Homo Sapiens Sapiens

[Wraith]

We're certainly still evolving, but we're influencing the course of the changes. So far our main influence is a secondary effect; by altering our surroundings we are influencing our changes. This is a slow process, however, so we really haven't done much yet. The real changes will either not show up for a long time to come, or will be made artificially, through gene therepay or whatnot.

--"open to intrepretation, but I say de-evolution"

That's an amusing commentary, but not really the case. There's a phenomenon called regression to the mean which pretty much invalidates it.

--"But all animals learn from their forefathers in a different way thans humans do -- it's called instinct,"

Instincts aren't learned. I think you mean behaviours.

--"The Marching Morons - By Henry Kuttner"

I think I remember that story. If it is the one I'm thinking of, it was pretty good. I've actually been trying to remember that title.

Wraith
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

[Ethelred]

This is what I get for relying on a decade or more old memory.

Its not Henry Kuttner.

Its C.M. Kornbluth. Written in 1951.

About all I got right was the title and the fact that morons ARE involved in the story.

I think I must have mixed a bunch of stuff together. Typical. I try to avoid it but sometimes I don't.

Heck according to this it was a funny story.

http://www.goldkeys.com/ScienceFiction/reviews/0380000547.html

The review is about a third of the way down. Not too long. Not at all what I was thinking.

Mea culpa.

[Urban Ranger]

There is this interesting doco that I watched on TV in which a bunch of funny looking people argue that, for humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens if you want), cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution. They say these things called "mimes," sort of like cultural genes, are spreading around with us as carriers.

The thing to note is "culture" is used in a very loose and broad sense in this context. It includes things such as medicine, something that should be science/technology.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by DinoDoc




I wasn't aware that it was in SMAC as well. If you could provide me the quote in which it is mentioned, I would be most appreciative.

Mea culpa. It just sounded like it should be from SMAC... I'm gonna crawl back under my rock now...

[Provost Harrison]

Homo Superior was a tech advance in SMAC, I presume that is what you are getting at, yes?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Homo Superior was a tech advance in SMAC, I presume that is what you are getting at, yes?

Yes, perhaps that is what I mean.

There were some interesting comments from other people here on this thread. But I'm still not sure if Homo Sapiens Sapiens are still naturally evolving, or if we have begun the process of moving out of the bounds of natural evolution and into accelerated artificial evolution.

That's my initial statement, Provost.

[Bereta_Eder]

.

[MrFun]

Thanks, but no thanks Paiktis. I wasn't looking for porno.

[chequita guevara]

Yes, we are still subject to natural selection. Artifical selection, however, has been introduced.

Examples of natural selection, HIV. By killing off non-HIV resistent humans, we are being naturally selected to create a species of human that is immune to the disease. However, advances in medicine are affecting this.

Artifical selection: Chinese tend to artifically select for male children. This leads to an over abundance of males with no breeding partners and allows women to be very choosy in possible partners. This will lead to a large drop in the numbers of Chinese, resulting in a greater percentage of non-Chinese in the human population.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, we are still subject to natural selection. Artifical selection, however, has been introduced.

Examples of natural selection, HIV. By killing off non-HIV resistent humans, we are being naturally selected to create a species of human that is immune to the disease. However, advances in medicine are affecting this.

Can you clarify what you mean exactly by your HIV example?? I had trouble understanding exactly what you're saying there. sorry, and thanks

[ranskaldan]

Evolution goes by two steps:
1) Random mutations. Most are harmful, few are good.
2) Natural selection. Environmental pressures remove harmful mutations, leave behind the good mutations. Thus the population slowly becomes more and more adapted.

(HIV example: as people more susceptible to AIDS get AIDS more and are more likely to die, slowly the gene makeup of the human race shifts towards more resistance towards AIDS.)

However, with modern advancements, natural selection among humans is vastly diminished when compared to other, wilder species.

I mean, how many of us have experienced floods, famines, several epidemics, deadly childhood diseases (without treatment), wars, etc? Yet this is what most other species, as well as most humans before 1900, experience all the time.

In fact, with Step 2 removed, the harmful mutations in Step 1 are no longer "negated". Thus it is possible that humans are devolving.

The same thing can be said about domestic pets.

(Not that I'm advocating things like the removal of healthcare or peace. That would totally screw up all of our lives! No, we must wait for artificial evolution to begin, i.e. gene therapy and so on.)

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
Can you clarify what you mean exactly by your HIV example?

Okay, some people seem to have an inborn resistence to HIV. They can carry the virus, but it doesn't kill them. Instead of being killed by the virus, they are more likely to be able to propagate their resistent genes (assuming they can find a member of the opposite sex who is also imune). As the virus spreads through the population, those with the immunity will eventually supplant those without it.

Admittedly, it's not a great example, because the mere fact of having the virus doesn't ensure finding a suitable mate, or that the children will be immune to the virus. In fact, it would be irresponsible. But theoretically, given enough time and no articifial controlls like vaccines, medices, genocide of HIV carriers, eventuall the only humans left would be HIV resistent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
Evolution goes by two steps:
1) Random mutations. Most are harmful, few are good.
2) Natural selection. Environmental pressures remove harmful mutations, leave behind the good mutations. Thus the population slowly becomes more and more adapted.

Incorrect.

1) Most mutations are just noise. They neither harm nor help the organism. Some are harmful, and these tend to die very quickly after "birth" or are aborted by the organism or fail to germinate, etc.


2) Natural selection. A very few mutations are beneficial. This gives the specific organism an advantage to propagate its genes. More often, however, one of those non-harmful changes becomes beneficial in a niche environment or the environment changes and the non-harmful mutation is now beneficial.

[DanS]

I think the average "lifespan" of an organism is about 3 million years. The only way we could stop the evolution would be for homo sapiens sapiens to stop our exposure to radiation caused by the sun or to somehow freeze the genome in its current state.

But neither of these things will probably happen and human beings as we know them, will be around a remarkably short period of time in the grand scheme of things.

[chequita guevara]

Our species is only 100 to 200 thousand years old, so we have a relatively long run ahead of us.

However, when we begin moving out among the stars, speciation will likely occur.

Remember, the existence of only one type of human is not the norm, historically. For most of human existence, there have been several versions of humans.