Horizon - Have Humans Stopped Evolving?

[Parson]

Dave

You could not possibly be a creationist. You are far too gracious in accepting a debate point. A creationist could never possibly admit being wrong, in the slightest detail. It takes moral strength to do that!

I think that Gihe has a point. This statement is far too categorical. I might buy "most creationists could never..." and even that is likely too strong. A good number of creationists have never been exposed to well documented scientific evidence. And just because you are a person of faith does not mean that you don't have moral strength to admit being wrong. In fact a person of faith often sees him/herself as needing forgiveness and correction. --- I might add that there are a fair number of scientists who hold on to pet theories in spite of nearly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[Wybren]

Infant mortality can only select for factors that cause infants to die. If an immunity to AIDS sprang up somewhere in Africa it would pretty soon be widespread, just as very few European kids died of measles, while it hit the unprepared Amerinds hard.

There is actually a gene which provides immunity to HIV, it is a mutated form of the CCR5 gene called 'delta 32' it exists in about 10-15% of the Caucasian population, it also provides protection against the bubonic plague. Scientists have been working on ways to use it in the war against HIV for about 15 years now.

One thing that is changing: the so called sexual indicators that prove a man or a woman are “fit” to reproduce with. One example of that are, well… breasts. Most people will say that breasts are for feeding children, which they of course are, but apes have those as well, and you don’t see any of those strut around with a bust that is in a constant “swollen” state. There are some theories to this, most of which I’ll leave out because this is a family forum, but one plausible one is that the storage of fat is an important indicator for survivability for both the infant as the mother.

I studied this at Uni, if haven't already read them "Whats love got to do with it" by Merideth Small and "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley are good reads.

I don't think that human evolution has ceased, I dont think that it will ever cease until the last humans have disappeared, where we are going I dont know, but I suspect any future adaptations will have to do with adapting our bodies to the changing climate and perhaps within the brain.

 

[Dave]

There is actually a gene which provides immunity to HIV, it is a mutated form of the CCR5 gene called 'delta 32'...

I mentioned that back on page 1, but I didn't have the details, only a sketchy memory from a previous Horizon programme.

I suspect any future adaptations will have to do with adapting our bodies to the changing climate and perhaps within the brain.

But our population can only adapt if the 'unfit' individuals die before they are able to reproduce. The visit to the graveyard in the programme is only a part of it. We spend £Millions keeping premature babies alive in the developed world that the developing world leaves to die.

 

[Wybren]

But our population can only adapt if the 'unfit' individuals die before they are able to reproduce.

Or if people become even more selective in their breeding partners, but then we get a world like in the movie GATTACA where embryos are selected before implantation, which kind of takes the fun out of the whole thing.

The visit to the graveyard in the programme is only a part of it. We spend £Millions keeping premature babies alive in the developed world that the developing world leaves to die.

Well that I am thankful for, otherwise I wouldn't have my beautiful son, who was born at 33 weeks.

 

[Moonbat]

We spend £Millions keeping premature babies alive in the developed world that the developing world leaves to die.

We also have couples that can't reproduce naturally having a helping hand from science, and therefore passing on their genes which may (or may not) include an inability to concieve.
And by deduction, those that do have IVF (not a cheap procedure) have more money and so can give their children a better start in life and so (on average) the children grow up to be succesful adults and have families of their own (possibly using IVF) and eventually we get a whole class of people that can't reproduce without the help of science.

what about birth rate, it isn't uncommon here in the UK (and I have read that it is evolutionary sound) for lower income people to have more children (and sooner) than their age equivalent middle income earners. Personally I know a guy from my primary school who had his first kid at about 17, and has 3 boys now, and is in jail and I am yet to have any children, and will probably only have 1 or 2. this equates to 3 generations of his family for 2 of mine, will that mean his decendants evolve quicker than mine (I mean in terms of mutations per generation). Will that end up that those who are pumping out babies in their 20s compared to those that have a couple of (or just 1) children in their 30s will (over a long time period) have a better chance to adapt to the selective pressures of society/nature?

 

[Parson]

We also have couples that can't reproduce naturally having a helping hand from science, and therefore passing on their genes which may (or may not) include an inability to concieve.
And by deduction, those that do have IVF (not a cheap procedure) have more money and so can give their children a better start in life and so (on average) the children grow up to be succesful adults and have families of their own (possibly using IVF) and eventually we get a whole class of people that can't reproduce without the help of science.

what about birth rate, it isn't uncommon here in the UK (and I have read that it is evolutionary sound) for lower income people to have more children (and sooner) than their age equivalent middle income earners. Personally I know a guy from my primary school who had his first kid at about 17, and has 3 boys now, and is in jail and I am yet to have any children, and will probably only have 1 or 2. this equates to 3 generations of his family for 2 of mine, will that mean his decendants evolve quicker than mine (I mean in terms of mutations per generation). Will that end up that those who are pumping out babies in their 20s compared to those that have a couple of (or just 1) children in their 30s will (over a long time period) have a better chance to adapt to the selective pressures of society/nature?

If evolution is completely random, the long range answer (100 generations?) to your question is "yes." In the short term it's hard to say.

 

[Moonbat]

I don't think Evolution is completely random.
Genetic mutation is random, but selective pressures that act upon the usefullness of mutations the 'survival of the fittest' probably negate the randomness of mutation.
I am completely making this up and have little-to-no idea if this is accurate.

Going back to an earlier post, if Female basketball players are getting taller is that really evolution in action or just a temporary trend, time spans for evolution are enormous and so anything we see in our short lives isn't really evolution, is it?

 

[Parson]

I don't think Evolution is completely random.
Genetic mutation is random, but selective pressures that act upon the usefulness of mutations the 'survival of the fittest' probably negate the randomness of mutation.
I am completely making this up and have little-to-no idea if this is accurate.

Going back to an earlier post, if Female basketball players are getting taller is that really evolution in action or just a temporary trend, time spans for evolution are enormous and so anything we see in our short lives isn't really evolution, is it?

I posted about Female basketball players and I don't think it is proof of evolution either. What I said was if you were looking for a short term proof in humans that this was one place where it could be seen. I used Iowa because that's where I've lived and have followed girls basketball on the high school level (as a coach and as a fan) for nearly 40 years now, and probably more significantly large numbers of girls have played basketball here for approaching 90 years so it is unlikely that the answer to the question of taller girls is not likely to be a larger involvement by the girls. When I was coaching 40 years ago had at most 1 or 2 girls 6 ft. or better. It is now unusual for a similar sized school not to have 1 or 2 6 ft girls on the team. There are even some small (less than a 100 per class) schools to have a team that averages 6 ft. tall. All of this might point to some short term evolution toward taller people.

 

[Vertigo]

Moonbat - I do think you are right on the nail saying the genetic mutation is random but Evolution is absolutely not. It specifically favours the mutations that are useful.

As for Evolution I am fully convinced that at present it is effectively not happening. We have too much influence over the evolutionary controls. In other words we do our best to ensure the survival of humans that would otherwise not survive to pass on their genes. And Wybren I think you have also hit the nail on the head when you say that is no bad thing. Part of our evolution has been to favour social behaviour and therefore it is inevitable (and morally right of course) that we do everything we can do preserve the life of other humans, even if that means we are effectively stopping evolution.

Notice that I said "at present" up above. There are many factors that would start us on the road to evolving again. The most obvious would be a cataclysm (eg meteoroid impact) that effectively takes out all our technology and more importantly medicine and the luxury of spare resources that can be used to help others that can't help themselves. Another would be a pandemic; any highly infectious illness for which we have no cure has the potential to thrust us right back into rapid evolution.

However the most likely route back into evolution, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is that we take control of our own evolution through genetics. Under these circumstances I could easily see the human race diverging into different sub-species that eventually might not even be able to interbreed.

 

[Wybren]

Going back to an earlier post, if Female basketball players are getting taller is that really evolution in action or just a temporary trend, time spans for evolution are enormous and so anything we see in our short lives isn't really evolution, is it?

I raised this question once with my Palaeoanthropology professors -not of basketball players, my question was about height in impoverished nations v height in wealthier nations, small height is more energy conservative so they can survive with less nutrients than a very tall person - I was told that the increase in height is not due to any evolutionary practices, because for that to happen you need to restrict gene flow. The reason people are getting taller is because of better health and nutrition. When you take a child who was living in an impoverished nation and improve their conditions they will most likely reach their ultimate potential height, likewise if you take a child who has the potential to be very tall in later life.

 

[gihe]

Gihe, are you suggesting that some sort of god creating all life exactly as it is now is the simplest and therefore most likely solution? Consider, for a moment, the vast complexity of such a being. Now how did that being come to be? If you actually think about it, any explanation that doesn't involve a creator is simpler by default.

The argument that religion operates outside the boundaries of science is the most naive one you could possibly make, especially after saying that you are open to scientific evidence. It essentially says that your viewpoint is fixed no matter what proof is offered against it, as your god can't ever be touched by science.

As a side note, there are so many inconsistencies with Creationism that it is generally considered a joke by anyone who has cracked open a science textbook. For instance, Young Earth Creationism says the Earth is only around 6,000 years old because the first people were Adam and Eve and only so many generations have come from them. ALL scientific evidence says otherwise. You may want to look up Lucy, the Australopithecus skeleton discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia. The skeleton is over 3 million years old, and is not even the oldest known hominid.

Of course YEC differs greatly from Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Gap Creationism, and Day Age Creationism. These are all based on the Bible, but there are also countless forms of creationism based on other religions and not a single one has any shred of evidence backing it.

I'm guessing your second question is rhetorical, because I have no way of answering it. Perhaps a good starting point would be to postulate that a Creator would be a good deal more complex than a single nucleotide on a strand of DNA. Maybe science can attempt to prove it....

Anyway, I hadn't intended to veer into religious posturing to deliberately stir things up (although, in retrospect, I should have realised ). I was genuinely interested in the Horizon programme because it raised some interesting questions about why I believe what I do. Had I been created to be religious or had I evolved into it? Are we now evolving into an inherently atheist species? There are still many millions like myself, so I don't consider myself unusual.

I also hadn't realised there were so many forms of Creationism! How ridiculous...and, sadly, how predictable. "Religionists" just love to categorise themselves: 7th Day Adventists, Catholics, Pentecostal, Zionists etc etc etc. I have no interest in that. I don't subscribe to clubs or sects or denominations.
I have no problem accepting that scientific evidence has carbon-dated a skeleton to over 3 million years. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the observed age of the Universe. And I agree that no creationist stance has a shred of evidence - how could it? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator. Any evidence would support both constructs. You could never categorically say that something was not created. You cannot deny that the possibility exists. So no, I don't think I'm being naive when I say that religion operates outside the sphere of science. It clearly does.
Anyway, this is quite enough philosophy for this forum and I will shut up now. Thanks all for your (mainly) interesting and well-informed comments.

P.S. I have now read about the mammalian jawbone/ossicles theory (thanks Moonbat (with a capital M)) and it looks plausible. I shall not use the macro-evolution argument again without considering this example as a potential counter-argument. However, it still does not convince me that an evolutionary process is responsible for the vast and complex biodiversity of life - and all the information within it - originating from a single cell. And, even I was ultimately convinced, I would still posit that that single cell did not arise from non-living matter but was created.

 

[Heck Tate]

I recently researched this topic a bit and found a variety of results ranging from "human evolution has stopped" to "human evolution is speeding up." I was looking for a story I know I heard a few years back about some islanders who had very little contact with the rest of the world and had a diet of fish and not much else. The people had webbed hands and feet, some film in their eyes which allowed them to see better underwater, and could hold their breaths longer than the average person. Unfortunately I couldn't find it, so maybe the whole thing was just wishful thinking on my part. I did find a couple of interesting articles relating to the subject, however. One about a remote cannibal tribe in New Guinea with a gene that protects against kuru, the human equivalent of mad cow disease Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action - life - 19 November 2009 - New Scientist.
The other is a lengthy NOVA article entitled "Are We Still Evolving?" After reading the whole thing, the answer is the equivalent of a shrug, but it was interesting nonetheless.
NOVA | Are We Still Evolving?

 

[Vertigo]

Heh heh I think you got it in one there with the shrug. I suspect the only answer is: "I dunno, I'll tell you in a couple of thousand years if I'm still around!"

 

[Dave]

I would still posit that that single cell did not arise from non-living matter but was created.

How are you defining your "non-living matter" exactly?

There are things like rusting iron, oil bubbles and crystals, that will grow, multiply and divide; even move; form membranes, and use chemical reactions, but do not have DNA. However, there are things like viruses that have DNA, but nothing else.

And in any case, Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

But here we are again straying away from 'Horizon: Have Humans Stopped Evolving?" Evolution itself is not in doubt in this thread because it was not in doubt in the programme. If you want to hijack this thread and promote Creationism then I will close it down.

 

[gihe]

How are you defining your "non-living matter" exactly?

There are things like rusting iron, oil bubbles and crystals, that will grow, multiply and divide; even move; form membranes, and use chemical reactions, but do not have DNA. However, there are things like viruses that have DNA, but nothing else.

And in any case, Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

But here we are again straying away from 'Horizon: Have Humans Stopped Evolving?" Evolution itself is not in doubt in this thread because it was not in doubt in the programme. If you want to hijack this thread and promote Creationism then I will close it down.

I'm not "promoting" anything. I had merely stated my thoughts which arose from watching the Horizon programme in the hope that they would provide a point of debate. Isn't that what a forum is for? Admittedly, I was circling around the edge of the topic but it was nonetheless interesting to read the responses and links that people supplied.

Intriguing use of the word "hijack". I can assure you I'm not some kind of mad-bomber-religious-extremist but perhaps you should close this thread anyway - just in case. You simply can't trust these religious types, can you?

 

[gihe]

Oh, and while you're at it - you may as well deactivate my account. I won't be crying into my pillow, in case you were wondering.

 

[Heck Tate]

And in any case, Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

Wow, I hadn't seen anything about that before but it's really cool. I notice that that article is a couple of years old, not to bring us any more off track but has there been any progress on that recently?

 

[Dave]

Just to clarify, in case you get the wrong idea, gihe has been banned from the forum by another moderator, not for what he said here, but because he was a spammer, posting multiple nonsense posts on the forum to reach a level where he would be able to post links. I strongly suspect now that he was also a troll and didn't really actually believe what he said but was trying to stir up an argument here.

That is one reason why we have a policy of not discussing these issues here any more because they always result in over-heated arguments and lead to problems that the moderators here really don't need. In addition, if you want to see such views expressed search for old threads where the arguments, usually cyclical in nature, are fully developed already, and I seriously doubt anything new can be added. Thirdly, Brian has a very good sister website, already pointed out in this thread, which deals with these religious arguments. We are a science fiction forum primarily dedicated to discussing all things science fiction.

Now normal service is resumed...

 

[The Procrastinator]

Personally, I've given up evolving for Lent.

 

[Vertigo]

heh heh! I think I stopped when I was sixteen!