Future of human evolution? Is there a future?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wow, are you naive.....

If you're talking about illegitimate children, I really have no idea what the statistics are. What % of successful men have illegitimate children? I doubt the numbers are that high.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Bpesta will be happy to prove to you that it is.

Basically, his argument (taken from the work on the heritability and predictiveness of IQ) is that IQ is both mostly heritable and a very strong predictor of success in life, including both wealth and social status.

You're welcome to address this particular issue if you want to explain how poverty is not genetic.

IQ is far too complicated to simply categorize like that. How do you determine the difference between someone who is naturally smart and someone who has spent a lot of time studying to become smart? Someone could have average genetics for intelligence but spent a lot of time studying and has amassed a lot of knowledge and know how while someone else could have good genetics for intelligence but is lazy and plays video games all day. I think it's very much of a over simplification to imply that on average richer people have some genetic component that makes them that way and poor people have some genetic component that makes them that way. Many many rich people had poor parents and many poor people had rich parents.

 

[Jekyll]

IQ is far too complicated to simply categorize like that. How do you determine the difference between someone who is naturally smart and someone who has spent a lot of time studying to become smart? Someone could have average genetics for intelligence but spent a lot of time studying and has amassed a lot of knowledge and know how while someone else could have good genetics for intelligence but is lazy and plays video games all day. I think it's very much of a over simplification to imply that on average richer people have some genetic component that makes them that way and poor people have some genetic component that makes them that way. Many many rich people had poor parents and many poor people had rich parents.

Sure, but all we need is for something genetic to increase the tendency for people to be well off and it will be selected for over time, regardless of confounding factors.

 

[kev]

Ultimately, there will be a change in the frequency of genes within a gene pool -thus, some level of evolution. This will happen for one of three basic reasons.

1.) We will all remain here, on Earth, and some inexplicable pressure will be exerted upon us - beyond our capability to handle it. Meteor, disease, environmental catastrophe, war, who knows - but something. Our technology will fail us. The end result will be the "traditional" pressures people think of in terms of "survival" and natural selection.

2.) Technology will expand to a level unimagined and we will move to new environments beyond Earth, which could serve as a catalyst for reproductive isolation or new pressures.

3.) Technology will expand simply to the imagined, and through the processes of genetic engineering, we will simply change our genepool ourselves.

The one thing that will not happen -at least not over the course of millions of years - is for everything to remain the same. We will not maintain the same level of technology and general status quo. Things change. Change causes more change. Always has, always will. But regardless, through advancement, or regression there will be change, and that change will result in a change in the collective gene pool, and that is evolution.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If "fit" means "how capable a being is at successfully passing on its genes." then by definition just because someone does have more children doesn't necessarily mean they are "more capable" than anyone else. They simply make the bad choices and end up having many more children. The "fittest" don't necessarily always proliferate.

"Fit" means leaving behind more children, who then leave behind more children, etc.

Capability can only enter into it as it affects having more children.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Who alters more the life of millions of individuals, an arab with 30 wifes and 80 kids or Edison?

 

[aggle-rithm]

If you're talking about illegitimate children, I really have no idea what the statistics are. What % of successful men have illegitimate children? I doubt the numbers are that high.

If they're successful, we wouldn't know about them.

 

[Kaylee]

Perhaps my post is being ignored because people think its slightly off topic?

But, if in fact our species has slightly and measurably evolvedin the areas of social intelligence since, say the beginnings of recorded history (which would be a longer time frame than mentioned in my original post) I think we would continue to evolve in that direction.

Of course not! We will only recognize them in retrospect.

Is it possible that even over just the past couple of thousand years our species have measurably evolved in social intelligence without our acknowledging this?

Over the past two thousand years our forms of govt. have become more democratic and in many societies we share power more equally within marriages. We have far fewer slaves now than in the past. I don't think that this would have been possible without an increase in our species' social intelligence.

Our "evolution" in our social institutions such as govt. and marriage changes the selection pressures and the types of people who will have increased chances of reproduction which in turn causes not only our species to evolve but also our social institutions in a continuing circle of change and evolution.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Perhaps my post is being ignored because people think its slightly off topic?

But, if in fact our species has slightly and measurably evolvedin the areas of social intelligence since, say the beginnings of recorded history (which would be a longer time frame than mentioned in my original post) I think we would continue to evolve in that direction.

Truthfully, I doubt humans today are much genetically different from a human 5,000 years ago. I believe changes in society and technology have more to do with culture and civilization than genetics.

 

[kev]

Truthfully, I doubt humans today are much genetically different from a human 5,000 years ago. I believe changes in society and technology have more to do with culture and civilization than genetics.

Yes, but adaptations do not need to be of a physical nature. Behavioral adaptations exist in many species and can, over long periods of time, result in reproductive differences, which in turn can result in evolution. Cultural changes can result in behavioral "adaptations" which could eventually lead to genetic changes.

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

One could call that a dead end strategy for otherwise successful sub groups of a species, however, since there is a chance at outside agencies helping to mitigate this poor strategy, the lethality of that course of action has a chance to drift in a better direction, and thus lowered.

DR

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, but adaptations do not need to be of a physical nature. Behavioral adaptations exist in many species and can, over long periods of time, result in reproductive differences, which in turn can result in evolution. Cultural changes can result in behavioral "adaptations" which could eventually lead to genetic changes.

What genetic changes are we talking about here? I vaguely remember genetic studies being done on the "Ice man" found in Italy and his genetic differences from modern Europeans was minuscule.

 

[kev]

What genetic changes are we talking about here? I vaguely remember genetic studies being done on the "Ice man" found in Italy and his genetic differences from modern Europeans was minuscule.

I am not necessarily stating that there are measurable genetic changes that have occured in the past couple thousand of years in regard to the human species - then again, I doubt that there are measurable genetic changes in most advanced mammals in a period of a couple thousand years. That is the whole crux of evolution -time (and lots of it). Just stating that behavioral (cultural) adaptations, over time can lead to genetic changes.

At a certain point, one of the contributing factors in speciation is that different populations are reproductively isolated from one another and as a result genetic drift occurs in different directions. We, obviously, are at a point where technology has all but wiped out geographic isolation. However, cultural/behavioral tendancies (at some point in the future) could lead to reproductive isolation among populations. Or, these behavioral adaptations could select for reproductive "success."

 

[Kaylee]

But, if in fact our species has slightly and measurably evolvedin the areas of social intelligence since, say the beginnings of recorded history (which would be a longer time frame than mentioned in my original post) I think we would continue to evolve in that direction.

Is it possible that even over just the past couple of thousand years our species have measurably evolved in social intelligence without our acknowledging this?

Over the past two thousand years our forms of govt. have become more democratic and in many societies we share power more equally within marriages. We have far fewer slaves now than in the past. I don't think that this would have been possible without an increase in our species' social intelligence.

Our "evolution" in our social institutions such as govt. and marriage changes the selection pressures and the types of people who will have increased chances of reproduction which in turn causes not only our species to evolve but also our social institutions in a continuing circle of change and evolution.

What genetic changes are we talking about here? I vaguely remember genetic studies being done on the "Ice man" found in Italy and his genetic differences from modern Europeans was minuscule.

Evolution takes place over a timescale of millions of years. Surely smaller changes that are harder to detect with our tools must take place first and accumulate in order for the large change to eventually occur.

Yes, but adaptations do not need to be of a physical nature. Behavioral adaptations exist in many species and can, over long periods of time, result in reproductive differences, which in turn can result in evolution. Cultural changes can result in behavioral "adaptations" which could eventually lead to genetic changes.

I am not necessarily stating that there are measurable genetic changes that have occured in the past couple thousand of years in regard to the human species - then again, I doubt that there are measurable genetic changes in most advanced mammals in a period of a couple thousand years. That is the whole crux of evolution -time (and lots of it). Just stating that behavioral (cultural) adaptations, over time can lead to genetic changes.

Kev says it better.

 

[CapelDodger]

No. There was nothing about viking society that made it so people a few inches taller were richer or became kings. They were taller because they were richer and could afford better nutrition. That's the only reason.

Such certainty.

Unusual height and bulk was a definite advantage in Viking warfare, and to be a landowner was a sign of military success. You'd either taken it, been granted it for military services, or inherited it - and the Viking concept of probate was something we'd describe as "mob-war". (There's also a status bonus from being tall which is evident even today.) So there is good reason to think that taller is richer in such a society.

A landholder of whatever rank will marry politically, very likely to a daughter of another big chap with adjacent land and common interests. Selectively breeding-in any genetic component of increased stature. A step on the road to speciation by social selection - which I happen to think is the most likely cause of future human speciation, if any.

 

[Dogdoctor]

I said that if current trends continued. I can't think of any natural selection pressures on modern society today.

If you have a population of people where certain physical traits are desired, people with those traits will be chosen as mates over others. This provides a selective process. When people at or before reproductive age die from any disease this provides a selective process. When large numbers of people die from natural disaster this also alters the gene pool. These changes may be small but over years changes in the gene pool accumulate. I wonder if you have any data showing humans are not changing ?

 

[CapelDodger]

But, if in fact our species has slightly and measurably evolved in the areas of social intelligence since, say the beginnings of recorded history (which would be a longer time frame than mentioned in my original post) I think we would continue to evolve in that direction.

It seems inevitable that there has been behavioural evolution to maximise fitness in an increasingly artificial environment (as compared to the hunter-gatherer environment). Our ability to live in modern cities without going completely ape-shape is good evidence of that. I'd say the establishment of agriculture, perhaps 10ky ago, is the relevant dividing-point.

Does this involve social intelligence? It seems likely. The ability to weigh up a stranger was probably not of much significance back when you might only meet a few, if any, in your entire lifetime.

 

[dogjones]

Re technology. It is too simplistic to debate whether tech savvy people are more likely to breed. We are social animals and must be considered as a social whole, so to speak. Technology becomes available because there is a social system in place to allow it to become available. The technology, or lack of, or whatever, then affects the system as a whole. This isn't limited to technology - we cooperate in a huge variety of ways. So perhaps how we evolve will be dependent on how well we cooperate - the 'bin man' is just as important as the inventor in evolutionary terms surely, because they are both part of this social whole.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Such certainty.

Unusual height and bulk was a definite advantage in Viking warfare, and to be a landowner was a sign of military success. You'd either taken it, been granted it for military services, or inherited it - and the Viking concept of probate was something we'd describe as "mob-war". (There's also a status bonus from being tall which is evident even today.) So there is good reason to think that taller is richer in such a society.

I've never seen any evidence height was an advantage in middle age warfare.

A landholder of whatever rank will marry politically, very likely to a daughter of another big chap with adjacent land and common interests. Selectively breeding-in any genetic component of increased stature. A step on the road to speciation by social selection - which I happen to think is the most likely cause of future human speciation, if any.

You're making up an entire story here based on no evidence. On average the richer people in viking age were taller. However the same applied across all cultures of the time. Even in cultures that didn't have viking type warfare and pillaging. This is a case of nutrition and lack thereof. Not genetics.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

If you have a population of people where certain physical traits are desired, people with those traits will be chosen as mates over others. This provides a selective process. When people at or before reproductive age die from any disease this provides a selective process. When large numbers of people die from natural disaster this also alters the gene pool. These changes may be small but over years changes in the gene pool accumulate.

Yes, but what physical traits are beneficial in our society that enable people with them to breed more than others? Based on what's been posted it looks like poverty and lack of education.

I wonder if you have any data showing humans are not changing ?

Well modern Europeans are closely related to the 5,000 year old Iceman from Italy.