I don't understand why humans are not

R1D2

many leagues under the sea.
Valued Senior Member
We as humans have been around for a while. Why are we not "mutated" to our environment.
I don't understand why humans are not "changing"
We should have had changes like Darwin suggested right?
Should we not be developing something?
Maybe close to what the X-Men went through?
OR is our "mutations" causing more "issues" like cancers an disability's like the rising autism. Or M.S.?
 
We as humans have been around for a while. Why are we not "mutated" to our environment.
I don't understand why humans are not "changing"
We should have had changes like Darwin suggested right?
Should we not be developing something?
Maybe close to what the X-Men went through?
OR is our "mutations" causing more "issues" like cancers an disability's like the rising autism. Or M.S.?

If Neanderthal was a human so for 400000 years we have not changed
 
Neanderthal's I think are a different class of human species, they don't count.
 
About 4 % of European carry Neanderthal's gene.
Really... I've never heard that before.
But anyways I'm talking about, really changing, mutation, adapting.
For instance we have not "adapted" to cold weather by "gaining" fur coats.
 
We as humans have been around for a while. Why are we not "mutated" to our environment.
I don't understand why humans are not "changing"
We should have had changes like Darwin suggested right?
Should we not be developing something?
Maybe close to what the X-Men went through?
OR is our "mutations" causing more "issues" like cancers an disability's like the rising autism. Or M.S.?

One of the driving forces of evolution is environmental pressure. When things change such as climate or food supply the animals that were filling those niches would become stressed. Most of them would die, but if some of them had survival traits that allowed them to live and they were able to pass those traits on, the population would grow again with the new traits and they would be filling a new niche.

In a way humans did evolve a bit during the plague. The survivors were developing and immunity to the plague and less people were getting sick over time. But other than that, what survival stresses do you see humans needing to change in order to survive? We are able to overcome many things due to our larger brains and the fact that we live socially in societies that allow us to improve the quality of our lives.

When we need to evolve in order to survive. Hopefully enough of us will be survivors that can restart the population again.
 
What about... pollution, an higher UV's as a stresser. Or family instead of adapting positively to them we get depressed an some suicidal
 
One problem is, evolution takes many, many generations, some members of each generation making a small, perhaps imperceptible, change in response to environmental conditions, and then having several generations more for the advantage of those changes to manifest in more offspring than the rivals who didn't change.... and each time, a new environmental factor or event can just as easily wipe out the advantage. Not every change is for the ultimate improvement of the species, either.
A generation of bacteria may take 20 minutes. A generation of human takes 20 years... and as humans are a whole lot more complex than bacteria, the changes are less obvious.
Another problem is different environmental conditions in different parts of the world, affecting different populations. Only very recently have we moved so freely around the globe and intermingled gene-pools. Take another 100,000 years to see what changes that caused.
Still another problem is that Nature doesn't care. If a stressor makes members of a species ugly, homicidal, suicidal, cannibalistic, sterile, undersized or prone to cancer... well, toughtitties - they just up and die out; plenty of other species waiting to occupy their niche.
The biggest, baddest, most fatal problem of all is: we can change the environment about 100,000 times faster than we can adapt to it.
 
@R1D2

There's a couple of things that you're not understanding here. First of all, evolution often takes a ridiculous amount of time. The human mind just isn't naturally equipped to comprehend the scale of time typically involved. Second, if environmental factors are mitigated by behavioural traits, then there is no need for an equivalent physical adaptation. For example, human beings in their current form could conceivably reside in Antarctica for an indefinite period of time (many many thousands of years) without taking any significant evolutionary steps towards a biological form that was better adapted to the cold. Why? Because as long as we have survival clothing, huts, heaters and the fuel for them, we have successfully moderated what would otherwise be the significant selective pressures of such a harsh environment.

Finally, evolution is not so much about comfort as it is about the propagation of a species. It doesn't give a shit if people who live in cold climates are merely more often uncomfortable than people who live in more moderate ones. If environmental factors are not significant enough to stop people from making lots of babies that manage to survive, then they really aren't selective pressures at all.
 
it takes time for people to evolve and for the changes to be apparent. The weak die out, the strongest survive. Based on the evolution trend, all of the current short peeps will die off as taller genes will be preferred. Tall smart handsome and sleep young people will be the future.
 
We as humans have been around for a while. Why are we not "mutated" to our environment.

We have, but I would say adapted not mutated - that makes it sound like we are trying to change.

I don't understand why humans are not "changing"

We are. For instance look at several populations that live at high altitudes such as the Himalayas or the Andes. Look at this.
We should have had changes like Darwin suggested right?

Right. We have evolved and will continue to evolve (if we do not become extinct).

Should we not be developing something?
Maybe close to what the X-Men went through?

Uh, no you are mixing up science with comic books - that is a rather serious error in thinking.

OR is our "mutations" causing more "issues" like cancers an disability's like the rising autism. Or M.S.?

Cancer increases are probably seen because we don't die off from ear infections and small pox so much any more. No idea about autism - but I hope science can get to the bottom of that!
 
Really... I've never heard that before.
But anyways I'm talking about, really changing, mutation, adapting.
For instance we have not "adapted" to cold weather by "gaining" fur coats.

There is no environmental pressure to grow fur - we wear coats.
 
Humans are evolving, they are thinking differently than they ever did before. Humans never would have considered a trip to the moon or Mars 300 years ago but today it is being done and advancements are also giving humans the ability to overcome diseases and other medical problems that they never thought they could before.

Evolution could also incorporate ways to survive within nature by changing it by either adapting to it by engineering means using different materials for construction or clothing or by altering nature like building dams to collect water for use years away.
 
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?
 
Here's an article of potential interest to your thread, R1D2. :)


Humans Evolving More Rapidly Than Ever, Say Scientists

By Brandon Keim
Email Author
December 10, 2007 |
2:02 pm |
Categories: Uncategorized

Iceage1
Look out, future, because here we come: scientists say the speed of human evolution increased rapidly during the last 40,000 years — and it’s only going to get faster.

The findings, published today by a team of U.S. anthropologists in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, overturn the theory that modern life’s relative ease has slowed or even stopped human adaptation. Selective pressures are still at work; they just happen to be different than those faced by our distant ancestors.

"We’re more different from people 5,000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals," said study co-author and University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending.

In the study, researchers analzyed genomes from 270 people belonging to four disparate ethnic groups: Han Chinese, Africa’s Yoruba tribe,
Japanese and Utah Mormons. By comparing areas of difference and similarity, they determined that about seven percent of the genome has undergone significant change since the end of the last Ice Age.

If human beings had always evolved at such a rapid clip, said the researchers, genetic differences between people and chimpanzees would be 160 times greater than they are.

Driving the changes are environmental fluctuations and population growth. As the number of people swells, so do the number of mutations generated by random chance. Further selecting for disparate genetic inheritances are the diverse terrains, climates and social structures inhabited since the glaciers retreated.

Mcdonalds
The findings contradict the hypothesis that evolution must be slowing down because people who once would have died are sustained by modern medicine and social safety nets. They also suggest that genetic differences between different ethnic groups can be significant.

"The actual genes that are sweeping have not been thoroughly identified in all cases, but we can see interesting patterns," said Harpending.
"There are something like 6 genes, all broken African genes, responsible for European light skin, blue eyes, blonde hair, etc. They are evolving fast in Europe. Meanwhile, other genes responsible for light skin are sweeping in Asia, and they are different from those in
Europe."

Asked about James Watson’s controversial claims that intelligence evolved less effectively in people of African descent, Harpending said the study wasn’t designed to test such characteristics. He also cautioned against interpreting the findings as suggesting that people are becoming fundamentally better.

"Some of the mutations let us do better. We can eat simple carbohydrates, which hunter-gatherers never did. But we may also be accumulating damaging stuff," said Harpending.

He wondered whether social changes might not cultivate unfortunate tendencies.

"Evolution is a double-edged sword," he said. "What evolution cares about is that I have more offspring. If you can do it by charming and manipulating, and I’m a hardworking farmer that’s going to feed the kids ten years down the road, then you’re going to win. Hit-and-run, irresponsible males are reproducing more. That isn’t good for anyone except those males, but that’s evolution."

The study’s ultimate message, said Harpending: "Whatever changes are happening, they’re happening faster."

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving/

Though ongoing human evolution is difficult to see, researchers believe they’ve found signs of rapid genetic changes among the recent residents of a small Canadian town.

Between 1800 and 1940, mothers in Ile aux Coudres, Quebec gave birth at steadily younger ages, with the average age of first maternity dropping from 26 to 22. Increased fertility, and thus larger families, could have been especially useful in the rural settlement’s early history.

According to University of Quebec geneticist Emmanuel Milot and colleagues, other possible explanations, such as changing cultural or environmental influences, don’t fit. The changes appear to reflect biological evolution.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/recent-human-evolution/
 
So, just to reiterate the answers to the questions in the OP…..

We as humans have been around for a while. Why are we not "mutated" to our environment.

We are.

I don't understand why humans are not "changing"

We are.

We should have had changes like Darwin suggested right?

Yes, we have.

Should we not be developing something?

Yes, we are (at the biochemical level).

Maybe close to what the X-Men went through?

You’re confusing science fiction with science fact.
 
We as humans have been around for a while. Why are we not "mutated" to our environment.
Our species first appeared less than 200,000 years ago. That's not a very long time. We mutated from an earlier species, Homo erectus, in about half a million years. That's a pretty reasonable speed.

A few species have developed more quickly, but many have also done it more slowly. The polar bear evolved from the black bear in just about 100,000 years, which was very fast. But there was tremendous environmental pressure favoring that evolution. An ice age presented an entire new habitat and food supply: colder weather requiring a thick layer of fat, a snow pack requiring white fur for camouflage, and an aquatic environment requiring adaptation to a marine life.

And while modern humans, Homo sapiens, have existed in our current form for a long time, polar bears have been adapting almost right up to this moment. Their current dentition only stabilized about 10,000 years ago. And the polar bear can still mate and hybridize with the black bear--their ranges don't overlap so it seldom happens, but the DNA is compatible. Modern humans were also able to hybridize with Homo neanderthalensis. As Arauca pointed out, Europeans have a noticeable mixture of Neanderthal DNA, because their ranges overlapped for about 20,000 years in Europe.

The bald eagle speciated from the sea eagle about ten thousand years ago. But those two birds are much more similar than brown bears and polar bears, or modern humans and Neanderthals.
I don't understand why humans are not "changing." We should have had changes like Darwin suggested right?
We are. Don't be so impatient. This process is much slower than you seem to believe. Your biology teachers didn't do a very good job.
Neanderthal's I think are a different class of human species, they don't count.
Yes. Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are two distinct species. This was not known for sure until DNA analysis was possible, so older textbooks often count Neanderthals and us as two subspecies of a single species. But that's wrong.
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?
Those aren't necessarily mutations, just selective breeding. Those genes exist, but certain environments select for them.

For example, whenever a human population migrates south, the individuals with more melanin in their skin have a survival advantage because melanin blocks sunlight and prevents them from getting skin cancer. But when a population migrates north, the individuals with more melanin are at a disadvantage, because by blocking out sunlight it causes a vitamin D deficiency in latitudes where the sun is not directly overhead. This is why the Lithuanians have very light skin and the Bengalis have very dark skin, even though their ancestors, the Eastern Indo-Europeans, were a single tribe only 3,500 years ago.
There is no environmental pressure to grow fur - we wear coats.
The key mutation in humans was the expansion of the forebrain. In proportion to body size, it's about four times larger than any other primate. We have a singular ability to override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. This allows us to overcome nature. Instead of having to mutate larger bodies, a higher fat content, shorter appendages and thicker hair to conserve body heat, we just kill other animals with our clever flint blades, eat their fat and wear their fur coats.

We don't even change skin tone as we migrate any more. People of African ancestry who live in Norway will always have dark skin because they take vitamin D supplements, and people of European ancestry who live in Somalia will always have light skin because they use sunblock. We have eliminated the need to evolve.

We don't even let ourselves evolve for health reasons. Anybody want to bet that Stephen Hawking has been cajoled into donating to a sperm bank, and it's being auctioned for big bucks to women who want it? Don't expect to find that in Wikipedia. ;)
 
Last edited:
Well, I think the obvious has already been stated. Yes, we are changing. All you really need to do is look at ANY point in human history and compare it to present time and realize change has occurred.
 
Back
Top