Is humanity still evolving?

[Bedrockgames]

The fact that food and respiratory allergies align with income suggests environmental considerations, rather than genetic, at least for now.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db121.htm

(I make an effort to get my daughter out-of-doors and around/handling animals; I don't know if that's why, but she doesn't have any allergies, hurrah))

That is true but they could also be genetic disorders that triggered by environmental causes. I believe there is also an increase in autoimmune diseases that are genetic, but these increases, like allergies, are associated with income levels (i could be wrong though, as I am going from memory here).

 

[Kramodlog]

Fair enough. Seem I had a poor example buried in the middle of my post. Glad you spotted it!

It is considered bad form to agree with me.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

We sure do, but the focus or direction of evolution changes.

Morrus has already mentioned the technological component which lessens the pressure of natural selection.

Another aspect is the societal evolution. Evolution of societies is even today surpassing the evolution of individuals. The importance of the evolutionary status of a single human being is negligible compared to the staus of the society he lives in.

I'm just like an algae cell in a volvox globator: I could survive on my own (more or less) but it's the collective I'm being part of which leaves a mark in the world.

 

[Janx]

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.

Indeed.

Which is where there may be some flawed thinking in the primitive diet trend going on right now. Eating stuff cavemen ate may not be compatible with our guts because we don't have caveman guts anymore. Though there are some indicators that some of that diet is pretty healthy compared to eating processed crap all day.

The getting taller isn't necessarily evolution, so much as diet. The Japanese are getting taller because they are eating more beef. Revert the next generation's diet and you'll likely get short Japanese people again.

I'm not actually against evolution. Evolution is just the natural version of selective breeding to get Basset Hounds from wild wolves.

One possible outcome of evolution on humans is further compatibility with technology. If we started embedding tech in out bodies to be cyborgs, and some % of the population had allergic/medical reactions that drove them out of the gene pool, then we would evolve toward a population that responds favorably to such implants.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Nature doesn't understand your notions of "best".

See my comments about fire - we are adapted to use fire to cook food. Period. Is that "better" or "worse" than not being so adapted? The human assessment of that doesn't matter - it is "better" in that it seems to have increased our survivability, compared to the other hominids at the time it arose.

So, we have modern medicine. Fine - maybe those folks who work well with modern medicine (they take transplants well, they have fewer reactions to medications, and so on) will have a marginally better survival chance. But then, "modern" medical care is perhaps a century old, and we are talking about changes that take millennia. It is too soon to say.

 

[Umbran]

Which is where there may be some flawed thinking in the primitive diet trend going on right now. Eating stuff cavemen ate may not be compatible with our guts because we don't have caveman guts anymore. Though there are some indicators that some of that diet is pretty healthy compared to eating processed crap all day.

Well, most processed crap is, well, crap.

And there certainly are problems with several of the primitive diet trends. "Raw" diets are, as I noted, not what our bodies are really adapted to anymore. Spinach is a great example. Lots of folks say, "i'll eat a spinach salad! It's healthy, and has lots of nutrients!" Except that those nutrients are locked behind sturdy cell walls that a gorilla can manage, but we cannot. We need to cook spinach briefly to get those nutrients out.

The other side of "primitive" diets is eliminating that which came specifically with civilization - basically grains. That one, my posit doesn't really speak to.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And there certainly are problems with several of the primitive diet trends. "Raw" diets are, as I noted, not what our bodies are really adapted to anymore. Spinach is a great example. Lots of folks say, "i'll eat a spinach salad! It's healthy, and has lots of nutrients!" Except that those nutrients are locked behind sturdy cell walls that a gorilla can manage, but we cannot. We need to cook spinach briefly to get those nutrients out.

.

Cooking and pasteurization also eliminate a lot of potentially harmful bacteria.

 

[Umbran]

Seems more like his opinion than something backed with actual data.

Agreed. As science reporting, that was... processed crap, much like the dietary processed crap. Yes, you'll get dumber if you live on a steady mental diet of that!

(I could spend time ripping it apart, if folks want to see some of the classic flaws of bad science reporting elucidated. However, I don't want to bore folks with stuff that I dearly want to assume they already know.)

 

[Herschel]

Yes, we are still evolving, most evidence shows that.

However, if internet message boards and comments sections were to be used as "evidence" then one could make a strong argument for devolution.

 

[Umbran]

That is true but they could also be genetic disorders that triggered by environmental causes. I believe there is also an increase in autoimmune diseases that are genetic, but these increases, like allergies, are associated with income levels (i could be wrong though, as I am going from memory here).

Well, now you have to be careful.

Can you tell the difference between a "genetic disorder" and a fairly normal genetic composition that simply can't handle the amount of crap we now dump into our environments, or the way we raise some of our kids?

Consider - what have we done more of in the past centuries: changed our genetics, or changed our environment and behavior? Are you really convinced that children from, say, 300 or 500 years ago, moved into our current environments, would not develop similar problems?

Note that the correlation of allergy and autoimmune disease to income level goes a bit against what many would expect. Your chance of having a problem *increases* with your income level - rich kids are more likely to have allergies and autoimmune diseases than poor kids.