When I hear or read the term evolution I immediately connect it with a song by a rather unheard of Punk-Rock band called NOFX, the song is titled “The Idiots Are Taking Over” (Lyrics: http://www.lyricsondemand.com/n/nofxlyrics/idiotsaretakingoverlyrics.html and please excuse the expletives) but the song itself deals with the political ramifications of a possible reversal of evolution in human populations, the band argues that since the Industrial Revolution the fittest of our species have no longer been the only survivors and not only that but the unfit are producing more offspring and further propagating their “worse” genes. Their argument brings up a good question: Has humanity come to a point where natural selection no longer applies, where random mutations that cause lower fitness in a human actually get spread throughout the gene pool? Support your answer, and if so: What will the potential effects be on humanity as a species in the future?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Natural selection and evolution are ongoing processes despite humans’ technological capabilities in influencing these factors. Humanity will not come to a point where natural selection doesn’t apply. We will evolve continuously, but considering that environmental pressures don’t eradicate the “worse” traits, the worse and best traits will be intertwined in the generations to come, and beneficial mutations will not occur as in the past because there is no need for them due to our medical capability of sustaining life despite having “worse” traits. Therefore, progressive evolution of humans will considerably slow down, seeing that modern medical science has allowed for less advantageous traits to coexist with more advantageous traits.
ReplyDeleteEvolution works when animals or humans have some environmental or competitive pressure that allows their particular progeny to survive and breed better than some others. Random variables are introduced from time to time to change species. Humans have arrested this process by supporting each other and allowing many non-survivable "wilderness" characteristics to survive and propagate. This is a complicated way of saying we take care of each other because we have found that the survival of individuals can be worthwhile for the society as a whole. On the other hand, humans are getting to the place where they can control their own genetic evolution. This may be useful for colonization of other planets. In just a few years we will be able to engineer our own genes, and take genetic therapy to cause major changes to the body. An example of this is seen in a recent study performed by ophthalmologists, who predicted that with genetic research in regards to controlling gene activation consistently growing, soon humans will be able to take a pill that activates certain fluorescent reflective surfaces in the cornea and allow for eye color change.
Therefore, I believe that the further evolution of humans cannot be predicted considering our stubborn survival to once-fatal stress variables that without our modern medical knowledge, would have wiped the human race free of “bad” traits a while ago.
I, to some extent, would disagree with Murad. I do not think that evolution still truly exists in technologically advanced countries today. While it is true that we do not currently have a cure for all of today's maladies (such as heart attacks or mental illnesses), two main factors stop these things from effecting our evolutionary linage. Firstly, though we many times may not be able to sure diseases all together we can, for the most part, keep most people suffering from these diseases alive till a reproductive age. If a person has huntings disease or risk of heart attacks they usually face these problems after they already have children, negating any affect this problems may have had on evolution. Secondly, while we can not currently cure every problem with which we are faced today science is progressing at a rate much faster than that of evolution. There is new research which may suggest otherwise when epigenetic is taken into account, but, when taken in the context of regular evolution, evolution takes to long for today's fast paced society. For example research on several cures to cancer is being done and a cure is projected to be available in the next 10-20 years. While this may seem long to us currently when compared to evolution time is nothing. Even if it took humans double or triple that time to find a cure evolution could not out pace science. Also, as Murad said, we will soon be able to control, to a large extent, our own genetics. Technology as powerful as this could be used to render many of today's problems useless.
ReplyDeleteAs to the predicted further evolution of humans I believe evolution will return. When viewed in the context of the present evolution is stagnating, but at some point various factors may lead to us being unable to care for our own meaning that natural selection shall once again begin weeding out the weak. There may be diseases introduced in the future that we can not overcome and so natural selection shall come into play once again. There are numerous other "what if" possibilities that can lead to the return of evolution but as of now I believe evolution is mostly ineffective in humans.
I, to some extent, would disagree with Murad. I do not think that evolution still truly exists in technologically advanced countries today. While it is true that we do not currently have a cure for all of today's maladies (such as heart attacks or mental illnesses), two main factors stop these things from effecting our evolutionary linage. Firstly, though we many times may not be able to sure diseases all together we can, for the most part, keep most people suffering from these diseases alive till a reproductive age. If a person has huntings disease or risk of heart attacks they usually face these problems after they already have children, negating any affect this problems may have had on evolution. Secondly, while we can not currently cure every problem with which we are faced today science is progressing at a rate much faster than that of evolution. There is new research which may suggest otherwise when epigenetic is taken into account, but, when taken in the context of regular evolution, evolution takes to long for today's fast paced society. For example research on several cures to cancer is being done and a cure is projected to be available in the next 10-20 years. While this may seem long to us currently when compared to evolution time is nothing. Even if it took humans double or triple that time to find a cure evolution could not out pace science. Also, as Murad said, we will soon be able to control, to a large extent, our own genetics. Technology as powerful as this could be used to render many of today's problems useless.
ReplyDeleteAs to the predicted further evolution of humans I believe evolution will return. When viewed in the context of the present evolution is stagnating, but at some point various factors may lead to us being unable to care for our own meaning that natural selection shall once again begin weeding out the weak. There may be diseases introduced in the future that we can not overcome and so natural selection shall come into play once again. There are numerous other "what if" possibilities that can lead to the return of evolution but as of now I believe evolution is mostly ineffective in humans.
For the sake of argument, I am going to disagree with Murad and say that evolution is still the main force at work in humans.
ReplyDeleteMurad says that modern medicine is slowing evolution ("Therefore, progressive evolution of humans will considerably slow down, seeing that modern medical science has allowed for less advantageous traits to coexist with more advantageous traits").
First of all, we can't rely on medicine forever. Bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to antibiotics - "Currently, it is estimated that more than 70% of the bacteria that cause hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one of the antibiotics used to treat them" (answersingenesis). Of course, we are working on new treatments for the completely resistant bacteria, such as the bacteriophages we learned about in class.
But between now and the time that bacteriophage therapy is universal, people with weaker immune systems will be killed by the completely resistant bacteria. Therefore, evolution will eliminate the weakest immune systems from the gene pool. And imagine what will happen after the bacteria evolve resistance to bacteriophages....
Also, evolution is very much at large in most underdeveloped countries. There, birth rates are very high (nationmaster.com) and access to medicine is low. The people without advantages like strong immune systems and with "bad" genes (something like bad vision, which would require a pair of glasses in a developed country but could lead to a fatal fall in underdeveloped countries) will probably die before passing on their genes. This is evolution at work. And since the majority of people don't have easy access to medicine, the majority of people are still being naturally selected.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-people-birth-rate
I think that the answer to your question first must be pretexted with the question of what you mean by “humanity.” According to the World Bank in 2008, the gap between the richest of the richest and the poorest of the poorest has been increasing steadily over time (Shah). The significance of this is that it pulls apart the world monetarily—and physically. With the physical separation, one would be able to see a different development of natural selection in both regions. For instance, a more developed country, per se a first world country, would be able to regulate medication as Murad and Mehul discussed. Although Murad discusses the effective rendering of evolution as useless with modern innovations, I’d like to distance myself from this view, but discuss, as Mehul did, on the effects of these innovations. British geneticist, Steve Jones, discusses the “evolutionary dead-end” that we’re in, for reasons such as a very long life (Bai). Naturally, natural selection works off of shorter life-spans better because humans are able to adapt more readily because the weaker ones die off faster, just like every species. This is a lot more evident in third world countries, such as Niger, Tanzania, Mali, Sudan, Malawi, South Africa, Nigeria, and so on, where the life expectancy is less than 50 years on average (CIA World Factbook); in fact, each of these countries, relative to global life expectancies, measures in 200th place or lower, a clear indication of natural selection being a lot more readily effective. Putting all of these statistics and ideas together, we come to the conclusion that “humanity” is an oversimplified term for describing the patterns of evolution, and more importantly, evolution is acting differently around the world, depending heavily on the economic, social, and political welfare of the regions. Essentially, Murad, Mehul, and Anna debated whether evolution is truly affected by new innovations; evidently, it has been affected, but it has not disappeared.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, increased transportation allows humans to connect all around the world with each other (without being eliminated by other humans), unlike almost every other organism on this planet. I would predict that after a long period of time, humans would, as Comedian Russell Peters pointed out, be “light-beige color and very smart.” While he was implying that Indians and Chinese would take over the world and mix with other groups of people, we can derive an important prediction from his joke: over long periods of time and increases in transpiration and technology, the gap existing between various regions of the world will be closed by the genetic drift of humans from the first world to the third world. However, how long this will take is dependent upon all of the factors that humans add that will contribute to the path that natural selection and evolution will push them through.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/4/poverty-around-the-world
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2008/10/08/no-more-evolution-for-you-says-british-scientist/
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html