NationStates Jolt Archive

With all our technology advancements in the areas of medicine, agriculture and science, have we advanced beyond evolution?

Is there anything left that evolution could do for us? Any changes that, rather than waiting thousands of years to occur, that we can't conceivably achieve via technology within the next one hundred years?

I'm hard pressed to think of anything. We don't need wings, we have planes. We've extended our life spans significantly through medical techniques. We don't need to be bigger or stronger as there is no animal we cannot hunt...

Please discuss, any ideas?

BTW this is not a creationism vs. evolution thread so don't turn it into an argument. If you don't believe in evolution, just move along please.

Well, it isnt really evolution anymore since soon even our physical attributes and the genetic makeup of our offspring may be under our control. Evolution is based around the concept of distributed randomness.

Actually, the truth is, is that we are still evolving through the process of natural selection. Which is of course the mechanism behind evolution.

Actually, the truth is, is that we are still evolving through the process of natural selection. Which is of course the mechanism behind evolution.

Well, natural selection isnt really quite accurate, traits and strains that were eradicated often reoccur later on. Co-evolution is a better term, since environmental conditions and other species force the diminishment or establishment of various traits.

Humans have transcended this and can thuse expand in gene pool diversity without too much pruning except from certain hereditary conditions that make survival to reproduce totally impossible.

There is still evidence that we're evolving, regardless of technolgy. In fact, some think we might be evolving faster because of the way we live now. Apparently the increased amount of toxins in the air caused by burning fossil fuels may be causing increased mutations in human cells. Some think that the severe decrease in male fertility in the last hundred years or so is also to blame on this. Others think this may be caused by the overpopulation of Earth, and this is natures way of thinning back the population.

Regardless, there are some "proofs" that evolution has been taking place quite rapidly in the last 600 or so years. Each generation is in general, taller than the previous. One can see this in the architecture of ancient buildings. This perhaps isn't evolution per say, rather it is an evolution of an evolution - the random mutation that initially caused us to grow taller with each generation has become so stuck in our gene pools that it's no longer a mutation, rather an extrapolation of our parents DNA.

But I digress. I think it's possible that we can (and will) bypass natural evolution, either intentionally or not. We already have massive control over our environments, this would simply be the next logical step.

In a way, we have already mucked with evolution in *other* species. We have basically created new strains of bacteria, through our use of antibiotics. Meanwhile, we have messed with ecosystems, but reducing the amount of coevolution. A recent example is in a type of mite that affects bee populations. Beekeepers, for some time, have been using miticides in order to grow more bees. Now, the mites have evolved a resistence tothe miticides, and beekeepers are losing hives left and right. Meanwhile, the bee populations are most likely much more susceptible to the mites, as the population would likely have coevolved with the mites if left alone.

Even with the amazing steps forward in technology we still have not fully evolved into what could be called a perfect species. We are really not that great out of all the species. This is because we can not do many things. We have developed technologies that help us with what we can't do naturally, (like a monkey who uses a stick to get termites out of a hole) for instance the plane. We naturally do not have the ability to fly, so we developed a machine that can help us fly. We can't run as fast as most animals, so we use cars. We can breathe underwater so we created breathing tanks.
I think we use technology to make up for what we are not good at. Plus evolution doesn't take one generation mind you, it takes thousands of years.

Use of technology IS evolution.

Regardless, there are some "proofs" that evolution has been taking place quite rapidly in the last 600 or so years. Each generation is in general, taller than the previous. One can see this in the architecture of ancient buildings. This perhaps isn't evolution per say, rather it is an evolution of an evolution - the random mutation that initially caused us to grow taller with each generation has become so stuck in our gene pools that it's no longer a mutation, rather an extrapolation of our parents DNA.

This has more to do with nutrition than with mutation. Human beings, on average (and even in third world countries) take in more calories and richer calories (read: more nutrients per calorie) now than they ever have in the past. The likelyhood is that the genes for being 7 feet tall and what-not have always been present in the human genome, but few ever got enough nutrition in the past to actually reach this goal. Today, this is much more common.

Even with the amazing steps forward in technology we still have not fully evolved into what could be called a perfect species. We are really not that great out of all the species. This is because we can not do many things. We have developed technologies that help us with what we can't do naturally, (like a monkey who uses a stick to get termites out of a hole) for instance the plane. We naturally do not have the ability to fly, so we developed a machine that can help us fly. We can't run as fast as most animals, so we use cars. We can breathe underwater so we created breathing tanks.
I think we use technology to make up for what we are not good at. Plus evolution doesn't take one generation mind you, it takes thousands of years.

I know it takes thousands of years but evolution often results out of mutations which turn out to be succesful, these are usually succesful because they fulfil a need or enable us to do something we couldn't previously do. Will we take these mutations for granted in the future? Also, do you think the evolutionary process in a species is ever complete? or would it ever stop if we did become so technically advanced that we could be considered a perfect [albiet technologically assisted] species?

Well, evolution as it applies to Homo sapiens sapiens...or evolution as it applies to the industrialized world? There are still lots of places not nearly as technologically advanced as the west.

Keep in mind, evolution is more than just mutations in a population. It's about the species favoring those mutations such that, through breeding, the mutation is passed to offspring and it is propogated throughout the population's decendents. That is to say, if a man suddenly sprouted a third arm and it was a genetic trait that could be passed on to offspring and the females around him found the trait to be desirable enough to mate with him and produce offspring...then you have the beginnings of an evolution. If that chain breaks anywhere in there, such as the mutation having a negative effect on successful breeding, then the species does not evolve as a whole to adopt the trait.

That said, I do believe that man himself does have an effect on the evolution of the species. Take, for instance, social programs that promote children being born to parents who cannot afford to raise them. They get welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies and whatnot. If they were a species other than homo sapiens and they had offspring they could not feed or provide for, the offspring dies. The inference is that the superior members of the species, by and large, are the more successfully adapted members and can therefore breed and have offspring they can provide for and can breed more often...and pass on to their offspring the genetic traits that allowed them to become the successful members of their species.

When we support someone who continues to have baby after baby after baby on the public dole then what we're doing is supporting the genes of the parents to be passed on in greater numbers than nature would normally allow for. Now, perhaps being on the public dole cannot be ascribed completely to a genetic lack somewhere...but on the whole, you don't tend to get the Albert Einstein's of the world on public assistance.

My 2 cents (2.46 cents CDN)

Technology is working against natural selection. Weaker or less desireable traits that should die off get band-aided by technology and allowed to continue.

A simple example is how many people need corrective lenses for eye-sight today. It couldn't have been this bad way back when. I am dreadfully nearsighted and can't imagine being very funtional in society 2000 years ago. Yet, today, my near-sighted wife and I are able to pass our near-sighted genes on to the next generation.

I imagine the same happens with people with less than average immune systems, making our race, as a whole, more naturally suseptable to disease... Increasing our reliance on the technologies that cause this degradation...

Technology is working against natural selection. Weaker or less desireable traits that should die off get band-aided by technology and allowed to continue.

A simple example is how many people need corrective lenses for eye-sight today. It couldn't have been this bad way back when. I am dreadfully nearsighted and can't imagine being very funtional in society 2000 years ago. Yet, today, my near-sighted wife and I are able to pass our near-sighted genes on to the next generation.

I imagine the same happens with people with less than average immune systems, making our race, as a whole, more naturally suseptable to disease... Increasing our reliance on the technologies that cause this degradation...


I was just going to say pretty much the same thing! :)

Medicine and surgeries are keeping people alive and reproducing who would have otherwise died off.

Sure, people born with problems seeing in the past either died, or was taken care of- but they wouldn't have been an ideal mate if they couldn't provide for the family. Others with asthma would have prob died very young as well as people with any sort of problem they were born with that would need surgery today.

Chances are most of the people here today wouldn't be able to have survived past puberty even 200 years ago (if not 100 years ago)- which is why even though most people gave birth to many, many children- very few if not any actually survived to adult hood/child bearing age.

But today technology is keeping those of us alive who would never have bred. Even if you think of all the people with emotional problems who would have even killed themselves before the advent of anti-depressents and bi-polar meds. (This is coming from someone who's the daughter of a bi-polar mother, who is VERY happy for those meds).

Personally I do think being able to save lives is a good thing, otherwise most of my family and friends would be dead. On the other hand, I also realize that it's practically stalled our evolution. (I say practically because there are still people who still live by "survival of the fittest")

We're already near enough to making new species, let alone controlling evolution. Look at the chimeras topic. :eek:

Regardless, there are some "proofs" that evolution has been taking place quite rapidly in the last 600 or so years. Each generation is in general, taller than the previous. One can see this in the architecture of ancient buildings. This perhaps isn't evolution per say, rather it is an evolution of an evolution - the random mutation that initially caused us to grow taller with each generation has become so stuck in our gene pools that it's no longer a mutation, rather an extrapolation of our parents DNA.

But I digress. I think it's possible that we can (and will) bypass natural evolution, either intentionally or not. We already have massive control over our environments, this would simply be the next logical step.

Of course there are all sorts of negative traits that we're not evolving out of our gene pool anymore. For example people with peanut allergies can now survive long enough to reproduce even though just being near such a common legume can kill them from 20 feet away.

Or women with narrow hips are considered dainty and very attractive even though such women would, once upon a time, have died during childbirth, now they're having more children with the same narrow hips.

We're still undergoing evolution, but the criteria for selection have changed. Being a "successful" organism is no longer dependent on being able to run fast or hunt well. We're at the point where socioeconomic success increases the chances that a person will live long enough to breed and raise their children safely. With these advantages being passed along, the children of the successful tend to retain their parent's position.

Granted, a lot of pressures are gone, but when you compare life expectancy and mortality statistics of all types across socioeconomic lines, money seems to be the major factor in modern survival.

I imagine the same happens with people with less than average immune systems, making our race, as a whole, more naturally suseptable to disease... Increasing our reliance on the technologies that cause this degradation...

This was demonstrated quite catastrophicly when the Spaniards arrived in South America. Europeans were all resistant to small pox (because European ancestors who were not resistant to small pox never became ancestors) and other such diseases, but Native Americans had never encountered such diseases. Spaniards stood around scratching their heads wondering why all of their perspective slaves were dropping dead. Some of them assumed that God was punishing them for not being Catholic.

We're still undergoing evolution, but the criteria for selection have changed. Being a "successful" organism is no longer dependent on being able to run fast or hunt well. We're at the point where socioeconomic success increases the chances that a person will live long enough to breed and raise their children safely. With these advantages being passed along, the children of the successful tend to retain their parent's position.


No it doesn't. Rich people have one or two children in their late 20's or mid 30's and are undergoing very slight to negative population growth. Poor people have lots of kids at very early ages. They're less healthy than rich people's kids, but they live long enough to have lots of kids of their own. Increased rates of infant mortality and and sickness do not account for elevated reproduction rates.

It's like cats and rats. Rats live for a couple if they're lucky, and for a few months if they're eaten or poisoned, which most of them are. Cats live for 12 to 15 years and can breed that whole time. We should have more cats than rats, but rats run rampant.

No it doesn't. Rich people have one or two children in their late 20's or mid 30's and are undergoing very slight to negative population growth. Poor people have lots of kids at very early ages.

I'd argue this, but it plays into all sorts of inaccurate stereotypes.

Technology is working against natural selection. Weaker or less desireable traits that should die off get band-aided by technology and allowed to continue.

where does this 'should' come from? technology has changed the context in which selection operates. certain medical conditions and such are no longer strongly selected against. in other words, these traits are perfectly well adapted to the environment in which the individual lives - natural selection working as described. and other traits are still being selected for and against.

and once we can really start mucking about with genetic engineering on humans on a large scale, we will have added another layer of selection, but it will still be bound by the mechanisms of natural and sexual selection and genetic drift (and the founder effect, if we ever get around to colonizing other places).

I'd argue this, but it plays into all sorts of inaccurate stereotypes.

Well, it's true that people can twist simple truth to defend all sorts of unsavory (http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/) arguments, but that doesn't mean that the idea is unsound. In this case that we're not actually undergoing natural selection for favorable traits.

With apologies to the thread title, there are creationist groups who argue that because some racist arguments are based on evolution that evolution is inherently racist and is therefore both incorrect and immoral. When asked what they make of all of the Biblical arguments in favor of slavery and racism they tend to just shuffle their feet and mumble.

where does this 'should' come from? technology has changed the context in which selection operates. certain medical conditions and such are no longer strongly selected against. in other words, these traits are perfectly well adapted to the environment in which the individual lives - natural selection working as described. and other traits are still being selected for and against.

and once we can really start mucking about with genetic engineering on humans on a large scale, we will have added another layer of selection, but it will still be bound by the mechanisms of natural and sexual selection and genetic drift (and the founder effect, if we ever get around to colonizing other places).

But it isn't natural, therefore it isn't natural selection. It will be artifical selection. Breeds of dogs may be very well suited to getting humans to find reproductive opportunities for them, but that doesn't make it natural selection. It makes it selective breeding.

And once genetic engineering gets introduced it will not even be bound by the mechanisms of natural selection. The mechanisms of natural selection are that the organisms do what they can with what they're given. Border Collies are dogs with good herding instincts and jumping ability with an unfortunate tendency towards bad hips. With natural selection and selective breeding these unpleasant traits have to be endured unless they make breeding unlikely. With genetic engineering those traits can be fixed without having to get rid of the preferable ones.

No it doesn't. Rich people have one or two children in their late 20's or mid 30's and are undergoing very slight to negative population growth. Poor people have lots of kids at very early ages. They're less healthy than rich people's kids, but they live long enough to have lots of kids of their own. Increased rates of infant mortality and and sickness do not account for elevated reproduction rates.

...

This is not a dig; I'd be genuinely interested to know if you have a source for your assertion here. It's one I've heard often before, but never actually seen any evidence for.

http://www.geocities.com/ensightingthoughts/evolution-white.jpg

But it isn't natural, therefore it isn't natural selection. It will be artifical selection. Breeds of dogs may be very well suited to getting humans to find reproductive opportunities for them, but that doesn't make it natural selection. It makes it selective breeding.

but dog breeding still takes place surrounded by selective pressures other than those artificially imposed by humans (and that's accepting that human driven selection is somehow less natural than normal everyday sexual selection - which i might not otherwise accept so readily). we can breed dogs - or ourselves - to be any size or color that we like, but we won't be able to breed them so that various biochemical reactions necessary to life stop working properly. as long as there are any selective pressures beyond 'artificial' ones, you have natural selection. and i would argue that as long as there is any reproduction at all you will have natural selection.

though i don't know what i would say about a hypothetical new, entirely artificial method of creating new people without actual reproduction - for example, by building them entirely from scratch. there would be some sort of selection going on, but i'm not entirely sure what it would act upon. the designers, mabye.

But it isn't natural, therefore it isn't natural selection. It will be artifical selection. Breeds of dogs may be very well suited to getting humans to find reproductive opportunities for them, but that doesn't make it natural selection. It makes it selective breeding.

And once genetic engineering gets introduced it will not even be bound by the mechanisms of natural selection. The mechanisms of natural selection are that the organisms do what they can with what they're given. Border Collies are dogs with good herding instincts and jumping ability with an unfortunate tendency towards bad hips. With natural selection and selective breeding these unpleasant traits have to be endured unless they make breeding unlikely. With genetic engineering those traits can be fixed without having to get rid of the preferable ones.
How isnt it natural? If human biology is such that the potential to breed other animals for certain traits exists amongst us, then exercising that potential is entirely natural. A nuclear power station is no less natural than a beaver damm.
Genetic engineering is possible because of the entirely natural exercise of entirely natural traits, and occurs as a result of natural processes. Sure as heck ghosts and/or knomes didnt do it...
Human beings are not 'supernatural', and the processes which allow us to do the things we do, are not 'supernatural' either. Everything we do is natural and is only possible because of our entirely natural potentials, and the entirely natural potentials of the enviroment.

When you're taught about "natural selection" in school- it's taught as nature selecting who would breed because those that can't survive, can't breed.

It has nothing to do with a person picking traits they want here and there to create something. Natural selection is the law of the fittest. Everything else is just tampering and people playing God... but it's far from natural selection.

Its not what evolution can do for us... its what evolution is doing to us, has done to us, and will do to us yet.

Humankind, as we know it - will eventually be replaced just as we replaced those who came before us. I see a lot of reference to physical attributes and health - but what about emotional evolution? Is it not possible that we are currently evolving in different ways? I'm not going to get right into it - but I truly think, for what it's worth, that evolution is inevitable. :)

http://www.geocities.com/ensightingthoughts/evolution-white.jpg

Woohoo! I'm highly evolved :D

I think over the last 500 years we've evolved very fast.

Tools are extensions of our bodies, and when we learned to make our own tools to do specific jobs we could specifically evolve ourselves - a person holding a tool could be seen as a different organism than one without.

Think about it - each human has access to enormous amounts of different specialisations, rather than the few available to most of the animal kingdom. We have digging machines, hell a spade turns us into digging animals. We have aeroplanes, precisely because we don't have wings, but as humans with consciousness and hands we don't need them.

I think we're evolving in different ways. We're learning to think more abstractly, becoming more manually dextrous.

Just my two pee.