Future Human Evolution
Most recent answer: 10/22/2007
Q:
If humans were to evolve, in what way do you think it would be? i.e. Stronger..faster..smarter
- Greg (age 41)
Cody
- Greg (age 41)
Cody
A:
It’s important to realize that evolution does NOT work by
systematically marching off toward ’better’ organisms. Populations
change because different genes from them are reproduced at different
rates. (There can also be some slow drift due to random changes in
genes.) Is there any evidence that under current human social
conditions genes that make people ’stronger..faster..smarter’ cause
them to have more offspring? I really doubt it.
There does seem to be some world-wide tendency for people with less schooling to have more children. So perhaps we are evolving toward a species that’s less likely to be comfortable going to school, for a variety of emotional and intellectual reasons.
Then maybe new social conditions will arise, in which other types reproduce best. This coupled social-biological system seems way too complicated to predict.
Mike W.
I’d disagree with Mike about whether a sample of people who are less schooled are actually genetically disposed to be uncomfortable with going to school. The schooling of people in different countries has a lot more to do with the availability of schools rather than with the willingness of people to attend. Some people may be unable to attend school because they are needed to do work, but this again seems not heritable to me.
Evolution depends on natural selection as well -- there must be population variation and natural selection is the name we give to the fact that some people with some genes reproduce more than others (at least for many cases this is because individuals who survive to reproductive age are able to reproduce). A strong force in natural selection is disease. We have evolved intricate defense mechanisms to fight against disease, and we continue to be amazed each time we learn more about it. But we are also getting better and better at preventing disease and in curing people once they have disease. Disease may no longer be a significant force in evolution.
The diseases that cause the most mortality in our modern, affluent society in the United States tend to be those that strike after reproductive age, and thus also have little effect on which individuals reproduce. If junk food caused young people to have heart attacks, you might imagine that humans may evolve to be more resistant to heart disease at an early age (but heart disease, cancer, and stroke are rare in young people, even those with poor diets). Diabetes strikes younger and younger people, but it is controllable, so it won’t be a pressure either.
Tom
There does seem to be some world-wide tendency for people with less schooling to have more children. So perhaps we are evolving toward a species that’s less likely to be comfortable going to school, for a variety of emotional and intellectual reasons.
Then maybe new social conditions will arise, in which other types reproduce best. This coupled social-biological system seems way too complicated to predict.
Mike W.
I’d disagree with Mike about whether a sample of people who are less schooled are actually genetically disposed to be uncomfortable with going to school. The schooling of people in different countries has a lot more to do with the availability of schools rather than with the willingness of people to attend. Some people may be unable to attend school because they are needed to do work, but this again seems not heritable to me.
Evolution depends on natural selection as well -- there must be population variation and natural selection is the name we give to the fact that some people with some genes reproduce more than others (at least for many cases this is because individuals who survive to reproductive age are able to reproduce). A strong force in natural selection is disease. We have evolved intricate defense mechanisms to fight against disease, and we continue to be amazed each time we learn more about it. But we are also getting better and better at preventing disease and in curing people once they have disease. Disease may no longer be a significant force in evolution.
The diseases that cause the most mortality in our modern, affluent society in the United States tend to be those that strike after reproductive age, and thus also have little effect on which individuals reproduce. If junk food caused young people to have heart attacks, you might imagine that humans may evolve to be more resistant to heart disease at an early age (but heart disease, cancer, and stroke are rare in young people, even those with poor diets). Diabetes strikes younger and younger people, but it is controllable, so it won’t be a pressure either.
Tom
(published on 10/22/2007)