Evolution Rejects People.

I do remember reading something on this topic, specifically that on average women's hips are now less wide than they were 200 years ago becuase of the widespread use of the C-section. (bone stucture not fat stores hip size) It speculated that a good portion of the human race will someday be unable to give birth without medical assistance.

And Devo was a fun band =)

As regards Kendra's quote in post #1, Professor Michael Boulter's 'soon' should be most likely understood in terms of evolutionary but not quite geological timescales. In which case there's little to worry about as the human race will most likely have become a spacefaring race by the time that 'soon' comes about. Just a smidgeon longer than a Linden Labs 'soon'.

Siobhan, I'd have to disagree with the sentiment behind your throwaway quip in post #9 on a most fundamental level. All organisms interact with their environments. I would go as far as to posit that the feedback loop between any given species / variety of organism and its' environment is as important a part of the evolutionary process as the selection component.

Yes, organisms do shape their environments. The first known and most fundamental example on this planet is that of the cyanobacteria which altered the atmosphere from being primarily methane-ammonia to an oxygen-based atmosphere. Oxygen was a toxic waste product of their metabolism. So their rise and subsequent demise was what changed the ecosphere of our planet to what we have today. Oxygen-based atmospheres are not naturally ocurring phenomena as it is far too reactive and chemically unstable.

Hmm. Well if we're going to do that, we'd better work out a viable solution to our energy woes pretty quickly, huh? I think it's a little overly optimistic to say we're leaving this rock for any other rock at this stage.

I, for one, am willing to do my part in ensuring the human race becomes extinct.

Probably not much. For one thing, drug abuse accounts for a small minority of total human population. And if you think about it, the outcome of either drug or alcohol abuse is negative - drunks and druggies have kids, but how many of those kids end up just like their parents? To me this is a behavioral issue rather than a genetic one, somewhat similar to considerations of homosexuality. Strictly speaking, homosexuals don't reproduce since they only couple with their own gender. Yet homosexuality has been a pretty consistent percentage of every human civilization in history (somewhere between 4% and 10% depending on who you choose to believe).


Mutations and genetic drift are more likely to result from differences in environmental stresses than behavior. One of the ways humankind will probably splinter one day is if/when we colonize another star. If, for example, the conditions on Alpha Centauri are sufficiently different than Earth's we might expect to see human populations diverge from each other over a period of 40 or 50 generations, maybe more. It takes a long time to evolve. 100,000 years is barely a tic on the evolutionary clock.


That's an interesting thought and could have some validity, though for you and I any changes in the gene pool would be virtually unnoticeable. It's important, however, to differentiate between morphological changes (bigger, stronger bodies or higher IQs) and true genetic changes in a population.

Intriguing thoughts, Infiniview!

Actually, this is evidence that you just might not understand the theory enough to criticize it.

Small quibble -- there are artificial methods, today at least, to accomplish it. Of course, strictly speaking, the resulting baby is still not a child of that couple but rather a child of one of them and of ... someone else ... but ... just saying.

I thought the human population was still increasing?

Only til we finally run out of room.

You forget that technology is actually magic, Siobhan. No matter how much we overpopulate, we can infinitely increase the planet's ability to support even more of us. Also, energy is free and magically self-generates, so we don't need to worry about where to get it.

Now you're starting to sound like Kevn. Meep!

hehe any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.


Seriously though if humans do survive long enough to develop technology to allow us to take advanage of alternative energy sounces / and habitats .. popularion could grow exponentially.

If for example, we were a solar system wide species (yes I know long term technology increase) there are hugely more resources and energy availble .

We have not, by any means, stopped evolving. What gave you such an idea? Quote your sources As long as genes are still combining (people are still fucking) we are evolving. Every minute, every second, every mutation.

As far as "borrowed time" is concerned, it has nothing to do with plagues. Because the earth changes while we are changing, while water levels change, while food crops mutate, while soil content changes, we are in flux. It is only a matter of time before the variables add up correctly and make life really really hard on us. Plagues are simply a surface nusance to our population stats

~Lefty

First off, a mutation is, by definition, uncontrolled and without direction. Unplanned is the name of the game that makes it an important factor in survivability scales. See, evolution, the entire process as a whole, is directionless. There are no puppetmasters pulling strings and forcing paths. This is, to some extent, to the horror of creationists. They absolutely hate the idea of life having no predefined destination and very few boundries.

There is no question that there are environmental factors (stresses) which cause some traits to be favored or other traits to be hindering to an organism. Mutation brings about the tiny changes in the traits of an organism but these are not what changes a population. Breeding these mutations does and usually over several generations before a substantial change can be found (Darwin didn't say evolution worked overnight.)

I guess the moral of the story is that mutation and evolution will go on and on and on regardless of the current environment. The environment WILL play a factor but only an eliminating factor, not a hindering one. There will never be a moment when evolution is "without no direction to take."

~Lefty

This is an interesting point, Vudu. But keep in mind that sustainability is a resource practice. There is no record of humans adapting or mutating significantly based on the availability of resources.

As far as adaptation is concerned, our alteration of the environment has not been radical at all in the sense of adaptation. Air, water, sunlight, pressure, gravity, the average density of calcium, etc. has not changed radically in the course of our 30,000 years. Our hair count, skin pigmentation and jaw length have been changing all this time based primarily on behavior and skill. We spend less time in the sun, less time chewing tough roots and expend less energy in the aquisition of food so we are breeding our changes slowly in response.

~Lefty

Interesting points, Garoad.

Like I said before, evolution is in effect at the same pace as it was 5000 years ago. Natural selection is definately at play in our modern world. Look at the number of African and Native American tribes today vs. 200 years ago. There are far fewer. Look at the exploding population of central american bloodlines. Look at the shrinking US population vs. the steady climb in Asian and Middle Eastern populations. We are definately in flux and outbreeding other bloodlines over time.

Also, try not to think of any environment as "unnatural" It may be different in alot of ways and we may be starting to understand the consequences of one change to another, but everything we do is natural. Termites, Zebra Muscles, and volcanos definately alter ther environment in extreme ways, even looking damaging to us. But they are still definately natural players in the changing landscapes. There is still no evidence at all that we can actually succeed in literally ruining the planet. Even WMDs have half-lives.

I know pop culture environmentalism would like you to believe that we're paving everything over in concrete but it just isn't true. We are rapidly living closer together and the deserts are expanding each year. In 500 years, our living habits will be radically different and the natural environment will change again just as it did in the past.

~Lefty

Very interesting topic. Honestly, I don't know. Substance abuse is still being tracked and even though there are some studies that show it do be hereditary, even those studies do not show it to be a 100% factor. Some seem to be genetic and alot seem to be random. It would be interesting to study the average offspring numbers of regular AA and NA participents. Numbers alone might show you a trend towards increasing or decreasing populations with particular tendancies. See, proper child rearing is a major factor as well. So numbers alone would only give you half the story. Does drug adiction and drug behavior make you a bad parent to the degree that your children are less likely to survive? Very interesting topic


My first impulse is to say that it's all the same factor as before. Social class and health practices have a large impact on breeding. Technology-oriented jobs are among the safest in the world. You and your offspring will have a higher chance of surviving compared to a coalminer or a soldier on a battlefield. It also pays well at the moment so your health practices are going to be better. Less chance of gangreen on your toes, etc.

But what's interesting is that these person types change in the favor of classes all the time. The factory jobs in the late 1800s were horrible. High injury rate, low pay, health threatening living conditions in large cities. Compare that to the factory jobs in the 1940s thru 1980s The baby-boomers and their parents were eating well, affording medical attention and breeding up a storm because of thier jobs at the factories. Things were good. Interesting that these baby-booming factory workers were only middle class.

High-tech jobs seem to be replacing that culture but serving the same roll. Good pay, good health, good breeding. I think the best women have been breeding with the best males since day one based on their status in society and means to provide healthcare.

The real discussion is on what "best" means. The "intelligent" people breed less today while migrant and subsistence farmers breed more. More breeding in a particular class and culture inevitably means more chance for genius and charismatic traits. I just don't know.


~Lefty

These are just some trends I think I perceived I may be completely wrong, C and C welcome.[/QUOTE]

excellent point, Alazerin! Just think of all of the billions of life-forms that were completely oblitereated into extinction forever because of the atmoshpere change. We'd call it catastrophic if were weren't a procuct of it.

~Lefty