Is the human race devolving?

edscdk · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:10

Tefal said:
Education and information don't help on properly made IQ tests.

It's supposedly to do with the ever increasing technical problem solving people are faced with in first world countries.

you may be correct (I dont know what inteligence is or how to measure it)

maybe your startment is totally correct and our ability to correctly create a test is all thats changing???

however after a quick look at a few IQ test questions I found myself using information I learned to try and work out the answer... or information from other tests

Participant · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:11

Guest2 said:
People are still going to get wiped out by new diseases, recently cancer.

Cancer has been around for thousands of years and probably long before that also

.

Tefal said:
Nitefly is the biologist on here who always has to come in and correct these "zomg devolution" threads.

usually with a massive post with diagrams.

He usually has to start with why there is no such thing as devolution.

I see.

Just for clarity, I don't think we'll all be crippled blobs unable to withstand a common cold in several thousand years, but I do think that modern lifestyles must have some adverse affect on genetics. Increasing rates of asthma and allergies surely prove this to some degree.

D.P. · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:24

Some points:

There is no such thing is devolution
Survivial of the fittest is a completely incorrect way of viewing evolution and Darwin never claimed or said any such thing
Instead, evolution is best viewed as elimination of those too weak to reproduce within their current environment. Just good enough solutions are just fine if there is no other evolutionary pressure.

Cosimo · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:28

Robbie G said:
The Nazis liked BMW didn't they?

They preferred the people’s car.

Guest2 · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:30

Robbie G said:
Cancer has been around for thousands of years and probably long before that also .

Well you know what I mean. New types of cancer, HIV, aids etc (instead of diseases like malaria that we have cures/preventions for)

Amp34 · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:33

Robbie G said:
Can someone explain what this means? Googling it just turns up another OcUK thread about evolution.

I made the assumption he was talking about Godwins Law. Could be totally wrong though.

Participant · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:33

simulatorman said:
They preferred the people’s car.

Ah yes, BMW was run by Nazis, not used by them.

Now it's the other way round

.

Cosimo · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:40

Robbie G said:
Ah yes, BMW was run by Nazis, not used by them.

Now it's the other way round .

So there is evolution in progress.

Davies_M · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:41

Tefal said:
i wish we had standard iq tests given to all tbh like the Americans.

Would mean you could deliberately get a low score (but not low enough to be retarded) then a few decades later murder somone and get off on diminished responsibility

Ha! If I ever get a low IQ score, that'll be my excuse! ta

Participant · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:48

D.P. said:
Some points:

There is no such thing is devolution

I was interested when I read that, as I was wondering whether biologists presented that statement in line with other scietific 'givens', such as the earth not being flat, or if it was in fact a matter of some debate in the scientific community.

Having Googled and found this article, I see that it's really just about interpretation of the word devolution, i.e. biologists argue that whatever changes occur, whether perceived to be good or bad, are referred to as evolution.

E.g. humans no longer need legs so they have 'devolved', but really they haven't devolved, they've just evolved away from using legs.

D.P. · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:49

Robbie G said:
Ah yes, BMW was run by Nazis, not used by them.

Now it's the other way round .

BMW provided machinery and engines for the Nazis, but then so did Ford and IBM.

Participant · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:53

D.P. said:
BMW provided machinery and engines for the Nazis, but then so did Ford and IBM.

Well BMW were controlled by a Nazi family.

EdwardTeach · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:54

Amp34 said:
I don't think anything can "devolve", it's just a different form of evolution..

We are still evolving, anyone that thinks we aren't is a tit or doesn't realise what evolution actually is. We, as a race are still growing taller and heavier for example, different features will be coming out and we will be losing other features we dont need.

Humans are not "evolving" to be taller and heavier, that is just happening worldwide due to changes in diet. Essentially nutritious food is much cheaper.

Humans are not devolving(!) but it could be argued that we are no longer evolving in a desirable direction.

In the west, and using the UK as a particular example there is no longer any need to be able to provide for your own kids - the state will do it for you. This has created a situation where the highest achievers (the most intelligent and driven people) tend to have the least children. This means that there is almost a negative pressure on intelligence now i.e we have created a culture where low intelligence is a +ve when it comes to maximising the number of descendants you have.

Thats why i think the current benefits system is totally dysfunctional!

jaybee · 7 Jun 2010 at 16:55

Biohazard said:
I'll stick with

?

Thanks.

Oxy said:
Pancake.

Oh dear.

D.P. · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:02

Robbie G said:
I was interested when I read that, as I was wondering whether biologists presented that statement in line with other scietific 'givens', such as the earth not being flat, or if it was in fact a matter of some debate in the scientific community.

Having Googled and found this article, I see that it's really just about interpretation of the word devolution, i.e. biologists argue that whatever changes occur, whether perceived to be good or bad, are referred to as evolution.

E.g. humans no longer need legs to they 'devolve', but really they haven't devolved, they've just evolved away from using legs.

Devolution doesn't exist in biology or science. This has been a settled concept for hundred of years and merely comes about from a misunderstanding of what the evolutionary process does.

It is just sounds stupid to talk about devolution. And it is incorrect, because the prefix "de" would signify reverse/backwards/anti. Thereby you seem to think there is a direction to evolution, that it is guided.
Evolution is not guided at all. It doesn't specify that intelligence or strength must increase. All that the evolutionary process does is reduce the population size of a species within an environment if the traits of that species do not facilitate reproduction.

If a species looses intelligences then this is still evolution even although the absolute ability is reduced. This may occur due to changes in the evolutionary environment.
And there is a cost induced by intelligence.: larger brain mass to carry around, higher metabolic rate to feed the brain, longer foetal development, increased birth complications due to brain size, increased age until mental maturity. It takes about 15 years for a human to properly fend for itself. Takes rats a matter of weeks. Hence Rats are far more successful than us in inhabiting earth.

In this light, loosing intelligence is more gaining the benefit of reduced brain size and is hence still evolution.

Cr0fty · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:18

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

Amp34 · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:19

EdwardTeach said:
Humans are not "evolving" to be taller and heavier, that is just happening worldwide due to changes in diet. Essentially nutritious food is much cheaper.

Humans are not devolving(!) but it could be argued that we are no longer evolving in a desirable direction.

In the west, and using the UK as a particular example there is no longer any need to be able to provide for your own kids - the state will do it for you. This has created a situation where the highest achievers (the most intelligent and driven people) tend to have the least children. This means that there is almost a negative pressure on intelligence now i.e we have created a culture where low intelligence is a +ve when it comes to maximising the number of descendants you have.

Thats why i think the current benefits system is totally dysfunctional!

Yes and no, some of it can be associated with better diet however parts can also be associated with evolution and the whole "survival of the fittest".

As for the latter paragraph, again that is more to do with society than evolution, which as said earlier can be related to evolution but is very different.

bledd · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:21

Oxy said:
Pancake.

Indeed

EdwardTeach · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:21

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

you wouldnt speed it up, but you could alter the direction that humans evolved.

Its just like breeding dogs!

EdwardTeach · 7 Jun 2010 at 17:24

Amp34 said:
Yes and no, some of it can be associated with better diet however parts can also be associated with evolution and the whole "survival of the fittest".

As for the latter paragraph, again that is more to do with society than evolution, which as said earlier can be related to evolution but is very different.

humans are not evolving to be bigger, there has been no evolutionary pressure to get bigger for millenia.

Instead the average size of a population very closely matches what they eat.