Are Humans Still Evolving?

From AdminTL:Cut and pasted article deleted at the emailed request of the author.Jim, please refrain from copying and pasting entire articles in the future. It is always a violation of copyright unless done with the express permission of the author, and it is always a violation of forum rules, whether you have the permission of the author or not.The original article can be found here[This message has been edited by AdminTL, 04-09-2004]

I think you may have left one thing out. What about the future ability of man to directly manipulate his own genome. Actually, it may not even be that far into the future. Would you consider this evolution or not.BTW, great essay. I may try and make some other comments later, but I have to rush home and watch the home team kick some BYU ass.

Natural evolution in humans is going to have a much longer wait time than it ever had before. I agree that the only other evolution we will ever see in humans again is self inflicted. We will probably all be dead before the next natural positive mutation becomes a norm. That was a very nice essay by the way.

Hi Jim.
In the future, please reference where you get essays like this from for the sake of all parties involved. Someone saw this here and was kind enough to email me about it, otherwise I never would have seen it. I don't mind you using my essay as the basis for starting a conversation, but I would appreciate you referencing the author at least once and perhaps also including a web reference for it.This time, I will do it for you =)It came from http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=172 and was written by myself. The paper actually has a list of references with it too, so if u want to see the entire original article with all relevent references, have a look at the link.Thanks guys,
Shane

As a creationist lawyer, I urge JIM to deny the charge of plagiarism. These two papers, like chimpanzees and humans, were separate acts of creation. There is no eyewitness evidence of JIM copying this paper. Therefore, it's just as likely that he thought it up himself, in words that bear a merely passing resemblance to the previously-posted article.The two errors which appear in identical form in paragraph 5 of both essays (affect should be effect, and can use: The should be can use: the) are just what we would expect from separate acts of creation, and in no way support the hypothesis of plagiarism.added by edit:
In the event that a charge of plagiarism seems likely to anyone, I submit that JIM's article was the original. Though Shane's essay has a posting date ten days earlier than JIM's, it may have been created later but with the appearance of age.regards,
Esteban Hambre
Creationist Lawyer
Patriot University
Discovery Institute[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 04-08-2004]

Yes, in the name of Academic integrity, plagiarism ought be avoided,.... as ought the "cut and paste" of whole articles which the poster intends for our edification.If he can not sum the essence for us, he does you and the readers a disservice.If he can sum, in brief, the point of such a long essay he facilitates discussion.I would like to acknowledge the publishers and editirial staff of the Freuduan Bible Tanslation and Interpretation, PO 52006
Phila, 19115 PA for the excerpt I post here.It seems to suggest that, indeed, "we shall all be changed in a twinkling (mentally)"... evolving in a process of normal growth, maturation, and development into an awakening of our still enormous Unconscious Mind.The "evolution" of consciousness since Freud has afford many careful observers the opportunity to see the collective expression of such entities in our social behaviors. The sexual exploitation as recognizably a function of the human Libido and the rise of Science in direct proportion to a growing use and appreciation in the exercise of the Superego is what I hint at.Here is the prediction from the Freudian Bible Interpretation relevant to the coming " of a new creature in God, the Universe itself, our Almighty Reality."(Quote).evelation 21:4 And God (in the image of man's awakened Unconscious Mind) shall wipe away all tears from their eyes (in this new phylogenetic storehouse of understanding); and, (in genetic memories of prior existences), there shall be no more death (genetically reproduce Unconscious memory a cntinuum of previous nanifestation), neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain, (eliminated as in the experienced of hypnosis): for the former things are passed away.Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne (the Collective Unconscious) said, Behold, I make all things new (in human experience). And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

of course humans are still evolving. but for the worse i think. our species is adjusting to being spoiled by technology. we (those in 'civilized' nations) are becoming less able to deal with temperature discrepancies as a result of air conditioning. our gene pool is being tainted by the weaker individuals whose lives are being saved by medicine. our bodies are becoming less able to do hard labor as a result of seeking more 'intellectual' type occupations.we are becoming less adaptable. i think it may lead to our desruction. should we let all the weak ones die then? no. i'm no monster. we simply have to make sure that our technology can continue to support us. if it can't, we're screwed.

You do realize that nobody but Freudians take Freudian analysis seriously any more, don't you?

quote:

---

of course humans are still evolving. but for the worse i think. our species is adjusting to being spoiled by technology. we (those in 'civilized' nations) are becoming less able to deal with temperature discrepancies as a result of air conditioning. our gene pool is being tainted by the weaker individuals whose lives are being saved by medicine. our bodies are becoming less able to do hard labor as a result of seeking more 'intellectual' type occupations.

---

For us in the Developed World, I will agree. But I am pretty sure mos of the human population still lives in Second and Third World nations. Inner Africa, for example, is still rife with disease, hard labor, lack of AC, etc. Parts of Asia are the same. Even in the rural parts of China they still depend on animal labor for harvesting and preparing fields.That said, just a quick example of a new, beneficial gene that is set to proliferate in a human population. Haemoglobin S is the sickle cell gene. If you have one copy of the gene, you have increased resistance to malaria. However, if you have two copies, then you develop sickle cell anemia. The newer gene, haemoglobin C, does not have the disadvantage of causing anemia when it is homozygous, but does offer increased resistance to malaria. It is hypothesized that this gene will sweep through areas of Africa with endemic malaria.

quote:

---

of course humans are still evolving. but for the worse i think. our species is adjusting to being spoiled by technology. we (those in 'civilized' nations) are becoming less able to deal with temperature discrepancies as a result of air conditioning. our gene pool is being tainted by the weaker individuals whose lives are being saved by medicine. our bodies are becoming less able to do hard labor as a result of seeking more 'intellectual' type occupations.

---

Of course we're genetically and physically capable of doing hard labor and of enduring temperature extremes, as a population.Remember, if old people used to die in greater numbers due to the heat, it doesn't matter because they have already passed on their genes long ago.Just because lots of people don't do physical labor, and would probably have a hard time if they got up from their desks and began to do some immediately, doesn't mean that they couldn't start a conditioning program and then become a construction worker or a ditch digger with little problem.

But the question isn't whether the first few generations that are exposed to new envirnomental pressures would be capable of ontogenetically reverting to characteristics benefical to the orginal environment, it is whether the succession of generations produces a shift in the prevalence of genetic determinants that favor those characteristics. Selective pressure has never been exclusively towards larger, stronger, and faster. It is a trade-off between biological costs and advantage. When the advantage of a costly characteristic subsides, then eventually that will be reflected by a decreased prevalence of that characteristic in the population. If you re-apply the original selective pressure, then you will see, in the course of many generations, a corresponding increase in the prelavance of those advantageous (but costly) characteristics in the population.edited for clarity & typosThis message has been edited by mogur, 05-24-2004 01:42 PM

I see it perhaps as merely a contining process of maturation, development, and growth, though it ultimately must be defined as an evolutionary step forward.I refer to the growing consciousness of our species in general.What is slowly emerging, generation by generation, is an increasing self awareness, not only of the material universe around us, but of man, himself.
We now realize, and are more conscious of, the presence of inner motivators, modules of thought once so subconscious as to be denied. In that previous state, we were somewhat more asleep than today.Our science has crossed into the frontier of the great depths of the Unconscious seas of thought within. Bio-feed back, hypnosis, positive support group therapies, and in many other areas, we observe the emerging and enlarging consciousness of areas locked to us in ages past.The idea is, that first, only a most elementary evolution of Consciousness has occurred. This quality, germane exclusively to us, one we so esteem in man, could be/is a continuing process. It is one which will not cease until we have deep access into the Pre-conscious, and even an expanded awareness of the Unconscious Mind.This is what the Hebrew scriptures concern themselves with, and this growing consciousness is calculated as so powerful an augmentation to man's present capabilities that a "new creature" in tnis Reality, this Universe, this external "God Almighty" outside of our individual skulls warrants the title of a species, Homoiousian Man, to come.Matt. 16:27 For the Son of man, (as a conscious Homoiousian), shall come in the glory of his Father, (the Almighty creator, the Universe), with his angels (of the psyche); and then he shall reward (in Total Consciousness) every man according to his works.Matt. 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, (but shall be genetically recreated), till they see the Son of man, (this new creature in God, the Homoiousian evolution), coming in his kingdom (of Homoiousian Sapiens).

quote:

---

Selective pressure has never been exclusively towards larger, stronger, and faster. It is a trade-off between biological costs and advantage.

---

Just a thought, but athleticism seems to be a positive, sexual selection trait. To put it bluntly, good athletes get a lot of tail. Might our athletic prowess (larger, stronger, faster, more agile) be under selective pressure? And could this sexual selection move us away from being hard-toiling hunter gatherers to sleek, active runners, fighters, hurdlers, etc.? Again, just putting this forward for debate, wondering what other people might think.

Nice controversial example ive thought up here.Less intelligent, ignorant people are being selected for. Intelligent people are more likely to wear protection, and less likely to become pregnant by mistake (careers to think of, realise the responsibilities etc). Career women are leaving it later and later to have children ( i believe in the UK it is now around 30). Unemployed familys (at least in the uk) recieve more benefits for each child they have, encouraging them to have more children, whereas in theory more career minded people are less likely to have many children because of time constraints.So we have lazy, more likely to be less intelligent, people encouraged to have more children, whereas intelligent hardworkers are less likely to have children, selection pressures and variation in alleles, evolution.Just thought id let you have a play with that one.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....

No, that is not true. It might be true in your high school, but just consider this possibility- maybe while you jocks were polishing your rocket, that the lame-ass nerds were going behind your back, while you were occupied with locking horns, that the receptive females were getting their gonads off on the dorks? Just something for you to think about.