Have we halted our own Evolution?

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?

I wish I knew more about it. I hope that what I said was accurate. Maybe someone else can correct me/elaborate?

My question is based upon the understanding that many many conditions that would have killed people years ago, from physical through to mental illness are now treated, controlled and cared for.I am not ignorant to the fact that people still die or that conditions like tuberculosis are still the largest killers in the world. I never suggested this. the post is not about the level of disease treatment in the world, it is about whether or not you feel that increasing survivability will have an effect on our evolution, and whether the fact that we now create our own environment will have an effect on our evolution.I would have thought it was possible to reply without patronising meI'm really not to interested in your confrontational attitude, this was a simple question to gauge people's thoughts. You seem intent on merely attacking my question.
It might make you feel big to attempt to belittle others. but you'll get no joy from me.I am not a scientist, a geneticist or a biologist, that is why am ASKING and not spouting my opinion.I am not writing a term paper or seeking to be graded... if this more relaxed attitude to information gathering doesn't suit you don't bother replyingI don't have the foggiest idea what nucleotide substitution is I'm sorry, I though my question was straight forward enough.. perhaps too simple for your good self.

Evolution is a combination of changes, mutations, and the filter, Natural Selection.Now, what you are talking about seems to be that people that might have died are now living longer then they might have in the past.Is that correct?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

I think details from the New Scientist article mentioned by Tusko earlier in this thread would inform the discussion a great deal: Viewing the entire article requires a subscription, so here's a copy for you cheapskates: There seems to be some difference of opinion among evolutionary scientists about whether we're still evolving significantly. Interestingly, if the scientists who think we're evolving rapidly are correct then that contradicts an oft-stated position of evolutionists here at EvC Forum, that it is small populations that evolve quickly.--Percy

This is the issue I hoped to address beginning in Message 19.Evolution is a history, it's a summary of what is left after all the changes get filtered by Natural Selection. What humans have done is tampered with the filter, we have removed many of the conditions that might have been filtered out in the past.It seems to me, and I could well be wrong, that when the evolutionists said that small populations evolve quickly, they were talking about the historical viewpoint.Is it not possible that what we are seing now is not that the change part of evolution has accelerated but that we have enlarged the mesh of the filter so that changes that might not have passed the filter in the past now breeze right through?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Percy, How on earth does a gene that arises once get into 25% of the global population in 500 years?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 03-18-2006 11:44 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

In part, that's because people disagree on what it means to say that we are evolving. To some folk, evolving is change in gene distribution. To others, evolving is change in morphology.Let's remember that evolution requires natural selection from within a range of genetic variation. At times when selection pressures are weak, we should be seeing a building up of the amount of variation within the species. And that increased variation could serve the species well. At some future time, whether it be a new killer disease, or whether it be major climate change, there could be periods of heavy selection pressure. The increased variation will be the raw material for that period of selection. The greater the amount of variation in the population, the greater the opportunity for new creative combinations to arise during a future selection crisis.

Three words, my friend:Debbie Does Dallas

yes. I guess that's what i'm trying to get at

If that is the case, what we have done is allow MORE variation into the species human, and so not halted evolution but rather increased the variability in the genetic pool. Far from halting evolution, it would seem we have increased the likelyhood of some part of the human species surviving the next great filtering of Natural Selection.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To say that we have halted evolution would be quite incorrect.Taken in its broad sense, biological evolution is basically change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next. This is regardless of natural selection (NS), however NS is one of the main (and certainly most famous) factors contributing to evolution.Genetic Drift (GD) is also an important factor in evolution. Still though, evolutionists argue over which contributes more - NS vs GD.
Basically, GD refers to random (a better word, stochastic) changes in allele frequencies from one generation to the next, depending on who contributes "gametically".This argument aside, as has been said, recent work has shown that humans have been subject to NS during the past few thousand years, at least.When it comes to medical advances, while it is true that they have resulted in the possibility of saving more lives, as Crash has pointed out, this happens mainly in the first world, and most people on this planet don't live first world lives. Actually, the March of Dimes has recently released its global report on birth defects. It's clear that these are still a serious problem.At the most, the filter has been removed (as Jar said), meaning that the possibility of these "affected" people contributing to the next generation is now higher, since they've not been killed off by their affliction. However, it should be noted that the majority of disease alleles are present, not in the afflicted, but in "healthy" carriers, and so would still possibly be passed on regardless of whether or not the afflicted survive to reproduce.And still while we have affected the environment, we still have to live in it. Many of the things that have been done, have been inadvertant, and so still could exert selective pressure on us in the future.To sum it up, evolution doesn't stop with the removal of NS; which arguably, has not been removed.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

It could be, Percy, that the rate of evolution among populations is relative. So, while humanity could possibly be evolving rapidly, small "isolated" populations could be evolving even faster, due to the increased effect of genetic drift on their gene pool.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Crash, In the course of researching this "evidence" I was hospitalised. The doctors say, in spite of masturbating myself unconcious, I should sustain no lasting muscular damage to my right arm.My lawyers thank you for your concern.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't