Evolution! Humans have reach their utopia!

asgoodasitgets

According to this report humans have reach their peak where evolution is concerned.

What do you think?

There's still sexual selection going on.

And as one poster mentioned, sure, we are not adapting to the natural environment anymore-- that's because we no longer live in forests or caves. But there is still an environment around us that we have to adapt to! What about people that die of lung diseases? Guess that pesky pollution will not be such a bother to future generations!

Big and strong and adventurous in your teen years? Sure, that would have gotten you lots of mates a billion years ago, but at this stage you're more likely to be in a motorcycle accident or do some other stupid dare that will take you out of the gene pool. Guess our future generations will also be more reasoning/less risky!

There's still sexual selection going on.

sure, but sexual selection based on what?  because our genetic indicators of strength and wellness are pretty well-masked by our cosmetic modifications.

And as one poster mentioned, sure, we are not adapting to the natural environment anymore-- that's because we no longer live in forests or caves. But there is still an environment around us that we have to adapt to!

that was me.  and your argument would make sense, except that our environment changes too fast (via our own interference) for evolution to keep up.

Original Post by 4theloss:

There's still sexual selection going on.

 Which is the only kind that matters in terms of evolution.

I think we humans have sealed our own fate and we destroy all that we survey. We are kings of the world we are killing, how can we possibly survive and we will be to blame.

We have pushed evolution further than it should have gone at this stage!

Something which I forgot to nitpick on previously....the social definition of a "utopia" is definitely not what I picture when I think of this world. I think the author of the article needs to rethink some word choices, based on the association of the word. Utopia doesn't smack of wars, social inequalities and widespread pollution.

In another thought....

Micro evolution exists.  Macro evolution was not proven.

Yeah, and they didn't "prove" gravity either. If there's always a bunch of microevolution going on, eventually those micros end up as one big macro. Don't believe me? Talk to me in 20 years when all our antibiotics have become absolutely useless.

I believe the author of the article is talking about utopia in the sense of life expectancy, we are living way longer than we should and are therefore over populated.

A member of my family does charity work in Africa where they don't have access to all that we do and the average life expectancy is 35-45yrs.

Original Post by pegamoose:

Something which I forgot to nitpick on previously....the social definition of a "utopia" is definitely not what I picture when I think of this world. I think the author of the article needs to rethink some word choices, based on the association of the word. Utopia doesn't smack of wars, social inequalities and widespread pollution.

pegamoose, if the word "utopia" smacks of anything, it's irony.  it was never meant to reflect a literal or realistic possibility.

Reply Deleted 

Original Post by andie-joe:

...we are living way longer than we should and are therefore over populated.

 Okay, I'm curious.  How long "should" humans be living?  Who sets the standard?

Original Post by pegamoose:

To say that evolution has ended means certain extinction.

Not true. Crocodiles, alligators and other reptiles such as tuataras haven't changed in millions of years. It doesn't mean they are going extinct, it means they have adapted so well to their environment that they don't need to change, or evolve.

yeah, laur3nmae, but that only works as long as the environment doesn't change.

Original Post by laur3nmae:

Not true. Crocodiles, alligators and other reptiles such as tuataras haven't changed in millions of years. It doesn't mean they are going extinct, it means they have adapted so well to their environment that they don't need to change, or evolve.

 Their environment has changed, they've changed with it, just because the change wasn't drastic doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

#29 look at the increase in life expectancy since the 1930's to 2004

lifeexpectancy  we are living way longer now from then because of medical advances and general standards of living.

whoever above said evolution potential is in the brain...I read something recently that autistic folks may be the next evolutionary stage.

Original Post by andie-joe:

#29 look at the increase in life expectancy since the 1930's to 2004

lifeexpectancy  we are living way longer now from then because of medical advances and general standards of living.

 

I don't dispute that life expectancy has increased, but post #26 suggests (per the use of the term "should") that 1) that's a bad thing and 2) life expectancy needs to be limited.

Are you saying that no human "should" have a life expectancy beyond, for example, what is reflected in 1930's stats? 

What is an "acceptable" life expectancy?

i have to agree with andie-joe on this one, santo.  i don't think it's a question of dictating how long people "should" live; it's more a question of when medical interventions go too far. 

Original Post by pgeorgian:

i don't think it's a question of dictating how long people "should" live; it's more a question of when medical interventions go too far. 

Well, andi-joe is the one who used "should" - I wanted to know what she meant.  And she specifically mentioned overpopulation, so I was curious as to where the line was drawn where a person had, let's see....overstayed their welcome.

If she's talking about right to die issues, that's one thing.  But it just appeared that she thinks there is a problem with people living until 70.

as you very well know, santo, life expectancy is a statistical expression, not an individual time limit.

Yeah totally pg, I'm of the opinion that sometimes nature should be allowed to take it's course. And I'm not about to get into what circumstances because it is my own personal opinion and it may cause offence to some who may indeed be in or know someone within those circumstances.

Suffice to say sometimes we use medical advances to the extreme, and that in turn may be our very demise.

I have no problem with what age people live to if they are fit to live to that age.