Is Evolution Splitting Up the Human Race?

If the human race is to become split into various categories, then the words like "we" and "us" need a definition. In fact, these words need definition whether the human race becomes split or otherwise.

OK, I'll try it another way. It has been said that "all men are created equally" (excluding syntax and/or grammar).

I doubt that statement will always be true. I'm not sure that there is truth in it now unless the variation we see is a product of early childhood development or something genetic.

If todays humans drove out Neanderthals (except for a few bosses I've had) because of evolution, what is to say that it won't happen again? Perhaps it already has and we just haven't realized it. It makes one wonder if all of our scientific advances of the last 100 years was more than luck and opportunity.

It was intended to model the OP's conversation about human evolution. Yes the methodology is vastly different when you consider plant and micro organisms.

Drew K

Nobody believes that we are all equal. Never have been; never will be.

As far as evolution goes, it is continuing even as I type. It's just a VERY slow process with a species that develops as slowly as humans do.

It will continue to evolve until the time when Yellowstone erupts cataclysmic ally and wipes out everything on earth except the cockroach.

To some extent that is true and that is due to arrogance. Politicians do a pretty good job in splitting up the human race, we don't need evolution to that.

How many thousands of years were humans separated from one continent to another. To be discovered and interbreeding take place. It might be a slow process but we've had human populations isolated.

From one side of the Panama Canal to the other there is a breed of shrimp, identical in every way, however reuniting the one from the Pacific with the one from the Carribean, the two reject each other. No telling if they can still breed with one another, they just wont have anything to do with one another.

Cool! I had no idea that shrimp could discriminate as you described. The implications are difficult to imagine or understand.

[ahem]

http://www.darwinawards.com/

Are you suggesting a race of supermen? We already have some splits into what we speak of as "races" and though the differences are visible, they are not distinguishable in the DNA. Each thought that the others were inferior, but given the same environment this disappears.

In H.G.Wells' time machine, the population had divided into the Eloi, small elegant beings who lived above ground and the Morlocks, ape-like troglodytes who lived underground. I wondered because of the strong class difference that existed in the UK when I was young. But as the barriers have been eroded the differences have disappeared. I am more worried that the military-industrial complex will try to produce some Genetically Modified workers and soldiers, but this act would not be down to evolution, the drive to perform this act however, is.

For generations, Amish children have only had sufficient education for farm work, but when they leave, they don't seem to have deficits other than caused by the leaving the Amish life.

If climate change goes to the extreme it might force us in other directions, but split into differing types, who knows.

The so called evolution is just a process of natural selection, only the stronger survives. If a feature is usefull it'll prevail due to simple survival of the bearer; while a useless one will perish along with the bearer, leaving no descendants.

We've been here for a million years, and the oldest human fossils show no difference with a modern man, and along the passage of time, we see no other hominids evolving towards our estadio evolutivo.

So I believe there is no evolution in a sense of transformation of any species, it is all adaptation and survival, but the genes for that were already there.

I saw a know-it-all one time saying that by the year 3000 we would lose a finger, and I immediately recalled how surprisingly similar I am to Gilgamesh, crafted on stone over 4500 years ago.

Regards

The loss of a finger dropped out of the process when texting was invented.

This has all been explained in the movie " Idiocracy "...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8&feature=relmfu

So like the rabbits in an environment with no predator will breed and over populate uncontrollably.

Yes and like Lemmings all go mad and run into the sea....I see it everyday...

The socialistic nature of our world will prevent much evolution from now on.

Darwin adequately described how the fittest survive and the rest perish. That will not happen these days (in most countries) because we now take care of those who cannot provide for themselves. We also have medicines and procedures to prevent evolution.

A family with a history of diabetes for instance would have perished 10000 years ago. People with very poor vision would have also perished. Not so any more.

I sometimes think we advanced technologically too fast, preventing us from evolving a little further. We are now practically at a standstill.

The reasons you cite above are why you should always take someone along with you that you can outrun, if hiking in bear country.

That would keep fat people from evolving.

Those who survived did so via early precursors to your misnamed "socialistic world", it should be called the "cooperative world", distinct from the "dog eats dog" conservative or capitalist world. Two warriors are generally going to beat one warrior. A village of people cooperating with each other will be more fit to survive than a bunch of individuals. Our communities have grown so that we have had to formalize the cooperation with governments. The history of the West is a model.

Survival of the fittest is interpreted too simply, it comes down to successful behavior as measured by the breeding and raising children. Isaac Asimov thought that interdependence was the key to successful behavior in today's world, so it is correct to help those whom we can help. If we have a global catastrophe, the rugged individualswill come in to their own again, but the socializing will start over.

His statement was not political. What he meant was the "culture" of today is very biased toward taking care of the physically disadvantaged. Centuries or even a millennium ago those same people would have perished quickly.

They would have perished because they would not be able to fend for themselves, community resources were too scarce to support members with little or no ability to contribute to the group, or the technology needed to keep them alive did not yet exist.

What does "conservative capitalism" have to do with evolution ?

How did a science discussion segway into politics ?

beautiful couples make beautiful kids. the same for athetic couples. i don't considerate that as evolution, just selective breeding. human evolution will not re-start until a a major catastophe eliminates the human race and destroys habitation as we now know it, leaving only a few struggling survivers. then "survival of the fittess" will result in a new evolution.

Of all the posts so far, I think DurtieDuck has come the closest. Others have touched upon the key of evolution.

Breeding is the key to evolution, the dominant breeders will out-populate and usually survive environmental changes better just by sheer volume of individuals (except in circumstances where the few have adaptions that allow survival).

Humans don't breed through natural selection, you can be sickly and through medicine and compassion breed successfully thus passing on your possibly damaged genetic strain (diabetes, poor eyesight, multiple sclerosis etc.). You could say that because the general desire is for an attractive mate that we are breeding beautiful people...but 'ugly' people breed to (and often!).

The bottom line is who among the human population is out-breeding whom? Idiocracy anyone?

Drew K

Key of evolution????? Not sure.

The best part of evolution, for sure.

We wouldn't "evolve" if it hurt.

Why are you not sure that breeding is the key? The organism that breeds more efficiently than another will out-populate their competition. This has been observed in many habitats. Introduce a predator to an island that never had that type before and it will dominate the habitat (Guam and snakes). Find a snake that climbs trees better (I think birds are the primary prey), and breeds faster and you have one out-evolve the other. Unless of course the snake overpopulates and consumes all the prey then starves itself off and the organism that lives longer and breeds less might become dominant.

Drew K

Random selection cannot be discounted when considering evolution. Breeding only comes into play when the mating pairs have been selected.

That isn't evolution, it's farming.

Not sure what you mean by random selection.

Intentional breeding has been done for thousands of years with dogs and other domesticated animals. It is a form of evolution through genetic manipulation (in a course breeding way instead of gene addition/deletion/replacement).

What I meant by breeding is mating, I apologize for the confusion. In my understanding it is the mate selection that is one method of active evolution where one mate is selected for characteristics that lead to evolutionary progress.

Another method of active evolution is the classic adapting to a changing environment.

I am sure there are other models of evolution, but I say it is the mate selection either by actual selection or through dominant traits. Humans do not follow the same model as other animals because we have free will and through compassion or attraction or whatever we often choose our mates without as much regard to evolving.

Drew K

Lyn, breeding is the only way a species changes. Even with random selection, breeding must take place to produce offspring.

The exception to that would be organisms that self replicate, such as bacterium.

Don't be silly. The act of breeding has nothing to do with evolution.

That's like saying that breathing causes life.

The act of breeding just sets the stage for the ultimate joining of the egg and sperm.

How they combine, determines the characteristics if the offspring. How that offspring reacts to the forces surrounding them determines if that particular potential breeder survives.

I'd sooner say that live birth causes evolution. You can breed till the cows come home but northing's going to evolve unless you have a successful birth.

Reproductive success is how favorable attributes increase in the population.

Reproductive success.

Using appropriate Technical vocabulary is important in this subject too.

Evolution is increase of favorable traits /decrease of unfavorable traits in a population.

Milo

Reproductive success. depends on much more than just breeding, does it not?

We are bogging down in semantics, maybe because of me, not sure, yet.

Really, seems that you are being pedantic about this whole line of topic within this thread. Breeding, reproducing or whatever you want to call it.

Evolution occurs when one genetic abnormality causes one organism to out-populate others and pass on more of their genetic traits than others. Look at the many breeds of dog across the world many of them described as better at catching one prey than another but scientists show that they all evolved from one breed of dog. One 'breed' was more successful at catching it's prey than it's competitors and it evolved specialized traits because the more successful hunters with those traits were able to produce more offspring and pass on their genetic material better.

Now, to bring this back on topic; how are humans evolving? What is it with the humans that are producing the most offspring that makes them better than their competitors? In my humble opinion it is the less educated humans that are evolving faster than the higher educated. There is a correlation between lifespan and education and socioeconomic status; on average you live longer if you have better education and live in a society with access to educated health care providers, shorter lifespans and larger families are attributed to lower education and socioeconomic status humans. So, some humans are living longer because of the benefits of their location and other humans produce more offspring if they are successful enough in their habitat and live long enough to reproduce repeatedly.

For example, in some third world countries you can see the genetic relation in a small community. If the most successful hunter or farmer with dark skin and a tolerance for the environment has a large family their offspring will benefit from that and also have large families. After a few generations you will see more of that family's dark skin spread across the community. Then you wind up with a community adapted to farming or hunting in that habitat. Same goes for pearl divers or fishing villages in other parts of the world.

As for those of us participating in online intellectual conversation we tend to produce fewer offspring because we value a standard of living that would be difficult to support with 15 or so offspring. The traits that make us more successful in our habitat are not passed along in the same manner and lead to limited offspring.

I know there are exceptions to this theory, but there are always exceptions and not all of them matter in the long run.

Drew K

without straying, then shouldn't gay or homosexuals die out and become extinct. That segment in the human population has been around for a very long time.

I was under the understanding that the largest evolution change has come from a mutated gene, possibly from natural radiation. That the offspring evolves from.

There are other factors that determines Human evolution: Social pressures, peer pressure, and familial environment. Much of Human evolution is created by the choices we make as humans, i.e. our free will.

Many of our society who are gay, have a predilection to homosexual tendencies. (Please understand I do not mean to paint anyone with a broad brush here, I am simply trying to put this in as few words as will make sense. In other words I mean no offense.)

It may have been an experience, pleasant or unpleasant, that "turned on" that switch.

We as humans are sexual beings. We do not need hormonal triggers to stimulate the mating drive. We mate for fun as well procreation. Therefore, we have a greater opportunity for genetic mixing.

This may be slightly off topic. If so I apologize.

Dragon

so its built in.

Lyn, Reproduction is the pathway for evolution.

Environment provides the natural selection process (the stage for the play), but nothing happens unless there is successful reproduction (by the actors).

Reproduction not only allows favorable genes to be passed on, but the combination of genetic material from two members to create new offspring with new traits and add those to the gene pool. If these new traits favor survivability in the environment, those offspring will also have a better chance to reproduce and continue to expand the gene pool.

Negative genetic traits are culled out by reducing (or eliminating) the possibility of reproduction while positive genetic traits increase the possibility of successful reproduction.

Many people confuse or take the "survival of the fittest" literally, that is, if you are unfit you die. However, what that statement really means is those better suited for their environment reproduce in greater numbers than those that do not.

This statistically shifts the population, over time, toward a population with superior traits for the environment they live in.

You wrote, "Lyn, breeding is the only way a species changes. "

Now you write, "Lyn, Reproduction is the pathway for evolution."

How did we get from "breeding" to "reproduction" which is a much, much broader term?

Take both of those as the exchange of genetic material with the final result being a new offspring.

From a strict literal sense they differ with breeding leading to reproduction.

Well...........................................

That's too much of a reach for me. Breeding doesn't cause anything to evolve until the reproductive cycle is successfully completed by birth.

So is this comment from Milo, "Evolution is increase of favorable traits /decrease of unfavorable traits in a population."

Just as many unfavorable traits as favorable traits can evolve from reproduction.

Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Evolution | Define Evolution at Dictionary.com

Lyn, when we aren't careful with our wording we can get confused.

"Just as many unfavorable traits as favorable traits can evolve from reproduction."

Actually traits don't evolve.

Need a different verb. Did you mean "result?"

By the way, whether or not my comment is too much of a reach or not, it is the result of successfully completing college coursework and plenty of avocational topical reading on the subject.

Lot of folks on here have opinions. Not many showing evidence of having studied the subject. don't let the ones who haven't studied it set your vocabulary for you.

Milo

Yes, result is a more appropriate term.

And I defer to your superior education on the subject, but reserve the right to believe that evolution produces random results which may be either desirable or not desirable.

I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this field. I have ideas and opinions backed up with some discussion with biologists and some reading and watching documentaries about the subject.

Please interpret the meaning and context of my posts and not the vocabulary. It seems my lack of proper vocabulary has resulted in a pedantic argument of semantics.

I am enjoying participating in this thread and learning more about a fascinating subject.

Drew K

No need for an apology, you aren't preaching as if you wrote the book.

CR4 is a great place to have one's horizon's expanded.

Here is a really good book for you:

http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-Is-Ernst-Mayr/dp/0465044263/ref=cm_lmf_tit_2

It avoids a lot of the Atheist vs religiousness that often gets swept up in these discussions.

One of the cautions that I would give any one interested in this field is to learn to recognize Lamarckian Fallacies : Like Good looking people have good looking offspring. Athletic couples have athletic offspring. Sweeping generalizations about soft inheritance and not necessarily true. The classic Lamarckian fallacy is that the Blacksmith will gain strong arms through his work, and somehow pass these on to his sons (or G-D help us his daughters). I know some beautiful couples whose kids were not on the same side of the bell curve for attractiveness as mom and dad, and I have to say I was shocked at my son's athletic abilities- He was first athlete on either side for three generations...

Another good book you may find interesting is the structure of scientific reviolutions by thomas Kuhn. It is a powerful guide to how the world of science achieves its successes. http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083/ref=pd_sim_b_8

Nice to meet you.

Milo

No time for reading at the moment, but will add it to the pile of books in my inbox :)

My biologist friend did say that we can inherit some traits from our parents environment. She said if your parents are exposed to a wide range of bacteria and viruses they can pass on a toughness toward those. I don't know if this is passed on through genetics or through other means. She has quite a few letters after her name so I don't quite understand all of it (and probably don't explain it well here either).

Drew K

I'm fine with that. Just substitute the word Reproduce everywhere I used the word Breed and that will fix it.

take chimpanzees for example. only the strongest male will breed with the females. he then passes his genic blood line to the next generation of offspring. it will be the same senerio when the sh*t hits the fan. we are animals and we will start acting animalistic. only the strongest and best fit male is likely to breed.

Really? Source please? No non alpha male chimpanzee ever gets to breed? Ever? How do you know?

genic blood line? Blood line? Serious? Genetic means transmitted by genes. Blood line means transmitted by blood. Anachronistic thinking at best.

We are animals. Yes. So?

Will start acting animalistic. When did we stop?

Only the strongest and best fit male is likely to breed?

Where does this crap come from?

Milo

Generally, an alpha male will get first dibs at his desired females. However, that doesn't prohibit beta and below from their own trysts.

yes, beta males do occationally mate with females is the group, but only at times when the alpha male is unaware of it. the alpha male often kills any offspring that is'nt his.

I saw a documentary about some type of ape (I think it was chimps, could have been another monkey or such). The females were described as promiscuous and the males developed a 'mushroom' shaped penis that would draw out the semen from previous reproductive attempts. They also had the largest testicles of their species so they could produce more semen and make it more difficult for others to reduce their chances of passing on their genes.

Uhh- might want to take a look at your own apparatus, Sport. The piston geometry on mine is exactly as you describe.

True, it shows we are bred from a promiscuous race that has evolved into one less so.

"It shows we are 'bred" from a promiscuous race"- ok; "That has evolved into one less so." What proof of that?

A trend in our society toward monogamous relationships. Family units and society benefits from a stable family where the family unit works toward a common goal.

From early man using tools to protect the family and support a more specialized communal society to modern families that work together to support the household. It is monogamy that provides the structured family unit that can prosper through hardship and times of plenty.

Yeah, the Neanderthals thought that too. Look what happened to them!

Serial monogamy perhaps.

I share the opinion that stable family units make for a better society, but the reproductive strategy of the dandelion, to fill all cracks with progeny, is also being played out in modern societies where a stable family unit is not needed as financial support comes from the government and increases with number of offspring.

With half of all marriages ending in divorce in the USA, it is hard to argue that "our society is trending toward monogamy.

Milo

Perhaps, but is that indeed a stable habitat? Eventually the govt will collapse leaving the people starving, just as any animal who's habitat changes and they loose their primary food source.

True about the marriages failing, but the point is still valid. A community will thrive better if ti works toward a common goal. A family unit a small form of community that (in general) prospers because of monogamy. Even if the marriage fails, often the separated individuals reform into new unions with other individuals.

Perhaps it is a limited monogamy? One that lasts for awhile then is replaced with another and often with more offspring, passing the genes farther.

Drew K

Eventually the govt will collapse leaving the people starving,

Really?

Have we really that dependant upon the government.

I meant in a scenario where people are reproducing rapidly because they are being supported by the government.

Drew K

oh

I think I saw that documentary also. Primates (including humans) have some of the largest testicles for body size of many species of animals. Not sure if the reproductive member of other animals includes a similar mushroom shape.

Drew K

You need to check out the bulls used at most dairy farms!!!

blood line refers to heredity. heredity refers to genetics. there have been many studies of chimpanzee culture in the wild.

you asked me how i know when obviously you have'nt taken the time to do basic research. you disagreed with me without justification and just for the sake of discrediting me. do we need you on this blog when you add absolulely nothing to advance the conversation. unwarranted criticism seems to be your method of censorship. or maybe your wife shut you off for being an asshole and your taking out on me.

I asked because i have actually taken classes in this. Your claims lacked authority why i asked for their basis, how many years had you been working with chimps professionally? Bloodlines is a poor synonym for genetics, as only a minority of organisms actually use blood and even then not for purpose of heredity. My contributions and expertise here are well known, and i do not resort to name calling. You may find that stucking to subjects anout which you have some expertise or study will result in better reception for your "contributions" Milo

1; i have spent many hours watching and analyzing documentaries fron very respected biologist. 2; i believe the use of bloodline was the correct termage in the context of the sentence. 3; chimpanzees that warm "blooded" animals like ourselves. 4; telling me to stick to my owe expertise when you know nothing about me is presumptuous. 5; can you disprove any of my statements, or should i rest on your laurels?

"Spent many hours watching documentaries" well all righty then! Milo

Hello Milo,

I didn't know that about you, you must be familiar with Dr. Sapolsky work then.

Very interesting about the alpha males, their demise, and the culture change afterwards within the troop..

a breif synopsis,

Sapolsky worked on a study of a troop for 20 some odd years, a pivotal incident that he thought ruin it after 16 years of work where all the alpha males eat tainted meat left by area residents, died out.

The transformation that happen opened a whole new understand of social norms.....and basically made him famous outside his circle.

btw, it was a troop of primates

Thanks for the reference. Looks like interesting work.

Milo

I girlfriend just enjoys his work.......

it was enlightening.

Certainly there is genetic variation that favors things like resistance to disease. For instance, a group of people in Europe were found to be isolated enough to have genetic resistance to the Black Plague of nearly 300 years ago. It turns out that those same people have the same resistance to the Aids virus. That bit of medical expertise took years and a bit of luck. With most of the population, the dilution of this gene made it extremely difficult to arrive at a statistical proof of why some people are more resistant.

Natural selection could still have a devastating effect on the majority of the population. Idiocracy is one end of the spectrum. Type A personality may be the other end. I'm not in the mood to compete with Type A's.

That's an over simplification, in general, women seek men who can provide for and protect them. Men look for women who will be successful breeders. These traits have been hard wired into us by natural selection, they are the key to success. If they are missing, that family line dies out. We men are programmed to be sexually attracted to the features that make for a woman who can carry and feed a child. The women look for strength and/or wealth. Most of this is subconscious

AH, Re your #15, I did know he wasn't being political; I was trying to shed the political terms but didn't quite make it. I should have compared the "cooperative group" with the "everybody for himself group".

I remember many, many years ago watching a TV documentary about explorers moving into the jungles of South America where the natives had never seen another person outside of their village and close neighbours. When ask why do some people leave the village and start a new one, Answer, arguement over women? that raises other questions, selective breading? why did humans leave Africa? why are there tribes? etc.

Regards JD.

There are two types of evolution 1)the natural one we had before WW2 ended or UN was formed and the 2)artificial one created by UN,USA,UK etc by creating new borders,nations,governments etc thereby a race with less population in a country disappears by being killed,going to other countries as refugees,becoming war-slaves etc.while a less civilised community(which learned a lot-copied- from the more civilised minority community) gets the upperhand due to its numerical strength backed by UK,USA,UN etc calling it democracy(wish of the majority),internal affair,sovereignty of state etc. Quality is sacrificed in favour of quantity while UN keeps silent and UK,USA bluffs the minority.

I think of evolution as a process where by a species through natural selection gets larger, stronger and faster, and thereby becomes a survivor, like the dinosaurs? But nature dealt them a blow, an asteroid put an end to them? So that leads me to think that evolution is being in the right place at the right time? So is the future of the human race is in the hands of nature or the in the hands of Human Nature? The latter I think, but human nature has many facets? lets hope the better side of ones nature prevails?

Regards JD.

Stephen jay gould postulated the idea of punctuated equilibrium to wxplain the role of these massive disruptions to staus quo and business as usual. The invention of antibiotics like pennicillin postponed the human races evolution to overcome microbes on our own; now that the microbes have evolved their own resistance; humans and microbes will continue to coevolve...

Thank you Milo, I was unaware of Stephen Jay Gould, he makes interesting reading.

Regards JD.

You wrote, "I think of evolution as a process where by a species through natural selection gets larger, stronger and faster, and thereby becomes a survivor"

Not just that. All that needs to happen is to become better suited for the environment that the species lives in. In some cases we have documented changes of species that only have to do with its camouflage, which has nothing to do with larger, faster, or stronger.

The stronger survives in the jungle as well as in ancient world(man). But after UN came into existance,one who support America survives. This raises the question "Should one or two nations be allowed to decide the fate of mankind"?.

That's the way it worked in your own civil war and that is the way it has worked from the dawn of history. It is not going to change.

One of the theories that I have heard, is that a species evolves until it can change it's environment. Once that happens evolution stops, or at least slows down drastically.

However we as "Homo Sapiens" have been here somewhere between 500,000 and 2,000,000 years, (depending on who needs grant money,) so we may have not had enough time pass for "natural" evolution to the human race to take place. We can speed up the process, i.e. selective breeding for athleticism, or intelligence. But we have put restraints on direct interference in our genetic code.

As far as divergence, I do not see it happening naturally in our lifetime, baring sudden genetic mutation, of course. But in our great-to-the-fourth or fifth grandchildren, maybe.

Dragon

"Dr. Barney Maddox, the leading Genetic Gnome researcher said ...."

Is he a gnome or does he research gnome genetics?

Do you perhaps refer to Dr Barney T Maddox, the urologist and young earth creationist, who to the best of my knowledge isn't and doesn't.

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full gives and estimate of 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation in normal people. I don't know what it all means but it's significantly different to Barney's number.

Mutations are not always harmful. That is how new attributes are introduced into the population. If they enhance the individuals ability to compete, then their presence in the population will increase as reproductive success of those individuals out compete others without the mutation.

Evolution is the best explanation of the evidence presented by the world.

"All missing links...impressions" such a broad statement is a fallacy of omniscience. CR4 is a place for critical thinking. Your statements do not meet our standards.

Advancing the conversation requires thinking and contribution of authoritative facts.You've done neither.

Milo

sorry for a late comment. humans have all the genes needed to evolve. it's just a matter of switching them on or off.

"humans have all the genes needed to evolve. it's just a matter of switching them on or off."

I'll need a citation for that.

I've never read anything about an "evolution gene". As far as I know, evolution is simply the gradual change of a species through the accumulation of minor genetic mutations. Wikipedia describes it more thoroughly:

"Evolution by natural selection is a process that is inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to differential rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[3] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents that were better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection took place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[4] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[5]"

--Wikipedia; Evolution

sorry for your stupidity. please don't pass on your genes. we have enough problems to deal with.

don't f#ck with me asshole.

I guess that means you can't provide a citation.

I don't believe that homo sapiens will ever spilt into two different evolutional paths, but separating Physical evolution from Intellectual evolution; I do believe that our path is going backwards, in regards to the physical, and it will reach a transitory state due to some event that will create an evolutionary shift. But the shift will be self-induced.

To expand:

Evolution, in its most simplistic term, is the progressive natural adaptation to ones changing environment. However, due to scientific advancements in medicine and our methods of producing food, to name just two, our bodies are regressing. Simply, we're too clean and the food we eat is too refined. Thus our bodies no longer have to be able to filter various toxins or withstand various germs... so over the course of many generations, they unlearn how to.

But the toxins and germs are still out there and rather than 'evolving' into being able to deal with them naturally, we shield ourselves from them unnaturally.

At some point, if left unchecked, I believe that this continious under-conditioning, and over-protecting of our bodies will regress us far enough, physically, and allow the various infectious organisms to evolve far enough to withstand our vaccines that there will be another plague; and it will be of epic proportions.

However, as I feel we are regressing in our physical fortitude, we are advancing intellectually. There is no doubt that evolution is moving forward in that regard. As such, this is where the self-induced shift I mentioned in the opening will occur. At some point we will learn what works and what does't in regards to developing optimal natural sustainability of our physical being and we will adapt how we live, what we eat, and how we produce what we eat. We will revise our medicine and treatment procedures. We will stop trying to cure the common cold and embrace it for what it is.

Hopefully our intellectual positive evolution will outpace our physical regressive path and before we are struck down by a world-wide plague... we, instead... evolve into a race that learns how to optimize its physical resistance to its natural surrounds rather than shield itself from them.

Evolution continues. Genetic changes can occur at random. A child was born in Germany about a year ago who had a doubling up of the gene for muscles. Consequently bigger muscles. There might be a good reason to try and reproduce that genetic structure. Average IQ people can produce a genius child (chance combination of just the right genes).

Red hair is probably a recent event in genetic history. Haemachromatosis (excessive generation of red blood cells) is even more recent. You could probably trace it back to one family (or one person) in the recent past with adequate medical records. And so on.

In societies where there is mating only within that group, faulty genes frequently arise or become more obvious and widespread, and it is necessary to have rules about who can marry whom, to prevent the faulty gene from being expressed in the next generation, (but not necessarily eliminating it).

Most, if not all, of us have faulty genes. By reproducing with an unrelated mate, the genes may not be expressed next generation (but may be carried on). Of course it does happen that two carriers of faulty genes mate without knowing they are carriers, and those genes are expressed. Mating is a chance game. So use a matchmaker who knows the genetic history of the families before you plunge. Maybe a pre-nup genetic agreement should be used, which allows dissolving a partnering, if a faulty gene is expressed but not disclosed.

No comment otherwise.

I didn't realize there is a disdinction between breeding and reproduction. I guess I grew up sheltered from "the facts." If a person selling dogs advertises that he is a dog breeder, it doesn't mean he has sex with dogs, does it?

[p]During World War Two, my father worked to convert a Bayer factory to producing pennicillin. In the process, he "bred", caused to reproduce, micro-organisms which, over many many generations, became resistant to the lethal effects of pennicillin and ultimately were unable to live without pennicillin in their diet. Since I doubt that Noah had such creatures on his ark, I take that as evidence of evolution.

Let me put it this way, Where will the genetic information come from for us to evolve? Mutations scramble existing genetic information. They do not add new information. Natural selection only selects, it does not create.

If some biological mechanisms are not all there at once it doesn't work and it has no survival value, so natural selection should omit it.

Amos