Humans vs Evolution

If "survival of the fittest" no longer applies to humans, are we biologically stagnant? Devolving? What "better adapted traits" are we passing to our children? What does that say about us as a species? What does it mean for our future?

Would a drastically changing climate change that, as we would have to adapt to a new environment? Would colonizing other worlds change that (for the same reasons)? Or are we so adapt at changing our environments to suit our needs that it wouldn't matter?

Or will we artificially evolve ourselves through science (ex: genetic manipulation/modification)?

Interesting questions. I tend to think our advances in medicine and science have created an abnormally long lifespan for our species and it will lead to shortages in resources. We will either learn to provide for the ballooning population through science, or we will be fighting more and more over food and water. There will be a tipping point.

That's when I'm getting on Elon Musk's spaceship and headed for the new frontier.

Since evolution (the passing down of traits through the millennia) are supposed to be traits passed down through, from what I understand, climate and necessity (changes in the environment and how we live), I think if evolution could continue it would be in smaller ways.

I personally believe we've reached a point, a evolution pinnacle so to say, so we wont have anything huge happen (walking on all fours again, or returning to the ocean (at least I hope not, never been a strong swimmer )) but I do expect to see smaller changes that fit our society.

I do think as the millennia continues we will start integrating tech as a part of our biology (computers, enhanced parts, correcting genetic errors) to ensure a prosperous species and so that we can continue to thrive in a world that evolution has more or less forgotten. We already have with pacemakers, robotic limbs, ect. But beyond tech, I could imagine that we would see some smaller changes to fit our technologically different world (longer, more agile fingers for typing, smaller, more efficient brains for computing and understanding the quickly moving world around us, ect).

But I would be hard pressed to find any argument that we would ever see any humongous changes in our biology, as the scientific community argues that we see from mankind's early stages until now. We change our environment to fit us, not the other way around as it once was. In a sense, we have changed evolution and shifted it's gaze towards our environment and the rest of the flora and fauna of this world, but turned it blind (more or less) to us.

And then as for otherworldly descendants of our race... yeah, I'd imagine they'd have to do some evolving to fit their drastically different environment. Just basic science really.

Human's really found a short cut to species dominance here through being able to be industrious. Once population grows sufficiently 'dense' the melting pot of cross breeding any different genetic traits probably would add to create a type of stability and uniformity, one which could shift the evolutionary advantage back down to virus and bacteria lifeforms!! In effect humanity becomes the proverbial agar in the petri dish for those rapidly evolving species to find unique forms of consumption and reproduction - we might find ourselves becoming the growth medium!!! But we are still industrious so they might have a fight on their hands paws semi-permeable membranes

But what are evolutionary timeframes? They might relate to the severity of the environment, so something like Space colonization might see evolutionary factors start taking shape in communities I guess, with Space being so harsh its sorta really hard to completely remove all its rough edges like EM radiation and different directions or levels of gravity etc. If that were true then it might support the idea that the more comfortable we are the slower evolutionary changes appear.

We are still evolving as evidenced
Here
and here

While we might not be evolving as fast or dramatically as our more ape like ancestor we are still evolving to fit the world. More interestingly we are shaping the way we evolve as we shape the environment we live in.

but I do expect to see smaller changes that fit our society.

Independently controlled eyes so we can text and drive at the same time?

(or we'll just invent self driving cars...one of the two)

I don't know if I'd call them "concerns" because, well it doesn't affect me much, and whether our species wins or some other one...meh.

I have had thoughts on it though, being that with so much medical aid and the general ease of staying alive (compared to the good old days)...how many genes that probably should be allowed to become less prominent, are being kept nice and active?

My understanding is that it is not so clear cut as all that, as (for example, I'm making this up) the genes that make cilantro taste funny also might in some way be connected to genes that help blood clotting - so if breed out all the cilantro-tastes-like-soap weirdos, we might all end up with hemophilia.

That's a wild example based on my exactly zero expertise on genetics.

What was the question?

Oh right, It sorta seems to me that we've started our own land war in china - the harder we try to keep ourselves alive against nature's recommendation, the harder we'll have to keep trying to longer we keep doing it. - But It's not really my bag, so from my end it is little more than a conspiracy theory


NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
Patricia Piccinini, who brought us the "Terrifyingly Nipply" SkyWhale (look it up, you won't regret it)

worked with some top people in labcoats to bring us...

http://www.meetgraham.com.au/


Apparently what we'd need to "evolve" to be to survive a car crash (....the act of selectively breeding car crash survivors to reach this point is...a little strange, but hey, it's 2017, anything goes right?)

JamesSand wrote:

NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:
Patricia Piccinini, who brought us the "Terrifyingly Nipply" SkyWhale (look it up, you won't regret it)

worked with some top people in labcoats to bring us...

https://www.meetgraham.com.au/


Apparently what we'd need to "evolve" to be to survive a car crash (....the act of selectively breeding car crash survivors to reach this point is...a little strange, but hey, it's 2017, anything goes right?)

I refuse to click that link because I've already met Graham and he's the stuff of nightmares...

This idea that we have stopped evolving or "taken total control" of our evolution is a false one. We are still evolving just as fast or as slow as we ever have as a species. There are really several common misconceptions in this thread, many of which come about because we as humans consider ourselves unique or special from the rest of nature in some way. In actuality we are really not and so we are subject to the exact same factors as any other species on this planet.

In the first place, natural selection is not the only driving factor to evolution. Changes also come in the form of random mutation. As well, there is no "pinnacle" of evolution. Evolution does not have a goal or a standard to which it ascribes. So in that sense we cannot "de-evolve" either. Along those same lines, other species are not "less evolved" than we are. Just differently evolved. We are not the standard that others strive for. The next major changes to our species (or any species for that matter) are just changes. There is no good or bad evolution, only good or bad mutations. Bad mutations die out and good ones continue on.

A lot of this misnomer comes from the idea that species generally move from less complex to more complex but this is also not always true. For example we have fewer chromosomes than our nearest cousins the chimpanzees. This actually makes us less complex than they are! Our next major evolutionary change may take us to a place that is even less complex. This is not de evolution, just evolution again, only from more to less complex.

However, given these factors, we do also have some unique ability as a species to manipulate our own evolution through science but this is also a double edged sword. While we are growing taller and living longer lives we are also perpetuating debilitation diseases such as diabetes. We have also artificially modified our environment in both good and bad ways that can bring about changes. The way we eat is a major one. We have gone from hunter gatherers that eat mainly meat and berries to a species that consumes an awe inspiring amount of fats and sugars! This causes changes! As well, if there were major natural environmental changes to our planet or if we were to leave our planet to colonize another one these would be natural selection factors that would cause evolution as well.

short on time, sorry if yes but .. has this been mentioned?

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Technology/story?id=2626668



to be born with the genetics of 6'4 basketball star, an iq of 145, high stress tolerance and perfect teeth clear skin, a musical virtuoso with a penis that could make a horse self conscious?

evolution is looking better than ever!

Leah Starspectre wrote: If "survival of the fittest" no longer applies to humans, ...

That's a huge, huge, bloated, jiggling, bubbling, frankly unwell smelling, and with a rancor pit under its seat IF right there. When we speak of fitness, we do mean the ability, through unspecified means, to persevere. "Survival of the fittest" really boils down to "survival of what ever happens to be good at surviving" which in turn means "survival of what ever happens to survive (in the long term)", since given any environment, survival itself is the single most objective indicator of the capacity to survive in it. Now, it may not be entirely fair to characterize all of evolution with this short simplistic summary, but for better or worse, this summary happens to be pretty much tautologous. It applies to all relevant entities (i.e. "mortal" in a most abstract sense) in all accessible (i.e. comperhensible at all within the confines of how we are able to think and reason) worlds.