Is Evolution Accelerating or Decelerating?

A spin off from the believing in God or not thread.

Well if you believe Darwin then it must be decelerating as "the weak" can now pass on their "poor" genes.

This is most evident in the developed world but also becoming more manifest in the developing world.

No, that just means we're evolving to be worse. It's not an indication of evolution slowing down. We're evolving in different ways to the traditional sense of survival of the fittest.

Is it slowing or accelerating? ...ask again in 10 million years when we might have some perspective.

lardarse wrote (see)

 

Is it slowing or accelerating? ...ask again in 10 million years when we might have some perspective.

What if the RW forum isn't still running?  Hopefully Google can make a cache of this thread.

Pretty much what lardarse says.
However I'd imagine at the moment it may be accelerating quite significantly because there's much more intermixing of the current gene pool than any time in recorded history.

Both and the human race will eventually split into two. As you Piers said about passing on genes etc would imply a deceleration but it is also true that if you are intelligent fit etc then it is unlikely you will breed with a brainless slob. So eventually we will end up with a race of uber humans and then the rest.
(strictly tongue in cheek of course!)

JeremyG wrote (see)

Both and the human race will eventually split into two. As you Piers said about passing on genes etc would imply a deceleration but it is also true that if you are intelligent fit etc then it is unlikely you will breed with a brainless slob. So eventually we will end up with a race of uber humans and then the rest.
(strictly tongue in cheek of course!)

...if only that was true...

Phil, i'm sure someone uber intelligent is writing a paper right now on the thoughts of RW and the evolution of the species based solely on forum replies, it will of course in the end all be pointless!

Yes, but watch Idiocracy.

In a world where everyone is kept alive and is able to survive, you're breeding half wits, and yes I see the irony.

The thing is evolution isn't apparent over single or even a few generations, it needs to be looked at over hundreds\thousands of years to see any discernible differences .... so in those tems if you look at us now versus humankind only 5000 years ago (a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms) then you will see that we have very much evolved to live in the world we currently inhabit, and similarily I would expect if you looked at us in another 5000 years you will see a similar change in how we are.

*bookmarks thread for 5000 years time

TimR wrote (see)

 
And with regards to Idiocracy, which isn't even a satire; in a world where everyone has a degree, there is no one to clean the hospitals.

Thanks to the evolution of the education system you can probably do a degree in hospital cleaning these days.  Sorted!

if you think about the theory we are doing both, we are accelerating the development of people who can fend for themselves to make a hard living in harsh environments and so we make them strong both mentally and physically.

We do allow the weakest to survive when under natural conditions they would perish before breeding, The other end of the scale is a sub-race of under developed people who have the ability to just about speak, they have no need to feed themselves or provide, they thrive through faked illness and other reasons not to do anything productive, we are currently in the third or fourth generation of these people and every generation will be weaker and more ill-equipped than previous.

We are rewarding the behaviours that we don't want to see.

Rehashing the same gene pool (which is limited in humans compared to most other species, possibly due to some catastrophe about 70k years ago) does not lead to evolution.  Mutation needs to occur and the phenotype of this genetic mutation is favoured by natural selection leading to the mutation becoming dominant.  There are more humans now than anytime before, and probably more causes of mutation, so statistically more mutations means that evolution has a greater probability of occurring more rapidly.

Right at this very moment in historical time, however, we have the ability to protect our species from many classic forms of natural selection in the environment, though we've yet to test ourselves out against catastrophic climate change.  Likewise the homogenisation of the planet through our travel capabilities means we can avoid local selections which once would have wiped out local flora and fauna.

In summary, like above, come back in an aeon or ten... 

TimR wrote (see)

ELGO, I'm not sure where professional footballers come in here.

Are those the guys who have tranplanted Brazilian wax jobs on top of their heads?

ha ha footballers are clearly in the group of rewarding the behaviours that we don't want to see.

Ratzer the homogenisation of our planet has now reached the extent where if you parachuted in total darkness into the UK you'd be less than three miles from the following, Tesco, Spar, B&Q, Beefeater, Travelodge, and there is a MacDonalds sign visible from the Pyramids, so roll on climate change

EKGO wrote (see)

ha ha footballers are clearly in the group of rewarding the behaviours that we don't want to see.

Ratzer the homogenisation of our planet has now reached the extent where if you parachuted in total darkness into the UK you'd be less than three miles from the following, Tesco, Spar, B&Q, Beefeater, Travelodge, and there is a MacDonalds sign visible from the Pyramids, so roll on climate change

That very much depends on where you land, of course, and chances are you'd land more than three miles from any of those.