If we're allowed to continue evolving, will we look like...

[Neogaia777]

This?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MVeajENKlyATT8JzIDg&tbm=isch&ved=0CDIQMygAMAA

 

[Gracchus]

Maybe, but with smaller eyes with irises and pupils and brown skins. but it will all depend on environmental pressures.

 

[LionL]

I would have thought that, what with our advances in healthcare and fertility treatments, anyone can have children nowadays. That means that evolution has pretty much stopped in us as there is no advantage to anyone.
In fact, it may be an advantage to be poor (at least here in the UK) as you can have several children supported with help from the state whilst those who are better off have only one or two offspring.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I would have thought that, what with our advances in healthcare and fertility treatments, anyone can have children nowadays. That means that evolution has pretty much stopped in us as there is no advantage to anyone.
In fact, it may be an advantage to be poor (at least here in the UK) as you can have several children supported with help from the state whilst those who are better off have only one or two offspring.

Evolution will never be stopped. People need to be able to afford those health care options to have children . . . selection for ability to raise money. People are incarcerated during their prime breeding years . . . . selection for ability to stay out of jail. People are killed in car crashes . . . . selection for ability to drive safely. Kids get sick from failure to vaccinate . . . . selection for ability to get rational medical care.

I think that in a hundred thousand years babies will routinely be delivered by ceasarean section, making the prenatal development of larger brains possible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would have thought that, what with our advances in healthcare and fertility treatments, anyone can have children nowadays. That means that evolution has pretty much stopped in us as there is no advantage to anyone.

This is not very accurate.
Yes, certainly we have made it easier to survive and in that sense, people reproduce today that wouldn't even have survived past the age of 5 no more then 50 years ago.

Because of this, we have loosened up some of the "fitness" criteria on which natural selection would act in the wild. This kind of pollutes our genome in some sense.

However, mutations still occur and are still inherited by off spring.
Some of these will still give some of us advantages over others in area's where our meds can't really help much.

Also, from another angle, what we do (with meds etc) is also part of our nature. In some sense, I'ld say that our tendency to use the environment, or materials thereof, to enrich our lives is part of our evolutionary path.

In fact, it may be an advantage to be poor (at least here in the UK) as you can have several children supported with help from the state whilst those who are better off have only one or two offspring.

This doesn't make much sense. Your financial status isn't exactly genetically/biologically determined.

 

[LionL]

This doesn't make much sense. Your financial status isn't exactly genetically/biologically determined.

I would say that it is.
In general those with a tendency for alcoholism say, or drug abuse in their genes are more likely to be poor and those with a tendency for hard work or intelligence are more likely to be middle-class. A tiny effect to be sure, but an effect none the less.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would say that it is.
In general those with a tendency for alcoholism say, or drug abuse in their genes are more likely to be poor and those with a tendency for hard work or intelligence are more likely to be middle-class. A tiny effect to be sure, but an effect none the less.

While there is indeed a genetic basis for being more prone to addictions, this is not really true for intelligence if I remember correctly.

However, it is certainly true that there is a trend in our society that "more intelligent/educated" people have less kids as opposed to less intelligent/educated people.

 

[joshua 1 9]

ability to drive safely.

There may be a selective advantage for people that live a high risk lifestyle. Just like there could be selective advantage for people that live a low risk life style.

 

[JacksBratt]

This?

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...MVeajENKlyATT8JzIDg&tbm=isch&ved=0CDIQMygAMAA

Ha Ha lol ya, we're gunna evolve...... more lol

 

[joshua 1 9]

However, it is certainly true that there is a trend in our society that "more intelligent/educated" people have less kids as opposed to less intelligent/educated people.

Once you start having kids it becomes difficult to provide for a family and get an education. Even college kids have a problem taking care of themselves while going to school. Much less trying to support a family on top of that.

 

[JacksBratt]

While there is indeed a genetic basis for being more prone to addictions, this is not really true for intelligence if I remember correctly.

However, it is certainly true that there is a trend in our society that "more intelligent/educated" people have less kids as opposed to less intelligent/educated people.

What about the intelligent yet uneducated, or the unintelligent and educated? These exist, think about it. An education and a bunch of letters after your name doesn't mean you are intelligent and not having any formal or post secondary education is not necessarily an indication that the person is not intelligent. There is a huge gap between barely passing a course to easily making the grade.

I'm sure we have all experienced this.

 

[joshua 1 9]

People are incarcerated during their prime breeding years . . . . selection for ability to stay out of jail.

They still have kids. They are just not around to raise the kids. So you end up with a selection for kids that grow up without a father around. Or girls that grow up without their mom. Sometimes they repeat the cycle so the kids go to jail and get a chance to spend some time with their incarcerated parent in jail.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

They still have kids. They are just not around to raise the kids. So you end up with a selection for kids that grow up without a father around. Or girls that grow up without their mom. Sometimes they repeat the cycle so the kids go to jail and get a chance to spend some time with their incarcerated parent in jail.

If being without the parent is a handicap, then the selection is for those who still have both parents.

If being without the parent is no big deal, then there won't be a selection affect in favor of two parent households.

In other words, if you think two parents make a difference, you cannot turn around and deny there is a selection affect.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution only selects those able to breed successfully, and no one breeds more successfully than poor, uneducated people. This means more poor, uneducated people will be produced, as is apparent by the growing number of poor, uneducated people around (in fact you can't throw a rock without hitting a poor, uneducated person).

 

[AV1611VET]

This?

No -- this:

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No -- this:

Devolving?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Evolution only selects those able to breed successfully, and no one breeds more successfully than poor, uneducated people. This means more poor, uneducated people will be produced, as is apparent by the growing number of poor, uneducated people around (in fact you can't throw a rock without hitting a poor, uneducated person).

There is the strategy of breeding many, many offspring and letting them fend for themselves with minimal assistance from the parents. Then there is the strategy of having only a few offspring and investing heavily in their growth. This is the general direction of mammals . . . . mothers making all that milk to feed their offspring.

You don't look at the initial numbers of offspring. You look at how many grandkids and great grand kids survived to reproduce.

Oh, I have a great idea . . . how about we see to it that there are no uneducated kids? Properly funding and staffing our schools?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is the strategy of breeding many, many offspring and letting them fend for themselves with minimal assistance from the parents. Then there is the strategy of having only a few offspring and investing heavily in their growth. This is the general direction of mammals . . . . mothers making all that milk to feed their offspring.

Nature often produces more offspring than will survive in a predator/prey environment. People in third world countries have large families as a needed work force and insurance against death of some of them. But even there the birthrate slows as the population becomes more urban, which doesn't help much as those countries resources continue to be spread pretty thin regardless.

You don't look at the initial numbers of offspring. You look at how many grandkids and great grand kids survived to reproduce.

In order to have reproducing great grandchildren one must start reproducing at a pretty young age. That's counter to everything we know about marriage, childbirth, education, and success. On the other hand everyone is someone's grandchild or great grandchild whether that antecedent is living or dead.

Oh, I have a great idea . . . how about we see to it that there are no uneducated kids? Properly funding and staffing our schools?

We have other needs that should come first.