Evolution is based off adaption to an environment through inferior traits dieing out and Superior traits flourishing through the mechanism of genetic selection over many generations due to the traits blueprints being those genes. the human races genes will mutate randomly as well as be inherited do to the fact that that's how genes work and that's where new changes come in and the inheritors of those traits are supposed to do better if those traits adapt them to the environment better. However due to the fact that the human race has a civilization and people will help each other it enters in many other factors that are not genetic. So I belive that one of two things are possible, that the human race will evolve slower do to less bad genes dieing off, or that it will evolve faster do to the increase in genetic diversity and allow more variety in the same environment. perhaps it will evolve in one direction slower and evolve in many directions existing simultaneously faster. But overall i feel that the genes in people have less importence, do to the fact that the other factors (such as cultural)effecting natural selection are happening faster then genes can keep up with. Our entire recorded history has been barely enough time to evolve better digestion of animal milk, the first genetic adaption that has come since the start of civilization with the domestication of animals.
2006-08-02 12:16:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Stan S 1
·
2⤊
0⤋
Evolution requires two things (short version):
- New things to happen.
- Some of those things to make a difference in reproductive success.
Here's a good example. There are people who are completely immune to the AIDS virus. Not many. But a few. If AIDS remains uncurable for some time, people with that adaptation will have a large advantage in future generations.
Even though medicine can usually extract wisdom teeth without massive negative effects, there is a non-zero risk, and some people DO die from it. This give those mutants born without wisdom teeth at all an advantage (yes, there are these, too).
Here's a hypothetical one. Suppose a mutant woman never went through menopause. She could continue having children throughout her lifespan, and with the benefits of modern medicine is more likely to be able to take advantage of this too.
Even if we use technology to prevent the deaths of people from disease or other ailments, there are still many other things which could easily exert a selective pressure on humanity. Furthermore, it's not hard to pick many of these out. Hope that helps!
2006-08-02 13:24:34
·
answer #2
·
answered by Doctor Why 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, because we are constantly changing and how we change will affect the next generation. even if they are small changes after thousands and millions of years humans in the future will be really different from how we are today. slowly the changes from each generation will add up and not only will the culture change but people now are becoming less and less active because technology is making life easier for us. so i predict that in the future many humans will become weaker. so the body will change to adapt to the new environments and as the human mind and body changes a new race similar to humans will form. it may feel like humans are evolving but in the past evolution took millions of years and the changes are so small we don't notice them but they are there.
2006-08-02 12:37:21
·
answer #3
·
answered by vampbookworm 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
totally! Technology is making it so people can live much much longer than they should. Unfortunately, the rules of evolution require that the weak get "left behind" and the strong prevail to create the next generation. With technology and medication (and ethics - which isn't a bad thing), we are keeping ourselves and loved ones alive, but we're halting evolution in a big way.
For example, in the wild, the slowest animals get caught by their preditors and the fastest of the pack survive. Only the strongest and fastest of the pack/heard/group lives long enough to reproduce and pass along it's genes.
I'm not saying it would be ok to leave anyone who is sick or slow (mentally or physically) to die, but it terms of evolution, yes, we are messing with it.
2006-08-02 12:11:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by raquel122203 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Evolution will still affect us as a race. We may have altered it's course, or even reversed it, because of our growing abilities to help some people survive that Mother Nature wouldn't have let survive.
Our ability to help those with physical disabilities have long and fruitful lives is on one hand weakening us physically as a race, but on the other hand, has advanced us intellectually with minds like Stephen Hawkings.
Of course, that intellectual advancement may be negated by the fact that we now ttry and legislate common sense (IE, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc), which may save the lives of people too stupid for Mother Nature to let live...
2006-08-02 11:56:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chris H 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't think there is such a thing of 'escaping' Evolution except for those species that are already extincted. We will continue to evolve as a species.
As we embark on colonizing the space, we will again evolve physiologically to adapt to the environmental changes.
2006-08-02 11:56:30
·
answer #6
·
answered by galactic_man_of_leisure 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In harmony with several other answers: On the one side of genetic preconditions are the regressor factors, the conditions which degenerate or negate genetic functional advancements, on the other side, the positive side of genetic preconditions is our emerging knowledge of self as human, the identification for abilties and therefore their enhancement. Excluding conscious genetic selection, enhanced education policy could promote a Lamarkian condition of functional enhancement that could redirect DNA developments that genetic selection could not accomplish because we are the most, relativistically, superior species in existence with abilities that extend beyond our ego consciousness, i.e. technology and social construct/organization of ability specialization. But with that, the risks of devolution are far higher than the possibility for genetic advancement as such advancements may not be realized for millions of years while devolution could happen in a life time.
2006-08-02 13:22:18
·
answer #7
·
answered by Psyengine 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
All biological creatures are subject to evolution. Take a look and see.
200 years ago, people died of the flu, people died of colds. Today, we can still go to work with a cold. Evolution has given us better protection against these diseases to the point that what killed our great great great grandma, is nothing more than a bother to us.
2006-08-02 11:59:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Greg P 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No.
Think: women with careers are having more children than women without careers.
We may be evolving to be a species in which women aren't interested in careers.
2006-08-02 13:24:03
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no not yet
womens shoe sizes have benn growing since the1800
started at size 2 but now its normally size eight
people evolve as the enviroment evolves
2006-08-02 12:17:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋