Are humans coming to a stagnation in evolution?

[GwJ]

THERE IS A PRESUPPOSITION IN THIS THREAD THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE; DO NOT ARGUE EVOLUTION IN THIS THREAD

I read a student's paper at my university a few weeks ago talking about how modern medicine practices are causing evolution in humans to slow down. Here's essentially what was brought up:

Modern medicines allow humans with undesirable genes to survive and reproduce, when they normally would get weeded out via natural selection, and are able to pass their genes on to further offspring. This overlaps with the process of natural selection which works against the weeding out of bad genes by allowing the survival of said genes. With this happening, human evolution cannot proceed at the speed that it would be if modern medicine would not be involved.

tl;dr Medicine makes bad people with bad genes reproduce, stopping evolution.


Does his argument have any cogency to it? I feel like on the surface it does, but I also have a nagging feeling that there's something wrong with what he's saying.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I completely understand what he is saying. For the sake of mankind, I think we should destroy all drugs and make them illegal so we can weed out the weaker humans.

But on a less serious note, it seems to logically follow. The only thing that gets Mother Nature moving is necessety, that is the only reason why animals adapt mentally and physically, to suit their surroundings and habitat. Once you put a bubble around what nature intended your body is going to not see the need. It may even in fact make us physically weaker and frailer in the distant future as technology advances to the point where viruses and environments literally just fail to cause any danger.

In other words, at the end of our evolutionary chain we may end up like little green aliens. Not a serious proclamation but does indeed make note of how intelligent races in popular culture are always frail and weaker than how humans are portrayed, but they also always have bigger brains and more advanced technology. It makes sense, they physically just don't need most things animals have. That is probably why also animals will become even more capable of adapting to the world as the years pass by because of their dangerous surroundings whereas we will either be stagnant as you describe or change into something weaker.

 

[Dre89]

If this true, then that means that the care for the weak, and sense of morality we have aren't positve adaptions. It's an interesting thought.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Well, evolution seems to be no longer needed in humans. They can modify the external space in such a way that they will be comfortable as it is now and no need to adapt as a species (What would people in Alaska need to evolve when they have a comfortable, warm house?). The need for positive traits, for example, to improve our hunting, is also no longer needed, since domestication has already taken over.
You could almost speak of devolution, since human technology has basically taken over evolution of humans.

As for the argument, if it holds, I'm not sure at all if it's medicine that would stop human evolution. It's the whole of technology, allowing us to adapt without evolving.

 

[GwJ]

You made me think of an important question.

Is evolution ever done?

 

[Sucumbio]

Does his argument have any cogency to it? I feel like on the surface it does, but I also have a nagging feeling that there's something wrong with what he's saying.

The thing I disagree with in his idea is that it proposes that evolution itself cannot evolve. I think that we being originally mindless beasts that evolved into current day humanity means that everything we've accomplished as a species is also directly related to our biological evolution (the larger brain, etc.). Therefore, "modern medicine" is only thanks to evolution, and is part of the -human evolution process-.

As is caring for those with disabilities, etc. "Natural Selection" has plenty of other ways to get people. Starvation, plague, etc. these things wipe out millions every year. However those people may otherwise be genetically sound people, but due to the state of our existence, it is they that suffer death, and are not allowed to pass on their genes.

This could be interpreted as meaning that our species is destined to become a haves vs have-nots, regardless of genetic purity. Not to mention that genetic manipulation is close at hand, meaning that the haves can accomplish even beating out genetic disorders that would otherwise be culled by natural selection. In essence the new evolutionary process for humans is less about what happens to us in the natural world, and instead what happens to us as a society.

You made me think of an important question.

Is evolution ever done?

Well, no... I don't think so. Maybe, it's hard to say. Sharks are a good example of a species that seems to have stopped evolving because it doesn't need to anymore, but in point of fact, it's a misconception. -source

 

[Pachinkosam]

i just want this off my chest.
Ok am in 8th grade in 2011 was the last time we took the TAKS test.

Now i hate this part in march 23 we got a new test called STARR and its timed through. And the
TAKS test was all day.

i got a felling people are gonna fail the test.

i know this is off-topic

 

[Crooked Crow]

The medical system removes natural selection to a degree where unhealthy combinations of genetics can get passed down to subsequent generations, and with an increased consistency.

Especially for males, for example, if a sex chromosome is infected in a parent, your offspring will either possess it directly, or be a carrier. For genetic defects that occur in chromosomes elsewhere, women are just as susceptible.

 

[Alphicans]

This kind of question bothers me just a little bit because it's kind of giving some unnaturality to human behaviors. All human activity has come from something physical, and something natural, so all of our activities must be natural, even if they feel special. Natural selection will still work one way or another, it's not like it's even possible for us to avoid it, so overall I feel this is just a silly thought.

I also think that someone coming to the conclusion that our activities are slowing down evolution is actually quite a strong example of human chauvinism. Humans are not a terribly old species... I mean sure we might be out living lots of species, but there are plenty of older species. I think it's chauvinistic to assume we have defeated, or even slowed down a process that we honestly don't have any control over (if nature "chooses" to do something to us we cannot prevent).

 

[Dre89]

We are defying natural selection though. Unfit people survive to pass on their genes at higher ratio than probably any other species. Technology and urbanisation has essentially allowed us to remove natural habitats and elements where the unfit would otherwise not survive.

 

[1048576]

The selection process is just different. It's no longer who can kill the mountain lion, but still in this society some traits lead to higher rates of reproduction than others.

 

[rvkevin]

We are defying natural selection though. Unfit people survive to pass on their genes at higher ratio than probably any other species. Technology and urbanisation has essentially allowed us to remove natural habitats and elements where the unfit would otherwise not survive.

Natural selection is not measured by physical fitness, it is measured by reproductive fitness. The notion of unfit people (in regards to natural selection) passing on their genes is incoherent.

 

[Alphicans]

We are defying natural selection though. Unfit people survive to pass on their genes at higher ratio than probably any other species. Technology and urbanisation has essentially allowed us to remove natural habitats and elements where the unfit would otherwise not survive.

How could we possibly be defying a process that created us in the first place. What? We have removed natural habitats and have created... Unnatural habitats made by natural things, created by naturally created humans? To me that just sounds silly.

 

[Jim Morrison]

How could we possibly be defying a process that created us in the first place. What? We have removed natural habitats and have created... Unnatural habitats made by natural things, created by naturally created humans? To me that just sounds silly.

This still doesn't adress the fact that unfit people are able to pass on their genes on in a very high rate. I thought that natural selection was the process of weeding out negative traits and bringing forth positive ones, but if people with negative traits have a lot more chance to reproduce, doesn't the process at the very least slow down a lot?


RVkevin, what if two unfit people decide to mate due to lack of anything better available/willing? Would this conclusion make sense to you or can you not see this happening?

 

[Alphicans]

I guess I don't really get what you're saying. Negative and positive traits? Some diseases/sicknesses are genetically linked, but obviously tons aren't, so you couldn't possibly mean that. Do you mean negative as in unattractive? Being unattractive doesn't mean you die off, so you can't mean that. I'd just like to know what you're classifying as negative and positive and how human activity is preventing the distinction.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Stronger and healthier humans > weaker and less healthy humans. The latter are weeded out and the former expands and grows. That is how it works in the wild, and we aren't "wild" creatures anymore that have a one on one with Mother Nature. The weaker and less healthy humans that'd naturally die off and disappear in the gene pools are remaining, and in fact, the way we live and the way we are going to live in the future is going to promote weaker humans as opposed to stronger. Our bodies are realizing that all of the things that other animals need we don't need.

Compare us to calloused hands. We aren't going to be very calloused in the future, in fact, we are going to be rather fragile. UNLESS we use our advances in technology to start biologically making us superior despite our surroundings, but that would only be from intervention of what would naturally be taking place.

 

[Ussi]

Some people who are born with diseases like diabetes or hemophilia are actually benificial to keep alive...

What really needs to evolve is the human mind, but generally people prefer to be ignorant which is further fueled by the media or popular figure heads.

 

[Alphicans]

Stronger and healthier humans > weaker and less healthy humans. The latter are weeded out and the former expands and grows. That is how it works in the wild, and we aren't "wild" creatures anymore that have a one on one with Mother Nature. The weaker and less healthy humans that'd naturally die off and disappear in the gene pools are remaining, and in fact, the way we live and the way we are going to live in the future is going to promote weaker humans as opposed to stronger. Our bodies are realizing that all of the things that other animals need we don't need.

Compare us to calloused hands. We aren't going to be very calloused in the future, in fact, we are going to be rather fragile. UNLESS we use our advances in technology to start biologically making us superior despite our surroundings, but that would only be from intervention of what would naturally be taking place.

Humans weren't always technologically advanced like we are today, or even hundreds of years ago. Humans have always been group oriented species that practiced altruism and just helping in general. If that is truly how it worked in the wild, then the genes for being a weak human would've been weeded out thousands of years ago when we were a fairly new species. It appears this just wasn't the case.

 

[GofG]

there are two ways for the universe to fit an object to a purpose: evolution and intelligence

evolution is extremely limited. it is very, very, very slow, and it only fits objects to one purpose: to continue to exist.

intelligence emerged out of evolution as an accidental occurrence, but it was greatly successful because intelligent things were much better at continuing to exist.

intelligence, however, can fit an object to a purpose much better than evolution. for instance, if we wanted to make a dragonfly that could survive on mars, it would take evolution many many millions of years to fit a dragonfly to the purpose of survival on mars, but it would probably only take intelligence a couple centuries (assuming focused research into organic chemistry and bioengineering). in addition to intelligence being vastly better than evolution for fitting something for the purpose of survival, intelligence is not limited to just survival as a purpose. it can fit things for any purpose.

is it not clear that evolution is irrelevant now?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If I may posit something, we aren't the only species where our own natural selection has led to a problematic situation. Check out the story of various types of peacock; the impressive plumage is absolutely crucial in attracting mates... But somehow, it's gotten to the point where it's a hindrance to survival for them. Or at least, so I've heard...

What the OP is describing is less a stagnation and more a suspension of natural selection. The mutations are all still there, they're just less directed, to the point where something like this can produce viable offspring (although my money is still on the baby being a half-human, half-goblin and therefore being unable to reproduce). It's not too extreme, but it's still problematic. The questions, of course, should be:
– How many of these negative traits could even be bred out in the wild?
– What should we do to deal with this problem?
– How can we morally justify any of it?

 

[rvkevin]

RVkevin, what if two unfit people decide to mate due to lack of anything better available/willing? Would this conclusion make sense to you or can you not see this happening?

You can have varying degrees of fitness. Person A can be more fit than person B, who is more fit than person C. However, this doesn't mean that person C is unfit. Simply because someone is more fit than you are doesn't mean that you are unfit. To analogize it to physical fitness, it would be absurd to say that the third place finisher in a marathon is unfit, simply because there are examples of members who are more fit. Rather, regarding physical fitness, unfit would mean someone who is unable to perform certain tasks. Regarding reproduction fitness, this would mean that they can't reproduce. This is why it is incoherent to ask what if unfit individuals mate; it would be like asking what if someone who is physical unfit ran a marathon, or a 100 miler. If they could, then they wouldn’t be unfit.

 

[Dre89]

Fitness refers to survivability, that's why females often seek out the healthiest and most physically impressive mate, because he'll pass on the best genes. It's not just about being able to procreate, it's about what you can pass on to your offspring.

 

[Alphicans]

there are two ways for the universe to fit an object to a purpose: evolution and intelligence

evolution is extremely limited. it is very, very, very slow, and it only fits objects to one purpose: to continue to exist.

intelligence emerged out of evolution as an accidental occurrence, but it was greatly successful because intelligent things were much better at continuing to exist.

intelligence, however, can fit an object to a purpose much better than evolution. for instance, if we wanted to make a dragonfly that could survive on mars, it would take evolution many many millions of years to fit a dragonfly to the purpose of survival on mars, but it would probably only take intelligence a couple centuries (assuming focused research into organic chemistry and bioengineering). in addition to intelligence being vastly better than evolution for fitting something for the purpose of survival, intelligence is not limited to just survival as a purpose. it can fit things for any purpose.

is it not clear that evolution is irrelevant now?

Sure, but why are we even separating the two? Is intelligence not just a result of evolution?

 

[GofG]

Intelligence is distinct from evolution in that the purpose is arbitrary as opposed to fixed.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Human evolution is when you take an unborn baby fetus and expose it to radiation in order to intentionally mutate its DNA and then grow a sample under a specific stress condition that would kill normal humans and take the remaining survivors and have them mate before repeating the process again. Right? that's how it works in microbiology.

 

[Ussi]

Comparing multicellular organisms to unicellular isn't really a good comparison when bacteria have a special function of gene transferring which means bacteria just share the fittest genes without even reproducing.


But to remain on topic to the OP, humans are not becoming stagnant. As the days go by, people are becoming more and more smarter. But conversely, people are also becoming more and more stupid as well. The reason probably is because either side will actually get you fame which can get you money. Stupidity has really sold well in the market that people keep trying harder to doing something dumber now :\

 

[Alphicans]

Intelligence is distinct from evolution in that the purpose is arbitrary as opposed to fixed.

Sorry, but could you just elaborate on this a little bit, or re word it. Not fully understanding :/.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Comparing multicellular organisms to unicellular isn't really a good comparison when bacteria have a special function of gene transferring which means bacteria just share the fittest genes without even reproducing.


But to remain on topic to the OP, humans are not becoming stagnant. As the days go by, people are becoming more and more smarter. But conversely, people are also becoming more and more stupid as well. The reason probably is because either side will actually get you fame which can get you money. Stupidity has really sold well in the market that people keep trying harder to doing something dumber now :\

Conjugation is a minor caveat. The point is that using human intelligence as a measure of evolution is arbitrary. To begin with, there is little to no physiological evidence that can be used. We could compare the size of skulls, however the size of a brain does not necessarily correlate to a shift in I.Q.

In the context of genetics, a molecular genome sequence from a neanderthal could be analyzed and used to assess for nucleotide sequence or even chromosome composition for comparison to a modern sequence in humans. However that too is absent.

The notion of mutated genes being fundamentally flawed is also a mistaken perception. If it weren't for mutations in the gene sequence, then you wouldn't have any substrate for natural selection to work on as a catalyst. Natural selection alone doesn't produce variation.

Most topics that try to overlay social connotations with science end up being skewed to the modern perspective. For instance, it is common to perceive the present and the future as being human ideals, the peak of humanity, or approaching the zenith. Using social standards to evaluate scientific phenomena is like comparing apples to oranges.

Concepts of modern learning are more exemplary of adaptation than an on-going process of evolution. People are learning more about a number of varied topics because of social pressure and the notion that survival is being increasingly linked to how versatile ones ability is when it comes to thinking.

 

[Sucumbio]

Intelligence is distinct from evolution in that the purpose is arbitrary as opposed to fixed.

I find no evidence that it is any more arbitrary than a blind cave fish being blind. Or any of the examples listed here: 12 Elegant Examples of Evolution

 

[GofG]

You and I are using different definition of the word arbitrary, Sucumbio. I am using:

arbitrary, adj

(usually of a decision) Based on individual discretion or judgment; not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random.

as in 'arbitrary code execution'. essentially, there are no limits to what the purpose-to-be-fitted-to could be: it is arbitrarily decided upon by the intelligence. This is a very positive thing.

Evolution, on the other hand, is stuck with the purpose of 'continuing to exist'.

edit: i see now that the word 'arbitrary' got used for its non-technical meaning in the parallel conversation happening in this thread and i apologize for the ambiguity.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

edit: i see now that the word 'arbitrary' got used for its non-technical meaning in the parallel conversation happening in this thread and i apologize for the ambiguity.

Sorry about that. Bad word choice on my part.

 

[yani]

Modern medicines allow humans with undesirable genes to survive and reproduce, when they normally would get weeded out via natural selection, and are able to pass their genes on to further offspring. This overlaps with the process of natural selection which works against the weeding out of bad genes by allowing the survival of said genes. With this happening, human evolution cannot proceed at the speed that it would be if modern medicine would not be involved.

Does his argument have any cogency to it? I feel like on the surface it does, but I also have a nagging feeling that there's something wrong with what he's saying.

That's a pretty interesting thought. However, who's to say we haven't evolved mentally? In our struggle for survival, we've been able to create medicine in order to prolong our lives. More people are then able to look into more medicine to cure everything possible. Maybe one day even finding ways to live forever.

 

[GwJ]

Our minds have evolved. The topic isn't a matter of "have we evolved", it's a matter of "Will we keep positively evolving?"

 

[yani]

Mentally we will, hence finding a way to live forever. I don't see how we could physically evolve any more.

 

[GwJ]

I don't see how we could physically evolve any more.

That's an interesting statement. Why do you think that?

 

[yani]

Perhaps my lack of imagination, but what else could we need to change that couldn't already be corrected with technology? I believe we're pretty much in control of everything we need for survival. As a race that is

 

[GwJ]

I don't know, our spine?

 

[Dre89]

If things need to be corrected by technology then I don't see how our bodies are well adapted.

 

[yani]

I think being able to have that power to correct what we need IS the adaption so to speak

 

[GwJ]

Generally when it comes to adaption through evolution, we refer to natural bodily changes. If we need to further develop our spines, we refer to naturally develop our spines to be more efficient, not develop the ability to create artificial methods to fix our spine.