Human evolution

[Uzor]

So, this will probably be a somewhat controversial thread. Anyway.

As you all know, or should know, there's this thing called evolution. It affects all animals, including humans. Did you know that the difference between our ancestors 5000 years ago and Neanderthals is smaller than the difference between us and our ancestors 5000 years ago?

While our genetic variety is surprisingly small for such an overpopulated animal due to an accident that happened some time ago nearly leading to our extinction, it is changing. And fast. As we're several billion people, our evolution is going in fast forward. What a lot of people do not realize, or want to realize, is that it still follows the basic laws of evolution. That is, the most fit survives.

Now to the more controversial part.

A bird on Australia will evolve different from a bird of the same species in, say, Sweden. The same goes for humans, in that humans in on different places of the world will adapt to the environment they are in and the obstacles in their way, and develop a different set of traits from eachother. I will mention a few examples.

1. People in northern parts of the world has developed a different skin color to adapt to the environment
2. Western civilizations has developed a tolerance for lactose, something a lot of Asians do not have, due to western civilization drinking milk from other animals.
3. Europeans having developed a natural resistance/immunity to HIV
4. Mutation in a gene causing a change in hair color
5. Mutation in a gene causing a change in eye color
6. Asians have extra fat above their eyes to help protect against the sun
7. Certain African tribes are taller, as a larger body has a wider area to get rid of extra heat
8. People living in colder areas being smaller to preserve heat

There's some examples of genetical differences.

With every extra human on earth, the chance that a random mutation in a gene will occur increases. Most of these aren't beneficial, but whenever there is a beneficial mutation, it has a chance of being passed onwards, as is the case with the above-mentioned mutations and evolutionary changes.

Another glaring obviousness is the presence of blood groups. For example, in Indians have the highest amount of population percentage with blood group B, while Europeans have the least. There's rare cases of people having their own unique blood group as well, showing that mutations happen quite frequently.

While I would not go as far as to say the genetical differences between humans is large enough to be considered different species yet, given enough time it is obvious that humans will develop in to various different species. And considering the genetical difference between our ancestors and ourselves is larger than that between our ancestors and Neanderthals (which, btw, could mate with eachother), it might happen sooner than we'd like to admit.

 

[Valandil]

So, this will probably be a somewhat controversial thread. Anyway.

As you all know, or should know, there's this thing called evolution. It affects all animals, including humans. Did you know that the difference between our ancestors 5000 years ago and Neanderthals is smaller than the difference between us and our ancestors 5000 years ago?

While our genetic variety is surprisingly small for such an overpopulated animal due to an accident that happened some time ago nearly leading to our extinction, it is changing. And fast. As we're several billion people, our evolution is going in fast forward. What a lot of people do not realize, or want to realize, is that it still follows the basic laws of evolution. That is, the most fit survives.

Now to the more controversial part.

A bird on Australia will evolve different from a bird of the same species in, say, Sweden. The same goes for humans, in that humans in on different places of the world will adapt to the environment they are in and the obstacles in their way, and develop a different set of traits from eachother. I will mention a few examples.

1. People in northern parts of the world has developed a different skin color to adapt to the environment
2. Western civilizations has developed a tolerance for lactose, something a lot of Asians do not have, due to western civilization drinking milk from other animals.
3. Europeans having developed a natural resistance/immunity to HIV
4. Mutation in a gene causing a change in hair color
5. Mutation in a gene causing a change in eye color
6. Asians have extra fat above their eyes to help protect against the sun
7. Certain African tribes are taller, as a larger body has a wider area to get rid of extra heat
8. People living in colder areas being smaller to preserve heat

There's some examples of genetical differences.

With every extra human on earth, the chance that a random mutation in a gene will occur increases. Most of these aren't beneficial, but whenever there is a beneficial mutation, it has a chance of being passed onwards, as is the case with the above-mentioned mutations and evolutionary changes.

Another glaring obviousness is the presence of blood groups. For example, in Indians have the highest amount of population percentage with blood group B, while Europeans have the least. There's rare cases of people having their own unique blood group as well, showing that mutations happen quite frequently.

While I would not go as far as to say the genetical differences between humans is large enough to be considered different species yet, given enough time it is obvious that humans will develop in to various different species. And considering the genetical difference between our ancestors and ourselves is larger than that between our ancestors and Neanderthals (which, btw, could mate with eachother), it might happen sooner than we'd like to admit.

You're completely ignoring the fact that human beings travel the globe nowadays and a very, very large segment of the population interbreeds with other groups that 10,000 years ago they would have been completely cut off from. Also, the timespan of a human generation is married in decades, not a few years, months, or days and the ability to produce viable offspring is one of the key characteristics in defining a species. It would take thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years of isolation for human beings to branch into separate species that would be incapable of interbreeding.

 

[Uzor]

I know, but the fact that humans travel only prolongs the inevitable, it doesn't completely stop it. Even though humans travel and interbreed, there's still some obvious differences between humans living on different continents.

Why? Because the amount of people that marries someone living in the same country as them, far surpasses that of those that travel and interbreed. One of the reasons for this is religion. Not a lot of Christians wed, or start a family, with people of Islamic faith etcetera, which means Muslims and Christians will likely grow apart giving enough time unless something changes.

 

[Airou]

How about hispanics having a larger drinking tolerance? That a mutation too? Lol no seriously is it

 

[Raesvelg]

It's a topic I tend to avoid because it winds up with a number of statistics that are far more controversial than the ones you quoted.

And for the most part, we can expect the differences to diminish steadily over the next few hundred years.

 

[Pompidou]

Diminishing differences and natural selection towards intelligence over strength are the directions I imagine human evolution will take. There's also an ongoing selection for height which I can't imagine will end anytime soon, and will be fostered by ever improving diets. Tall, thin, mulatto and enormous head? Anything is possible.

 

[Uzor]

I wouldn't say drink tolerance is evolutional. I'd say its their liver being more used to alcohol if they drink more throughout their life. Don't think alcohol has existed long enough to affect our evolution.

Diminishing differences and natural selection towards intelligence over strength are the directions I imagine human evolution will take. There's also an ongoing selection for height which I can't imagine will end anytime soon, and will be fostered by ever improving diets. Tall, thin, mulatto and enormous head? Anything is possible.

Indeed.

 

[Tristam Green]

Diminishing differences and natural selection towards intelligence over strength are the directions I imagine human evolution will take. There's also an ongoing selection for height which I can't imagine will end anytime soon, and will be fostered by ever improving diets. Tall, thin, mulatto and enormous head? Anything is possible.

I would actually say that given the possibilities of:

- diminished food supply due to overpopulation
- harsher environments due to climate change
- advances in technology

The survival by natural selection of the most intelligent and strongest (as has always been the case) will prevail, as opposed to simply survival of either independently.

Sorry, but someone who can pick up a boulder is pretty useless if they don't know what to do with it, just as is someone who is smart enough to lead persons, but without the physical where-with-all to actually enforce his/her rule.

 

[Morcheeba]

I would actually say that given the possibilities of:

- harsher environments due to climate change

Speaking of which the hurricane that has been moving along the east caused quite the tornado here yesterday.



I have seen a few over the last ten years, but this was a good one.

I think the processing of our food itself will play a big part in our evolution. But it will take a number of years before any substancial changes are evident. ***E- except of course the 9 and 10 yr old girls that are fully developed >.> THAT'S not substancial....

I once heard infant are being born and developing without the growth of Wisdom teeth because of the lack of requirements for them. We eat less meat and we prepare and cook our meat so it's easier to break down.

 

[Gohaan]

Wish I was born with out wisdom teeth, Woulda saved me 1500 bucks ><

 

[Zephayra]

Okay well.. First of all you forget to mention that the European immunity to HIV only happens in 1% of the population of Northern Europe who are 'virtually immuned' to HIV and about 10-15% of the descendents of Northern Europeans (primarily Swedes, but it is still a theory) who have some immunity but is slightly lesser, and that is only according to this article..

And even then, how would you even test this theory? HIV research is so hard, and one of the reasons we can't really make a vaccination for it is because you have to find people willing to be innoculated with a deadly virus for testing purposes.

Either way, HIV isn't as easy to get as Sex Education around the world would have you believe. Yes, there is a risk of getting it, but even studies in occupational exposures to HIV infected blood and needlestick, the percent of contracting HIV is 3% for needlestick, and about 1% if you happen to be a nurse and get blood on a mucous membrane. Also, there's the factors of viral load, if the person is shedding or not, how much blood was involved in the incident... etc. Anyways, enough with THAT tangent.

As for the whole 'seperate species' thing goes, doubtful it will ever happen. There's hundreds of breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows and you can interbreed those just fine, and most of the time those breedings occur due to human manipulation, instead of naturally occuring mixes in the wild.

Not to mention, it took about 660,000 years for Neanderthals to actually become a seperate species from Homo Sapiens..and even now scientists and anthropologists alike are still trying to determine whether or not the two actually interbred at some point in the course of human evolution. The fact that all of us today can trace our DNA back to one mitochondrial mother suggests that even if we decide to have children with someone of a different ethnic background than our own, we're still the same damn species. The only way to I could even see there being a way to create a different 'species' of human is if you control who is having children with who, and that ain't gonna happen.

Lastly, Natural Selection is just a theory. We know Evolution happens, but you have to remember as much as there is to prove there is evidence for it, there's just as much to disprove it.

I personally believe that natural selection in human evolution is now a thing of a past. I honestly believe it happened when we were scavenging prey of larger predators, and the fact that we began eating meat, and thus have larger brains and small, fast bodies helped us outwit our would-be dangers, thrusting us ontop of the food chain, but natural selecgtion no longer happens in our environment.

It's been mentioned here that the intelligent and the strong will be naturally selected in the future, but I really doubt that. People who are deemed intelligent or more successful typically have less offspring. I mean, we see this all the time. Those who are less educated, or do not have the means to support a family tend to have children more than those who aim for careers and end up having children later in life, limiting their contribution to the gene pool, or due to their age, run the risk of having children with medical problems.

Because we are no longer in a natural environment, people who would have died in the 'wild' are able to survive due to technology, medicine, etc and can be cable of hving children and therefore entering them into the gene pool. Therefore, genes aren't actually be selected for anything.. we just choose to breed with whomever we choose to.

One more point on extinction - We've already been able to document that sperm percentage has gone down, infertility between couples is pretty high this day and age and boys born today have started showing a whole whack of problems already. Good documentary to watch is this one for sure: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/

 

[Gohaan]

We've already been able to document that sperm percentage has gone down

I beat birth control... does that mean I am evolving?

 

[Kerowynn]

I once heard infant are being born and developing without the growth of Wisdom teeth because of the lack of requirements for them. We eat less meat and we prepare and cook our meat so it's easier to break down.

That's just a normal genetic mutation and it's not new and happens in a small percentage of people. I was born without wisdom teeth as was my mother (who was born over 65 years ago). I was also born without one of my last molars. /shrug

 

[Mirewen]

We prepare and cook our meat so it's easier to break down.

The rawer the meat the easier it is for the body to digest.

 

[Uzor]

Okay well.. First of all you forget to mention that the European immunity to HIV only happens in 1% of the population of Northern Europe who are 'virtually immuned' to HIV and about 10-15% of the descendents of Northern Europeans (primarily Swedes, but it is still a theory) who have some immunity but is slightly lesser, and that is only according to this article..

And even then, how would you even test this theory? HIV research is so hard, and one of the reasons we can't really make a vaccination for it is because you have to find people willing to be innoculated with a deadly virus for testing purposes.

Either way, HIV isn't as easy to get as Sex Education around the world would have you believe. Yes, there is a risk of getting it, but even studies in occupational exposures to HIV infected blood and needlestick, the percent of contracting HIV is 3% for needlestick, and about 1% if you happen to be a nurse and get blood on a mucous membrane. Also, there's the factors of viral load, if the person is shedding or not, how much blood was involved in the incident... etc. Anyways, enough with THAT tangent.

As for the whole 'seperate species' thing goes, doubtful it will ever happen. There's hundreds of breeds of dogs, cats, horses, cows and you can interbreed those just fine, and most of the time those breedings occur due to human manipulation, instead of naturally occuring mixes in the wild.

Not to mention, it took about 660,000 years for Neanderthals to actually become a seperate species from Homo Sapiens..and even now scientists and anthropologists alike are still trying to determine whether or not the two actually interbred at some point in the course of human evolution. The fact that all of us today can trace our DNA back to one mitochondrial mother suggests that even if we decide to have children with someone of a different ethnic background than our own, we're still the same damn species. The only way to I could even see there being a way to create a different 'species' of human is if you control who is having children with who, and that ain't gonna happen.

Lastly, Natural Selection is just a theory. We know Evolution happens, but you have to remember as much as there is to prove there is evidence for it, there's just as much to disprove it.

I personally believe that natural selection in human evolution is now a thing of a past. I honestly believe it happened when we were scavenging prey of larger predators, and the fact that we began eating meat, and thus have larger brains and small, fast bodies helped us outwit our would-be dangers, thrusting us ontop of the food chain, but natural selecgtion no longer happens in our environment.

It's been mentioned here that the intelligent and the strong will be naturally selected in the future, but I really doubt that. People who are deemed intelligent or more successful typically have less offspring. I mean, we see this all the time. Those who are less educated, or do not have the means to support a family tend to have children more than those who aim for careers and end up having children later in life, limiting their contribution to the gene pool, or due to their age, run the risk of having children with medical problems.

Because we are no longer in a natural environment, people who would have died in the 'wild' are able to survive due to technology, medicine, etc and can be cable of hving children and therefore entering them into the gene pool. Therefore, genes aren't actually be selected for anything.. we just choose to breed with whomever we choose to.

One more point on extinction - We've already been able to document that sperm percentage has gone down, infertility between couples is pretty high this day and age and boys born today have started showing a whole whack of problems already. Good documentary to watch is this one for sure: http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/doczone/2008/disappearingmale/

This is more the kind of debate I was hoping to have

First of, I did not take my source from that article. Yes, 10-15% of the European population have natural resistance to HIV, which is still a pretty damn big portion. And its not actually 1% of the population that is immune to HIV, it is roughly 0.1%, as you need two duplicates of the gene to become immune. That is, you need the gene from your mother and father. In the parts of Europe that were under Roman-rule, this mutation appears less often, as a disease under that time focused o this gene in particular, pretty much making that gene go extinct in the Southern parts. This brings me to the next part which was partly why I wrote this;

A lot of scientists are currently undergoing research for biological weapons targeting specific genes. That is, a disease that only kill people with, say, brown eyes, or limit the deaths to a specific group of people. While humans have millions of different genes, the genes can vary as much as 0.1-0.5% between different regions. Thus, you can go more specific than blue or brown eyes, and target a gene which is dominantly present in a certain group of people, or a combination of genes.

The definition of a seperate species is not that it can't get children with another species as it used to be, it is a bit more advanced now. A donkey and a horse can get offspring, as can donkeys and zebras. Lions and tigers, leopards and cats. These are definitely seperate species, but they do belong to the same family of animals.

Yes, Natural Selection is just a theory, as is evolution, gravity and most all research. These theories, however, are based upon observation and thesises. It doesn't mean it is incorrect, nor that it is corect, and as it will be possible to ever prove it (pro tip; you can't ever prove a theory beyond it being faulty) in our life time, we can still base a future prediction on it, as you can with weather.

I'll have to write more later, I need to leave work now and go home xD

 

[Tristam Green]

Sorry to be a nitpicker, but gravity is a law - virtually infallible, proven science. There is a vast difference between theory and law in scientific terms.

 

[Uzor]

Yes, the effects of gravity is a law. Beyond that it is a theory. It is a theory because it is impossible to prove gravity works in an equal way amongst all objects everywhere throughout the whole universe and beyond. We do not know exactly what causes it, or where it comes from, and that is a theory as well. We think we know, but we still can not prove that is the way it is.

Hell, the theory itself is wrong as its been discovered that gravity does not work the same way on small objects as it do on large ones, as can be seen by satellites traveling throughout our solar system being slower/faster and not following the calculated path set out for them. Right now it is still assumed to be correct, though, as it still holds true for larger objects, and no one has found an explanation for this abnormality.

Besides, there's still a lot of things surrounding our theory of gravity that has not yet been studied, but mathematical calculations show to be correct. One of these phenomenons are gravitation waves, which according to the theory currently in place should exist, but has not been studied or found.

 

[Zephayra]

Horses and donkeys can breed, but their offspring are sterile. You can breed as many donkeys to horses as you like, but you can't breed two mules to get an offspring that is 100% mule. Thefore, by mixing those two seperate species, you get a hybrid, but you don't necessarily get a new species.. I wouldn't think a type of animal that cannot produce offspring of its own could actually qualify.

And what about lion/tiger or tiger/leopard or zebra/horse combinations? Can the offsprings of those two different species actually produce a hybrid capable of being bred to another hybrid and getting an animal that is now a seperate species?

This is why I don't think humans could ever be divided into a different species. If a European man has children with a woman who is from India, that child can go ahead and have children with someone who is descendant from, let's say, Africa. The child from the Euopean/Indian/African combination can have children with someone from Japan.. There is no barrier that prevents them from having offspring.. but in the horse/donkey case, there is a definite barrier - the infertile offspring.

I guess I have a really hard time grasping the idea of human 'species' other than homo sapiens, neanderthals and all the others inbetween in human evolution because we don't have proof really right of these hybrids.

How could you even classify a human species other than homo sapien (which we all are) when as mentioned before, the world is in all out globalization?

 

[Uzor]

I never said they would produce a new species. I said that just because two animals can produce offspring, isn't proof they are of the same species. Donkeys and horses are certainly not of the same species, but can still produce offspring. Sterilile or not, that in itself is evidence that the classification of offspring = same species is old and outdated.

And as I mentioned earlier, just because one person from Sweden goes and have a child with someone from India, doesn't send the Swedish genes to everyone in India. Unless that person has children with EVERYONE in India, simple genetics show that eventually, the Swede's genes will eventually disappear with coming generations if the child keep breeding with people in India. On the other hand, if the child keep breeding with people in Sweden, the Indian genes will eventually disappear.

To simplify my reasoning, a child inherit half of the chromosomes from the father, and half from the mother. If the child then reproduce, his or her offspring will get half of its genes from said child. So this child only inherits some of genes from, say, his Indian grandparent. Eventually, if this child keep on breeding within the same country, the Asian heritage will become washed out.

And as it is somewhat obvious the entire European population will not suddenly decide to reproduce with the entire Muslim population, the continental differences will still prevail. Especially considering that, whether we want to admit it or not, a lot of people still hold some kind of racism towards people not from the same country, and people within the same ethnicity have a tendency to start a family rather than cross-ethnicity.

I mean, if you go outside and watch, most couples are from within the same country and ethnicity. It doesn't have to mean they think badly of people from other ethnicities, I just mean people, maybe unconsciously, seek out people from the same ethnicity and country.

This is actually a known phenomena, and is predominately done by women, who during their menstrual cycle unconsciously seek out men with good genes. That is, typical male looks such as larger chin and strength.

 

[Uzor]

As for intelligence, it is mankind's strongest trait. We have given up both our teeth, strength and stomach for it. Why?

First we stole our meat from other animals after they hid it. Then we started cooking our food, this meant it both became cleaner, but also easier to chew and digest. Thus, we didn't need as strong a stomach anymore, nor did we need as good teeth. Thus, those two parts eventually started degrading in to what they are today, horrible compared to other animals. While strength is still important, modern-day humans have several tools to both ease the work load and to carry stuff for us, so it isn't as important anymore.