Is the human race devolving?

Amp34 · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:28

It's not just evolutionary pressure (or the need to do something) that dictates evolution. Selection is also an important part. Taller men are generally seen as more attractive than shorter men, hence more children and hence the "taller" gene passed on more frequently than the "short" gene.

EdwardTeach · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:48

Unfortunately ugly people still breed, so the selective pressure based on how 'attractive' someone is, is not as strong as you might think.

Davies_M · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:49

EdwardTeach said:
Unfortunately ugly people still breed, so the selective pressure based on how 'attractive' someone is, is not as strong as you might think.

Blame Gok Wan and squaddies.

*edit* not saying squaddies are ugly, but by god they'll do anything that moves...

Tefal · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:52

EdwardTeach said:
This means that there is almost a negative pressure on intelligence now i

only true if intelligence is hereditary.

And iirc the many eugenics programs of the last century proved this to be false.

Tefal · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:53

Cr0fty said:
How about the question: Can we speed up evolution by only allowing the most intelligent / fit / able members of society to procreate?

No.

We tried it and it didn't work.

Cr0fty · 7 Jun 2010 at 18:20

Tefal said:
No.

We tried it and it didn't work.

So... By that logic, only allowing the weakest members of society to reproduce would mean that we would be fine, also?

Richdog · 7 Jun 2010 at 18:32

Tefal said:
only true if intelligence is hereditary.

And iirc the many eugenics programs of the last century proved this to be false.

While intelligence is likely not hereditary, I would say that genetics definitely has an influence on capacity for intelligence... cranium/brain size, genetic abnormalities/deformities etc etc...

Tefal · 7 Jun 2010 at 18:34

Cr0fty said:
So... By that logic, only allowing the weakest members of society to reproduce would mean that we would be fine, also?

define weakest.

Cr0fty · 7 Jun 2010 at 18:37

Tefal said:
define weakest.

I wasn't looking for a real answer

It was merely the opposite to my previous question.

Tefal · 7 Jun 2010 at 18:39

Richdog said:
While intelligence is likely not hereditary, I would say that genetics definitely has an influence on capacity for intelligence... cranium/brain size, genetic abnormalities/deformities etc etc...

genetic defects like that are so rare tht it would be pointless though

Amp34 · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:04

EdwardTeach said:
Unfortunately ugly people still breed, so the selective pressure based on how 'attractive' someone is, is not as strong as you might think.

Well yes, but that's the same for most animals on the planet. However preference still goes for those that are taller. It's not going to be a 90:10 split or something stupid, it'll be a 50.001:49.999 split, with an overall height trend increasing.

Orcish-Horde · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:52

Its not that evolution has stopped it just that it has not done a stock check in a while. Just wait till you or your offspring are down to 250 kcal a day diet on a regular basis and a few summers with temps that never get into the teens. That is when evolution does its stock check.

QuagmireUK · 7 Jun 2010 at 19:56

Watch a film called Idiocracy, i think it kinda sums up what you are tryin to say. It is a comedy with Luke Wilson but it is watchable.

GreatAuk · 7 Jun 2010 at 22:03

We're not devolving, we're just evolving the wrong way. - Many people with undesirable genetic traits survive now due to medicine and jobs that don't require you to be able to fight off a bear. I propose neutering around 90 % of the worlds population, and taking eggs + sperm from the people with awesome genes plus around a 1% wildcard sample. Everyone else could then just have children with the good genes. I think an effective measure of how good your genes are would be to hold your breath for as long as possible. The top 10% don't get neutered! yay! everyone's happy!

cm1179 · 7 Jun 2010 at 22:19

QuagmireUK said:
Watch a film called Idiocracy, i think it kinda sums up what you are tryin to say. It is a comedy with Luke Wilson but it is watchable.

i watched that ..... it was a comedy? :rolleyes:

KNiVES · 7 Jun 2010 at 22:37

I always thought evolution was about adapting and acclimatizing to what you are currently doing, instead of magically growing larger muscles/penis/brains.

Fenris · 7 Jun 2010 at 22:38

Have you been listening to a bit too much Korn?

D.P. · 8 Jun 2010 at 07:36

Tefal said:
only true if intelligence is hereditary.

And iirc the many eugenics programs of the last century proved this to be false.

Wrong. Intelligence is strongly hereditary, at least 50-60%.
EDIT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[4] to a high of 0.9.[7] A general range of 0.4 to 0.8 was given by the "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", a 1994 declaration of 52 scientists in the field.[8] A 1996 statement by the American Psychological Association gave about .45 for children and about .75 during and after adolescence.[9] A 2004 meta-analysis of reports in Current Directions in Psychological Science gave an overall estimate of around .85 for 18-year-olds and older.[10] The New York Times Magazine has listed about three quarters as a figure held by the majority of studies.[11]

Intelligence is one of the very few psychological traits that are highly heritable. And it is obviously a strongly heritable trait since in a short time humans have evolved to be incredibly intelligence relative to our genetic neighbors. IF Intelligence as inheritable then evolution would not lead to more intelligent humans.

I get around · 8 Jun 2010 at 09:55

The human race is devolving.
Purely because people are getting so caught up in money and greed, becoming so self involved and arrogant. They have forgotten that as human beings we have to aspire to be above the level of cavemen.

Thats not just chavs either, people with money are terrible for it. "Well, who cares about any of that so long as I got my stuff" thats just not a civilised way to live, you've gotta give some thought to what you are doing as a human being.

AHarvey · 8 Jun 2010 at 10:10

Problem is, due to our laws and civilised ways we are no longer following natures number one rule.

Survival of the fittest!

That doesn't mean strength either, it could be applied to intelligence too. We allow anyone to breed, and more often than not it's the thick no-future scum that are having large familes and at earlier times. Until we put population control in place, which we should be looking at or removing benefits for more than 2 kids, they will continue to breed bringing the human race down.