Human evolution has been speeding up tremendously, a new study contends—so much, that the latest evolutionary changes seem to largely eclipse earlier ones that accompanied modern man’s “origin.”

The study, alongside other recent research on which it builds, amounts to a sweeping reappraisal of traditional views, which tended to assume that humans have reached an endpoint of evolution.

The findings suggest that not only is our evolution continuing: in a sense our very “origin” can be seen as ongoing, a geneticist not involved in the study said.

(Article at website world-science.net)

The study, alongside other recent research on which it builds, amounts to a sweeping reappraisal of traditional views, which tended to assume that humans have reached an endpoint of evolution.


I have never read or heard of a scientist who thought that humans were done with evolving. In fact the opposite has been asserted.

Human evolution has been speeding up tremendously, ...

I would agree ...but on a downward spiral! "Natural" evolution has not been permitted to occur naturally to help "cleanse" the species.

In their misguided efforts, humans have kept/saved the sickest, the weakest, the dumbest, the fatest,....., and now those same have continued to breed. In any other species, all those undesirable traits would have disappeared.

Baron Max

In their misguided efforts, humans have kept/saved the sickest

one of the reasens I'm for genetic manipulation to some degree.

I would agree ...but on a downward spiral! "Natural" evolution has not been permitted to occur naturally to help "cleanse" the species.

In their misguided efforts, humans have kept/saved the sickest, the weakest, the dumbest, the fatest,....., and now those same have continued to breed. In any other species, all those undesirable traits would have disappeared.

Baron Max

You make a logical fallacy. Those who breed most are per definition the best adapted, strongest and whatever, not the weakest, dumbest, and fattest. "survival of the fittest".

You make a logical fallacy. Those who breed most are per definition the best adapted, strongest and whatever, not the weakest, dumbest, and fattest. "survival of the fittest".

This only fails when we limit ourselves to Darwinian evolution.

We still do not know for sure the exact driving causes, it may be possible for humans to evolve without killing off its sick, weak, or dumb.

Now I'm not really up on the latest on this stuff, but at the species level, isn't it survival of the most "diverse" that determines success?

I.E In case of (situation) this species is covered(some will survive). Being stong, smart and look like Adonis doesn't matter if your species can be wiped out by a cold.

Though I can agree with the perspective that says well gee our great modern medicine will have everyone able to cope with deadly allergies / athsma / genetic defects that would render us usually incapable of reproduction, thus causing more incidents. However after some thought, you know the difference in some cases from a mutation being a hinderence or a help is very small. Look at Autism.

Also perhaps we are unconsiously practicing for the dealing of a host of new viruses etc. that will will encounter from travelling to other planets with live already on them.

This only fails when we limit ourselves to Darwinian evolution.

We still do not know for sure the exact driving causes, it may be possible for humans to evolve without killing off its sick, weak, or dumb.

You don't understand natural selection, nor my point. Apparently the sick, weak or dumb are the fittest and the whiners who complain about the sick, weak or dumb are merely evolutionary losers.

There is no need for some group of the human population to start killing off others. Evolution is doing its thing. And apparently the people that whine about are losing the struggle. Too bad for them, but why don't they just do what is natural? Because they are losers.

lol Good point.

"I'm A LOSER BABYYYY SO WHYDON'TCHYAKILLMEEEE???"

Those who breed most are per definition the best adapted, strongest and whatever, not the weakest, dumbest, and fattest.

Apparently the sick, weak or dumb are the fittest

Its hard to understand your point when you contradict yourself.

Im pretty sure I know what you were TRYING to convey, but the clarity is lacking.

You don't understand natural selection, nor my point. Apparently the sick, weak or dumb are the fittest and the whiners who complain about the sick, weak or dumb are merely evolutionary losers.

Hmm, I think you're viewing that in the wrong perspective. Those who are truly sick, weak and dumb could NOT survive without outside help. Thus even if they do survive and breed, they're still sick, weak and dumb! ...and now there are more of them.

There is no need for some group of the human population to start killing off others. Evolution is doing its thing.

Well, no, natural selection, natural evolution is NOT doing it's thing. Humans are prevent that very thing by keeping and helping those who would not ordinarily survive in nature.

And no one is advocating killing people ....I'm only saying that humans have actually interfered with natural selection not only in their own species, but we've done the same with other species.

Humans are not subject to "natural selection" anymore ...we've taken over the process and not only stopped the "natural selection", we've begun "selecting" on our own. And I think we've done a piss-poor job of it, too.

Baron Max

I agree with Max.
What we are doing is not a whole lot different than Eugenics, but with a different goal than it was practiced toward in the past.

No, you are both wrong. You are both projecting your morals, which are a result of upbringing, on nature.

Nature does not care at all about what some cultural movements think is strong or best for nature. Nature does not think at all. Nature does what it does.

The projection of human morals on nature leads to unnatural situations such as eugenics.

The truth of the matter is that the environment in which humans are living has changed dramatically of the last few thousand years. Even more so in the last 100 year with the introduction of hygiene, abundant food, and modern medicine.

This has created new environmental pressures on the reproduction characteristics of the human population. The fittest are those who are best adapted to this new environment.

What is currently exactly happening nobody knows. It is just becoming clear that the human species is still evolving. In what kind of direction is unclear. To claim that we are becoming more stupid, fat etc because of excessive breeding of certain subpopulation is not a viable position since we have no clue.

A proper response should be that we should poor more money into researching this topic. AND, what is more important no intervention whatsoever. The direction human evolution is going is maybe not clear to us, but what is clear is that evolution works. And we have to adapt to our changing environment. And nature is doing just that.

What we also know is that human intervention in any subject leads 99% of the time to a complete fuck up.

Even now people are shouting from the rooftops that human evolution is going down the drain without a valid base for these claims. That pretty much says it all.

I welcome the change. Evolution is the most glorious of all processes to witness. It has tricked people to think its creations were created by God. life on earth survived major disasters.

My fucking god, Evolution rocks!

The projection of human morals on nature leads to unnatural situations such as eugenics.

The truth of the matter is that the environment in which humans are living has changed dramatically of the last few thousand years. Even more so in the last 100 year with the introduction of hygiene, abundant food, and modern medicine.

Modern medicine and technology finding new and inegenious ways to allow people with genetic diseases, paralysis and other severe handicaps IS the prjection of human morals on nature.

I am not passing judgement either way, what I am saying, however, is that these things DO amount to the practice of Eugenics - regardless of teh intentions.

Lets try and cut through the bull shit us vs. religion useless crap, you all haqve your own faith in one way or another.

Back on topic. EVOLVING HOW?

in what way?

You make a logical fallacy. Those who breed most are per definition the best adapted, strongest and whatever, not the weakest, dumbest, and fattest. "survival of the fittest".

NOTHING suppports this claim as it relates to modern human populations.

By the way...

I have never read or heard of a scientist who thought that humans were done with evolving. In fact the opposite has been asserted.

Exactly!!

Human evolution has been speeding up tremendously, a new study contends—so much, that the latest evolutionary changes seem to largely eclipse earlier ones that accompanied modern man’s “origin.”

The study, alongside other recent research on which it builds, amounts to a sweeping reappraisal of traditional views, which tended to assume that humans have reached an endpoint of evolution.

The findings suggest that not only is our evolution continuing: in a sense our very “origin” can be seen as ongoing, a geneticist not involved in the study said.

(Article at website world-science.net)I have it from high authority that evolution is a myth.
IceAgeCivilization told me...and he read it in a Book that was dictated to some dudes thousands of years ago by the Allmighty Himself.

I have it from high authority that evolution is a myth.
IAC told me...and he read it in a Book that was dictated to some dudes thousands of years ago by the Allmighty Himself.

*************
M*W: No, Satyr, what he experienced were just hallucinations from his regular bouts of DTs.

What frightens me is that the greatest people tend not to breed at all. Whereas "Kevin Federline" has all ready produced five babies.

The quality of human generations depends on the choices we make now. If we do not choose wisely, for strong, intelligent people, we are going to end up reverting to savagery.

NOTHING suppports this claim as it relates to modern human populations.

Sure there is. The environment in which we live is changing, and the human species is evolving.

What you meant to say is that you have nothing to add to the argument other than to attack another poster.

Modern medicine and technology finding new and inegenious ways to allow people with genetic diseases, paralysis and other severe handicaps IS the prjection of human morals on nature.

I am not passing judgement either way, what I am saying, however, is that these things DO amount to the practice of Eugenics - regardless of teh intentions.

Variation is good. Nature isn't interested in what you think is good variation.

Sure there is. The environment in which we live is changing, and the human species is evolving.

What you meant to say is that you have nothing to add to the argument other than to attack another poster.

No that is not what i meant to say.

I would hardly call that an attack, unless you call an opposing viewpoint an attack.

You make a logical fallacy. Those who breed most are per definition the best adapted, strongest and whatever, not the weakest, dumbest, and fattest. "survival of the fittest".

This has nothing to do with populations of modern humans, those who breed most do not fit the criteria you mention, anyone can see that.

Why dont you just tell everyone how human's have evolved since recorded history and are still evolving beyond the obvious variations. Then explain how it has anything to do with Darwin's evolution theory.

That is all, should be easy.

Variation is good. Nature isn't interested in what you think is good variation.
Sure variation is good.
Large and small people better suited to different environments and situations.
People with different skin tones have benefits and weaknesses in relation to the sun.
Fat and skinny people are differently adapted.
The list goes on and on.

However, I fail to see what is beneficial about having a debilitating genetic disease that would have killed you otherwise (and eventually killed itself off, perhaps), that you will pass down to your children and cause THEM pain and suffering and keep the disease around for yet one more generation.
If you would have died without medical technology, it seems to me that "nature was interested" in you dying.
If you disagree, please explain why (and please avoid using the trite example of Hawking).
Do you not agree that in nature there are in-built herd-culling checks and balances?
Do you not agree that over-population leads to destruction of ecosystems, natural resources and also leads to disease?
Do you not agree that some variations are beneficial, while some are detrimental?
Isn't that the whole mechanism of evolution?

I am not suggesting that we practice Eugenics and sterilize "stupid" people (though Kevin Federline was a good example) what I am saying is that by keeping people alive that "nature was interested in killing" we are superceding nature and forcing these detrimental variations to continue - in other words, we ARE practicing Eugenics.
I am not saying that the "gene pool" is more important than "the individual", nor am I saying the opposite. I am, as I said, not passing value judgements.
You, on the other hand, I think are letting your value judgements get in the way of your impartiality.
I certainly could be wrong, but it seems to me that you are forming an argument against Eugenics, rather than simply, honestly discussing the science.

In their misguided efforts, humans have kept/saved the sickest, the weakest, the dumbest, the fatest,....., and now those same have continued to breed. On the plus side it means you are here to entertain us.

Endlight posted these comments in response to SpuriousIts hard to understand your point when you contradict yourself.He didn't. After all, the meek shall inherit the Earth.

Im pretty sure I know what you were TRYING to convey, but the clarity is lacking.The clarity is outstanding if you already have a good appreciation of the character of evolution: otherwise it looks a little obscure.

However, I fail to see what is beneficial about having a debilitating genetic disease that would have killed you otherwise (and eventually killed itself off, perhaps), that you will pass down to your children and cause THEM pain and suffering and keep the disease around for yet one more generation.Natural selection is about the survival of the fittest.
Chance dictates survival to some degree, but overall some traits will be more prone to survival than others - in a given environment. Fitness only has relevance in a given environment.
Traits that are unfit will tend to die out over time. Traits that survive - in a given environment - do because they are either neutral or positive - in a given environment.
If individuals with genetic disorders are surviving and sucessfully breeding it is because they are fit for their given environment. If they were not then they would not survive and breed.

This is the heart of any evolutionary theory that involves natural selection.

.

If the given environment is man made, is that still natural selection, or is it Eugenics?
If this manmade given environment becomes unstable, (infrastructure collapse, financial collapse, war, any given reason) what are the chances of survival in the natural environment?
Our modern society and technology is not truly an environment, it is an often unstable facade layered on top of the natural environment.

Besides, the people I am referring to are not in any sense “the fittest” to survive even in the given environment, they survive, yes, but are only one small step above those who do not – not the fittest.
They are about as far from "the fittest" as you can get while still surviving.

If the given environment is man made, is that still natural selection, or is it Eugenics? Man-made, naturally, but not eugenics.

Lots of beings modify their environment, and evolve whithin that modified world - the boreal forest is full of pines and spruces that have evolved within an environment largely specified by dense pine and spruce forests.

Eugenics involves intention. That is its separation from Darwinian patterns and its great weakness - human intentions are simpler, pettier, and less robust than the workings of the larger world. Playing God, in monotheistic terms; using the carpenter's tools, in Taoist terms; it doesn't work.

In any Darwinian sequence, there is the generation of variation and the culling of the "unfit"; we are just in a spate of generation that has not been culled - - - yet. There is absolutely no way to predict the results of the culling - there are some possible biases or probabilities that could be noted, but no way to estimate their significance. That is all, should be easy. That is impossible, for a Darwinian.

If the given environment is man made, is that still natural selection, or is it Eugenics?It is still natural selection. I view eugenics as a subset of natural selection.
If this manmade given environment becomes unstable, (infrastructure collapse, financial collapse, war, any given reason) what are the chances of survival in the natural environment?Lower. Most humans fit for survival in the current environment(s) would be ill configured genetically and experientally to survive in 'the wild'. That simply reflects the fact that fitness is environment specific. There is no over-riding 'superiority' of features that make one organism fitter than an other in a universal sense.

I came across an interesting anthropological article that discussed the possibility of humanity evolving into a single unified race. This would mean that skin colour would not exist since everyone would be a single race as a product of interracial copulation over many generations. I don't know the exact time period that this apparent dramatic change in human evolution is supposed to take place, but if I find the article again I will definitely post the link here. The article goes beyond the appearance of a single human race and gets into the possibility of a humanoid robot race as well as a race of humans known as the astrans (they have the ability to traverse the stars and habitat other planets in the universe), which is supposed to be the very end product of human evolution. I doubt that any of these human evolutionary steps are going to actually occur, but it doesn't hurt to have a big imagination.