Has human evolution stopped?

First I would like to introduce my self. So hello everybody! Oh, just in case you were wondering, I'm from the evolution group. Although I still reserve a little space in my mind for the possibility of creation.Anyways, on to my question. Has human evolution stopped? In today society how is it possible for inferior traits/genes to be eliminated? Is there even advantageous traits, and exactly what is an advantageous trait in our current enviroment? Is it beauty, strenght, 20/20 vision, or being curious (by curious I mean being able to take advantage of school and not being one of the many drop outs)?In todays society we have many genetic disorders. Down syndrome being on of the most obvious one. If we, humans, were still living in a time similar to our beginings, Down syndrome would've eventually been wiped out. If you were born with Down syndrome back then, you wouldn't have been able to run fast: so you would've been an easy target for predators, you wouldn't have been able to communicate efficiently with your family/clan: so hunting for you was definetly out of the question, or you might've become too much of a hassle for your family/clan to take care of you: so you would've probably been abandoned. But in todays society however, people with Down syndrome, and many other genetic disorders, still live on. So my point is: in todays society advantageous traits/genes are obsolete, you don't need them, and therefore our evolution as humans has stopped.I can't think of any actual trait that would someone an advantage over someone else. In today's society you have the power to make your own advantage. If you go school and receive a degree in something, then you are going to have an advantage over someone who didn't.------------------------------------------
I'm not "special"

"First I would like to introduce my self. So hello everybody! Oh, just in case you were wondering, I'm from the evolution group. Although I still reserve a little space in my mind for the possibility of creation."
--At least it sounds as if you have an open mind."Anyways, on to my question. Has human evolution stopped?"
--No"In today society how is it possible for inferior traits/genes to be eliminated?"
--Mutation?"Is there even advantageous traits"
--You mean beneficial? Well the whole validity of the ToE depends on this doesn't it, and the mechenism by which this happens continues, does it not? So, yes."and exactly what is an advantageous trait in our current enviroment?"
--Depends on natural selectability."Is it beauty, strenght, 20/20 vision, or being curious (by curious I mean being able to take advantage of school and not being one of the many drop outs)?"
--Depends on the situation, natural (or artificial in this case) selection.--Think you see my points.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by LuisHernandez:

First I would like to introduce my self. So hello everybody! Oh, just in case you were wondering, I'm from the evolution group. Although I still reserve a little space in my mind for the possibility of creation.

​

Anyways, on to my question. Has human evolution stopped? In today society how is it possible for inferior traits/genes to be eliminated? Is there even advantageous traits, and exactly what is an advantageous trait in our current enviroment? Is it beauty, strenght, 20/20 vision, or being curious (by curious I mean being able to take advantage of school and not being one of the many drop outs)?

​

In todays society we have many genetic disorders. Down syndrome being on of the most obvious one. If we, humans, were still living in a time similar to our beginings, Down syndrome would've eventually been wiped out. If you were born with Down syndrome back then, you wouldn't have been able to run fast: so you would've been an easy target for predators, you wouldn't have been able to communicate efficiently with your family/clan: so hunting for you was definetly out of the question, or you might've become too much of a hassle for your family/clan to take care of you: so you would've probably been abandoned. But in todays society however, people with Down syndrome, and many other genetic disorders, still live on. So my point is: in todays society advantageous traits/genes are obsolete, you don't need them, and therefore our evolution as humans has stopped.

​

I can't think of any actual trait that would someone an advantage over someone else. In today's society you have the power to make your own advantage. If you go school and receive a degree in something, then you are going to have an advantage over someone who didn't.

---

The only "success" that matters in evolution is reproductive success.Those individuals who pass on their genes many times over are more successful, from an evolutionary viewpoint, than those who don't.Since better-educated people tend to have fewer children than people with less education, doing better in school actually tends to make one less successful, from an evolutionary standpoint.As per your other question, 10% or so of the Caucasian population in the US has either partial or full immunity to HIV due to being descendents of people who survived the Black Plague in Europe.I'd say this is great evidence of evolution in humans.Selection pressure is different for us now than even a thousand years ago, but they are still there.

[b] [QUOTE]Since better-educated people tend to have fewer children than people with less education, doing better in school actually tends to make one less successful, from an evolutionary standpoint.[B][QUOTE] So, our brain capacity is actually decreasing? [B][QUOTE]As per your other question, 10% or so of the Caucasian population in the US has either partial or full immunity to HIV due to being descendents of people who survived the Black Plague in Europe.[/b][/QUOTE]Hmm... Still have lot's to learn.------------------------------------------
I'm not "special"

quote:

---

Originally posted by LuisHernandez:

First I would like to introduce my self. So hello everybody! Oh, just in case you were wondering, I'm from the evolution group. Although I still reserve a little space in my mind for the possibility of creation.

​

Anyways, on to my question. Has human evolution stopped? In today society how is it possible for inferior traits/genes to be eliminated? Is there even advantageous traits, and exactly what is an advantageous trait in our current enviroment? Is it beauty, strenght, 20/20 vision, or being curious (by curious I mean being able to take advantage of school and not being one of the many drop outs)?

​

In todays society we have many genetic disorders. Down syndrome being on of the most obvious one. If we, humans, were still living in a time similar to our beginings, Down syndrome would've eventually been wiped out. If you were born with Down syndrome back then, you wouldn't have been able to run fast: so you would've been an easy target for predators, you wouldn't have been able to communicate efficiently with your family/clan: so hunting for you was definetly out of the question, or you might've become too much of a hassle for your family/clan to take care of you: so you would've probably been abandoned. But in todays society however, people with Down syndrome, and many other genetic disorders, still live on. So my point is: in todays society advantageous traits/genes are obsolete, you don't need them, and therefore our evolution as humans has stopped.

​

I can't think of any actual trait that would someone an advantage over someone else. In today's society you have the power to make your own advantage. If you go school and receive a degree in something, then you are going to have an advantage over someone who didn't.

​

---

Well, if evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency over time, then, yes, humans will evolve.Morphological evolution, as predicted by Gould & Eldridge, occurs mainly at cladogenesis, due to small populations & the increased chance of any mutations being fixed/reach equilibrium. In this case, don’t expect too much visible change in humans, given 6 bn + population in the present day!Downs syndrome is a poor example, since it isn’t generally a condition that is passed on. The most common occurrence of downs is trisomy 21, the individuals of which rarely have children. You are thinking of downs as a heritable genetic disorder, which it generally isn’t.A better example would be the cystic fibrosis gene, which is only expressed when both recessive genes are present. This phenotype is lethal, sometimes before adulthood, but not necessarily. In either case, children are not usual, meaning the recessive genes are being constantly removed from the human genome. Unfortunately, new mutations are being introduced which cause the same effect. Basically, this means that although dodgy genotypes are being removed from the genome, new, different genotypes are being added that have the same phenotype, so as to present cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is being added to the genome as fast as it is being removed, ie it is in equilibrium. Nevertheless, it’s still evolution as the allele frequencies are changing, even if the % rate of cystic fibrosis isn’t!The other perhaps more/less likely form of evolution amongst humans is that of gene therapy. In it’s simplest form this could eliminate all current KNOWN CF alleles at a stroke by testing all zygotes for the gene & aborting the positive tests. I’m not advocating this, but it IS possible. It would mean eliminating healthy heterozygous zygotes, meaning ANY of us that carry one of the recessive alleles would be axed, that would otherwise grow up perfectly healthy. But the allele(s) could be removedFantasy, but interesting. Not sure I wan’t to go this route, but it is a "possibility".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Well, if evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency over time, then, yes, humans will evolve.

---

What you also get is that those individuals who produce the most offspring are being 'selected' for i.e. are more successful according to evolution. Given the population growth rate differences between first and third world countries, any genetic similarities in third world populations would be more succesful from an evolution standpoint.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
What you also get is that those individuals who produce the most offspring are being 'selected' for i.e. are more successful according to evolution. Given the population growth rate differences between first and third world countries, any genetic similarities in third world populations would be more succesful from an evolution standpoint.

---

JM: All other things being equal, of course! However, suppose more offspring are competing for NO or limited resources, then ultimately the growth rate should slow. This is only one possible outcome. Disease may increase in that population or environmentally triggered negative mutations might increase. At this point in the growth curve can any definite conclusions be reached? I don't know. Do you?CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
What you also get is that those individuals who produce the most offspring are being 'selected' for i.e. are more successful according to evolution. Given the population growth rate differences between first and third world countries, any genetic similarities in third world populations would be more succesful from an evolution standpoint.

​

---

Yup, there are a range of outcomes, I was just making the point that morphological change would be very slow/non-existent. Unless there is a separated population giving rise to a founder effect, of course. In these days of increasing globalisation, it's unlikely, however.The problem is, that any new alleles have access to (in western countries) the entire world, & it's population, because of this the chances of fixation are small.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Meert:
JM: All other things being equal, of course! However, suppose more offspring are competing for NO or limited resources, then ultimately the growth rate should slow. This is only one possible outcome. Disease may increase in that population or environmentally triggered negative mutations might increase. At this point in the growth curve can any definite conclusions be reached? I don't know. Do you?

---

I don't know. However I seem to remember that third world countries have large population growth rates while first world countries have genereally stable population counts. With the majority of the third world
counties being in Africa and Asia (if I remember correctly) the human genome would tend to be large wieghted in that direction.From a strickly evolutionary standpoint this can only be good for humans given that healthcare is limited or non-existant you end up with a more 'natural' natural selection i.e. bacterial and virii(sp) resistences will be more likely to survice. Or am I missing something?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Yup, there are a range of outcomes, I was just making the point that morphological change would be very slow/non-existent. Unless there is a separated population giving rise to a founder effect, of course. In these days of increasing globalisation, it's unlikely, however.

​

The problem is, that any new alleles have access to (in western countries) the entire world, & it's population, because of this the chances of fixation are small.

---

Correct.You also have cultural biases limiting the amount of 'interbreeding'. While this is not enough to completely isolate any one population (of significant size) it is enough to significantly retard fixation.------------------
compmage

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LuisHernandez:
[b] Hmm... Still have lot's to learn.
[/QUOTE]No, our brain capacity is not decreasing. Just because someone isn't educated doesn't mean that they have decreased brain capacity. There are many economic and social reasons why some people are not educated as much as or as well as other people.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

all the radiation we encounter on a day to day basis is probably not good for anything except dying/mutation.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
all the radiation we encounter on a day to day basis is probably not good for anything except dying/mutation.

---

Radiation has always been a part of living on Earth. I'm not sure if you are implying that there is a lot more these days than in the past. Here is a NRC page I found which tells you all you ever wanted to know about adiation exposure.I am convinced that we are quite safe. http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/about-radiation.html

Hi, I'm Peter ... but I seem to be deleted at the mo.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Is there even advantageous traits"
--You mean beneficial? Well the whole validity of the ToE depends on this doesn't it, and the mechenism by which this happens continues, does it not? So, yes.

---

No ... ToE requires on beneficial mutations (i.e. non-lethal
mutation). The question asked above was, in the current social
context are any expressed traits more advantageous ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"and exactly what is an advantageous trait in our current enviroment?"
--Depends on natural selectability.

---

Linked to the above ... what traits expressed in modern human
cultures would tend to make one more likely to reproduce successfully?I beleive you have misunderstood/misinterpreted the question asked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

"Is it beauty, strenght, 20/20 vision, or being curious (by curious I mean being able to take advantage of school and not being one of the many drop outs)?"
--Depends on the situation, natural (or artificial in this case) selection.

---

Yes it depends on environmental pressures (that's what natural
selection is about isn't it?) ... again I think the question raised
is one of 'What if ...?' intended to spark discussion on what traits
might impact human evolution.For example ... if there were a unique concept of what made
a man or woman beautiful which did not change over time
then one might expect the human populations to increase in 'beauty'
as more beautiful people would have a higher chance of reproduction.Personally I can't think of a particular trait that allows one
a better chance of reproductive success in the modern world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:

--Think you see my points.

---

Did you make some ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Radiation has always been a part of living on Earth. I'm not sure if you are implying that there is a lot more these days than in the past. Here is a NRC page I found which tells you all you ever wanted to know about adiation exposure.

​

I am convinced that we are quite safe.

​

http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/about-radiation.html

​

---

well practically every modern device emits a certain level of radiation, as well as the ozone degrading allowing more uv rays and amounts of space radiation. sources of radiation are much more concentrated and abundant; such as nuclear power plant reactors and stockpiles of leaking atomic bombs.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi