There are studies that suggest that the human race is still evolving. However, I am skeptical of the findings (for example, height and brain size differences withing the scope of recorded history). How is it possible that such a large population evolves when there is no evolutionary pressure that kills off swaths of people and leaves certain others with specific traits behind? Most other indicators like crime level are merely controlled by the political setting and not the genetic setting. Can anyone care to explain how the human race is still evolving in a certain direction?
well, I would say that we must be evolving some. for example, people who resist the effects of birth control medicines should be evolving. for example, very little of the birth control that women take is actually broken down in the womans body. consequently, women pass the chemicals on to waste water treatment plants, which also do not completely break it down. many believe that the extra birth control in the water supply is adversely effecting male sexuality. naturally, people more resistant will be more likely to reproduce. I am sure its a very small effect, as there are methods to have children anyway. so in short, yes, we are evolving. however, its probably very slight. one more thing to note: people in areas where malaria is common have a much higher concentration of resistant people (for obvious reasons), so evolution is alive an well.
Give it time, Facial. It takes time. Lots of time. Recorded history is what, 10,000 years or so? Give it time.
Of course. When we catch a disease and fight it off, and survive, that's an evolution. A minor, oh-so-small evolution, but it is an example of evolution in action.
Since evolution means change, isn't everything necessarily evolving. How can the human race not be evolving considering that mutations occur in the recombinant DNA of every individual?
I think we're evolving to be inferior too. Nowdays if you have some horrible genetic disease you can still live and reproduce.
if the enviroment is still changing then humans are still evolving, the evolution of humans is a function of change in the enviroment. These changes being climate, socio-economy, habitat, infrastructure, ideas, e.t.c.
not really. if we catch a disease and fight it off, thats our immune system working. if a disease spreads throughout humanity and everyone is killed except for a few with a certain gene, that is evolution.
I used to think along the same lines. The reason why I disagree is that someone has to decide what is inferior/superior. The phrase "survival of the fittest" was apparently supposed to mean "Survival of what fits in (to the environment)" which is essentially tautologous (and has been attacked as such). So the only real test of "fitness" is whether something is surviving. Therefore the money leeching fat grandchildren or the golddigging whore are technically not 'inferior'.
Well, to evolve is to react and adapt (genetically?) to the surrounding environemtn. To devolve would be to have that environment stripped and nothing added, so as to lose features but not need to gain new ones. I believe that the urban human is evolving. It may not always be positive evolution, but there is definately adaption to circumstance. Ican talk forever about this subject What I want to know is, when are we gonna get a new race of humans??? That is what i have been searching for.
No. Humanity is devolving. In the past humanity had "magic" and "mental powers". Now those things are ridiculed as superstition. If you read a science fiction book, the author would describe human society as decayed, based on the description above. "Our ship landed on planet X. The primitives came to meet us. None of them were telepathic, though we could feel the remnants that indicated they must have had the ability in the past. Their own history records say that they were telepathic in the past. Yet they insist there is no such thing. Our xenobiologist recommends we not tell them we are fully telepathic. He believes the primitives would react violently to our admission that we are capable of telepathy, and that most galaxy faring species are telepathic."
Well at the rate that are sun travels through the galaxy, we will be getting furthur from neigboring stars which support are chemistry, as we move away from these stars that have been supporting our chemistry for the last 10,000 to 50,000 years are chemical nature changes and our current chemistry becomes less stable resulting in more genetic and chamical ditrubances, which in the end result about 5,000 to 9,000 years from now will make human exsinct, or suriving by artifical means. So humans have a lot to accomplish in the next 5,000 to 9,000 years DwayneD.L.Rabon
Ok, let's play technical Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You're wrong about the only real test of fitness is whether something survives, it's whether it reproduces. It doesn't matter how long it survives, whether it's healthy or sick, or anything else as long as it reproduces. And of course I was talking about us becoming inferior... not evolutionarily speaking, but culturally speaking I guess.
That's a pretty fine point depending on whether you mean 'fit as an individual' or 'fit as a species'. Your answer was probably better though Whoever knows the meaning of evolution should realise the inanity of the word devolution in this context. Actually look up devolution in the dictionary, and you'll find that it doesn't apply. No living organism is really in a conditionof absolute statis anyway. It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that anything can or will stop evolving without becoming extinct. Happeh: Maybe you wouldn't mind citing something logical or reputable rather than spewing sub-coherent garble about your own frivolous belief system. Hmm?
