are we still evolving?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting that the OP suggests we are stagnating and provides a link which the first few lines of contradicts the OP.

"Hu*man ev*o*lu*tion has been speed*ing up tre*mend*ous*ly, a new study con*tends—so much, that the lat*est ev*o*lu*tion*ary changes seem to large*ly ec*lipse ear*l*ier ones that ac*com*pa*nied mod*ern man’s “ori*gin.”
 
I contend that the very different and challenging environments that we encounter in space will lead to a speeding up of Human evolution.
 
Humans will always be evolving faster than other species...as long as we continue to make war and commit suicide.
 
Carcano said:
Good point...lets amend that.

Faster than any other species with a similar rate of reproduction.
Click to expand...

You have to be careful about generation times.. HIV can evolve over the course of several days because of the very quick reproductive cycle and very poor proofreading mechanisms present in viruses.
 
Nice necro post. I wish I had been around for the original go at this thread, but since it's already been revived, I'll toss in my two cents.

Yes, we are still evolving. The only two conditions necessary for evolution to occur are:
  • Genetic variation
  • Differential reproductive success between individuals (note: doesn't have to be systematic)
Clearly modern humans meet both of these conditions, so it's safe to say that we are still evolving.

The important thing to remember is that natural selection is not the only mechanism that drives evolution. I suspect that the topic of this thread would have been more accurately stated as, "Are we still undergoing natural selection?" -- which is a far more interesting question than whether we are simply evolving.

So how about it? Is human evolution still driven by natural selection? I think that the answer to this question is 'yes' as well. I noted above that the requisite differences in reproductive success didn't necessarily have to be systematic. But when success does differ in a systematic way, this represents natural selection. While I think that the factors that determine reproductive success have certainly changed since civilization -- becoming both very different and much less deterministic -- I would say that they still affect reproductive success in a systematic fashion.
 
Dub_ said:
While I think that the factors that determine reproductive success have certainly changed since civilization -- becoming both very different and much less deterministic -- I would say that they still affect reproductive success in a systematic fashion.
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly.

Genetic differences and weaknesses will soon be adjustable using gene therapy. Gluten intolerance used to be deadly when cereals were the main source of nutrition. However, nowadays such an intolerance would be detected and dealt with, through dietery planning or gene therapy or etc.

It seems that nowadays anyone can have children and bring them up at least physically healthy, so natural selection is weakened. There must be a lot of non-genetic factors that determine family size and reproductive success. There are probably genetics that influence acquisition of non-genetic factors (conformity, creativity, etc), and these are perhaps selected for.

I definitely agree that these factors change and are much less deterministic.
 
Moderator note: 149 off-topic posts have been deleted, including all posts from the sock puppet troll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top