I have heard leading evolutionary scientists (Stephen Jay Gould) speak of how we cannot possibly predict how we will evolve.

Can we predict how natural selection will cause us (other species) to change? I'm talking millions of years, to the point of speciation. Can we know what future species humans are headed towards?

I think in principle we can predict this. We would have to figure out what type of human is reproducing the most viable offspring. And take into account how the environment is causing us to adapt.

no. evolution is not even a very good theory either.

I think in principle we can predict this. We would have to figure out what type of human is reproducing the most viable offspring. And take into account how the environment is causing us to adapt.

But adaptations are based on random mutations. To a degree, these could be predicted statistically, but even a single instance of some mutation may propogate to the whole population given time, and such instances are unpredictable.

But adaptations are based on random mutations. To a degree, these could be predicted statistically, but even a single instance of some mutation may propogate to the whole population given time, and such instances are unpredictable.

well put.

Evolution is pretty specific to circumstances, especially if it's adaptive. Since we haven't a clue how the earth will look in a million years, we have no idea of the force behind potential speciations.

If we knew every variable of any problem we could predict the outcome, knowing every variable and how they effect each other is the hard part.

Richard Dawkins wrote a computer program for creating shapes on the screen determined by 9 "genes", values which determined angle, thickness, number of branches, etc. Each gene could hold a value from -10 to +10. Every possible shape he could evolve might be regarded as living in a 9-dimensional array. The total number of possible different evolved "creatures" in his little program was just under 800 billion. Having successfully evolved a shape that looked like insects, he found it all but impossible to find them again, having not taken note of the steps and not (in his first version) having a way of saving the genetic values he had "evolved".

In the same way, since DNA is a digital code (with four possible values for each digit, as opposed to two for binary coding) every possible configuration is somewhere in a billion-dimension array, the vast majority of which could never begin to hope to be a living creature. But amongst them are the ones which have existed in teh past, which exist now and which could exist in the future. But there is no way of predicting the actual path through genetic space that the actual genomes will take.

Some basic patterns could be predicted. That is why different species evolved similar forms in an analogous manner. But if you look passed the general form they are very much different.

The basic patterns are the same because the environment dictates similar adaptations in form and physiology.

Since evolution is a response to environmental pressures, we can predict what that response might be depending on how well we understand what the environmental pressures are.

Well, our brains have been getting bigger. The painful birth process is an example, also the rapid growth of the brain during puberty, so we might expect this to continue.

Are not the people of Iraq evolving right now before our eyes?

No, that's called dying.

I have heard leading evolutionary scientists (Stephen Jay Gould) speak of how we cannot possibly predict how we will evolve.

Can we predict how natural selection will cause us (other species) to change? I'm talking millions of years, to the point of speciation. Can we know what future species humans are headed towards?

I think in principle we can predict this. We would have to figure out what type of human is reproducing the most viable offspring. And take into account how the environment is causing us to adapt.
Forget about evolution in the past as prediction of how it will occur in the future. Genetic evolution by slow change, adaptation, or even punctuated equilibrium spurts of mass-change, is not the rule for even the very near-future. Millions of years will not be required to evolve man beyond the last-man and into something trans-human or post-human. Biology is merely natural technology and this will blur together with the non-natural [man-made] technologies - this is the future of evolution; self-guided change.

Good point, Itopal,
Evolution has evolved to such a degree that the product of evolution is able to determine it's own direction, or at least understand it's own mechanisms. The forces that have guided evolution so far- other animals and plants, and the climaxed ecosystems they live in, are fast dying off. Nothing like civilization has ever happened before in the 3 billion years of life on Earth, so the direction we are headed is extremely uncertain.

Nothing like civilisation has ever left signs of having existed in the three billion years of life on earth and nothing like it appears to have reached a level to leave permanent signs it existed in the universe. These two facts reduce the uncertainty, i'm afraid.

Nothing like civilisation has ever left signs of having existed in the three billion years of life on earth and nothing like it appears to have reached a level to leave permanent signs it existed in the universe. These two facts reduce the uncertainty, i'm afraid.
Human technology/civilization spans only a second of time in a geological record that’s 4.5 +/- billion years old. We are newcomers to the surrounding scenery. It is quite possible that this is the first incursion of space-time [and if not, non-local eruptions therein the void, and past big-crunches are irrelevant from this current vantage - anyway]. From the bronze age of man until yesterday is a history of a mere few thousand years. In that respect man’s technology/civilization has already exponentially out-preformed nature, and you can expect the speed to increase.

The only thing implied is that [possibly] alien intelligence is non-existent - that the alien-intelligence traveling to other worlds will [in the future] be us humans seeding countless worlds with life [evolution]. The beginnings and ends may be something uniquely human and from that post-human or trans-human.

The possibilities I was thinking of were that if there were intelligent species in the past intelligence was no more useful in helping them survive than size was for the dinosaurs, and that any intelligent aliens either did not survive long enough to leave signs of their existence observable by us or that it is impossible for them and us to leave such evidence

I guess I just don't understand your point on this particular concept, and in my mind I rearrange it to thus:

Possible intelligent creatures might have died out somewhere in the universe - well I guess anything is possible; but it doesn’t seem reasonable to associate non-existence [of evidence] as evidence; and less so to associate it to the fate of the dinosaur, which most likely died-out do to an environmental catastrophe. Actually size in this case may not have been an advantage, but an extreme disadvantage in a possible environmental-winter [caused by a massive comet impact] where food is scarce.

So maybe your uncertainty of the future of man [even what man will become] is manifest in this idea; that maybe intelligence does not guarantee survival.

On that I would agree - there are no guarantees in life or reality, but add that total extinction is just another possibility [a limited one at that] and as sure as the dinosaur died-out a close-relative of it did not, and the parrot in my home is proof that life is self-similar and unique at the same time. Man is unique and yet self-similar to nature. The future past the last-man will contain beings that are simply more aware and have greater complexity of mind. As you are an increase of self-similar natural components giving rise to the emergent quality called mythically consciousness - so shall the trans-human be a self-similar increase over the last-man.

I would also disagree with any assumption of unpredictability, in terms of future human evolution. The only things on the chopping-block that feel uncertain - are all the myths associated with being.

In principle, we can genetically alter ourselves to whatever ideal entity we wish to be. This, of course, is something that will require huge advancements in our knowledge and technology. In principle we could alter our DNA as to eliminate random mutations (or correct any mutations that occur) thus ending natural selection. Until we reach the point where we can determine what we want to evolve into, I would argue evolution is still unpredictable. (Of course we could naturally guide our evolution through eugenics, but this would never happen due to its unethical nature).

Even if we do start altering ourselves, this does not somehow put us outside the realm of evolution. Our choices in genetic change will still be affected by a changing envrionment. For real evolution to take place, for humans to occupy an entirely new niche, will take time. Simply because we can modify our genes to fight disease or comabt aging at an accelerated rate does not eliminate evolution occuring over long periods of time. I would posit that our ability to modify our genome is not much evolutionarily speaking. When an insect metamorphizes into an adult, do we call that evolution?

I have a feeling that we are very attached to our humanity, and will make no conscious decisions to move away from it.

In principle we could alter our DNA as to eliminate random mutations.....

I don't see how we could possibly do that. :confused: <P>

Even if we do start altering ourselves, this does not somehow put us outside the realm of evolution. Our choices in genetic change will still be affected by a changing envrionment.Well put. This is entirely the point. From an evolutionary point of view, Man-made and random alterations to the genome have precisely the same effect - they may, or they may not, confer selective advantage on their progeny, if environmental conditions change. For real evolution to take place, for humans to occupy an entirely new niche, will take time. Yep - evolution takes a lotta time!

In principle, we can genetically alter ourselves to whatever ideal entity we wish to be. This, of course, is something that will require huge advancements in our knowledge and technology.
I agree, yet what do you consider a significant amount of time: a human life-span, a couple hundred years, a thousand years? I think every single time-frame you can consider - is an insignificant amount of time when compared to geologic time, and just how short so-called civilized man has been on the geologic time-map [a mere few thousand years].

Measuring change in terms of one human generation does not make sense.

In principle we could alter our DNA as to eliminate random mutations (or correct any mutations that occur) thus ending natural selection. Until we reach the point where we can determine what we want to evolve into, I would argue evolution is still unpredictable. (Of course we could naturally guide our evolution through eugenics, but this would never happen due to its unethical nature).
I think random mutations will be irrelevant, and moreover they are already irrelevant to human populations. Isolation & severe environmental conditions that facilitate change do not exist in human populations. Homeostasis across the entire human genome/population seems more the rule of the day, and that rule is inapplicable to future genetic self-modification.

As far as eugenics go, forget about ethics, it will happen and it will be radical. It will involve genetic restructuring, modification, technological incorporation: AI, SI, augmentations, nano-technology, radical life extension, etc. This after the technological singularity society already has a major following and major tech.-giants endorse it.

While the after-the-singularity crowd’s time frames for technological advancements may be to optimistic - they’re off by no more than a few orders of magnitude. In that case it might not be 25-100 years in the future, but 100-400 years, either way we are talking near-term time frames.

Even if we do start altering ourselves, this does not somehow put us outside the realm of evolution. Our choices in genetic change will still be affected by a changing environment. For real evolution to take place, for humans to occupy an entirely new niche, will take time. Simply because we can modify our genes to fight disease or combat aging at an accelerated rate does not eliminate evolution occurring over long periods of time. I would posit that our ability to modify our genome is not much evolutionarily speaking.
Outside evolution? I would say what is evolution? Merely a word that implies change. Evolution by natural selection implies change through a natural processes - evolution by itself merely implies structural change, and the level we are talking about is the blueprint level; DNA.

When an insect metamorphizes into an adult, do we call that evolution?
No, but the insects genome is the same. In the case of trans-humans it will be changed.

I have a feeling that we are very attached to our humanity, and will make no conscious decisions to move away from it.
I would say some are and some are not. I would suggest a Christian is implicitly not attached to this world but attached to afterworlds, and that Platonism/Stoicism/Christology/etc has left a major psychological imprint on all western thought. To the many, out there(!) types, humanity represents a base insignificance; an imperfect and rotten to the core nature.

I would say what is evolution? Merely a word that implies change. Evolution by natural selection implies change through a natural processes - evolution by itself merely implies structural change, and the level we are talking about is the blueprint level; DNA.
Real evolution, not just a shuffling of alleles. I mean where humans actually speciate and become something else entirely, something as comparable as apes and man.

No, but the insects genome is the same. In the case of trans-humans it will be changed.
But the parts of the insect's genome that turn on and off are radically different. The genome must change; otherwise there would be no metamorphosis.

I would say some are and some are not. I would suggest a Christian is implicitly not attached to this world but attached to afterworlds, and that Platonism/Stoicism/Christology/etc has left a major psychological imprint on all western thought. To the many, out there(!) types, humanity represents a base insignificance; an imperfect and rotten to the core nature.
That's part of it, yes. But you miss my point. We can do all kinds of grafting and genetic manipulation, but the key features that make us human will stay unchanged. I'm willing to bet our literature has the same 50 or 60 so basic themes in 400 years, and I'm also betting that the human condition will remain the human condition.

We can replace all your blood with someone elses, all your organs, all your body parts, and you still remain you. This cosmetic evolution is not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the fundamental changes in behaviour and thinking that will be required to create a new species from humans. There must also be a change in the niche we occupy. A bird species getting a new coat because of sexual selection is hardly radical evolution. A dinosaur turning into a bird is.

I'm saying the kind of evolution that transforms us from dinosaur to bird will ultimately be unpredictable and dictated by environmental changes, not rational decision.

I predict the people of Iraq will evolve to become more "American".

Real evolution, not just a shuffling of alleles. I mean where humans actually speciate and become something else entirely, something as comparable as apes and man.
A mouse and man share this same genetic similarity as does ape and man. What is the difference, genetically in mouse and man, not much . . .

“Scientists think that the mouse genome will be even important than the human genome to medicine and human welfare. That seems bizarre: why is that? The reason is that, because of the relatively 'recent' divergence of the mouse and human lineages from our common ancestor (about 75 million years ago), an astonishing 99% of mouse genes turn out to have analogues in humans. Not only that, but great tracts of code are syntenic - that means the genes appear in the same order in the two genomes.”

The point is that in nature even when there are self-similar structures across a span of time [evolution and speciation] the blueprint for the underlying structural components can remain the same, yet the higher order structure of the being can be a departure even a radical departure - re-use, re-structuring, multiplicity of these similar structures - does lead to new uses - and higher order complexity - and yes, a new species. The self-guided evolution [change] of the future trans-human will involve many things, as I have already indicated.

The future trans-human WILL NOT speciate by natural means . . .
. . . unless man destroys himself and then maybe(?), octopi ten million years from now, will be having a discussion on the: last-octopi and the trans-octopi. :)

The exponential differentiation that will occur after [non-natural] technology merges with the human-genome - will mean a human will define what it wants to be. And more comparatively accurate might be: bacterium to man, man -> trans-human (?). It is just a matter of time, and the time-frame is sub-geologic, not a single lifetime, but definitely a near-term time frame.

But the parts of the insect's genome that turn on and off are radically different. The genome must change; otherwise there would be no metamorphosis.
Not true. . .
A stem-cell can be anything it is transformed into all of the different structures that make up every tissue in your body. . .
A Zygote to baby, is metamorphosis, but we just don’t call it that. We linguistically reserve that distinction for what appear to be fully-formed creatures [a creature that had, loosely termed, a primary infancy stage]; then that creature modifies [through its internal blueprint] its outward-structure. A caterpillar reuses it’s stored energy, proteins, etc to re-emerge from a second infancy-state; a pupa; as a butterfly.

The genome in either case is not changed, that blueprint which is passed onto future generations is essentially similar, but this has nothing to do with the future of the self-modified trans-human.

That's part of it, yes. But you miss my point. We can do all kinds of grafting and genetic manipulation, but the key features that make us human will stay unchanged. I'm willing to bet our literature has the same 50 or 60 so basic themes in 400 years, and I'm also
betting that the human condition will remain the human condition.
Unchanged?
Nature is a tree, what is deemed human is not even uniquely “the human condition.” Emotional attachments, bonding, society, etc: all these things are self-similar to nature and exist in many forms in nearly every animal species. Perception, awareness, problem solving [even tool making] is not unique to the “human condition.”
Being is being, and awareness is scalar, so instead of the “human condition” it is a matter of “being.” Being that comprises an affinity to nature from which it came. Human’s possess a moderate amount of awareness and self-awareness that leads to the knowledge of death, dread, despair, etc. The facing of the abyss, this inherent nihilism we all encounter when the desire for truth is honestly sought, is inevitable, a condition all “beings” have to face when scalar-awareness brings this condition into view. It is a matter that belongs to all that is - which is being.

We can replace all your blood with someone elses, all your organs, all your body parts, and you still remain you. This cosmetic evolution is not what I'm addressing. I'm addressing the fundamental changes in behaviour and thinking that will be required to create a new species from humans. There must also be a change in the niche we occupy. A bird species getting a new coat because of sexual selection is hardly radical evolution. A dinosaur turning into a bird is.
I am not implying merely progresses in the medical sciences; that is already happening. And the topology of an organism [the outward look] is not that relevant. The important restructuring will involve all forms of perception, awareness and complexity of mind. If you think that awareness and associated “being” is not scalar [and scalar-up!] you are mildly mistaken.

I'm saying the kind of evolution that transforms us from dinosaur to bird will ultimately be unpredictable and dictated by environmental changes, not rational decision.
No - environmental conditions work far to slow and that rule is a dead issue. Extinction of man as a race is not relevant either is it? Where are the australopithecines? Extinct. Nature is self-similar - what remains at this current moment and time is man - a more aware [scalar-up] version of the australopithecine. Where will man be in the age of the trans-human?

The trans-human is still self-similar-to-nature “being,” a new scalar-up awareness upon the not-to-distant horizon. What is on nihilism’s chopping-block, in this case, is the myth of uniqueness of the so-called “human condition.”

The lesson from all that could also be that small differences are important.