Evolution

This is a volatile subject. It usually ranks right up there with abortion and capital punishment. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that evolution is a fact of the natural world. But most religious conservatives choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence. But the point of this blog isn't to go through all of that evidence. Any time I talk to "Creationists", invariably I end up hearing the argument - "Why haven't humans evolved?". The obvious point being that if evolution were a true fact, humans would have evolved by now. The most common answer given by "Evolutionists" is that the process of evolution takes millions of years - and humans simply have not been around long enough to show evident signs of evolution (although it is a known fact that the species has increased in height over several thousand years).

But I think there is another answer I very seldom hear. I believe evolution in humans has been severely restricted due to 2 main factors: Technological Advancement and Morality/Sentimentality.

Technological Advancement: Evolution produces subtle changes in a species as it adapts to be more proficient within its environment. But for the first (known) time on the planet Earth - a species exists which can develop specialized tools which does 2 things: reduces the need for the species to evolve and alters the natural environment to meet the needs of the species as it exists today. Just look at the musculature of humans compared to virtually ever other known species on the planet. Pound for pound (relative to our size) humans are virtually the weakest physical species on the planet; a Chimpanzee can literally rip a man a part. Had early humans not developed the ability to produce tools/weapons - it is highly unlikely we would have survived at all, or we would have evolved to be stronger and more capable of protecting ourselves in the wild. But technological advancement leveled the playing field as strength gave no discernible advantage to humans that hunted in groups with tools and weapons.

Morality/Sentimentality: In the natural (animal) world - evolution produces subtle genetic mutations over long periods of time. Those genetic mutations which are favorable and/or advantageous get propagated through the species and becomes more prevalent. Those mutations which are less favorable, generally do not survive long enough to propagate the species with those genetic changes. But our ability to reason and rationalize has brought with it morality and sentimentality. Thus when humans are born with less than favorable attributes, there is always someone that feels compassion or even love - and these "less than favorable" attributes are continually propagated through the human species; stupid people breed all the time (and usually more than they should because they are too stupid to use preventative measures).

Now - it's important to understand that I do not have a problem with either of these concerns. I am certainly not opposed to Technological Advancement. But consider the morality angle... We may find that humans slowly begin to evolve - if we learn to eradicate any humans that do not possess beneficial traits. But where would this take our society - what kind of life would that be? Can we really accept killing or quarantining people because we think their traits are less valuable? And who are we to decide? And ultimately - all this does is create an artificial selection - in much the same way we have evolved chickens and turkeys to be larger, for our consumption. Unfortunately - it is the world's largest Hawthorne Effect. Because we can understand and study evolution - our own evolution is impacted by that very study/observation. Evolution (natural selection) is very real, and the lack of evidence in the human species is no argument against it.

Then again, I could be completely wrong....