Have humans stopped evolving?

[rodereve]

It doesn't seem like there can be a strong natural selection anymore. There is no survival of the fittest, we don't live and die by predators and prey. We keep the weak alive, and there's affirmative action where we actually give advantage to the vulnerable groups, the minorities and the needy ones. By virtue of keeping the dumb and weak alive, have we stopped evolving as a race? Does it have something to do with resource limitations and population growth.

What's your view on this?

 

[spidergoat]

This is a thread that comes up about once a year. No, of course we haven't stopped evolving.

 

[rodereve]

This is a thread that comes up about once a year. No, of course we haven't stopped evolving.

What is your point, all ideas have been thought of, discussed and are being re-discussed throughout history of discourse. If we're just going through the motions here, does that mean we should stop? lol

 

[R1D2]

Someone told me let's see what was it. Oh ya...

Eskimos are adapted for the cold, Africans are adapted to tropical conditions, a large number of people have mutated so they can now digest milk into adulthood, Europeans have adapted to the plague... how many more examples do you need?

Guess we are evolving and mutating still.

P.S they are the same thing right? Evolving and mutating?

 

[spidergoat]

What is your point, all ideas have been thought of, discussed and are being re-discussed throughout history of discourse. If we're just going through the motions here, does that mean we should stop? lol

You can do a search for old threads and see what they say. Both mutation and selection are still going on, especially in the realm of disease. Modern medicine is not universally accessible.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It doesn't seem like there can be a strong natural selection anymore. There is no survival of the fittest, we don't live and die by predators and prey. We keep the weak alive, and there's affirmative action where we actually give advantage to the vulnerable groups, the minorities and the needy ones. By virtue of keeping the dumb and weak alive, have we stopped evolving as a race? Does it have something to do with resource limitations and population growth.

What's your view on this?

Your interpretation of evolution is incorrect. It is "survival of the most adaptable". Aside from that, spidergoat has correctly answered your question.

 

[kx000]

Sorry

 

[rodereve]

Your interpretation of evolution is incorrect. It is "survival of the most adaptable". Aside from that, spidergoat has correctly answered your question.

Sorry it isn't my interpretation, "survival of the fittest" is a term used by Darwin in the Origin of Species. (lol) But if you'd like to know, you're actually wrong. The most "adaptable" doesn't necessarily mean it'll pass on their genes. Imagine you were an organism that was born in the Artic, and you developed the best mutation: your genitalia was mutated into a fire-producing organ to keep warm. Well, you'll never pass on that trait. That's why fitness = survival rate x reproduction rate. So yes, fittest is the appropriate term.


And what is wrong with re-discussing topics. Should we stop asking "Is there a God?" if its been discussed a million times before?

My question was more directed evolving in a modern day society. Is society slowing down the process of evolution by decreasing the load of environmental pressures (keeping everyone alive). And if we are not in the jungle anymore, what advantageous traits does natural selection select for now.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Sorry it isn't my interpretation, "survival of the fittest" is a term used by Darwin in the Origin of Species.

Oh, your interpretation is definitely incorrect. If you understood evolution you would understand that it never ends. Consequently the term "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Darwin didn't even introduce the term until the fifth edition of his book and: "...Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment...",".

(lol) But if you'd like to know, you're actually wrong. The most "adaptable" doesn't necessarily mean it'll pass on their genes.

There is never any guarantee of any kind that a life form will pass on its genes. You're not really making any kind of point.

Imagine you were an organism that was born in the Artic, and you developed the best mutation: your genitalia was mutated into a fire-producing organ to keep warm. Well, you'll never pass on that trait. That's why fitness = survival rate x reproduction rate. So yes, fittest is the appropriate term.

Before you can start throwing "formulas" around, you may want to understand some core concepts. This is a decent layman introduction:

http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Evolution--Futuyma--chap11.pdf

And what is wrong with re-discussing topics. Should we stop asking "Is there a God?" if its been discussed a million times before?

I don't think I claimed there is anything wrong with asking questions.

My question was more directed evolving in a modern day society. Is society slowing down the process of evolution by decreasing the load of environmental pressures (keeping everyone alive). And if we are not in the jungle anymore, what advantageous traits does natural selection select for now.

http://www.livescience.com/16358-human-evolution-natural-selection.html

 

[rodereve]

Oh, your interpretation is definitely incorrect. If you understood evolution you would understand that it never ends. Consequently the term "survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Darwin didn't even introduce the term until the fifth edition of his book and: "...Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment...",".

I asked the question as more of a discussion starter, if I said "Humans are still evolving", I would be in the popular consensus lol.
And you're arguing against strawmans. I never said Darwin coined it, I said he used it. And you did your research to prove that he used it, so you're supporting me instead (lol).

There is never any guarantee of any kind that a life form will pass on its genes. You're not really making any kind of point.

Yes that IS my point. You said "Most adaptable" is the correct use --no it's not, because that does not take into account the ability to pass on its genes. Fitness DOES.

Before you can start throwing "formulas" around, you may want to understand some core concepts. This is a decent layman introduction:

http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Evolution--Futuyma--chap11.pdf

Lol Fitness is a basic concept learned in any introductory biology university course, its literally like the first thing explained in the evo section. I took 4 years of this stuff, I don't need to read an introduction.

I don't think I claimed there is anything wrong with asking questions.

I was talking to spidergoat

 

[Orleander]

My son has no wisdom teeth. His orthodontist says he sees more of this than his dentist father did. Is that evolution? Do we really need wisdom teeth?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I asked the question as more of a discussion starter, if I said "Humans are still evolving", I would be in the popular consensus lol.
And you're arguing against strawmans. I never said Darwin coined it, I said he used it. And you did your research to prove that he used it, so you're supporting me instead (lol).

A good discussion may have been the different environmental pressures that humans impose upon themselves that result in evolutionary changes, but the thread title question is a "yes/no" question. I'll explain the point of what I stated about the phrase "survival of the fittest" because that appears to have been missed. Your original assertion was: "There is no survival of the fittest, we don't live and die by predators and prey.". In other words you explicitly used the phrase "survival of the fittest" and attached its meaning to a very specific context of predator/prey survival (which many people who don't understand evolution share). I stated that the phrase "survival of the fittest is inaccurate" and used "survival of the most adaptable". You said that was incorrect so I showed the source of where that phrase came from as well as Darwin's intended use of that phrase as a metaphor for adaptation.

Yes that IS my point. You said "Most adaptable" is the correct use --no it's not, because that does not take into account the ability to pass on its genes. Fitness DOES.

Why is adaptability suddenly banned from reproduction? Arent sexual organs an adaptation?

Lol Fitness is a basic concept learned in any introductory biology university course, its literally like the first thing explained in the evo section. I took 4 years of this stuff, I don't need to read an introduction.

By taking 4 years of "this stuff", you mean that you have a BS in evolutionary biology?

I was talking to spidergoat

Some good ways of addressing other people are to quote who you are responding to or at the very least using the simplistic @ symbol (ex. @spidergoat: <write something here>).

 

[Crunchy Cat]

My son has no wisdom teeth. His orthodontist says he sees more of this than his dentist father did. Is that evolution? Do we really need wisdom teeth?

We need whatever teeth are necessary to eat the food we eat. If Mac and Cheese doesn't require the ol' wisdom's then they are are just kind of neutral towards our diet .

 

[arauca]

This is a thread that comes up about once a year. No, of course we haven't stopped evolving.

Are we evolving physically ,intellectually or which way .

 

[arauca]

My son has no wisdom teeth. His orthodontist says he sees more of this than his dentist father did. Is that evolution? Do we really need wisdom teeth?

I see the removal of wisdom teeth as a good business for dentist, Every idiot now is taking them out. because they are bothersome. So lady let your son wait they will come out it all depends on the age.

 

[scheherazade]

My son has no wisdom teeth. His orthodontist says he sees more of this than his dentist father did. Is that evolution? Do we really need wisdom teeth?

Much of our understanding of evolution comes from fossilized remains and teeth are ideal for such study. Apparently, the decline in tooth size has been underway for a considerable period of time.

http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/4_3RecentHumanDentitionEvolution.txt.htm

Teeth, since they develop with the jaws are pretty much unaffected by environment (with some exceptions, such as trauma or severe nutritional stress). Teeth are thus nice models for study. They have a further advantage: they are easy to measure, both in living and in fossil forms.

Evolution is about loss of structures as well as acquiring them. Besides teeth, humans have lost tails, body hair, vitamin C synthesis, and heavy brow ridges above the eyes. Snakes have lost legs and some birds have become flightless. Many subterranean animals have lost their eyesight. What forces drive their loss? There are two general ideas. Both date from the time of Darwin.

One says that periodic mutations, like 'wear and tear', will gradually reduce an unneeded structure, until it simply fades away. The PME falls into this camp.

The other general idea says that loss of structures is a positive economic benefit to an organism. The loss of vitamin C synthesis capability previously mentioned is an example.

If you've kept your sense of humor while reading this article, you might enjoy this poetry from Brace et al, 1991.

Now dental reduction is fast,

And Man shall be toothless at last;

He eschews his chews

And will choose to lose

The teeth that he had in the past.

 

[Janus58]

I see the removal of wisdom teeth as a good business for dentist, Every idiot now is taking them out. because they are bothersome. So lady let your son wait they will come out it all depends on the age.

I'm a bit of a rarity there. At 54, I still have all my wisdom teeth and they are no bother at all; I had enough room for them to come in normally.

 

[arauca]

I'm a bit of a rarity there. At 54, I still have all my wisdom teeth and they are no bother at all; I had enough room for them to come in normally.

So we are add balls , so is may fathers family , My son's are born in the new times in the USA , so they have been persuaded to take them out. I wonder it that will not follow the early medical mentality "we don't need the appendix " or the All American way " Hysterectomy " .

 

[billvon]

My son has no wisdom teeth. His orthodontist says he sees more of this than his dentist father did. Is that evolution? Do we really need wisdom teeth?

We used to. With modern dentistry - not so much. However, with modern dentistry there is also no drawback to having them.

 

[rodereve]

A good discussion may have been the different environmental pressures that humans impose upon themselves that result in evolutionary changes, but the thread title question is a "yes/no" question.

I almost said the exact same thing in this prior post. Yes the question is a yes/no question, but give some people here credit, they're smart enough to answer more than "no". Sorry I didn't hold your hand the entire way here lol

My question was more directed evolving in a modern day society. Is society slowing down the process of evolution by decreasing the load of environmental pressures (keeping everyone alive). And if we are not in the jungle anymore, what advantageous traits does natural selection select for now.

I'll explain the point of what I stated about the phrase "survival of the fittest" because that appears to have been missed. Your original assertion was: "There is no survival of the fittest, we don't live and die by predators and prey.". In other words you explicitly used the phrase "survival of the fittest" and attached its meaning to a very specific context of predator/prey survival (which many people who don't understand evolution share). I stated that the phrase "survival of the fittest is inaccurate" and used "survival of the most adaptable". You said that was incorrect so I showed the source of where that phrase came from as well as Darwin's intended use of that phrase as a metaphor for adaptation

Why is adaptability suddenly banned from reproduction? Arent sexual organs an adaptation?

By taking 4 years of "this stuff", you mean that you have a BS in evolutionary biology?

I feel like this can all be resolved if you understand what Fitness is. By fittest, I don't mean like the strongest or most physically agile, I mean Fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology))

Adaptation by itself doesn't have specifically have anything to do with reproduction. Your wings can be an adaptation. Fitness, inherently, does.

Nope, I have a HBSc and I majored in Physiology, but I've taken a few courses that studied evolution (comparative physiology etc.)

Some good ways of addressing other people are to quote who you are responding to or at the very least using the simplistic @ symbol (ex. @spidergoat: <write something here>).

Duly noted, sorry for your confusion.