Is humanity still evolving?

[Dannyalcatraz]

(Looks in mirror)

Yes, yes I am.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

2*post

 

[Kramodlog]

For a divining black ball, you sure can't see that your post was successfully made the first time.

Boo... ya?

 

[Morrus]

But does that mean that we stop evolving biologically? How does human biology react to our technology? Our cancer rates seem to be related to our industrial mode of production, can a cancer resistant individual immerge from it?

Well, I'm not sure that a distinction between 'biological' and 'technological' evolution have much (or will have any) practical meaning any more other than the theoretical - it's all just different ways in which we change. But purely biological change won't stop happening until either we go extinct or we become completely technological. Perhaps we'll evolve to become cancer resistant as you suggest - personally I think us (hopefully) developing a cure *is* us evolving to become cancer resistant.

I mean, we're getting taller and our lifespans are increasing. That's evolution. It's happening in response to our environment: our environment is one becoming more technological and with better nutrition, and we're changing right along with it. But then getting shorter and our lifespans decreasing would be evolution, too - just not as appealing!

Evolution is driven by reproduction. Whatever helps genes get reproduced, whether that's perceived as an 'improvement' or not. Whether we classify those changes as biological, technological, psychological, cultural, societal - all these things are just different types of changes prompted by our environment, and they're all facets of evolution.

I love theories about how we'll evolve. The "we'll eventually become machines" theory is a popular one. We'll certainly becomes *part* machine in the not to distant future (hell, we already are - our senses and other abilities which we use daily are increased through tools - they're not, with the exception of pacemakers and stuff, physically attached to us yet, but they're as good as part of us).

Tl;dr version: in answer to your question, no I don't think we'll stop changing biologically unless we becomes completely technological.

 

[Umbran]

I'll disagree with Morrus slightly. We are still evolving in the way other animals do. The fact that we manipulate our environment doesn't change how we evolve - it merely changes exactly what features are chosen for or against. In some cases, that means we change to take advantage of the technology.

For example, hominids discovered and tamed fire before our species evolved. We have evolved with fire as a base assumption of our existence. The end result is that our digestive tract is no longer suited to deal with an all-raw diet! We have adapted to use fire, our guts are not designed to get more nutrition out of less food by cooking it, to the point where if we don't cook it, we don't have the machinery to get nearly as much nutrition out of it as do creatures who don't use fire.

 

[Morrus]

I'll disagree with Morrus slightly. We are still evolving in the way other animals do. The fact that we manipulate our environment doesn't change how we evolve - it merely changes exactly what features are chosen for or against. In some cases, that means we change to take advantage of the technology.

For example, hominids discovered and tamed fire before our species evolved. We have evolved with fire as a base assumption of our existence. The end result is that our digestive tract is no longer suited to deal with an all-raw diet! We have adapted to use fire, our guts are not designed to get more nutrition out of less food by cooking it, to the point where if we don't cook it, we don't have the machinery to get nearly as much nutrition out of it as do creatures who don't use fire.

Oh, we're still changing, for sure. What I meant was that our change was influenced by our own use of tools, whereas an animal's isn't. (That said, animals are affected by *our* use of tools and the way that changes our environment).

 

[Elf Witch]

I do think we are changing sometimes not for the best. Due to advances in medical science we now save people with genetic issues so that they can go on and have children and pass these issues on and keep them in the gene pool. On the other hand this same medical science allows us to live longer healthier lives.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yes, we still are. Unless a lifeform is somehow immune to mutation or transcription error or variances, it evolves.

 

[Nellisir]

I mean, we're getting taller and our lifespans are increasing. That's evolution.

I think there's a perspective from which you could say that, but I think it's truer that those are environmental results, not evolutionary/genetic. They are the result of increased nutrition for children, and better medical care throughout life.

Our cancer rates seem to be related to our industrial mode of production, can a cancer resistant individual immerge from it?

Our cancer rates are related to a) the byproducts of our industrial society in our environment; b) our increased lifespans; and c) the increase in population, particularly populations which carry a recessive trait. The more Ashkenazi Jews there are, the more cases of diseases common to that population you will encounter (ie, Cystic Fibrosis; Tay-Sachs disease; Canavan disease; Bloom Syndrome; Fanconi Anemia - Type C).

In theory, yes, the larger a population, the more outliers you will have. The percentage remains the same, but the actual quantity of individuals per percentage increases. The difficulty would be in recognizing a cancer-immune person (how are they different from someone who just doesn't have cancer?) Also, cancers spring from different sources. I'm not familiar enough with them to say that there's a single magic bullet that will render someone immune to viruses that cause cancers (oncovirus), versus cancers that might arise from a different source.

The medical treatment of our physical bodies is far outstripping evolution right now. Even if a naturally cancer-immune person arose, how many thousands of years would it take for that person's genes to become omnipresent throughout the human race without gene therapy?

I think evolution in humans is, at least for now, more likely in areas that we aren't fully aware of, and in the areas that make us most "human". Areas of sociability, adaptability, and communication. Maybe people that are less comfortable around other people are less likely to reproduce in today's society, so we will gradually become more open to others (a happy thought!).

 

[Nellisir]

The big question is "Is there a difference between evolution and genetic engineering?" If I introduce genes to my child that improve her eyesite (boost rod & cone production), and those changes are transmitted to her children...is that evolution or engineering? If those traits are still breeding true in a thousand years, what is it? What if. after thirty thousand years, every human is one of her descendants and has those traits?

We've "evolved" pretty much every domestic animal in existence by creating environments that select for particular traits. Sometimes those "environments" are us (we kill aggressive dogs because they bite us); sometimes those environments are ones we put the animal into (we use bloodhounds to track scent, not water retrieval. That's labs, poodles, newfies, and such.) It's not as direct as genetic engineering, but it's still artificial.