Light 1

Eric Light Anthropology 1020 Teresa Potter July 26, 2013 Humans; The End of Biological Evolution The Theory of Evolution, introduced to the world in 1859, has been tried and tested for the 154 of its existence. When it was introduced, it was surrounded with controversy and scandal. Now it is accepted as the primary explanation of the origin of life as we know it on this planet. Human beings, homo sapiens, seem to be the highest evolved species on the planet. We are what is pictured on the posters in 7th grade biology, starting with the one celled organism in the water all the way to the modern day human walking upright on land. So just as that poster, we all remember depicts humans are the end of evolutionary progression and may be as far as life on this planet will evolve as long as we exist. This paper will illustrate how humans have stopped evolutionary progression. Now let me clarify my exact position. I am not saying that other species in other kingdoms are not evolving. We have documented the evidence that this has been happening all through our 4000 plus years of written history. We can even watch it happening with bacteria cells (Bourzac). My exact position is that humans are on the top of the evolutionary ladder, and as long as we are there, nothing can pass us. I am also saying that humans will not evolve, biologically, any further than we are right now. So to summarize, we are at the top, and the top is the highest we can go.

Light 2

I can imagine what youre thinking right now. You are saying Im crazy, and listing the things that have happened, some in the last year, that would both prove we are progressing and me wrong. So before your list gets too long and you are worked up into a frenzy, let me emphasize the word BIOLOGICALLY that I slipped in before. The claim I am making is we are no longer biologically evolving, and all the things that you were thinking of, our cultural evolution, is the exact reason why. I will probably use some of the things you were just thinking of to prove my point. To start off let me summarize an article I read that explained the evolution of the wing. A case against evolution was made insisting that until a wing was completely formed it would be of no use to a bird, and the extra nub that would continue to increase in size over generations would be a hindrance, and not something that natural selection would deem favorable. The point of this opinion was that the wing would be something that would need to be created all at once, and that means that the bird could not have evolved from a non-bird, thus debunking evolution as an explanation for everything. Countering this claim, it was scientifically proven that the extra nub would increase the subjects ability to keep its body temperature, making it warmer, and proving itself favorable. It was also shown that the temperature control continued to increase until the nub would become a useable wing. This argument settled the case and evolution advanced unscathed (Gould). So why am I bringing this up? To make the point that through human cultural evolution, i.e. technology, we will not need an extra nub to keep us warm or wings to fly, because we have The North Face coats and Delta Airlines for that. Im sure you can see me point here.

Light 3

For the sake of the argument, lets just say that an individual has a mutation like the one mentioned above. This mutation would start out as something that would be easy to hide and not disrupt reproductive fitness resulting in it being passed on to the next generation. So now many, many generations later, this mutation will become a full on deformity of the arm, and now reproductive fitness becomes extremely limited by the lack of sexual attractiveness. It will also become limited by the mutated not wanting to pass it on. So if the premature birdman does find a mate, through our cultural advance of safe sex practices, these genes will be taken out of the pool. Mutations have happened throughout our history. In the 1800s travelling Freak Shows were all the rage, and quite honestly the most lucrative opportunity for the unfortunate participants. These freaks would draw a crowd because of the rarity of their abnormalities. A few of them found mates and had children, but the abnormalities that they had still remain just as rare. If mutations like these were to ever get traction, and increase, medical science would study it and strive to create a vaccine to cure it, or locate it genetically and encourage the elimination of it. So when you really think about it, you have to agree our culture has evolved into a society that is un-accepting of the mutations needed for evolution. I mentioned sexual attractiveness previously and to expound on that lets talk about plastic surgery. We have had the technology for the last three or so generations to alter what genetics have given us. Men, women, and those that would like to switch between those two options have the ability to increase there reproductive fitness to their desired mate. Just like Lamarck and his theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics (Jurmain, Kilgore, Trevathan), those that stay their original gender, but just alter the shell with a little body work, cannot pass on those desired traits. Our culture has strived to equal the playing field, and in

Light 4

its way, cheats natural selection. So to review, with artificial selection the process of reproduction is for desired results, and natural selection randomizes the results, but with modern day alterations it is completely possible to have an artificial mate and random results. So lets analyze what is needed for evolution to happen. I made pretty light of natural selection and mutations, but they are the key points to evolution. In fact, I believe, the modern theory of evolution is basically to have variation or mutation, and have natural selection act on it. These key points cause microevolution, but the evolution that fascinates us the most, and really the one that our minds picture by default, is macroevolution, or full on speciation. Speciation happens when a species splits and becomes isolated from each other. When this happens the differing environments will naturally select different favorable traits. Over a long period of time, the two groups will become so different that if they were to meet up again they could not mate and have viable offspring (Potter). Now ask yourself, or I will just do it, how can any group of humans isolate themselves in the extremely small and overly well connected world that our culture has created? I find it very hard to believe that this can happen on its own without it being on purpose. I actually have a hard time believing that it could even happen on purpose. If it does however, happen on purpose, and an isolated group was to eventually become a new species, wouldnt that fall under cultural evolution, because it didnt happen naturally? This, and exceeding the suggested length of the paper, leads me to my final point. In doing research for my points, I ran across an article that discusses our manmade manipulation

Light 5

on our biology. For the most part it was written more for the legal and ethical communities than anthropological, but it discusses genetic manipulation. While it is a very interesting paper, and really gives you something to think about, I want to highlight a small section. Theorists argue that the inequalities inherent in the natural distribution of talents and abilities place a moral obligation on us to compensate the less fortunate for their genetic disadvantages. Then he goes on to point out, that until now, theories of justice have regarded one's genetic endowment as a fixed fact of nature rather than as a matter of justice. The ability to control the genetic endowment of future generations calls for a rethinking of the traditional theories of justice. This paper aims to investigate how one such theory John Rawls's might be modified to help us respond to this new moral problem in ways that reflect more completely our considered convictions about fairness and justice. (Brown) This right here is just one example of how our culture has developed the technology to alter our species in ways that are far from natural. I know that most of what I have written is shallow lighthearted points that would barely scratch the surface of a more in depth argument on this topic, but this digs deep into the more serious reality of us being the masters of our own evolution, and gives you something to ponder. I feel I can conclude confidently that I have made and defended my initial claim. Im sure that there are many counter arguments that can be made, especially from a more scientific perspective. I would welcome the challenge to my position, but until it is made, and I convinced, I will stand by my belief that the human is where biological evolution stops.

Light 6

Works Cited
Bourzac, Katherine. "Watching Bacteria Evolve in the Lab." MIT Technology Review. N.p., 09 Nov. 2006. Web. 01 Aug. 2013. Brown, Jonathan S. "Genetic Manipulation In Humans As A Matter Of Rawlsian Justice." Social Theory & Practice 27.1 (2001): 83-110. Academic Search Premier. 3 Aug. 2013. Gould, Stephan Jay. "Not Necessarily a Wing." Natural History 94 (1985): 12-25. 1 Aug. 2013. Jurmain, Robert, Lynn Kilgore and Wenda Trevathan. Essentials of Physical Anthropology. 9th. CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013, 2011. Potter, Teresa. Test Review Lecture. Human Origins. Salt Lake Community College, South Jordan, UT. 17 July 2013.
My Gen Ed ePortfolio:
http://eklight.weebly.com