What are humans evolving into?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**SilverMK2**

I'm currently almost finished reading Last and First Man, which is quite an interesting (if somewhat tedious) read. A look into the future of humanity as seen in the 1930's - before atomic power, genetic engineering, computers etc.

I have his other book, Star Maker, which I will read at some point in the future when I have recovered from last and first

**generalgrog**

sebster wrote:
That's not evolution though, if I eat too much and get fat it isn't a characteristic that gets passed down to my kids. But it is a trend we're probably only going to see more of, high fat food is becoming cheaper, easier and more convenient with each year.

Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.

GG

**sebster**

generalgrog wrote:Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.

GG

Because it is very unlikely to kill you until your 40s at the earliest, by which point you've almost certainly had all the kids you're going to have.

**ShumaGorath**

generalgrog wrote:
sebster wrote:
That's not evolution though, if I eat too much and get fat it isn't a characteristic that gets passed down to my kids. But it is a trend we're probably only going to see more of, high fat food is becoming cheaper, easier and more convenient with each year.

Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.

GG

The majority of the planets population is not living in conditions where its natural or easy to get fat. America isn't evolving alone and evolution takes thousands of years, this is an problem of the last 40. If we haven't solved the health issues after hundreds of generations and if the rest of the world mimics american (and now chinese and european) affluent eating habits than we may well evolve a digestive system that better handles trans fats.

**generalgrog**

sebster wrote:
generalgrog wrote:Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.

GG

Because it is very unlikely to kill you until your 40s at the earliest, by which point you've almost certainly had all the kids you're going to have.

But your forgetting that it's the kids that also partake in the high fat/sedentary lifestyle...plenty of time for children to grow up and have more kids that do the same...etc.....etc.

GG

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote: The majority of the planets population is not living in conditions where its natural or easy to get fat. America isn't evolving alone and evolution takes thousands of years, this is an problem of the last 40. If we haven't solved the health issues after hundreds of generations and if the rest of the world mimics american (and now chinese and european) affluent eating habits than we may well evolve a digestive system that better handles trans fats.

or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.

GG

**ShumaGorath**

or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.

Unlikely, the reaction to a fat filled food supply wouldn't to evolutionarily become fat. It would more likely be a series of alterations to our digestive system allowing us to better utilize strange and exotic foodstuffs, thus preventing us from getting fat.

**Wrexasaur**

sebster wrote:I understand devolution as a philosophical concept, where it is thought that God created all the animals in their perfect forms, and all the mutation since has taken them away from that perfection, devolution. It's where the band Devo got their name.

From Wiki.

Streamlining evolution

"Devolution", the verb "devolve" and the past participle "devolved" are all common terms in science fiction for changes over time in populations of living things that make them less complex and remove some of their former adaptations. The terminology used herein is nontechnical, but the phenomenon is a real but counter-intuitive one, more accurately known as streamlining evolution. Since the development and maintenance of a feature such as an organ or a metabolite has an opportunity cost, changes in the environment that reduce the utility of an adaptation may mean that a higher evolutionary fitness is achieved by no longer using the adaptation, thus better using resources. This requires a mutation that inactivates one or more genes, perhaps by a change to DNA methylation or a methionine codon. Streamlining evolution allows evolution to remove features no longer of much/any use, like scaffolding on a completed bridge.

However, "devolution" in practice typically refers to changes that occur from a problem no longer existing rather than superior solutions existing. For instance, of the several hundred known species of animal that live their entire lives in total darkness, most have non-functional eyes rather than no eyes. This is due, for instance, to deterioration of the optic nerve. It occurs because mutations that prevent eye formation have low probability. However, several eyeless animal species, such as the Kauai cave wolf spider, who live in total darkness, and whose ancestry mostly had eyes, do exist. Together with gene duplication, streamlining evolution makes evolution surprisingly able to produce radical changes, despite being limited to successive, slight modifications.

It seems to be no more than a matter of jargon, and not one associated with philosophy. I would argue that there is a generally 'positive' movement to evolution, where species adapt to their surroundings according to the factors that comprise a specific environment. (positive= adaption, negative= lack of)

Catastrophic events that do not allow adaptation, indicate a lack of evolution in some species. My main point is that I would not be surprised if animals could simply lose certain adaptations, they could also lose the capability to have those adaptations, far in the future where they may be necessary to survival. I wouldn't consider humans losing brain-power (for instance, and if at all possible), and becoming more 'primitive', to be a 'negative' adaptation. I do think that patterns of that nature, are very interesting though, and I really don't know enough to confirm anything I am saying.

It's a cool idea, but it doesn't have much to do with science. In science evolution has no concept of progress, there is simply the current environment and adaptation to it. If if gets colder in time a species might evolve a thicker coat of fur, if it got warmer again it might evolve back to to a thinner coat of fur. While in one sense it would be going backwards, the truth is there's no better or worse level of development, there's just being suited to the present environment.

Survival is beneficial to individuals of any species, and within that framework, I would consider 'progress' to simply indicate survival.

I am not a Bio major, so... take what I say with a grain of salt.

**dogma**

SilverMK2 wrote:You can promote evolution by selective breeding, or by shortening life spans and increasing reproductive speed.

That's still not the promotion of evolution. It is evolution. Even our observation of the flies is evolution. Its an all-consuming thing.

**generalgrog**

ShumaGorath wrote:
or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.

Unlikely, the reaction to a fat filled food supply wouldn't to evolutionarily become fat. It would more likely be a series of alterations to our digestive system allowing us to better utilize strange and exotic foodstuffs, thus preventing us from getting fat.

Yeah...that's worked out real well for spam eating samoans and hawaaiins.

GG

**SilverMK2**

dogma wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:You can promote evolution by selective breeding, or by shortening life spans and increasing reproductive speed.

That's still not the promotion of evolution. It is evolution. Even our observation of the flies is evolution. Its an all-consuming thing.

I think that we have some mis-communication occurring. Evolution as a process can be sped up (or promoted) by using short lived, or reproductively speedy species. This ensures that there is more chance for genetic change to occur in response of external conditions in a given length of time.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to distinguish here. Evolution is the change and adaption of living things to external change. The process of evolution can be promoted using the methods above. That and certain controlled alteration of external conditions, selective breeding, etc.

**ShumaGorath**

generalgrog wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.

Unlikely, the reaction to a fat filled food supply wouldn't to evolutionarily become fat. It would more likely be a series of alterations to our digestive system allowing us to better utilize strange and exotic foodstuffs, thus preventing us from getting fat.

Yeah...that's worked out real well for spam eating samoans and hawaaiins.

GG

Samoans were large long before we got there. It's not like they've evolved in the 60 years since spam came out.

**dogma**

SilverMK2 wrote:
I think that we have some mis-communication occurring. Evolution as a process can be sped up (or promoted) by using short lived, or reproductively speedy species. This ensures that there is more chance for genetic change to occur in response of external conditions in a given length of time.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to distinguish here. Evolution is the change and adaption of living things to external change. The process of evolution can be promoted using the methods above. That and certain controlled alteration of external conditions, selective breeding, etc.

My definition would amount to this: Evolution - the generational, adaptive response of living organisms to any change in either their environment, or selves.

This process cannot be promoted, by definition, as it necessarily factors in all possible stimuli; even the attempt to promote.

In essence, we do not promote the evolution of the flies, we simply alter their evolution. Its a minor difference, but I think its critical. But then, I'm a logic nerd.

**Hawkins**

Can i pic that were not evolving as a species, rathe that were De-evolving?

**Platuan4th**

Hawkins wrote:Can i pic that were not evolving as a species, rathe that were De-evolving?

Try reading the thread. You'll see we're already discussing the Biological Fallacy that is Devolution.

**Hawkins**

So then i cant pic it? darn.....
And here is was thinking that because medicine and health allow some harmful and inferior conditions (like certain cancers and such) to continue and be passes on, rather than dying out . That, that would also count as devolution, as it makes the species weaker in some regards...... oh well silly me.

**aka_tizz**

Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because Mother Nature deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.

Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till some asteroid decided to pop up and spoil the party.

**dogma**

Hawkins wrote:So then i cant pic it? darn.....

Are you trying to take a picture of it, or pick it?

Hawkins wrote:
And here is was thinking that because medicine and health allow some harmful and inferior conditions (like certain cancers and such) to continue and be passes on, rather than dying out . That, that would also count as devolution, as it makes the species weaker in some regards...... oh well silly me.

No, that's not even consistent with what devolution is supposed to be.

**Hawkins**

Well thinking about it, your right dogma, evey example ive tried to come up with points towards evolution (even negitive traits that are harmful and self destructive fit as evolution), even the stuff that will eventully kill off our species, physically, and metally. But what about socially? would it be fair to say that we are as a society devolving? Or are we Evolving? i guess thats altimately what i was trying to say to begin with.

**generalgrog**

aka_tizz wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because GOD deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.

Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till GOD SENT A WORLD WIDE FLOOD to pop up and spoil the party.

Fixed it for ya.....

GG

**ShumaGorath**

aka_tizz wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because Mother Nature deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.

Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till some asteroid decided to pop up and spoil the party.

The brontosaurus doesn't and never existed. It was a mistake of paleontology that got picked up in the media and still somehow exists to this day in the collective consciousness, but it was never real. Not sure where you were getting the information on the brain, that was likely a myth as well. If I remember right it had a diplodocus' head.

**Wrexasaur**

the internet wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because GOD deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.

Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till GOD SENT A WORLD WIDE FLOOD to pop up and spoil the party.

**generalgrog**

Wrex. evolution on the micro scale a.k.a adaptation within kinds, is not disputed by creationists.

GG

**aka_tizz**

ShumaGorath wrote:
aka_tizz wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because Mother Nature deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.

Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till some asteroid decided to pop up and spoil the party.

The brontosaurus doesn't and never existed. It was a mistake of paleontology that got picked up in the media and still somehow exists to this day in the collective consciousness, but it was never real. Not sure where you were getting the information on the brain, that was likely a myth as well. If I remember right it had a diplodocus' head.

Yeah, i forgot, it's actually the apatosaurus now. My bad

**Kilkrazy**

The most advanced and highly evolved humans are gradually evolving into me.

**Mortified Penguin**

Yes, but then creationism or intelligent design is a load of crap. Before you get all offended, let's look at the two theories:

Evolution: Gradual changes made by living things to better thrive in their environment.
Creationism/Intelligent Design: God made everything.

There is evidence for evolution. Is it true? Meh, probably not. But it's the best theory we have so far. The problem with the whole BELIEF=TROOF idea is that with the scientific method, you basically throw the hypothesis at a wall (of evidence) and see if it breaks. Evolution's held up so far; creationism not so much.

EDIT: Directed at GG.

**Hawkins**

Kilkrazy wrote:The most advanced and highly evolved humans are gradually evolving into me.

A beer can that has, 'bottled water' writen on it? im going back to the trees...... evolution was a bad idea......

**dogma**

Hawkins wrote:But what about socially? would it be fair to say that we are as a society devolving?

No, because the concept of devolution is bankrupt.

**generalgrog**

Mortified Penguin wrote:Yes, but then creationism or intelligent design is a load of crap. Before you get all offended, let's look at the two theories:

Evolution: Gradual changes made by living things to better thrive in their environment.
Creationism/Intelligent Design: God made everything.

There is evidence for evolution. Is it true? Meh, probably not. But it's the best theory we have so far. The problem with the whole BELIEF=TROOF idea is that with the scientific method, you basically throw the hypothesis at a wall (of evidence) and see if it breaks. Evolution's held up so far; creationism not so much.

EDIT: Directed at GG.

Mortified Penguin...why would I be offended? Your post includes such an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution...exampleA:"but then creationism or intelligent design is a load of crap".....I may as well just give up the whole search for truth gig, because you obvously have all the answers allready.... surely I have no reason to be offended.

GG

**Mortified Penguin**

Fair enough. Here's some for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX_WH1bq5HQ

Admittedly I acted like a troll there, but then you pony up some evidence. Seriously, I'm all ears. I just set forth the logic behind why the scientific community supports evolution (although I'm no biologist; this is from what I've read in New Scientist every now and then).

**dogma**

Never cite youtube. Ever.