Horizon - Have Humans Stopped Evolving?

[cornelius]

Sorry, that was what I meant to say. I'm allowed one mistake every 1000 posts.

Also, I said base 16 would be a good base to use for a numbering system because I was thinking it is divisible by 2, 4 and 8. But Vertigo is correct with 12 being better as it is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6. It is the reason that things are still made and sold by the dozen, even today in our pre-packaged, automated world.

My favourite number is 36. 1,2,3,4,6,9,12,18,36... See what I mean?

Isn't that just wonderful?

No?

It boggles my mind how people can throw the Mayans around like they were masters of the universe. Or how the Egyptians used alien technology to make the pyramids. The thing about evolution is that it usually goes "slow"- I don't think our cognitive abilities have grown that much in the past 5000 years, we simply learned how to use it better by sharing technology as a group. We learned how to "tame" fire because now we didn't have to chew on the same chunck of meat for 10 hrs in order to digest it. That suddenly moved "eating" from fulltime to part-time, leaving us more time to "think", make tools, clothes, art...
When some tribes ventured away from the african homeland, they needed to invent things to increase survivability. In the "dry" regions of mesopotamia, they needed a better way to acquire food, which led to farming and sedentarisation. Up in the north (Europe/Asia) they needed to be inventive because there was little food and constant cold. This was a little set-back, but it made sure that only the "smartest" would survive. As soon as they figured out a way to survive, they can think of ways to make life easier. It kind of went on from there.

Better food - more time - more thinking- more ways to improve life- bigger tribes- more people to think + combined forces -ways needed to store information to store and share,...- even more people +combined forces - cities- unique jobs, some people become thinkers as a full time job while others farm, make clothes,...- more time to invent, more needs to invent stuff for- need for regulations such as economics, politics, mass communication, warfare -

(very crude timeline, but I hope you get the idea)

Mayans/Egyptians put there focus on one main idea and managed to profoundly explore it. They weren't that much smarter than the rest of us. Every now and then you have a genius that throws in a unique perspective, so we can be pretty sure there was a Mayan "Da Vinci" who had an idea no other man/woman had thought of before, and managed to implement it as a way of life.

The "on topic" bit about numbers and the mayans is that both pretty much are part of the human evolution. If we can focus on stuff like astronomy together, we're bound to come up with things that may seem super-advanced for the time, but are in fact a product of the same mind-typologie we have today.

 

[skeptical]

The Mayans were advanced paleolithic. They lacked most of the technology even the Hittites had. They did not have bronze, or iron, or even the wheel.

Face it. they were backward barbarians with nothing to offer modern day civilisation. When the Spanish arrived, they had no answers.

 

[Dave]

It was lack of resistance to our diseases that wiped them out though, not superior weapons or fighting ability. Diseases that had passed to humans from the animals they kept indoors with them in our festering European/Asian cities, because the climate made it too cold to leave them outdoors over Winter. The Europeans/Asians obviously did develop a resistance to these diseases over the much longer period of exposure. But the question is can you call that Evolution? I'd say it was still just natural selection.

Intelligence - no, I agree, we are no more intelligent. Not so that it could be measured anyway.

 

[chrispenycate]

But one population developing resistance to what later becomes a major cause of death is almost the epitome of evolutionary selection. Admittedly disease survival doesn't often go far enough to lead to speciation (largely, I suspect, because the immunity genes are not linked to anything that effects reproduction, so the constant stirring of the genetic cauldron keeps us reproductively compatible) but physical conditions, such as the lack of sunlight in the far north demanding more transparent, paler skin, have caused the racial (yes, I know, politically incorrect, but how else would you define a largish population of humans with common recognisable physical features?) which could, with lots more time, more isolation and less navigation, have caused cross fertility to become physiologically unlikely; perhaps like losing the other hominids.

But human evolution could continue without further mutation, were the death rate high enough and sufficiently selective; genetic diversity within the present population already offers far more opportunities than are generally expressed. You only need a tight enough selection factor, and a very fast population increase among the survivors…

 

[Vertigo]

That's an interesting point Chrispy, I'm no expert but as I understand it evolution works much faster in isolated populations, where I guess the gene mix is more limited. So I suppose the growing global nature of modern day society and the resulting huge gene pool could present another block to evolution.

And Moonbat, I suspect that if we had developed a numbering system based on a prime number we would have figured out fractions much sooner than we did and maybe Archimedes might have figured out relativity . It is an interesting thought!

 

[Dave]

Yes Chris, I agree with everything in your post. Through Family History research I have become quite interested in y Chromosomal studies and what it can tell us about the movement and spread of ancient peoples. It is only one single Chromosome (though in 15-20 years they could probably be doing it for every human gene) but even so, it very clearly maps the movement of humans out of Africa and into Europe and Asia, across to America and down to Australia, and several different waves from Asia to Europe. Each Haplotype must relate to a population that at some point was isolated and was then subjected to some kind of stress - food shortages, climate change and loss of habitats - they can actually date these genetic events and match them to palaeoclimatological events. It is fascinating. Of course, none of these Haplotypes are directly related to a visible genotype - the pale skin, blue eyes, ginger hair kind of thing you mentioned - but that will probably come once they have decoded the whole human genome.

One other thing I thought of though, if the Mayans could predict the future, how come they never saw their demise?

 

[Moonbat]

Hmmm, Clouded the future is.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That means its going to rain!

 

[Heck Tate]

One other thing I thought of though, if the Mayans could predict the future, how come they never saw their demise?

I use that one all the time, to varying effect. I also recently found this The Fall of the Maya: 'They Did it to Themselves' - NASA Science which basically says that deforestation caused all their fertile soil to run-off into the ocean. Apparently it took a lot of fire to make the bricks for their massive architectural wonders. Ironic, isn't it? There are actually several theories on what caused the death of Mayan civilization, but most of their society collapsed suddenly in the 8th-9th centuries, long before any documented Spanish invasion.

 

[Liz Bent]

The Mayans were advanced paleolithic. They lacked most of the technology even the Hittites had. They did not have bronze, or iron, or even the wheel.

Face it. they were backward barbarians with nothing to offer modern day civilisation. When the Spanish arrived, they had no answers.

If the Mayans were advanced enough to predict the future apocalypse in 2012, why didn't they do something about the Spanish? A more likely explanation is that 2012 was far enough in the future that they didn't bother designing a calendar system that would last longer than that.

As for the evolution of humans, someone I spoke to a long time ago argued that the evolutionary rules are changing for humans- people are reproducing now that wouldn't have survived childhood 100 years ago. Instead, perhaps we are experiencing more of a "social evolution", in the sense that your ability to exist and procreate is less dependent on genes and more dependent on the social status of your family, and/or the ideas you have.

 

[Parson]

As for the evolution of humans, someone I spoke to a long time ago argued that the evolutionary rules are changing for humans- people are reproducing now that wouldn't have survived childhood 100 years ago. Instead, perhaps we are experiencing more of a "social evolution", in the sense that your ability to exist and procreate is less dependent on genes and more dependent on the social status of your family, and/or the ideas you have.

The idea that we are changing the rules of evolution has some logic going for it. But your last sentence I find unlikely. If my personal experience has any basis in a larger reality, I would say that number of offspring a person has tends to be inversely proportional to their educational and financial achievement.

 

[skeptical]

On human evolution.
I repeat my earlier (much earlier - this is a long thread!) statement.
Natural evolution really is not an issue with human genetic change, any more. The future lies with deliberate and carefully planned genetic change. Very like the movie, Gattaca.

In 100 years, plus or minus a bit, we can expect 'designer babies' to be the norm. This will initially be expensive, but as with all things, the price will drop. I expect advanced robotics by then, to handle the tedious and physically microscopic details.

Parents in that time will choose micro-changes to their baby's genome, to ensure it is healthy, grows tall, athletic, intelligent, good looking, and long lived. That is the future of human evolution over the next few centuries.

Long term, who knows?
I could imagine gene changes to (for example) make humans who can tolerate massive doses of radiation, so that they can live and work in space vessels. Perhaps tolerate microgravity. The changes that will occur, especially away from Earth, are probably beyond our current imaginations. I suspect that, if we were to live a million years, we would struggle to recognise our descendents.

 

[Liz Bent]

I use that one all the time, to varying effect. I also recently found this The Fall of the Maya: 'They Did it to Themselves' - NASA Science which basically says that deforestation caused all their fertile soil to run-off into the ocean. Apparently it took a lot of fire to make the bricks for their massive architectural wonders. Ironic, isn't it? There are actually several theories on what caused the death of Mayan civilization, but most of their society collapsed suddenly in the 8th-9th centuries, long before any documented Spanish invasion.

There's actually a book- I apologize, I read parts of it when I was doing my Ph.D., so that's more than a decade ago, so I've forgotten the book title and author- that was essentially written as a treatise on how many societies collapsed as a result of ecological damage done via deforestation. The book started with ancient examples and worked its way up to modern times. Fascinating stuff. I wish I could recall more about it.

 

[Liz Bent]

The idea that we are changing the rules of evolution has some logic going for it. But your last sentence I find unlikely. If my personal experience has any basis in a larger reality, I would say that number of offspring a person has tends to be inversely proportional to their educational and financial achievement.

Well, yes, certain groups of people may breed more- but how long do their offspring live? Depending on where they live, and whether their parents have access to good health care, not necessarily long enough to procreate. Witness the high infant mortality rate in Mississippi, for example.

 

[Parson]

Well, yes, certain groups of people may breed more- but how long do their offspring live? Depending on where they live, and whether their parents have access to good health care, not necessarily long enough to procreate. Witness the high infant mortality rate in Mississippi, for example.

I'm not sure that's relevant. Infant mortality is a null. What counts is the amount of those infants who themselves mature and produce offspring.

 

[Liz Bent]

On human evolution.
I repeat my earlier (much earlier - this is a long thread!) statement.
Natural evolution really is not an issue with human genetic change, any more. The future lies with deliberate and carefully planned genetic change. Very like the movie, Gattaca.

In 100 years, plus or minus a bit, we can expect 'designer babies' to be the norm. This will initially be expensive, but as with all things, the price will drop. I expect advanced robotics by then, to handle the tedious and physically microscopic details.

Parents in that time will choose micro-changes to their baby's genome, to ensure it is healthy, grows tall, athletic, intelligent, good looking, and long lived. That is the future of human evolution over the next few centuries.

Long term, who knows?
I could imagine gene changes to (for example) make humans who can tolerate massive doses of radiation, so that they can live and work in space vessels. Perhaps tolerate microgravity. The changes that will occur, especially away from Earth, are probably beyond our current imaginations. I suspect that, if we were to live a million years, we would struggle to recognise our descendents.

I'm torn about this scenario. On the one hand, I can see a demand for "designer babies". On the other hand, the technology will at first be unproven and there will be mistakes- "designer babies" that do not turn out as planned. A child intended to be super intelligent instead has severe autism, for example. Also, there are a lot of epigenetic factors in the expression of genomes that may influence the phenotype of the offspring, so the conditions under which the fetus is incubated (either in some kind of vat, or in a mother's womb) will be as important as the actual genes when it comes to "designing" a baby.

I can see an outcry against this kind of technology simply on the basis of a few "designer babies" that wind up with some sort of strange disease or unwanted, possibly monstrous, phenotype (and possibly also on the basis of this technology being "unnatural" and "playing God"). It is possible that, just as cloning of humans is illegal, the manufacture of designer babies, while possible, would also be considered illegal in much of the world because of public outcry.

 

[skeptical]

Elizabeth

Was your book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond?

On designer babies and errors.

Yes, you are right. In the short term, there will be errors, followed by an outcry. Any new reproductive technology always stimulates an outcry of opposition. Longer term, as more and more babies are born consequent to the new technology, and people see that they are just babies, the outcry fades.

 

[Liz Bent]

Elizabeth

Was your book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond?

It wasn't, actually, but that looks like a good book as well. The one I am thinking of was written specifically about forestry, and was in the forestry section of my university's library. It might be cited in "Collapse".

Elizabeth

On designer babies and errors.

Yes, you are right. In the short term, there will be errors, followed by an outcry. Any new reproductive technology always stimulates an outcry of opposition. Longer term, as more and more babies are born consequent to the new technology, and people see that they are just babies, the outcry fades.

I think my point was that the short-term failures will result in legislation that makes it difficult for additional "designer" babies to be born, or for research to be conducted in this area to move the technology forward. Isn't it currently illegal in Europe to allow in vitro fertilization labs to choose the sex of the fetus, for example, while it is legal in other parts of the world? If UK parents want to choose the sex of their offspring, they have to travel to the United States.

If most of the world decides that "designer" babies are philosophically unjustifiable, the babies won't be born. Human reproductive clones won't be made any time in Europe, Australia, the US or countries that follow the UN declaration on human cloning due to philosophical objections, even though the technology exists to accomplish this right now.

 

[K. Riehl]

One successful genius developed this way would tempt a government to decide to quietly try for a few genius children to help with actual and perceived problems.

In Cyteen by C J Cherryh the "specials" were considered the greatest resource on their respective planets.

 

[skeptical]

I look at the old attitudes toward artificial insemination of humans. Back in the 1960's, it was considered an abomination. However, over time, society has changed its views, and this practise is now common.

Designer babies will probably begin in some country where the laws permit it, and the government sees the 'tourism' from would-be parents of designer babies as an economic asset. In due course, enough such babies will be born, and be seen to be just babies, albeit healthier, better looking, more athletic, and more intelligent. Then, the demand will pick up in countries with designer baby bans, and the laws will change.

Society is not static, and what appears terrible today will be normal tomorrow.

 

[Dave]

But International laws have been made for a reason. Maybe you are right, I certainly hope so, rather than have some Boys From Brazil scenario.

However, I don't share the view that designer babies would be necessarily "healthier, better looking, more athletic, and more intelligent." Some of those measurements are surely in the eye of the beholder. We have discussed this before in another thread, but I see the fashion in children's names and the whole classes of a certain age of Jasons and Kylies (and Chardonnays - I mean who names their kid after a bottle of wine?) (Not to mention Princess, Apple, etc.)

If we leave these things to what is popular at the moment we would now have whole classes of David Beckham and Posh Spice look-a-likes. What hope for the Human race then? Under those circumstances, what appears normal today, would certainly appear terrible tomorrow!