I invite you to speculate on the next step in evolution

[Kryten]

This view raises a few questions, such as 'the dinosaurs didn't adapt', and well, frankly, that was instant. The human impact will be over decades/centuries - i believe this will allow time for subtle changes to organism physiology. I can't offer many examples as I'm really more of a mathematician, this is just my view.

I think you'll find the human impact was over tens of thousands of years; our effect on the environment didn't just start the moment we invented the steam engine. Huge numbers of organisms were able to face the much less intense pressure of prehistoric humanity, but they didn't 'adapt quickly'-they died. The only ones that didn't were ones already able to survive in the human-effected environment (mostly small, rapidly-growing generalists ), or ones that were domesticated.

[Guest]

I think you'll find the human impact was over tens of thousands of years; our effect on the environment didn't just start the moment we invented the steam engine. Huge numbers of organisms were able to face the much less intense pressure of prehistoric humanity, but they didn't 'adapt quickly'-they died. The only ones that didn't were ones already able to survive in the human-effected environment (mostly small, rapidly-growing generalists ), or ones that were domesticated.

Yes i know that - i am just leaning toward our exponential growrth, where what we change is proportional to what i said before, compared to prehistoric man, or even pre-industrialised, the impact we had is miniscule.

[Camacha]

such as 'the dinosaurs didn't adapt', and well, frankly, that was instant.

Like I said before, they did adapt. Some of them became birds (and actually already were a lot more like birds than we thought), probably because bigger creatures had a hard time surviving. If something nasty really hits the fan, humans will either go extinct or the same route. It is a simple solution.

There actually is a designer that tried to figure out what the world would look like if we were a lot smaller. We would use a lot less resources and space for each person.

[Everten P.]

It's over... Human evolution. Robotic enhancements Aren't natural so you can't count those. And their is no large enough predator and normally diseases don't cause evolution especially the deadly ones and well that's about it. Bye

[lajoswinkler]

It's over... Human evolution. Robotic enhancements Aren't natural so you can't count those. And their is no large enough predator and normally diseases don't cause evolution especially the deadly ones and well that's about it. Bye

It's not over. It's slower and our species isn't heading towards one goal as before, so we could say that, as a whole, Homo sapiens isn't evolving anymore. Diseases still create a selection pressure.

[Rakaydos]

It's not over. It's slower and our species isn't heading towards one goal as before, so we could say that, as a whole, Homo sapiens isn't evolving anymore. Diseases still create a selection pressure.

But the selection pressure is pushing us furthur away from "natural" solutions.

If you dont count hygine, antibiotics, germ theory, and medical technoligy as a form of evolution, then there is no evolution.

If you do count technoligy as an evolution, then we are evolving faster than ever before.

[lajoswinkler]

But the selection pressure is pushing us furthur away from "natural" solutions.

If you dont count hygine, antibiotics, germ theory, and medical technoligy as a form of evolution, then there is no evolution.

If you do count technoligy as an evolution, then we are evolving faster than ever before.

It is pushing us away, but it didn't push us completely. We're still vulnerable to a lot of things.

I'm not counting it in.

[Baenki]

Avtually there is observable human evolution. I present you the fastest evolutionary process ever found in humans: http://m.livescience.com/6663-tibetans-underwent-fastest-evolution-humans.html

Short version: Tibetians developed the trait to use the oxygen in thin, high altitude air more efficient, whitout producing more haemoglobin.

It's not a big difference to the rest of us, but it is a difference. The mutation is not big enough to say the Tibetians would be a different race or species.

(Edit: To prevent further misunderstandings. I wanted to point out that differences like this are not big enough to classify people as different races. There is no such thing as human races. And there is no real scientific proof for it. Sorry for the misunderstanding!!! I should have made this clearer in the first place.)

Another example for human evolution as stated in the article is the skill to digest Lactose, developed in Northern Europeans in the last 7500 years.

I think if groups of humans would be seperated from the rest of the human population for 10000s of generations, they maybe could evolve away from the rest of the population. If they don't crossbreed with specimens outside of their group for long enough and we assume the initial group was big enough to not inbred, they might even evolve into a different species. Which would mean they would not be able to reproduce with humans of the rest of the population. Biologically speaking these creatures wouldn't even be considered as humans (like ourselfes!!!) anymore, but as another related species. This is completely hypothetical and will most likely never happen.

Why you ask? I think humans will have destroyed themself before by making earth uninhabitable for them selfes. Nature will survive us. And so our biggest evolutionary sucess, our intelligence, is our own worst enemy. Because of it we exploit earth and destroy our surroundings and in the long run kill ourselves this way. This will be the point in time when a new dominant species will rise or maybe not.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Baenki
you can keep the spelling errors if you find some

[Dispatcher]

Curiosity piqued. I will be watching that episode in the near future.

Did you get a chance to watch it yet?

[Sillychris]

No, I haven't. Midterms... yknow.

[lajoswinkler]

Short version: Tibetians developed the trait to use the oxygen in thin, high altitude air more efficient, whitout producing more haemoglobin.

It's not a big difference to the rest of us, but it is a difference. The mutation is not big enough to say the Tibetians would be a different race or species.

Actually, in the terms of biology, physiology etc., "race" is not applicable as a term for any group of people on Earth. Our species is highly homogeneous. Its usage in human biology is obsolete and stems from eugenics. Today, such usage is rightfully shunned as racist, and it is because of science, not political correctness.

The term can have a valid meaning in some narrow niches where we have an accent on socioeconomic and historical aspects.

[Seret]

It's over... Human evolution.

Actually no. We've reduced some of the external selection pressure on ourselves for sure, but that's not the only mechanism that causes change in a genome. For example, sexual selection is still very much alive and well and that can result in huge changes. The long neck on a giraffe is thought to be down to sexual selection, for example.

[Red Iron Crown]

Actually, in the terms of biology, physiology etc., "race" is not applicable as a term for any group of people on Earth. Our species is highly homogeneous. Its usage in human biology is obsolete and stems from eugenics. Today, such usage is rightfully shunned as racist, and it is because of science, not political correctness.

The term can have a valid meaning in some narrow niches where we have an accent on socioeconomic and historical aspects.

There are physiological differences between the various races, anyone with eyes can see that. There are other, less visible ones, like susceptibility to certain diseases that are physiological and real.

Plus, I hardly think socioeconomic and historical differences are "narrow niches", if anything they are more important than the minor physiological differences.

[Seret]

There are physiological differences between the various races, anyone with eyes can see that. There are other, less visible ones, like susceptibility to certain diseases that are physiological and real.

Yes, but if you just look at a genome, you can't tell with any certainty what race that person comes from. The variation between individuals of the same race is larger than the variation between the races. That's why the use of the term race has fallen from favour, from a genetic point of view it's a meaningless term.

[Red Iron Crown]

Yes, but if you just look at a genome, you can't tell with any certainty what race that person comes from. The variation between individuals of the same race is larger than the variation between the races. That's why the use of the term race has fallen from favour, from a genetic point of view it's a meaningless term.

I find it very difficult to believe that skin color is not reflected in the genome, it is obviously an inheritable trait and one that is associated with some races.

It was also my understanding that DNA analysis could tell you which group of prehistoric humans you were related to, though I certainly could be wrong about that.

[magnemoe]

Actually no. We've reduced some of the external selection pressure on ourselves for sure, but that's not the only mechanism that causes change in a genome. For example, sexual selection is still very much alive and well and that can result in huge changes. The long neck on a giraffe is thought to be down to sexual selection, for example.

So is probably most of the racial variations in humans.

Disease is still an selection factor, but obviously far less than it was in historical time.

[Seret]

I find it very difficult to believe that skin color is not reflected in the genome, it is obviously an inheritable trait and one that is associated with some races.

Only some races, and it's not a reliable indicator. After all, does someone stop being a sub-saharan African if they're relatively light-skinned? It's too subjective, and just looking at the genes themselves you can't tell.

It was also my understanding that DNA analysis could tell you which group of prehistoric humans you were related to, though I certainly could be wrong about that.

It can, and some haplogroups are quite strongly linked to certain parts of the globe, but you can't say for certain that someone would show the characteristics of a particular race just because they fell into a particular haplogroup. For example, being group A mitochondrial might mean you're Japanese, or it might mean you're a Native American.

Besides, populations from all over the world that have historically not mixed have been doing so a fair bit for the last few centuries, so you'll get individuals who outwardly seem no different from others of their race but who carry substantial genetic material from a totally different race.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Seret

[Red Iron Crown]

Only some races, and it's not a reliable indicator. After all, does someone stop being a sub-saharan African if they're relatively light-skinned? It's too subjective, and just looking at the genes themselves you can't tell.

So, if I understand you correctly, races are not defined well enough to allow reliable race identification by DNA analysis. Interesting.

It can, and some haplogroups are quite strongly linked to certain parts of the globe, but you can't say for certain that someone would show the characteristics of a particular race just because they fell into a particular haplogroup. For example, being group A mitochondrial might mean you're Japanese, or it might mean you're a Native American.

Besides, populations from all over the world that have historically not mixed have been doing so a fair bit for the last few centuries, so you'll get individuals who outwardly seem no different from others of their race but who carry substantial genetic material from a totally different race.

Oh I agree, interbreeding among races is rapidly reducing racial differences and making mankind more and more racially homogenous. Whether that's desirable or not is questionable, personally I like variety.

[Seret]

So, if I understand you correctly, races are not defined well enough to allow reliable race identification by DNA analysis. Interesting.

Definitely. There's certainly no genetic definition for the racial groups. To be honest geneticists were pretty wary of the idea anyway, as it smacks of eugenics. But it turns out the science actually supports this position.

[Baenki]

Actually, in the terms of biology, physiology etc., "race" is not applicable as a term for any group of people on Earth.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I actually wanted to point that out with my statement.

What I wanted to say is, that you cannot use differences this small to classify people as different races.

I study biology myself and i know there is nothing like human races.

There are physiological differences between the various races, anyone with eyes can see that. There are other, less visible ones, like susceptibility to certain diseases that are physiological and real.

Actually this differences arent because different races, but because of natural selection, genetical switches etc.

For example skin color:

The pigment Melanin is responsible for a darker skin tone. It also protects the body from UV-B radiation (This can give you cancer/ can make you impotent => lower reproduction chances). The problem is that it does not only protect from UV-B but from other light too. This is slowing down the process of Vitamin D synthesis.

The out of africa theory states that the first humans developed there. Because Africa is closer to the aequator The light is stronger and Vitamin D synthesis can run as usual if you have darker skin + you are protected form UV radiation.

When humans came to landmasses away from the aequator (for example Europe) the sunlight got weaker. There was no need for this much UV protection and adittional Vitamin D synthesis got slower when you had too much melanin. So lighter skinned individuals in the population were better suited for this areas and had higher success in reproduction.

End of story.

There are explanations for all the phaenotypic differences in humans. Just research for yourself.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Baenki

[CaptainKipard]

Allowing evolution to run its course...

2) Allowing evolution to run its course means: Humans do not interfere.

I'm not sure that's fair. I'll agree with others in this thread who pointed out that intelligence doesn't necessarily mean evolutionary fitness, after all evolutionary fitness means being well adapted to your environment, but it can also mean adapting the environment to yourself. This IMO is like a meta-level of adaptability where you're well adapted to the whole universe in general. We're still animals, and it shows in our behaviour.

Now despite the fact that eugenics have fallen out of favour after WWII, I'm pretty sure that evolution by means of retro-viral treatments can still be thought of as natural. We ARE part of nature. There's really nothing different about us. To say that technology is not natural is a little silly to me. The first self replicating molecule surrounded itself with a phospholipid bilayer. Was that unnatural or (dare I say it ) supernatural? What about the first single celled organisms that formed colonies. Was that unnatural? Many animals use tools including animals you would think are kind of stupid, like small birds. Is that also unnatural? The ability to solve problems is a result of natural selection just like everything else.

Biologically speaking these creatures wouldn't even be considered as humans anymore, but as another related species.

No sorry, you don't understand taxonomy. Those beings would still be called human, they would just be a separate branch of humanity, much in the way that apes have diversified, but humans are still called apes.

This is called monophyly.

Oh I agree, interbreeding among races is rapidly reducing racial differences and making mankind more and more racially homogenous. Whether that's desirable or not is questionable, personally I like variety.

Having groups of a species divide in different environments allows for greater diversification of traits. E.g. Some Africans for example have a resistance to malaria, while Europeans don't. This isn't exactly a great example because that resistance comes with some serious negative side effects, but for sake of argument, if those Africans breed with other ethnicities, it allows for those genes to spread quicker throughout the gene pool. Lactose tolerance is actually a better example, but you get the idea.

So repeated segregation, and reintegration can be very beneficial.

To be honest geneticists were pretty wary of the idea anyway, as it smacks of eugenics. But it turns out the science actually supports this position.

Yeah, if people could distinguish eugenics, from Hitler's forced b******isation of the idea, that would be greeeeeat. In fact the main reason we're not pursuing this is because of this emotional argument. There's usually this knee-jerk reaction to the idea of eugenics. It's a little ridiculous. No one is proposing forced executions or castrations. I think it could work with financial incentives to reproduce if you have generally desirable traits or to not reproduce if you have highly undesirable AND (I have to stress the "and") untreatable traits, like psychopathy for example. As technology advances we could spot previously untreatable genetic traits in the womb, and this problem would start to disappear.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Red Iron Crown]

Yeah, if people could distinguish eugenics, from Hitler's forced b******isation of the idea, that would be greeeeeat. In fact the main reason we're not pursuing this is because of this emotional argument. There's usually this knee-jerk reaction to the idea of eugenics. It's a little ridiculous. No one is proposing forced executions or castrations. I think it could work with financial incentives to reproduce if you have generally desirable traits or to not reproduce if you have highly undesirable AND (I have to stress the "and") untreatable traits, like psychopathy for example. As technology advances we could spot previously untreatable genetic traits in the womb, and this problem would start to disappear.

I don't think this could ever fly, politically. Any interference with people's "right to breed" is viewed as discriminatory, which I guess it is as we'd be discriminating against "bad" genes. We'd need people to accept that reproduction is a privilege, not a right, before such things would be feasible.

[CaptainKipard]

I don't think this could ever fly, politically. Any interference with people's "right to breed" is viewed as discriminatory, which I guess it is as we'd be discriminating against "bad" genes. We'd need people to accept that reproduction is a privilege, not a right, before such things would be feasible.

Ok see? This is the kind of irrationality I'm talking about. You didn't read what I wrote carefully enough, you reacted emotionally and you've erected this "right to breed" strawman. Where exactly in my idea did I mention preventing people from breeding? Obviously everyone should be free to reproduce. All I'm proposing is subsidies for people who are highly intelligent or highly empathetic for example.

Edit.

...And rewards for idiots and psychopaths if they never reproduce.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Red Iron Crown]

Ok see? This is the kind of irrationality I'm talking about. You didn't read what I wrote carefully enough, you reacted emotionally and you've erected this "right to breed" strawman. Where exactly in my idea did I mention preventing people from breeding? Obviously everyone should be free to reproduce. All I'm proposing is subsidies for people who are highly intelligent or highly empathetic for example.

I did not use the word "prevent". I said "interfere," and making it easier for some with economic incentives and harder for others with economic penalties would definitely be interference. Some people would be "freer" than others to reproduce. Any interference with reproductive rights is going to be a tough sell, politically.

I put "right to breed" in quotes in my post because it's not a specifically enumerated right in any jurisdiction I know of, but it is strongly perceived by the public as an inherent right.

I'm not saying your ideas are necessarily bad, just difficult to implement.

[CaptainKipard]

I did not use the word "prevent". I said "interfere,"

Well ok, but I'm pretty sure even that word doesn't apply. You are free to reproduce now in principle, but if your government gave some money to your smarter neighbour then that still doesn't interfere with you. You have lost nothing.

and making it easier for some with economic incentives and harder for others with economic penalties would definitely be interference.

Pay attention. I didn't mention any penalties and in actual fact penalties would be very unethical.

Some people would be "freer" than others to reproduce.

They would be no more free than rich businesspeople are right now. Think of it as an investment in the future of the species. Maybe that neighbour's child will one day cure a disease that your child is suffering from. You have nothing to lose, and quite a lot to gain.

Any interference with reproductive rights is going to be a tough sell, politically.

Well I don't accept the premise of that statement, but the conclusion is true even if it doesn't follow from the premise.