CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:26
Arguments:42
Total Votes:27
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (25)

Debate Creator

Nomoturtle(857) pic



Are Humans Currently More Or Less Likely To Evolve?

or unable? and why?

Add New Argument

What I understand so far about evolution is that we adapt to become more suitable to our environment. If we have adapted to our environment and our environment doesn't change much then I don't think we will keep changing, but rather adapt to smaller things. Maybe a better tolerance to modern day diets or tolerance to air pollution. Evolution, from what I understand, takes quite awhile to notice big changes.

flewk(1193) Clarified
3 points

We are still adapting to our environment. It is just a portion of the environment is man-made now.

1. Educated people have less kids than uneducated people. That means uneducated people pass on more of their genes in the gene pool.

2. People can travel and breed with different races much easier now. A better mix of the gene pool. More complementation.

3. Our diet has changed greatly. Lactose tolerance, gluten tolerance, insulin intolerance, etc. are all controlled by genes and passed on to our offspring.

The forces that select us are changing, but humans are still part of the evolutionary process. It would take a lot more technological advancements before we will be able to control our own evolution.

MuckaMcCaw(1970) Clarified
1 point

Some would argue that as medical technology increases, we loose much of our ability to evolve, since the environment is no longer "weeding out" the weaker examples of the species, and therefore allele frequencies may not be varying as much. And that is what evolution is, is variance in allele frequencies among and between populations over time.

Really? Lose the ability to evolve? So weeding out the weak is a component of evolutionary continuation?

2 points

Evolution isn't about the likelihood to change, so this question is erroneous, for starters. It is something that is constantly occurring in all species, but I understand what you're trying to get at with your question. I believe your question is more about "are humans more likely to evolve quickly now or will evolution of humans slow down".

Evolution is as simple as a change in the frequency of alleles throughout a population over successive generations. An allele is simply one version of a gene. This could be a gene that codes for eye color (brown, blue, hazel, etc) or a gene that codes for a protein and is associated with a disease). For example, there is a chloride ion channel in many tissues, especially the lungs. In some people, a problem with the genetic code of the gene causes that individual to not produce said protein at all. This results in a disease called cystic fibrosis (CF).

This change in allelic frequency is accomplished by several factors including reproduction (sexual or asexual), mutations, and environmental stressors, among other things. Now reproduction is the easy one. The more offspring you have, the more your alleles are introduced into the population, thus altering the frequency of alleles! In the example of CF, the typical frequency of this messed up allele for the chloride ion channel is about 1/2500 people. If a small population of CF carrying individuals decided to reproduce a lot and make many children, that frequency would change. In a world of 7 billion, the change is not very drastic, but hopefully you can understand the point I'm making here.

Mutations are another principle of evolution. Mutations introduce new alleles into the population. Many mutations are silent because they occur in the regions of DNA that don't code for anything, but some mutations can cause diseases. Going back to CF again, there is a mutation within the gene that causes an amino acid (it's the 508th amino acid- a phenylalanine) to be cut out of the sequence. There are other mutations that can cause the disease, but this is the most common. This allele can go from parent to child for many generations unnoticed until finally two carriers mate and (possibly) make a child who now has two copies of the mutated allele and no copies of the healthy allele for making the ion channel. Some mutations greatly affect the individual and cause that person to no longer be able to mate, thus halting the transmission of all of their genes to the next generation. Some mutations don't affect the individual much and continue to affect people for generations to come.

Environmental stressors are also a common way to affect the frequency of alleles. For humans, we have pretty much overcome this obstacle thanks to indoor heating and air, sanitation, medicine, etc. For much of nature and the humans of the prehistoric past, however, the environment truly weeded out those who were not fit for it. For example, if a very long and cold winter happened, many animals would have perished from not having enough fat or being exposed to the cold too much. Perhaps there was a reason for them not surviving the winter (like a mutation that affects their thermoregulation) or perhaps it was just blind luck. Regardless, if one of those individuals passed away before creating offspring, the genes they had never continued to the next generation. Sometimes this is good because a faulty gene would ultimately have been the reason for their death. Sometimes a mass extinction occurs and the general population greatly diminishes, thus removing potential good alleles as well.

Now that I've explained those things, let me answer what I think you're asking. in some regards, humans are likely to evolve more quickly than before, while in others we are less likely to. With 7 billion people on the planet, there is definitely a lot of reproduction going on. This is not equal across all parts of the world. Third world countries are growing rapidly while Europe and the like are growing slowly, and shrinking in some cases. Therefore, the frequency of, let's say, skin color is changing (really this is primarily just the level of melanin production- a protein found in skin). This is because the countries with fair-skinned people are not expanding populations very much, while countries in Africa are quickly expanding their populations. Thus, a change in allelic frequency.

I would also argue that mutation rates are increasing. Before civilization, mutations were completely random and occurred from things like sun damage or plant toxins. Now, people are more likely to abuse their bodies with artificial tanning, drug use, smoking, etc. If mutation rates are increasing, it's safe to say allelic frequencies are changing as well, and likely at a quicker rate.

Environmental stressors are a tough one. The fact that we have overcome many environmental stressors could indicate we are more likely to survive to reproductive age and pass along our genes, thus speeding up the evolution process. Nowadays, if we get the flu, we take medicine to combat it. If we get a bacterial infection like meningitis, we take antibiotics. If we break a bone, we get a cast or surgery and don't have to worry about a predator hunting us down because we are wounded. If we get damage from carcinogens or the sun and develop a tumor, many times that can be resected and we can continue on our lives.

Therefore, I would conclude that we, as humans, are more likely to speed up the process of evolution by changing the frequency of alleles within our population.

Disclaimer: This probably won't go noticed. People think of genetics and evolution in the big picture. Birds came from dinosaurs and whales came from wolf-like creatures (look them up, they're true). We aren't likely to change our appearance too drastically- no wings or claws or anything like that. We are simply evolving in the sense that, in my opinion, mutated alleles for diseases will become more frequent because the people who used to have those mutated genes would die, but today they are just fine thanks to medicine.

Thanks for reading.

1 point

Human beings abhor a vacuum.

What ever space we occupy we modify and only the lack of technology or natural forces prevents what we cannot achieve at that particular time. So we invent the technology and move forwards.

Eventually we reach a point in time when we have, like a all civilisations that have gone before us, reached our peak and then decline sets in and another civilisation evolves from the "ashes" and so we go on and on.

It has been that way for thousands of years, and we are still here, witnesses of the journey of human animals from our earliest beginnings to the present day, and still evolving, treating diseases that used to kill with impunity, inventing new ideas for future energy demands, changing the urban landscape and travelling into the stars.

Technology is responsible for most of our evolution whether it was the wheel, the crossbow, electricity, vaccinations, or any of the thousands of ideas that helped us be where and what we are today, because we are at our core, we are still "human animals" and still have a long way to go both morally and ethically before we can achieve the title of "human beings"

Nomoturtle(857) Clarified
1 point

technology is not responsible for biological evolution. you could say technology has changed society, or culture, or our general worldwide ideology, but not our biology. inventing the wheel, crossbow, vaccinations and discovering electricity does not change that.

yeah i agree from an ethical perspective we could probably improve, but to whom's agenda?

skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

Human beings abhor a vacuum.

nature abhors a vacuum

humans often CREATE them.

1 point

i dont think it is a necessity for there to be some sort of pressure for humans or any species to evolve. mutations are happening constantly, i think we are evolving more now than ever before, although it would be more suitable to call it 'changing' than evolving at this point... if one were to harbour a mutation these days, regardless of whether it is beneficial to anything or not it will be more likely to be passed on to the next generation of that family as today the mortality rate for most people (nowadays seems only to depend on where you live) is much lower, so mutations survive through our species. previously anyone with a mutation that happened to make them less likely to survive in the wild would simply be more likely to die and not pass on that mutation. just as someone in the past who had a beneficial mutation would be more likely to survive.

you could argue that today we simply live by different standards (eg. finding a mate rather than surviving long enough to have one) so that someone who is more attractive or bulky or intelligent or a specific personality trait or simply just lucky enough to be born into a lucky family with a well known name is far more likely to find a mate and pass on their genes, and potentially any mutations they harboured.

thats why i think that we as a species are far more likely to change now than ever before for better or for worse (honestly more likely worse in general).

this is however my view of evolution, and i see a few other different ideas here. while i don't see any irregularities in this, maybe you do, so please point them out. thanks.

1 point

"Technology is not responsible for biological evolution".

You have obviously not considered the implications of those words.

have you been to a hospital, received a vaccination or had a health check from your doctor

Without medical science technology, biologically we would still be dying from simple causes, such as appendicitis, pregnancy would still be a high risk of mortality for women and babies, we would die from smallpox and measles, polio would be rampant.

In WWI more people died from shock, infections and amputations than from the injury itself.

Where would we be biologically today without the technology to discover the need for hygiene and sanitation, what our normal homeostatic state is, our urea and electrolytes, blood group, characteristics, the antibiotics to treat infections, and the discoveries of genetics, chromosomes, and DNA.

Without technology, biologically we would still be living shortened lives instead of way beyond three score and ten

Nomoturtle(857) Clarified
1 point

"have you been to a hospital, received a vaccination or had a health check from your doctor

Without medical science technology, biologically we would still be dying from simple causes, such as appendicitis, pregnancy would still be a high risk of mortality for women and babies, we would die from smallpox and measles, polio would be rampant."

this has nothing to do with evolution

"Without technology, biologically we would still be living shortened lives instead of way beyond three score and ten"

this is true, but still has nothing to do with evolution.

1 point

Technology and science have given us the security, the health and the opportunity to evolve, socially, technically and biologically and without them we would not be where we are now today in any shape or form.

A good example is that it is now legal for two female and one male to contribute to IVF to eliminate hereditary biological factors.

Given time science and technology will eliminate biological inheritance of all genetic errors and this is just one example of technology supporting our biological evolution.

Nomoturtle(857) Clarified
1 point

im sorry, i think i misunderstood you. this is all true, we can manipulate our genes through technology, but earlier when you were talking about the invention of things like the wheel and the discovery of electricity i thought you meant that they influenced us biologically, which is ludicrous.

i hadn't previously heard of IVF, sounds like a good way as a fresh new start to implement genetic manipulation into society. the last attempts of gm crops was a complete failure. nobody likes gm crops :(

1 point

Thanks Nomoturtle

Yes I gave the examples of our tech advances simply to establish that as we develop technically so our science develops and without those combined creating inventions over time we would not be where we are today and have developed the technology and science to advance biological evolution. It has been a long journey and it is ongoing.

We are doing amazing things, gene shearing, DNA manipulation, stem cell research. Growing our own organs is incredible. Biologically one day we will grow our own transplants so when we suffer major organ failure we will simply use our own instead of the risk of rejection from a donor. Fascinating stuff. Who knows in the not too distant future we may easily live to 150.

BruceStinne3(24) Disputed
1 point

I think medicine today will make the ultimate Ebola monster to eat all the people

1 point

Long answer: Read "The 10,000 Year Explosion"

Short answer: No. Not at all.

We've already evolved so much there's no need for more evolution;even if it is required it would be 20 years from now.Currently,less likely.

1 point

Since i am only a student and yet have to grasp the vast world of science i still feel that humans are about to undergo more evolution .we have all heard about mutation due to the environment and isnt it possible it can affect humans too and change something .

1 point

we are currently MORE likely to evolve... otherwise we are not going to make it.

EVOLVE ALREADY!!!!

Humans will continue to evolve but it will probably be another million years before there are tell-tale improvements.

1 point

You're confusing "dead" with "nonliving". If something is dead, it means that it was alive but does not hold life anymore. "Nonliving" means abiotic, or never alive. Since Lonesome George evolved from earlier reptiles, he has evolution as a characteristic. Even though he couldn't reproduce with other members of the same species, he had the necessary organs and functions to reproduce and pass on slightly updated genes, which is all that evolution is. If a species is extinct and doesn't have the ability to reproduce or evolve anymore, that doesn't mean it was never alive. Like I said, since all organisms, and even some non-organisms like viruses, have evolved or will evolve and therefore fulfill that characteristic of life.

0 points

I hope we evolve because if we don't, we can't be classified as alive.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

What do you mean?

Something does not need to be evolving in order to be alive. In fact there are life forms that have existed for truly profound periods of time essentially unchanged (in terms of evolution): how could you say they aren't alive?

dcb9242000(167) Disputed
1 point

8 Characteristics of Life (something can't be alive unless they have all 8):

1. Cells

2. DNA

3. Metabolism

4. Homeostasis

5. Growth/Development

6. Reproduction

7. Response to Stimulus

8. Adaptation/Evolution