So do they think that we humans will evolve into separate species as a result of migration and founder effects? If not, what does “evolution” mean? From David Warmflash at the Genetic Literacy Project:
The goblin shark, duck-billed platypus, lungfish, tadpole shrimp, cockroach, coelacanths and the horseshoe crab — these creatures are famous in the world of biology, because they look as though they stopped evolving long ago. To use a term introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859, they are “living fossils”. And to their ranks, some have added humans, based on the idea that technology and modern medicine has, for all intents and purposes, eliminated natural selection by allowing most infants to live to reproductive age and pass on their genes.
Thus, while in the case of humanity, modern medicine and other technologies may indeed be reducing the impact of natural selection, migration and founder effects has been playing a major roles as transportation and other technologies have developed. And these phenomena may play a still more influential role if human colonization of the Moon, Mars, or free space becomes reality. In nature all phenomena that change the gene pool operate in concert, affecting the course of evolution, whether in tadpole shrimp, lungfish, or humans. More.
So, is Warmflash saying that we humans will evolve into separate species as a result of migration and founder effects? If not, what does “evolution” mean?
The entire article seems to be a useful and clearly written reprise of Darwinian doctrines to provide interpretations of a situation they cannot possibly interpret: Unlike animals, we humans consciously change our environment. Maybe Warmflash should reading up on “consciousness is an illusion, as he would need to establish that in order to make his point.
Note: We’ve objected to the term “living fossils” here at Uncommon Descent but for a different reason: Darwin’s oxymoron disguises the point: If they are living, they are not fossils and they demonstrate that evolution need not occur. We can call that stasis.
We held a contest some while back and came up with the term durable species as an alternative. But don’t bet on it catching on. It raises too many career-limiting questions.
See also: Finally, retiring the term “living fossil” is hot?
Stasis: Life goes on but evolution does not happen