Has man stopped evolving?

[Dante Writer]

How can that be a "watered down" definition when "descent with modification" was the original definition in the first place?

What you are talking about is the difference between microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (evolution of new species). Both are still evolution.

It is watered down as it applies itself almost entirely to evolution within a species not from one species to another.

To call both evolution is an extreme over simplification as many scientists have said natural selection may not be the mechanism used for macroevolution and there may be another mechanism involved as yet unknown.

That is why it is dangerous to lay that watered down definition and call it evolution. You should apply it with the exception that it applies only to evolution within a species at this time.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is watered down as it applies itself almost entirely to evolution within a species not from one species to another.

How, exactly? Speciation is covered by the definition.

To call both evolution is an extreme over simplification as many scientists have said natural selection may not be the mechanism used for macroevolution and there may be another mechanism involved as yet unknown.

Natural selection isn't strictly included in the definition.

That is why it is dangerous to lay that watered down definition and call it evolution. You should apply it with the exception that it applies only to evolution within a species at this time.

You simply don't appear to understand what evolution is defined as.

 

[Dante Writer]

How, exactly? Speciation is covered by the definition.


Natural selection isn't strictly included in the definition.


You simply don't appear to understand what evolution is defined as.

1- learn the difference in micro and macro evolution and then you will answer your own question.

2- That definition lends itself almost entirely to only the theory of Natural Selection and micro evolution.

3- You have already been shown you do not have a simple definition of evolution and you have been shown other evolutionary theories that do not involve natural selection so obviously you are now just trolling with add hominem attacks.

This line of debate is now finished- you can go start your own discussion if you want to learn about micro and macro evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1- learn the difference in micro and macro evolution and then you will answer your own question.

I am aware: there is no distinction. The definition of evolution as changes in allele frequencies over time in living populations covers both. What's more, speciation has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

2- That definition lends itself almost entirely to only the theory of Natural Selection and micro evolution.

Except the definition mentions neither, so you're talking nonsense.

3- You have already been shown you do not have a simple definition of evolution and you have been shown other evolutionary theories that do not involve natural selection so obviously you are now just trolling with add hominem attacks.

And you clearly don't know what an ad hominem is.

This line of debate is now finished- you can go start your own discussion if you want to learn about micro and macro evolution.

Are you running away so easily?

 

[Dante Writer]

I am aware: there is no distinction. The definition of evolution as changes in allele frequencies over time in living populations covers both. What's more, speciation has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


Except the definition mentions neither, so you're talking nonsense.


And you clearly don't know what an ad hominem is.


Are you running away so easily?

This line of debate is now finished- go start your own discussion instead of trolling mine.

 

[Parsimony]

It is watered down as it applies itself almost entirely to evolution within a species not from one species to another.

Species that arise from previous species fit both the "descent with modification" and "change in allele frequencies over time" definitions.

To call both evolution is an extreme over simplification as many scientists have said natural selection may not be the mechanism used for macroevolution and there may be another mechanism involved as yet unknown.

Natural selection isn't synonymous with evolution anyway, as it is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. Whether or not there is some other mechanism we don't yet know of at work is irrelevant because evolution isn't a mechanism itself, it is the result of mechanisms.

That is why it is dangerous to lay that watered down definition and call it evolution. You should apply it with the exception that it applies only to evolution within a species at this time.

One species giving rise to another species fits both definitions I provided before.

 

[Dante Writer]

Species that arise from previous species fit both the "descent with modification" and "change in allele frequencies over time" definitions.

Natural selection isn't synonymous with evolution anyway, as it is only one of the mechanisms of evolution. Whether or not there is some other mechanism we don't yet know of at work is irrelevant because evolution isn't a mechanism itself, it is the result of mechanisms.

One species giving rise to another species fits both definitions I provided before.

I would direct you to the other evolutionary theories that do not apply to that definition:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

 

[metis]

No species stops evolving-- all material objects change over time and humans are material objects. Each of us are "transitional forms", so no one should fall for the clap-trap put out by anti-scientific people who preach otherwise.

 

[Parsimony]

I would direct you to the other evolutionary theories that do not apply to that definition:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

"Descent with modification" and "changes in allele frequencies over time" would still apply in those cases. It is unambiguously observable that populations change over time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This line of debate is now finished- go start your own discussion instead of trolling mine.

Ahh I know what this means now. You are saying that you can't argue against a point being made and so you want that person to leave your thread and stop making you look foolish. Nice try!

I would direct you to the other evolutionary theories that do not apply to that definition:

Evolution by Natural Selection, Front-loaded Evolution, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo), Evolution by Natural Genetic Engineering, Somatic Selection, Structuralist / Platonic Evolution, Biological Self-Organization, Epigenetic Evolution, Evolution by Symbiogenesis, and Teleological Selection.

These aren't "other evolutionary theories." As you well know.

 

[Midnight Rain]

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?

Still evolving. If anything evolving faster due to drastic changes.

 

[metis]

Still evolving. If anything evolving faster due to drastic changes.

Probably slower with humans since larger groups tend to evolve more slowly than smaller groups. Most mutations carried forward are usually recessive, and the odds of matching two of the same recessive genes to become a phenotype are more likely in a smaller gene pool.

 

[`mud]

Welllllll,
This one has !
~
Did someone else say that ??
~
'mud

 

[Midnight Rain]

Probably slower with humans since larger groups tend to evolve more slowly than smaller groups. Most mutations carried forward are usually recessive, and the odds of matching two of the same recessive genes to become a phenotype are more likely in a smaller gene pool.

Its hard to say. An example of extremely rapid evolution in our modern world is poor eyesight. Normally these individuals would have been weeded out due to natural selection but thanks to modern technology, having bad eye sight isn't really even a determent anymore. So now we see a massive influx of people with poor eyesight who are drastically changing the dynamic of the gene pool in just a few generations. this is an example of evolution.

 

[metis]

Its hard to say. An example of extremely rapid evolution in our modern world is poor eyesight. Normally these individuals would have been weeded out due to natural selection but thanks to modern technology, having bad eye sight isn't really even a determent anymore. So now we see a massive influx of people with poor eyesight who are drastically changing the dynamic of the gene pool in just a few generations. this is an example of evolution.

Yes, I agree that this can indeed be an effect and also a long-term problem. However, my point just dealt with the rate of evolutionary change vis-a-vis the size of the gene pool.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Yes, I agree that this can indeed be an effect and also a long-term problem. However, my point just dealt with the rate of evolutionary change vis-a-vis the size of the gene pool.

True.

 

[serp777]

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?

Evolution is occuring all the time. For instance, the larger number of deaths due to malaria allowed humans with sickle cell anemia to survive better than those without sickle cell--since sickle cell mitigates malaria and allows for better survival. THis is just one small example.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I would say that humans, currently, are subjected to a very very low, almost non-existent, selection pressure. E.g. humans with bad eyes-sight don't get selected out. They just wear glasses or contacts, or get lasik. Things like wisdom teeth aren't really being selected out. We just surgically remove them before they cause any serious problems. So we're probably not evolving towards any particular characteristics or traits. I'd say we're, for the most part, evolving via genetic drift, but that still counts as evolving. But I would say our evolution is very slow, probably almost to a stand still. "Almost" being the operative word. So yes, technically we're still evolving, just not very much.

It's not the only reason we're evolving slow. Long living animals evolve slower since we produce less generations over time, and humans live almost a century on average, compared to something like mice which live a few years and reach maturity within, I believe a year or so if I'm not mistaking. So something like mice evolve extremely fast due to shorter life spans and more generations over time, whereas humans live close to a century and reproduce far less frequently.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Probably slower with humans since larger groups tend to evolve more slowly than smaller groups.

Yes and no. Sometimes it's the bigger population that can evolve faster, or rather, adapt better, because bigger populations tend to have more genetic variety. E.g. if there's a sudden change in the environment, the organisms with the bigger population are more likely to have individuals that have traits that will help them cope with the change. Smaller groups will have less genetic variety, meaning there's less of a chance that there will be individuals with the right traits to survive.

It's another reason smaller animals tend to adapt better than bigger ones. Smaller animals typically have more numbers (and they tend to have shorter life spans and more generations over time). Think non-avian dinosaur extinction and the rise of mammals and birds. The smaller less dominant animals were the ones to survive.

There's also many cases where people are infected with some sort of pathogen, often bacteria. They may be given an antibiotic which kills off most of the pathogenic bacteria that's infecting them. But because of the bacteria's immense population (probably in the billions or trillions if I'm not mistaking), there will be a few bacteria who will be resistant to the antibiotic and survive. So doctors will have to develop another antibiotic that kills the next generation of bacteria, preferably before it's population size recovers.

Same thing happens with home-infesting animals like rats. New rat poisons are constantly developed because rats, with their immense populations, keep adapting to rat poisons.

 

[metis]

Yes and no. Sometimes it's the bigger population that can evolve faster, or rather, adapt better, because bigger populations tend to have more genetic variety. E.g. if there's a sudden change in the environment, the organisms with the bigger population are more likely to have individuals that have traits that will help them cope with the change. Smaller groups will have less genetic variety, meaning there's less of a chance that there will be individuals with the right traits to survive.

It's another reason smaller animals tend to adapt better than bigger ones. Smaller animals typically have more numbers (and they tend to have shorter life spans and more generations over time). Think non-avian dinosaur extinction and the rise of mammals and birds. The smaller less dominant animals were the ones to survive.

There's also many cases where people are infected with some sort of pathogen, often bacteria. They may be given an antibiotic which kills off most of the pathogenic bacteria that's infecting them. But because of the bacteria's immense population (probably in the billions or trillions if I'm not mistaking), there will be a few bacteria who will be resistant to the antibiotic and survive. So doctors will have to develop another antibiotic that kills the next generation of bacteria, preferably before it's population size recovers.

Same thing happens with home-infesting animals like rats. New rat poisons are constantly developed because rats, with their immense populations, keep adapting to rat poisons.

Even though I agree with the vast majority of the above, we do know that smaller groups tend to evolve faster largely because phenotypes can much more quickly become genotypes because the gene pool is much smaller and because most mutated genes are recessive. I'm not a geneticist, but this is what I have read, including an article recently in Scientific American that mentioned this.