Humans have stopped evolving becuase we are the dominant species on the planet, and due to medicine our young don’t die in childbirth - hence no need to evolve.
At least that’s what David Attenborough said on BBC news last week, he seems like quite a knowledgeable chap.
Karl Pilkington, is that you?
Human race is evolving into the environmental niche for stupid people. The stupid people are outfucking the intelligent people.
[quote]danc2469 wrote:
I may be getting in way over my head here. Correct me if I have it all wrong.
I think evolution is being used in place of adaptation. Every living thing is adapting to external stimulus on a daily basis. Does that mean we, it, they are evolving everyday? Do we adapt so much over a long period of time, that it then becomes evolution?
I thought evolution was a physical change. Like having 3 eyes instead of 2 because you can see around corners or something.
Please enlighten me.[/quote]
Thats a tad wrong, evolution is a change in the expression of a genes frequency in a population over time. There are people who are born with birth defects (a reduction in “fitness”), and even though they have greatly “changed” over their predecessors, the change must be spread throughout the population to be considered evolution.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090121-lizard-ants-missions.html
Here is an example of a physical change that occured in Lizards from 1930 to now. This is a REAL example of REAL evolution occuring literally right in front of our eyes. The entire lizard population has grown longer to be able to compete with the fire ants that would have them for dinner. Im sure its only a matter of time before the fire ants are able to combat this with some sort of adaptation allowing them to “stick” to the legs better.
Also, it should be noted that evolution happens only in response to environmental stressors (not counting Genetic Drift and modern farming techniques like Artificial Selection). That is to say, organisms will not evolve “just because.” There are plenty of examples of organisms that have been relatively unchanged for a LONG time… This is fine and actually fits in the Theory quite nicely.
The organism is well adapted to the current environment, and barring any change in that environment it will remain unchanged.
For example, Humans in parts of Africa and the surrounding area experiencing a uniquely high level of Sickel Cell Anemia, a change in the shape of the blood cell. This is a harmful mutation that can cause pain, tissue damage, and even death… But it prevents those with the disease from getting Malaria, thus the gene continues to get passed on.
This mutation is simply not seen in other parts of the world. The humans there adapted to the stresses the environment forced upon them.
I’m really glad to see so many people on board with the Theory. Current estimates state that less than half the population (in the states) “believes” it. And of the half that do, half of them think its “guided” by God. This really is akin to not “believing” in the Theory of Gravity, or thinking that God just holds things together all the time.
[quote]Ghost22 wrote:
Or hey, fuck it all, come down to Louisiana and learn how GAWD AWMIGHTY created the heavens and earth and created man, since we just passed a new bullshit creationist law. [/quote]
I thought that was particularly curious considering the precident set in Dover a few years back. Dont you guys have a Creationist Museum as well, complete with Humans literally playing fetch with Dino?
[quote]Mikaj wrote:
With modern medicine, it’s difficult to kill the weak ones off and prevent them from breeding. There’s no focus in this world, where top grade specimens may breed with people of inferior genetics. Who cares? We’ll probably end up killing ourselves off with pollution and such.[/quote]
That’s a little shortsighted. A lot of people think that logically this would make sense, and in some cases it does - for instance, would you want to pass on a painful or deadly genetic disorder to your children? It’s an interesting ethical dilemma which a lot of people are talking about these days with the rise of genetic testing and the ability to see what kinds of things you might pass on to your children.
However, it’s often not so cut and dried - people who survive because of medicine and hospitals might have other great qualities. Genetic variation is key to the survival of a species, and if we start artificially selecting for “good” traits we eliminate some of that. Also, how do we determine a persons value and whether or not they should survive? Just being physically well may not instantly make you more of a value to society. It’s nigh impossible to evaluate someone’s worth in such a large context.
And evolution occurs in a particular context - it adapts to fit that context and everything in it, including the fact that we have hospitals, etc. If we had always lived in societies like this, it’s very doubtful we would have evolved the same way. An example that’s often given are wings - the first animal to have a wing might have been a tree-climbing animal, and the wing was only helpful to him because it helped him survive when he fell. He might only have had 1% of a wing, but it helped him survive a fall from 1 inch higher up. Thus him and others like him were more likely to survive and reproduce and produce more offspring with wings, and the process repeats until you get an animal with a full wing. This process obviously takes a really, really long time though.
Evolution takes a really long time, but small adaptations in animals have been observed in our lifetimes. For example, a group of lizards which survived on one type of food got trapped on an island where that food was not available. Just 30 years later they were found to have evolved a part of their stomach which allowed them to more easily digest the food on the island. The individual lizards obviously did not evolve - the population did over generations.
Edit: Oops, just realized the thing about the lizards had already been posted.
I guess to give a quick and dirty answer to to OP’s original questions is that it hasnt really. Although humans may not be evolving as fast as we were previously because we are able to manipulate our environment instead of the other way around.
We can make eye glasses instead of evolving better eyes. We can make hearing aids instead of evolving better ears. We can create medicines that would normally kill off those who catch diseases or have hearts that pump ineffectively. We can perform surgery to correct birth defects that would be deadly otherwise.
All of these luxuries of the modern era, call it “Western Medicine” if you want, are probably having a real impact on the future course of what humans may have been.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Or hey, fuck it all, come down to Louisiana and learn how GAWD AWMIGHTY created the heavens and earth and created man, since we just passed a new bullshit creationist law.
I thought that was particularly curious considering the precident set in Dover a few years back. Dont you guys have a Creationist Museum as well, complete with Humans literally playing fetch with Dino?[/quote]
Yes we have a creationist museum. It really is that bad.
The current push by creationists are bullshit “academic freedom” laws, which basically state that kids don’t have to learn anything if their religion prevents it, or that teachers are free to teach alternatives to evolution. It’s all under the guise of kids being persecuted or indoctrinated in some way, when they want to teach something unscientific in a science class.
Of course, the alternatives to evolution are pretty much just “The magic man done it”.
[quote]nowakc wrote:
Evolution takes a really long time, but small adaptations in animals have been observed in our lifetimes. For example, a group of lizards which survived on one type of food got trapped on an island where that food was not available. Just 30 years later they were found to have evolved a part of their stomach which allowed them to more easily digest the food on the island. The individual lizards obviously did not evolve - the population did over generations.
Edit: Oops, just realized the thing about the lizards had already been posted.[/quote]
Nope, it was actually a different case. The one I posted was about the lizards (another group entirely) evolving longer legs to shake off ants.
The story you spoke of was about lizards who evolved “differences in head size and shape, increased bite strength and the development of new structures (a cecal valve) in the lizard?s digestive tracts were” … All of which occured in only 36 years. To be fair lizards have a very high rate of reproduction compared to humans, so its unlikely to witness something similar in humans.
[quote]Joe D. wrote:
Humans have stopped evolving becuase we are the dominant species on the planet, and due to medicine our young don’t die in childbirth - hence no need to evolve.
At least that’s what David Attenborough said on BBC news last week, he seems like quite a knowledgeable chap.[/quote]
I’ve heard of him and listened to his remarks. You would be wise to get your information about human evolution from someone else.
I really hope that this thread is a joke. If it isn’t, evolution has only stopped with the intelligence of the thread starter. If you wanted detailed information on this topic, try picking up a book on evolution instead of posting on a bodybuilding forum. I mean really.
[quote]nowakc wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
Ghost22 wrote:
Or hey, fuck it all, come down to Louisiana and learn how GAWD AWMIGHTY created the heavens and earth and created man, since we just passed a new bullshit creationist law.
I thought that was particularly curious considering the precident set in Dover a few years back. Dont you guys have a Creationist Museum as well, complete with Humans literally playing fetch with Dino?
Yes we have a creationist museum. It really is that bad.
The current push by creationists are bullshit “academic freedom” laws, which basically state that kids don’t have to learn anything if their religion prevents it, or that teachers are free to teach alternatives to evolution. It’s all under the guise of kids being persecuted or indoctrinated in some way, when they want to teach something unscientific in a science class.
Of course, the alternatives to evolution are pretty much just “The magic man done it”.[/quote]
The most recent tactic, since the courts decided that Intelligent Design wasnt science, is to force the teachers to teach the “Strengths and Weaknesses” of Evolution. This is basically just another tactic to pull a “See!! We dont know EVERYTHING about Evolution, so therefore there must be some other explanation…”
I dont get it… Why arent they happy with Sunday School? Cant they teach their kids whatever they want at their house and church?
You dont see schools teaching the Flat Earth Theory, the Stork Theory of babies, the Geocentric universe (The official position of the church for hundreds of years), or the ideas of the holocaust deniers (they exist) in history class. Let us teach SCIENCE in the SCIENCE class.
Or hey, heres an idea… LEARN THE THEORY AND OPEN YOUR EYES. Are you really that afraid that your religion might be wrong that you cant even listen to conflicting information? Wouldnt you be happy to learn the truth about the matter instead of persisting in delusion? Comfort is not a replacement for fact.
[quote]Da Vinci wrote:
I really hope that this thread is a joke. If it isn’t, evolution has only stopped with the intelligence of the thread starter. If you wanted detailed information on this topic, try picking up a book on evolution instead of posting on a bodybuilding forum. I mean really.[/quote]
Sadly thats usually the level of questions you get from someone who doesnt understand or hasnt read up on it. In this case it literally happened to be the typical “Why are there still monkey’s if we evolved from them?” stuff. Other classics include “Having half of an eye is useless, therefore evolving an eye is impossible”, “A watch implies a watchmaker, so therefore humans imply a human-maker.” There are other cross over topics like the Big Bang, a totally different theory, but it generally garners the same level of questions.
Most people just flat out dont take the time to learn about it and much of what they do learn is from Pastor Fred, who tends to give a totally inaccurate representation of the topic.
One of the most common misconceptions is that evolution explains how life began on the planet, this is false, evolution only explains change in a species over time. It says absolutely nothing about how life first originated, this called Abiogenesis… Something not entirely understood (by science) yet. I think Pastor Fred might have the answer though…
Alright all, time for bed. I’ll be back later.
Buy and read.
I’ve got a dumb question, since I have no background in post secondary genetics/biology/biochemistry/etc.
Is the DNA passed on in our sperm the exact same DNA we had right from the day we were born? Or is it altered a bit by the time you reproduce?
Good Posts, Lonnie.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Sadly thats usually the level of questions you get from someone who doesnt understand or hasnt read up on it. In this case it literally happened to be the typical “Why are there still monkey’s if we evolved from them?” stuff. Other classics include “Having half of an eye is useless, therefore evolving an eye is impossible”, “A watch implies a watchmaker, so therefore humans imply a human-maker.” There are other cross over topics like the Big Bang, a totally different theory, but it generally garners the same level of questions.
[/quote]
I gather you’ve read “The Blind Watchmaker” too, then?
[quote]power_bulker wrote:
I’ve got a dumb question, since I have no background in post secondary genetics/biology/biochemistry/etc.
Is the DNA passed on in our sperm the exact same DNA we had right from the day we were born? Or is it altered a bit by the time you reproduce?[/quote]
It’s altered. There is a small factor of mutation but also the factor that the sperm (and eggs for females) in our bodies are haploid, as opposed to the the rest of the cells in our body, which are diploid. This means that the sperm cells have half the number of chromosomes. We have a total of 46 chromosomes (unless you have trisomy or are polyploidy). 23 from your father and 23 from your mother and they can grouped into pairs. During meiosis, these chromosomes are randomly assorted so there are many variations. There is also the factor of crossing over where homologous non-sister chromatids exchange regions at the chiasmata. So, in theory, each person has the potential to create up to 2^23 gametes (assuming you are heterozygous at every gene) and without factoring in crossing over. If a male and female were to mate, the offspring could be 1 in over 7 trillion.
If our DNA stayed exactly the same when we passed them on, then a male and female would produce offspring that would essentially be clones each other. So your brother (assuming you are not identical twins) would be the clone of you even though you could be a few years apart.
[quote]Synthetickiller wrote:
Go read some books on the topic. Thanks for wasting 30 seconds of my life. I hope you’re happy.[/quote]
I’m happy you wasted 20 more seconds to post a reply … mission accomplished