Has man stopped evolving?

[Skwim]

I think after the apocalypse, it will return back to Adam and Eve again. *grin*

Well. if one compares womens fashion today, as Illustrated in the diagram, with that of A&E, it looks like we're all set to go.


.

 

[Kirran]

Quibble: Homo sapiens aren't descended from Neanderthals, they're sister species.

 

[Skwim]

Quibble: Homo sapiens aren't descended from Neanderthals, they're sister species.

That's why the dates overlap.

 

[PackJason]

No, evolution never stops.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm not sure that greater brain capacity makes it more likely you'll have a lot of kids.

The heads of human babies are big enough to birth as it is. I envy whales and porpoises. Whales have much bigger brains than us, but their heads are shaped more, er, ergonomically for birthing purposes. Plus, they come out tail-first.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Has man stopped evolving?

Other than being a little taller from a better diet and choosing taller mates what evolution is happening in modern man and if it has stopped why?

What do you think would start and/or stop the evolution of a species and what could restart that evolution in modern man?

apparently so, if we ever began.. What evolution is observable happening in any species?

 

[Milton Platt]

Has man stopped evolving?

Other than being a little taller from a better diet and choosing taller mates what evolution is happening in modern man and if it has stopped why?

What do you think would start and/or stop the evolution of a species and what could restart that evolution in modern man?

Every living life form continually evolves from one generation to the next, so your question is a non-starter. Death of all members of the species would stop the evolution of a given life form.

 

[Dante Writer]

Every living life form continually evolves from one generation to the next, so your question is a non-starter. Death of all members of the species would stop the evolution of a given life form.

Did you even click the link? Evolution is a change of allele frequencies in a population over time. The only way a population can avoid a change of allele frequencies is by meeting all of the Hardy-Weinberg criteria. Since no population meets all the criteria, it evolves.

(1) Mutation is not necessary for a population to evolve, as the link I posted earlier shows.
(2) Mutations that increase fitness have been documented, such as nylonase in certain bacteria, AZT-resistance in HIV, aerobic citrate metabolism in E.coli, pesticide resistance in insects, and sickle-cell heterozygous individuals.

That's not necessary for evolution to happen.

Bacterial resitance is not adequate to substantiate your position:

"Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution."

https://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.php

Keep trying!

 

[Dante Writer]

Did you even click the link? Evolution is a change of allele frequencies in a population over time. The only way a population can avoid a change of allele frequencies is by meeting all of the Hardy-Weinberg criteria. Since no population meets all the criteria, it evolves.

(1) Mutation is not necessary for a population to evolve, as the link I posted earlier shows.
(2) Mutations that increase fitness have been documented, such as nylonase in certain bacteria, AZT-resistance in HIV, aerobic citrate metabolism in E.coli, pesticide resistance in insects, and sickle-cell heterozygous individuals.

That's not necessary for evolution to happen.

Bacterial resistance is not evidence of evolution:

"Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution."

https://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.php

 

[Dante Writer]

Is there a reason you're assuming that evolution promotes positive traits? How are you defining 'positive'?

Positive traits would be something that helps the organism to survive or thrive that would be beneficial to it's offspring.

 

[Dante Writer]

The idea of evolution stopping just doesn’t make sense. It’s an inevitable aspect of sexual reproduction. Offspring get a genetic makeup that is a combination of those of their parents. That’s evolution regardless of the practical consequences. That doesn’t mean there will always be noticeable changes within a species, especially over relatively short periods of time but that wouldn’t mean we’re not still subject to evolution though. It’s like multiplying by one. 2 X 2 = 4 - It’s been subject to multiplication and has changed. 2 X 1 = 2 - It hasn’t changed but it’s still been subject to multiplication.

We could well be slowing the notable progress of evolutionary changes in our own species though (and others for that matter). Given that one of the key drivers of evolutionary changes is changes in environment, the fact we manage and control our environment so much now could well be a factor in reducing the scale and scope of evolutionary changes we’re subject to. We also have much more mixing and less division between sub-groups reducing the opportunity for divergent evolutionary changes. If a group of humans settled on another planet, I suspect they could relatively rapidly evolve identifiable differences from the population that remained on Earth due to the different environment and isolated population.

Regardless, there is still evidence of relatively recent evolutionary changes in humans. This article gives some examples; http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/evolution-is-still-happening-beneficial-mutations-in-humans

I do not agree that the simple passing of of parent DNA to offspring is evolution. Unless that mating results in an off spring that has significantly different traits from the parents that in some way benefits the offspring to survive and thrive and is maintained in the next generation from that off spring it is not evolution.

For example: If the off spring was born with better night vision and that trait was desirable because it increased chances for survival of that offspring then we would see that being passed on through mating to the next generations and you would have generations of humans with different abilities specific to their region and survival pressures.

Darker skin melanin is an example of a survival evolution.

Are we seeing any changes linked to a survival of the species that would be considered evolution today?

What pressure might climate change put on humans that could start a significant evolution for survival?

That is what I am interested in.

 

[Dante Writer]

Less body weight and wings, we don't trust the planes anymore, we have to run and move our hands
as the birds do then after some thousands of years our species will fly.

.

Well you are getting closer to what I was looking for but I am thinking that the threat to our survival as a species is what triggers significant evolution changes most likely through mating choices.

So what pressures will something like climate change put on humans that it would cause a significant evolution and what changes would we see as a result?

 

[Dante Writer]

we are in a state of deterioration.
with each oncoming generation we are less and less.

likely for cause.....
the reduction of hardship......lighter work loads.....fewer hours outside.....less sweating...
lesser food nutrients in our gmo food sources....
lesser need for quickness, strength, flexibility of mind and body....

we are over weight, slow, idle of mind and body.

I am 60yrs old and can outperform ALL of my 13other co-workers(toolmakers)
They are slow to stand, slow to walk, some have difficulty picking a dropped article from the floor......
and some of them are decades younger.
they limp.

That may be true!

However it seems when the survival of a species is in danger that is when significant evolution changes happen probably through mating choices.

Since we have made life easier and safer for us as a species and there are so many of us there has been no real threat to our survival which is probably suppressing any significant evolutionary changes and may be increasing negative traits shortening our survival as a species.

I am wondering if a global threat to our survival such as climate change will trigger a wave of significant evolution for man as we struggle to survive and choose mates that are more likely to survive and pass on those traits to our offspring.

What those traits might be is what intrigues me.

 

[Dante Writer]

Every living life form continually evolves from one generation to the next, so your question is a non-starter. Death of all members of the species would stop the evolution of a given life form.

The question is a nonstarter only applies if you have very rigid thinking as to what constitutes evidence of evolution.

What is your definition of evolution?

 

[Thief]

That may be true!

However it seems when the survival of a species is in danger that is when significant evolution changes happen probably through mating choices.

Since we have made life easier and safer for us as a species and there are so many of us there has been no real threat to our survival which is probably suppressing any significant evolutionary changes and may be increasing negative traits shortening our survival as a species.

I am wondering if a global threat to our survival such as climate change will trigger a wave of significant evolution for man as we struggle to survive and choose mates that are more likely to survive and pass on those traits to our offspring.

What those traits might be is what intrigues me.

yeah...
but we have been soooo dependent on technology for soooo long.....
we wear coats for lack of fur
gloves for lack of callous ....
shoes for lack of sole
and that's just the everyday stuff as we walk

imagine going back to saddled horse when the gasoline runs out!

 

[Dante Writer]

yeah...
but we have been soooo dependent on technology for soooo long.....
we wear coats for lack of fur
gloves for lack of callous ....
shoes for lack of sole
and that's just the everyday stuff as we walk

imagine going back to saddled horse when the gasoline runs out!

The question then is man's intelligence up to the task of surviving a significant threat or will we have time to evolve through natural selection and random mutations to survive that threat?

Has man's intelligence and ability to adapt halted or suppressed the need for physical evolution?

Survival of the fittest in a severe climate change scenario may pit humans with physical abilities and a disposition to taking resources through war and force against those with higher intelligence and ability to adapt.

Which would natural selection favor?

 

[Thief]

The question then is man's intelligence up to the task of surviving a significant threat or will we have time to evolve through natural selection and random mutations to survive that threat?

Has man's intelligence and ability to adapt halted or suppressed the need for physical evolution?

Survival of the fittest in a severe climate change scenario may pit humans with physical abilities and a disposition to taking resources through war and force against those with higher intelligence and ability to adapt.

Which would natural selection favor?

if we include our ability and tech AS a portion of Man's evolution.....
the guy with a gun will steal your coat and dinner.....

 

[Dante Writer]

if we include our ability and tech AS a portion of Man's evolution.....
the guy with a gun will steal your coat and dinner.....

I would have to agree and then it comes to who has the bigger gun, bomb, etc. and survival of the species goes down with each conflict.

It seems that evolution then may be self limiting as once we become able and willing to wipe out our own species for survival the pressure to evolve away from that method of conflict resolution goes down.

 

[Thief]

yeah...it seems Man is destined for extinction.

 

[Thief]

I did hear from one of those science documentaries....about the way we might fail....

seems the planet has enough fresh water and elemental essentials for 9billion people.
we are almost there.

in the current scheme of increase and if I live to be 85 (25yrs to go)
that number I will live to see.

oooops