|
|
     |
|
|
|
by Jen Idziorek
Some of us are inclined to think that we are the end product of evolution. How could you possibly improve upon this? We learned to hunt, use tools, make fire, and create the computers that help produce our dear Technolog. So yes, our minds have improved. But what about our bodies?
Charles Darwin was the first to propose the theory of evolution. He hypothesized that species adapted to fit their environment over many generations, and that those with advantageous traits were more likely to survive to pass them on. Humans who walked upright, were taller, and whose jawbones did not protrude ultimately conquered those with opposing characteristics. Therefore, we are the result of the most useful qualities since the beginning of time; we are more fitted to our environment than any of our ancestors ever were.
We are tearing down the rain forests, causing global warming, and polluting air and water. Ancient man could never have done such things. Have we caused the end of human evolution by changing our environment to suit us? The fit now provide for the less fit through hospitals and homeless shelters. Survival has become a right, not a privilege.
Traditionally, those better suited to their environment survived to reproduce more of their kind. You had to have an able body to provide for yourself by working and intelligence to supply yourself with food and shelter. It's no secret that today there are some who do not fit these criteria, but now, unlike five thousand years ago, they are often given what they need to live. That is not to say the strong aren't favored over the weak, but the distinction is much smaller than it was previously.
The conclusions that one could draw from this are numerous. Humanity may be close to the end of its evolution. There are some instances in which the dominant will be weeded out. For example, not everyone who sees a coverless manhole will walk around it, but for the most part, common sense would direct you around it. A revised statement might be that humanity is near the end of its physical evolution. If a need for webbed toes or opposable toes became beneficial, we would find a quicker way to deal with the problem than waiting several hundred generations to evolve.
If we are at the end of physical evolution, what about mental evolution? As a species, we are obviously becoming more intelligent, being that we no longer squat in squalor or go through the hideous trouble to multiply large numbers by hand. Still there are those who sniff markers for fun. Natural selection has not succeeded in weeding them out. How can this be? Wouldn't those of a higher intelligence mate with others of high intelligence?
Has the human race been outdone by love? Everyone's heard the phrase, "A face that only a mother could love." That could just as easily apply to one's mind. Everyone also knows someone who has either the most horrible personality (which we're going to directly link to intelligence for the sake of argument) or someone who is too simple to ever have a chance of mating with a smart member of the opposite sex. This would entail a divide between the learned and the dense, assuming that the latter survive to pass on their genes. At least we're still getting brighter on one end; Savants and Einsteins are getting together somewhere along the line.
Discounting alcohol and luck, love seems to be the all-encompassing, all-binding thread of humanity. Human beings have the ability to love each other for reasons beyond their scent or strength. Other than mutation, this crazy idea called love leaves the only way for a weaker breed of the species to survive. Why else would a Savant mate with a bruiser? In nature, you don't see many tigresses leaving the herd to get a piece of the tiger that lost the fight for supremacy.
Well, perhaps the argument has gone too far; there can't really be an end to evolution. According to the Hardy-Weinberg principle, evolution will occur as long as there is 1) selective mating, 2) mutation, 3) gene flow, 4) limited population size, or 5) natural selection. Small sections of humanity are removed from the mass, people move across the globe, and mutations occur. These sorts of things usually only result in a change in skin pigment or extra fingers in individuals, the former of which is becoming more and more common every minute. To really change the entire human species, an event of cataclysmic proportions would be in order.
In the movie Waterworld, Kevin Costner sports some pretty fly gills. These, of course, have been developed over countless generations and were not the result of a random mutation. The icebergs, which currently occupy the poles of our misshapen planet, had melted, necessitating improved body functions to survive in the aqueous environment. Likewise, if one of the crazies hiding underground decided to launch a nuclear missile into the heart of a populated continent, those who were more resistant to the radiation would survive to reproduce more with their resistance. Similar circumstances may have been behind what happened to the dinosaurs: after the comet hit, those who could fly to reach more remote areas where food might be available survived, and later a need for warmth was sufficed with feathers. Speculation is a fabulous thing.
If we have indeed brought about the end of our physical evolution, let's enjoy it, instead of trying to create webbed toes for Olympic swimmers and additional arms for boxers. Let's leave well enough alone and hope that twitchy fingers are satiated with "Duck Hunt."
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
www.anu.org/news_theendofevolution.html
www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug97/872536853.Ev.r.html
www.dilbert.com
