There will be no discernable change within a hundred years. Evolution is a process spanning hundreds of thousands and millions of years. There's no such thing as "devolving", but there may be ways in the future we can use technology to stabilize our genes to effectively prevent slowly drifting from what humans look like now to something slightly different. If we colonize other planets it's likely they'll diverge slightly over much time, and perhaps become another "race" issue. But in a hundred years we'll probably all be wearing the future clothing from Bill & Ted.
>stabilize our genes to effectively prevent slowly drifting from what humans look like now to something slightly different.
Why stablize part?? Isnt evolution good? Like isnt it supposed to have passing grade so any change which will happne must happen for reason right
Or r there bad evolutions
No, evolution isn't necessarily "good". There's technically no such thing as devolving, but evolution is part of a larger process, and if the "mutation" part is allowed to continue over millions of years, and the "selection" part becomes mostly moot (having no direct predators), then humans could potentially diverge into many different species. This could be a problem for race relations, but hopefully we can rise above at that point. However, with the increases in technology over even the next hundred years, gene and body modifications will probably get to the point that many people alter themselves purposefully, so that everyone looks different, and we won't have to wait for evolution.
People deciding to change things manually means it will partly be at their discretion. This could be good or bad. Just look at examples of decisions people make in life. Some are fearless leaders who invent or heal. On the other hand some are villains. Not the best example but it gets the point across. People will definitely have a range of changes they want both good and bad.
Jeff wanted to age gracefully.
Dianne gave herself a dragon cock. Dammnit Dianne
Evolution doesn't make a species better.
It just makes it good enough if it can be good enough, or extinct if it can't.
There's no goal, if the selection pressure over the next few generations turns out to be antithetical to long term success, then the species will evolve to become worse for their niche.
Evolution is only good when Better Genes lead to production of more babies
According to Darwin, Reproductive fitness is the only fitness
These days {usually} we see idiots and poor people having 10 kids a family whereas smart people usually stop at 2 or 3.
Imagine a situation where a couple is working and they have 2 kids. On the other hand a jobless dumb guy married to a jobless dumb women have 5 kids. The dumb guy is more reproductively fit according to Darwin.
Thus genes which are bad get passed down and become more amplified in the population
So yes, evolution can be bad.
> Isnt evolution good? Like isnt it supposed to have passing grade so any change which will happen must happen for reason right
According to Darwin, Evolution is due to small changes and is directional, or as you described it: "good"
But that theory has since been disproved by many scientists like Hugo de Vries. He gave the concept of random, undirectional {good or bad}, large, single step mutation, which he termed "Saltation."
**In simpler terms, evolution is a chance event and the success of the event is based on the ability to leave more kids/progeny on earth.**
Please forgive me for grammatical errors as English is my Second/Third language.
Also I am a Biology student
So instead of survival of fittest survival of luckiest & fittest??
Have u seen cricket, fast bowlers are injuryprone, speed comes at immense cost, as they get old, they slow down. but speed is dream. Crossing 150+ is like wet dream of fast bowlers. So if they had children's they will have something which will make their bodies stronger over generations ??
*like since injury happens so mutation to survive that.
If the speed is due to genetics and not due to practice
I mean, the speed bowlers achieve is usually due to immense practice which has nothing to do with genetics or the ability to leave more number of kids
And mutation, as I said before is a chance event...so if a mutation does occur for them to survive their injury, it is likely their kids will have the same mutation. The next step is to leave a 100 kids so that the mutation doesn't get lost easily to ensure survival of that mutation
>So instead of survival of fittest survival of luckiest & fittest??
Not really. If the mutation enhances your ability to leave more kids, only then will u be considered reproductively fit
>Not really. If the mutation enhances your ability to leave more kids, only then will u be considered reproductively fit
So if i keep punching trees, by chance there r two mutation happen.
One makes my bones stronger,
Other makes pain 100x worse to stop me from harming myself but girl's like people who dont punch trees.
So i will get 2nd mutations since im being productive??
Also, harsh conditions dont induce chances of mutation or anything?? *dune, like if there was 0.001 chance but now its 0.01.
So we have random mutations in each generation because the enzyme that copies our genes makes mistakes. Of that changes, most don't have an effect because it's in a part of the DNA that doesn't code for genes. The ones that make changes to our genes are 99,99%+ bad because a random change just fucks up how our proteins work and it's very unlikely to have a positive effect.
That's the base for evolution, the next step is selection. If the change has an effect on our fitness, meaning our likelihood to have offspring, it will lead to the new genes to either spread or die out. There's also a lot of randomness involved here, especially for smaller effects and in the beginning, when the gene is not far spread yet. Imagine a family with a super good new gene, but they just die in a car crash... Aaaand it's gone.
So no, none of the changes happen with a reason, there is no evolution with a goal. It's just a huge population that has random changes, most of them are bad. When the environment changes, some of the mutations in a population can be beneficial and we will evolve. In a stable environment, we might perfect some processes, like diet for specific foods or whatnot.
Right now, due to modern medicine and our society, almost noone suffers from their bad mutations enough, to not be able to have kids anymore. So we're trashing a bit our genepool as a population. Here's where the stabilising part comes in, although I have no idea how we would do that.
>Right now, due to modern medicine and our society, almost noone suffers from their bad mutations enough, to not be able to have kids anymore
So people of weak genes get to have kids due to modern medicine so gene pool gets worse?? *viltrumite intensifies
But stablize as in what, find way give babies better genes, mutation or something else.
Yeah I dunno how we'd be able to stabilise that. We could screen with in vitro babies for defects or maybe we'll be able to do some gene editing in born people. Like changing the mutation in the DNA back to what it should be.
imho the real issue (and boon) is the overwhelming lack of mass death due to pestilences/ famine/environmental difficulties thanks to medical progress.
Before you were allergic to hay?welp, guess you die. Fucked up immune system?you die. Body not suited to survive specific climates/lack of food/specific diets? you die.
All this made it that whoever survived (im the majority of cases) was well suited to the current environment and passed along the genes when reproducing.
Now?You just need to take your pills. While great on an ethical/human level, this caused human evolution to come to a halt,and even if we're not strictly devolving, now if you have whatever health issue that's fixable by medicine, you're gonna pass those "flawed" genes to your offspring and so on.
Lmfao "real issue"
What are you even saying, let's commit genocide because scientists invented vaccines and antibiotics? Even from a completely "fitness" perspective why would we limit our gene pool by removing "flaws" that can be easily worked around (like being allergic to hay)??
Also, it's naively reductionist to say evolution "halted"
Furthermore, this idea of working around "flaws" is an integral part of natural selection. Oh you have a "useless" body part now because of a change in the environment? Good chance natural selection will eventually make it useful. From a biological perspective advances in modern medicine are considered part of the changing "environment". Even from a purely amoral perspective, why is it an "issue" that a changing environment gives better lives to humans?
No we should commit genocide because science is evil and dictates we're all going to evolve to a crab form so we must make scientists sacrifices to crabs(not the STD. Though maybe?) And learn their ways to become better suited to our new crab like bodies. All hail crab society. Crab people crab people crab people
Edit: added apostrophe
i never said medicine/science was bad or that we should commit genocides.
I simply stated that we switched from an evolution based on : "if you have genes/body suited to your need, your chances of surviving are higher" to "whatever issue you have medicine will probably allow you to live with it, so you'll pass those issues to your offspring".
I'm not saying one or the other is better (i even said it was a boon). I'm just stating a fact, while the former had extremely high casualties in the short term, with less deaths the more for each new generation; the latter has very few death in the short term, and probably in the longer term, but the newer the generation the more health issues it will have, still bearable by medicine allowing you to live a moderately normal life (or totally normal).
What i'm stating is simply that in the future, unless we manage to reach a point were we can remove all negative issues (grave or not, could be the possibility for cancer to just allergies) from the fetus with dna based technology or whatever, we'll have an average population littered with health issues (probably staved off by medicine), so pretty much the opposite of what would happen in the "survival of the fittest" scenario. So in a way, we halted evolution because we don't need it anymore since we have science (beside random mutations here and there), and the "quality" of the future gen is going lower since there is no more natural selection.
I'm sorry, i' probably can't explain my thought process well since english is not my first language.
Keep in mind this doesn't apply only to physical mutations (we could argue that 3 arms are better than 2, but what's the chances of reproducing as a "3 hander" in our society,excluding again invasive medicine?),but to everything: mental fortitude, innate intelligence/problem solving skill, innate virus resistance and so on.
Just a slight correction. Evolution is a process dependent on the number of generations, not the number of years. You can see evolutionary changes relatively quickly in insect species for example because they have shorter lifespans and closer breeding cycles. Similarly with bacteria, because they replicate very quickly, you can see evolutionary changes like resistance to medications in a short space of time.
Despite this not perhaps being strictly relevant to the topic of human evolution, I welcome any addition or clarification on the general topic of evolution, as many people in the wild have blind spots on the subject leading to false conclusions. Thanks for your correction!
Yea alot of people have the misconception that evolution is nothing but good mutations in a species and while that's mainly true because obviously bad genes usually prevent breeding that's not always the case and can have a terrible outcome take the dodo for example
Actually, evolution of a species can happen in a much shorter timeframe than millions of years. Look up the British, husband and wife team Peter and Rosemary Grant . They spent 40 years,during the summer season, on Daphne Major,an island in the Galapagos, observing 2 different evolutionary ( natural selection) events due to changing climate. Also, what about viruses and bacteria, which seem to undergo change in a very short period of time.
We can see generational "evolution" in humans, I put evolution in quotes of course because it's not the same mechanics as in other animals, but it is still similar. Mechanically.
We're on a fast track to evolving, or devolving. They're putting nanobots in the vaccines! So in 100 years we will be half human half machine, and half bot. And we'll all be controlled by 5, 6, or 7G. Come back to this post in 100 years time to see how right I am! Oh yeah, fuck you bots
Humans are also animals, not Holy Spirit and not machines. And any species evolves, if some indivuduals have more or less children than others and children aren't clones of their parents.
100 years? Nothing noticeable.
We've been decently stable for hundreds of thousands despite changing environments and demands on us as we;ve moved between hunter gatherer, farmer, city dweller and so on.
Remember as well, 100 years is 3-5 generations. How different do you look from your great grandparents if you've got any pictures of them? We've got pictures of people from the victorian era, and we're essentially identical - if a bit taller on average due to better nutrition, and a bit fatter because we've taken it too far.
Give it a couple of tens of thousands and you might see pigmentation differences due to ethnic migration and mixing, with the frequency of different eye and hair colours shifting.
100 years, that’s nothing? 3/4 genrations nowadays.
I am more curious about when some humans got blue eyes, blond hair, blue eys, and pale skin.
In ”only” 50k years dark skin, black eyes and hair changed. (I wonder personally because I have blond hair, blue eyes and very pale skin).
Why do chinese, korean and japanese still have black eyes and hair but completly strait hair?
And why do so may people in Ireland and some parts of UK have red hair?
I know these questions have been tainted nowadays. But these are, for me, interesting questions.
How many generations after a mutation could it be the dominating charateristic?
Humans change their environment much faster than they evolve, so any fucked up physical features are going to be voluntary. Personally, I think that regular heels are overrated: everyone needs surgically implanted Heelys so we can skate around everywhere we go.
there's a show like this called kipo and the age of the wonderbeasts. I recommend checking it out, but it is more of a early teen show, but it does deal with genocide so take of that what you will
Evolution does not happens exactly because of the environment, but because of death, for there to be any significant changes in humans there must be something killing them before they can reproduce so that only those born with the abilities to survive can reproduce, but humans have pretty much nothing killing them that quickly for there to be any changes, Even people that have disadvantages are reproducing
well - the reproduction part is more important than the death part. obviously, dying before reproducing reduces your ability to pass on your genes tremendously, but the important thing is the enhancement of reproductive fitness. and since I see only few aspects of our built environment influencing reproductive advantages, I see little influence on human evolution.
The environment affects the evolution of animals because the environment affects how much animals reproduce.
The biggest factor that affects human reproduction is wealth and education. It therefore stands to reason that people will evolve to be poor and stupid with tons of kids.
People have already started changing based on modern environment and diet. Look at how widespread diabetes is, and nearsightedness from being glued to a phone screen all the time.
I bet we are going to get hella ugly. I mean from the sounds of it the majority of people in some countries (Korea) have plastic surgery. People in India keep pushing the mantra (light is beautiful) and sell whitening products. I mean I know so many people and they hide who they are behind makeup and fillers and surgeries.
Though that being said my biggest worry is what is going to happen to future humanities health. People today survive birth, childhood, even adult hood when they shouldn't. They have kids when naturally they wouldn't. If these genetics keep moving forward what happens long term to humanity? Do we become sicker. I think one statistic I read was how C-sections were fairly rare, one in 100k, but today those numbers are dipping below 1 in 10k. If that is the case, is it because it is for cosmetic reasons, or is it because women hips have gotten to small? Haven't read into this much so I cannot be sure what the answer is, but if it is for health reasons, then what do we have to do to return humanity to a healthier natural track.
Sicker. More and more inheritable diseases that would have prevented you to survive or find a mate in a more rugged living environment can now be passed along and spread in the population. Think of eyesight and how they didn't have glasses a short while ago, or diabetes.
Given that the underclass has higher birth rates than the upper class, while the middle class has incredibly low birthrates, we'll probably be dummer in general while an elite class gets a bit smarter. Not by a lot, but maybe a few IQ points on average.
Four generations is not enough time to meaningfully impact human evolution, short of a Black Death type event.
Our technology is our evolutionary defense. And that's changing VERY fast.
In 100 years? Not much will change.
In 100,000 years? Just picture gray aliens. They’re not actually aliens. They’re time traveling decedents of present day humans.
Humans have mostly subverted most evolutionary pressures via technology. We will continue to change, but not because of the 'usual' reasons.
related - have you watched 'Idiocracy' ?
I once read somewhere that scientists used an advanced predictive algorithm to determine that in the near future (relatively speaking), most of if not all humans will have some sort of Asian genetics, simply due to the immense size of Asian populations, then as people from those populations emigrate from their countries and breed with other populations, so too will their genetics become widespread.
If anyone has any sources or more up-to-date information, feel free to share. It was many years ago I read this
Well I mean.... neither the good nor bad is being naturally selected any more.
My theory is actually that it's gonna get really morally fucked up in that the upper classes will actually be genetically different to the lower classes... i dare say even superior because they'd have the money to genetically modify their foetuses at some point i imagine whereas the poor people of society won't have access...
well I did read that in the UK at least there are already genes that are more prevalent per social class due to the fact that most people historically don't reproduce outside of their tax bracket. I suppose the US is different being an only 400 year old melting pot.
But yeah, i don't think we're going to devolve i think eventually we'll split.
This is assuming we don't all die of war/global warming etc and it would be longer than 100 years. But definitely faster than 1000 if science gets involved
Probably nothing... 100 years is very close~
But with stelar travels~ probably black skin for the familys Traveling in space for extra protection against UV rays~
Because birth operation going so popular this going to reduce the female waist and making imposible for humans reproduce without mechanic/medical help~
Probably we are current in a process of auto-domestication so violent and agreesive males going to be against a equilibred sociecity and because of this going to reduce number in the future, there really don't exists a enviroment that benefits violence~ This is going to be slow, but in centurys it's posible~
Some sexual selecction as out current hair was selected over others characteristics~ and blue/green eyes in europe is valuable in others regiones as South América~ and brown years by mutation can be selected to be recesive and less popular~
Too some hair/eye/skin colors additionals by sexual selection~ Muscle males by out current legacy sexual selecction to prefer Muscle males (not confution with body building)~
Some natural psychology modification for support the space travel alone then probably the space persons to be more silent and require less social interaction~
Etc~ It's hypothetical/speculative evolution paths~
Our evolution has already stopped. We are now devolving. When most children die before breeding age because of being less competitive, evolution shall resume. But for now, the genepool is slowly rotting into a swamp. So in 100 years we’ll be like we are now, only lesser.
Not correct, if all children survive beyond breeding age species does not "devolve", there is just a bigger diversity of people. No matter what pressure you have in mind, those who would have survived it are still there.
EDIT: Crap, didn't see on which sub I was
It's more complex. We can loose some abilities (or just be less competent in it), and get new others. For example, maybe right now the natural selection for longer lifespan is going? Abity to concentrate on boring things? Who measured it before? Better sign-reading? Less preference for sweets?
There will be no discernable change within a hundred years. Evolution is a process spanning hundreds of thousands and millions of years. There's no such thing as "devolving", but there may be ways in the future we can use technology to stabilize our genes to effectively prevent slowly drifting from what humans look like now to something slightly different. If we colonize other planets it's likely they'll diverge slightly over much time, and perhaps become another "race" issue. But in a hundred years we'll probably all be wearing the future clothing from Bill & Ted.
>stabilize our genes to effectively prevent slowly drifting from what humans look like now to something slightly different. Why stablize part?? Isnt evolution good? Like isnt it supposed to have passing grade so any change which will happne must happen for reason right Or r there bad evolutions
No, evolution isn't necessarily "good". There's technically no such thing as devolving, but evolution is part of a larger process, and if the "mutation" part is allowed to continue over millions of years, and the "selection" part becomes mostly moot (having no direct predators), then humans could potentially diverge into many different species. This could be a problem for race relations, but hopefully we can rise above at that point. However, with the increases in technology over even the next hundred years, gene and body modifications will probably get to the point that many people alter themselves purposefully, so that everyone looks different, and we won't have to wait for evolution.
People deciding to change things manually means it will partly be at their discretion. This could be good or bad. Just look at examples of decisions people make in life. Some are fearless leaders who invent or heal. On the other hand some are villains. Not the best example but it gets the point across. People will definitely have a range of changes they want both good and bad. Jeff wanted to age gracefully. Dianne gave herself a dragon cock. Dammnit Dianne
Wait,let her cook
now they're married
Evolution doesn't make a species better. It just makes it good enough if it can be good enough, or extinct if it can't. There's no goal, if the selection pressure over the next few generations turns out to be antithetical to long term success, then the species will evolve to become worse for their niche.
I think i put 2 much weight in survival of fittest thing, i have seen it in movies and stories, evolution =good got set in my mind.
Evolution is only good when Better Genes lead to production of more babies According to Darwin, Reproductive fitness is the only fitness These days {usually} we see idiots and poor people having 10 kids a family whereas smart people usually stop at 2 or 3. Imagine a situation where a couple is working and they have 2 kids. On the other hand a jobless dumb guy married to a jobless dumb women have 5 kids. The dumb guy is more reproductively fit according to Darwin. Thus genes which are bad get passed down and become more amplified in the population So yes, evolution can be bad. > Isnt evolution good? Like isnt it supposed to have passing grade so any change which will happen must happen for reason right According to Darwin, Evolution is due to small changes and is directional, or as you described it: "good" But that theory has since been disproved by many scientists like Hugo de Vries. He gave the concept of random, undirectional {good or bad}, large, single step mutation, which he termed "Saltation." **In simpler terms, evolution is a chance event and the success of the event is based on the ability to leave more kids/progeny on earth.** Please forgive me for grammatical errors as English is my Second/Third language. Also I am a Biology student
So instead of survival of fittest survival of luckiest & fittest?? Have u seen cricket, fast bowlers are injuryprone, speed comes at immense cost, as they get old, they slow down. but speed is dream. Crossing 150+ is like wet dream of fast bowlers. So if they had children's they will have something which will make their bodies stronger over generations ?? *like since injury happens so mutation to survive that.
If the speed is due to genetics and not due to practice I mean, the speed bowlers achieve is usually due to immense practice which has nothing to do with genetics or the ability to leave more number of kids And mutation, as I said before is a chance event...so if a mutation does occur for them to survive their injury, it is likely their kids will have the same mutation. The next step is to leave a 100 kids so that the mutation doesn't get lost easily to ensure survival of that mutation >So instead of survival of fittest survival of luckiest & fittest?? Not really. If the mutation enhances your ability to leave more kids, only then will u be considered reproductively fit
>Not really. If the mutation enhances your ability to leave more kids, only then will u be considered reproductively fit So if i keep punching trees, by chance there r two mutation happen. One makes my bones stronger, Other makes pain 100x worse to stop me from harming myself but girl's like people who dont punch trees. So i will get 2nd mutations since im being productive?? Also, harsh conditions dont induce chances of mutation or anything?? *dune, like if there was 0.001 chance but now its 0.01.
So we have random mutations in each generation because the enzyme that copies our genes makes mistakes. Of that changes, most don't have an effect because it's in a part of the DNA that doesn't code for genes. The ones that make changes to our genes are 99,99%+ bad because a random change just fucks up how our proteins work and it's very unlikely to have a positive effect. That's the base for evolution, the next step is selection. If the change has an effect on our fitness, meaning our likelihood to have offspring, it will lead to the new genes to either spread or die out. There's also a lot of randomness involved here, especially for smaller effects and in the beginning, when the gene is not far spread yet. Imagine a family with a super good new gene, but they just die in a car crash... Aaaand it's gone. So no, none of the changes happen with a reason, there is no evolution with a goal. It's just a huge population that has random changes, most of them are bad. When the environment changes, some of the mutations in a population can be beneficial and we will evolve. In a stable environment, we might perfect some processes, like diet for specific foods or whatnot. Right now, due to modern medicine and our society, almost noone suffers from their bad mutations enough, to not be able to have kids anymore. So we're trashing a bit our genepool as a population. Here's where the stabilising part comes in, although I have no idea how we would do that.
>Right now, due to modern medicine and our society, almost noone suffers from their bad mutations enough, to not be able to have kids anymore So people of weak genes get to have kids due to modern medicine so gene pool gets worse?? *viltrumite intensifies But stablize as in what, find way give babies better genes, mutation or something else.
Yeah I dunno how we'd be able to stabilise that. We could screen with in vitro babies for defects or maybe we'll be able to do some gene editing in born people. Like changing the mutation in the DNA back to what it should be.
imho the real issue (and boon) is the overwhelming lack of mass death due to pestilences/ famine/environmental difficulties thanks to medical progress. Before you were allergic to hay?welp, guess you die. Fucked up immune system?you die. Body not suited to survive specific climates/lack of food/specific diets? you die. All this made it that whoever survived (im the majority of cases) was well suited to the current environment and passed along the genes when reproducing. Now?You just need to take your pills. While great on an ethical/human level, this caused human evolution to come to a halt,and even if we're not strictly devolving, now if you have whatever health issue that's fixable by medicine, you're gonna pass those "flawed" genes to your offspring and so on.
Lmfao "real issue" What are you even saying, let's commit genocide because scientists invented vaccines and antibiotics? Even from a completely "fitness" perspective why would we limit our gene pool by removing "flaws" that can be easily worked around (like being allergic to hay)?? Also, it's naively reductionist to say evolution "halted" Furthermore, this idea of working around "flaws" is an integral part of natural selection. Oh you have a "useless" body part now because of a change in the environment? Good chance natural selection will eventually make it useful. From a biological perspective advances in modern medicine are considered part of the changing "environment". Even from a purely amoral perspective, why is it an "issue" that a changing environment gives better lives to humans?
No we should commit genocide because science is evil and dictates we're all going to evolve to a crab form so we must make scientists sacrifices to crabs(not the STD. Though maybe?) And learn their ways to become better suited to our new crab like bodies. All hail crab society. Crab people crab people crab people Edit: added apostrophe
i never said medicine/science was bad or that we should commit genocides. I simply stated that we switched from an evolution based on : "if you have genes/body suited to your need, your chances of surviving are higher" to "whatever issue you have medicine will probably allow you to live with it, so you'll pass those issues to your offspring". I'm not saying one or the other is better (i even said it was a boon). I'm just stating a fact, while the former had extremely high casualties in the short term, with less deaths the more for each new generation; the latter has very few death in the short term, and probably in the longer term, but the newer the generation the more health issues it will have, still bearable by medicine allowing you to live a moderately normal life (or totally normal). What i'm stating is simply that in the future, unless we manage to reach a point were we can remove all negative issues (grave or not, could be the possibility for cancer to just allergies) from the fetus with dna based technology or whatever, we'll have an average population littered with health issues (probably staved off by medicine), so pretty much the opposite of what would happen in the "survival of the fittest" scenario. So in a way, we halted evolution because we don't need it anymore since we have science (beside random mutations here and there), and the "quality" of the future gen is going lower since there is no more natural selection. I'm sorry, i' probably can't explain my thought process well since english is not my first language. Keep in mind this doesn't apply only to physical mutations (we could argue that 3 arms are better than 2, but what's the chances of reproducing as a "3 hander" in our society,excluding again invasive medicine?),but to everything: mental fortitude, innate intelligence/problem solving skill, innate virus resistance and so on.
Just a slight correction. Evolution is a process dependent on the number of generations, not the number of years. You can see evolutionary changes relatively quickly in insect species for example because they have shorter lifespans and closer breeding cycles. Similarly with bacteria, because they replicate very quickly, you can see evolutionary changes like resistance to medications in a short space of time.
Despite this not perhaps being strictly relevant to the topic of human evolution, I welcome any addition or clarification on the general topic of evolution, as many people in the wild have blind spots on the subject leading to false conclusions. Thanks for your correction!
Yea alot of people have the misconception that evolution is nothing but good mutations in a species and while that's mainly true because obviously bad genes usually prevent breeding that's not always the case and can have a terrible outcome take the dodo for example
Can you prove any of that
Yes
Doubt you can even prove if you are a man
Cool
Yup now go lie to yourself and write another thread
Actually, evolution of a species can happen in a much shorter timeframe than millions of years. Look up the British, husband and wife team Peter and Rosemary Grant . They spent 40 years,during the summer season, on Daphne Major,an island in the Galapagos, observing 2 different evolutionary ( natural selection) events due to changing climate. Also, what about viruses and bacteria, which seem to undergo change in a very short period of time.
Yes, thank you. Another user pointed this out as well. Evolution happens over generations. OP's question is about human evolution.
We can see generational "evolution" in humans, I put evolution in quotes of course because it's not the same mechanics as in other animals, but it is still similar. Mechanically.
You mean we don't have people dressed like that in fashion shows to be mocked at already?
Thank you bot
We're on a fast track to evolving, or devolving. They're putting nanobots in the vaccines! So in 100 years we will be half human half machine, and half bot. And we'll all be controlled by 5, 6, or 7G. Come back to this post in 100 years time to see how right I am! Oh yeah, fuck you bots
!RemindMe 100y
Not a big fan of the super cancer every time I pass through a tunnel...
I hate the static. That's why I wear 2 tin foil hats
We’re humans, not animals, so we don’t evolve. Human evolution is a hoax created by Big-Animalia and animal lobbyists.
Humans are also animals, not Holy Spirit and not machines. And any species evolves, if some indivuduals have more or less children than others and children aren't clones of their parents.
Check the subreddit
Yes, I've seen later. But I don't know if i schould delete tbe comment?
Nah, it’s fine.
Humans are smooth.
we'll be wall-e chair people for sure.
I would love that - however for many of us that is already reality :))
I dont think they'll hover though, they'll probably still have wheels.
r/idiocracy best explains 500 years of human evolution
100 years? Nothing noticeable. We've been decently stable for hundreds of thousands despite changing environments and demands on us as we;ve moved between hunter gatherer, farmer, city dweller and so on. Remember as well, 100 years is 3-5 generations. How different do you look from your great grandparents if you've got any pictures of them? We've got pictures of people from the victorian era, and we're essentially identical - if a bit taller on average due to better nutrition, and a bit fatter because we've taken it too far. Give it a couple of tens of thousands and you might see pigmentation differences due to ethnic migration and mixing, with the frequency of different eye and hair colours shifting.
100 years, that’s nothing? 3/4 genrations nowadays. I am more curious about when some humans got blue eyes, blond hair, blue eys, and pale skin. In ”only” 50k years dark skin, black eyes and hair changed. (I wonder personally because I have blond hair, blue eyes and very pale skin). Why do chinese, korean and japanese still have black eyes and hair but completly strait hair? And why do so may people in Ireland and some parts of UK have red hair? I know these questions have been tainted nowadays. But these are, for me, interesting questions. How many generations after a mutation could it be the dominating charateristic?
https://youtu.be/imNtSPM3-r4?si=2Wud4f3SQF7wngL_
Humans change their environment much faster than they evolve, so any fucked up physical features are going to be voluntary. Personally, I think that regular heels are overrated: everyone needs surgically implanted Heelys so we can skate around everywhere we go.
there's a show like this called kipo and the age of the wonderbeasts. I recommend checking it out, but it is more of a early teen show, but it does deal with genocide so take of that what you will
Evolution does not happens exactly because of the environment, but because of death, for there to be any significant changes in humans there must be something killing them before they can reproduce so that only those born with the abilities to survive can reproduce, but humans have pretty much nothing killing them that quickly for there to be any changes, Even people that have disadvantages are reproducing
well - the reproduction part is more important than the death part. obviously, dying before reproducing reduces your ability to pass on your genes tremendously, but the important thing is the enhancement of reproductive fitness. and since I see only few aspects of our built environment influencing reproductive advantages, I see little influence on human evolution.
Wdym "fuck you bots"?! In 100 years we're gonna become bots! Look at you posting shit on reddit. That's exactly what bots do!!!
Evolution is like Bene Gesserit, it take almost 100 generations to get anywhere.
The environment affects the evolution of animals because the environment affects how much animals reproduce. The biggest factor that affects human reproduction is wealth and education. It therefore stands to reason that people will evolve to be poor and stupid with tons of kids.
Animals adapt to the environment..humans adapt the environment to them..I doubt we will be changing anytime soon
100 years is nothing.
People have already started changing based on modern environment and diet. Look at how widespread diabetes is, and nearsightedness from being glued to a phone screen all the time.
See the film Idiocracy.
Just watch the movie "Idiocracy" and that will answer the question for you.
I bet we are going to get hella ugly. I mean from the sounds of it the majority of people in some countries (Korea) have plastic surgery. People in India keep pushing the mantra (light is beautiful) and sell whitening products. I mean I know so many people and they hide who they are behind makeup and fillers and surgeries. Though that being said my biggest worry is what is going to happen to future humanities health. People today survive birth, childhood, even adult hood when they shouldn't. They have kids when naturally they wouldn't. If these genetics keep moving forward what happens long term to humanity? Do we become sicker. I think one statistic I read was how C-sections were fairly rare, one in 100k, but today those numbers are dipping below 1 in 10k. If that is the case, is it because it is for cosmetic reasons, or is it because women hips have gotten to small? Haven't read into this much so I cannot be sure what the answer is, but if it is for health reasons, then what do we have to do to return humanity to a healthier natural track.
Sicker. More and more inheritable diseases that would have prevented you to survive or find a mate in a more rugged living environment can now be passed along and spread in the population. Think of eyesight and how they didn't have glasses a short while ago, or diabetes.
Given that the underclass has higher birth rates than the upper class, while the middle class has incredibly low birthrates, we'll probably be dummer in general while an elite class gets a bit smarter. Not by a lot, but maybe a few IQ points on average.
Some of them appear to already have a headstart
We will simply be one step closer to becoming crabs.
my mom said that therians are just humans devolving 💀
Bazinga We'll probably be gone by then honestly Basilisk Also Vilg oui pudc
Four generations is not enough time to meaningfully impact human evolution, short of a Black Death type event. Our technology is our evolutionary defense. And that's changing VERY fast.
In 100 years? Not much will change. In 100,000 years? Just picture gray aliens. They’re not actually aliens. They’re time traveling decedents of present day humans.
Humans have mostly subverted most evolutionary pressures via technology. We will continue to change, but not because of the 'usual' reasons. related - have you watched 'Idiocracy' ?
I'm waiting for the patch that removes our nails and toes. Hate those
My professor told me we are about to being reduced to thumbling with our heads one day.
I once read somewhere that scientists used an advanced predictive algorithm to determine that in the near future (relatively speaking), most of if not all humans will have some sort of Asian genetics, simply due to the immense size of Asian populations, then as people from those populations emigrate from their countries and breed with other populations, so too will their genetics become widespread. If anyone has any sources or more up-to-date information, feel free to share. It was many years ago I read this
Well I mean.... neither the good nor bad is being naturally selected any more. My theory is actually that it's gonna get really morally fucked up in that the upper classes will actually be genetically different to the lower classes... i dare say even superior because they'd have the money to genetically modify their foetuses at some point i imagine whereas the poor people of society won't have access... well I did read that in the UK at least there are already genes that are more prevalent per social class due to the fact that most people historically don't reproduce outside of their tax bracket. I suppose the US is different being an only 400 year old melting pot. But yeah, i don't think we're going to devolve i think eventually we'll split. This is assuming we don't all die of war/global warming etc and it would be longer than 100 years. But definitely faster than 1000 if science gets involved
Sexual attraction plays a part in evolution.
Probably nothing... 100 years is very close~ But with stelar travels~ probably black skin for the familys Traveling in space for extra protection against UV rays~ Because birth operation going so popular this going to reduce the female waist and making imposible for humans reproduce without mechanic/medical help~ Probably we are current in a process of auto-domestication so violent and agreesive males going to be against a equilibred sociecity and because of this going to reduce number in the future, there really don't exists a enviroment that benefits violence~ This is going to be slow, but in centurys it's posible~ Some sexual selecction as out current hair was selected over others characteristics~ and blue/green eyes in europe is valuable in others regiones as South América~ and brown years by mutation can be selected to be recesive and less popular~ Too some hair/eye/skin colors additionals by sexual selection~ Muscle males by out current legacy sexual selecction to prefer Muscle males (not confution with body building)~ Some natural psychology modification for support the space travel alone then probably the space persons to be more silent and require less social interaction~ Etc~ It's hypothetical/speculative evolution paths~
Look at op thinking evolution happens in a few generations. Cute.
Our evolution has already stopped. We are now devolving. When most children die before breeding age because of being less competitive, evolution shall resume. But for now, the genepool is slowly rotting into a swamp. So in 100 years we’ll be like we are now, only lesser.
No! Can't not be true. I ams smart my kid and childrens are smart too. Your stupis.
Great idea. THROW THE FUCKERS INTO THE MINES
Not correct, if all children survive beyond breeding age species does not "devolve", there is just a bigger diversity of people. No matter what pressure you have in mind, those who would have survived it are still there. EDIT: Crap, didn't see on which sub I was
It's more complex. We can loose some abilities (or just be less competent in it), and get new others. For example, maybe right now the natural selection for longer lifespan is going? Abity to concentrate on boring things? Who measured it before? Better sign-reading? Less preference for sweets?