Austin Improv

Kidding.

But seriously, I was reading an article today that mentioned evolutionary changes. Are there any picture projections about how humans will evolve from now to the distant future? I have looked, but come up with nothing of substance.

What does Sean Hannity say? He's sort of your main source of scientific information, isn't he?

From what I can figure out, any time the evolution topic comes up on Mr. Hannity's show, he is conveniently not there or they have guests debate and he stays out of it... then again, I don't know if they've ever discussed future evolution.

I guess it's up to God's whim, may he rest in peace.

York99 wrote:Are there any picture projections about how humans will evolve from now to the distant future?

Giant heads. Long fingers. Silver jumpsuits.

My wife's former postdoc adviser (a top geneticist) once told her that the current general scientific consensus is that humans are through evolving because there are no more "population bottlenecks," i.e., events in which significant numbers of the population are killed or prevented from reproducing, allowing those few with advantageous mutations the opportunity to become a large part of the breeding pool. For more detail, you can check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

Of course, one can imagine any number of apocalyptic scenarios that might give rise to a population bottleneck. And, of course, there's also the hypothesis put forth by Mike Judge in "Idiocracy," that stupid people will eventually take over because they're so much more fecund than smart people.

We're hardly through evolving, we're just going to start controlling the way we do it through medical advances, like robotic limbs, artificial organs, and genetic modifications.

You thought tattoos were hardcore? Wait until you cn graft genes for giant bat wings right on to your DNA.

vine311 wrote:

There's whole speculative book dedicated to this kind of thing by Dougal Dixon. I haven't read it, but his other specualtive evolution books, one called After Man, about evolution 50 million years in the future and what kind of critters might be around, and another one about what the present might look like had the dinosaurs not been killed are pretty cool.

Wesley wrote:We're hardly through evolving, we're just going to start controlling the way we do it through medical advances, like robotic limbs, artificial organs, and genetic modifications.

You thought tattoos were hardcore? Wait until you cn graft genes for giant bat wings right on to your DNA.

Actually, if anything, advanced medicine, robotic limbs, artificial organs, and so on, hold back evolution by enabling people who might otherwise be weeded out of the gene pool to live and reproduce. As for artificially enhancing our genes through recombinant DNA- that probably will happen at some point (and I have to say, bat wings would be pretty freakin' cool- and I'd personally throw in a prehensile tail. And poison fangs.), but (a) will these modifications be passed on from generation to generation (what if you get bat wings and marry a woman without them?), and (b) will this happen on a large enough scale that genetically modified people out-reproduce plain old vanilla homo sapiens? Maybe we'll just spin off some subspecies.

York99 wrote:But seriously, I was reading an article today that mentioned evolutionary changes. Are there any picture projections about how humans will evolve from now to the distant future? I have looked, but come up with nothing of substance.

evolution isn't forward-thinking. it's the result of random mutations which are passed on to the next generation in greater relative number than alternative alleles.

and there's the time thing. 10,000 years is almost nothing when thinking about evolution. there are pressures in the current human environment that will favor certain genotypes, but those pressures need to be constant for long periods of time (like hundreds of thousands of years) to have much effect. what aspects of today's human life do you think will still be present in 100,000 years?

that said, there are certainly things that are evolving in humans. the gene for the enzyme that breaks down cow's milk shows evidence of evolution. this makes sense - it is a relatively new things for humans to continue to drink cow's milk into adulthood.

i'll look for articles in free journals this afternoon and try to post some links of genes we have strong evidence are evolving in humans.

The Frightful Turpentine wrote:
Actually, if anything, advanced medicine, robotic limbs, artificial organs, and so on, hold back evolution by enabling people who might otherwise be weeded out of the gene pool to live and reproduce.

I have actually heard that this might be causing us to devolve in some ways. For example, it used to be that people with poor sight would die off and not pass those genes on. Since we now have glasses (and those with poor eyesight are our smartest and most virile) those genes are being passed on and that is becoming more widespread.

Of course, if we all start developing ESP, telekinisis (sp?), etc. we won't need good vision and that's not devolving at all. I want to bend a spoon with my mind.

deroosisonfire wrote:[1]evolution isn't forward-thinking. it's the result of random mutations which are passed on to the next generation in greater relative number than alternative alleles.

[2]and there's the time thing. 10,000 years is almost nothing when thinking about evolution...
that said, there are certainly things that are evolving in humans.

[3]i'll look for articles in free journals this afternoon and try to post some links of genes we have strong evidence are evolving in humans.

1. My thinking was that because there is so much evidence from the past, that there might be some intelligent speculation on the future. That's what they do in finance, so I thought maybe some similar principles could be employed in genetics.

2. Of course, but even in the past few hundred years, isn't there evidence that we're getting taller as a human race? That's at least something, right?

3. Please don't do homework on my account. You've got enough going on, I'm sure.

The Frightful Turpentine wrote: Actually, if anything, advanced medicine, robotic limbs, artificial organs, and so on, hold back evolution by enabling people who might otherwise be weeded out of the gene pool to live and reproduce. As for artificially enhancing our genes through recombinant DNA- that probably will happen at some point (and I have to say, bat wings would be pretty freakin' cool- and I'd personally throw in a prehensile tail. And poison fangs.), but (a) will these modifications be passed on from generation to generation (what if you get bat wings and marry a woman without them?), and (b) will this happen on a large enough scale that genetically modified people out-reproduce plain old vanilla homo sapiens? Maybe we'll just spin off some subspecies.

The keyword you're looking for is "posthuman". There's a fairly significant amount of speculation happening on this subject - sci-fi and non-fiction, crazy-ass and not-as-crazy-ass. I can throw plenty more pointers your way if you're interested.

York99 wrote: 1. My thinking was that because there is so much evidence from the past, that there might be some intelligent speculation on the future. That's what they do in finance, so I thought maybe some similar principles could be employed in genetics.

2. Of course, but even in the past few hundred years, isn't there evidence that we're getting taller as a human race? That's at least something, right?

3. Please don't do homework on my account. You've got enough going on, I'm sure.

1. we can't really speculate on which genes will mutate and how they will mutate. we don't understand enough about dna and proteins yet to really be able to predict this well. surprising, huh? i'll give a better answer to this when i'm not due in class in 7 minutes.

2. that's mostly due to better nutrition, not evolution.

3. naw, there's not much to do since i'm leaving school. and i think this stuff is fun and interesting, anyway.