7 ms·

Human Evolution Enters an Exciting New Phase

81 points by najhr999 14y ago

maxwin 14y ago
Talking about how we are going to evolve in the next thousands of years is a waste of time. Artificial interference is going to kick in long before that. I believe we will be very different 300 years from now.
- pyre 14y ago
  > Artificial interference is going to kick in long > before that If we're constantly 20 - 30 years away from a major break-through, it will eventually come true! ;-)
  - mdda 14y ago
    Since we're talking about human evolution, time-scales of 20-30 years are only 1 generation changes. Machine evolution may have a much shorter generational cycle - but for the moment, it doesn't seem too much to ask to be a little patient. Machines have come a long way in the last 4 human generations...
    - pyre 14y ago
      I was referring to the constant claims that we're X years away from a break-through for the last Y years.
wwwtyro 14y ago
I hate to sound unimpressed, but does biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? I doubt we will be held hostage by these mortal coils for much longer.
- hnriot 14y ago
  Anyone that thinks their smartphone and self driving car will in any way impact the evolutionary pressures is very self deluded. Evolution will act on our species' population for many hundreds of centuries before any significant impact from technology is seen. Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_coil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_coil
  - duaneb 14y ago
    > Evolution will act on our species' population for many hundreds of centuries before any significant impact from technology is seen. You don't think that, say, genetic engineering will change the genome? I'm betting we'll be primarily artificially designed by the end of the century.
  - innguest 14y ago
    > Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means: I did not know that - I really thought "mortal coil" meant the human body. Now that I know I'm wrong, nevertheless I must point out that qualifying "coil" with the word "mortal" is not only misleading but empty of meaning. The Wikipedia article says that "mortal coil" = "the bustle and turmoil of this mortal life" but I do not believe that "mortal" fits well as an adjective for "coil" just because it refers to a "mortal life". It seems like a very tenuous connection. Not one of Shakespeare's best poetic terms by far. EDIT: Thanks for teaching me something interesting today, hnriot.
  - yen223 14y ago
    > Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means I'd like to think it is a poetic reference to our DNA. To stay on topic, I agree with the parent. I think we have reached a point where our genetic makeup is no longer the primary factor determining our destiny as a species. One could say that intelligent design now trumps evolution, as it were.
- busyant 14y ago
  > biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? Depends. I can envision a lot of scenarios where infectious disease wreaks havoc on our species. Random mutation might have a significant impact on who would survive such a scenario and I don't think we (as a species) are anywhere near being able to circumvent natural selection of a sufficiently dire infectious disease. jmho
CapitalistCartr 14y ago
At the rate biological research is progressing, anything beyond this century is impossible. In a couple of centuries, we'll have replaced carbon with silicon in our bodies and be living a couple millennia.
- mahyarm 14y ago
  How would silicon avoid something like cancer? Why would that make any difference?
  - robertk 14y ago
    Backups. If you can backup someone's brain (which should be doable in silicon), then even if they contract cancer, you can simply back them up for a few hundred years (or however long it takes) until there's a cure.
    - mahyarm 14y ago
      Oh I thought you meant the more literal substance, not making a software simulation reproduction.
      - robertk 14y ago
        Either way. I imagine silicon hardware that we intelligently designed would be easier to backup than messy biology we hardly understand.
unoti 14y ago
It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.
- pyre 14y ago
  Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    "Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding. I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.
    - pyre 14y ago
      > Natural selection only works if unfit individuals > are killed off prior to breeding. > since nearly everyone survives to breed. No one needs to be killed off for natural selection to work. If they have some attribute that prevents them from finding a mate, that is also natural selection at work.
      - shard 14y ago
        Right, in other words, they are killed off by old age prior to breeding.
alxjrvs 14y ago
Ctrl + F, "Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters" 0 Results Pass.
cpeterso 14y ago
I wonder if there will be future speciation of humans. Will humanity become a big, homogenous melting pot or will some isolated humans (or Martian colonists) veer into a new genetic branch?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
emiliobumachar 14y ago
One advantage of this grand diversity of the gene pool is that if a worst-case scenario apocalyptic epidemic does happen (weaponization of pathogens, anyone?) there's more odds a small subgroup of us could be naturally resistant.
hasenj 14y ago
> Akey specializes in what’s known as rare variation, or changes in DNA that are found in perhaps one in 100 people, or even fewer. This classification of variations into "rare variations" and "common variation" is interesting (and new to me). Any one knows resources that explain more about this? Popular science depictions of "mutations" make them sound like "one lucky shot" kind of thing. This model never made sense to me. I figured these variations must be occurring constantly across the population. It's interesting to me that even the variations which are considered "rare" actually occur at a rate that's around 1 in 100. Hell, even if it was 1 in a 1000, that's still quite a lot. I need more resources about this topic!

81 points by najhr999 14y ago

Talking about how we are going to evolve in the next thousands of years is a waste of time. Artificial interference is going to kick in long before that. I believe we will be very different 300 years from now.

pyre 14y ago
> Artificial interference is going to kick in long > before that If we're constantly 20 - 30 years away from a major break-through, it will eventually come true! ;-)
- mdda 14y ago
  Since we're talking about human evolution, time-scales of 20-30 years are only 1 generation changes. Machine evolution may have a much shorter generational cycle - but for the moment, it doesn't seem too much to ask to be a little patient. Machines have come a long way in the last 4 human generations...
  - pyre 14y ago
    I was referring to the constant claims that we're X years away from a break-through for the last Y years.

wwwtyro 14y ago

I hate to sound unimpressed, but does biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? I doubt we will be held hostage by these mortal coils for much longer.

hnriot 14y ago
Anyone that thinks their smartphone and self driving car will in any way impact the evolutionary pressures is very self deluded. Evolution will act on our species' population for many hundreds of centuries before any significant impact from technology is seen. Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_coil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_coil
- duaneb 14y ago
  > Evolution will act on our species' population for many hundreds of centuries before any significant impact from technology is seen. You don't think that, say, genetic engineering will change the genome? I'm betting we'll be primarily artificially designed by the end of the century.
- innguest 14y ago
  > Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means: I did not know that - I really thought "mortal coil" meant the human body. Now that I know I'm wrong, nevertheless I must point out that qualifying "coil" with the word "mortal" is not only misleading but empty of meaning. The Wikipedia article says that "mortal coil" = "the bustle and turmoil of this mortal life" but I do not believe that "mortal" fits well as an adjective for "coil" just because it refers to a "mortal life". It seems like a very tenuous connection. Not one of Shakespeare's best poetic terms by far. EDIT: Thanks for teaching me something interesting today, hnriot.
- yen223 14y ago
  > Also I am not sure you understand what "mortal coil" means I'd like to think it is a poetic reference to our DNA. To stay on topic, I agree with the parent. I think we have reached a point where our genetic makeup is no longer the primary factor determining our destiny as a species. One could say that intelligent design now trumps evolution, as it were.
busyant 14y ago
> biological evolution strike anyone else as rather irrelevant, now? Depends. I can envision a lot of scenarios where infectious disease wreaks havoc on our species. Random mutation might have a significant impact on who would survive such a scenario and I don't think we (as a species) are anywhere near being able to circumvent natural selection of a sufficiently dire infectious disease. jmho

CapitalistCartr 14y ago

At the rate biological research is progressing, anything beyond this century is impossible. In a couple of centuries, we'll have replaced carbon with silicon in our bodies and be living a couple millennia.

mahyarm 14y ago
How would silicon avoid something like cancer? Why would that make any difference?
- robertk 14y ago
  Backups. If you can backup someone's brain (which should be doable in silicon), then even if they contract cancer, you can simply back them up for a few hundred years (or however long it takes) until there's a cure.
  - mahyarm 14y ago
    Oh I thought you meant the more literal substance, not making a software simulation reproduction.
    - robertk 14y ago
      Either way. I imagine silicon hardware that we intelligently designed would be easier to backup than messy biology we hardly understand.

unoti 14y ago

It seems to me that natural selection is, for the most part, broken now for humans. Intelligence and other positive characteristics don't seem to get involved in whether they have surviving offspring today the way I imagine it did a few thousand years ago. Is it true that natural selection for humans is mostly dead? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but it's something that interests and concerns me.

pyre 14y ago
Just because Natural Selection(tm) isn't selecting for attributes that you regard as important doesn't mean it's dead. What it takes to have a better chance of survival now might be different than it was decades/centuries/millennia ago. If "having what it takes to climb the corporate ladder" is what gives your offspring a better chance of survival, then that is what is being selected for.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  "Survival" in the evolutionary sense is not "survival" in the social sense. Natural selection only works if unfit individuals are killed off prior to breeding. I don't think it's a stretch to say that, even in the least developed areas of the world, this is no longer the general case. Humans are no longer subject to natural selection, since nearly everyone survives to breed.
  - pyre 14y ago
    > Natural selection only works if unfit individuals > are killed off prior to breeding. > since nearly everyone survives to breed. No one needs to be killed off for natural selection to work. If they have some attribute that prevents them from finding a mate, that is also natural selection at work.
    - shard 14y ago
      Right, in other words, they are killed off by old age prior to breeding.

alxjrvs 14y ago

Ctrl + F, "Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters" 0 Results Pass.

cpeterso 14y ago

I wonder if there will be future speciation of humans. Will humanity become a big, homogenous melting pot or will some isolated humans (or Martian colonists) veer into a new genetic branch?

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

emiliobumachar 14y ago

One advantage of this grand diversity of the gene pool is that if a worst-case scenario apocalyptic epidemic does happen (weaponization of pathogens, anyone?) there's more odds a small subgroup of us could be naturally resistant.

hasenj 14y ago

> Akey specializes in what’s known as rare variation, or changes in DNA that are found in perhaps one in 100 people, or even fewer. This classification of variations into "rare variations" and "common variation" is interesting (and new to me). Any one knows resources that explain more about this? Popular science depictions of "mutations" make them sound like "one lucky shot" kind of thing. This model never made sense to me. I figured these variations must be occurring constantly across the population. It's interesting to me that even the variations which are considered "rare" actually occur at a rate that's around 1 in 100. Hell, even if it was 1 in a 1000, that's still quite a lot. I need more resources about this topic!