Are humans still evolving?

[Used and Abused]

Is there evidence of slight or major changes to the human body since the days of Christ? And since humans are now spread out across the globe, wouldn't that mean that certain groups may begin to evolve to be more superior/advanced than other groups?

[EstimatedProphet]

1. Why does it have to be since the days of Christ?

And yes-there is objective evidence: wisdom teeth, for example. Shrinkage in the human jaw length due to changes in diet have reduced the need for the 4th molar, which now has no place to go and often does not erupt correctly.

[MissB]

10. I've always claimed that I'm more evolved

because I never had wisdom teeth at all. :evilgrin:

[EstimatedProphet]

15. Behold the next generation of Mankind!

ALL HAIL MISSB!

[electropop]

57. Then there was Kevin Costner in 'Waterworld'

I think I'm the only human on earth who liked that movie. Anyway, he had gills, an adaptation to a post-global-warming world completely flooded by the melted ice caps.

[Used and Abused]

22. UMM... we do use B.C. and A.D. as markers, or have we switched that?

Not trying to inject religion, just using time markers here.

[MissB]

28. I think the point is that evolutionary changes

happen over long periods of time. 2005 years may not be a big enough time to see some significant evolutionary changes.

It was just an odd choice of a timeline, that is all.

[alfredo]

58. What we consider race could be regional adaptations.

What changes would one see in 10 to 15 thousand years if a Bantu community moved to Iceland, or if an Icelandic community moved to the Congo? If there is no inter breeding would the changes brought on by adapting to the local environment and diet be considered evolving?

[prodigal_green]

64. You don't even have to send "exotic" populations to Iceland

because of its small fairly isolated population, there is a significantly higher frequency of male breast cancer in Iceland. Small population interbreeding for over a thousand years. Iceland's current population stands around 250,000--about the size of my neighborhood in Queens (except that my neighborhood in Queens probably has more genetic diversity than any other place on the planet.

Also, there is greater genetic diversity within Africa than outside of it. This means that small populations migrated outward toward Europe and Asia and then inbred, while the populations that stayed home continued to evolve and exchange genetic material within a much more diverse community.

[alfredo]

73. From what I understand, people migrated out, then back into

Africa. You can see great variety in Africa. I lived and travelled there for 3 years.
there is a great difference between Ethiopians and Bantu.



the pointed chin, straight nose, and reddish caste is typical of Eritreans.


Steven Biko was Bantu, the predominant people of central and south Africa.



big difference.

Take a look at this African man.


Most Americans have a very limited understanding of the variety of peoples in Africa.

[prodigal_green]

74. Yes, I've heard that theory too

people migrated out, conditions became too harsh so they either moved back or died out.

Genetic diversity goes well beyond phenotype (expressed genotype, e.g., physical "looks") If there is a worldwide disaster, the only hope for human survival will be in Africa because of the depth of genetic diversity there.

On second thought, with migration patterns what they are, that is a silly statement...

[alfredo]

76. I remember reading a study where they show a picture of an

acacia tree to people. No matter where they are from, they reacted in the same visceral way. Maybe their study found that in our most inner being we are still Africans.




That is lake Turkana, where "Lucy" bathed and daydreamed.

[Trajan]

75. I would also add ...

That a species must have to be stressed by environment for a great change to become necessary .... and a suitable mutation become prevalent due to its superior survivability traits compared to the stressed population, owing to those mutated characteristics ...

Or sumfin like that ....

[StClone]

33. I think BC/AD was a convenient point in time

I have all my wisdom molars. I love them...I can eat half again as fast as I could without them.

[RedCloud]

39. Phys Anthro to the rescue!

Our jaws are supposed to expand as we eat twigs and bark like the primates we are supposed to be.

No real evolution there, just disuse. And unless some billio or so ladies decide they will only bear children of those who have no fourth molars, there is no genetic shift!

[EstimatedProphet]

48. You're right, however

Give it 25,000 more years, and it might turn into an evolutionary change, because there may be a genetic shift-as wisdom teeth become more of a problem with dietary shift away from our ancestors, people may well socially select away from those that have wisdom teeth.

[maxudargo]

59. But if there is any adaptive disadvantage to having wisdom teeth

Say, if those with wisdom teeth are even slightly more likely to die during operations to remove those teeth, or to die from infections caused by impacted wisdom teeth or something - if they are even slightly less likely to survive long enough to procreate at the same rate as the wisdom-toothless, then given enough time they will be selected against and disappear from the gene pool.

It's not all about being sexy, you know...

[DrWeird]

2. everything's always evolving.

If it's not being selected against, it's diversifying.

[unblock]

3. for starters, height and onset of puberty have changed

no time to google a link, but i'm sure there's plenty on these two, at a minimum.

[JHB]

6. But those are likely more a matter of nutrition than genetics...

...and in the case of advanced puberty, that may also include the nutrition of meat animals (high hormone intake).

[unblock]

14. there is a nutritional/environmental effect, but

a large component is surely genetic.

there were not many people over 6' tall even a few hundred years ago, and you can hardly say that anyone under 6' was malnourished.

[DrWeird]

17. No, that's mostly nourishment.

People were eating, but they weren't getting all their vitamins, and they had much more problems with disease.

[tblue37]

54. Nourishment, exercise, and exogamy.

[RedCloud]

42. calcium on the increase.

it does grow dem bones.

[Used and Abused]

24. right. nt

[prodigal_green]

67. We see the word "meme" here on DU a lot

but it was originally used to describe culture's effect on evolution--"meme" as opposed to "gene". Technology has contributed to human evolution for hundreds of thousands of years. Medicine, communication and transportation technology, energy technology, sanitation, etc., are all memes that are passed from individual to individual, generation to generation and society to society.

Without the fashion meme, we'd all pretty much be living on or near the equator. The first person who donned an animal skin accelerated human capacity to survive in just about any climate on earth. Other than the metaphorical wolf in sheep's clothing, do any other animals don the skin of another?

Trade routes and transportation/communication technology allowed humans to develop and innovate even more technology and so on. There is no point in discussing human evolution outside of technology. We were a physically weak species that survived soley on the basis of being extremely clever. We can also be clever to death, when war technology wipes out entire populations.

Eugenisists have got it all wrong when they seek to "eliminate" a particular trait from a population, such as poor eyesight, by killing off folks with glasses (a la the Nazis). The fact is, glasses exist and are easy to produce and therefore there is nothing "unfit" about being nearsighted.

[RedCloud]

40. Isostatic reaction to diet and environment

Stuff like this happens but is not evolution.

Now more chicos are born than chicas in Spanish speaking countries. I will await some theory on that, but that is not evolution either...

[skypilot]

4. I think that we are still evolving...

...and if the earth is around a million years from now, humans will probably look somewhat different from the way they look now. It might not even take that long. I believe that human evolution this time around will be aided (I'm not sure that's the right word) by artificial means and forces. I believe the drugs we take, the food we eat and the technology we depend on will factor in. I haven't thought it all out that thoroughly though.

[xtreme69]

13. Aritificial?

If humans are a part of nature, as we are, then how is anything we do "artificial". Our mental capacity was nature born, so anything that comes as a result of that mental capacity is also nature born.

[TNOE]

30. Artificial

as in the steriods in our meat products, antibiotics fed to chickens, etc. That is essentially artificial to our nature. Then take into consideration the brainwashing that goes on on a daily basis through our media, that can be considered artifical. And you don't even probably want to get into ELF wave, chemtrails, etc.

[skypilot]

31. Let's not split hairs.

I'm sure you know exactly what I mean. Artificial as in not occuring in nature itself without man's input. A computer, for example, is not a creation of nature. If, as you say, anything that comes as a result of our mental capacity is natural then the word artificial would not exist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It's difficult to separate effects like better nutrition

from genetic changes - eg average height is more, for most groups, than it was back then.

I have heard a theory that Europeans developed better resistance to alcohol than Asians, because Europeans drank more alcoholic drinks as a way of avoiding infected water, while Asians went more to boiled water, eg tea. I don't know how much there really is to back that up, but it would have happened in the past few thousand years.

[JHB]

12. There is some small difference in metabolizing alcohol...

...just as there is a difference in digesting lactose products. What's not clear is when these differences developed and why (if there IS a "why" rather than that just being the luck of the draw.).

[Bridget Burke]

44. But some Europeans handle alcohol better than others....

Those around the Mediterranean have drunk wine for millenia.

Weak beers were the norm in the chilly north. Which caused problems for the Northern Slavs & Celts when they encountered the strong stuff.

Mostly rumor, of course.

[bowens43]

7. 2000 years is just a blink of the eye to evolution.

Take a look around in a million or so......

[Used and Abused]

26. I'm sure the earth will be long gone by then

LOL... If past history is any indication.

[JHB]

8. Superior/advanced by what measure?

As others have said, all communities of living things evolve over time. However, evolution is merely change, difference from a defined origin. Whether those changes are superior or inferior depends on the context. What is superior under one set of circumstances may be inferior under another.

[UncleSepp]

62. Thank you JHB

That "more advanced" stuff always bugs me. It speaks of evolutionary "ladders" and a hierarchy of beings that is not part of the theory of evolution.

[matcom]

9. days of Christ?

what does that have to do with evolution?

and by the way, the answer to your question (I believe) is that we are (DE)evolving

[Itchinjim]

11. Well some are definitely devolving...

Shrub comes to mind.
(edited for spelling)

[starroute]

16. Evolution tends to occur in small, isolated groups

That's the only way new traits can take hold and be combined into a genuinely new adaptive pattern. Anything else is just minor tweaking and optimization.

The last major evolutionary change was the one which produced Homo sapiens sapiens about 170,000 years ago. There was a more superficial burst of change about 20,000 years ago which produced the present-day "races" -- a lot of evidence suggests that until then people everywhere looked pretty much like Polynesians or Australian Aborigines, and that the distinctions in skin and eyes and hair which we see around us today were the result of sexual selection as people became less driven by raw survival needs and had the leisure to consider prettiness instead.

That sort of sexual selection could certainly continue, even on a global basis. Perhaps 20,000 years from now, we will all have blue eyes, high Oriental cheekbones, and medium-brown skin. But any development of a genuinely new human species seems extremely unlikely.

[RedCloud]

43. Blue eyes are recessive!

Sorry but brown will rule the day. It rules melanin.

[VOX]

18. Our pResident is proof of man's kinship with the ape.

He just didn't make the leap.

[opihimoimoi]

25. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.........................................................

[Stirk]

19. Wouldn't disease immunities count as evolution?

Like the bubonic plague. That sort of thing.

I assume that lots of other things have changed as well. I remember reading once that a population's skin color can change- like an enormous population, I mean- nation-sized... it can change in as little as 5000 years or so. I don't remember where I read that- I think it was Discover or something.

[DrWeird]

27. Yes.

Europeans' immune systems became much stronger after the Black Death.

Sickle-Cell Anemia has been dated and tied to Alexander the Great's conquest of North Africa and the Indian subcontinent. That trait has flourished in areas of highly malaria, due to the resistance it confers.

[TNOE]

20. Well I think its clear that some are more evolved

than others -

Democrats are mostly for no war, diplomacy (using the brain) and peace
Democrats seem to have left the barbarism of our cave ancestors in the past and wish the world to evolve in a more peaceful, conducive manner.

Democrats are mostly for the art of sharing wealth so that no one goes hungry or without work and against big Corporations.


On the other hand -

Republicans resort to war as a first resort, mostly due to greed and a general lack of caring for the environment or human lives or loss. Republicans still long for the old west ways and cave man days where you solve everything with a club, sword, gun, whatever. Using the brain or deplomacy escapes them.

Republicans are mostly all for the Corporations - to their own detriment and the detriment of the planet. They are against Unions, fair wages, etc.

Based on these representations - YES, we are evolving, just some of us more rapidly than others.

[BOHICA06]

21. No .... society & socialization stops evolution.

We now take care of and protect those with genetic traits that might lead to their deaths without their inclusion in society.

For example - my wisdom teeth would have led to my death without a dentist's intervention, whereas my girlfriend had no wisdom teeth - a superior genetic position given our jaw size. Her genetic line would continue (maybe) where mine would stop if it were not for socialization.

[JHB]

32. But does that stop evolution, or just change its direction? n/t

[BOHICA06]

34. I think it puts it on hold ....

by allowing genetic traits to remain in the population pool that would doom a human being in the "wild". Color blindness - red/green - oops ate the wrong berry!

[opihimoimoi]

23. weare going backwards by comping our genepool...

we save the weak and kill the strong....

[beam me up scottie]

29. I used to think so but then

I visited freeperville.

[spanone]

God, I hope so.

[spanone]

35. God, I hope so.

[tubbacheez]

36. Yes, but whether Darwin's natural selection is the cause is tough to say.

We humans are complicated beings.


Survival of the "fittest" is multi-faceted for humans because we live, not just in a natural world, but also a social world, an economic world, a political world, a religious world, and a bio-chemical-radiological environment that we partially control.

[K-W]

41. No survival of the fittest is not mutli faceted.

It is just massively misaplied.

Our culture does not operate under anything remotely resembling survival of the fittest.

[tubbacheez]

47. That's one way to put it.

In other discussions elsewhere, the notion of "fittest" has been deemed entirely too vague. Fit for what?

It's clear that fitness to survive the NATURAL environment (local climate, local food supply, local predators, local diseases, local parasites, etc.) is no longer a significant concern.

But we live in a SOCIAL environment. How much social selection is going on? I'd say there is at least some. I've known a couple examples of people trying to marry a "higher class" person.

Some people practice SEXUAL selection, knowingly or unknowingly, in trying to have children with someone with a certain aesthetic appeal or a certain athletic ability.

ECONOMIC selection has long been used in choosing a partner, whether to move up in one's living standard, or to preserve or augment a family's inheritable wealth.

Humans also do funky things to their own DNA by ingesting various levels of CHEMICALS that can cause mutations.

For good or for ill, we live in a self-imposed RADIOLOGICAL environment that deviates from the one our ancestors lived in.



Evolution does continue, in that the prevalence of traits will not remain fixed. The only way to lock in today's distribution of traits would be for all humans procreated only once and by cloning himself or herself.

So the distribution of traits will continue to ebb and flow according to who's having lots of children.

But what mechanisms are most significant in driving this ebb and flow? That's tough to determine nowadays.

[K-W]

51. You are trying to fit far too many things into the theory of evolution.

First of all, yes fittest is a bad word. I would never use the term "survival of the fittest" to describe evolution or natural selection. It is misleading.

The natural enviroment is of a great deal of concern to us, and even more a concern to the massive number of people in this world who have not seperated themselves as far from the immediate consequences of the natural world as us. Or do you think all humans live like americans?

Class is not heavily correllated to genetics, so marrying for class is not an act with much evolutionary significance.

Sexual selection still occurs but its effects have been dulled by social factors unrelated to genetics and the fact that you dont actually have to secure a member of the opposite sex in a traditional sense to pass on your genes in many parts of the world.

There is no such thing as economic selection. Wealth, like class, is not genetically based, thus it has no significant effect on genetics.

The main factor in determinging the future genetic distribution in the human race are rates of reproduction in different groups and which groups are ingtermixing genetically and to what extent.

[tubbacheez]

53. Maybe I am. Maybe I'm not.

In the broad sense of the word, evolution is simply the set of changes that get passed onward. I think we both agree that genetic traits do get passed onward.

In the strict Darwinian sense of the word, you are correct; all those non-natural considerations I mentioned were not part of Darwin's theory.




Now, I believe we agree that a trait may gain prevalence if those who have it tend to procreate heavily, for whatever reason. A trait may lose prevalence if those with it procreate lightly, again for whatever reason.

Hence, the distribution of traits within all of humanity is not going to remain fixed. It will change over time.

So I completely agree with your last statement, that the rates of reproduction within groups and the intermingling of groups is the main force that determines how traits will be distributed.







What I was addressing (in the broad sense) was the large number of factors that influence procreation today.

I'm NOT saying these factors get passed along genetically, no. I'm saying these factors influence WHO gets to pass his or her traits onto more offspring.




And I think class is one such factor, maybe not a big one, but I've seen it in action here and there. In some parts of the world, not all classes are the same size, let alone procreate equally. So those classes which have more offspring tend to spread their genetic traits more widely into the next generation.

I think wealth is another such factor, a double action one, in fact. In some parts of the world, the poor procreate a lot (for many complex reasons). Traits in this group (and I'm NOT saying poverty is one of them) will gain prevalence

Similarly, some wealthy families procreated heavily. Whatever genetic traits (not economic traits) they possess will spread faster than those who don't reproduce as much.

I think sexual selection plays a greater role than many people realize. Different traits are valued in different cultures. Some are indeed related to surviving in nature, but many are not and are instead simply fashionable to have. Choosing a mate for those reasons is an act of sexual selection.

In addition, there are things that people created that tweak their genetic makeup for better or worse. Many of these changes are harmless. Many are so harmful (like cancer) their carriers don't survive very long. Whatever ones make it to the next generation are changes that get passed onward indefinitely. Thus, I would consider them to be evolutionary, though not via natural selection.

[seabeyond]

37. so much so, our children, totally made up differently

in wiring and energy and information intake and all. in what we put into their body. where the increases of bi polar, autism, add, adhd yada yada. children are not the same and their experience is not the same. i believe see feel this is the end of the old and in comes the new. a huge leap forward. 9/11 jarred universal energy bring a lot of people to awareness. right now i feel it is like cleaning a closet. at first a huge mess of tornado.......but as things are thrown away, given away and put away the mess clears to leaner cleaner aware.........

yup. i think we are just fine, though looking out can look scary or hopeless, i am hopeful. i think things democrats have done the last year or two in grassroot, voice out, courage in speaking truth regardless is paying off. and first one senator, then two and now thirteen voted against and the group grows, is bringing a greater awakening. 9/11 was a wave of awareness thru pain and loss and death. depending how one experienced this event is important. i think we are having another 9/11 only a different manor.

[K-W]

38. You misunderstand evolution.

First off, there is no such thing as superior or advanced in evolution. One of the many many dangerous misunderstandings of evolution that leads to things such as eugenics.

Now evolution as a word can have many meanings, but I am assuming you mean biological evolution. Evolution isnt a process. Evolution is a phenomenom. It doesnt start and stop. It is the longterm change in genetics in populations.

There are certain processses that contribute to evolution, and these processes are always active.

Many people come to the false idea that evolution has stopped because there is little competition to reproduce. This false idea ignores the fact that when a population is not being heavily pressured, it diversifies.

Thus if great selective pressure were to be brought down on the human race, our large diverse population would give us much better odds at surviving as a genetic line than a more homogeneus population with very specific adaptations (like if we purposely tried to steer human evolution).

[RedCloud]

46. Evolution is breeding success.

Unless a characteristic causes more of that kind to come into being, discard it as non-evolutionary.

So if one guy were born a cyclops and chicks dug that and started having baby cyclops by the bushels and so on, it is not going to happen. Or if a gal were a cyclops and dudes dug that and started fathering baby cyclops by the bushels...

[tubbacheez]

49. Brilliant example of sexual selection. n/t

[K-W]

50. That is sexual selection, not evolution.

Biological evolution refers to the change in the genes. Sexual selection is one process that contributes to evolution.

[Scout]

45. I sure hope so...

'cuz if this is the best we'll ever be as a group, we are a sorry bunch....

[ComerPerro]

52. yes, on a timeline of about 10,000 years

Not noticably

[codswallop]

55. Man has evolved physically and devolved spiritually...

whip it good.

[electropop]

56. Evolution never stops

and eventually our species will become unrecognizable compared to today's version, or we will disappear altogether. I think the average length of time that a large land mammal species remains recognizable as such, is about a million years. In that perspective, if we assume the baseline is homo sapiens sapiens, we are about halfway to extinction. If you factor in our use of technology, we are probably much closer to the end than that, either because we'll annihilate ourselves (more likely than ever under W), or we will intentinally mutate ourselves into something we consider better, through genetic engineering.

I don't think pockets of evolution will develop, at least not geographically. Our rapidity of travel has eliminated that factor, which in earlier times, was indeed important. On the other hand, genetic engineering will almost certainly be a factor separating the haves from the have-nots, and this will likely increase the gulf.

[gollygee]

60. 2000 years isn't long enough to notice major differences

and why should Christ be used as the time to measure from?

[ultraist]

61. Humans still evolving at a "breakneck pace"

excerpts
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/hfs10.html
Hominds seem remarkable for the sheer diversity of the fossil record. No other mammal has spread over as large a geographic and ecological range, nor evolved so many new forms of behavior within just a few million years.

The origins of this variability are behavioral as well as genetic. As human acestors evolved, accumulating hominid technology gave our biological variability an accelerating push. But before technology could have much impact, our evolution was also helped along by the human tendency to migration and the resulting geographic isolation of different hominid groups -- documented in Hominid Fossil Sites and Patterns of Homind Dispersal.

Separated in space, hominids evolved into regional variants that are sometimes treated as different species. Genetic variability within hominid species, and uncertainties in fossil reconstruction or geological dating, make these distinctions controversial. They are also somewhat beside the point: early humans were a restless species evolving at a breakneck pace.

The extreme reduction in size of the jaw across human evolution, along with its corresponding shift under the skull, has had an impact on human dentation -- particularly in the frequency with which humans show irregular or misaligned teeth. Even within the last 50,000 years, a trend toward smaller teeth and bone mass is apparent. The face, jaw and teeth of Mesolithic humans of 10,000 years ago were about 10% more robust than those of modern humans; Upper Paleolithic humans of about 30,000 years ago were about 20 to 30% more robust. Even among modern humans, the smallest tooth sizes are found in those areas where food processing techniques have been used for the longest time. Thus, right up to the present, evolution has continued to adapt humans to their ever-changing technological environment.

[prodigal_green]

63. of course we are.

The only way to stop it would be cloning, and even there, you'd probably find mutations occuring.

Sickle Cell and Cystic Fibrosis are both results of otherwise positive evolutionary changes:

If a person contains a single copy of a particular gene, he or she will be resistant to malaria or plague. Two copies of this gene cause SC and CF respectively.

Europeans are far more likely to survive plague these days because those that were most susceptible pretty much died off--one third of the European population as a matter of fact.

There is speculation that certain populations are resistant to developing full-blown AIDS after contracting the HIV virus, based on genetic mutation. Nothing conclusive though.

Will you live long enough to notice any differences? No.

BTW, what has Christ got to do with it?

[ultraist]

65. The idea that Bush is less evolved may not be so far off...

http://www3.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-12/uocm-uoc122304.php
The researchers found that both the ASPM and Microcephalin genes showed clear evidence of accelerated changes due to intensified evolutionary pressure in the lineage leading to humans. For ASPM, the acceleration is particularly prominent in recent human evolution after humans parted way from chimpanzees. By contrast, the researchers' analyses of ASPM and Microcephalin in the more primitive monkeys and in cows, sheep, cats, dogs, mice and rats, showed no evidence of accelerated evolutionary changes.

Lahn also is considering the wider impact of this research. "Are the genes involved in the evolution of the human brain more likely to be linked to diseases of the human brain? What happens when something goes wrong in these genes? Does it create neurological and psychiatric problems such as mental retardation or addiction? Could these genes contribute to IQ differences in humans? Do people with a particular mutation in one of these genes study better?"

According to Lahn, data from the Cell paper secures humans' privileged position in the evolutionary tree. "Human brain evolution required a major overhaul of the genetic blueprint -- perhaps much more so than the evolution of other biological traits," he said. But how did human ancestors encounter an environment where selection for better brains suddenly became such a prominent force? Lahn suggests that because humans have become a progressively more social species, greater cognitive abilities have become more of an advantage. "As humans become more social, differences in intelligence will translate into much greater differences in fitness," he said, "because you can manipulate your social structure to your advantage. "Even devoid of the social context, as humans become more intelligent, it might create a situation where being a little smarter matters a lot.

"The making of the large human brain is not just the neurological equivalent of making a large antler. Rather, it required a level of selection that's unprecedented," Lahn said. "Our study offers the first genetic evidence that humans occupy a unique position in the tree of life. Simply put, evolution has been working very hard to produce us humans."

[Swamp Rat]

66. Yes, but many are 'devolving'

[Xithras]

68. No.

Evolution is the process of the body adapting to external pressures over successive generations. Human technology has advanced to the point where we no longer adapt to our outside environments, but instead adapt those environments to fit our needs. Without an exertive force, there can be no natural selection and as a result, no evolution.

While hominid evolution has historically happened at a fairly rapid pace, our species has been biologically static for at least the last few thousand years, and quite possibly since the establishment of agricultural societies around ten thousand years ago.

[ultraist]

69. Incorrect

Xithras, this absolute statement is not true: "Human technology has advanced to the point where we no longer adapt to our outside environments, but instead adapt those environments to fit our needs."

In fact, sometimes manipulations of our environment trigger evolution. Cooking for example, an environmental change, produced smaller teeth.

Consider gene mutations that led to immunities of several diseases. For instance, in the Victorian days, many people people died from diseases that humans are now immune to. Many Scientists speculate that this will occur with AIDS and has already occured amongst chimps.

Furthermore, cognitive changes can be tracked in response to a higher tech society. Evolutionary psychology posits that synapse connections and hardwiring is in the process of evolving to adapt to our enviroment.

We cannot and do not manipulate every factor in our environment to suit our needs and sometimes, like with the instance of cooking, humans evolve as a result of an environmental manipulation. Humans do react and adapt, thus evolve. We are still evolving.

[Nikia]

70. Of course

Microevolution is proven amongst many species, including ourselves. Evolution doesn't necessarily mean huge changes. It can mean small changes like the above mentioned smaller teeth and resistance to disease.

[Democrat Dragon]

71. I do not expect much natural selection amongst humans any time soon.

People aren't going to get naturally any "prettier" because of makeup and plastic surgery would make sure such genes that cause asymmmetry, heavy acne, disproportional facial features etc. would pass on unnoticced and be apparent to only to those who do not have the time and money to correct these "flaws".

People aren't going to get naturally immune to influenza because we already have flu shots. Sure, a small population could come into exsistance but it won't spread fast unless all of a sudden a huge proportion of people got the flu and died and those who didn't get it or were immune survived.

Now with genetic engineering, although it may be expensive, it would save a heck of a lot of money for future generations. My only worry is if there would a discrimination between those who can afford it and those who cannot, thus the rich and the poor become genetically diffrent. Thus creating a society similar to a society found in science fiction and fantasy novels where a civilized creature's place in society was determined soley on some kind of natural trait (this also occurs with ants and termites).

[The River]

72. Why Does Everyone Assume Evolution

means JUST biological evolution???
You fall into the RW man vs monkey trap when you can only see
evolution as biological.
EVERYTHING evolves ALL the damn time.

"From the Big Bang (15 billion years ago) "which was really the roaring laughter of God voluntarily getting lost for the millionth time" through prepersonal "Eden" and personal Ego to transpersonal/nondual Enlightenment, evolution is for Wilber a lila of the "unfolding" of "Spirit" through "increasingly more conscious forms of Spirit's own self actualization and return to itself." Evolution is "Spirit-in-action" or "God in the making." In the beginning, Spirit in sport "forgets itself and empties itself into creation." In line with Schelling, creation for Wilber is a "falling-away" or "maximum self-alienation" of Spirit, and nature is "slumbering Spirit," mind is "self conscious Spirit" and nondual enlightenment is "realized Spirit." Thus the "direction" of evolution is "from nature to humanity to divinity; from subconsciousness to self-consciousness to superconsciousness; from prepersonal to personal to transpersonal; from id to ego to god." Wilber poetically demarcates his tripartite evolutionary scheme in an axiom: "Nature is unconscious imperfection, God is conscious perfection but poor humanity is conscious imperfection." As humans are "up from beasts and not yet gods" there has never been " a Golden Age of real Heaven on earth" or a "superconscious Eden" in our "actual historic past."

http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/rev/rev_ashok2.html

[RPM]

77. at a negative rate

yes