Are Homo Sapiens an evolutionary dead end?

[Indy Coug]

I'd like the board doctors/scientists to opine about the future of our species' evolution.

[creekster]

no, becaseu eventually we will make robots to do all our work and we will turn soft and lazy and so will become a bnew species. That species is a dead end, however, as the robots will evetually revolt and kill all the homo laziums. I know thi sis true becasue I read this in a comic book when i was a kid.

[Jeff Lebowski]

My wife has no wisdom teeth. Her dentist told her that she is on the cutting edge of human evolution.

[woot]

I'd like the board doctors/scientists to opine about the future of our species' evolution.

Quick and dirty thoughts:

We're still evolving, but it has slowed significantly as many traits that otherwise would have been selected out have been allowed to continue. As such, a lot of detrimental mutations will persist that otherwise wouldn't, and our ability to biologically adapt to a changing environment is basically nil. I wouldn't have it any other way, but those are the facts.

We're basically going to have to be in charge of our own evolution. In the future, we should be able to identify negative mutations and eliminate them in embryos. Gattaca doesn't paint a rosy picture of humanity's future, but I think we're going to have to incorporate some of that sort of technology into our lives. There will be a lot of pushback against messing with nature and whatnot, but medicine has unnaturally ceased a lot of the beneficial effects of natural selection on our species, so our reproductive technology will need to keep pace.

A relatively benign example might be this: The reason human birth is so difficult is because there has been extensive co-evolution among bipedal efficiency, female pelvic aperture size, and infant head size. For hundreds of thousands of years, this balance has been maintained by infants with heads that are too large or women with birth canals too small dying in childbirth, and therefore those genes not being passed on. Since that is rarely the case anymore in the West, these traits won't be constrained, and it is likely that Cesarean sections will become the norm for us in the same way that they are already required in all sorts of domesticated species.

[creekster]

My wife has no wisdom teeth. Her dentist told her that she is on the cutting edge of human evolution.

He was just ticked becaseu there went that elective procedure fee.

[woot]

My wife has no wisdom teeth. Her dentist told her that she is on the cutting edge of human evolution.

That would be nice, but unless that trait helps her to have more children than she otherwise would have, your dentist is wrong. I'm sure it would have helped her a few thousand years ago, though.

[creekster]

That would be nice, but unless that trait helps her to have more children than she otherwise would have, your dentist is wrong. I'm sure it would have helped her a few thousand years ago, though.

Maybe it does. Wisodm teeth cause all sort sof problems. WHo wants to mate with someone with a smelly, abscessed gum line?

[Blueintheface]

no, becaseu eventually we will make robots to do all our work and we will turn soft and lazy and so will become a bnew species. That species is a dead end, however, as the robots will evetually revolt and kill all the homo laziums. I know thi sis true becasue I read this in a comic book when i was a kid.

Make sure you're covered.

http://www.robotmarketplace.com/video_oldglory_hi.html

[Moliere]

We're still evolving, but it has slowed significantly as many traits that otherwise would have been selected out have been allowed to continue. As such, a lot of detrimental mutations will persist that otherwise wouldn't, and our ability to biologically adapt to a changing environment is basically nil. I wouldn't have it any other way, but those are the facts.

Would it be correct to say that instead of us adapting to the environment, we are now adapting the environment to us? This would basically mean that we've reached a point where we can make for a comfortable environment pretty much wherever we go (air conditioning, heating, light or heavy clothing, etc.) and can overcome illnesses (cancer, small pox, flu, etc.) and can control birth rates (birth control, abortions, etc.). I'm really curious as I don't know the answer.

I also have been thinking about the fact that the human conscience could lead to a pause or backstep in evolution given our propensity to charity and taking care of the handicapped or the less affluent (either physically or mentally). The backstep in evolution is not my stance, but it is something I've been thinking about over the past couple weeks.

[creekster]

Would it be correct to say that instead of us adapting to the environment, we are now adapting the environment to us? This would basically mean that we've reached a point where we can make for a comfortable environment pretty much wherever we go (air conditioning, heating, light or heavy clothing, etc.) and can overcome illnesses (cancer, small pox, flu, etc.) and can control birth rates (birth control, abortions, etc.). I'm really curious as I don't know the answer.

I also have been thinking about the fact that the human conscience could lead to a pause or backstep in evolution given our propensity to charity and taking care of the handicapped or the less affluent (either physically or mentally). The backstep in evolution is not my stance, but it is something I've been thinking about over the past couple weeks.

You mean the propensity to charity we saw in the crusades, or the holocaust? My point is only that the idea of charity is easily fit into a framework of evolutionarily advantageous behaviors. Our chairty tends to eb pretty tribal. Keep the others alive and spread the genes.

[woot]

Would it be correct to say that instead of us adapting to the environment, we are now adapting the environment to us? This would basically mean that we've reached a point where we can make for a comfortable environment pretty much wherever we go (air conditioning, heating, light or heavy clothing, etc.) and can overcome illnesses (cancer, small pox, flu, etc.) and can control birth rates (birth control, abortions, etc.). I'm really curious as I don't know the answer.

I also have been thinking about the fact that the human conscience could lead to a pause or backstep in evolution given our propensity to charity and taking care of the handicapped or the less affluent (either physically or mentally). The backstep in evolution is not my stance, but it is something I've been thinking about over the past couple weeks.

Yeah, I'd agree with all that. Our ancestors began controlling the environment about 1.5 million years ago with the control of fire, and later with the advent of clothing. Now we're just doing it to a much greater degree.

I don't really like to assign directionality to evolution, as evolution is just change and there's no concept of progress inherent in it, but certainly provisioning those who otherwise would never be unable to survive is not the way it used to be. As an aside, there is a skull from Dmanisi, Georgia that's about 1.5 million years old that had lost all its teeth and was extremely old at death, so it was clearly being provisioned by the younger folks. Pretty cool, but that's a different sort of provisioning.

[Moliere]

Yeah, I'd agree with all that. Our ancestors began controlling the environment about 1.5 million years ago with the control of fire, and later with the advent of clothing. Now we're just doing it to a much greater degree.

I don't really like to assign directionality to evolution, as evolution is just change and there's no concept of progress inherent in it, but certainly provisioning those who otherwise would never be unable to survive is not the way it used to be. As an aside, there is a skull from Dmanisi, Georgia that's about 1.5 million years old that had lost all its teeth and was extremely old at death, so it was clearly being provisioned by the younger folks. Pretty cool, but that's a different sort of provisioning.

Hmmm, very good response and thoughts. Thanks.

[Uncle Ted]

Gattaca doesn't paint a rosy picture of humanity's future, but I think we're going to have to incorporate some of that sort of technology into our lives.

Y'all just need to trust us engineers and not worry about the robots:

Dwight Schrute: And how big do you want this robot?
Michael Scott: Lifesize.
Dwight Schrute: Mmm no. Better make it two-thirds. Easier to stop if it turns on us.
Dwight Schrute: Look. I gave him a 6 foot extension chord so he can't chase us.
Michael Scott: That's perfect.

[creekster]

Yeah, I'd agree with all that. Our ancestors began controlling the environment about 1.5 million years ago with the control of fire, and later with the advent of clothing. Now we're just doing it to a much greater degree.

I don't really like to assign directionality to evolution, as evolution is just change and there's no concept of progress inherent in it, but certainly provisioning those who otherwise would never be unable to survive is not the way it used to be. As an aside, there is a skull from Dmanisi, Georgia that's about 1.5 million years old that had lost all its teeth and was extremely old at death, so it was clearly being provisioned by the younger folks. Pretty cool, but that's a different sort of provisioning.

You'd agree we control the environemnt with clothing? Hmmm. Seems ot me you are saying we are able to adapt to the environment more quickly with clothing. A minor difference, but not an insignificant one, given that the adaptation of clothing is a result of the evolutionary adaption of our big brains. We havent really controlled the environemnt, we ahve just come up with non-biological mechanisns to adapt to it. Moreover, wasnt one of your earlier points that through our modern practices we are creating a popultaion that may be more vulnerable to some mutated pathogen or other type of biological threat?

[woot]

You'd agree we control the environemnt with clothing? Hmmm. Seems ot me you are saying we are able to adapt to the environment more quickly with clothing. A minor difference, but not an insignificant one, given that the adaptation of clothing is a result of the evolutionary adaption of our big brains. We havent really controlled the environemnt, we ahve just come up with non-biological mechanisns to adapt to it. Moreover, wasnt one of your earlier points that through our modern practices we are creating a popultaion that may be more vulnerable to some mutated pathogen or other type of biological threat?

Well, it's a subtle difference, to be sure. In this context, the term "micro environment" is often used. They weren't changing the whole environment with fire and clothing, but they were changing the temperature of the air immediately surrounding their bodies. Calling them non-biological adaptations works just as well; just two different ways of thinking about the same thing.

I wasn't referring to specifically to pathogens in my earlier post, just that if everyone survives and has kids, then there won't be any selective pressure acting on things like teeth straightness, eyesight, pelvic aperture size, knee stability, intervertebral disc durability, etc. That's not to say that we won't be very vulnerable to pathogens, however, as, for instance, our current use of antibiotics is very irresponsible, in my opinion. In addition, we haven't had a truly malignant pandemic in quite a while. There were two different ones in the 20th century that killed millions of people each time. We're probably overdue. Luckily, H1N1 wasn't it. That doesn't mean that H2N3 (et al.) won't be or that some other disease won't come along that we have no immunity to and that is more communicable, etc. But that's neither here nor there, as that's always been the case.