# Is humanity still evolving?



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

I was reading on bacterias who were isolated from the world for 25 years and still managed to get better are reproduction. 

It made me wonder if humanity is evolving too. In a liberal economy we certainly compete with each other, and there certainly is competition for women, but there is also modern medicine that muddle the cards. 

In which aspect do you think we are evolvng, if you think we are.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

Yeah.

Athletic records- most illuminatingly, those in individual sports without much special equipment- continue to fall.

Immunity rates to diseases continue to vary...plus and minus.  We're also starting to see a statistically significant uptick in rare genetic diseases showing up outside of their typical populations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

Double post.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 19, 2013)

Here's my take on it. 

If you consider tool use as part of our evolution, then I'd have to say yes. The nature of the specifics of the evolution is altering, but it's still evolution. And as our technology becomes more and more integrated with us (right now we carry it in the form of phones and sit in it in the form of vehicles; soon we'll be wearing it), the evolution will become more apparent.

Evolution just means change. It doesn't mean "gets stronger, faster, brighter"; it could mean "gets smaller, more short-lived", depending on the needs of the environment.  That's why that "medicine stops evolution" argument is flawed; that _is _the change. Maybe we evolve from a [comparatively] hardy species to a less-hardy, but more more technologically enhanced species as we develop technology to cope with our environment.

So no, we haven't stopped evolving. We're just no longer evolving in the same way many animals do.

It could be that this is the standard evolution path of all intelligent species. They evolve to develop tools, and they evolve those tools to change themselves and to develop the ability to alter their environment. The path of evolution becomes more controlled, self-determined.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Athletic records- most illuminatingly, those in individual sports without much special equipment- continue to fall.



But that could be due to better training techniques and better doping.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 19, 2013)

More or less what Morrus said.  Technically, every child born is another throw of the evolutionary dice, so we'll stop evolving when we all die (that's a different thread, though).  More recently - and I mean tens of thousands of years, not decades or centuries, which is piddly-squid to creatures of our lifespan - our evolutionary path has leaned towards social interaction and tool use.  Those ARE our evolutionary gifts, or advantages. Things are muddled right now because science has overcome many of the factors that previously killed people, but we're still evolving/changing. Evolution does not stand still.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Here's my take on it.
> 
> If you consider tool use as part of our evolution, then I'd have to say yes. The nature of the specifics of the evolution is altering, but it's still evolution. And as our technology becomes more and more integrated with us (right now we carry it in the form of phones and sit in it in the form of vehicles; soon we'll be wearing it), the evolution will become more apparent.
> 
> ...



But does that mean that we stop evolving biologically? How does human biology react to our technology? Our cancer rates seem to be related to our industrial mode of production, can a cancer resistant individual immerge from it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> But that could be due to better training techniques and better doping.




Some, yes, but not all.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

2(post)


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Some, yes, but not all.



You're like a maigc 8-ball.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

_(Looks in mirror)_

Yes, yes I am.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

2*post


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

For a divining black ball, you sure can't see that your post was successfully made the first time.

Boo... ya?


----------



## Morrus (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> But does that mean that we stop evolving biologically? How does human biology react to our technology? Our cancer rates seem to be related to our industrial mode of production, can a cancer resistant individual immerge from it?




Well, I'm not sure that a distinction between 'biological' and 'technological' evolution have much (or will have any) practical meaning any more other than the theoretical - it's all just different ways in which we change. But purely biological change won't stop happening until either we go extinct or we become completely technological. Perhaps we'll evolve to become cancer resistant as you suggest - personally I think us (hopefully) developing a cure *is* us evolving to become cancer resistant.

I mean, we're getting taller and our lifespans are increasing. That's evolution. It's happening in response to our environment: our environment is one becoming more technological and with better nutrition, and we're changing right along with it. But then getting shorter and our lifespans decreasing would be evolution, too - just not as appealing!

Evolution is driven by reproduction. Whatever helps genes get reproduced, whether that's perceived as an 'improvement' or not. Whether we classify those changes as biological, technological, psychological, cultural, societal - all these things are just different types of changes prompted by our environment, and they're all facets of evolution.

I love theories about how we'll evolve. The "we'll eventually become machines" theory is a popular one. We'll certainly becomes *part* machine in the not to distant future (hell, we already are - our senses and other abilities which we use daily are increased through tools - they're not, with the exception of pacemakers and stuff, physically attached to us yet, but they're as good as part of us). 

Tl;dr version: in answer to your question, no I don't think we'll stop changing biologically unless we becomes completely technological.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

I'll disagree with Morrus slightly.  We are still evolving in the way other animals do.  The fact that we manipulate our environment doesn't change _how_ we evolve - it merely changes exactly what features are chosen for or against.   In some cases, that means we change to take advantage of the technology.

For example, hominids discovered and tamed fire before our species evolved.  We have evolved with fire as a base assumption of our existence.  The end result is that our digestive tract is no longer suited to deal with an all-raw diet!  We have adapted to use fire, our guts are not designed to get more nutrition out of less food by cooking it, to the point where if we don't cook it, we don't have the machinery to get nearly as much nutrition out of it as do creatures who don't use fire.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 19, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I'll disagree with Morrus slightly.  We are still evolving in the way other animals do.  The fact that we manipulate our environment doesn't change _how_ we evolve - it merely changes exactly what features are chosen for or against.   In some cases, that means we change to take advantage of the technology.
> 
> For example, hominids discovered and tamed fire before our species evolved.  We have evolved with fire as a base assumption of our existence.  The end result is that our digestive tract is no longer suited to deal with an all-raw diet!  We have adapted to use fire, our guts are not designed to get more nutrition out of less food by cooking it, to the point where if we don't cook it, we don't have the machinery to get nearly as much nutrition out of it as do creatures who don't use fire.




Oh, we're still changing, for sure. What I meant was that our change was influenced by our own use of tools, whereas an animal's isn't. (That said, animals are affected by *our* use of tools and the way that changes our environment).


----------



## Elf Witch (Nov 19, 2013)

I do think we are changing sometimes not for the best. Due to advances in medical science we now save people with genetic issues so that they can go on and have children and pass these issues on and keep them in the gene pool. On the other hand this same medical science allows us to live longer healthier lives.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 19, 2013)

Yes, we still are. Unless a lifeform is somehow immune to mutation or transcription error or variances, it evolves.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I mean, we're getting taller and our lifespans are increasing. That's evolution.



I think there's a perspective from which you could say that, but I think it's truer that those are environmental results, not evolutionary/genetic.  They are the result of increased nutrition for children, and better medical care throughout life.



			
				goldomark said:
			
		

> Our cancer rates seem to be related to our industrial mode of production, can a cancer resistant individual immerge from it?




Our cancer rates are related to a) the byproducts of our industrial society in our environment; b) our increased lifespans; and c) the increase in population, particularly populations which carry a recessive trait. The more Ashkenazi Jews there are, the more cases of diseases common to that population you will encounter (ie, Cystic Fibrosis; Tay-Sachs disease; Canavan disease; Bloom Syndrome; Fanconi Anemia - Type C).

In theory, yes, the larger a population, the more outliers you will have.  The percentage remains the same, but the actual quantity of individuals per percentage increases.  The difficulty would be in recognizing a cancer-immune person (how are they different from someone who just doesn't have cancer?)  Also, cancers spring from different sources.  I'm not familiar enough with them to say that there's a single magic bullet that will render someone immune to viruses that cause cancers (oncovirus), versus cancers that might arise from a different source.

The medical treatment of our physical bodies is far outstripping evolution right now.  Even if a naturally cancer-immune person arose, how many thousands of years would it take for that person's genes to become omnipresent throughout the human race without gene therapy?

I think evolution in humans is, at least for now, more likely in areas that we aren't fully aware of, and in the areas that make us most "human".  Areas of sociability, adaptability, and communication.  Maybe people that are less comfortable around other people are less likely to reproduce in today's society, so we will gradually become more open to others (a happy thought!).


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 19, 2013)

The big question is "Is there a difference between evolution and genetic engineering?"  If I introduce genes to my child that improve her eyesite (boost rod & cone production), and those changes are transmitted to her children...is that evolution or engineering? If those traits are still breeding true in a thousand years, what is it?  What if. after thirty thousand years, every human is one of her descendants and has those traits?

We've "evolved" pretty much every domestic animal in existence by creating environments that select for particular traits.  Sometimes those "environments" are us (we kill aggressive dogs because they bite us); sometimes those environments are ones we put the animal into (we use bloodhounds to track scent, not water retrieval.  That's labs, poodles, newfies, and such.) It's not as direct as genetic engineering, but it's still artificial.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 19, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> The big question is "Is there a difference between evolution and genetic engineering?"  If I introduce genes to my child that improve her eyesite (boost rod & cone production), and those changes are transmitted to her children...is that evolution or engineering? If those traits are still breeding true in a thousand years, what is it?  What if. after thirty thousand years, every human is one of her descendants and has those traits?




I think that's evolution. I don't know how much of this discussion is semantics, though.  I think that if the outcome is the same, the exact route isn't that important (other than as a curiosity).


----------



## Descartes (Nov 19, 2013)

I believe all living creatures are evolving with each new generation but it may take 100s of yrs to see the actual difference. If a creature evolves at a rate comparable to the environmental conditions its evolving to, that determines if it continues to live or becomes extinct.

I sometimes worry that we are mutating at a much faster rate. That is we are introducing changes into ourselves that would not have happened without our interference. One of my biggest sci-fi fears is what if one of the perservatives used in Twinkies has done irrepairable harm to our genes that won't be fully realized for another hundred years and we've been eating them for over 80 yrs.

I'm 40 yrs old and I don't remember anyone with peanut or gluten allergies to the extent they would need an epi-pen when I was in school. Apparently nowadays there are separate tables for the allergy kids in the cafeterias at school.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 19, 2013)

Descartes said:


> I'm 40 yrs old and I don't remember anyone with peanut or gluten allergies to the extent they would need an epi-pen when I was in school. Apparently nowadays there are separate tables for the allergy kids in the cafeterias at school.



The fact that food and respiratory allergies align with income suggests environmental considerations, rather than genetic, at least for now.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db121.htm

(I make an effort to get my daughter out-of-doors and around/handling animals; I don't know if that's why, but she doesn't have any allergies, hurrah))


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 19, 2013)

And remember evolving is not always a positive thing.
Dumb and Dumber: Study Says Humans Are Slowly Losing Their Smarts


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> I mean, we're getting taller and our lifespans are increasing. That's evolution. It's happening in response to our environment: our environment is one becoming more technological and with better nutrition, and we're changing right along with it. But then getting shorter and our lifespans decreasing would be evolution, too - just not as appealing!



That is not evolution. Mammals react this way (grow taller, live longer) when they have lots of food and live in sanitary conditions, plus modern medicine.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

calronmoonflower said:


> And remember evolving is not always a positive thing.
> Dumb and Dumber: Study Says Humans Are Slowly Losing Their Smarts



Seems more like his opinion than something backed with actual data.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> The big question is "Is there a difference between evolution and genetic engineering?"



One is artificial and the other is natural? Of course, thsi is not a moral judgement.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 19, 2013)

As long as their are traits and abilities that can change and affect the likelihood of creating offspring and we still need to create offspring for humanity to survive, there will be evolution. 

Maybe we'll evolve to be more cancer-resistant - at least the types of cancer that hit us early enough to limit our ability to have children. But maybe we don't need to gain this as biological ability because our technology and medicine takes care of that. but then maybe being accepting of such life-enhancing technologies might become a positive trait (just as te ability to develop such life-enhancing tech and meds would).


----------



## Morrus (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> That is not evolution. Mammals react this way (grow taller, live longer) when they have lots of food and live in sanitary conditions, plus modern medicine.




Fair enough.  Seem I had a poor example buried in the middle of my post.  Glad you spotted it!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 19, 2013)

Elf Witch said:


> I do think we are changing sometimes not for the best. Due to advances in medical science we now save people with genetic issues so that they can go on and have children and pass these issues on and keep them in the gene pool. On the other hand this same medical science allows us to live longer healthier lives.





I would see this as change for the better. Evolution is neutral, so it doesn't really care. What killed people before they had children two hundred years ago, doesn't now because of advances in medicine (though antibiotics are becoming less effective so some of that could change). Two hundred years ago the qualities needed for survival are different than those needed today. But our ability to improve things for our species and enable people to survive who otherwise would have died in the past is, from our vantage point, a good thing. Two hundred years ago, I would be dead because I have crohns and have had several abcesses that would have killed me without antibiotics and complex surgery. Two hundred years ago, many of you would be dead because of childhood illness or foodborne infections. If you read much history its always striking how many kings, emperors and other very powerful people did from what today would be a relatively minor infection.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 19, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> The fact that food and respiratory allergies align with income suggests environmental considerations, rather than genetic, at least for now.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db121.htm
> 
> (I make an effort to get my daughter out-of-doors and around/handling animals; I don't know if that's why, but she doesn't have any allergies, hurrah))




That is true but they could also be genetic disorders that triggered by environmental causes. I believe there is also an increase in autoimmune diseases that are genetic, but these increases, like allergies, are associated with income levels (i could be wrong though, as I am going from memory here).


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 19, 2013)

Morrus said:


> Fair enough.  Seem I had a poor example buried in the middle of my post.  Glad you spotted it!



It is considered bad form to agree with me.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Nov 19, 2013)

We sure do, but the focus or direction of evolution changes.

Morrus has already mentioned the technological component which lessens the pressure of natural selection.

Another aspect is the societal evolution. Evolution of societies is even today surpassing the evolution of individuals. The importance of the evolutionary status of a single human being is negligible compared to the staus of the society he lives in.

I'm just like an algae cell in a _volvox globator_: I could survive on my own (more or less) but it's the collective I'm being part of which leaves a mark in the world.


----------



## Janx (Nov 19, 2013)

Umbran said:


> I'll disagree with Morrus slightly.  We are still evolving in the way other animals do.  The fact that we manipulate our environment doesn't change _how_ we evolve - it merely changes exactly what features are chosen for or against.   In some cases, that means we change to take advantage of the technology.
> 
> For example, hominids discovered and tamed fire before our species evolved.  We have evolved with fire as a base assumption of our existence.  The end result is that our digestive tract is no longer suited to deal with an all-raw diet!  We have adapted to use fire, our guts are not designed to get more nutrition out of less food by cooking it, to the point where if we don't cook it, we don't have the machinery to get nearly as much nutrition out of it as do creatures who don't use fire.




Indeed.  

Which is where there may be some flawed thinking in the primitive diet trend going on right now.  Eating stuff cavemen ate may not be compatible with our guts because we don't have caveman guts anymore.  Though there are some indicators that some of that diet is pretty healthy compared to eating processed crap all day.

The getting taller isn't necessarily evolution, so much as diet.  The Japanese are getting taller because they are eating more beef.  Revert the next generation's diet and you'll likely get short Japanese people again.

I'm not actually against evolution.  Evolution is just the natural version of selective breeding to get Basset Hounds from wild wolves.

One possible outcome of evolution on humans is further compatibility with technology.  If we started embedding tech in out bodies to be cyborgs, and some % of the population had allergic/medical reactions that drove them out of the gene pool, then we would evolve toward a population that responds favorably to such implants.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

Elf Witch said:


> I do think we are changing sometimes not for the best. Due to advances in medical science we now save people with genetic issues so that they can go on and have children and pass these issues on and keep them in the gene pool. On the other hand this same medical science allows us to live longer healthier lives.




Nature doesn't understand your notions of "best". 

See my comments about fire - we are adapted to use fire to cook food. Period.  Is that "better" or "worse" than not being so adapted?  The human assessment of that doesn't matter - it is "better" in that it seems to have increased our survivability, compared to the other hominids at the time it arose.  

So, we have modern medicine. Fine - maybe those folks who work well with modern medicine (they take transplants well, they have fewer reactions to medications, and so on) will have a marginally better survival chance.  But then, "modern" medical care is perhaps a century old, and we are talking about changes that take millennia.  It is too soon to say.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

Janx said:


> Which is where there may be some flawed thinking in the primitive diet trend going on right now.  Eating stuff cavemen ate may not be compatible with our guts because we don't have caveman guts anymore.  Though there are some indicators that some of that diet is pretty healthy compared to eating processed crap all day.




Well, most processed crap is, well, crap.  

And there certainly are problems with several of the primitive diet trends.  "Raw" diets are, as I noted, not what our bodies are really adapted to anymore.  Spinach is a great example.  Lots of folks say, "i'll eat a spinach salad!  It's healthy, and has lots of nutrients!"  Except that those nutrients are locked behind sturdy cell walls that a gorilla can manage, but we cannot.  We need to cook spinach briefly to get those nutrients out.  

The other side of "primitive" diets is eliminating that which came specifically with civilization - basically grains.  That one, my posit doesn't really speak to.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 19, 2013)

Umbran said:


> And there certainly are problems with several of the primitive diet trends.  "Raw" diets are, as I noted, not what our bodies are really adapted to anymore.  Spinach is a great example.  Lots of folks say, "i'll eat a spinach salad!  It's healthy, and has lots of nutrients!"  Except that those nutrients are locked behind sturdy cell walls that a gorilla can manage, but we cannot.  We need to cook spinach briefly to get those nutrients out.
> 
> .




Cooking and pasteurization also eliminate a lot of potentially harmful bacteria.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Seems more like his opinion than something backed with actual data.




Agreed.  As science reporting, that was... processed crap, much like the dietary processed crap.  Yes, you'll get dumber if you live on a steady mental diet of that!

(I could spend time ripping it apart, if folks want to see some of the classic flaws of bad science reporting elucidated.  However, I don't want to bore folks with stuff that I dearly want to assume they already know.)


----------



## Herschel (Nov 19, 2013)

Yes, we are still evolving, most evidence shows that.

However, if internet message boards and comments sections were to be used as "evidence" then one could make a strong argument for devolution.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

Bedrockgames said:


> That is true but they could also be genetic disorders that triggered by environmental causes. I believe there is also an increase in autoimmune diseases that are genetic, but these increases, like allergies, are associated with income levels (i could be wrong though, as I am going from memory here).




Well, now you have to be careful.  

Can you tell the difference between a "genetic disorder" and a fairly normal genetic composition that simply can't handle the amount of crap we now dump into our environments, or the way we raise some of our kids? 

Consider - what have we done more of in the past centuries: changed our genetics, or changed our environment and behavior?  Are you really convinced that children from, say, 300 or 500 years ago, moved into our current environments, would not develop similar problems?  

Note that the correlation of allergy and autoimmune disease to income level goes a bit against what many would expect.  Your chance of having a problem *increases* with your income level - rich kids are more likely to have allergies and autoimmune diseases than poor kids.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Nov 19, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, now you have to be careful.
> 
> Can you tell the difference between a "genetic disorder" and a fairly normal genetic composition that simply can't handle the amount of crap we now dump into our environments, or the way we raise some of our kids?
> 
> ...




I am not disputing any of that. Just pointing out there may also be a genetic component and those who are gentically predisposed may develop these issues while others may not. In short it seems to be an interpla between our genes and the things going on inthe environment.


----------



## Janx (Nov 19, 2013)

Umbran said:


> Well, most processed crap is, well, crap.
> 
> And there certainly are problems with several of the primitive diet trends.  "Raw" diets are, as I noted, not what our bodies are really adapted to anymore.  Spinach is a great example.  Lots of folks say, "i'll eat a spinach salad!  It's healthy, and has lots of nutrients!"  Except that those nutrients are locked behind sturdy cell walls that a gorilla can manage, but we cannot.  We need to cook spinach briefly to get those nutrients out.
> 
> The other side of "primitive" diets is eliminating that which came specifically with civilization - basically grains.  That one, my posit doesn't really speak to.




I learned something sad today.

raw baby spinach is like the only green vegetable I can stand eating as it has no apparent taste to me (green beans, brocoli, etc all taste absolutely nasty to me).  And now I know it is virtually useless to eat it.

I really am a sad panda.


----------



## Janx (Nov 19, 2013)

Just out of curiousity, as we can breed dogs together to create basset hounds, has anybody formed a Eugenics Colony to  breed an allegedly superior society of humans?

I'm thinking something along the lines of Jim Jones meets Dharma Initiative rather than that racist guy with the funny mustache that nobody likes.

I'm envisioning the want ad posted as:
Seeking like minded members to form a new society
must have IQ over 180 or be a super model
Football jocks need not apply


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

Janx said:


> Just out of curiousity, as we can breed dogs together to create basset hounds, has anybody formed a Eugenics Colony to  breed an allegedly superior society of humans?
> 
> I'm thinking something along the lines of Jim Jones meets Dharma Initiative rather than that racist guy with the funny mustache that nobody likes.
> 
> ...




I'm pretty sure it's been sort of attempted.  I know for a fact that the dood you don't want to talk about, though, tried it.  SS members and Scandanavian gals.  Yeah, it happened.  But, again, I think it's been tried in a less organized (er, and less compulsory) manner outside of that example.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

Janx said:


> Just out of curiousity, as we can breed dogs together to create basset hounds, has anybody formed a Eugenics Colony to  breed an allegedly superior society of humans?




From what I can tell, most of the human eugenics programs- Sweden, the USA, Nazi Germany, Brazil, etc.- have focused on immigration restrictions, marriage restrictions, and forced sterilization of "undesirables".

Still, the Chinese ar supposedly giving it a go: http://explosivereports.com/2013/03...collects-genius-dna-to-breed-enhanced-people/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

2(Post)


----------



## Janx (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I'm pretty sure it's been sort of attempted.  I know for a fact that the dood you don't want to talk about, though, tried it.  SS members and Scandanavian gals.  Yeah, it happened.  But, again, I think it's been tried in a less organized (er, and less compulsory) manner outside of that example.




yeah, I recall the Hitler Channel talking about that.  And Jim Jones is also probably a lousy example 

But I think you get my gist.  I would think a bunch of academics would put that kind of project together, quite possibly in the hopes of scoring with super models.

I suspect you'd need isolation, so colonists don't go falling for the human from the next town over and contaminate the gene pool.

And you'd need a large enough starting set so there's likely amicable pairings going on so we avoid the ooky "arrangements"

In theory, screening for membership to people with good medical histories, appealing bodies (symmetric faces, no outward deformities) would presumably yield babies of the same.  Just avoiding people with history of cancer in their family would probably cut cancer rates down.

Naturally, these kind of restrictions wouldn't be kosher in america.  But I can imagine countries where they already regulate who has kids or arrange marriages, this could be implemented.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

> Naturally, these kind of restrictions wouldn't be kosher in america.




The American eugenics movement is what got the Nazis started town that road.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 19, 2013)

Doubled.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 19, 2013)

We may be able to make ourselves resistant to some forms of natural selection, but I still haven't seen any convincing arguments that we're not still evolving. In fact, any attempts to immunize ourselves from natural selection or other forms of evolutionary pressure are bound to lead to changes of their own.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 19, 2013)

Janx said:


> Just out of curiousity, as we can breed dogs together to create basset hounds, has anybody formed a Eugenics Colony to  breed an allegedly superior society of humans?




Well, dogs have a generation time of about a year, and have several pups at one time.  Humans have a generation time over a decade, and typically have one baby at a time.  Based on that alone, selective breeding of humans would take about ten times longer than selective breeding of dogs.

It is actually worse than that, in that dogs, as a species, are more genetically diverse than humans.  So, trying to get exactly what you want from humans is more difficult, as you have fewer options to choose from.  In an analogy - breeding is like cooking a gourmet meal.  Dogs give you a supermarket to work with to get ingredients, while humans give you a 7/11.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Nov 19, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> From what I can tell, most of the human eugenics programs- Sweden, the USA, Nazi Germany, Brazil, etc.- have focused on immigration restrictions, marriage restrictions, and forced sterilization of "undesirables".
> 
> Still, the Chinese ar supposedly giving it a go: http://explosivereports.com/2013/03...collects-genius-dna-to-breed-enhanced-people/




Actually, the Nazi stuff I was talking about didn't really care about weeding out undesirables.  The goal was to achieve a perfect Aryan race and they did so by taking select SS members and pairing them with Scandanavian women who fit the profile.  



Janx said:


> yeah, I recall the Hitler Channel talking about that.  And Jim Jones is also probably a lousy example
> 
> But I think you get my gist.  I would think a bunch of academics would put that kind of project together, quite possibly in the hopes of scoring with super models.
> 
> ...




You can't just go for looks, though.  

Aside from that the challenges posed are pretty daunting and you'd be asking the participants to give up a crapton of privacy.  Just cuz someone is hawt and brainy doesn't mean they're a good genetic example.  Sure, the odds point to it but there could be something sinister lurking in their DNA that you'd wanna know about before using them in a eugenics program.  It would take quite a bit of research to determine a candidates true viability and it'll raise a lot of questions, too.  Like what _isn't _good enough?  They have a great family heart and cancer history, say, and their brains and body check out A spec but they're nearsighted.  Is that enough to boot them?  I think depending upon what you're looking for and how voluntary you'd like to keep it (sounds like you're at an admirable 100% there) you're probably gonna have a real small group of folks and the odds of them actually pairing properly at that point are gonna be slim.

Quite simply, people are squicky about this stuff and for good reason.  Hell, it could easily be you that's left on the outside looking in at all that fine bodied, big brained action.  And there could be other consequences as well.  Purebred dogs, for example, have a lot of problems a lot of mutts just don't have - not that we're dogs.  The thing is, our understanding of this, for the most part, isn't sufficient to avoid those pitfalls.  Hell, if you really wanna do this voluntary pairing could be right out.  Two otherwise perfect candidates both carry a recessive trait but are in love - then what?  It's just not a good project.


----------



## Janx (Nov 19, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Aside from that the challenges posed are pretty daunting and you'd be asking the participants to give up a crapton of privacy.  Just cuz someone is hawt and brainy doesn't mean they're a good genetic example.  Sure, the odds point to it but there could be something sinister lurking in their DNA that you'd wanna know about before using them in a eugenics program.  It would take quite a bit of research to determine a candidates true viability and it'll raise a lot of questions, too.  Like what _isn't _good enough?  They have a great family heart and cancer history, say, and their brains and body check out A spec but they're nearsighted.  Is that enough to boot them?  I think depending upon what you're looking for and how voluntary you'd like to keep it (sounds like you're at an admirable 100% there) you're probably gonna have a real small group of folks and the odds of them actually pairing properly at that point are gonna be slim.
> 
> Quite simply, people are squicky about this stuff and for good reason.  Hell, it could easily be you that's left on the outside looking in at all that fine bodied, big brained action.  And there could be other consequences as well.  Purebred dogs, for example, have a lot of problems a lot of mutts just don't have - not that we're dogs.  The thing is, our understanding of this, for the most part, isn't sufficient to avoid those pitfalls.  Hell, if you really wanna do this voluntary pairing could be right out.  Two otherwise perfect candidates both carry a recessive trait but are in love - then what?  It's just not a good project.




That's what I figured.  We'd have to be evil to make it work, and we'd probably find every candidate has genetic flaws we wanted to avoid.

I reckon we won't get "superior" humans until we can alter DNA defects, probably during an IVF process (somewhere after extraction, before implantation) while there's still less than 20 cells to manipulate.

As it is, folks getting IVF learn an awful lot about the genetic defects they have (genetic testing being a precursor to IVF at reputable facilities).

Once we can get designer babies with minimal "bad" DNA, and some chunk of the gene pool is now "genetically unburdened", they might form a social culture of preferring others with equivalent clean DNA.  I'm thinking these people would be a bit snobbish, but they'd have a valid point, why should they breed with genetrash?

Note: I'm just talking sci-fi BS.  I suspect it'll be awhile before we can alter a bad DNA defect, whereas right now we can merely detect it and advise the potential parent of the risk.  I am not sure if fixing a defect in an embryo merely fixes the actual person, or if it'll cover their descendants.  But imagine the brave new world we could have if we could.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 20, 2013)

Janx said:


> Note: I'm just talking sci-fi BS.  I suspect it'll be awhile before we can alter a bad DNA defect, whereas right now we can merely detect it and advise the potential parent of the risk.  I am not sure if fixing a defect in an embryo merely fixes the actual person, or if it'll cover their descendants.  But imagine the brave new world we could have if we could.



I don't think it'll be as far in the future as you think.  Genetic manipulation is getting more and more "garage-scale" - essentially, something you could do in your garage.  I'm not really familiar with the technology, but I imagine it'll basically be a computer program that you input what you want, and it'll spit out a virus tailored to go in and tweak the genes - or maybe it'll just spit out a whole genome.  Not sure (though I could probably find someone to ask; Cornell is pretty big into animal science and biology.  I'm sure I know someone...).

The price will be cheap too, and if you can get a virus to act as a carrier, you can make it infectious.  You could turn the whole world blue-eyed.  People might want to keep the technology exclusive, but there will always be people who want it to be free as well.

I think, if you tweak the genes early enough, they'll breed true.  I mean, if you're talking a real early embryo, the eggs aren't yet differentiated from other cell types, so there's not an "early" genetic sequence to fall back on.


----------



## Nellisir (Nov 20, 2013)

Interesting articles:
This one talks about lactose tolerance, which was one of the two most recent widespread mutations I could think (the other was blue eyes).  Interestingly, it's not known exactly why lactose tolerance was/is so beneficial, and spread so quickly.  It would seem that it confers some kind of clear advantage, but milk is a pretty specialized food, and as the article points out, it's not all that hard to get a low-lactose product (basically, yogurt.)  It wouldn't seem all that hard to live life just fine without ever having milk.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...lerance_why_do_humans_keep_drinking_milk.html

And here's one about our rate of mutation.  It's not slowing down; it's accelerating.
http://discovermagazine.com/2013/ju...-are-recent-and-probably-harmful#.Uov_TsRJN8E

And other recent/recently known human mutations. All would seem to fall under "harmful" except for hypertrichosis, which might be useful in some situations.  
http://io9.com/10-unusual-genetic-mutations-in-humans-470843733


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Nov 20, 2013)

You see if it art, where future humans have small, anemic bodies and huge heads. We will evolve into a race with naturally wi-fi receptors in our brains but no genitals.


----------



## Libramarian (Nov 20, 2013)

As long as reproductive rates are nonrandom, we're evolving. People generally underestimate the impact of sexual selection (genes that make you more sexy rather than necessarily better adapted to your environment).

Blue eyes, for example, probably became widespread in some populations due to sexual selection (natural mascara) rather than for any adaptive benefit.

Probably also our intelligence evolved mostly by sexual selection rather than because it allowed us to "outwit predators"*. It's not like human ancestral predators were setting Jigsaw-style traps or something. You don't need to be that smart to fend off a tiger. You need a few pointy sticks and a group of people sticking together, but you don't need complex symbolic language or musical ability. Women appreciate those things though.

*quoting the guy who wrote the article mentioned earlier who says people are getting dumber because we no longer have to outwit predators.


----------



## Grydan (Nov 20, 2013)

Libramarian said:


> As long as reproductive rates are nonrandom, we're evolving.




This, basically.

Any living, reproducing, population that is using a method other than 100% perfect cloning (no errors, no matter how small, ever, or at least none ever allowed to be passed on to successive generations) to reproduce is evolving.

It's important to keep in mind that evolution is simply change. It's not progress. There's no devolution. There's no evolutionary ladder. We, as a species, are not 'more evolved' than any other species on the planet: every branch of the tree of life has the same trunk, at least in so far as we've been able to determine. We're all the same number of billions of years from that same starting point.

Another thing to keep in mind is that simply because a trait is found in abundance, doesn't necessarily mean it was selected _for _(that having it made an individual more likely to be able to pass on their genes): it can also simply mean it was never strongly selected _against_ (having it never significantly lowered your chances of passing on your genes). 

Our being smarter than the average bear doesn't necessarily mean there was some great selective advantage to brainpower at any point. It could be a coincidental side-effect of something else that was being selected for or against. Genetics is complicated: a tiny change in the right place can have ripple effects that result in significant differences at the macro scale, while much larger changes, if they happen to fall into a section of the code that's labelled 'junk', have no noticeable effect at all … until one of those tiny changes comes along and changes a label from 'junk' to 'read this'.

Now, that said, it's likely that at some point, yes, having more brainpower did provide a selective advantage: the human body simply devotes too much resources to our brains for it to have always been simply incidental.

But to the extent that intelligence (if we can ever figure out a satisfactory definition) depends on genetics, it's clear that there's no particular reproductive advantage these days to being the smartest guy in the room. Einstein had three kids. Hawking has three kids. Feynman had two kids. All pretty decent numbers … but there's people far less bright than those guys who've had far more children. Michelle and Jim-Bob Duggar are neither of them Einsteinian in their intelligence (I've never met them, never watched their TV show, and for all I know they're fairly bright individuals … simply not geniuses), and they've got 19 kids. The chances of their genes getting passed on are rather higher. Especially if there's a genetic component to their enthusiasm for having so many kids.

There's an upcoming movie, Delivery Man, in which through an error at a sperm bank, a man becomes the genetic father of over 500 children … the technology is certainly around by which one individual could be the father of millions, all without having to have any particular genetic advantage. It's a little bit more difficult (he says, putting it mildly) for a woman to similarly be the genetic mother of such vast numbers, but given that we live in a day and age where it's possible for one woman to carry another woman's fertilized egg to term, it's not impossible (though the ultimate upper limit is still lower than it is for men).


----------

