What’s beyond species and genus, anybody? Looks like we’ll have to add a new sub-subcategory to the naming scheme that we have to allow for “homo sapiens .“

That last entry didn’t show up right, so here’s an alternative format. “homo sapiens [insert new variant here].“

creationists also have no concept of evolution occuring over hundreds of thousands of generations-recorded human history is less than 10,000 years, and we’ve seen little during that time that would really put serious evolutionary pressure us. I’m sure we would have evolved much more dramatically if we had seen some sort of environmental factor that caused more natural selection to occur.

I’m sure I have this wrong, so forgive me…

Didn’t they find a small island of people near Italy a few years back that had developed a natural immunity to heart disease?  Somehting about how their bodies processed cholesterol or something?  Wouldn’t that be an example of people still evolving to fit their needs to survive?

That last entry didn’t show up right, so here’s an alternative format. “homo sapiens [insert new variant here].�

If you want to be pedantic, modern-day humans are of the sub-species homo sapiens sapiens as the only extant subspecies of homo sapiens. If you want to cut it even finer, make the case for race and ethnicity.

The Chicago Tribune article that Les cited is short version of a piece that ran in the New York Times. Here are some more specifics.

The fingerprints of natural selection in DNA are hard to recognize. Just a handful of recently selected genes have previously been identified, like those that confer resistance to malaria or the ability to digest lactose in adulthood, an adaptation common in Northern Europeans whose ancestors thrived on cattle milk.

But the authors of the HapMap study released last October found many other regions where selection seemed to have occurred, as did an analysis published in December by Robert K. Moysis of the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Pritchard’s scan of the human genome differs from the previous two because he has developed a statistical test to identify just genes that have started to spread through populations in recent millennia and have not yet become universal, as many advantageous genes eventually do.

The selected genes he has detected fall into a handful of functional categories, as might be expected if people were adapting to specific changes in their environment. Some are genes involved in digesting particular foods like the lactose-digesting gene common in Europeans. Some are genes that mediate taste and smell as well as detoxify plant poisons, perhaps signaling a shift in diet from wild foods to domesticated plants and animals.

Dr. Pritchard estimates that the average point at which the selected genes started to become more common under the pressure of natural selection is 10,800 years ago in the African population and 6,600 years ago in the Asian and European populations.

Dr. Richard G. Klein, a paleoanthropologist at Stanford, said that it was hard to correlate the specific gene changes in the three populations with events in the archaeological record, but that the timing and nature of the changes in the East Asians and Europeans seemed compatible with the shift to agriculture. Rice farming became widespread in China 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and agriculture reached Europe from the Near East around the same time.

Have to wonder about what might come from our increasing use of technology.

Will there still be monkeys in the future?  You know, what with evolution and all.  Won’t they all evolve into humans and run for congress? 

Won’t they all evolve into humans and run for congress?

How would you tell the difference?

How would you tell the difference?

I’ve heard that chimps and humans share 97% of DNA just the same, but I don’t have 97% in common with the typical congressman.

There are actually quite a few legitimate scientists that had the nerve to say human evolution had reached it’s peak.
These people are in the same class as some fool about a hundred years ago who said we should disband the patent office because everything had been invented!

Interestingly, socially successful people tend to have less children nowadays.  This would mean that the genes required to prosper in modern society would actually be in decline.

And we are due to some advanges in genetic engineering Real Soon Now(tm).  At least in evolutionary timescales.  Then we have finally evolved into intelligent design.

So perhaps we have entered a phase of cultural evolution, and biology gets altered to match.  Or only the socially successful are allowed to have children, for the good of the society, of course.  Or, civilization collapses, we’ll be back in stone age, and all is well again.

Anyway, the theory of evolution should break down when the evolvees begin tampering with the process.

Whatever genes correlate being rich, will be selected by genetically engineering one’s children.

Anyway, the theory of evolution should break down when the evolvees begin tampering with the process.

Where did you ever get that Idea? It might change direction but certainly not “break down”.
I would think that we will play an increasing part in determining our own future and evolution.
Where this will lead I don’t know, but it certailnly looks like more good than bad will come from it!

Sort of related to this from a science-fiction-based-on-fact point of view - Greg Bear’s “Darwin’s Radio”. In a nutshell, it’s about “Evolution. Now.“

Where did you ever get that Idea? It might change direction but certainly not “break down�.

Evolution uses genetic mutation as a source of change.  Medical technology will develop to the point that these mutations could be fixed in one’s offspring.

Evolution uses natural selection as means of spreading these changes.  The amount of offsping one has in modern society is dictated more by social than biological factors.  This kind of breaks down the guiding force of biological evolution.

I think that biological evolution of humanity is turning into societal/cultural evolution.  Which is, of course, a change of direction.  Our options increase and we learn to control our biological evolution.  Which set of ideals survives to guide how we use these options?

I have to completely agree that we are also going through a dramatic social/cultural evolution which might have as much a bearing on our ancestors as the biological changes.

The less-numerous children of the rich will be the first to enjoy enhancements.  The first changes will be things like freedom from certain inherited diseases.  I predict it will be a looooong time before they can do things like make kids freakishly intelligent or handsome.  Much sooner will come insurance dilemmas, malpractice lawsuits, tight regulations, and illegal foreign clinics with thalidomide-type side effects hitting three generations down the line.

Much sooner will come insurance dilemmas, malpractice lawsuits, tight regulations, and illegal foreign clinics with thalidomide-type side effects hitting three generations down the line.

bah-humbug to you too!

Homo Americanus - Large in both frame and girth this giant was characterized by his inability to form rational opinions or do pull ups. Docile and compliant when confronted by his own government or constabulary his sense of self importance and superiority led to many of the the worst tragedies, both global and domestic, of the 20th and 21st centuries (before the rest of the world quarantined the North American continent). This species of human was the first to actually begin de-evolving when science was outlawed in 2024 and the last known enclave found in Montana dressed only in skins, communicated via pictograms thought to represent Fundamental Christian teachings, which had become the National Religion in 2022.

Once a powerful and advanced species, the last known Homo Americanus died on April 17th, 2231 from amebic dysentery.

characterized by his inability to form rational opinions

  They’d object to “homo” Americanus, preferring “hetero” Americanus.

I think this whole business of referring to us as “homo-sapiens” is a conspiracy by the gay left to undermine society and further their own cause!
It’s the same as when they claimed 10% of the population was gay when in reality it is only about 2%.

I predict it will be a looooong time before they can do things like make kids freakishly intelligent or handsome.

And then they probably do things like increase capability to logical thought and take away any creativity one might have.  You generally need to be just a little bit different to come up with something really new.  Or there will be some guys who will be naturally muscular, I believe such a mutation already exist, and they all get killed after some natural disaster because their bodies need much more food than is normal.

It’s interesting to compare how much the world has changed in the last millenium.  Last century?  Last decade?  See a trend here?  Take a guess at the odds that some of those changes spark a friendly round of Global Thermonuclear War.  In a decade?  In a century?  In a millenium?  Or the chances of someone developing some kind of species killing bug, and it getting released before/during/after a large scale war, with the facilities needed to develop a cure destroyed.

In a sense of social/cultural evolution, we are in an evolve or die phase.  We have got to a point where the damage we can do if everything goes to hell is truly staggering.  And unless we get out of this phase soonish, given long enough period of time, shit will happen.

And then they probably do things like increase capability to logical thought and take away any creativity one might have.

TMP, you’re not saying that a capacity for logical thought is antithetical to creativity, are you?  It’s an ugly stereotype of the antisocial boffin pecking away at his sums while society goes to hell.

If you get a chance, read Surely you’re joking, Dr. Feynman.  It will bring a smile to your face   In any case I suspect the capacity for logical thought is more a matter of socialization than genetics.

TMP, you’re not saying that a capacity for logical thought is antithetical to creativity, are you?  It’s an ugly stereotype of the antisocial boffin pecking away at his sums while society goes to hell.

No, but logical thought only allows you to expand on your axioms.  The ability to pull new and random ideas out of your ass and then expanding on those and seeing if they work might be actually considered a flaw.  As in, this gene causes someones brain to occassionally give weird results, let’s get rid of it.

read Surely you’re joking, Dr. Feynman

I’ll try.  And, yes, logic is something learned.  But I was thinking about raw biological capacity for pattern matching or mathematics myself.  Potential rather than actual ability.  And something easier to measure than creativity and emotions.  And worried about side effects of any possible tampering.  Me not native English speaker, you see.

The thought of human beings tinkering with their own DNA conjurs up a disturbing image of chimpanzees running amok in the control center of a nuclear reactor.

We as a race are clearly not advanced enough to seriously consider tampering with our genetic code. Though I suspect our arrogance combined with ignorance and ego will spur us onwards to meddle with it anyway!

Imagine a new Thalidomide generation, of children born with horrible birth defects simply because we as a race don’t know when to just stop messing with things we don’t fully understand. So in a nutshell, no I don’t think it’s a good idea.