Are we done evolving?

Absolutely not. Evolution isn't just about adding wings or x-ray vision. Our social structure does a LOT of selective breeding, for such traits as less hair on women. It's the little things that will make the eventual, overriding changes happen, and they won't ever be visible overnight.

Other things are happening as well, like races mixing a lot more than they used to, which gives us a whole new set of evolutionary choices. If numbers alone were the deciding factor, we'll all eventually be an Indian/Chinese mix, but politics has a lot to do with our evolution right now too.

If you believe in evolution, I think you'd be crazy to believe we're done with it.

If you know a little about human nature, and nature in general, you'd be crazy to assume there won't be occasional upheavals that change the breeding balance.

 

I had a professor once who said we are done. He pointed out that we have not lost useless parts such as the appendix, ear lobe and the pinky toe, which in his opinion surely should have disappeared by now.

I think the invention of medicine and aids such as glasses (which I wear) has slowed natural evolution. We artificially and temporarily evolve to overcome our shortcomings, but those improvements are not genetically past on to our offspring (see: glasses) other then in the form of more advanced artificial corrections.

However when it comes to understanding fellow human beings, accepting and tolerating spiritual and religious differences and lifestyles, we seem to have stopped evolving

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 30 2007, 02:30 PM) [snapback]415081[/snapback]</div>

I remember reading somewhere that we're steadily losing our pinky toes to disuse, that pinky toes throughout the world today are considerably stunted compared to the average pinky toe of just a few thousand years ago. Shoes are the principal cause, if I recall.

I think we're standing today at the brink of DIRECTED evolution: we will no longer wait patiently while nature plods along its path of successive DNA accidents to attain biological improvements. It's at once very scary new ground, and very promising new ground. Historically, we've NEVER rejected a technology on the grounds that it's too dangerous; and I doubt even this technology would be the first to be so restrained, even though it affects us at the very roots of what we believe ourselves to be.

So, not only are we NOT done, we're just getting started!

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

Done?! Already? I was hoping we may yet become responsible, cooperative, intelligent contributors to life on Earth.

 

If you subscribe to the theory of gradualism, we are constantly changing, but so slowly that it won't show in historical time scales.

If, however, you subscribe to punctuated equilibrium, then most species remain relatively stable throughout most of their existence, with evolutionary change occuring fairly rapidly (over a few tens of thousands of years) when small populations become geographically or genetically detached from the main body of the species.

By this theory, we are not presently evolving, but all it would take would be for a small population to become detached for a few tens of thousands of years, and that population would become incapable of breeding with the parent population, which is the definition of speciation.

This theory states that in very large populations, it is extremely difficult for allele ratios to change (the genetic definition of evolution), whereas in very small populations, allele frequencies can change.

So the sort answer to your question is: Nobody knows for sure.

But just because you cannot think of a concrete macroscopic change that you would consider beneficial, does not mean evolution is not happening. Nothing remains absolutely stable. Human culture and civilization works against natural selection. But come back in a million years and I guarantee you if our descendants have not gone extinct, they'll be unrecognizable.

 

No.

Evolution does not have an end point nor a road map. It is a process by which species change over time to adapt to its surroundings.
These are 2 concepts people have trouble grasping.

Think of it this way. A tiny tree sapling does not have an end point it grows to. It's growth DOES have a road map (DNA) but the end result is framed by its environment. It will grow to fill the space it is allowed to.
All species will grow to fill up any space or niche in its environment that it is able to. Competition both within the species and with other species frame who "wins" as does changes in the environment.

Evolution is a process not a goal.

Also, evolutionary changes happen faster in times of die offs, but hardly at all during growth or stable periods. In regards to humans, I expect a human population nose dive in which evolutionary changes will speed up. (Following closely the drop off in oil production).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 30 2007, 05:44 PM) [snapback]415090[/snapback]</div>

Then I'm going to get ahead of the curve and start using the phrase, "You're as useless as a pinky toe!" on those individuals who are... :lol:

 

No, we are not done. I have a few hairs still left on my head. :blink:

 

i think technology has developed far enough that many negative traits are compensated for, and that affects our evolution as a species. maybe some not-so-advantageous genes make it through as a result. also something to think about, our environment is changing more quickly than we can adapt to those changes. our society's definition of the "ideal mate" changes over time. international travel changes, people meet and fall in love and have children together that would have never seen each other 100 years ago.

in all, the definition of evolution indicates that we are never "done" so long as our environment continues to change.

 

I always wonder when folks like Ray Kurzweil talk about the singularity. If machines are a future step in evolution, I can't help but think that DNA is going to try to stop it, unless it somehow finds a way to introduce itself into other types of machines. I have a poster on the wall that reads "A chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs." I guess things could evolve to a point where replication can be done without bodies as we know them. Also, I don't really believe that humans are the ultimate in evolution. We are just a good fit at the moment.

 

It all depends on us. I've heard that mother's milk tested anywhere in the continental US will show measurable levels of dioxin. Perhaps dioxin-resistance will become a new genetic trait that will be developed. It's an interesting question to consider.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Mar 30 2007, 05:02 PM) [snapback]415104[/snapback]</div>

Agreed; I'm feeling like it's our behaviour which might benefit most.

Here's one form of chemically-aided evolution: the reduction in male fertility over the last 50-60 years. From what I understand, pseudo estrogens (which are present/result from the creation of lots of the chemical compounds we encounter every day) may be reducing the sperm count in males and may --ultimately-- render everyone female. There are already instances of an increasing percentage of intersexed births in a number of different animal species.

Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe there is hope for humanity! (we'll figure out the reproductive issues later)
[laughing]

 

I heard somewhere that we only use 10% of our brain. If true, we have a lot more evolving to do.

I now understand Prius drivers use 15% of their brain. See, we are already evolving !!!

 

As of right now we are not done evolving BUT if we continue to follow he very sad story or world domination and believing that "everything evolved from stage to stage until finally man was here", we will indeed stop evolving. Everything will stop evolving and creation will cease to happen because stopped it. We are doing this every day and everyone and everything suffers for it.

So in a nutshell, no, we are not done evolving and we will not stop evolution no matter how bad we F' up BUT we are stopping evolution for MANY organisms. We have stopped it for the Yantze River Dolphin and for the Passenger Pigeon and a million other species in a record amount of time in which only meteor strikes can compete.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 30 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]415122[/snapback]</div>

This is entirely possible. Species are presently going extinct at a phenominal rate. And our political leaders seem bent on insuring our extinction as well.

But it's also possible that the end of cheap energy will result in world-wide famine and wars that cause civilization to collapse, leaving only a very small number of humans in isolated populations living in stone-age conditions, who will then resume evolving, as they will once again be subject to the vagaries of the environment due to the absence of technology.

Science fiction loves the motif of the WW III survivors who re-build civilization and modern technology. However, in the absence of cheap, easily-obtainable energy, it will probably be impossible to re-build. Technological civilization may well be a one-shot deal, and with the resources depleted, it may be impossible to repeat if it is once destroyed.