically) fittest

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
No, different subspecies of the species human still mix, although some freaks would rather see the subspecies stay seperate and die out of the specific weaknesses of each one.

Right - interracial marrying is actually good for the human race - although there are some issues with that, for example, jaw and teeth. When you have one group who typically have smaller jaws, and another with larger sets of teeth, that's where you get impacted wisdom teeth and crooked teeth, etc. But after enough interracial mixing I think those problems will level out...

 

[skace]

It is hard to judge evolution from 1 point in time. But I think that I read somewhere that science and evolution go against each other. Because we keep our weak alive with medicine. Certrain traits that would be weeded out in the long run, are kept going because we can hide them or treat them. This means that instead of 1 set of ideally good traits dominating, we see a large spectrum of traits, which is possibly better for survival. Our bodies are relying on our technology though, which makes us less likely to survive something catastrophic.

But, I am not a scientist so this may be off base.

 

[gururu]

stopped evolving? as compared to what? dinosaurs? dinosaurs did not undergo much evolution in any period of 5-10, 000 years. We won't know the repurcussions of today's mdical technology only because most of the advances have been made in conjunction with the development of molecular biology over the past 50 years.
Also, there are two typs of evolution. Environmentally induced and species induced. Environmentally-induced evolution takes into consideration alterations in climate, geography, and food sources; Such as when a species is transplanted from one location to another (eg. New Zealand). The othe is species-induced; Where a species has basically forever to change with little alterations in environment. This sort of evolution is incredibly slow because well, there is basically no need; Think of sharks, alligators, and tortoises. We as humans are knee deep in both types of evolution. Although our food sources are not necessarily at risk, our geographical and climate changes have been drastic. As well, the establishment of organized war, which has basically led to attempted genocide over the millenia, is pobably promoting survival of certain races/traits; think of the predominance of the english language and the dissemination of Spanish genes worldwide.
We are so under the thumb of evolution that I fail to see how current medicine, as inadequate as it is (not a single cure for viruses), can stunt it.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: gururu
(not a single cure for viruses)

Garlic is a good antiviral.

 

[SaltBoy]

Originally posted by: Czesia

Originally posted by: Deeko
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=650039&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=arc

Oh, didn't see that one.

Ummm... look at it's date. I think it's fair game to create another thread on this topic.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

As a friend of mine said, "The evolution of humanity ended with the invention of the crutch."

 

[edro]

We are Super-Evolving... We are probably evolving faster than any other species in the history of the universe. Evolution is not only physical, it is also mental. Our civilization has evolved amazingly in the last few thousand years.

 

[Redviffer]

I think some might be "evolving" in the wrong direction though.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
As of right now we are devolving.

People get married and have kids just to have kids, a lot of genetic disorders are passed on, and we have all sorts of medical procedures/medications to bandaid it. There are fewer plagues and diseases that will wipe out the weak to encourage the strong to procreate. We are basically destroying ourselves... the smarter/healthier/wealthier people have less kids, the dumber/sicker/poorer are baby factories (no thanks to public dependance).

Science will eventually bring us to a point where we will Manually Evolve ourselves, through the use of DNA cut and paste. We'll wipe out genetic disorders, baldness, eye problems, etc. Not in our lifetime though.

Why do you say not in our lifetime?

I wouldn't be so sure about that, at least for some of the genetic diseases..........

Well, I guess I'm only ~20. If you're ~50, that may be true.

 

[Czesia]

I am not talking about the evolution of our civilization, which would include all of our technological and scientific advances, among other accomplishments. Some people seem to be missing the point. I am talking about the human species as a whole. This means that I am also taking into account interracial relations, etc.

I am excluding the obvious implications that would be imposed by the bottleneck effect, say, in the event of a war where certain populations may more or less die out entirely. Obviously, this is a form evolution.

I am referring more specifically to natural selection, however.

 

[gururu]

I am referring more specifically to natural selection, however.

I think you may be limiting your definition of evolution to the fear of being eaten by another species

 

[StageLeft]

I'd say it's slowed because we care for the sick and feeble to vast extents. Also a lot of problems like high propensity to cancer and other illnesses doesn't often show up until a woman/man is past child bearing age. So, they die at 45, but their kids have the problem too.

THen you've got the serious issue where the dumb lower classes generally crank out more children than the smarter upper classes.

 

[Czesia]

Originally posted by: gururu

I am referring more specifically to natural selection, however.

I think you may be limiting your definition of evolution to the fear of being eaten by another species

No, not at all.

I'm looking at the human race from the outside - in. My point is that aside from extreme events that would cause major die-outs (natural phenomena, wars, freak accidents -- all contributing to a bottleneck effect), there really are no limiting factors to rule out genes within our gene pool. So genetic disorders are able to propagate and continue to survive, even though they are not beneficial to the species.

My boyfriend pointed out, however, that this may not be a disadvantage for the human species, as we are intelligent enough and mentally advanced enough to overcome these obstacles, unlike other species (please correct me if I'm wrong ).

I'm wondering if anyone here thinks the same way? Am I mistaken in thinking that we have more or less stopped evolving, and if not, is this a disadvantage?

Also, about sharks and alligators: they have evolved slowly and are still considered quite primitive in their makeup because they did not have any selective pressures that promoted faster evolution. This is separate from the case in humans, who are simply a very adaptable species that has been able to alter their behaviour in such a way to make their propagation possible. For example, our ability to clothe ourselves so that we may live in cold climates, like Canada in the winter.

 

[StageLeft]

My boyfriend pointed out, however, that this may not be a disadvantage for the human species, as we are intelligent enough and mentally advanced enough to overcome these obstacles, unlike other species (please correct me if I'm wrong ).

It is a disadvantage. Just because we're smart enough to feed and care for the feeble and dumb doesn't mean that we're not disadvantaged for it. I'm taking a hardline approach, but what benefit do the mentally retarded do? They merely drain resources. From a purely selfish efficient point of view they represent no benefit to the species, biologically.

Also, people who die before they should be done producing for society (say heart disease in a family kills off most male members in their 50's) sets things back for everybody else too.

 

[edro]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

My boyfriend pointed out, however, that this may not be a disadvantage for the human species, as we are intelligent enough and mentally advanced enough to overcome these obstacles, unlike other species (please correct me if I'm wrong ).

It is a disadvantage. Just because we're smart enough to feed and care for the feeble and dumb doesn't mean that we're not disadvantaged for it. I'm taking a hardline approach, but what benefit do the mentally retarded do? They merely drain resources. From a purely selfish efficient point of view they represent no benefit to the species, biologically.
Also, people who die before they should be done producing for society (say heart disease in a family kills off most male members in their 50's) sets things back for everybody else too.

But empathy is a skill that is useful for treating injured humans as well. If we had no empathy at all, even the temporarily sick would die off. Humans just take it to the extreme.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: edro13

Originally posted by: Skoorb

My boyfriend pointed out, however, that this may not be a disadvantage for the human species, as we are intelligent enough and mentally advanced enough to overcome these obstacles, unlike other species (please correct me if I'm wrong ).

It is a disadvantage. Just because we're smart enough to feed and care for the feeble and dumb doesn't mean that we're not disadvantaged for it. I'm taking a hardline approach, but what benefit do the mentally retarded do? They merely drain resources. From a purely selfish efficient point of view they represent no benefit to the species, biologically.
Also, people who die before they should be done producing for society (say heart disease in a family kills off most male members in their 50's) sets things back for everybody else too.

But empathy is a skill that is useful for treating injured humans as well. If we had no empathy at all, even the temporarily sick would die off. Humans just take it to the extreme.

We'd have empathy even without these people dragging down "progress".

 

[Schadenfreude]

No - evolution is a process that takes MILLIONS of years to really develop.

 

[conjur]

We're constantly evolving. DNA mutations are slow in the making. Look at the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. Takes about 10,000 years per mutation....or so I've read.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: Deeko
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=650039&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=arc

Wow, that is one old thread.