This conversation is closed.

Do you think mankind has stopped evolution?

The ideas of Charles Darwin greatly described how complex species evolved from simple organisms, However, Homo sapiens sapiens has a peculiar feature: its thinking ability. Do you think that, due to our intellectual advance that made us able to fabricate glasses, vaccines, wheel-chair, hearing-devices, prostatic legs, bioengineered hearts, etc., we are "stopping" the process of evolution?

When we invent such things, we are making life possible to people who wouldn't naturally survive without them. But to you think we already got to a point where natural selection of human beings has stopped (or at least significantly slowed)?

I believe it's hard to have a concrete answer, since Men have existed for a very short period of time considering all the evolution process, but what is your opinion on the subject?

  • thumb
    Aug 1 2011: Nope, on the contrary, we are taking evolution into our own hands. We decide how and why we and species around us will evolve. We've been doing this since the beginning of civilazation by breeding domestic animals and selecting certain crops, but now we are just getting a lot better at it on a molecular level.
    Check out Juan Enriquez' great talk on the rise of "homo evolutis":
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2011: What makes you think human and all stuff associated with human is NOT part of the evolution ?
    Only constant is change.
  • Aug 7 2011: There is definite evidence of physical evolution taking place, but I suppose I'm focusing more on the mental evolution. Mankind has evolved enough that people, as a whole, can be 'pickier' on whom they choose to be with ( in particular, romantic relationships). It is not purely based on strength or survival skills, but rather things such as thoughts on life, taste in music, religion etc. Of course physical appearance can often play a role in the making of couples, but now days, the goal of survival, for humans, is not as intense. The Earth also has homosexual couples, and in the ancient world, such a choice could have been detrimental (if solely based on survival).
  • thumb
    Aug 7 2011: Not really, with those interventions of mankind , evolution will may change it's course that what I feel, why should evolution as a whole will be stopped ?
    Evolution is process for whole biological world it's not something just happening around or with in Homo Sapiens,
  • thumb
    Aug 7 2011: Evolution of man / woman kind is not material exclusively, but it is the evolution of consciousness which creates us as a race. Our spiritual substance is made of "Understanding,"

    We are forever becoming what we understand. Therefore evolution is out of our hand essentially, but rather in the "hands" of a creative force, which we can call LIFE.
  • Aug 3 2011: "Survival of the fittest"... The attributes considered to determine 'fittest' have changed. No longer is it a man's physique indicating physical strength and the ability to hunt wild beasts to provide food for cave woman and cave children. It is now man's ability to accumulate monetary wealth and possessions. Physical attributes are secondary, if considered at all. In terms of "physical evolution" - it has definitely been retarded by the pursuit of wealth and materialistic things (something that is ingrained in each and every one of us from childhood). Another contributing factor is man's ability to change his environment, rather than evolving to reach an equilibrium with the environment.

    Once geneticists find a "cure for death" (and it won't be too long before they do), that's when this question will be more relevant (and very easy to answer) :). In the meantime, watch a film titled "Idiocracy" for an amusing (yet not too far removed from reality) take on the subject.
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2011: " It is now man's ability to accumulate monetary wealth and possessions [that determines the 'fittest']". OK. But the problem is that even the ones who aren't wealthy still live thanks to our technological improvements, therefore passing the genes to the next generation. Which means that those who aren't "the fittest" still survive and pass on their genes, which is basically the same as ending natural selection (that leads to evolution), in my point of view.

      And yes, the movie "Idiocracy" captures this idea (in a exaggerated and funny way)
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2011: wealthy people aren't the ones to survive...wealth isn't passed on genetically and poor people can reproduce too...poor people (in the western world) still survive to reproduce and pass on their genes...

      i haven't seen this film but i will go look it up, sounds intresting
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2011: Are we intelligent enough and responsible enough to make these decisions ?
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2011: no, we are making a huge mistake
      • Aug 5 2011: Who are you to judge? By the time this kind of technology will come around, the current consensus of what is right and what is morally wrong will have changed, and all those who are too slow to adapt to the currents of time will be nothing but an anachronism.
        I'm not saying you're wrong, but please consider that with change in technology and society, morals change. Usually for the better.
  • thumb
    Aug 3 2011: i think we have stopped or at least greatly inhibited natural selection, which is the basis for evolution, however with advanced science we are selecting what we want to is no longer survival of the fittest, it is survival of what the humans allow.

    I feel this is to our detrement (and quite controversially too) I would like people reading this to understand that this is my opinion and be accepting of any differences we have in opinion.

    Think of people carrying *bad* genes, who are genetically disabled or have a genetic illness, by allowing them to live and then reproduce and thefore pass on these genes we are disabling the generations to come, our own worst enemy. medicines allowing people with genetic disorders to llive to maturity are brilliant when looking at the here and now but as evolution goes...we'll end up wiping ourselves out
    • thumb
      Aug 3 2011: Exactly!
    • Aug 5 2011: Well eventually selecting prime genes from people's DNA will be affordable and bad genes won't matter.
    • Aug 5 2011: There's still genetic engineering. As long as we manage to survive long enough for that technology to be used reliably on arbitrary genes (or combinations thereof), we can just *fix* most genetic diseases. It'll be our duty.
  • thumb
    Aug 1 2011: i believe thaat VICES being con-current with the exponential growths in tecknowledgy, desensitizes the modern human. if we could understand that we are the only intelligent life that we know of, within thousands of light years, why do we still struggle with fake econimics based on resources that will eventually exstinguish? we know from stone inscriptions that virtue in purpose only gets things done. force of manpower accomplishes magnificent things, the great pyamids and parthenon stand as examples. freedom of will breeds progressions, the con-current revolutiuons of the us and france during the 1700's is proof. party politics is detrimental, as with oil, to the mental progressions of mankind.