If you believe in evolution, a question

[Mickey'snewestfan]

I think that many people here are overestimating the speed at which evolution moves -- it's way too slow to see in the span of one person's lifetime.

Having said that, yes I believe that people are continuing to evolve, both in response to changes in the natural environment and changes that we ourselves make. For example, I think that given the importance of literacy in modern society, the genes that make it possible for one to easily acquire facility with reading and writing (the genes that control word retrieval, phonemic awareness, and oral language skills -- all crucial predictors of later literacy skills) are being selected for.

 

[sha_lyn]

I believe that we are actually de-evolving to some extent. Medical intervention and our ability to change our inviroment have out smarted natural selection. Those who normally wouldn't have surivied due to natural selection are now living long enough to "breed".

 

[Laura]

I don't "believe" in evolution - I know it to be a scientific fact.

That was my first thought!

 

[TheDoctor]

I think that many people here are overestimating the speed at which evolution moves -- it's way too slow to see in the span of one person's lifetime.

Having said that, yes I believe that people are continuing to evolve, both in response to changes in the natural environment and changes that we ourselves make. For example, I think that given the importance of literacy in modern society, the genes that make it possible for one to easily acquire facility with reading and writing (the genes that control word retrieval, phonemic awareness, and oral language skills -- all crucial predictors of later literacy skills) are being selected for.

Good post. The process takes many generations. Given that we are living longer, it is going to take generations to see any changes. I do believe that we are evolving.

 

[Tiggernut_jadie]

Agreed - what is there to 'believe'?

Faith is about beliefs, science is about facts!

 

[Alyssa88]

Ok here is the thing. According to Darwin, evolution occurs in microevolutionary bursts. Meaning we may go through a period of rapid evolving and then evolve very little if at all after that.

Also, there has been news of some human evolution. In the Arapo tribe (in South America, I beileve) the people were in the process of evolving. This tribe lives in the canopy of the rain forest, they are climbers. Because of this certain traits in some individuals started becoming selected for. This trait was an extra toe, which aided their climbling abilities. Unfortunately they were removed from their habitat and the trait was seen in less and less and newborns.

 

[PollyannaMom]

This was a really interesting thread to read! I'm not really adding anything new, as my answers have been mentioned by others too, but I agree that -

1) evolution is slowing, because we have more control over our environment.

2) we have retained mutations that whould have been eliminated because we take care of each other and those particular mutations are no longer fatal.

 

[GeorgeG]

I'm inclined to believe in evolution and that the creation of the very beginning wasn't at all what religious doctrines might have us believe. I'm sure we will continue to evolve and thousands of years from now people will look back on us as being primitive. Maybe they will look more like what we think space creatures look like. Who knows? I'll worry about that more if I manage to live 10,000 or 20,000 more years.

 

[Amity 3]

evolution means we share common DNA with another organism and have moved down a different path... we share over 98% of the same DNA as a chimpanzee.

in the end it doesn't matter, the sun has only has so much hydrogen to burn before it dies and kills all life in this galaxy. our version of humans won't be around to see it happen.

 

[goofygirl]

I believe that we are actually de-evolving to some extent. Medical intervention and our ability to change our inviroment have out smarted natural selection. Those who normally wouldn't have surivied due to natural selection are now living long enough to "breed".

True, people are living longer. But there are also new diseases cropping up: bird flu, Ebola, and HIV/AIDS (which is relatively new), also new strains of the flu show up. As we fight nature, nature is finding new ways to fight us.

Certainly people will evolve. DNA and genes mutate and get mixed more as the world becomes "smaller"- meaning people move around more, intermix more and are not so isolated. We have more intermixing of races than ever- this changes physical apperance as well as genetic disposition.

 

[Mumbling Jumba]

This issue can be debated to death, I read one thesis that said humans are even now evolving away from a prior semi-aquatic lifestyle. They point to certain factors. We all have residual webs between our fingers, our heart beat slows to an ideal rithym in water, birthing is much easier in water, the hairs on the human body naturally are hydrodynamic and tend to flow in the right dirction when wet and hair grows in just the right places to keep the sun away from us when in water. These same scientists say that even today, just because the stimuli is lessened, it has not gone away and we are still evolving.

On the flip side of the coin, I have read some very well written studies that say science makes the case for the religious view. They say that Cro-Magnon man when he appeared has no viable link to tie him to the other primate family trees (There is a missing link). They say that genetics can track down the origin of modern man to a sungle female some 200,000 years ago, and biblical scholars merely did not get the time frame right. They even say that they can track down the original placement of the garden of Eden and I have seen the documentary tracking that journey using biblical information and it is thrilling and totally believable.

That said, I personally believe in evolution. But that is not to say that anyone is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Amity 3]

Certainly people will evolve. DNA and genes mutate and get mixed more as the world becomes "smaller"- meaning people move around more, intermix more and are not so isolated. We have more intermixing of races than ever- this changes physical apperance as well as genetic disposition.

a large factor is people waiting longer in life to have children.

DNA has a great system for repairing itself as it's introduced to environmental changes like air pollution. the older you get, the less efficient it is at repairing itself. if you wait too long to reproduce, you're going to pass along a mutated gene.

 

[kirbsam]

we are evolving. because of our dietary needs, we have smaller jaws that can no longer accomodate our wisdom teeth, for the most part. and fewer and fewer of us have four wisdom teeth anymore. also, our appendixes are no longer needed like they used to be, so they have evolved into these little useless organs over thousands of years.

 

[kennancat]

a large factor is people waiting longer in life to have children.

DNA has a great system for repairing itself as it's introduced to environmental changes like air pollution. the older you get, the less efficient it is at repairing itself. if you wait too long to reproduce, you're going to pass along a mutated gene.

One small issue I would raise with this theory - most of the increase in maternal age at first child is not coming from women on the older end of the scale having children, it's the drop in the teen pregnancy rate. From what I've read on the subject, the increase in potential genetic abnormalities is not significant until the late thirties / early forties, so eliminating births to woman in their teens would not have an impact on the number of genetic abnormalities. Plus, these mutations can happen at any age. Certain abnormalities (such as Down's) do become more common as you age, but that's why doctors insist on tests such as amnio to detect potential issues early. If you look at the pure numbers, more children with Down's are born to women under 30 than over. The percentages of births with Down's are smaller, but the number of women under 30 having children is so much larger. All that being said, I think that we are evolving into a more cerebral species and less of a physical one. As that evolution takes place, I believe that the advantages of older maternal age will outweigh the genetic disadvantages, especially as we learn more about how to predict and control these impacts.

 

[Disney1fan2002]

Ihumans in general are taller and fatter than ever before. The average height and weight of the human being has increased signifigantly over the last few centuries.

Seriously, we could be evolving into elephants! In 100 years, the average weight of a human male may be 400 pounds, and the female could be 350.

 

[Amity 3]

One small issue I would raise with this theory - most of the increase in maternal age at first child is not coming from women on the older end of the scale having children, it's the drop in the teen pregnancy rate. From what I've read on the subject, the increase in potential genetic abnormalities is not significant until the late thirties / early forties, so eliminating births to woman in their teens would not have an impact on the number of genetic abnormalities. Plus, these mutations can happen at any age. Certain abnormalities (such as Down's) do become more common as you age, but that's why doctors insist on tests such as amnio to detect potential issues early. If you look at the pure numbers, more children with Down's are born to women under 30 than over. The percentages of births with Down's are smaller, but the number of women under 30 having children is so much larger. All that being said, I think that we are evolving into a more cerebral species and less of a physical one. As that evolution takes place, I believe that the advantages of older maternal age will outweigh the genetic disadvantages, especially as we learn more about how to predict and control these impacts.

I agree that we're becoming a much more cerebral race. but the age of puberty and maturation of females is still hanging around the age of thirteen. the female physiology is adept and wanting to give birth early in life, despite the mental level of capability.

 

[Imzadi]

BUT it seems like in evolution that we evolve due to response to our changing environment.

We don't change in response to our changing environment. Mutations are happening all the time. Evolution is about survival of the fittest and adaptability because of those mutations.

There are hundreds of species in rain forests that are growing & dying daily that we don't even know about because of how we are destroying the rain forests. What if one of those mutated organisms could be what would have saved planet Earth, if found, taken harvested, used, etc., but we destroyed it?

We now live in a culture where, through medicine, we not only save the weakest of the species, but we get rid of genetic "defects" or mutations in favor of uniformity. Natural mutations, eons ago, weren't regulated the way they are today.

Parents are aghast when a child has six fingers. They have operations to cut the sixth finger off. We don't want it. we certainly don't want it in outr genetics. But in this day & age, where computer technologies are king, the ones who can type the fastest on a keyboard and have manual dexterity, a six fingered person would actually stand a better chance to get the better jobs. He marries a woman with six fingers, they have six fingered kids, & their whole family is better adapted to the needs of today.

Or, take for example: Einstein. He had dyslexia - seeing backwards & differently than "normal." But this man who saw backwards & differently, is also the same genius who could think outside of the box and came up with the Theory of Relativity! That things are relative and not necessarily in a fixed space & time. Who's to say that so called "defect" of dyslexia and his ability to adapt it - for the better - wasn't exactly what was needed for this man to think in ways the rest of the known world couldn't even conceive of until him.

Another example: Stephen Hawking, indisputably one of the greatest scientific geniuses on mathematical physics, quantum mechanics and relativity, of our time.

But he is totally paralyzed by Lou Gehrig's disease, is confined to a wheelchair and requires a voice synthesizer to speak. If it wasn't for our technology, he wouldn't even be able to speak & communicate his brilliance to us. He is confined to a "black hole" of a body, not able to get up & distract himself & go play basketball when he wants.

YET maybe having to just sit there all day, day after day, contemplating how his own inner space of genius is trapped within the outer space of his body, which, in a different place & time, could have been trapped & unable to connect with the outer space of his environment, has enabled him to come up with more evolutionary theories on spacial black holes, inner & outer space mechanics, than almost any other scientist to date.

His genetic "deficiencies" may have given him the edge to contemplate life, space, life, in ways that will help the rest of us adapt as we strive to reach his levels. Exactly, which are the ones that fitter & more highly evolved?

Oh, that's right: It's all relative!

 

[Cool-Beans]

I believe in both. God created us, evolution explains how he did it.

Best scientists in the world are still trying to figure out exactly how it is we evolve. I'm not close to as bright as they are, so I'll sit back and let them figure it out. Doesn't matter much, we'll be in heaven (or hell, or nowhere, depending on who is right - anyway, we'll be dead) by the time the human race evolves.

One thing that is interesting (to me, anyway) is that although the age we expected to live to continues to get higher, the maximum age attainable doesn't rise in proportion. Things that make you go Hmmmm...

 

[Imzadi]

One thing that is interesting (to me, anyway) is that although the age we expected to live to continues to get higher, the maximum age attainable doesn't rise in proportion. Things that make you go Hmmmm...

Actually, according to a census study, the fastest growing population in America is people turning 100 years old. It has been estimated that Willard Scott, who wishes people over 100, Happy Birthday every morning, on the Today Show (I think?) will end up taking up the whole show if he wishes everyone over 100 Happy Birthday in any single day, in about 10-20 years from now.

Once we learn to cure cancer & heart disease, the age rate will increase dramatically overnight. it happened with the AIDS epidemic. Back in the 80's men were dying within, like 1-5 years after being diagnosed. Now, due to the invention of the AIDS cocktail, people are living up to 20+ years with AIDS - instead of dying from AIDS.