Future of human evolution? Is there a future?

[athon]

Dustin, try reading the whole post first rather than just immediately quoting and taking each sentence out of the context of the entire post.

Now, how is our own manipulation of our gene pool not 'evolution'? If you are creating your own definition, then give it to us so we know what it is you want to discuss.

In my view, either humans will continue to progress in terms of technology, in which there will be directed evolution in the long term (where we manipulate selection pressures and direct our own changes over time) or technology will become static or decrease, in which case environmental change will create selection pressures in the long term.

Genetic change can slow, but it won't stop outright.

Athon

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

A sci-fi perspective

What’s the difference between ’natural selection’ and ’selection’ in terms of what we consider human evolution? I’m not totally convinced about the “natural pressure” argument as the only driving force for evolution. Maybe the onus is just shifting from the environment to humans themselves (i.e. volitional evolution)? Being able to modify our own DNA as we wish could certainly have an evolutionary impact I think. This is of course sci-fi at the moment, but we never know. If humans don’t become extinct, they eventually have to leave the planet. Who knows what that outcome will entail – perhaps many different sentient species colonizing space, having us as their ancestors?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, try reading the whole post first rather than just immediately quoting and taking each sentence out of the context of the entire post.

I read it all. I quoted the basic points. Tell me what I missed.

Now, how is our own manipulation of our gene pool not 'evolution'? If you are creating your own definition, then give it to us so we know what it is you want to discuss.

Evolution as in the natural selection of traits in a population which overtime produce novel features within said population.

In my view, either humans will continue to progress in terms of technology, in which there will be directed evolution in the long term (where we manipulate selection pressures and direct our own changes over time) or technology will become static or decrease, in which case environmental change will create selection pressures in the long term.

If technology advances to that level then we'll simply be able to genetically engineer ourselves and the whole process of "selection" would become obsolete.

Genetic change can slow, but it won't stop outright.

In a population, It can slow so much as to have no real effect other then simple random changes that don't cause speciation.

 

[athon]

Very well. Using your personal definition of evolution, humans might not evolve in the future.

There. That was easy.

Athon

 

[aggle-rithm]

Natural selection is still occurring in some populations, notably in Africa where people who are immune to catching the HIV virus are being selected out and have a clear advantage over their peers who all die from Aids. It's possible that if no cure for HIV is ever found, within 10,000 years the descendent's of modern Africans might be totally immune to aids.

Hopefully, it will be the most intelligent and least gullible in Africa that will have an advantage. These will ignore the bad advice from their governments and take real measures to avoid getting AIDS and, if they do get it, will get real medical treatment instead of folk remedies.

The most skeptical will survive, the woos will perish.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Very well. Using your personal definition of evolution, humans might not evolve in the future.

There. That was easy.

Athon

It's not my "personal definition". It's Darwin's definition.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why are the environmental pressures created by other species "natural", while those created by humans are "unnatural"? Isn't it a little species-centric of us to place ourselves in a special position outside of nature?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hopefully, it will be the most intelligent and least gullible in Africa that will have an advantage. These will ignore the bad advice from their governments and take real measures to avoid getting AIDS and, if they do get it, will get real medical treatment instead of folk remedies.

The most skeptical will survive, the woos will perish.

In most cases they can't afford "real medicine" and it isn't available. Some resort to "folk remedies", some do not. However they will die regardless. It's not a matter of being skeptical or not skeptical. It's a matter of being wealthy or not wealthy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hopefully, it will be the most intelligent and least gullible in Africa that will have an advantage. These will ignore the bad advice from their governments and take real measures to avoid getting AIDS and, if they do get it, will get real medical treatment instead of folk remedies.

The most skeptical will survive, the woos will perish.

In most cases they can't afford "real medicine" and it isn't available. Some resort to "folk remedies", some do not. However they will die regardless. It's not a matter of being skeptical or not skeptical. It's a matter of being wealthy or not wealthy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hopefully, it will be the most intelligent and least gullible in Africa that will have an advantage. These will ignore the bad advice from their governments and take real measures to avoid getting AIDS and, if they do get it, will get real medical treatment instead of folk remedies.

The most skeptical will survive, the woos will perish.

In most cases they can't afford "real medicine" and it isn't available. Some resort to "folk remedies", some do not. However they will die regardless. It's not a matter of being skeptical or not skeptical. It's a matter of being wealthy or not wealthy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hopefully, it will be the most intelligent and least gullible in Africa that will have an advantage. These will ignore the bad advice from their governments and take real measures to avoid getting AIDS and, if they do get it, will get real medical treatment instead of folk remedies.

The most skeptical will survive, the woos will perish.

In most cases they can't afford "real medicine" and it isn't available. Some resort to "folk remedies", some do not. However they will die regardless. It's not a matter of being skeptical or not skeptical. It's a matter of being wealthy or not wealthy.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Hopefully, it will be the most intelligent and least gullible in Africa that will have an advantage. These will ignore the bad advice from their governments and take real measures to avoid getting AIDS and, if they do get it, will get real medical treatment instead of folk remedies.

The most skeptical will survive, the woos will perish.

In most cases they can't afford "real medicine" and it isn't available. Some resort to "folk remedies", some do not. However they will die regardless. It's not a matter of being skeptical or not skeptical. It's a matter of being wealthy or not wealthy.

 

[Cuddles]

This post left intentionally blank.

 

[Cuddles]

The gremlins ate this post as well.

 

[Cuddles]

It's not my "personal definition". It's Darwin's definition.

Nope. Why are you so hung up on the "natural" part of selection? If there is selection, of any kind, then evolution will happen. What exactly do you mean by "natural" anyway? Humans are natural, therefore anything we do is natural, therefore any selection that occurs must be natural. I fact, everything is natural, so your argument simply doesn't make sense. Selection is happening and will continue to happen. If you think you can make the argument that some selective pressures are conceptually different from others then go ahead, but simply claiming that some types of selection are "natural" and therefore evolution and others aren't is not going to prove anything.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So will humans continue to evolve? Are there any natural selection pressures on them that will cause them to evolve into a distinct species than they currently are? I can't think of any.

It depends, obviously, by what you mean by "evolve". Do you believe that there is something about "modern" society that works against natural selection? Are you one of those who believe that what humans do is "artificial" and what the rest of the nature does is "natural"?

 

[Dymanic]

I always like to see this Dawkins quote inserted into such discussions:

"...strong 'selection pressure', we could be forgiven
for thinking, might be expected to lead to rapid
evolution. Instead, what we find is that natural
selection exerts a braking effect on evolution. The
baseline rate of evolution, in the absence of natural
selection, is the maximum possible rate. That is
synonymous with the mutation rate."

 

[Complexity]

Human evolution continues, unabated.

 

[drkitten]

Those small variations won't be evolution. Genetic drift isn't evolution.

This statement is simply incorrect.

From UC-Berkeley:

Genetic drift—along with natural selection, mutation, and migration—is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals. That, in a nutshell, is genetic drift. It happens to ALL populations—there’s no avoiding the vagaries of chance.

 

[aggle-rithm]

In most cases they can't afford "real medicine" and it isn't available. Some resort to "folk remedies", some do not. However they will die regardless. It's not a matter of being skeptical or not skeptical. It's a matter of being wealthy or not wealthy.

As distasteful as it sounds, the wealthy tend to be better educated, and thus will tend to be more skeptical. So, in a way, we're both right.

However, preventing AIDS would be much less expensive than treating it, and too many African governments are dissiminating faulty information about how AIDS is spread.