Have we halted our own Evolution?

Human beings choose mates completely randomly, unlike any other organism? That's news to me. Did you have some evidence for this assertion?

Well, then, you've answered your own question. Can we conclude that humans have halted their own evolutionary development? No, we cannot, because sexual selection is still very much in force in the human species.My point, which I made in an oblique and possibly rude way, is that there's considerably more to evolution than fatal negative selection, the culling of the weak/diseased, etc. Sometimes that kind of selection is the first step. But the second step, in organisms that reproduce sexually, is finding someone to mate with you. We don't do that at random, so that's a selective - and evolutionary - influence. The other thing is this. If you believe that human progress has halted the march of disease, or put food in every mouth, or spared all the pain of loss and death, you're living in a fantasy world. Even in my nation - the most prosperous - one out of every 5 children doesn't get enough to eat, and thousands die of entirely preventable diseases.Both natural and sexual selection are very much at work on our species. Reports of the demise of human evolution have been greatly exaggerated.

I don't know what you mean by "slowing" or "halting." The only thing that would halt our evolution would be the extinction of our species. "Slow"? I don't understand what you think that means in an evolutionary context. Are you talking about rates of nucleotide substitution, or what? If you think that's true, you're still in a fantasy land. The majority of humans recieve very little treatment for any disease or condition, and indeed, the 5 largest killers on the planet are all conditions that we supposedly "conquered" centuries ago. If we're going to talk about science then we have to be in reality. Your question is based on a premise that suggests ignorance of the living conditions of the vast majority of human beings. Why is that?

For like, one out of every hundred human beings. Why do you believe that would be a signficant influence on our evolution? You seem to be having a problem with my tone; something about it doesn't let you see past it to the points I'm making.I'm sorry you find it condesending but all I'm doing is asking you questions. I'm trying to engage you in debate, not lay all the answers out for you. Try to engage my points, not my tone. The questions are to make you think about the issue you've raised, not belittle you.

Three words, my friend:Debbie Does Dallas

Cream of wheat. The thing is, these medical miracles might make some immortal, but natural selection is still fully operational on almost all of the human race, unfortunately. And beyond that, everyone is subject to sexual selection.Reports of the demise of human evolution have been greatly exaggerated. For instance a recent mutation to the hemoglobin confers malaria resistance without anemic side-effects in a small population in Africa.

Well, we've already been bred to have the largest penises in the primate kingdom.

Just like we are now, only more so.

Well, we've always had an effect on our own evolution. That's part of what sexual selection is about.Really, human "meddling" in our own genetics isn't really different than that. We've always had some degree of volition over our own gene pool, for as long as we've recognized the connection between sexual intercourse and reproduction.

Not our wisdom; our intelligence. Not faith; but trust. And that trust is not misplaced. The history of human development, in these past few centuries alone, is testament to that fact.

God bless, and go forward.

What makes you think that's at all true? Or that what people find sexually attractive has anything to do with mating?I mean if there's one thing that I learned from my intro psychology classes, it's that people's mate choices are typically anything but random, instead, based very much on shared physical characteristics and similar socioeconomic backgrounds. In another thread evidence was offered that (at least tentatively) suggests that immunological histocompatibility as detected by smell is a large determinant of who we find attractive; other evidence suggests that symmetry, detected both visually and by odor, determines genetic robustness and therefore attractiveness.I don't really see any reason to describe people's mating preferences as "random." That's somewhat different than what people find sexually attractive, of course. I mean almost everybody has two different sets of criteria - traits they'd require in a spouse, and a smaller list of traits they'd require in just a fling.Human mating is definately not random, from either an individual or population perspective.

Less than 1 out of every 500 acts of penetrative, heterosexual intercourse actually results in a birth. And that's just among the people not using birth control. I'd suggest that the divorce of sexual pleasure from reproduction is a considerably greater divide than you're prepared to admit. Otherwise, what's the point of all that sex?

It was a rhetorical question, but you've answered it excellently. I don't know that there's a link. I know that the vast majority of rapists, for instance, are already in sexual relationships, so it's hardly a crime borne of "dry spell" desperation. I couldn't say for sure, of course.

My point is just that, in humans, conception is such an unlikely result of sex as a result of biological factors that hardly seem necessary - hostile Ph of vaginal mucus, cryptic female fertility, nearly impenetrable oocyte membranes - that birth control seems almost built-into women. So it hardly seems like a supportable contention that sex in humans is primarily for reproduction; the remarkably low frequency of conception seems to have the purpose of allowing mated pairs to copulate with considerable frequency without resulting in an unsupportable number of offspring.In other words we're supposed to do it a lot, for reasons a few of which EZscience has already laid out.