Are humans evolving?

[[serious]]

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?

Lactase persistance would be a good example.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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, skin tone is a combination of environment and genes. It's not like everyone born in climates close to the poles have the same skin tone regardless as to their lineage. The base tone you have, as well as how dark you can potentially get via sun exposure, are genetic. How you fit within that range is the environment.

 

[mindlight]

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

So you have shared an example which in laymans terms suggests that certain people who have a rare protein mutation have an added defence against cardiovascular disease, cholesterol deposition and the oxidation that encourages it. But is this evolution on the scale of developing the hardware to support language skills or tool making skills for example or the ability to engage in abstract thought - mathematics, philosophy, scientific models...?? Also are these people any more likely to breed and pass on their genes to a position of dominance in the next generation?

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.

Granted it is a massive project , and mapping the presence of gene patterns with real world advantages may take even longer. I was just interested if any broad patterns had as yet been identified.

Evolution is not like X-Men.

The theory of macro-evolution posits a series of jumps in capabilities between less developed common ancestors and the later more complex forms that followed them. So fish like beings become ape like beings become human beings would be the historical path. The difference between the ape like ancestors we are supposed to be descended from and modern humans is profound and includes the development of language, tool making capabilities and a capacity for abstract thought missing in the previous generations. The comparison with x men is therefore warranted as we are qualitatively that much superior to our supposed ancestors as xmen/heroes/alphas (whichever TV series you watch that share this assumption) would be to us.

 

[mindlight]

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

I was talking to a man who is lactose intolerant today. He said that because he cannot drink cows milk he has things like goats cheese which has actually proven a healthier option. Given the amount of antibiotics pumped into cows and the vested interest of the beef industry to maximise profits by selling beef, milk and leather from the same cows there is an institutionalised momentum to the idea that drinking milk offers evolutionary advantages. On the other hand it may be a factor in the growing obesity epidemic in the Western world. Overall I think the ability to eat/drink anything gives an advantage over those who are more fussy or physically limited about their food choices. But are milk drinkers any more likely to breed or succeed in our world than non milk drinkers? Not really. This is a microevolutionary development that offers clear benefits but is not an evolutionary shift comparable to the development of language or tool making capabilities for instance.

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).
It's not a myth.

But there are no distinct breeding/succeeding advantages in the fact that you are lactose intolerant or not.

 

[mindlight]

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

Better diet, lifestyles, sanitation etc are probably a bigger factor here than actual genetic change

 

[mindlight]

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.

Yes I agree , so in that case even if evolution were true as an explanation to how we got here, it would be irrelevant to trying to understand our future development, as other factors are now more important.

 

[mindlight]

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.

Adaptation and the ability of the human design to change in response to its environment is not necessarily a proof of the larger claims of the evolutionary theory. The jump between ape like ancestors and human beings included things like developing the hardware to support language, tool making, art and abstract thought. What evidence exists to support the view that these larger jumps are possible or occurring. The number of human beings is now in excess of 7 billion. There has never been a larger sample. Yet where are the examples of people who are so genetically beyond the norm that they have developed new advantages over the rest of us that set them up for breeding and succeeding in the modern world at our expense? There are a great many examples of disabilities and regressions from the norm but where are the examples of beneficial mutations on the scale of the development of language or tool making?

 

[mindlight]

Of course. We're still evolving.

We are demonstrably continually adapting. To prove evolution requires more than the assertion of adaptive change however.

 

[mindlight]

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.

So communities that live in certain environmental conditions may adapt to those conditions and then later pass on those beneficial adaptations to future generations. That is a cool and observable feature of the human design and you have provided a scientific explanation of how that occurs with transgenerational epigenetic change. But these adaptations are not proof of evolution of the type and scale that is historically claimed for it

 

[Shemjaza]

We are demonstrably continually adapting. To prove evolution requires more than the assertion of adaptive change however.

That's all evolution is. Small changes that provide a statistical improved chance of reproducing slowly spreading through the population.

Things like intelligence and tool use didn't jump in all at once, they slowly built on earlier adaptations.

We can see traits similar throughout the animal kingdom.

 

[RDKirk]

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 like comic books and superhero movies, too, but I don't get my science from them.

Evolution does not imply "improvement." It merely implies that mutations within species occur each generation, and those mutations that fit the environment continue for another generation. And "mutation" does not imply "improvement," either.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Except that genome research indicates that skin tone differentiation is no more than about 8,000 years old--too recent to be the result of evolution, especially considering that it makes very little difference in survival rates.

If it were the case that some huge percentage of melanin-deprived persons in sub-Sahara Africa would die for that specific reason before reproducing, or that some huge percentage of melanin-rich persons in Northern Europe would die for that specific reason before reproducing, then the skin-tone differentiation we see could be ascribed to evolution (essentially, species running into region-specific extinction events).

But it doesn't make that much difference. Generations of melanin-deprived people have lived in South Africa with no noticeable reduction in their rate of survival to reproductive age caused by sun exposure.

Skin tone differentiation is a result of selective breeding and inbreeding, just as in domesticated dogs and cats.

 

[mindlight]

I like comic books and superhero movies, too, but I don't get my science from them.

Evolution does not imply "improvement." It merely implies that mutations within species occur each generation, and those mutations that fit the environment continue for another generation. And "mutation" does not imply "improvement," either.

I understand evolution does not imply improvement but if the theory is true we should nonetheless be seeing them. This is especially true given the size of the worlds population today.

Comic books and superheroes are in part the cultures response to an inflated set of expectations raised by too strong a faith in science. Their pseudo science is actually a genuine response to the idea of macroevolution minus the timescales that serious scientists suggest. As the overall human population grows in size those timescales become less and less significant statistical explanation for the absence of real evolutionary change in human beings.

 

[Ophiolite]

Except that genome research indicates that skin tone differentiation is no more than about 8,000 years old--too recent to be the result of evolution

Since evolution is an ongoing process it would be irrelevant whether it was 8,000 years old, or 80,000 years old. What would be important is when the mutations responsible occurred and how sensitive the benefits/disdavantages were to the environment.

But it doesn't make that much difference. Generations of melanin-deprived people have lived in South Africa with no noticeable reduction in their rate of survival to reproductive age caused by sun exposure.

Perhaps not noticeable you, but quite possibly noticeable to natural selection.

 

[pgp_protector]

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
So Yes, Humans are Evolving.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Since evolution is an ongoing process it would be irrelevant whether it was 8,000 years old, or 80,000 years old. What would be important is when the mutations responsible occurred and how sensitive the benefits/disdavantages were to the environment.

Perhaps not noticeable you, but quite possibly noticeable to natural selection.

This would suggest that melanin-rich people might not be able to camouflage as well in a polar environment. It would make sense if humans were not predators, at the top of the food chain.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30795/5-signs-humans-are-still-evolving

 

[Landon Caeli]

Skin tone differentiation is a result of selective breeding and inbreeding, just as in domesticated dogs and cats.

It's origins, though, are what is mysterious. Maybe Neanderthal played a role?

http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/neanderthal-human-interbreed-dna.htm

"Neanderthals live on in non-Africans," co-author David Reich told Discovery News. "At least some Neanderthals were absorbed into the modern human population."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's all evolution is. Small changes that provide a statistical improved chance of reproducing slowly spreading through the population.

Things like intelligence and tool use didn't jump in all at once, they slowly built on earlier adaptations.

Didn't 'modern man' burst suddenly on the scene (like T-Rex)? Our evolutionary development would plot like the 'hockey stick' graph wouldn't it, the upward curve coming suddenly, and very recently? Wouldn't metamorphosis better describe our rapid development? We went to sleep one night as cavemen and awoke next morning as modern humans complete with our present features and abilities.

We can see traits similar throughout the animal kingdom.

Actually the fossil record supports sudden, not gradual, change doesn't it?

 

[mindlight]

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification.
So Yes, Humans are Evolving.

But nothing like the scale of the development of human language or tools is being observed

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

Right!!! Said the guy who believed in instantaneous creation because it fitted the neo-Platonic assumptions of the intellectual elite of his own age better.