Are humans evolving?

[mindlight]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Mankind has needed,

"More hours in the day",
"An extra pair of hands",
"Eyes in the back of our head",
"A cast-iron stomach",
"Ability to read minds",
Etc.

for millennia.

So no, mankind isn't evolving.

 

[SkyWriting]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.
Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?
Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

I take more aspirin than I used to.
My hair is evolving to more silver.
My children would be raised differently
today than 25 years ago.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

There are a few known mutations that confer significant benefits in small human populations.

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution

I think they're still working on assessing the huge amount of data they have from a few living subjects; it would require sequencing people of many previous generations to establish trends.

that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Evolution is not like X-Men.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

Yes, we're still evolving. Whether you consider lactose tolerance an extra capability or a gift is a matter of opinion.

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Evolution has no objective, it doesn't move towards a 'higher state'. It's just that mutations that give an individual enough of an advantage to have more offspring than the rest tend to propagate through the population over successive generations.

There are plenty of examples of creatures adapting to new niches or changes in their environment by dropping complex or sophisticated features that are no longer necessary, or are more of a disadvantage than advantage (flightless birds, sightless moles, legless lizards & cetaceans, etc).

Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

It's not a myth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

You could say we are devolving, since we now have 98% of our DNA as junk DNA. So we are going from a state of perfection to a state of imperfection - just like the entire universe follows the laws of entropy.

Evolution is a myth when it comes to every living thing, not just humans.

HUMAN:
Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. The only time variation comes into the species is when two infraspecific taxa within the species (Asian and African) mate and produce a new infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian). The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African. The Asian remains Asian and the African remains African.

ANIMALS:
Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. The only time variation comes into the species is when two infraspecific taxa within the species (Husky and Mastiff) mate and produce a new infraspecific taxa (Chinook). The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook, nor does the Mastiff. The Husky remains Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff.

This is true of all life on this planet. Even the fossil record supports this. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. They have simply incorrectly classified the fossil record as separate species, when in reality they are merely different infraspecific taxa within the species - just like we observe today with all life that produce new infraspecific taxa through mating and the exchange of genomes, not evolution.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Aren't we taller than we were in the 1800's?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Aren't we taller than we were in the 1800's?

Not me... how old are you?

Such rapid changes in population height will be due to better nutrition and life conditions; it's too short for significant evolutionary change.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

HUMAN:<straw man>
ANIMALS:<straw man>
This is true of all life on this planet. Even the fossil record supports this. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.

Well, yeah - T-Rex is T-Rex... The rest is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of evolution.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Not me... how old are you?

Hahaha...

 

[Shemjaza]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

Lactose tolerance as an adult is an awesome mutation that not all humans have.

Aren't we taller than we were in the 1800's?

That probably has a lot more to do with nutrition than genetic change.

 

[Hoghead1]

You could say we are devolving, since we now have 98% of our DNA as junk DNA. So we are going from a state of perfection to a state of imperfection - just like the entire universe follows the laws of entropy.

Evolution is a myth when it comes to every living thing, not just humans.

HUMAN:
Asian mates with Asian and produces ONLY Asian. African mates with African and produces ONLY African. The only time variation comes into the species is when two infraspecific taxa within the species (Asian and African) mate and produce a new infraspecific taxa (Afro-Asian). The Asian does not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor does the African. The Asian remains Asian and the African remains African.

ANIMALS:
Husky mates with Husky and produces ONLY Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces ONLY Mastiff. The only time variation comes into the species is when two infraspecific taxa within the species (Husky and Mastiff) mate and produce a new infraspecific taxa (Chinook). The Husky does not evolve into the Chinook, nor does the Mastiff. The Husky remains Husky and the Mastiff remains Mastiff.

This is true of all life on this planet. Even the fossil record supports this. T-Rex remained T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found. They have simply incorrectly classified the fossil record as separate species, when in reality they are merely different infraspecific taxa within the species - just like we observe today with all life that produce new infraspecific taxa through mating and the exchange of genomes, not evolution.

OK, so you, as a totally unqualified lay person, know far, far more about it than do all these scientists. Hmmm. Very interesting.

 

[Landon Caeli]

That probably has a lot more to do with nutrition than genetic change.

But isn't genetic skin tone a direct result of the environment? What we 'do' to our bodies then, based on what our environment has to offer, has long-term effects if done for extended periods of time. At least one would think.

...But that goes completely against Darwins vision of evolution.

 

[durangodawood]

Human ingenuity has overruled much of the selection-side of evolution.

Almost anyone can survive to reproductive age and reproduce, thanks to cultural and scientific factors. So beneficial novelties dont offer much comparative advantage.

 

[PsychoSarah]

as long as each new generation of humans has mutations in it not seen in the previous one... as long as the frequency of genes differs generation to generation... as long as the environment is not unchanging... we are evolving.

 

[Cimorene]

Of course. We're still evolving.

 

[Ophiolite]

But isn't genetic skin tone a direct result of the environment? What we 'do' to our bodies then, based on what our environment has to offer, has long-term effects if done for extended periods of time. At least one would think.

...But that goes completely against Darwins vision of evolution.

No. That might be what one would think, if one didn't....think.

In an environment where bright sunshine was the norm, mutations that tended to increase pigmentation in the skin would be favoured, those that lightened it would be discourage. The reverse would be true in an environment with less intense sunshine.

Thus skin tone is a direct consequence of natural selection acting upon mutations in the context of their environment. That is is quite different from what you described.

 

[timewerx]

Is there any evidence of beneficiary evolutionary improvements to human beings? By this I mean extra capabilities or gifts.

Has the genome project revealed any trends in terms of human evolution that points to a class of people who live among us who are the first to move to a higher state of evolution?

Or is evolution a myth when it comes to human beings?

We are mutating all the time. It is called "adaptive mutation".

Evolution are a collection of adaptive mutations and natural selection over a length of time.

Evolution is guided by the things you believe and hold dear.

 

[Shemjaza]

But isn't genetic skin tone a direct result of the environment? What we 'do' to our bodies then, based on what our environment has to offer, has long-term effects if done for extended periods of time. At least one would think.

...But that goes completely against Darwins vision of evolution.

I was referring to height as a consequence of nutrition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. What we 'do' to our bodies then, based on what our environment has to offer, has long-term effects if done for extended periods of time. At least one would think.

...But that goes completely against Darwins vision of evolution.

There are some genetic changes that can occur in an individual and be passed to their offspring, that are not the result of mutations. These are called transgenerational epigenetic changes, and generally occur when an individual's body responds to some environmental condition by setting chemical marker 'tags' on some genes or gene regulators which change the way the genes are expressed. Most of these markers are stripped off the genes when the germ cells are made, but some may remain and can affect gene expression in the offspring for a generation or two.

It's not 'against' Darwinian evolution, it's a complementary means of gene regulation that has its effect over much shorter periods of a few generations, providing a short-term flexibility of response to the environment.