The main cause of evolution in animals is natural selection. Mutations cause variation but natural selection causes certain traits to be passed on to the future generations. That's how it works for wild animals but what drives evolution in humans?

For humans I wouldn't say we have survival of the fittest. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say it's survival of everyone. Maybe I exaggerate, but only slightly. Hear me out.

Traits that make life hard, are not dying off due to natural selection, or at least not nearly as much as with animals living in the wild.

I have a relative that has excellent hearing. She married a man who also has excellent hearing. They had 3 children that are all deaf. Being deaf is a death sentence for animals living in the wild. Whether predator or prey, senses must be acute. But for humans it doesn't matter if you have major or minor birth defect, or are blind or deaf, you are still fully expected to reach reproductive age. The oldest deaf son married a deaf woman. They had a baby. They were ecstatic to find out that their baby was also deaf. Deafness thrives in humans. So does blindness and other major genetic defects.

Lots of people have genetic defects that make it hard to walk, let alone run. Many people need a wheelchair to get around. When you go to the store or almost any public building, the nearby parking spots are all reserved for handicap people. A bird that can't fly will never live to reproductive age.

If a deer gets a broken leg it will die. Animals will evolve so their bones won't break too easily. But they don't evolve to have bones that never, or almost never break. Evolution never produces the perfect animal. (an unbreakable bone would be too heavy)

On the other hand, a human might get in a horrible accident. It is absolutely astounding what modern doctors can do to save a life. If you are bedridden in the hospital for weeks, don't worry, wolves won't get you. You'll be taken care of and fed until you are back on your feet. If you lose a limb, doctors can reattach it. If they can't you can get a prosthetic limb.

So, what is the main driving force behind human evolution if natural selection has so much less impact on us than animals living in the wild?

2 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

The main cause of evolution in animals is natural selection. Mutations cause variation but natural selection causes certain traits to be passed on to the future generations. That's how it works for wild animals but what drives evolution in humans?

That is wrong. Evolution is the change of the gene pool over time. Natural selection is part of it, but mutation, drift, sexual selection etc. all play a role. You should read up on the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, which outlines the conditions where evolution doesn't occur. IOW, if Hardy-Weinberg is not satisfied evolution occurs, which makes the rest of your argument moot.

I will just add that evolution is not about survival of the fittest, it is about reproductive success and associated changes in the gene pool. But individual survival matters little, as long as there is reproduction.

I too have a profoundly deaf uncle (German measles) who was able to forge a valued place in society through being a skilled carpenter and very entertaining company.

Caring for the 'weak' is far from unknown in the natural world, particularly if the individual is closely related. See how parents across a host of genera will fight to protect their offspring.

Perhaps you should consider more the individual's potential contribution to the society they live in than their vulnerability as an isolated individual.

...and how it may be that I can guess your nationality without checking your profile.

Both wild animals and humans experience environmental forcingsas you stated.
The difference is, humans can now alter their environment to suit them; they don't need to adapt to the environment.

A monkey with bad eyesight swings from tree branches, but can't see well and falls to its death, without reproducing.
A human gets eyeglasses or laser surgery, and reproduces just fine.

A polar bear sees its habitat shrinking because of melting Arctic ice, and eventually all go extinct.
Humans build boats, and if needed, install A/C.

I Asimov once said" Any sufficiently advanced society stops evolving", and while true to some extent, there are other factors/forcings at play in evolution.
For example blond, blue eyed, fit, attractive people may find it easier to find a mate/reproduce in some societies, and while you could dye your hair, join a gym and get facial surgery, this isn't an environmental forcing, but a cultural one.

x posted with CharonY and Sethoflagos

Edited 15 hours ago15 hr by MigL

13 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Natural selection is part of it, but mutation, drift, sexual selection etc. all play a role.

I will just add that evolution is not about survival of the fittest, it is about reproductive success and associated changes in the gene pool. But individual survival matters little, as long as there is reproduction.

I didn't say natural selection is all there is to evolution. I asked what the main cause of evolution is in humans? I said "The main cause of evolution in animals is natural selection. Mutations cause variation but natural selection causes certain traits to be passed on to the future generations."
Genetic drift is not very predominant in large populations such as humans.

You brought up reproductive success. Humans are the only species that practices birth control. People can control how many offspring they have. Even people with undesirable traits have children. Almost everyone can have reproductive success.

And please, please, please keep in mind I am comparing human evolution to the evolution of wild animals in each of these topics.

15 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

Caring for the 'weak' is far from unknown in the natural world, particularly if the individual is closely related.

I never said caring for the weak is unknown for wild animals. I am comparing humans to wild animals.
I say humans are the most compassionate animals in the world. If someone is having a hard time getting food most government have assistance programs for the poor. There are also non-government charities for assistance. If a community is starving in some part of the world other countries will send in aid. This is not fool proof. Sure people still starve but once again I am comparing to wild animals.

200 years ago people might have 8 children and only 4 might make it to adulthood. It's worse for animals. Now most human babies are expected to survive to adulthood.

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Both wild animals and humans experience environmental forcings.
The difference is, humans can now alter their environment to suit them; they don't need to adapt to the environment.

A monkey with bad eyesight swings from tree branches, but can't see well and falls to its death, without reproducing.
A human gets eyeglasses or laser surgery, and reproduces just fine.

A polar bear sees its habitat shrinking because of melting Arctic ice, and eventually all go extinct.
Humans build boats, and if needed, install A/C.

I Asimov once said" Any sufficiently advanced society stops evolving", and while true to some extent, there are other factors/forcings at play in evolution.
For example blond, blue eyed, fit, attractive people may find it easier to find a mate/reproduce in some societies, and while you could dye your hair, join a gym and get facial surgery, this isn't an environmental forcing, but a cultural one.

Excellent point that supports my viewpoint.

The environment we live in allows us to proliferate. We no longer have any predators that actually hunt humans.

In animals they must be able to get their food. For a predator that means they must be faster than thier prey. Prey must elude predators. Each animal must be able to survive in their environment. In humans we no longer need to hunt our own food. If someone doesn't have enough food it's because they don't have a job, or their job doesn't pay enough. Now there are all kinds of jobs for all kinds of talent. If you don't have a good job you probably won't die (or at least not at the rate of wild animals). Welfare or charities should help.

16 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

200 years ago people might have 8 children and only 4 might make it to adulthood. It's worse for animals. Now most human babies are expected to survive to adulthood.

So? We've found a way of maintaining genetic diversity, and hence our adaptability to meet the challenges of rapid environmental change more so than competing species. What point are you trying to make?

28 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

And please, please, please keep in mind I am comparing human evolution to the evolution of wild animals in each of these topics.

What is the difference? Evolution is an universal descriptor and there is not difference how it works mechanistically.

29 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

Genetic drift is not very predominant in large populations such as humans.

This is demonstrably false, bottleneck effects had huge impact on human population we see today, especially related to reduced genetic diversity outside Africa.

3 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

We've found a way of maintaining genetic diversity, and hence our adaptability to meet the challenges of rapid environmental change more so than competing species.

Yes, let's talk about climate change.

We humans are changing the world's climate because we are extremely over populated and because we are the only species that burns fuels for our needs.

Some say we are creating our own demise. I say the impact on the wild animals is far greater that our impact on humans. We'll never become extinct but we are causing many animals to become extinct. The rate that humans are dying due to the weather is going down greatly. Look it up.

5 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What is the difference? Evolution is an universal descriptor and there is not difference how it works mechanistically.

I'm not saying evolution works differently for humans mechanistically. Our environment is different.

Give me an evolutionary trait. Tell me people with this trait ____________ are dying off more quickly than the rest of the human race. People with that trait aren't making it to reproductive age. You may find traits we die of but again compared to animals.

9 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

We humans are changing the world's climate because we are extremely over populated and because we are the only species that burns fuels for our needs.

All species have metabolisms.

12 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

The rate that humans are dying due to the weather is going down greatly. Look it up.

Not my job. Your's is to provide the evidence.

44 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

Yes, let's talk about climate change.

We humans are changing the world's climate because we are extremely over populated and because we are the only species that burns fuels for our needs.

Some say we are creating our own demise. I say the impact on the wild animals is far greater that our impact on humans. We'll never become extinct but we are causing many animals to become extinct. The rate that humans are dying due to the weather is going down greatly. Look it up.

I'm not saying evolution works differently for humans mechanistically. Our environment is different.

Give me an evolutionary trait. Tell me people with this trait ____________ are dying off more quickly than the rest of the human race. People with that trait aren't making it to reproductive age. You may find traits we die of but again compared to animals.

You should check at the basics of evolution. Much of your speculation can be addressed with minimal reading. To make things easier for your here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle.

So to address your question

So, what is the main driving force behind human evolution if natural selection has so much less impact on us than animals living in the wild?

You should first look at the list of parameters. Just very quickly, depending on the granularity you want the key parameters would include: infinite population size (eliminating drift), random mating, no gene flow, lack of mutations, and finally no natural selection.

Now you can think what still exist. You have a very narrow view of natural selection, but at minimum think about conditions that renders folks sterile and/or less likely to procreate. There quite a few conditions that fall into that category. Likewise some negative traits can also be positive or are co-located at the same region with positive ones. Protection against malaria via alleles associated with sickle cell are a classic example of the former. There are many other examples for selection that are frequently discussed in class, including lactase persistence, amylase production, skin pigmentation etc.

It is true that these are partially lessened in modern societies, but often they are not eliminated fully.

You kinda, sorta dismiss mutations, but of course they also play a role. Then look into population size. Human populations are large, but they are also geographically distributed. Do you think that there are large enough that the gene pools of all human populations are resilient to random effect? Especially consider that only part of the population procreates (considering that many countries are below replacement levels). Now within population, to humans randomly mate? Have you considered cultural and religious barriers for starters?

Ultimately I think the issue is that you focus on dying as somehow it being a key element of evolution, and it really isn't. It is one possible parameter, if it occurs before procreation, but it is just one of many. And again, it is not unique to humans. In nature procreation is not solely dependent on survival. Random mating is rather rare (look up sexual selection, for example).

11 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

The main cause of evolution in animals is natural selection. Mutations cause variation but natural selection causes certain traits to be passed on to the future generations. That's how it works for wild animals but what drives evolution in humans?

For humans I wouldn't say we have survival of the fittest. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say it's survival of everyone. Maybe I exaggerate, but only slightly. Hear me out.

Traits that make life hard, are not dying off due to natural selection, or at least not nearly as much as with animals living in the wild.

I have a relative that has excellent hearing. She married a man who also has excellent hearing. They had 3 children that are all deaf. Being deaf is a death sentence for animals living in the wild. Whether predator or prey, senses must be acute. But for humans it doesn't matter if you have major or minor birth defect, or are blind or deaf, you are still fully expected to reach reproductive age. The oldest deaf son married a deaf woman. They had a baby. They were ecstatic to find out that their baby was also deaf. Deafness thrives in humans. So does blindness and other major genetic defects.

Lots of people have genetic defects that make it hard to walk, let alone run. Many people need a wheelchair to get around. When you go to the store or almost any public building, the nearby parking spots are all reserved for handicap people. A bird that can't fly will never live to reproductive age.

If a deer gets a broken leg it will die. Animals will evolve so their bones won't break too easily. But they don't evolve to have bones that never, or almost never break. Evolution never produces the perfect animal. (an unbreakable bone would be too heavy)

On the other hand, a human might get in a horrible accident. It is absolutely astounding what modern doctors can do to save a life. If you are bedridden in the hospital for weeks, don't worry, wolves won't get you. You'll be taken care of and fed until you are back on your feet. If you lose a limb, doctors can reattach it. If they can't you can get a prosthetic limb.

So, what is the main driving force behind human evolution if natural selection has so much less impact on us than animals living in the wild?

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

You should check at the basics of evolution. Much of your speculation can be addressed with minimal reading. To make things easier for your here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_principle.

So to address your question

Taking this as a serious scientific speculation here is a bit of context.

Others have already indicated that the issue is far more complicated than 'cutting a Gordian knot' analysis.

It should be noted that hardy-Weinberg is a (mathematical) model.

This does not have the status of say Newton's laws of mechanics, but is a little more solid than say the Black Scholes equation in economics.

Similarly the meanings of Evolution, Natural Selection, Environmental factors have all expanded quite considerably since the 'Origin of Species', (have you read it, it is masterwork).

In particular there is now a considerable distinction between 'origin' and 'development' in evolution. Development is about what happens after origin occurs.

You will now find articles in places like Nature and SCIAM along the lines of "Microevolution in Humans" for instances in dental changes.

The environment that produces these changes is quite different from the environment that led to multiple human species appearing both sequentially and alongside each other.

11 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

So, what is the main driving force behind human evolution if natural selection has so much less impact on us than animals living in the wild?

So perhaps you have recognised these factors hence your question and are referring only to the development phase of evolution ?

Is there a main driving force - I don't know.

But I can observe effects and possibly the largest effect (on more than half the population) is that females are catching up on males in physical size and capability, though both have grown bigger and stronger over time.

Sethoflagos was asking for more information about Climate change.

https://humanprogress.org/freedom-from-climate-related-death-risk/

Deaths caused by weather have gone down over 97% in the last 100 years.

At the same time we are causing the extinction of many animals. Animals usually live in a very specific environment and as the climate changes many species die off.

Humans on the other hand live everywhere from the tropics to the arctic circle. We evolved in Africa where it's hot. We have very little body hair and we sweat. As we moved out of Africa we have adapted with inventions and innovations. Many of these inventions are ancient. For example wearing animal skins as clothing has allowed us to live in Alaska and northern Canada. Modern inventions such as air conditioning and heating make us even more likely to survive extreme temperatures. We herd animals and grow crops. This allows us a more constant supply of food. We have invented transportation starting off with 2 wheeled wagons that allows us to bring the food from the fields to where the people are.

All these things allow us to survive better than the wild animals.

CharonY isn't bringing much to the conversation. He doesn't realize I am comparing humans to animals in the wild. He says "think about conditions that renders folks sterile and/or less likely to procreate." and "It is true that these are partially lessened in modern societies, but often they are not eliminated fully."

Of course they are not eliminated fully. People all over the world go to fertility doctors. Wild animals don't have that option.

I am saying major and minor undesirable traits are getting passed on to the next generation at a far higher rate than with wild animals. Deaf and blind people are fully expected to reach reproductive age. People with mental or physical handicaps are still able to procreate. Society itself has created an environment where people that cannot run still do not have to worry about wolves, lions or other predators killing them.

16 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

I am saying major and minor undesirable traits are getting passed on to the next generation at a far higher rate than with wild animals. Deaf and blind people are fully expected to reach reproductive age. People with mental or physical handicaps are still able to procreate. Society itself has created an environment where people that cannot run still do not have to worry about wolves, lions or other predators killing them.

Evidence please.

What do you mean by 'rate' ?

IOW how are you measuring this ?

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by studiot

58 minutes ago, studiot said:

Evidence please.

I have relatives that are deaf. Some have cochlear implants that allow them to hear. These cochlear implants are possible with human technologies. Deaf people congregate around other deaf people. They often marry other deaf people. Their children are often deaf. I don't want to give specifics due to privacy issues. Do you believe what I am telling you?

The same can be said for blind people.

Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that over 1.3 billion people—about 16% of the world's population—experience a significant disability.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health

I have been comparing humans to animals living in the wild. So to compare what I've stated above with similar situation in animals. I say there is nothing like these numbers in the animal kingdom. Is there a group of blind wolves living in Siberia, helping each other with food and survival? I can't prove there isn't. I can't prove the negative. I ask you to use common sense.

Nearly 70% of American adults require some form of vision correction.
https://www.sightconnection.org/statistics-how-many-people-wear-glasses-in-the-world/

Is there similar numbers of hawks that are nearsighted? I doubt it but I can't prove it. I ask you to use common sense.

Is there a group of swallows deep in the Amazon forest that can not fly. They grow to reproductive age because of other swallows bring them food. I can't prove these groups of birds don't exist but I ask you to use common sense.

Do you believe the things I have said in this post or are you just being argumentative?

13 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

I didn't say natural selection is all there is to evolution. I asked what the main cause of evolution is in humans?

Oh, OK; that's simple.
Evolution is affected by the ability to pass on genetic material to as many offspring as possible.
Elon Musk has 14 children with 4 different women.
The main cause, then, must be being worth almost a Trillion dollars ...

3 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

I am saying major and minor undesirable traits are getting passed on to the next generation at a far higher rate than with wild animals. Deaf and blind people are fully expected to reach reproductive age. People with mental or physical handicaps are still able to procreate. Society itself has created an environment where people that cannot run still do not have to worry about wolves, lions or other predators killing them

Deafness and blindness, etc. aren’t necessarily heritable traits.

You seem to be focused on fairly recent events because humans have been evolving for more than a million years. I think you can argue that we’ve reduced selection pressure owing to our collective intelligence

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Deafness and blindness, etc. aren’t necessarily heritable traits.

You seem to be focused on fairly recent events because humans have been evolving for more than a million years. I think you can argue that we’ve reduced selection pressure owing to our collective intelligence

"Deafness and blindness, etc. aren’t necessarily heritable traits."

That's true but when it's genetic people can still survive to adulthood. When deafness and blindness are caused by accidents, people can still survive to adulthood. Either way humans survive.

Humans have been evolving for more than a million years. Back then we've evolving closer to the way wild animals have. Both society and technologies have made humans much more likely to reach reproductive age than wild animals.

3 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

I have relatives that are deaf. Some have cochlear implants that allow them to hear. These cochlear implants are possible with human technologies. Deaf people congregate around other deaf people. They often marry other deaf people. Their children are often deaf. I don't want to give specifics due to privacy issues. Do you believe what I am telling you?

The same can be said for blind people.

Globally, the World Health Organization estimates that over 1.3 billion people—about 16% of the world's population—experience a significant disability.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health

I have been comparing humans to animals living in the wild. So to compare what I've stated above with similar situation in animals. I say there is nothing like these numbers in the animal kingdom. Is there a group of blind wolves living in Siberia, helping each other with food and survival? I can't prove there isn't. I can't prove the negative. I ask you to use common sense.

Nearly 70% of American adults require some form of vision correction.
https://www.sightconnection.org/statistics-how-many-people-wear-glasses-in-the-world/

Is there similar numbers of hawks that are nearsighted? I doubt it but I can't prove it. I ask you to use common sense.

Is there a group of swallows deep in the Amazon forest that can not fly. They grow to reproductive age because of other swallows bring them food. I can't prove these groups of birds don't exist but I ask you to use common sense.

Do you believe the things I have said in this post or are you just being argumentative?

Thank you for answering my second post, what about my first one ?

Unfortunately you answered a question i did not ask.

4 hours ago, BusaDave9 said:

I am saying major and minor undesirable traits are getting passed on to the next generation at a far higher rate than with wild animals.

This is a very specific claim that I am asking for evidence of.

I have not disagreed that animals, weaker in any respect, often don't survive long enough to pass on their genes.

However you made specific numeric claims about.

I also asked you about 'rate'.

42 minutes ago, BusaDave9 said:

Both society and technologies have made humans much more likely to reach reproductive age than wild animals.

You’ve yet to show why this matters. Lots of deaths have little to do with genetics, but can be prevented, and why would society and overall intelligence (which enables technology) be treated separately? Humans aren’t the only species that use tools. Do we discount evolution in those other species? Ours doesn’t count because we are less likely to drink bad water?

Your arguments give off a whiff of eugenics