Is the human species missing out on evolutionary advantages because of medicine?

Question

Instead of allowing "nature to take its course" isn't the use of medicine preventing our species to form natural immunity from diseases?

Answer 1

That a great question. I am no authority by any means but it totally makes sense. It might even be reversing certain evolutionary advantages that we gained before the medical revolution. For example: people who are more susceptible to virus' like influenza may have died without the immunization. Halting their weaker genetic lineage. However, the immunization kept them alive, giving no advantage to what would have been a naturally selected survivor without the immunization.

Makes total sense.

On the flip side, I do think that we are evolving unnaturally fast in regards to our capacity of thought. Hopefully it's enough to offset the negative (evolutionary) effects of medicine

Answer 2

Some immunologists propose that children not be kept in such pristine clean environments because the fewer antigens (or potential allergens) their immune systems "see" or encounter when young, the more likely they are to develop allergies. This is not to say it is best to feed a kid dirt, but not be so obsessive about sterility. So there are some doctors who are thinking along those lines.(This is from a lecture from an infectious diseases physician who trained at Rush in Chicago-a prestigious infectious diseases training program.) But it makes sense if you think about it. On the other hand, when immunizations are given, it is precisely to stimulate the immune system to have "memory" for that particular disease so that if the person is exposed to the microbe, then the immune system can quickly neutralize it. The result is that more people are living that might not have otherwise survived. If anything, medicine has become very good at prolonging life to the point that we need to have more discussions about a person's right to die just as much as missing out on evolutionary advantages.

In terms of us not experiencing "evolution" it is hard to see if one is in the midst of it, no? So that is more difficult to study, except in hindsight, similar to global warming. Still, for those who doubt that natural selection is not still at work, have you not read about the Darwin Awards? People do stupid things and kill themselves every day. Their stupid genes go down with them, unless there is a doctor close by and their wounds are not fatal....their experiences then become the reason why we have x,y,z warnings on the back of the shaving cream can, for example.

Answer 3

Not really. It might delay it a millisecond in evolutionary terms. Remember, humans have been here only a little while. Medicine a very, very short period of time. Sooner or later the viruses and bacteria will win out. Then it goes back to who has those genetic quirks that protect them from illness and death. Sad but true. We can hold off microbes but never will defeat them completely. Developed nations tend to become obese and stupid. That will also work against us. Sooner or later, we run the risk of being beaten by a nation with hundreds of millions of young warriors against our few and our technology. Evolution doesn't care about you or me or our species. Maybe, we all kill each other and in a few million years bees, or ants, are the dominant species.

Answer 4

Excellent question! The answer is probably yes. Take sickle cell anemia: The homozygous condition is symptomatic, the heterozygous condition offers protection from malaria. If science was to "cure" Hgb-SS disease through gene therapy, malaria would likely become more prevalent. The other side of the argument is "should we stand by and do nothing as people die from polio, small pox, aids, etc or should we intervene?" I think most rational people would opt for intervention. Your question raises an excellent debatable point, but not one which is apt to change the course of modern medicine.

Answer 5

Your question is misleading. "Evolutionary advantage" is somewhat apocryphal. It implies that evolution is leading to something better, that it is going somewhere, but it isn't. The only thing that evolution will always lead to is more complex forms of life. To answer your question, almost all biological anthropologists and evolutionary biologists agree that humans have stopped biologically evolving. What we have done is replaced biological means of dealing with problems with cultural means. Cultural adaptations have some advantages over biological means, and also some shortcomings. Overall, we're probably about breaking even or doing a little better than if we relied strictly on biological processes. I could go into more detail on evolutionary immunology and the effects of cultural intervention, but it would get technical and boring.

Answer 6

Yes, I believe that natural selection has all but stopped within the human species, but I also think that this ability to overcome natural selection is part of what makes humans unique in the animal kingdom and perhaps even the cosmos. An interesting off shoot of this question is whether biological natural selection has been replaced by socioeconomic natural selection.

Answer 7

We may be missing out on something from an evolutionary standpoint, but since it takes millions of years for a species to evolve I don't think it much matters in the long run.

Answer 8

Lots of good points. I will also point out that the advent of fertility drugs is letting people have children who in the past would not have been able to. Perhaps infertility is a way of preventing undesirable traits from being passed on, and science has found a way around that.

Answer 9

Very very thought provoking question, an intelligent question.

I shall come back to it after deep thinking in the 'EDIT'

EDIT- I do not have any thing to add as you have set the ball rolling for a Debate on the topic.

You will have a tough job selecting the Best Answer. But please do it when the time comes and do not leave it to the voters.

Answer 10

Interesting question. I have to say absolutely. However, it's not likely that the human race will be alive much longer. It is clear that intelligence is not conducive to survival, so the answer to this question may never be produced.