Before you read this thread:All the statistics sited in this thread are factual and do not represent opinions, simply numbers. And if you don't believe in normal evolution do not post in this thread as you are not worth having a debate with.Every mainstream intelligence test ever devised, specifically IQ tests (which are flawed in nature), has seen a growth in scores every decade by about 3%. This is known as the Flynn effect and is the most well known and most cited study in the history of human intelligence studies. The Flynn effect ceased in 1990.To briefly recount what natural selection is for those of you who may not be aware of the formal definition:1. There is variation among species, IE there are some people who are taller than others2. There is inheritance, IE a taller couple is more likely to produce a taller child3. There is selection, for instance if there is a drought preventing finches from eating smaller food, only the ones with larger beaks who can eat larger food can survive4. Now, with only large beaked finches left, their children are more likely to be large-beaked and so onThis, however, doesn't really happen to humans anymore because we are so advanced that even in the poorest societies with the lowest life expectancy people live long enough to reproduce, which is indicated by the fact that humanity has an exponential growth rate.Now, unfortunately, since nurture has nothing to do with evolution, it would be almost impossible to see de-evolution happening when superior education systems are being put into place than there were in the past, but let me explain why evolution may well be trammelledIn first world countries, with more educated people, higher IQ, and wealthier people, far less children occur than third world countries where people have lower iq, and are less educated.This holds true for every demographic and comparison within every country, that the lower IQ, success, and education on average the more children you're likely to have.But this is just due to where they were born/what circumstances, right?Well, here's a more telling fact. "Survival of the Fittest" is the theory that only the fittest creatures live to reproduce fertile offspring. Fitness is described as ones ability to survive in their niche. But "less fit" individuals who die earlier are actually more likely to have children than their longer life expectancy counterparts. In a typical species there would be a positive correlation between life expectancy and IQ, but in an intelligent species, it is quite the opposite.Given all this evidence, is it as possibility that humans may begin de-evolving?Fortunately, this devolution will never happen at a noticeable level, at least for thousands of years, because the better education systems being put into place all the time and better living conditions, nutrition, etc counteracts the raw genetic code of individuals being weaker.
I don't think there is a de-evolution going on, as you mentioned people in third world countries have more children. thats because in those countries child mortality rates are high, in some areas only 1 out of 3 children grow up to be adults. this is similar to dark age Europe, were about 1/4 children would reach adulthood, at that same time there was only a handful of people in each country who could even read, yet there was no de-evolution there. for De-evolution to really occur you would need people to be breading with their family members(Incest), and their family genes would pretty much have to have a genetic flaw in them. but with the population so high, you're not likely going to see that happening.
I dont believe in evolution as far as we came from single-cell organisms, but I do believe natural selection occurs.As Redneck pointed out, with diseases, natural disasters and wars, many children never reach 18 over there. There are also being more and more programs being built by countries to educate the youth. I dont think man would ever de-revolve if society is maintaned. But if the numbers and theory is true, wouldnt we have been devolving all this time? Theres less poverty now than there was 100, 200, 1000 yrs ago.
First off, there is no such thing as de-evolution. There is only evolution. The term de-evolution implies that evolution is linear, which it is not. For example, if I were to be the ancestor to a ape-like animal, it would have nothing to do with going back to an original form or "de-evolving." I think you understand the difference, pestilence, but the terminology is wrong. As I understand it, you link intelligence to a more primitive form of man. So if intelligence goes down, man is somehow de-evolving, correct? I can agree that man uses technology to help adapt environment to man's needs, so yeah, "weaker" genotypes are going to be able to survive more easily. And in today's society, for some reason, those weaker genotypes seem to breed a lot more. A complete moron can easily fire off 3 or more children before he dies, because he doesn't have to survive in the same sense that animals throughout history have. Still, we are not de-evolving, because our future genotype has nothing to do with our past genotype.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>First off, there is no such thing as de-evolution. There is only evolution. The term de-evolution implies that evolution is linear, which it is not. For example, if I were to be the ancestor to a ape-like animal, it would have nothing to do with going back to an original form or "de-evolving." I think you understand the difference, pestilence, but the terminology is wrong.</div>Perhaps de-evolving is not the correct terminology, I was partially just trying to grab people's attention. Obviously we would not go back to the prior forms of man in any situation. However, seeing as how evolution is an adaptation that leads to an increase in fitness, it is not evolution either. At this point all it can be classified as is genetic drift until temporal, behavioral, or genetic isolation occurs (obviously geographic won't occur in this day and age).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Mar 21 2007, 05:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Perhaps de-evolving is not the correct terminology, I was partially just trying to grab people's attention. Obviously we would not go back to the prior forms of man in any situation. However, seeing as how evolution is an adaptation that leads to an increase in fitness, it is not evolution either. At this point all it can be classified as is genetic drift until temporal, behavioral, or genetic isolation occurs (obviously geographic won't occur in this day and age).</div>Uh, no, evolution is any change in the alleles of a population. It doesn't matter if the change causes a negative or positive change in genetic fitness. It is evolution either way. An mutation in genes causing cancer or sickle-cell anemia would be evolution. I'm not sure where you were told that it requires an increase in fitness, but that's wrong. You may be thinking of natural selection. Typically a population does evolve towards a favorable genotype, but not always.edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, but I know my biology pretty well. Decently enough considering I took it two years ago.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Mar 22 2007, 11:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Uh, no, evolution is any change in the alleles of a population. It doesn't matter if the change causes a negative or positive change in genetic fitness. It is evolution either way. An mutation in genes causing cancer or sickle-cell anemia would be evolution. I'm not sure where you were told that it requires an increase in fitness, but that's wrong. You may be thinking of natural selection. Typically a population does evolve towards a favorable genotype, but not always.edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, but I know my biology pretty well. Decently enough considering I took it two years ago.</div>Agreed. You indeed do know your biology. This is crazy because I just had a test on all this yesterday.
It's all fairly basic biology... I of course took bio in high school, but that was like six years ago and rather poorly taught. I remember a lot more from Biology 112, which was entirely over phylogeny, evolution, and the like. Not a fun class, but it was better than Bio 111, which was all about the cell (boring as hell).
