Slashdot Mirror
Is Humanity Still Evolving?
sciencehabit writes "In a world where we've tamed our environment and largely protected ourselves from the vagaries of nature, we may think we're immune to the forces of natural selection. But a new study finds that the process that drives evolution was still shaping us as recently as the 19th century (abstract). 'The finding comes from an analysis of the birth, death, and marital records of 5923 people born between 1760 and 1849 in four farming or fishing villages in Finland. ... Natural selection was alive and well in all of the villages the researchers surveyed."
What do you think is happening any time someone gets killed by disease? Heck, even when someone is run over by a semi. Natural selection will shape us forever unless we conquer death itself.
Of course we are!
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Yes, we're still evolving. The things being selected for may change, but we are evolving.
Survival is just one evolutionary pressure. As long as we will use inheritable criterion for choosing mating partners, evolution will continue.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Is this the same as asking if their genetic makeup influences a person's chances of having kids?
If you have to ask the question, then you don't know what evolution is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Now down to those that can best shape their environment to suit their needs.
Of course, we could be left with generations of Brawndo drinkers.
Of course it is. Evolution is determined by who reproduces, not (just) by who dies. Some believe evolution to actually be accelerating, as global mobility increases the mixing of genes from different populations.
Why on Earth would natural selection ever stop? That makes almost no sense. Even if people are not dying at the same rate that they once were (or even if immortality was ever discovered), the reproduction of humans are still based on selection. Perhaps selection is no longer determined by the ability to resist disease, but there are new forces controlling selection. The only way that there would be no such thing as selection, is if humans reproduction was literally, and absolutely, random. Even geography and spatial relationships could not influence reproductive partners. Obviously, human reproduction is not even remotely random, thus reproduction is still being influenced by evolution.
Considering our environment is changing at a radical pace, I'd think it obvious that we're still subject to evolutionary pressures. Now more than ever.
No, not just climate change -- that's going at a much slower pace than the change in diet, access to medical care, exercise habits, and the rest.
(What, you thought that a higher proportion of people with genetic diseases surviving to reproductive age somehow doesn't contribute to the change in allele frequency in the human gene pool?)
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
I know some crazy people like to claim that Humanity stopped evolving because of our technology, but only fools actually believe it. We've just be evolving to use our technology better. Unless you stop random mutation though some sort of Genetic Purity process their will always be Evolution.
Natural Selection is alive and well in the 21st century.
If anything, mankind's crowning achievement is the creation of a vast variety of new and innovative ways to remove ourselves from the gene pool.
Darwin would be proud
If the death rate reduces, and population increases, then evolution will be faster than ever, as no unique DNA trait goes extinct. Of course, all bets are off in the event of nuclear war etc. catches us up in the "natural selection" department. But assuming natural variance is continuing, and if anything society protects the "differently abled", then we could spawn several new species in even fewer hundreds of millions of years than "we" did last time.
Gently reply
I would say the trend is opposite of that at least in the US and Europe. Take a look at the most successful people from a biological point of view these days. It tends to be the poorest educated and least equipped to care for themselves and these aren't the pretty plastic people. These are the people that exist essentially as a dependents of the welfare state.
Insert obligatory reference to Idiocracy. Modpoints ensue.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
It doesn't make sense that we wouldn't be. Did people stop dying or competing sexually?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
Question: Are we not men?
Answer: We are not men, we are Devo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc
vi +
I don't know who started spreading the idea that we're not still evolving but this needs to stop; evolutionary processes by their nature act on all living things (on earth etc. etc. etc.). If we actually thought it wasn't happening anymore then we would have to look quite seriously at the possibility that it never happened in the first place, which is clearly not true.
"Courtiol is not certain how strong natural selection is today, particularly in the developed world"
Well, I would guess it's just as strong. The criteria and effects may be hard to discern, unexpected, undesireable, or any combination of these and other conditions, but why would you think natural selection is anything but strong.
Now, if he meant to express ihis uncertainty as to how current natural selection is either improving the human race or not, and geographic distributions of these effects, well, that's the job of these researchers, should they choose to accept that assignment.
'not certain'. Sheesh, no wonder Science is held in such esteem. Is Courtiol on the verge of wondering if selection based on financial 'prowness', promiscuity, or profligate sperm donation, is 'natural', well, he's making some assumptions I won't. But clearly I am not a Scientist. I'm left with a moderate amount of rational thinking and occasional bursts of common sense. Logic is an exercise for me. Science is what I wish I could do more of.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
More and more earth citizens are choosing sex partners than mating partners. People are having more sex but less children. Look at Japan, they do not have a sustainable birthrate. Then you have religions that force their people to have more babies so they become the majority only so their religious practices can be protected.
In the last few decades we have seen an increase in the value of reading ability related to the growth of the Internet.
Reading is even a skill need if one is to master the use of a smartphone.
We can leave it to the advocates of specific deities (and to some other bboard) to decide whether this is "natural selection".
Natural or not, reading ability seems valuable. And it is more valuable than recent (recorded!) history.
Questions:
Is there any evidence that increased reading ability can be selected for?
Is there any evidence that reading ability IS increasing in the human population?
Anybody who studied introductory biology/genetics class knows that for a population to NOT evolve: 1. Mating must be completely random. 2. There must be no selection. 3. There must be no mutation. 4. There must be no migration. 5. Population size must be pseudo-infinitely large. Selection may be arguably weaker (the article argues otherwise) and population size may be big enough, but mating is obviously not random and mutation and migration still happens. Thus, humanity is evolving.
Natural selection doesn't mean what most think. Fertility rates among the more intelligent members of society have dropped like a rock while birth rates are still high among the lower third. It can be argued that intelligence is a poor survival trait. Social factors create a form of evolution even if environmental ones are largely removed. What is seen as attractive socially is influx so evolutionary pressures created by society is also in flux. We aren't environmentally adapting so much as socially adapting. If society collapses the downside is it may leave us poor candidates to survive our environment.
Just look at the buffoons in our current congress and state legislatures, and the oblivious masses living on bread and circuses, and I would say that perhaps we are now naturally deselecting.
Silence is a state of mime.
Anyone thinking otherwise is a complete moron who doesn't understand the very basics of biology itself.
In a bunch of generations in a future time, we will notice a huge difference in the way that humans deal with fat and sugars, and salt.
How to deal with our increasingly stressful lives, our increasingly seated lives.
And that's if we haven't decided to self-evolve as a species.
Combined with the fact that the human race is now a global species that can exist almost anywhere within a day, interracial DNA mixtures are causing havoc with DNA. (in a good way)
These people who dive in the deep end are going against what was once a basic survival instinct to stay away from those "not like our own" and told it to get lost because it isn't required in society anymore.
We are living in completely new areas all around the world, from the highest points to the hottest points.
We already know people living high up in mountains evolved to have more spider-web like vein structures to get oxygen around the body easier, but equally it also causes a very terrible illness if things go wrong.
The variety in the global gene pool right now is larger than ever, and continues to grow every year.
If evolution were to stop, there'd be countless millions more people dying every year, per year, because they couldn't adapt.
I sure as hell hope we are, if not I am left asking where all the idiots come from.
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
some people have more grandchildren than others - evolution favours those people. Some ''traditional'' pressures physical are not so important (eg: resistance to polio, the ability to run fast & catch a meal, ...) others have become more important (ability to live while grossly overweight).
The mental pressures (ie differences) are often overlooked, eg: ability to produce lots of kids in a high pressure urban environment. Good mental ability seems selected against: those with good education tend to have fewer kids. The need to feel to work hard to produce much needed food for the family is not important, the ''social'' will provide the food if you don't; in fact since (in countries like the UK) the more kids you have the more money you have thrown at you: I fear that we are breeding people who are ignorant and don't work.
I expect to get flamed for the above: unfortunately the numbers seem to support my thesis.
3rd time this week
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_Law_of_Headlines
Betteridge's Law of Headlines is an adage that states, "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
AccountKiller
Which is a good thing as it means that eventually they'll win out over the greedy psychopaths that have all the power.
The poorest could do better if they demanded a fair shake and with a substantial population advantage they could pretty much just refuse to give things to the upper classes. If you think about it, it's questionable as to why that hasn't already happened in the US>
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas admits he isn't evolving: "I ain't evolving."
These masses you are talking about, you probably knew them, they are you, me and our present and past friends. The myth of the sheeple is highly over exagerated.
starting sometime later in this century or early 22nd. Regardless of ethical concerns, human self-engineering is bound to happen. And multiple humanoid species are inevitable. (Racism may finally disappear, but probably, to be taken over by other types of discrimination).
A: "Not at these prices, pal."
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
...with that faggy talk again. [Idiocracy]
Is humanity still evolving; if that is not true, does that mean that humanity is not evolving? That it has reached it's peak?
That evolution is been there, done that, with it? No more chances, that is it? No more future, the future was what the present has been?
Oh please.
I know you probably meant Catholicism, but Islam is taking the lead in this arena in far off countries like the UK, France and Scandinavia.
Just because today's evolutionary pressures are harder to define, it doesn't mean they are not there. For instance, natural selection will favor people with fast reflexes and better depth perception because most of us drive cars. College graduates are favored because they typically get higher paying jobs and therefore better healthcare.
Keep looking. Evolution isn't done with us yet.
I also have a sneaking suspicion that Autism/Aspergers is partially a function of evolutionary response to a technological lifestyle rather than an agricultural one. Name another genetic disease that occasionally provides benefits. I'll betcha Autism spectrum disorders are nothing more than Mother Nature trying out new ideas for human brain version X+1, currently in beta and still a little buggy.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Goldfish overeat and die if too much food is present. The fastest die first. That is evolution. Man's idea of evolution is IQ. Purebred dogs are deaf. Bible says to shepherd rightly, you kill the fittest. Genetic diversity of gene pool means something. Bible says "we are all members of the body of christ, foot is not more important than asshole." Don't worry about how dumb the foot is.
God puppets me down to nanosecond and up to macro timescales. God controls who marries--meets at college--and what mutations happen at conception.
God says...
C:\Text\2CITIES.TXT
from his breast; the prisoner chancing to
look up in his hurried wonder as he wrote, the hand stopped, closing
upon something.
"Have you written `forget them'?" Carton asked.
"I have. Is that a weapon in your hand?"
"No; I am not armed."
"What is it in your hand?"
"You shall know directly. Write on; there are but a few words more."
He dictated again. "`I am thankful that the time has come, when I
can prove them. That I do so is no subject for regret or grief.'"
As he said these word
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanity
The finding comes from an analysis of the birth, death, and marital records of 5923 people born between 1760 and 1849 in four farming or fishing villages in Finland
So the headline might better have been "Was humanity still evolving 250 years ago in Finland?"
From TFA:
"Almost half of the people died before age 15, for example, suggesting that they had traits disfavored by natural selection, such as susceptibility to disease."
"the variation in the number of offspring—from zero to 17—indicates there was a large opportunity for selection to occur. "
So at least two of the properties they observed in the study from a fishing village 250 years ago in Finland are not mirrored in developed nations today.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Go back 100 years and you'd say the same thing, except your grandparents would be part of the "poorly education and least equipped to care for themselves" section.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
are actually fairly common. If a particular species' environment doesn't change much over time, then "natural selection" is pretty much done with them. The article's points about juvenile death rates and mate selection are interesting, but would like to see a better description of evolutionary pressure, in order to agree that evolution could still be at work.
...Nature shapes YOU!
Sorry, had to be said...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
the intersection where genetic evolution, while continuing, has become less important than the new and more important kind of evolution: memetic evolution
the words we say and the ideas we have now shape the world more than the genes we carry
genetic evolution is not over, it's just passe
memetic evolution is the new more important story on this planet
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Did he mean Catholicism? My immediate thought was Mormonism.
Evolution doesn't have a value system that prefers education, a comfortable life, or the ability to exist without government help. Personifying the inherently unthinking force of evolution, we might say that evolution cares about exactly one thing: the number of creatures in the Nth generation with similar DNA. Adapting to the environment is key, and note that our current environment does include government services. Fit organisms take full advantage of the environment to maximize reproduction.
Fitness can mean screwing up the birth control or deciding that God would disapprove. Fitness can mean a non-reproducing individual (gay, elderly, too ugly, whatever...) finding dates for siblings and cousins. Fitness can mean getting the kids taken away by the government (they'll survive) so that time can be focused on activities that might produce more.
It's only in a difficult environment, like Finland a few centuries ago, that fitness means the traits that most of us respect: hard work, planning ahead, faithfulness, etc. We have changed the environment, and now it will change us.
What a ridiculously sensationalist article! From TFA: "the researchers could not tell which traits were being selected for". So basically the results are that some people reproduced and some did not. Hence we infer that some were genetically predisposed to be fitter, whether through resistance to disease or sexual attractiveness or something else. Well, isn't that obvious? I'm sure this still happens today!
Humans are evolving but humanity is devolving.
RATIONAL AND PLANNING intelligence is a poor survival trait IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT
Other types of thinking, such as recognition of social cues, are most likely still survival traits. Rational and planning intelligence are great survival traits in certain other environments, such as Finland a few centuries ago.
Worry not; my country is proof that you can go from "God - Homeland - Family" and heavy Church influence to "Yeah, we're Catholics, but contraception is fine (95%) and abortion shouldn't be a crime (54%)" in a few decades.
Dilbert RSS feed
An important factor in the current evolution of mankind is improved healthcare. Now that healthcare is improved, many more people survive their childhood, which actually mean that we as a species are becoming weaker and weaker. It seems that intelligence is a negative selection factor, because people with a high intelligence tend to have less children (or non at all) than people with an average intelligence. When healthcare improves even further, the effects may become even stronger. Who knows in 200 years we will not be able to walk anymore and all sitting in personal cars for most of our lives.
They tell us that we lost our tails evolving up from little snails. I say it's all just wind in sails.
from alpaca centuri
A blog I run for the wealth
The science-mag article says "the variation in the number of offspring—from zero to 17—indicates there was a large opportunity for selection to occur."
However, whether this "opportunity" resulted in any actual change is not mentioned. For example, if they found some feature change that correlated with the number of offspring, then you might say that is evidence that evolution is happening, but even only then if the correlation corresponds to some environmental pressures. Do they have statistics about traits at the beginning of their study period, and comparison with the statistics at the end?
Does the report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences have more details? Can't access it.
Fun: "The authors declare no conflict of interest." see http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/04/24/1118174109.abstract
S
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
If evolution had its way I would have been dead a long time ago. Fortunately for me I have great corrective lenses so I can see the lions trying to kill me.
Take that, evolution! I may even procreate!
load "linux",8,1
Evolution ! bah! It is so last billion years ago. We have already peaked and we are well on to devolution. Want evidence? If you are a Dem (or Rep) in USA, Rep (or Dem) in USA is all the evidence you need.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Actually, the article does point out: "From the records they had, the researchers could not tell which traits were being selected for ..." http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/natural-selection-is-still-with-.html
This sentence already assumes the conclusion of the whole article, namely that *some* traits where in fact being selected for.
So kind of weak.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
Erm, I am very curious what makes you think this is different from the past other than more effective/available birth control. Less children is supported by statistics. More sex... seems unlikely (although there may be statistics on that as well... it is much more difficult to measure).
Has anyone noticed that certain advances seem to happen in widely diverse locations at approximately the same time? Regardless of nationalistic bragging, major advances tend to occur independently within just a few years.
Circa 600 BC saw the beginning of Greek Science, Lao Tzu, Confucius, The Babylonian Talmud, Zarathustra, The Persian renaissance, Mayan mathematics/astronomy!
10,000 BC, Worldwide, agriculture, domestic animals.
Circa 15,000 BC, Worldwide, The bow!
Circa 125,000 years ago all over the old world fire is made to order!
Evolution is clearly speeding up and becoming purely intellectual!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
NO. As the Declaration of Independence says, all men were created equal. Actually, we all evolved from monkeys in Africa equal, same thing really. If people are evolving, it could imply actual statistical ability differences between the races, a line of study that would make racist scientists really happy and probably shouldn't be pursued before we finish integrating and diversifying the world.
Not everyone has biological children. People dies of a whole host of issues, for example:
Drug overdose (resistance will gradually arise).
Choice (the choice not to have children will weed itself out).
Homosexuality (now that they can generally adopt, their genes won't get the alloparenting boost, so homosexuality is going to go into decline).
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You chose the least sexually satisfied country to make a point about sex VS. reproduction?
Sheesh.
Natural selection has nothing to do with the implication of the word "evolve," that we're somehow becoming more advanced. In natural selection, two sometimes contradicting forces; ability to reproduce and survivability compete to make you more able to pass on your genes in a specific environment. All the girls might swoon over the deadbeat guitarist or they might want to hook up with Bill Gates because he's worth billions. Girl moose might love a huge set of antlers so big that it makes it difficult for males to navigate forests and escape trees. Or, predation might kill off all the boy moose who can't run fast enough through the trees. In good times, you can make more choices based on attraction than survivability.
So, yes we're changing, but that doesn't mean we're becoming smarter, faster, or stronger. Just better adapted to the current environment.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
at least
upper body, arms getting weaker
and do it like this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
Lordmetroid huh... related to Samus Aran or Justin Bailey?? :)
I do not think it is over exaggerated at all. Look at all the unwashed masses content to do nothing but watch 'Deadliest Crotch' or 'Basketball Wives', or 'Big Brother Backstabfest #283'
Silence is a state of mime.
And probably more rapidly than in the past. Given the increased mobility of populations, the degree of genetic variability is increasing. And with that variability, the possibility of adapting to new environments increases and susceptibility to inbreeding decreases.
The jury is still out on natural selection of the fittest of these new combinations. Our society doesn't seem to be willing to weed out the weak.
Have gnu, will travel.
Applied social science is reversing evolution. We're getting more stupid as a species.
www.chihuahuarescue.com- Help to end dog abuse, abandonment and cruelty
As long as we will use inheritable criterion for choosing mating partners, evolution will continue.
No, as long as not all people reproduce, evolution will continue.
.: Semper Absurda
Humans, as biological entities, are evolving too, but the selection process is given by the culture, everyone can survive, but to reproduce odds are better for culturally acepted ones, no matter if is less smart, or capable to dealing with predators or facing a wordwide climate change. Thats the evolutionary pressure, and it is changing too.
We aren't alone, a lot of animals (i.e. cows or dogs) and plants had some sort of directed evolution, also driven by human culture. If we fall,they could too.
I'd say that cockroaches are more evolved than humans. They have a shorter generation time, which means that they should evolve faster. So cockroaches are probably better adapted to do what they do than we are to do what we do. Of course, the microorganisms have us all beat. It's no surprise that we slow-evolving large beasts inherited most of our fundamental protein designs from our microorganism ancestors (or perhaps swiped them from viruses). The much faster evolution of microorganisms means that they are more creative when it comes inventing new protein families and functions. We are still running a slightly tweaked version of an ancient protein operating system, while modern microorganisms are running the up-to-date version.
There is no particular reason to suppose that evolution favors high intelligence. There is little evidence of any trend in human intelligence since the early evolution of the species. It is quite possible that human intelligence has long been at an effective steady-state. Up to a certain point, intelligence increases survival by reducing the likelihood of accidental death and increasing the ability to provide for oneself, but beyond a certain point, intelligence can lead people to devote their energies to distractions like science or art, rather than the critical evolutionary business of having as many children as possible and providing them with as much resources as possible.
It could be that modern technology, which offers more opportunities for people with high intelligence to make a good living, has increased selection for intelligence, but I wouldn't count on it.
U$A? Nope.
Have they? Is their resistance to disease unchanged? Is their behavior unchanged? Is the efficiency of their enzymes the same? How do you know?
I did not even read the article. Evolution does not stop. You know what, it's not worth the time getting into it even on a 30000ft level. Nice day to you sirs.
The point is, they can establish that the same conditions which are necessary for evolution everywhere else, were also present in this relatively agricultural/industrialised society,
No they didn't. All this study did was establish that some people have more children than other people, and that some people starve. Hey, no shit. They didn't establish *at all* that there was any impact, or that the genetic selection made future generations more hardy against...anything, including starving.
and hence that unless the entire way we think about evolution is wrong, it was also happening here.
Which would have been an interesting thing to demonstrate, had they actually demonstrated it.
It's correlational, sure
No it's not. It's not *even* correlational. Correlational is when you have two observations, A and B, and you can demonstrate that A changes with B. Here, they have A (reproduction), but *there is no B*.
but the association between sex selection and evolution is so strong
Is it? They certainly didn't demonstrate as much. Sure, other studies have, but they didn't.
In sum, this does in fact appear to be a completely worthless study, unless they actually look at genetic variation either directly or indirectly, which, given the article, doesn't appear to have occurred. Again, what did we actually *learn* from this study, other than the fact that living in Finland in the 1850s probably sucked?
We've passed the evolution phase. Now we're devolving into politicians and IP lawyers.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I've often heard this said, but it makes little sense to me. Evolution is not a strength competition. It favors those genotypes that are fittest in the environment they actually live in. Why should we care whether we we would be more or less fit in a primitive society without good healthcare?
And this likely has always been the case. There is little evidence that average human intelligence has changed much since our species emerged. High intelligence can benefit survival, but it can also lead one into activities, such as science or art, that distract from the real business of evolution--having as many children as possible and providing them with as much resources as possible. So we may well be at an evolutionary steady-state where on the average the positive and negative selection effects of intelligence cancel out.
All it showed was that there was significant variation in the number of children that people had (both men and women). This shows that it is *possible* that certain genes are being selected for, or that the ratio of people with a certain gene (allele technically) was changing over time. However, the evidence doesn't *prove* either of these things. A static population (ratio of population with an allele remains constant over time) is consistent with the evidence. Also no selection at all (probability of having children depended only on environment and chance, not genes) is consistent with their findings.
We're evolving, alright. Evolving into the perfect apathetic, one-dimensional, obese, narcissistic and compassionate couch slouches.
Futurist Traditionalism
Evolving presupposes changing into a more advanced creature. What we are doing is changing, slowly, but I challenge anyone to show any change which is more advanced.
The majority of changes are defintely devolving. Like near-sightedness, bad teeth, politicians...
wake up and hold your nose
So I wanted to bring it back to source. The Marching Morons by C. M. Kornbluth. He was a truly great short story writer
Posting anon cause I moderated some.
YES, damn it. We are evolving to be better adapted social creatures that manipulate eachothers behavior with technology and pointy sticks.
Just because you understand something doesn't make it stop.
Yes. We select traits which increase survival in man-made artificial environments. However, these artificial environments are only sustained by those with real-world fitness. The problem is that too many people are being bred to have artificial fitness.
Take welfare for example. Having more kids means more money. Those who pump out more children are the most artificially fit in terms of income, but in the real world, these children would only be a burden. Who sustains these people? The people that work and are not reproducing as a consequence.
Surviving sounds indeed like natural selection, but failing to find a mate to reproduce with? Isn't this more social than natural? Criterion for being an attractive mate change over time and place, they do not seem to be driven by natural pressure.
The Declaration of Independence was talking about human rights, not abilities. Thomas Jefferson was smart enough to know the difference.
My attitude is what difference does it make if there's a "statistical ability difference between the races"? If you approach everyone as an individual they are what they are. Assuming something about someone just because of their race is a form of prejudice. I've met plenty of people from a variety of races who are smarter than I am and plenty who were dumber.
And for the record, anyone who thinks evolution has stopped in modern humans doesn't understand evolution very well. Evolution has no direction other than what is expedient for the current situation.
AC to preserve mods.
People still think that "Survival of the fittest" or "Only the strong will survive" is the entire premise of natural selection. These are obviously over simplifications which completely fail to describe natural selection but has been adopted by many that in theory should have been selected out long ago to boost their egos. I am not referring to anyone that has posted thus far as opposed to making a simple observation, so please don't see this as bait.
If I were to provide my 2 cents on this topic (which it appears I will), I would postulate that to a certain extent, we are going through a transitional period. While the specimens of humanity that are clearly most suited for environmental adaptation have focused on meeting the market demand to prolong life and attempt to eliminate natural death, people classically selected out through illness, disease and general stupidity on their own behalf are being protected from these dangers and surviving. It is believed that the human race will reproduce more rapidly in areas of higher mortality rates. This is to guarantee the survival of the race. People who were classically at the highest risk of death from disease would also reproduce at the greatest rate in order to perpetuate the race. So, families who have a long history of dieing off from any number of any number of environmentally induced issues will produce a gaggle of children with the hopes that one or two will survive. But since we have eliminated most of the environmental threats to these people, they are living through all these former perils. However since their instinct of survival of the race convinces them to reproduce more rapidly without proper consideration to the lower mortality rate, a great deal more of what formally was considered fodder, are surviving, hence the previous poster's comments to Walmart people.
Women who are pregnant read magazines that educate them as to how to protect their wombs. The articles they read state things like "Doing this increases the chance of first trimester spontaneous abortion by 300%". I can't possibly imagine how a comment like that can be made, there are an infinite number of variables that are involved in gestation, to suggest any single event can increase the risks of spontaneous abortion in the first trimester is just plain rubbish. What is worse, are we talking about 1 in a million to 3 in a million? Are we talking 1 in 10 to 3 in 10? It doesn't say, just says by 300%. Yet, women will instantly stop doing whatever it says they shouldn't do to avoid that.
Nature is no longer selecting out "Walmart people" since we have averted most of the dangers they have faced in the past. In fact, we have even reached a point where people such as my sister (a typical Walmart patron) now survive and bring additional offspring into the world where she attempts to protected them from everything to an extremity. For example, her children were not allowed to play with wooden toys like Lincoln Logs since they might get a splinter from them. She is entirely incapable of rational and intelligent thought, but thanks to medicine and excessive warning labels, her line will perpetuate. Don't get me wrong, I love my sister, but I am a realist in this regard.
We have protected these people to extreme levels and they are still reproducing at a rate that would protect their line against extinction. The "adapted" member of the species on the other hand reproduce at a more conservative rate since their instincts tell them that they'll experience a level closer to 95 out of 100 offspring surviving in their sub-species.
As a result, what is actually happening is that the "Walmart people" are actually in a major transition period of evolution. They are reproducing at a rate based on the fact that until less than 50 years ago, their chances of survival were much worse. It will require a few more generations before their over-reproduction becomes directly detrimental to their chances of survival and they will either be selected out or they will decrease their rate of repro
Holy shit, I just read your remark after the one I wrote. Then I realized that we probably both subconsciously wrote using vocabulary that would hopefully clearly differentiate ourselves from the "Walmart People" in the eyes of "our peers" haha. I'm tempted to go back and write it in Walmart English now that I realized it.
Damn the lower classes and their filthy ways! ;-)
What makes you think it was ever any different in the past? The Romans had their bread and circuses for the masses. Throughout history a large portion of the human race has lived that sort of life.
> "In 75% of the cases the men report always having an orgasm. With women only 26% say they always have one, although 45% of men believe their partners always have an orgasm." - (Agencies)
*facepalm*
Consider diseases that would normally kill a person often before they are able to reproduce. Like Diabetics Muscular Dystrophy, Asthma, heart disease, and so on. Now they can be treated to the point were ...although not cured..., the diseases can be passed on to children of the sufferers. So, as we are getting better at treating symptoms but not able to cure the underlying genetic problem, the genetic problem is being spread through-out the world.
Consider diseases that normally would have decimated a population, but for the few who had the genetic where withal to withstand the disease. We've developed vaccines that bypass the natural selection, and therefore eliminate the genetic ability to select for stronger defences.
The cold hard truth is that we are genetically weaker then our ancestors, and that is the cost of modern medicine.
Maybe that's why we don't have the IQ of super geniuses? We've had plenty of time to evolve to where an average IQ is equivalent to a present day 200.
There's an ideal effective intelligence ceiling, and present day it looks like at above ~130, the benefit of higher IQ seems to be one of diminishing returns.
With 7 billion people, there are some brainy freaks out there, but they haven't taken over the planet, or even for the most part found happiness. The drug use and mental illness rates tell the story. We don't live in an individual's society. The pack animals are suspicious of the rogue brain and probably for good reason.
To me, behaving ethically is a greater logical challenge to justify than unethically. It's a matter of situational convenience for me, but maybe some get by on philosophy.
I hope that's true. It would be sad if the brains were consistently like me and imitating philosophy to hide the convenience. I'd really like to think there is a better reason to behave yourself. To have it verified by consensus that path of least resistance isn't the only reason not to be a dick.
"Any trip to Walmart will convince you that the situation today seems less clear, and obtaining children seems entirely disassociated with the ability to attract a mate."
Yes, going to Walmart to watch WT is a mistake. Even as a social experiment. Don't get me started on dirt blondes with pimples still clinging to their chain smoking mothers begging for booze. But also, look at the the thai and filippino girls. They don't necessarily have the beauty of air hostesses, either. Go to Brooklyn and you'll see more half-fro black hair and bent noses than you'll care for, ever, and they never go to Walmart. Still, they all reproduce eventually. Or, the dark skinned ladies in the south eastern corner, blocking three Walmart gates at the time with their four-lane wide rears, outside and before any pregnacy. Give them all a mirror and a Groklaw account. Then they realize what life is about, science and evolution, and they'll find no time for reproduction!
Evolution moves in a mysterious way
Its wonders to perform;
It plants its footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm.
Yeah right. Except for peak oil, AGW and other minor stuff, we live in perfect harmony with our environment, and there's simply no way we could get in trouble from the vagaries of nature.
same for the carrot top red heads, except to our PM in AU.
Go back 100 years and you'd say the same thing, except your grandparents would be part of the "poorly education and least equipped to care for themselves" section.
+1
Which tribes would those be? The ones that aren't around any more because they got overrun by superior numbers of inferior warriors?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you look at puntuated equlibrium you coudl say we are in a stage where teh actual pool of material is growing and when the next major stressor come along then their will be a movement in whihc way we evolve.
Sorry dyslexic please excuse spelling I knwo I evolved a diffrent brain to some :)
It's time to sit back with a cup of tea,turn on the radio and knit some socks.
Good job everyone! We did it!
Defining Statistics and Social Research
It is a strange thing that we - still - look at ourselves as something apart from "nature". It is a false world-view: the sphere of human activity and culture is not somehow separated from nature; our cities, our technology, our intellectual achievements, though impressive, are part of nature. We haven't escaped the forces of evolution any more than the force of gravity.
Evolution is not "something in nature kills you" - evolution is the interaction between the environment and the capabilities of each individual, and the fact that we have a huge influence on our environment doesn't change that. The fact that we are now capable of curing many diseases etc just means that we evolve in a direction where many, who would have died before, now survive - so we become more diverse as a species.
Furthermore, we are not the only species, or even the first, that has had a big impact on the environment; life has always shaped the local and even the global environment; just take the fact that the oxygen in our atmosphere is produced by photosynthesis.
Yeah but will all those children survive to produce offspring of their own? Exponential math and the competition of life tells us they won't.
I just recently traced my family tree and discovered a fucking shitload of royalty, nobility, and other "high class" figures. (This explains a lot, actually.) I'm guessing just as we breed plants, and get better plants, and breed animals, and get better animals, the selection and breeding of humans with other superior humans often results in better humans, too.....Habsburgs excepted of course.
Of course it's we who are doing the judging, so it's a bit difficult to be unbiased. (Cue the haters in 3...2...)
LOL evolution stopped being geneology a long ass time ago dumbass, human beings evolve consciously and have for a really long time
Humanity is evolving, faster on the behavioral level that on the genetic level.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about but I question if genetic evolution is as important to humanity anymore as compared to the evolution of knowledge. Yes genetics have an effect but education seems to be the greater driving factor these days.
Of course evolution is still going on. Do we eat the same things we did when we were living in caves? No. Do we eat the same things we were eating 100 years ago? No we do not. We tend to look only at the macro and ignore the micro. We humans absolutely do NOT live in the same environments we did as recently as 100 years ago. The trees are stripped away, we have indoor plumbing, we keep rats mostly out of our living space, we have massive pollutant levels, and we typically marry for love instead of social standing. All those things are vastly different than even 1 century ago. Physically we will adapt eventually. We probably are already. As for natural selection, that's already changed. People that would have simply died or gotten sick a century ago are thriving today. Because of those people our gene pool is likely changing as are the rules of attraction. As another poster observed earlier you only have to hang out at Walmart for a few minutes to see people that a century ago would not have children or have ever found a mate, yet there they are with 5 kids.
Except these are the people now most likely to survive ...
Child born with debilitating condition, to a poor family might survive, but will never get a good job and is unlikely to have children
Child born with debilitating condition, to a rich family will most likely survive, and will have every opportunity to live a normal life, with wife kids etc ...
The rich are less likely to evolve ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
The most selected for mutation in the last ten thousand years is the adult ability to digest milk. Lactose intolerance has nothing to do with intelligence, moral superiority or physical prowess, but during certain periods of history, the lactose intolerant averaged as little as 1/10th the number of surviving off-spring as an individual who was not. This is a highly significant, if not overwhelming selection factor. And what was essentially nonexistent 10,000 years ago -- the ability to digest lactose past weaning -- has become a norm.
Natural selection was somewhat present around 1800. A lot has happened since then.
Yes, humans are evolving to creatures with poor taste of music
Darwin selection in action.
What with smartphones and all our thumbs are evolving to be able to type "lolwut" on a tiny keyboard automatically... Think about that.
We won't evolve anymore, because we don't get diseases, suffer social problems, need to adapt to a lifestyle vastly different from a hunter gatherer lifestyle, eat different types of food, etc.
Not even if we travel into space and live on isolated colonies on other planets over long periods of time with different gravities, atmospheres, etc.
Nah, we won't evolve any more. We're perfect just as we are.
I didn't bother reading the TFA, because as long as we exist, we will evolve. I don't normally post with this sort of language, but seriously... what a stupid question!
Of course our species is still evolving.
I think our evolution has become somewhat "chaotic" however. Our environment has been changing so rapidly that particularly advantageous traits might differ from generation to generation, thus making any sort of "trend" difficult to spot.
Unfortunately, I think the mere willingness to procreate is probably one of the most favored traits in the current environment of the 'developed' world I say 'unfortunate' because this willingness might strongly correlate with a tendency toward disregard for the future consequences of one's actions. Furthermore, the advent of the welfare state has effectively counter-balanced some of the environmental factors which might work against this tendency.
I'm not surprised the species is evolving. However, humanity isn't doing very well given the tenor of news in the YRO section on here, for starters.
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Keep in mind that requires removing all social programs that might affect reproductive behavior and I think most people would object.
No more tax credits for having children.
No more government or religious handouts for the needy - expect to see children becoming beggars, thieves, and bodies in the street, Just as you do now in countries with no social safety net.
No subsidized medical care for children or the needy - dying of an easily cured ailment because you can't afford treatment? Evolution in action baby. Expect plagues to become far more common as well, raising medical costs for everyone.
And that's just to name a few of the most obvious. Could it be done? Sure, but most people with an ounce of compassion would object to the result.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If you don't believe that humans are special and brains are different from all other bodily organs you're as bad as the Nazis!
I can't wait till I do the advanced racial sensitivity course next year. Maybe they'll tell us why?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The new invisible hand dictating the fates of humanity. Where have I heard this story before... oh wait I remember now. There was this group of people talking about an intangible force affecting our lives. They didn't call it 'Natural Selection' though. They called it God/Devil/Satan/etcetc.
Natural selection does not equal evolution. That is MACRO-Evolution. The process of "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest" in a group of lets say water buffalo, can only result in the most genetically pure and healthy water buffalo. It can't magically create a whole new species. That would take a miracle. Oops! I guess that already happened.
Considering some of the recent events, I would say devolving.
We're not evolving, we're devolving. Before contraception and abortion existed, successful males would reproduce at a much higher rate than now. Morality aside, it is not hard to imagine the successful alpha-male impregnating lots of pretty (read: having good genes) girls and creating much more offspring than the less wanted males.
This is a thing of the past for a couple of generations now. We are living in the genetically unhealthy situation where highly successful males produce only marginally more offspring than regular dudes. It must be feared that for even the maintenance of the quality of our genes requires alpha males to reproduce at a significantly higher rate. Now that this is no longer happening, the quality of our genes will only but degrade and quickly too - in a matter of a couple of hundreds of years we'll see the effects, whatever they will be. Most likely it will start with us getting dumber and more reliant on medical care.
My karma ran over your dogma
How are we immune from natural selection?
With the sheer number of people you come into contact with each day, even if it's one person we are poised for a world wide pandemic. It will make the plague look like a hangover.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Unfortunately--stupidity--especially in elected office appears to be an evolutionary dead end.
In 1932, the mean IQ in US, using today's scale, would be around 80. source. It is estimated that US gains 3 IQ points per decade. However, since mid-1990s this progression seems to have stopped.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
We all know every single one of us is designed intelligently by God...
God created the Walmart people, truly he works in mysterious ways!
Genetically, race is a completely meaningless word.
Oh jeez I found this article on the same site:
http://www.sensualism.com/sex/orgasms-wallet.html
I wish I was gay.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel