Where Is Human Evolution Heading?

Reader Comments

Back to article

If we manipulate our own genetics then it must be within the bounds of “God’s Will” because our free will is created by God.

I thought God created everything. That would include evolution, intelligent design and any paradox anyone chooses to dream up including that there is no God. It would seem then that God gave man free will to conceive of and even believe that there is no God....

Word games I know but then God must have created the ability for word games too, unless there is no God.

Dennis from Canada of AL 3:50PM July 25, 2008

Well if my last name was Cooper I might consider naming a girl Mynee.

Personally I would not mess around with my own genetics except in the choice of a wife. However, I feel that humanity should pursue this but somehow not kill embryos in the process.

Dennis from Canada of AL 3:39PM July 25, 2008

It's not regressive either. It's just small adaptations among gene pools. Evolution never demands to "go" anywhere. It just meanders.We are no better than the humans of the stone age. Just different.

David of CA 3:20PM July 25, 2008

Not really. Only intelligent design is based on faith. Evolutionism is pure science.

3:12PM July 25, 2008

You are mistaken. Evolution only needs the mutation to successfully reproduce.It need not reproduce "more than average."

Matt of MO 3:07PM July 25, 2008

It's either evolution or intelligent design, your can't use one to lead to the supposition that the other doesn't exist. Each one has it's own faith system...

chuck of CO 2:54PM July 25, 2008

While people approach a problem or ethical question, using both deontological and consequetial ethics, I have noticed that most exhibit a quite dramatical bias toward one or the other. Furthermore, over the last few centuries, the trend seems to be, from the nearly total domination of the deontological approach during the dark ages, toward perhaps a slight lead for the consequentialist approach in the 21st century.

All of which raises the questions: Could a preference for one approach over the other be genetically determined? And, is it possible that we are evolving toward a preference for the consequentialist approach?

Earl Carlson of MN 2:50PM July 25, 2008

can human evolute further more.

http://zeeol.com/Blog

erichansa of KY 2:48PM July 25, 2008

Don't forget, for evolution to work, 2 things must happen - genes must mutate, and the mutated genes must lead to more offspring than average. I question the latter - more likely, as in Cyril Kornbluth's "Marching Moron" stories, we are breeding a surplus of welfare-prone less-adept underclass. The rich and smart are having even fewer children. The population of some first-world countries is shrinking, for demographic reasons; if you are comfortable middle class, a child is a burden.

The other possibility, as alluded to with the autism suggestion, is that we are morphing into a split race - rarely until now has each social class been so likely to marry within its group; while our meritocracy allows the smart and capable to rise up into their appropriate class. We are stratifying, perhaps, like H.G. Wells' Eloi and Morlocks?

Yes, the factors are positively greater for more evolution. We have a huge gene pool - 6 billion - with more chemicals and other factors causing alterations to the gene pool. The unprecedented scale of travel and migration means a much bigger mixing of the pool. The downside, is that human nature has not changed. People reproduce for the wrong reasons; more likely for neglecting birth control than for attraction or desirable traits. (Not every mother is gorgeous or a fine mammary specimen, for example; fathers ditto). Modern medicine helps prevent all but the more egregious genetic problems being eliminated from the pool; bad eyesight will not get you killed the way it could in the Serengeti. The evlutionary processes mean there is a wider variety of humanity, but it is not selecting.

I also question the "genetic" component. AIDS is not more survivable because of human genetics; more likely, disease's genetics. What we see is common of all diseases. The first bubonic plague killed 30%-50% of Europe. Subsequent waves, significantly less. The virulence drops because the deadliest germs or virus fail to make it to as many hosts, once the danger is understood. The moderately infectious diseases spread the farthest.

Also, perhaps some things are simply not genetic. I suspect that most brain-destroying conditions - autism, parkinsons, alzheimers, etc. - are a virus that eats the brain. It randomly pops up to do damage in some individuals. Once a certain amount of damage is done, the brain no longer can compensate, and the symptoms appear. I go even further, and blame a disease for diabetes I, heart attacks, arthritis, etc. Consider clogging arteries; the clots in the arteries build on something. Stents and balloons have limited effect, blockages regrow; sometimes, a person becomes cured. Only 20 years ago, ulcers were considered psychological; now we treat them with antibiotics.

After a billion years of evolution, the body still gets diseases. At least that proves a lack of intelligent design.

MD 2:29PM July 25, 2008

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Back to article

National Science Foundation

NSF

Hydrogen Gas in the Universe

Researcher believes it is key ingredient to Universe.

Chemistry and Clouds

Researchers look at water droplets and chemical reactions.

Learning and Play

Researcher studies children's unstructured playtime.

advertisement

advertisement