Human Evolution - Are we done??

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-12-2010 8:56pm

THFC wrote: »

Had this conversation with my science teacher way back in 3rd year. He think it possible that waaaay into the future we'll lose;
1. Our hair. Serves no function.
2. Our small fingers. Again, serves no function.
3. Our teeth. As food is becoming more and more processed our teeth will become redundant.
I'm not sure about this one but he also thought its possible that we could someday lose our skulls and rib-cages.

I believe that our immune system will become a lot more resistant to diseases such as aids and cancer (and with the love of God sti's!).

Could it be possible that your science teacher was a bald, four-fingered man with no teeth who wanted to level the playing field?

Evolution should mess around with emotions and leave our hair and teeth alone, like, why the hell do we get embarrassed and blush? What the f**k is that all about? Don't really think that is needed anymore.

I do wish we had tails though!

Cú Giobach · 15-12-2010 9:11pm

THFC wrote: »

Had this conversation with my science teacher way back in 3rd year. He think it possible that waaaay into the future we'll lose;
1. Our hair. Serves no function.
2. Our small fingers. Again, serves no function.
3. Our teeth. As food is becoming more and more processed our teeth will become redundant.

Noooo!!
Hair...Go out on a cold day just after a haircut, chilly. Sexual selection-- most men don't fancy bald women and most women don't fancy 18 to 20 something naturally bald men (not 100% sure of that one though).
Little finger.... what would we scratch the inside of our ears with??
Teeth ...Try eating a burger and fries (not to mention the nuggets) without teeth.

Pauleta · 15-12-2010 9:23pm

You just have to look at the likes of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to realise how much we are evolving. Sports people from 30 years ago couldnt come close to what humans are doing now and thats in all sports. We are getting bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, fitter and more agile by the decade.

ScumLord · 15-12-2010 9:23pm

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If I copy stuff off wikipedia will I get random thanks? :pac:

If it's relevant.

THFC wrote: »

Had this conversation with my science teacher way back in 3rd year. He think it possible that waaaay into the future we'll lose;
1. Our hair. Serves no function.
2. Our small fingers. Again, serves no function.
3. Our teeth. As food is becoming more and more processed our teeth will become redundant.
I'm not sure about this one but he also thought its possible that we could someday lose our skulls and rib-cages.

I believe that our immune system will become a lot more resistant to diseases such as aids and cancer (and with the love of God sti's!).

I don't know why the immune system would get better when a lot of people think it's getting worse due to sterilisation.

Hair, sexual attraction over rules even functionality in most species and hair is useful.
Small fingers are useful, if you cut yours off you'll see what I mean.
Teeth are also tools I don't see how not having them would be any sort of advantage they even help with speech which is almost essential in our species.

Pauleta wrote:

You just have to look at the likes of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to realise how much we are evolving. Sports people from 30 years ago couldnt come close to what humans are doing now and thats in all sports. We are getting bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, fitter and more agile by the decade.

That's down to science and more free time for professionals.

15-12-2010 9:27pm

THFC wrote: »

Had this conversation with my science teacher way back in 3rd year. He think it possible that waaaay into the future we'll lose;
1. Our hair. Serves no function.
2. Our small fingers. Again, serves no function.
3. Our teeth. As food is becoming more and more processed our teeth will become redundant.
I'm not sure about this one but he also thought its possible that we could someday lose our skulls and rib-cages.

I believe that our immune system will become a lot more resistant to diseases such as aids and cancer (and with the love of God sti's!).

Nope, that's not really how evolution works. Mutation is a random process, and traits that lead to stronger organisms become more prevalent because they're more likely to survive and mate.

These days, even if those things are useless, somebody with hair is just as likely to survive as somebody with no hair, and somebody with teeth is just as likely to survive as somebody with no teether, regardless of the utility of these body parts.

JPA · 15-12-2010 9:27pm

Have you seen a scrotum OP?
We have a lot of evolving to do.

Scuid Mhór · 15-12-2010 9:34pm

THFC wrote: »

Had this conversation with my science teacher way back in 3rd year. He think it possible that waaaay into the future we'll lose;
1. Our hair. Serves no function.
2. Our small fingers. Again, serves no function.
3. Our teeth. As food is becoming more and more processed our teeth will become redundant.
I'm not sure about this one but he also thought its possible that we could someday lose our skulls and rib-cages.

I believe that our immune system will become a lot more resistant to diseases such as aids and cancer (and with the love of God sti's!).

1. hair keeps our heads warm. just ask any bald guy. plus it's help for a sexual nature. have you never watched that episode of friends where ross gets told girls have special chemicals in their hair to attract guys??? okay that last sentence isn't true but the rest is valid.

2. four fingers makes it harder to hold small items that we are constantly plagued with not to mention a bunch of other things.

3. by nature, we aren't meant to eat meat but teeth come in handy for that so what hard foods are there that teeth are necessary for? food becoming more processed is the same argument as 'books are going out of style for e-books'. the older option is just better so it's not going to get a hold of our evolutionary destinies.

4. skulls and rib-cages need to protect our organs. they aren't going to suddenly be able to fend for themselves and become as tough as bone. think of how tough surgery would be.

Dave! · 15-12-2010 10:09pm

AFAIK in order for evolution to 'remove' organs or features, they would have to confer a disadvantage on the organism, rather than being merely redundant or unnecessary. I don't think the energy used by our baby fingers would be enough to pressure us into losing them in spite of their lack of utility!

Sure we have plenty of evidence of vestigiality in most organisms, including humans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality#Humans

JG009 · 15-12-2010 10:17pm

Can we make big breasts standard in all future women please?

Supposedly our jaws will shrink over time because we eat food which has been pretty much digested in the making so we dont need to chew as much, and due to changes in technology we dont need to talk as much. Hmmm.

Son Of A Vidic · 16-12-2010 12:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

Although Life Expectancy is growing at a very quick rate so surely the benefits of increased sterility are outweighing the disadvantages of having weakened immune systems.

Well when human immunity/disease resistance is weakened to such a point, that a true global pandemic could inflict a serious global population 'cull'. In this instance increased life expectancy will be irrelevant I feel. Ironically excess sterilisation needs to be closely control.

strobe · 16-12-2010 12:55am

Pauleta wrote: »

You just have to look at the likes of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to realise how much we are evolving. Sports people from 30 years ago couldnt come close to what humans are doing now and thats in all sports. We are getting bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, fitter and more agile by the decade.

This would be more to do with better nutrition, training and equipment, as well as the fact there is a more concerted effort to find people that can break world records due to the increase in the financial and prestige rewards, as opposed to anything to do with evolution, I would imagine. Just having the right footwear alone, such as modern sprinters shoes with harder soles and specifically tested shapes and materials shaves time off a sprinters PB.

==============================================================================================================

The thing about human evolution now is that natural selection isn't as big a driving force as it was, in so far as it certainly isn't driving humans to be bigger, better, faster, stronger and smarter. It is not specifically the biggest, best, fastest, strongest and smartest humans that are having the most children and therefore passing on those genes into the gene pool. Certainly not in the developed world in anyway. Maybe in third world countries where aid is inadequate or in China with it's one child policy this could still be the case, but not elsewhere.

bnt · 16-12-2010 12:57am

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know why the immune system would get better when a lot of people think it's getting worse due to sterilisation.

But there are two parts to the immune system's operation: the immune system you're born with, and the way it develops and strengthens as you grow up. Genetics determines the first part, but you're talking about the second part. If anything, being born with a better, more adaptable immune system will help you handle the current trend for sterilising everything.

--Kaiser-- · 16-12-2010 10:23am

Pauleta wrote: »

You just have to look at the likes of Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps to realise how much we are evolving. Sports people from 30 years ago couldnt come close to what humans are doing now and thats in all sports. We are getting bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, fitter and more agile by the decade.

I think that is more down to advances in training, nutrition and *cough* supplements. Plus it's more lucrative these days to be a professional athlete than 50 years ago, so more people train and train earlier.

There was a study done a few years back where they analysed the footprints of some aboriginal hunters and estimated that they were sprinting at 23 MPH on muddy ground (Usain Bolt ran at 26 MPH, with modern trainers and on an ideal surface). So i don't necessarily think we are improving as much athletically as we'd like to think.

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_modern_man_a_wimp_says_anthropologist_peter_mcallister_in_manthropology_.html

ScumLord · 16-12-2010 5:11pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

There was a study done a few years back where they analysed the footprints of some aboriginal hunters and estimated that they were sprinting at 23 MPH on muddy ground (Usain Bolt ran at 26 MPH, with modern trainers and on an ideal surface). So i don't necessarily think we are improving as much athletically as we'd like to think.

Apparently modern athletes are doing running wrong. Wearing shoes and runners has ruined humans walking and running stance. There are still tribes in south America (somewhere) that run without any shoes and spend most there time on their toes while running. Not only can they run faster for longer but they use a lot less energy doing it and suffer less injuries.

WindSock · 16-12-2010 5:20pm

I would have thought women in the west would start menstruating later in life and get the menopause later too. But apparently girls are getting their periods a couple of years younger now. Don't know why that is happening.

evercloserunion · 16-12-2010 5:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope, that's not really how evolution works. Mutation is a random process, and traits that lead to stronger organisms become more prevalent because they're more likely to survive and mate.

These days, even if those things are useless, somebody with hair is just as likely to survive as somebody with no hair, and somebody with teeth is just as likely to survive as somebody with no teether, regardless of the utility of these body parts.

Moreso, perhaps. I imagine that people with hair and teeth have more of a chance of mating than people without one or both of those things.

--Kaiser-- · 16-12-2010 5:29pm

ScumLord wrote: »

Apparently modern athletes are doing running wrong. Wearing shoes and runners has ruined humans walking and running stance. There are still tribes in south America (somewhere) that run without any shoes and spend most there time on their toes while running. Not only can they run faster for longer but they use a lot less energy doing it and suffer less injuries.

Correct. Modern shoes tend to make people land on their heel, which sends a shock up through your ankle, knee and hip, rather than on your toes/forefoot which naturally acts as a shock absorber.

Knasher · 16-12-2010 5:31pm

WindSock wrote: »

I would have thought women in the west would start menstruating later in life and get the menopause later too. But apparently girls are getting their periods a couple of years younger now. Don't know why that is happening.

I'm being facetious, but maybe it's because the women who are having sex at a younger age generally end up with more kids.

--Kaiser-- · 16-12-2010 5:42pm

WindSock wrote: »

I would have thought women in the west would start menstruating later in life and get the menopause later too. But apparently girls are getting their periods a couple of years younger now. Don't know why that is happening.

I read a study recently stating that hunter / gatherer women begin menstruating later and have much less frequent menses, as in they don't ovulate every month. Can't find the link at the moment.

ScumLord · 16-12-2010 5:42pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Correct. Modern shoes tend to make people land on their heel, which sends a shock up through your ankle, knee and hip, rather than on your toes/forefoot which naturally acts as a shock absorber.

It makes sense when you look at other mammals they're all walking on what would be equivalent to our toes a huge amount of spring comes from the calf muscle which is under utilised in how modern humans walk.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-12-2010 5:42pm

anthonyk.is wrote: »

Has the human race evolved as far as it's going to? Or people still going to continue to change over they centurys and could humans possibly even change appearance?

Yeah there will be continued evolution, it never „Stops“ as such. However the nature of evolution makes it almost impossible to predict what it will be. Most likely it will be our immune systems where the most massive changes are, as we are in a constant evolutionary battle with microbes that want to eat us and it is an arms race on both sides and one that, right now, there is no good reason to expect we will win naturally, but could win using science.

However evolution only needs 3 things to occur in any context…

1) Differentiation within a species. Simply look around. We are all very different.
2) Near perfect fidelity in reproducing that information. Mutation can occur but it must be relatively rare.
3) Differential success in producing off spring. Some people have kids, some do not. Some people have large families some do not. Some people lose their children some do not.

So that is it. Once those three things exist, and they do, evolution will exist. Where it will go is another story, but it will be there.

What we can say with certainty however is that it will be slower that it has been in our distant past. This is because our technology negates much of it’s effects. Things that would have killed us off in the wild are dealt with now to the point that people like Stephen Hawking not only survive against the odds, but successfully procreate. I talk of course of natural evolution. As some users on the thread pointed out we may cause some changes ourselves when we learn more about how… however I do not consider that evolution so much as intentional tinkering.

smash · 16-12-2010 5:47pm

anthonyk.is wrote: »

For me I reckon scientifically the next steps will be greater immune systems to todays diseases

You failed the gay test, obviously a 3rd tit is much more important!

ScumLord · 16-12-2010 5:50pm

steve06 wrote: »

You failed the gay test, obviously a 3rd tit is much more important!

How could you motorboat with a third tit in there? It just wouldn't work as well.

Knasher · 16-12-2010 5:53pm

Annoying part about it all is the fact that the stereotypical a**hole who has been on the dole ever since he dropped out of school and has 20 kids with 20 different women has been, on an evolutionary scale, about 10 times more successful that the rest of us will ever be.

nozzferrahhtoo · 16-12-2010 5:59pm

Knasher wrote: »

Annoying part about it all is the fact that the stereotypical a**hole who has been on the dole ever since he dropped out of school and has 20 kids with 20 different women has been, on an evolutionary scale, about 10 times more successful that the rest of us will ever be.

Indeed, this was the whole premise behind the movie "idiocracy" which extrapolated this point into a view of the future where everyone is as dumb as some trailer thrash people are stereotyped to be.

why that film was not classed in the genre horror instead of comedy still befuddles me.

sink · 16-12-2010 5:59pm

It would be cool if in the future instead of having to rely on our personal hereditary immune system that developed slowly overtime on an individual scale and had to be provoked/stimulated into developing antibodies for a particular pathogen, we instead developed using IT and bio-engineering a networked immune system that updated our immune systems remotely every time a new pathogen was discovered in the network.

Say a new flu virus emerges in China, the first person in the immune system network to contract it and develop antibodies would immediately send out immune system updates to all others in the network so that everyone in the network would gain that immunity.

I'm just day dreaming aloud here

El_Dangeroso · 16-12-2010 6:08pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I read a study recently stating that hunter / gatherer women begin menstruating later and have much less frequent menses, as in they don't ovulate every month. Can't find the link at the moment.

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a really interesting article about a woman who spent her life with a primitive tribe measuring how often they menstruate. The average age for first menstruation was 17, in western society at the time it was 14, though that has now dropped to 11, don't know why but it's worrying when you see the kind of problems that correlate with early menarche.

They also had less menses over the course of their lifetime, as they breastfed their children until 3 years of age which naturally suppresses ovulation and therefore menses.

sink · 16-12-2010 6:11pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Malcolm Gladwell wrote a really interesting article about a woman who spent her life with a primitive tribe measuring how often they menstruate. The average age for first menstruation was 17, in western society at the time it was 14, though that has now dropped to 11, don't know why but it's worrying when you see the kind of problems that correlate with early menarche.

They also had less menses over the course of their lifetime, as they breastfed their children until 3 years of age which naturally suppresses ovulation and therefore menses.

I'm guessing it has something to do with our diet rather than evolution. Evolution doesn't work over the time scales of several generations it takes many many more generations to have a noticeable impact.

ScumLord · 16-12-2010 6:23pm

sink wrote: »

It would be cool if in the future instead of having to rely on our personal hereditary immune system that developed slowly overtime on an individual scale and had to be provoked/stimulated into developing antibodies for a particular pathogen, we instead developed using IT and bio-engineering a networked immune system that updated our immune systems remotely every time a new pathogen was discovered in the network.

Say a new flu virus emerges in China, the first person in the immune system network to contract it and develop antibodies would immediately send out immune system updates to all others in the network so that everyone in the network would gain that immunity.

I'm just day dreaming aloud here

No your talking about nano technology which is coming to a doctor near you very soon.

smash · 16-12-2010 6:28pm

ScumLord wrote: »

How could you motorboat with a third tit in there? It just wouldn't work as well.

you can motorboat one side, and still kop a feel of the one that's left out!

Human Evolution - Are we done??

Comments