Are humans really still evolving?

[Soul Kitchen]

Here's my problem with the idea.

You have the human population, with some people much greater than others.

Do those great people represent the direction humans are headed?

Well, who's having the babies?

Are those people reproducing any more than the stupid and the overweight?

Many of the greatest people in history left no children behind.

There could have once been a mutation among panda bears that made some of them sentient and philosophical. However, they would come upon the conclusion that such matters as reproduction are pointless and they die. Therefore, the gene was never passed on and the stupid, ignorant pandas keep right on having babies and that is the direction the species went.

The kind of improvement we would want in the human race are not consistent with the kind of improvement that would affect evolution. Everybody lives, and everybody reproduce. If Ray Charles was born in the wild, he would not have survived long after developing his blindness. However, being human, he survived and went on reproduce quite a bit.

Once could argue that attractive people are more likely to procreate. While they must consider how much the unattractive procreate anyways, that subtle likelihood might be enough to indicate the direction the human race is headed. Perhaps people are gradually going to become more and more attractive.

However, almost EVERYBODY finds a mate eventually. The smart and the stupid, the fit and the fat, the handsome and the ugly. It all comes down to who has the most babies(that survive).

With that in mind, which direction would you say we are evolving?

[MysticStrummer]

I'd say no. Our society of conveniences doesn't encourage evolution. We won't evolve anymore until we screw up the atmosphere enough to cause mutations on a grand scale. As for who is reproducing faster, the morons are clearly winning that race. I read somewhere that two attractive people don't necessarily produce attractive offspring, but I can't remember where I saw that.

[Indiogene]

In the words of the song "In the morning, In the evening, hey we have fun" in the Great Gatsby movie (based on F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1920's novel) starring Robert Redford had a line of lyrics about the phenomenon: "The Rich are getting richer, and the Poor are having...Children".

It's a demographic trend for more affluent and higher educated people to pursue careers and a single/childless lifestyle without family responsbilities in the way, and the demanding professional working world full of errands and guidelines delays the need in settling down for marriage and time to have children. When one is busy, they seem not to make children right away, thus affecting the natural growth rate of populations in entire countries, most notably the industrialized/developed world.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Makoto Jupiter

[Soul Kitchen]

In the words of the song "In the morning, In the evening, hey we have fun" in the Great Gatsby movie starring Robert Redford had a lyric on the phenomenon: "The Rich are getting richer, and the Poor are having...Children". It's a demographic trend for more affluent and higher educated people to pursue careers and a lifestyle without family responsbilities in the way, and the demanding professional working world full of errands and guidelines delays the need in settling down for marriage and time to have children.

Wasn't the lyric in the book as well?

Was it necessary to remind me of that movie?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Soul Kitchen

[Soul Kitchen]

I read somewhere that two attractive people don't necessarily produce attractive offspring, but I can't remember where I saw that.

No, they don't. They are probably more likely to produce attractive offspring but it isn't a given.

[psychoticmike]

I would say the wrong direction! I mean look at the world in its current state people are dumb as rocks i'm sure you guys have met someone in your life who you truly wonder how they even survived based upon their sheer stupidity those people are everywhere in every neighborhood on just about every block. It has been my experience that most people these days shudder at anything slightly intellectual and if your not interested in lada gaga and reality tv then your not cool LOL have you guys ever noticed how dumb most conversations are? how people talk just to talk? I don't think i have ever been at any dinner table where i was truly interested in what people have to say cause the topics are usually about typical everyday bull! The unintelligent and ignorant greatly outnumber the rest. People have babies just so they can get a check or food stamps, those people are lazy and stupid so chances are all those babies they have will be to.

Think about how care free a normal child is, its mainly because of ignorance and as they grow up and experience the real world they become a lot more cautious and they realize how threatening the world can really be. You see a lot of ignorant grown ups that have the mentality and maturity of a child. I wonder if civilization itself will be our downfall, natural selection is not natural anymore so we are basically committing suicide by keeping around the ones nature would have eliminated. In today's society the ones who are to stupid to survive on their own are helped and the weak and dying are saved etc. i think we are screwed unless we can populate another planet because whether or not this planet is truly overpopulated at this rate it will be for sure in the future.

[libstaK]

LOL have you guys ever noticed how dumb most conversations are? how people talk just to talk? I don't think i have ever been at any dinner table where i was truly interested in what people have to say cause the topics are usually about typical everyday bull! The unintelligent and ignorant greatly outnumber the rest. People have babies just so they can get a check or food stamps, those people are lazy and stupid so chances are all those babies they have will be to.

Yeah I hear you on that one, I really do not give a hoot about petty gossip and rehashing of the latest top rating soap operas or what so and so was wearing

We are in the process of involution

Edited July 13, 2011 by libstaK

[SlimJim22]

In a lot of cases "Involution" would fit what we see perfectly. However, despite a large proportion of individuals wasting the opportunity a life time brings and contributing little of value to their own evolution or thatof the species.

However, if we look at evolution purely in terms of our species, we are always evolving. As we acquire greater knowledge and understanding through experience, experiments and technology, as a clollective we become more than we were. There is a continuous progression at least in terms of science and technology and what are they if not adaptations that confer a potential benefit to our species and our chance chance of survival.

The thing is that I do not think any creature evolves by accident. It may not be conscious in the case of animals but if a species is faced with the threat of extinction, if the change is subtle enough they will mutate in order to survive. Do they evolve because they want to or because they need to?

It does not matter in any case because not all individual creatures do evolve. The majority fail to adapt and they die leaving only the fittest to procreate. With animals and with humans we cannot look at individual cases but must look to the trends over a larger period. In this sense we have advanced as a species in the last ten years alone. We now have more connectivity and information is just a word or click away.

The problem is that with an abundance of technology comes greater dangers of radiation and this can have detrimental effects on our mental and physical well being. It is but one of a numberof other strains that we put on our lives but cummulatively allthese factors are leading more and more people to embrace mental and physical fitness as a matter of course.

We also have better and better prosthetics and drugs and although all these things are to some extent synthetic they are all adaptations to our environment. It is just that a lot of the evolution is the result of mental or osychological evolution compared to the physical evolution people are more aware of. Funny really that evolution is all around us and yet we are almost expecting ourselves to grow wings or a prehensile tail.

The subtle evolution is something we may not easily perceive but if we do perceive we may be able to direct our consciousness and intention to our potential to evolve. Becoming more connected to everything and in harmony gives us greater empathy and this means we are more adapted to reading peoples subtle body language, which is as important a medium of communication as we posess.

[Damrod]

No we are not evolving any further...at least in my opinion. Natural selection is no longer a part of the equation.

I have to agree with psychoticmike, there really is alot of stupid out there...

Too many safety regulations have prevented the stupid genes from killing themselves out...

It's those damn labels on the continuous cloth towel dispensers in public restrooms that say "Do not hang from towel by neck"

really?...someone needs to be told that?...I say remove the warning label and let them...we need fewer stupid people...

[Taun]

I think a lot of the 'stupid' out there is more a case of 'lazy'...

"Entertain me... because I'm too lazy to entertain myself..."

"Tell me what to think... because I'm too lazy to think for myself..."

"Tell me what is good and what is bad... because I'm too lazy to decide for myself..."

Edited July 13, 2011 by Taun

[Soul Kitchen]

In a lot of cases "Involution" would fit what we see perfectly. However, despite a large proportion of individuals wasting the opportunity a life time brings and contributing little of value to their own evolution or thatof the species.

However, if we look at evolution purely in terms of our species, we are always evolving. As we acquire greater knowledge and understanding through experience, experiments and technology, as a clollective we become more than we were. There is a continuous progression at least in terms of science and technology and what are they if not adaptations that confer a potential benefit to our species and our chance chance of survival.

The thing is that I do not think any creature evolves by accident. It may not be conscious in the case of animals but if a species is faced with the threat of extinction, if the change is subtle enough they will mutate in order to survive. Do they evolve because they want to or because they need to?

It does not matter in any case because not all individual creatures do evolve. The majority fail to adapt and they die leaving only the fittest to procreate. With animals and with humans we cannot look at individual cases but must look to the trends over a larger period. In this sense we have advanced as a species in the last ten years alone. We now have more connectivity and information is just a word or click away.

The problem is that with an abundance of technology comes greater dangers of radiation and this can have detrimental effects on our mental and physical well being. It is but one of a numberof other strains that we put on our lives but cummulatively allthese factors are leading more and more people to embrace mental and physical fitness as a matter of course.

We also have better and better prosthetics and drugs and although all these things are to some extent synthetic they are all adaptations to our environment. It is just that a lot of the evolution is the result of mental or osychological evolution compared to the physical evolution people are more aware of. Funny really that evolution is all around us and yet we are almost expecting ourselves to grow wings or a prehensile tail.

The subtle evolution is something we may not easily perceive but if we do perceive we may be able to direct our consciousness and intention to our potential to evolve. Becoming more connected to everything and in harmony gives us greater empathy and this means we are more adapted to reading peoples subtle body language, which is as important a medium of communication as we posess.

But science and technology are seperate from ourselves. THEY are evolving, not us.

And, as far as I know, there as yet to be a gene that reflects our progress in technology. If it all dissapeared and the world was left to another generation with no inherent knowledge of science or technology, what would happen? They are the same humans as we.

I will concede that we have evolved longer life spans, though recently it might have stopped increasing with generations that had shorter life expectancies than their parents.

[SlimJim22]

But science and technology are seperate from ourselves. THEY are evolving, not us.

And, as far as I know, there as yet to be a gene that reflects our progress in technology. If it all dissapeared and the world was left to another generation with no inherent knowledge of science or technology, what would happen? They are the same humans as we.

I will concede that we have evolved longer life spans, though recently it might have stopped increasing with generations that had shorter life expectancies than their parents.

I believe there are genetic and exogenetic programs of evolution.

By far the most important difference is that the instructions for making endosomatic parts of ourselves, like kidneys and hearts and lungs, are genetically programmed. Instructions for making exosomatic organs are transmitted through non-genetic channels. In human beings, exogenetic heredity --- the transfer of information through non-genetic channels --- has become more important for our biological success than anything programmed in DNA. Through the direct action of the environment, we do in a sense `learn' to develop a skin thicker on the soles of our feet than elsewhere. But information of this kind cannot be passed on genetically, and there is indeed no known mechanism by which it could be. It is only in exosomatic heredity that this kind of transfer can come about. We can learn to make and wear shoes and pass on this knowledge ready-made to the next generation as readily as we can pass on the shoes themselves.

There is no learning process in ordinary genetic heredity: we can't teach DNA anything, and there is no known process by which the translation of the instructions it embodies can be reversed. No information that the organism receives in its lifetime can be imprinted upon the DNA, but in exogenetic heredity we can and do learn things in the course of life which are transmitted to the succeeding generation; thus exogenetic heredity is Lamarckian or instructional in style, rather than Darwinian or selective. By no manner of means can the blacksmith transmit is brawny arms to his children, but there is nothing to stop his teaching his children his trade so that they grow up to be as strong and skillful as himself.

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Medawar/technology-and-evolution/

You should also read about Sheldrake's theory of Morphogenesis, inclusing morphic resonance and formative causation if you don't mind me saying so.

http://integrallife.com/apply/science-technology/sheldrakes-theory-morphogenesis

To me these theories imply that as we experience life we undergo psychological,physiological and genetic changes. At the point of conception the parents will be different peopleon a cellular level than they were ten years previous.Okay they will have aged but their brains and genetic memory will have changed in that time. Any adaptive advantage the individual makes may be passed on to the offspring. I am not sure of they have done many twin studies into this but I bet you could find some studies relevant to your question. Basically if you learn to play tennis and become really good and then have a child your child will have genes that may make them better at tennis than the average person even if they were not coached in it. The naturally ability may be passed on but not in all cases.

Evolution is about cells organizing themselves so humans and animals evolve genetically but through our thought processes we can evolve exogenetically and receive benefits of technological development and our means of communicating it. It is notlimited to technology however as wecontinue to evolve or progress spiritually and interms of creativity and even governance.

[Damrod]

Longer life spans...imo...is due to medicine and technology...not evolution. We are generally taller though...maybe thats it.

[H.H. Holmes]

Of course we are still evolving. Why wouldn't we be? It's not like evolution just magically comes to a halt once a species becomes sufficiently advanced.

[Ninja Moves 101]

Here's my problem with the idea.

You have the human population, with some people much greater than others.

Do those great people represent the direction humans are headed?

Well, who's having the babies?

Are those people reproducing any more than the stupid and the overweight?

Many of the greatest people in history left no children behind.

There could have once been a mutation among panda bears that made some of them sentient and philosophical. However, they would come upon the conclusion that such matters as reproduction are pointless and they die. Therefore, the gene was never passed on and the stupid, ignorant pandas keep right on having babies and that is the direction the species went.

The kind of improvement we would want in the human race are not consistent with the kind of improvement that would affect evolution. Everybody lives, and everybody reproduce. If Ray Charles was born in the wild, he would not have survived long after developing his blindness. However, being human, he survived and went on reproduce quite a bit.

Once could argue that attractive people are more likely to procreate. While they must consider how much the unattractive procreate anyways, that subtle likelihood might be enough to indicate the direction the human race is headed. Perhaps people are gradually going to become more and more attractive.

However, almost EVERYBODY finds a mate eventually. The smart and the stupid, the fit and the fat, the handsome and the ugly. It all comes down to who has the most babies(that survive).

With that in mind, which direction would you say we are evolving?

More like devolving...

[throwaway2014]

Evolution is something that happens over a span of millions of years, and we're only aware of around 10,000 of it. Surely we are evolving. But not in an advancing way, I think. It's because of technology.

Natural Selection says that those with beneficial traits are more likely to survive, while those born with unnecessary traits most likely die out, ultimately increasing the numbers of species with beneficial traits. However, "beneficial traits" lose their need in humanity because we replace those traits with technology, ie. if we need to move mountains, we don't need stronger arms, we get big machines. In the end, people with beneficial traits have the same chance of reproduction with those of normal people. Humanity, then, becomes a messy pool of random traits.

Truly, Humanity will have a future full of surprises.

[Soul Kitchen]

Evolution is something that happens over a span of millions of years, and we're only aware of around 10,000 of it. Surely we are evolving. But not in an advancing way, I think. It's because of technology.

Natural Selection says that those with beneficial traits are more likely to survive, while those born with unnecessary traits most likely die out, ultimately increasing the numbers of species with beneficial traits. However, "beneficial traits" lose their need in humanity because we replace those traits with technology, ie. if we need to move mountains, we don't need stronger arms, we get big machines. In the end, people with beneficial traits have the same chance of reproduction with those of normal people. Humanity, then, becomes a messy pool of random traits.

Truly, Humanity will have a future full of surprises.

Did you actually read my post?

[The Silver Thong]

With that in mind, which direction would you say we are evolving?

As far as I can see we are de evolving. What we will be like in a 1000 yr will be very similar to the borg. With out the FTL and time travle though.

[Varelse]

If by evolving you mean changing --some for the better and some for worse, then the answer is yes. As long as people are making babies there will be evolution.

But I understand the pessimism. We are reaching critical mass for Idiocracy.

[luna_anabella]

It seems to me that there is an assumption that clever people will have clever children.

In terms of genetic, we basically possess all the genes to be clever and stupid(and many other personality traits, health issue...etc).

A big part of what we become attributes to how we grow up. Culture, society, education, family, financial situation,value system...etc are all factors affecting young children. In many undevelop countries, people have no access of education and technology some they may remain farmers for generations. Even if that farmer possess a gene which will make him an excellent chemist there is no place for this posibility to spring. He and his kids will remain farmers and other people may judge him as stupid. The good news is the gene is still hidden and would wait for appropriate moment and environment to spring.

Even in developed countries, no one can guarantee that a lawyer's son would become a lawyer rather than a criminal. See, if I am a doctor so that my son will become a doctor, it would make parenting so much more easier. Nowadays we have so much choice availible, a clever person can choose to be lazy and not work hard. Personal choices and circumstances should also be taken into consideration when we measure the quality of human. I think it might be a bit arbitary to base evolution merely to genetics and quatity of reproduction.

[H.H. Holmes]

It seems to me that there is an assumption that clever people will have clever children.

In terms of genetic, we basically possess all the genes to be clever and stupid(and many other personality traits, health issue...etc).

A big part of what we become attributes to how we grow up. Culture, society, education, family, financial situation,value system...etc are all factors affecting young children. In many undevelop countries, people have no access of education and technology some they may remain farmers for generations. Even if that farmer possess a gene which will make him an excellent chemist there is no place for this posibility to spring. He and his kids will remain farmers and other people may judge him as stupid. The good news is the gene is still hidden and would wait for appropriate moment and environment to spring.

Even in developed countries, no one can guarantee that a lawyer's son would become a lawyer rather than a criminal. See, if I am a doctor so that my son will become a doctor, it would make parenting so much more easier. Nowadays we have so much choice availible, a clever person can choose to be lazy and not work hard. Personal choices and circumstances should also be taken into consideration when we measure the quality of human. I think it might be a bit arbitary to base evolution merely to genetics and quatity of reproduction.

Very well said. The environment in which a person lives is just as important to the fostering of intelligence within an individual as genetics are. Would we ever have heard of Mozart if he was born a peasant former. Or Einstein if he was a cow herder? Or Bill Gates if he was born in the backwoods of Mississippi? Talent is only evident if it has a medium in which it can manifest itself.

[Old Hippie Blogger]

But science and technology are seperate from ourselves. THEY are evolving, not us.

And, as far as I know, there as yet to be a gene that reflects our progress in technology. If it all dissapeared and the world was left to another generation with no inherent knowledge of science or technology, what would happen? They are the same humans as we.

I will concede that we have evolved longer life spans, though recently it might have stopped increasing with generations that had shorter life expectancies than their parents.

Evolution is constant, people are evolving. But NOT ALL evolution is for the better! Science and technology can't evolve without people. People are the engine that powers the evolution of science and technology. The problem is that too many people DON'T WANT TO EVOLVE. They are mired in nostalgia, yearning for "The Good Old Days". And there are those that for many reasons, religious, fear etc., that see threat in scientific and technological advancements. Those that fear technologies because of what will be done with it if the corrupt use it for their own purposes. Fear from SOME of the religious who fear the discovery of something would erode their belief system. So, what we have is a conflict between those who fear the future, and want to go back to the good old days, and those who see hope for the future, and want to venture forward. In the middle are the lazy, unambitious, the uneducated and the morons who never think one way or the other.

[Soul Kitchen]

Evolution is constant, people are evolving. But NOT ALL evolution is for the better! Science and technology can't evolve without people. People are the engine that powers the evolution of science and technology. The problem is that too many people DON'T WANT TO EVOLVE. They are mired in nostalgia, yearning for "The Good Old Days". And there are those that for many reasons, religious, fear etc., that see threat in scientific and technological advancements. Those that fear technologies because of what will be done with it if the corrupt use it for their own purposes. Fear from SOME of the religious who fear the discovery of something would erode their belief system. So, what we have is a conflict between those who fear the future, and want to go back to the good old days, and those who see hope for the future, and want to venture forward. In the middle are the lazy, unambitious, the uneducated and the morons who never think one way or the other.

What you are talking about is technological advancement, rather than actual human evolution. Nostalgia shouldn't have any actual effect on evolution.

[SlimJim22]

What you are talking about is technological advancement, rather than actual human evolution. Nostalgia shouldn't have any actual effect on evolution.

How familiar are you with Dawkins and his theories of memes?

He wanted to prevent his readers from thinking that the gene was necessarily the "be-all and end-all of evolution ... which all adaptations could be said to benefit" (Dawkins, 1999, p xvi) and make it clear that the fundamental unit of natural selection is the replicator - any kind of replicator. Nevertheless, he laid the groundwork for memetics. He likened some memes to parasites infecting a host, especially religions which he termed viruses of the mind (Dawkins, 1993), and he showed how mutually assisting memes will group together into co-adapted meme complexes (or memeplexes) often propagating themselves at the expense of their hosts.

Dennett subsequently used the concept of memes to illustrate the evolutionary algorithm and to discuss personhood and consciousness in terms of memes. He stressed the importance of asking Cui bono? or who benefits? The ultimate beneficiary of an evolutionary process, he stressed, is whatever it is that is copied; i.e. the replicator. Everything else that happens, and all the adaptations that come about, are ultimately for the sake of the replicators.

This idea is central to what has come to be known as selfish gene theory, but it is important to carry across this insight into dealing with any new replicator. If memes are truly replicators in their own right then we should expect things to happen in human evolution which are not for the benefit of the genes, nor for the benefit of the people who carry those genes, but for the benefit of the memes which those people have copied.

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/cas01.html

You actually have a number of groups with their own ideologies who are actively pursuing evolution and you cannot deny the progress and adaptions we make a time moves on andas we reorganize our perceptions of the world and they way we live.

http://www.humansfuture.org/transhumanism_intro.php.htm

Edited July 16, 2011 by SlimJim22

[AmpleFyre]

Human evolution is different than other evolution. This is because humans, being the 'sapient' things we are, make nature bend to our rule, rather than the 'natural' other way around.

I think humans are still evolving, but at a much, much, slower rate than what would be in other animals. This is because we manipulate our surroundings to fit us, rather than us to fit our surroundings.

e.g. Too hot? Invent an air conditioner. Not enough space for living? Build taller buildings.

Most other animals didn't/don't have the luxury to be able to manipulate their ecosystems to fit their needs and wants. Which is a little bit of a mixed blessing. It's sad to see so many species die out, but I suppose it's better than dinosaurs with machine guns and spaceships aiming for world domination, eh?

My link

Edited July 17, 2011 by DeltaEcho