Hmm.. occur I have been pondering again, and I've reached a brick wall in my pondering, so here I am again to further my thought process' with outside opinion.

I have looked at it and looked at it.. and I keeping coming to the same conclusion.. the physical evolution of humans is only continuing in the third world.

Evolution works on one simple principal, "survival of the fittest". To further that statement we can say, "those with an advantage out survive those without an advantage. But in the first world.. the world of low death rates, how is that occuring?

I'll use an example. There are people around the world that have a natural resistence to the HIV virus, in the third world that gene is spreading, in the first world it's not really. Simply because the people with that gene are no more likely to survive than anyone else.

If I am fit and healthy and smart.. nature would say I would have more children and be more sucessful than the next guy. But in reality that's not true in the slightest. In reality, will I actually have more children than anyone less sucessful than people less successful or less fit (assuming they are fertile) than me? Not really in the slightest. In reality where we live in the world and culture chooses who has more kid than personal circumstance and it has been like that for a fair while.

My actual physical body and attractiveness or social standings has little baring on the number of children I will have in my life. Survival of the fittest demands the fitter breed more than the less fit of the species.

In the third world where death rates are very high, and disease, virus', famine, and poor living conditions are common. Being fit is pretty much a nessecity of survival, having some form of genetic advantage is going to have very real affects on your life, and maybe enough to allow you to live long enough to have children who will get that strength from you.

ok.. watch out.. I'm going to go into science fiction mode now.
Does that mean in the distant distant future two seperate people's will exist, the people dependant on technology to keep them alive.. and will essentially remain the same as we are now, and the others who's bodies cope with the changing landscape without drugs, and anti biotics, and are but distant cousins to the more frail peoples?

Or... have I got this all wrong?

discuss!

You've got it right, to a point. Most evolution only occurs when there is some kind of pressure killing off the 'weak' genes. However, there are still some kinds of pressures - people tend to be most attracted to 'healthy' looking people, which tends to keep the gene pool healthy. There is an overall trend, over time, to more intelligent people because intelligence is seen as attractive. In addition to which, there really isn't a regression in human evolution. Even though we may become dependent on anti-biotics during life, it is no sign of a genetic predisposition to being unhealthy, and so it is not a factor.

I often wonder about this too, are we evolving? I don't have much of an idea but I'll just address one part you said.

It is defined that 'Survival of the fittest' is where a member a species lives to be able to pass its genes on to another generation. Like you said, assuming that you are intellgent, healthy etc would imply you are the fittest.

However, humans have done something odd. We've changed what we deem attractive, and therefore who we pass our genes with. It is different for all cultures, some it would be the amount of scarification, elongated necks, hourglass figure etc. We constantly are changing what attraction is. In the past 50 years in western culture, we've started finding people with a certain bodytype more attractive apparently.

Yes, evolution is still occuring.

For evolution to occur, two things must be true:

1) Characteristics are inherited;
2) People with certain inherited characteristics are less likely to survive and breed, or more likely.

This is still true, I think, even in the first world. We're less concerned in most cases with how many people survive, but I'd quite like to know how many people breed. Who's having more children?

T: problem with that is, the ideals of attractiveness change too quickly. They'd have to remain constant for centuries at least for a noticeable change to be effected.

But in the first world who's breeding more.. the fit aren't outsurviving the unfit like they would in the past. I used the anti HIV gene as an example because in the western world that gene isn't being passed on and spreading, even though we have HIV out here. It's because due to education of contraception etc.. we haven't had to fall back on evolution handing us a natural resistence.. in all likely hood all these anti viral and anti disease genes will probably never been common in the populace.

If we're to go with who's giving the greatest number of genes to the next generation.. it'll be those scary hillbilly middle americans with 15 children called billy bob. That's a hell of a prolific rate of multiplying numbers compared to most couples in the first world.

Sort of. When you study what was attractive throughout the ages, you really do find that attractiveness stems mostly from two things - health, and fertility. Clear skin, bright eyes, wide hips, full breasts, good bone structure, good muscle tone - these all display fertility, and nearly every culture, for all time, has looked for these. Health is much more difficult to pin down - the Romans wanted women who were, by todays standards, quite hefty - because they could survive better. However, today, thinner people are healthier. Another factor is wealth - in the 1800s, it was considered very attractive to be very pale, because it meant that you had enough money that you didn't need to work in the fields. Today, having a tan is considered to be attractive, because it means that you have enough money to spend liesure time outdoors.

Actually, I believe that the American Hispanic population is procreating at the greatest rate. Remember though, the population will keep itself in check. The larger the population grows, the slower it will choose to grow, or evolutionary pressures will cause it to slow down. There comes a point when, if you have too many children, you cannot provide food, shelter, and health care for all of them. Even if there is a good welfare system, it can only handle so much before people would start to starve to death. However, it will never get to this point - people are rational, and would stop having too many children.

Where is that happening in the world..? it's reversed.. the places in the world with the lowest growth rates have the lowest population.. (eg.. the UK, and western Europe) and the places with the highest population.. have the highest growth rates (eg India) except china with the one child policy.. although there's a way around that law...

Yes, but how many children in third world countries die? Just because a family has a lot of children does not mean that those children all become able to reproduce. Two hundred years ago, Americans had many more children, because they were useful to the family for working. However, more than half of the children didn't live to twelve (if I remember correctly, I'll check when I get the chance). A population cannot grow larger than it can be supported with food, water, and other basic necessities.

Is this hypothetical, or do you have actual evidence of a gene that has been identified in resisting HIV? So far I haven't heard anything about any form of natural resistance that is spreading within the 3rd world. The only issue of natural resistance that I've read about related to a small group of South African prostitutes, who appeared to be immune. If this is occuring (in stark contrast to the usual reports that show that 3rd world populations are being decimated by HIV / AIDS) then please post links to relevant articles. Thank you.
______________



1. Survival of the fittest isn't exactly the same as Natural Selection - one of the key elements in evolution. Just because there aren't as many external factors affecting the richer parts of the world (where, for example, medicine is more accessable), it doesn't mean that natural selection isn't occuring in the developed west NOR does it mean that there is more natural selection in the 3rd world so more evolution.

2. Evolution occurs at a genetic level all the time no matter where you are on the planet. DNA changes that affect evolution occur due to random mutations which serve to introduce novel genetic variation. These either breed in or out of a species (through natural selection) or can even remain an independent trait within on family / bloodline.

3. Evolution within humans is scientifically a very slow process, with evolutionary traits being distiguished over millennia.

4. The hardship faced by the third world does not kill off the genetically weak, leaving only the strong. Weakness on a genetic level is quite rare. On a physical level (which is far more common) it is often down to malnutrition / dehydration, a lack of excercise or even illness. External factors that elliminate the weak don't significantly alter the species as a whole. More often than not the weakest who die are infants and the elderly of all genetic dispositions.

5. Other elements affect evolution including Gene Flow and Genetic Drift.

So to answer your question... No, we will not have two distinct species of rich genetically standard and poor genetically superior human beings, if things continue the way they are.

In the intervening thousands and hundreds of thousands of years humanity will be less likely to diverge into different species, assuming we don't divide ourselves up into grops that NEVER mix, or if we don't expose ourselves to factors that will increase the chance of genetic mutation (eg radiation affecting one part of the world or genetic engineering).
______________

If we were likely to evolve into two or more distinct species (without these major changes) then you'd have expected it to have ocurred already. After the 200,000 or so years that humans have lived on planet earth you'd have expected some distinction between us humans, however there isn't any difference. You can tell with one simple test: If you want to know if two organisms are of the same species you ask two simple questions (i.) can they mate successfully? and if they can (ii.) is their offspring fertile?

Can any two people from anywhere in the world rich or poor etc mate and have children, and will those children be able to reproduce? So far the answer is 'yes'. So we are still one species. Will this change in the near or even distant future? I don't think so.

We haven't built up walls around our rich societies that keep the poor away and not breeding with us. Populations mix and will continue to mix, so any new traits will eventually find their way into other populations. Evolution will still be ocurring in the richer areas, although some new traits might not gain dominance, and others might not die out - as could happen in the 3rd world. The traits will still be there. Finally, even in the developed West there are communities where extreme poverty exists. If you are right about natural selection in 3rd world Africa and Asia, then what about the 3rd world conditions in the inner city slums of America and Europe? It would appear that even in rich 1st world countries there will be some poor superhumans still developing...

There is a gene which provides resistance to the Black Plague, which also provides resistance to HIV. I'll try to find sources on it.

appreciated, so far I've heard nothing about this potential breakthrough in HIV / AIDS.

Evolution has not been happening the same as it did before, ever since we creatred a society in which people care for others. Survival of the fittest is no longer operative in our society (I'm not saying that it might not be operative in some societies).

I am strong enough and fit enough, to go next door, kill the old man who lives there and take all his food and money. Yet I have not done this and will not do it. Why? Because I care enough about his welfare, as a fellow human being, that I do not want to hurt him, even though it would benefit myself.

However, evolution as random mutations of genes is still happening and will continue happening.

Remember though, we don't only evolve as individuals, but as a society. Social evolution works, as in, the population which is best able to survive will survive - hence why the more successful Europeans are thriving, and the less successful American Indians are not.

*takes in a deep breath before replying*

right, since what I've written isn't being understood (or possibly merely ignored), I'll just sum up what I wrote, in a more simpler manner.

Let's say I gained a random mutation that gave me better eyesight than the rest of the world. I could see further, more accurately, and could see things that were moving faster. Let's say this made me a better soldier on the battle field, and allowed me to be a more precise fine artist. It gave me 1000 benefits in my day to day life.

Would that gene become common place through the world, until most people had it. Or would it essentially basically become watered down?

My point is that women would not hurl themselves at me any the more for having great eyesight with words like "we want your babies". In likelyhood, I would continue to have 2/3 kids just like any other couple in the first world. My kids would not be likely to have any the more off spring than anyone else. Would probably not be able to get women/men any the better than anyone else and in turn the generation below them would not favour their genes more than anyone elses.

The reason is simple, having great genes does not offer you any favoritism in determining who's genes get passed down as they once did.

If for instance, my great genes gave me a "you are allowed more children than joe average over there" license. Then yeah, the next generation would show some favoritsm to allowing more of my genes into the gene pool than the next guy.
In the past that occured simply because there was competition between people.. winners ate food, loosers starved and died. Simple as.. so the fittest got their genes passed, and the less fit didn't so well because the fittest were eating all their meals.

In our effort to give everyone an equal chance in life pretty much no genes are being favored over any other.

Evolution doesn't always work like that. Evolution doesn't seek the best, only anything that works. If you had much better eyesight, but average eyesight still worked fine, then there wouldn't be any pressure. Like I said, don't forget about population evolution. Just because your genes are better doesn't necessarily mean that your offspring will have a greater chance of reproducing. Memes come into play as well - if my society has the gunpowder meme, and your society has a gene that makes you ten times stronger, my meme will still beat your genes.

Isn't that essentially what i just said, but rephrased...
that we're no longer evolving and taking up new traits, because that's no longer choosing who's sucessful.. meh...

Evolution is still occcuring, but it's hard to see becasue it happens so slowly.
You have to look at the past a bit. I don't think that humanity will separate into two separate races. Strains of people with bad vision, poor hearing, weakness, and other medical problems have managed until today. I can't find the link now, but humans are gradually getting taller. Some of this is due to better diet, but some is a slightly obvious result of evolution. Part of evolution is random changes that we have no way of controlling through selective breeding, so I don't think that antibiotics and such will stop evolution in the modern world.

Sociologically speaking, survival of the fittest could still exist. That's Herbert Spencer, but of course we have morals and this idea that we should help people. According to Spencer we should leave social ills to their own devices. This really has nothing to do with evolution as "social ills" are not all together genetic. At least I don't believe alcoholism and the like ares hereditary. Of course the social ills may also apply to those with genetic disorders and mental disorders. Depends how you look at it.

Looking at evolution from a genetic stand point it is still happening constantly. As long as genes are passed on there is evolution, evolution doesn't always mean it's going to be a step forward (usually it does, but not 100%). That's the answer from a biological standpoint.

If we were nitpicking genes to greatly advance the human race, I'm sure we'd be in a society like that in the movie Gattaca.

And the only thing an antibiotic does is advance the bacterial races faster than they already do. So we're just helping them out.

Well, here's another example... I am getting the hang of this giving examples thing.. I've been told I never give examples.. but blah.. I'm rambling.

Let's say you have an island of 10000 native black person, and one white guy comes on, and gets on with the natives well enough to be able to start families with them... etc etc...

It doesn't really matter how many generations into the future you look, you are not going to end up eventually with a island of white people. One person's genes will not replace the genes already inherently in a system, unless, that person's genes give a noticable advantage to his offspring that his offspring outsurvive everyone else.

Sure we have genetic mutations.. but that mutation would have to spread to everyone else, in practice that doesn't occur.

It's the reason why genetic conditions like sickle cell anemia continue to exist despite 100s and 100s of years, people with sickle cell anemia have kids like any other, their kids continue to get the conditions and so on. In a back to basis survival of the fittest scenario, people with sickle cell would have died out.

No.

You might well end up with a population that is white IF the population interbreeds enough AND the white skin gene is dominant. This is not about giving an advantage, very few evolved genetic traits actually give any kind of advantage anyway, usually - where there is a noticable genetic change - it is either just a difference, or it is harmful. And if you have better eyesight or are stronger or even more intelligent then there is NO guarantee that you will pass this down to your kids. If this were the case then why aren't there clear family lines of super men and women? When you pass on your DNA to your offspring you provide 50% and your partner provides 50%, some of your DNA will be dominant and take precedence of theirs and vice versa (eg it has been suggested that the gene that makes our eyes brown is dominant over the gene that makes our eyes blue - so a child born to a couple where one parent has blue eyes and the other brown eyes - the child is more likely to inherit the brown eyes); also some of the DNA necessary for the child to develop will only be passed on by one parent, and not the other (you might not even pass on the gift of your better eyesight).



I'm not sure where you are getting this interpretation of history from. There is no evidence whatsoever that people with successful genetic makeup faired any better or worse than those without. Neither strength nor weakness are always determinant on DNA. Most of the time diet, excercise, illness and even training have more to do with strength weakness and survivability.

If your idea of the weak being eaten out of existance by genetically strong people is correct, then how do you account for the fact that the human population as a whole is in much the same genetic shape as it has always been? There is no evidence that our ancestors have over the past 200,000 years gotten stronger because in the past 'the less fit didn't so well because the fittest were eating all their meals.'

We still have the same genetic diseases that are hereditary - they've survived - if the weak weren't surviving then how did their faulty weak DNA get passed down to the current generation?
____________________________

Also bear in mind many genetic alterations occur through genetic drift.

Take your example - you have a white person entering a population which is predominantly black (the primary genetic difference is skin colour). This is an introduction of new genetic code, and any offspring are going to be genetically predisposed towards evolving into something new. They won't be white - but something darker, they won't be black - but something lighter. They will have evolved a new skin tone. Evolution in the making.

Then the next genration who are evolved differently will mate with other black people and their kids will have evolved into something closer to being black, but not yet black, and so on and so forth until eventually somewhere down the family line there will be a generation who have evolved through genetic drift back towards the main population skin tone.
____________________________


I don't think this analogy with sickle cell anemia is correct.

You talk of a back to basics survival of the fittest senario - well what about the fact that sickle cell anemia is most commonly found in parts of Africa that have suffered immense poverty, famine, drought, war and other disease over the past thousand or so years that records have been kept, and the disease has survived. Just as it's also survived in geographically separate parts of Africa that have been historically quite affluent and free from such hardships. Sickle cell sufferers have lived through the survival of the fittest scenario and are still around. We still have scickle cell anemia. How is this possible, if as per your hypothesis - sicklecell anemia should have been erradicated in a back to basics survival of the fittest scenario?

From Wikipedia:

It is believed that carriers (sickle cell trait) are relatively resistant to malaria. Since the gene is incompletely recessive, carriers have a few sickle red blood cells at all times, not enough to cause symptoms, but enough to give resistance to malaria. Because of this, heterozygotes have a higher fitness than either of the homozyogotes. This is known as heterozygote advantage.

However, this offset by the statistic that the more intelligent have fewer offspring, as children are quite a costly investment, and one or two can provide intangible benefits as well as more.

Yes, but the intelligent people provide for their children better, and their children are more likely to live to adulthood - it is the very reason humans have (relatively) small broods, we spend more time raising them, which provides them with an advantage.

Which helps, but now we have welfare. And it is possible to raise 8 kids to adulthood, and the gene pool is still hurt if 3 die off.

So instead of getting a super-class of poverty we'll get a super-calls of the rich? Well, that just sounds like the situation we already have, perhaps not in genetic terms, but certianly in a societal perspective.

Capitalism may be causing problems to the whole 'two species' idea: while it will keep many people donw, those that have a stray good idea will be able to rise and those that have a stray bad idea will fall. Ultimately there is a mixing of the classes.

In some ways I think that the internet has equalised a lot of things. Now all that is required is reasonable literacy to get your mesage out to the world. A bit of random humour can make any person relatively famous (speaking form experience here!) so there's no promise that a class divide can endure in a technologised world. When technology becomes affordable for everyone, and there are movements around the world suggesting the internet access should be a basic human right, then we begin to live in a meritocracy. It seems to be the case that a varied gene combination leads to the strongest individuals, so I don't see any reason why that shouldn't continue to mess up anyone's ideas for a super-race.

Hmm... but societies rise and fall over and over again through history.. and I'd hazard to guess that they will continue to rise and fall in the future.

I still haven't been swayed from conclusions I made in my first post. Regardless of how sucessful you are in your life, if a guy on quarter your salary down the street, has 10 kids, and you only have 2. Even if half of his kids die off, he will still get a bigger representation of genes in the next generation than the mr sucess.

Bare in mind, this isn't a thread about who will make more advances in the future, or who will thrive better. It's a thread about numbers. Who's going to get a bigger representation ni the gene pool? 10 intelligent folk that have 2 kids each, or the 100 less intelligent folk with 5 kids each? It's not as if we have a high nifant mortality rate in the first world. If you're in a poverty striken background.. your kids are still highly unlikely to die in first world. So if a couple has 10 kids out in the west, it's like they'll have 10 survivors, whoever breeds more will get a bigger representation of their genes ni the next generation.

Currently whoever breeds more seems to have very little to do with sucess, business sense, or wealth. It seems more to do with circumstance like"sex education", or local culture and family traditions. Those seem to be the predominant factors of choosing who sends more genes to the next generation than wealth, or status.

Survival of the fittest has to occur. Because the only way you can define 'the fittest' is 'the ones who survive'. That's how evolution works. The standards by which you seem to be judging 'good genes' don't seem to have much bearing on the survival of your species. Sure, it's nice to be able to see small things, but it's not key to your survival. Hence not important/superior from the viewpoint of evolution.

To take a case in point; memories of science lessons long past are telling me that crocodiles haven't evolved in, like, forever. That's not to say that, looking at the design of a crocodile, that there's no scope for it to be faster, more intelligent, better looking, more aerodynamic, whatever... but the design has a kind of endurably robust-ness going for it that means it's not necessary to change it.

Furthermore; evolution tends to be to reactionary to changes in environment. Humans seem to be the species capable of changing their own environment most significantly; could that mean they're actually evolving faster?

Also to look at the predator/prey cycles, and competition and stuff. All kinds of feedback systems exist in nature to stop a certain species getting too dominant. But that's not the kind of balancing act humans tend to be involved in, so it's not restricting our developement in the same kind of way.

I'm slightly confused by what you meant in that post Sky, if you mean we're continuing to develop as a society, then yeah I agree, infact societies changing at a monumentally fast pace, it's a little scary.. but that's another topic.

I'm talking about evolution in the physical sense.. I'm glad you brought up the crocodiles having not changed in so long thing actually. It proves that species in the past have reached a point where physical change slowed down when no more physical characteristics were giving any crocodiles advantages over any other.
That's essentially my point with humans, have we reached a point where our chanegs are now all concious societial ones. Or would humans of the distant future be as different to us as we are from the great apes and chimpanzees?

As am I... sorry if I wasn't being clearer. Okay, take the fact that humans seem to be getting taller. The evidence of this seems to be clear looking back over just a handful of generations. Were we still part of a predator prey cycle, our optimum heights would be more relevant to the sizes of our predators/prey. As it is, they are more relevant to the size of tables/chairs/busses; ie thing we make ourselves. This probably means it can change more freely, over fewer generations.

Of course, it also means that the direction of change is a little... chaotic. Which... just goes to show what an interesting topic this really is

While the poor and less intellegent may be breeding more, at some point the carrying capacity in which the human population exists will be at it's maximum. When that time comes, it's highly likely that the population will experience a crash and that is the point where the laws of natural selection really begin to kick in. The ones who know how to survive, will. The more intellegent, while fewer in number, will have a selective advantage over those who are less intellegent.

Natural selection hasn't stopped. We're just in the punctuated part of punctuated equilibrium.

I suppose it comes down to what exactly shows 'fittest'.

I'd say that those poor couples who have many children are 'fitter' than the rich couple who only have a couple of kids. Why? Because they have a greater drive for procreation. Therefore more chance of out-breeding their supposed 'superiors'.

Just because something may be running counter-intuitive to our desired sense of evolution does not mean it is not happenning. I'd like humanity to evolve into extremely healthy, long-lived, and above all inteligent people. However if such people are outbred by any group that simply has more kids they are showing their superiority, simply by virtue of fertility.

If population growth does reach a climax, (and humans desire for war and dwindling resources suggest a yes for that). I'm wondering who would survive then? Nature would suggest the cruelest most selfish thieves would continue to survive.. bleurgh.. what fun what would be.. But nuder normal circumstances. That is who will survive.




Well I'd say fitter is whatever drives a species forward, if a line of evolution sends the human race into an evolutionary dead hole where we actually start surviving worse than we were before, that would be a bad place. Species in the past have evolved themselves into a situation where they could no longer survive. If we did, we'd be no more special than any of the countless that have done it before and perished.

My opinion of the biggest human mistake seems to be lack of management. Most species are managed by their environment. Humans have to manage themselves.. and we're bad at it. Bad at controlling their own numbers, bad at managing their supplies of food, and bad at keeping their environment running well.

I read a book recently (faber's book of science), in the last chapter it was suggested the earth could only support 2 billion people at a standard of living equal to that of an 'average' first world couple. So a couple with desires unfulfilled, but many many basic conviniences.. regular food, hygiene standard.. etc etc.
Basically what it was pointing out is that with the 6.X billion we seem to believe we can support.. we only have enough food today. To supply that much food, and warmth, and shelter to that many people.. consitently, the earth's resources will be pulled down faster than they can be replenlished. 2 billion is the number of humans that could live in balance with the earth indefinately.

People keep suggesting that people are smart enough to stop having kids when there are too many people. When? where? at what point has that ever happened, in any time period? People have fewer kids for financial reasons in their own family, or just because they don't want kids.. but they certainly don't think about world over population problems when planning a family.
Ask any person "are you prepared to adopt as opposed to having a kid of your own to help the world".. I'd dare anyone to find even 10 people able to have kids of their own that would say yes within the space of a year.

So back on topic. I'd have to say evolution will slow down to a crawl if things stay as they have been for the last few 1000 years. Unless an asteroid comes down and wipes away most of life, and the unable to cope start dying off more than the able to cope people. Or permanant worldwide martial law re-asserts itself over the entire planet, and stronger and faster and smarter people eat, and slower and weaker, and lesser intelligent people die out. Then we're just gonna continue with a mish mash.. whatever of folk.

But natural selection doesn't distinguish between 'able to cope' and 'able to survive'. The idea that evolution is some kind of driving force for the improvement of a species is a misconception, because survival is an absolute. You do or don't. If you're too weak to survive, you are excluded from the genepool, but past that your strength doesn't make (and nor has it ever) a blind bit of difference as regards natural selection. It's not the strongest who survive, it's the survivors who survive. Some kind of natural disaster might change the standards, but it doesn't change the process.

Besides which, it's circumstance which dictates whether the attributes you've listed (or indeed any other) are advantageous. Being faster stronger smarter might seem appealing to you, but that's based on opinion.



Eventually, we are just as accountable to our environment. It's just that we've managed to fix it such that the repocussions of that haven't caught up with us yet.



China's one-child policy? In China it's an exception to have more than one child. An example that severe overcrowding can push a government to take population limiting action if it comes to that.

(As regards overpopulation; bear in mind that, it being human nature to want more than you have no matter what you have, the average first world couple has far more than they need to survive comfortably.)

I'm surprized that nobody has brought up war yet. Remember, it is not only genetics that evolve, but societies. The society which is best able to provide for its people will be able to evolve, while other societies are not. And I disagree that the most selfish people would be the ones to survive, we are a social species for a reason, because being social helps you survive more. I scratch your back, you scratch mine. That's why wolves and lions are far more successful hunters than lone animals, because the animals which are social enjoy a greater benefit in the long run.

Overfriendly Kitty mentioned it, but no-one else seems to have picked it up.

Evolution happens across millenia. So, whether or not it's taking place is pretty much moot. The progress of society and technology outstip the pace of evolution by many orders of magnitude. So, any slight evolutionary changes are swamped by thousands of more blatent societal and technology-driven changes. For instance, Westerners are getting taller on average over the last couple of hundred years. Why? Nothing to do with evolution, simply that we're consume more calories because we're more affluent that we used to be.

Technology is causing huge changes in us too. Now, the average job involves sitting for 8 hours a day, whereas the average job used to involve hard physical labour for 12 hours a day.

It's my completely unfounded belief that when enough time has passed to actually see manifestations of evolution at work, humanity will have blown itself up/colonised the galaxy/sublimed to a pure energy form.

Lost me again sorry . I'm confused, what's the difference between able to cope, and unable to cope, and being able to survive and not able to survive? Since being able to cope was what I meant by survival



China's only been able to implement that because they they have a more communist government, The people's of china aren't exactly much in favour of it. Trying to implement a policy like that in India wouldn't go so well.


Also just to add.. anything anyone posts in this topic will be just ponderings.. the human race is one the youngest races on the face of the planet (if not THE youngest). All we can do here is just look at what has happened to other species in the past, and speculate how that relates to us we'll never likely know anythign for fact, we'll never be alive long enough to see the results of any of it. That's why one of the words in my first post was the word 'pondering'.

In my opinion some kind of social change has to occur before evolution would step back up to working like it did in the past.
Niche once said that if we really want to improve ourselves, we should abandon empathy in favour of letting the smartest, and strongest have all the luxeries, and let the slower minded, and weaker die out. I'm certainly not in favour of that.. my own sense of empathy says everyone should get an equal chance... I do however believe in tighter population control.. since we are shooting ourselves in the foot.
I just asked my girlfriend lately how if she would ever adopt, "Nope I want four kids of my own", was her response.. (*is scared, and starts looking up vasectomy prices*).
Don't mean to bang on about the adoption too much, but I really do think it's one of the most over looked options ever.

I just asked my girlfriend lately how if she would ever adopt, "Nope I want four kids of my own", was her response.. (*is scared, and starts looking up vasectomy prices*).



Okay, hearing about this post has 'twisted my arm' into signing up just so I can respond. I NEVER EVER EVER said that!!!! The quote marks are not to be believed. Lets see the conversations were for one thing seperate, conversation one: 'Would you ever adopt?' - my response 'Yes but I'd also like to be pregnant at least once'. Conversation Two - 'Do you want children?' - my response 'Yes, Four'.
Okay I am being mildly psychotic here in my eagerness to correct a certain person. But, I will not be misquoted.

look who signed up at last, after merely spying on my posts for way too long.
If I knew it would have been this easy to get you to sign up, I'd have done it long ago!

Well.. adopting and having four kids, still isn't too helpful considering the point I made.

Anyways to make sure this isn't your only post, and to up the stakes and force you to reply miss "Mosley". Need I point out that in the original adoption conversation we had you didn't actually say yes, you said "I don't know", until I did the whole speech about why it's great to adopt

Ok, first, let's make everything clear. Evolution is and forever will be taking place. Period. What Witless seems to be asking is whether or not natural selection (the dominating process of evolution) is still occuring.

The short answer is yes, it is.

Technology isn't overshadowing anything that natural selection is doing, because technology is becoming a factor in the process of natural selection. This is acclimation. Just because the new factors are man-made and not natural doesn't make them any less at work in how the human race will develop.

Evolution also happens by a process called punctuated equlibrium. This states that there will be eons and eons with very little change and then something (normally environmental, but a large enough scale war could be included here as well) changes the environment. Under this "pressure," the small variances between individuals stand out more, because those variances will mean the difference between surviving (producing viable offspring) and not surviving. Normally speaking, the human race is in a period where eons and eons pass with very little happening. However, technology such as nuclear weapons could change that if they are used to change the environment. (I'm citing weapons because they would have the quickest effect on the environment- things such as pollution and devastation of natural resources also have an effect on the environmental pressures.)

Evolution means change. We are changing all the time. The factors causing that change are more man-made now, but that doesn't mean that we aren't evolving. We're getting taller and physically developing sooner, and some of that is caused by more vitamins and hormone-changed foods. Everything that happens causes change, and we're simply becoming fitter for a new environment.

One could argue that getting taller and physically developing sooner are being caused by the environment rather than our genes. More than one biologist has noted that both of those things have occured within the last 1/2 generations. Huge genetic changes like an entire species height take a lot longer than 2 generations to effect an entire species.

How on earth would height changing genes get into so many people's genes in only two generations unless

a ) we simutaneously all developed the exact same mutation about 2 generation ago or

b ) there was some kind of midget genocide during the war that didn't get jotted down in the history books that was never recorded, and it was mostly tall people that got to breed.

I am not even talking about technology affecting breeding anyhow, technology has only been a factor for the last 100-200 years anyhow, I'm talking about societial changes. In the animal kingdom two things affect the number of offspring you produce, the first being if your fit and healthy, you attract more mates. The second is that you have to stay alive long enough to meet a mate, to my knowledge few species are necrophiles.

Humans have countered both of those things, we go to great lengths to make sure things that would normally kill us no longer do so. Most people in the UK will now live beyond 80, only the female menopause really stops us now.. (and we can even stop that now!). We live in cities and towns away from dangerous animals, where most things that can kill us will kill us regardless of how healthy we are, like 80 miles per hour cars.. etc. No longer does being fit and healthy with a good set of genes help you for squat. I could have inherited the best genes for long distance running, and trained every single day, and one the olympic gold medal twice. Then just the same as John smith next door, I can be hit down by a car, at aged 28, before having kids. My good genes will have done nothing for me that he didn't have. The weeding out of the not so able to survive is pretty slow going.
Second is good genes attracting more mates.. Now I know a few good looking guys and good looking women of various ages in their lives. Doesn't really seem like the good looking ones seem more likely to have more children than anyone else. If anything it seems to be mentality affecting who is breeding like rabbits more than anything else, certainly not attractiveness, or ability to play sport. More and more people if anything in the first world want kids LESS. Vasectomys in the UK are at an all time high, more and more people are opting for 1/2 kids rather than loads. Especially among the more educated. Just working out the numbers you can see that's going to mean, less and less representation in the gene pool and leaving it to those that just have a lot more kids. So we can get rid of that notion of survival of the fittest right there, pretty much everyone's surviving in the first world.
In the past evolution favoured those with strong immune systems.. that's because of the number of huge population slaying diseases like small pox, and the plague. We found measures to help vaccinate against small pox in the end, but still, without good immune systems you didn't last, regardless of measures people tryed back then. If you survived the condition you also passed that onto your children. For that reason, the majority of people to this day, are still small pox resistant, not entirely immune because the passing of generations has weakened it. But with the addition of small pox vaccinations, on top of our natural immunity we're immune to all but some of the newest strains immerging.
Another gene most europeons have also is the alcohol resistant gene. It's because europeon's of ages gone by used to purify a lot of their water using alcohol (purifying water with poison... irony). A lot of people ended up dying with liver damage and dying off as a result, however a certain number of people passed on a gene giving them tolerence to alcohol. That didn't happen around the rest of the world however. In the east they don't have this alcohol resistence.. as a result, they're more prone to getting drunk and to liver damage.
Myself, I have only gotten any tolerence to alcohol due to some mixed heritege in my family tree, but I know full well to pace myself more than some of my friends and will quickly be drinking one drink to every two of theirs. However, segregation of races and people's reluctance to mix, has meant not many people from the asian countries actually ever got this gene. Even India, where europeons have been living and trading since as far back as the 1400s (there was a lot of mixed relations back then before the domination occured.. and there probably was a lot of mixed relations after just not so well recorded). Still the gene hasn't really filtered down today.
I'd say it's simply because those with, didn't really have a significant advantage over those without, since the eastern countries weren't countries with a drinking culture like the europeans, they didn't have any such need for alcohol tolerence.
Through my eyes, that's happening today but on a larger scale, no one with any signicant genetic advantage has any better chance than anyone else. Your genes don't really make a blind bit of difference in how many kids you have, or your chances of survival in the first world. Any advantage you do pass on to your kids, will be watered down within 4/5 generations as your descendants don't really prosper any better than anyone else. Without some kind of change in the way society operates evolution will just stagnate unless some major disease comes our way, or a big war.. and I don't mean a war like world war 2 where 11-24 million were killed. I mean enough to put us back to a state where it really starts becoming hard to survive again.
That's why to me the third world is still in a state of evolution. If you enherit a malaria resistent gene in say africa... it will suddenly make your chances of survival huge. Over there they have areas where the life expectency is 45, That's not because the average person dies at 45, it's because child mortality is very high. In a place were everyone in a town is equally poor, and in an equal state of despair as you, ANY genetic advantage you have will put you leaps and bounds ahead. Sure environment will probably be a bigger player than genetics ever will be. But a malaria resistent gene surely gives you a better chance. If you then pass that onto kids you have, they are all in turn likely going to survive better than everyone else, and so on.. eventually everyone will have that gene. Especially If you are in competition with each other, which in the more war torn areas of africa they are.

Ah well.. I am still pondering just as hard as I was on this during my first post.. nothing resolved... hum..

I've not heard this before, could you provide sources? Also, it seems you're mixing up just how evolution works. Natural selection is a responce to the environmental changes, so it would make sense that the environment changing helps to fuel natural selection.



But technology is a societal change (though I'm going on the basis that you mean a non-genetic change which isn't naturally occuring), a rather huge one at that. It may be unlike what the rest of the animal kingdom has to deal with (though in areas that's debatable), but regardless, it's fast becoming a major part of natural selection.



Just because the variations in genes that helped other species survive in the past aren't playing a part in natural selecion today, doesn't mean it's not happening. For instance, something that will probably be effecting the human species (and farm animals for that matter) in the near future is the rapid evolution of diseases. Things such as speed aren't going to help an individual/species survive. Yes, it's a reflection of health and of the power of the individual's immune system, but without the correct T-cells, none of that is really going to make a difference in the end. And yes, normally evolution takes quite a long time -after all, look how long it took us to get where we are today



The problem here is that what you consider "attractiveness" is of your own personal opinion, and not necessarily what the population tends to gravitate towards. For instance, (and unfortunately, I can't post a link to the study as it was a video we watched in lecture) a study was done to find the correlation between the scent of a person and the overall attractiveness of that person (scent, btw, corresponds to what type of immune system an individual has), and it was found that seemingly "unattractive" people were more likely to be appealing to the test subjects (females under a range of ages) if they liked the scent of the person (an appealing scent usually means that the immune system is different from the said individual) and conversely, an "attractive" person was more likely to be less appealing to the test subjects if the scent was not appealing. So, it could be that there are many more factors than what you're accounting for in natural selection.



Once again, while intellegence is probably going to be a factor in natural selection, it's not the be all and end all of variations needed to survive. I say going to be because as it stands now, there is not enough environmental pressure to cause any sort of drastic changes in the human population. Most likely, this will happen when either A ) Carrying capacity is met and exceeded or B ) Nuclear war (or some global-scale natural disaster/disease) causes a shift in the environment.



Actually, it's things like that that will probably create pressure within the environment which will eventually cause natural selection to occur more rapidly in humans (and probably farm animals as well). While humans may now be "immune" (I use quotes because it's my belief that we're never really immune to a disease as long as some of it still survives) to the small pox virus, it's actually things like the flu, which has an incredable rate of evolution (which we're helping by using so many vaccines against it) which will probably take out a good chunk of the population (scary thought, huh? ) Like I said, it all depends on the environmental pressure.



Well, it's like a situation from the princess bride (which I imagine, very few people on here have actualy seen -though cand assures me it's a popular movie- ) the main character was immune to iocane poison because he slowly built up an immunity to it (in effect, he changed his environment, but on such a small scale that he could adapt to it). It all boils down to environmental pressure (hmm, I seem to be repeating that a lot in this post). Without it, no rapid natural selection will take place.



Exactly. No environmental pressure, no visible natural selection. Doesn't mean it's stopped, there's just nothing for the population to react to.



Ok, let's take that as undeniably true (which it most likely is anyway). And for the fun of it, let's say that every person in said country is completely resistant to the current form of malaria. Now let's create an environmental pressure......hmm.....ah! A meteor hits the Earth and creates another iceage (cliched and probably not where the world's heading -nuclear winters aside,- I know ) Most organisms, such as malaria, will be killed off. Will being resistant to malaria in any way shape or form help anyone to survive? It's rather doubtful. So, you see, it's not that they can better survive (overall) than anyone else, it's that they've slowly adapted to their environment and are now better prepared to survive under the condition of malaria. Of course, if malaria was to take over the world, then they might be the only ones left...

But see, that's the problem... if things have to change from their current standards in order to promote evolution within the first world.. then crappy things would pretty much have to happen for evolution to start re-asserting itself.. This is a rather bleak future in my mind. I started this topic hoping to see an avenue by which evolution goes forward fluently without the need of selective breeding, or war or horrible disease. (Like how sci fi says it will happen).

Stupid real world..

But evolution (specifically natural selection) is a responce to the environment. When something occurs that changes the environment, living things respond to it in order to survive. I'm of the opinion that they can't really be classified as either good or bad as a whole (good or bad for the survival of a particular version of a species, yes, but to me that seems a bit vain). For example, when volcanoes spewing H2O and other compounds helped to create oxygen, that was essentally not favorable to organisms that survived better without O2, but favorable to those who could survive in an athmosphere of O2 (which were, incidentally, most organisms). Many organisms died off, but many more survived. It's just how life works.

(though personally, I'd love it if aliens somehow came to Earth and made everything perfect for humans and all other species to populate and survive forever, but this isn't quite realistic )

Not always, evolution often occurs out of competition.. the entire reign of the dinosaurs happened with the world in a fairly samey climate, constant competition drove them into an almost evolution race... until they all got ultimately wiped out

but that was still on the cusp of having a lot of N+ in the air (as far as I know, dinosaurs got bigger because the plants contained more N+ in them, which helps to fuel protein growth), which gave larger dinosaurs (in some cases) a selective advantage over smaller ones. It's one of the few explosions of life that has happened throughout the history of the world due to an environmental change. All of the huge spurts of natural selection are rooted at an environmental shift.

Ah.. but it wasn't exactly a spurt was it? the dinosaurs were the longest running land dwelling species ever. They were around for an amount of time that makes the mammals throne time seem rather pitiful. For that time they generation absurd numbers of variations on design, constantly making new ones in competition with the old. Back then if your competitors gained an egde on your species. Your days were numbered unless your species could come up with something in the next few thousand years to counter that.
That would be why they were driven to evolve so many models.. competition back then was extraordinary. You really did have to be very very good at surviving, or you were killed, simple as that. No if's and no buts about it. Every generation only the best and the luckiest lived, therefore every generation only the cream of the crop (plus lucky) genes got through to the next generation. So they evolved lots and lots of models, making back then far more diverse.. (so evidence suggests) then life is now.

You misunderstand what I mean by spurt. When I say 'spurt,' I'm talking in the grand scheme that is from the formation of the planet to present life. In one such spurt (for example the era of the dinosaurs or even posibly our present day) there can be eons and eons of change, depending on how big an environmental shift there is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all of natural selection is just happening from environmantal change. It's just the jumpstart to get the great big ball rolling.