Are we devolving?

T-man wrote:

Conundrum wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Devolving

which of the definitions on that page pertain to what the OP is asking? i doubt the OP was wondering if we were rolling backward.

thanks for proving our point.

dev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion  /ˌdɛvəˈluʃən

4. Biology. degeneration.

MC wrote:

Thank you.

Obviously "devolution" doesn't exist. What I meant was that we are physically inferior than in the past.

I am not going to be an ass and argue about devolution, but I will say that most evolution that has occurred over the past 1,000 years has actually made us weaker and inferior.

We used to have hair all over our bodies, now we do not. What would happen if we were out in the cold? We'd be looking for our Patagonia parkas like a bunch of nancies.

We are actually evolving b/c we no longer need to be physically fit in today's world. We can be a large slug of a human and get along just fine. It is all part of evolution.

To devolve, we would be moving towards the the hunter gatherers that could run 50 miles a day. That would be devolving...

Rubbish, the injured ones die, either by starvation or being caught by a predator

Due to lack of natural selection we could be 'devolving' but that is offset by far inproved nutrition

Animals are not so stupid as to run on tarmac either

When people were hunter gatherers it was probably still only a small number of the people who actually did the running around hunting. There is this misguided thought that the whole tribe dropped their digging sticks and ran down ungulates en masse.

Watch the youtube video of the bushmen running down an antelope. Only one guy is there at the end.

The wife and kids didn't even start the chase.

SMJO wrote:

When people were hunter gatherers it was probably still only a small number of the people who actually did the running around hunting. There is this misguided thought that the whole tribe dropped their digging sticks and ran down ungulates en masse.

Watch the youtube video of the bushmen running down an antelope. Only one guy is there at the end.

The wife and kids didn't even start the chase.

Understood, but the point still stands. The term devolution would mean that we are falling back down the chain, not that we are getting weaker. If anything, evolution has made us physically soft.

BTW, I guarantee that the woman/children of the hunter/gatherers were more physically fit that today's typical housewife/child, regardless of their shorter life span.

yaaaaa wrote:

I think the fact that we dont need to rely on physical strength as much is evolution in itself. We are adapting to our surroundings, ie technology. Why would we want to chase down a deer and kill it when we could shoot it?

thats my 2 cents

This is only the tip of the iceberg. My college coach and I have had so many discussions on this topic. The times they are a-changing and it starts with technology, mostly television and video games. When past generations were younger, children played outside far more often than children do today. Early childhood development of muscles and bones gave them the strength to out later in life not get injured nearly as often. With the advent of video games and cable television parents have used it as a babysitter and children have stayed inside more and more often, and not developed the muscles and bones that past generations did during their play time.

The modern running shoe is also another reason why, I'm sure someone has/will cover that as well... so one reason is TV and Video Games... our generation (I was born in 84) has been screwed by technology and until we realize this, and make a change for the better, our kids will be ever worse off.

Precious Roy wrote:

wejosquad wrote:

Yes, we are devo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devo

Oh crap. I am frickin' old. People on this board mention Devo with a reference to wikipedia.

Evolving up, from little snails,

Are we not men?

We are Devo. D-E-V-O

MC wrote:

I ask this because I've been wondering. Why is it that modern human beings in general tend to get injured from running. I can't think of any other animal or organism that has to stop doing an activity that it was evolved to do because it keeps getting injured. I mean, if we are designed to be able to run extremely long distances to catch prey why can't many people not run more than 50 miles a week without getting a stress fracture or some overuse injury? Are we devolving? Is it the shoes? I feel like our species is going downhill physically.

We are not designed to run extremely long distances on PAVEMENT, which is where most of us try to run them. Pavement is a brand new development.

And since most of us live in a land of plenty, relative to our ancestors, the very environmental drives that would help us survive back then (i.e. the desire to eat as much as possible, to store fat for the hard times, love of sugar and salt, etc) are also the very things that make us fatter and more sedentary than our ancestors (because we can be) and therefore get injured more easily when we DO try to run a lot

Yes. We may well be gone in 200 years.

Who would you take in a war: whatever the best army was 200 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, or today?

We aren't "devolving", it's a preposterous idea.

true, claiming that we are getting weaker is totally bogus, what has set us apart all along is our brain, not our endurance. once we left the savanna our ancestors ceased to be distance runners. look at the samoans, being a distance runner was not necessary, they had to be jacked to paddle all over the pacific. and our collective brain (ie knowledge) as a species is way farther along. the inventions of the last 10 years are way beyond what anyone was able to do for thousands of years. try throwing a spear at a mammoth, or using a rifle with a huge scope on it to shoot any massive beast you want. i suppose our ability to reason has not necessarily improved, but there is no evidence that the reverse is true either.

also, there is not really devolving as someone mentioned before. our species will always favor those who are good at reproducing and our amazing health care has allowed almost everyone to reproduce (even some who would have been sterile without the help of science, like octomom).

Are you guys aware that records keep dropping? That doesn't happen when you get slower and weaker.

The demands we put on our best are higher for frivolous activities like sport. It takes considerably less athletic ability to go out and catch dinner than it does to make the NFL or show up at the start of a Golden League meet.

MC wrote:

Why is it that modern human beings in general tend to get injured from running. I can't think of any other animal or organism that has to stop doing an activity that it was evolved to do because it keeps getting injured

Prior to to the advent of running as sport/exercise, humans did not run long distances on a daily basis. Sprinting, yes. Much walking, certainly, the occasional longer run under rare circumstances. But nothing approaching modern training. Hence the injuries, cancers, etc.

is a good site on this issue.

evolution has no direction - there is no devolution.

The lack of direction IS the devolution.

Not An Ass wrote:

We used to have hair all over our bodies, now we do not. What would happen if we were out in the cold? We'd be looking for our Patagonia parkas like a bunch of nancies.

Speak for yourself. I have hair all over (with the exception of my knuckles, forehead, the bridge of my nose, my eyes, and my penis). I believe that is sufficient hair coverage to claim that I have complete hair coverage on my body. Geico actually gives me cheaper car insurance because of my excellent hair coverage.

Although records keep dropping we don't have accurate records of human running achievements thousands of years ago.

According to the IAAF: "Though the IAAF was founded in 1912, its first list of world records contained marks which were set as early as 1870" (pg 546- IAAF Statistics Handbook Berlin 2009). I don't think any of us know exactly how fast humans were running in times of pre-history or in societies where endurance hunting was an important method of subsistence.

I even think there was a link on the letsrun homepage a couple of weeks ago about Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister's new book "Manthropology: The Science of the Inadequate Modern Male." In the book, McAllister says that men used to routinely run faster than Usain Bolt and break high jump records for fun. see quote of the week #2 here:

http://www.letsrun.com/2009/weekthatwas1019.php

NO it's not. Wiki Howard Storm. (NOT Howard Stern)