Will Humans Evolve Further?

[pokecole]

Well, I think that we are definently not perfect (as some of you are implying) and also not the worst possible. We are somewhere inbetween. Where does this all start? With people. The intelligent, or talented, or good-looking get far in this society and usually find mates. So now these strange new people with mutations to adapt (be it environmental or genetic) come into the society created by us today. They will be rejected and shunned and prolly not survive, so their genetics will not be passed on. Thats what i see happening.

 

[Oryx]

Well, I think that we are definently not perfect (as some of you are implying) and also not the worst possible. We are somewhere inbetween. Where does this all start? With people. The intelligent, or talented, or good-looking get far in this society and usually find mates. So now these strange new people with mutations to adapt (be it environmental or genetic) come into the society created by us today. They will be rejected and shunned and prolly not survive, so their genetics will not be passed on. Thats what i see happening.

But are you looking for the most intelligent, talented, prettiest person when you personally look for someone to be with? No one is dating someone and then sees someone who's more intelligent and immediately breaks up with their current partner to date that person, because they'll make better genetic children with the other person. In our society, people aren't looking for the best to have kids with. If anything, you could say that our society is actually going the opposite way just because in my own experience people who wait to have kids and don't have many tend to be smart, while people who have a lot of kids and start early tend to be less so.

That's the point I'm trying to make - people don't treat mating like animals do. Animals just look for the best, and are also helped along by natural selection so only the strongest are left alive to breed. But humans aren't looking for the best genetic makeup for strong children, they're looking for love.

 

[Esper]

I was hoping to hear more from Yellow about how technology was a natural part of evolution. I'll try to take a stab at it myself.

Maybe it's natural in that as a species evolves it will naturally create technology. There have been chimpanzees that use sticks to collect ants and other bugs where they can't otherwise reach and I believe several primates use rocks to open nuts or shells or whatnot. Since these animals are more advanced (more evolved, perhaps?) that could mean that developing technology is a natural part of evolution.

Perhaps we're just an evolutionary dead end since we aren't using our technology to our best advantage and using it to ensure the strongest/smartest/best of us reproduce and not the rest. I can't really believe in that kind of eugenics stuff though (and besides, I think a species survives best by living sustainably instead of competing for resources) so I'm out of ideas as far as technology being natural goes.

 

[lx_theo]

Evolution will always progress. But evolution itself only comes about as relevant and consistent as the world and its nature proves a need for a change (causing the best fit of a species o reproduce the most and become the dominant version).

Every new generations will have a new set of DNA, giving new advantages to whoever may be lucky enough. Its a very slow process, and can only be seen much more drastically and notable when from a perspective of hundreds of thousands, millions, or more years.

The issue with humanity is that we evolved to manipulate nature to our own devices. As we manipulated it, we've done all we can to cut off its own course from that of our own, and have isolated parts of it in what is our technology. As we move from nature from being able to touch us, the less and less a situation can happen where the dominant advantages can take over the population because our technology is used to protect those without it.

Evolution will still happen, of course. It's simply a property of the progression of life. But with out intervention, it will likely happen at a much, much slower rate than the tired out slug it already was. The question becomes if humanity will be around long enough to see any significant changes.

 

[Mercurybro]

That's the point I'm trying to make - people don't treat mating like animals do. Animals just look for the best, and are also helped along by natural selection so only the strongest are left alive to breed. But humans aren't looking for the best genetic makeup for strong children, they're looking for love.

I disagree with that. They're still looking for the best genetic makeup subconsciously, the major change is that there's a conscious in play too. One could argue that humans are looking for the most suitable mate for their physical, mental, and social tastes.

 

[インフェルノの津波]

Don't think so. We're pretty much on top of everything that we need in order to survive, such as resistance to the hot and the cold, not to mention we're the only animal to directly affect the entire earth (global warming...), so unless another meteor decides to say sup brahs I don't think we're gonna be evolving like Pikachu any time soon.

 

[Oryx]

I disagree with that. They're still looking for the best genetic makeup subconsciously, the major change is that there's a conscious in play too. One could argue that humans are looking for the most suitable mate for their physical, mental, and social tastes.

Interesting point. But think of it this way - someone is born significantly smarter than the rest of the population, are they going to live longer because of that intelligence? Are they more likely to mate because of that intelligence? I would have to say no.

 

[Mercurybro]

Interesting point. But think of it this way - someone is born significantly smarter than the rest of the population, are they going to live longer because of that intelligence? Are they more likely to mate because of that intelligence? I would have to say no.

Depends where they're living, and how this person fits in with the rest of the people and the environment as well. That example doesn't ruin the reason behind "humans are looking for the most suitable mate for their physical, mental, and social tastes".

 

[Oryx]

Depends where they're living, and how this person fits in with the rest of the people and the environment as well. That example doesn't ruin the reason behind "humans are looking for the most suitable mate for their physical, mental, and social tastes".

The point I was making is that beneficial mutations in our genes are no longer spread as they would if we were living like animals. I would even disagree on that statement though - many people date someone because of love, which isn't affected for the most part by those things. Otherwise scrawny dumb poor people wouldn't get married, but they do. Logically, they should be shunned biologically so their genes are not passed on but they're not because people fall in love and don't care about biological things. You could say that attractions to certain personalities is what sets us apart - This generally isn't something that's developed by your genes, but rather by how you were raised, so once again we're back to people choosing their mates in a way that isn't point towards evolution.

 

[Mercurybro]

The point I was making is that beneficial mutations in our genes are no longer spread as they would if we were living like animals. I would even disagree on that statement though - many people date someone because of love, which isn't affected for the most part by those things. Otherwise scrawny dumb poor people wouldn't get married, but they do. Logically, they should be shunned biologically so their genes are not passed on but they're not because people fall in love and don't care about biological things. You could say that attractions to certain personalities is what sets us apart - This generally isn't something that's developed by your genes, but rather by how you were raised, so once again we're back to people choosing their mates in a way that isn't point towards evolution.

I always thought animals don't really choose their mates, they usually just go with the one that hasn't died yet because mating with something that's been eaten or is decaying doesn't work at all.

 

[Esper]

I always thought animals don't really choose their mates, they usually just go with the one that hasn't died yet because mating with something that's been eaten or is decaying doesn't work at all.

With some species you get individuals who are just... shunted out of the mating process because of competition from other individuals. I think that might be one more reason humans are less likely to evolve. We're (mostly) monogamous. We don't have an elite segment of society which breeds while the rest toil in unbreeding misery.

And many animals do choose their mates. Take birds for instance. Lots of species have really bright, colorful males who use their appearance to woo females and the females pick and choose among the shiniest, featheriest birds. We humans are a bit more complicated than that. We find appearance attractive, but also personality, and a whole lot of other things go into who we have children with, if we decide to do that at all.