View Full Version : Will humans evolve further?


Pages : [1] 2

grazzhoppa
08-04-02, 12:48 PM
Hi everyone!

I have a limtied understanding of evolution and I would like to see what others think. -With all the advances in medicine and surgery to fix genetic problems will humans continue to evolve? Does evolution even apply to how human society is? I find it very hard to answer these questions because relatively humans have been on Earth for a short time and evolution takes millions of years.

Bebelina
08-04-02, 03:56 PM
Yes, we will, unless we kill ourselves first. :eek:

Awaranowski
08-04-02, 05:11 PM
Does evolution mean we increase in complexity or that we become more suitable to our environments?

I believe, and I'm not sure if it's possible, that we are not evolving, but devolving. Technology has made it possible for people with bad genes to live and pass their genes on down the road. Have you noticed that only stupid people are breeding? Anyone of average intelligence knows the world is already overpopulated. Why are you indulging yourself?! Idiot. If you go back in time, I think you'll find that you're really not more advanced than someone from 2,000 years ago. Because chances are, if you were dumb at that time, you were dead. Sure, you can say, "I can use a computer and a cell phone!" Well yes, you probably can, but you're still dumb.

Take an average person and put them in a time-machine and send them to 0 A.D. Strip them naked, and they'll die instantly. Probably by walking off a cliff or pissing off a wild animal.

Tyler
08-04-02, 05:31 PM
Bebelina, what would be so bad about all human life ending?

kmguru
08-04-02, 06:20 PM
Life will evolve...whether the new specis will claim humans as their ancesters is another matter. It is possible in another 100,000 to 500,000 years...but somehow, I think unlikely...

ndrs
08-04-02, 08:54 PM
I believe, and I'm not sure if it's possible, that we are not evolving, but devolving. Technology has made it possible for people with bad genes to live and pass their genes on down the road. Have you noticed that only stupid people are breeding? Anyone of average intelligence knows the world is already overpopulated. Why are you indulging yourself?! Idiot. If you go back in time, I think you'll find that you're really not more advanced than someone from 2,000 years ago. Because chances are, if you were dumb at that time, you were dead. Sure, you can say, "I can use a computer and a cell phone!" Well yes, you probably can, but you're still dumb.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Soon the food supply might start running out, then life should get much more fun. Unless we develop synthetic proteins we can inject in our veins instead of food. (they already exist in life support machines don't they?)

Xev
08-04-02, 10:10 PM
Bebelina, what would be so bad about all human life ending?

All human life ending, perhaps?

Humans are cute little critters. I don't wanna see them exterminate themselves.

Grazzhoppa:

Welcome to Sciforums. Interesting question.

In answer, I think that if we survive the next 100-200 years, we will not only evolve further, but we will start guiding our evolution through genetic modification.

static76
08-04-02, 10:21 PM
I always thought us Americans were the next step in evolution.

We're still waiting for the rest of the World to catch up to us on the evoultionary scale...:D

ssivakami
08-05-02, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Hi everyone!

I have a limtied understanding of evolution and I would like to see what others think. -With all the advances in medicine and surgery to fix genetic problems will humans continue to evolve? Does evolution even apply to how human society is? I find it very hard to answer these questions because relatively humans have been on Earth for a short time and evolution takes millions of years.

Good question. As long as health-care is not made widely available ... both quality and quantity wise, natural selection will continue to play a part.

Whats scary is .... while these people get fitter and fitter(genetically), we become less and less fit. And its likely that some widespread epidemic will kill all the rest but leave them intact.

But for those of us who do have access to reasonably good health-care, the new replicators may not be genes, but memes.

- Sivakami.

fadingCaptain
08-05-02, 09:37 AM
We will evolve, but by different means than past evolution. It is true that we have stunted, if not eliminated, natural selection of our own species. We will instead evolve through our technology. We will continue to enhance ourselves until we will probably not be recognizable as humans in current standards in a couple hundred years. That's what I think at least.

kmguru
08-05-02, 12:56 PM
Should not there be a difference between evolution and enhancement?

We sure are getting enhanced everyday....but that should not be called evolution....just look at Hollywood....:D

fadingCaptain
08-05-02, 01:08 PM
Should not there be a difference between evolution and enhancement?
You are right. We will not 'evolve' (random genetic variation guided by natural selection) but will be enhanced. I was using evolution in too loose of terms.

Avatar
08-05-02, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Bebelina
Yes, we will, unless we kill ourselves first. :eek:

Bebelina- you took words out of my mouth.
Actually I have said the same phrase to some of my friends.

About ebchanting and evoluion.
Enchanting is a short term process, where we see the result in one generation.
Evolution is a long term process , where the result comes visible after 100 000s of years

kmguru
08-05-02, 02:05 PM
Someday...if the Universe is willing....we will experience what it can be for us say 500,000 years hence...from a visit from those specis to our planet.....

That would be cool....knowing that they were like us...way back when...

But can we communicate with them? (like monkeys communicate with us?)

Avatar
08-05-02, 02:06 PM
do we actually have something to say to each other?

kmguru
08-05-02, 02:30 PM
Like what?

Just imagine, we found a way to punch through space and land in a planet of monkey people who have an agricultural society. Yes they can speak with rudimentary stuff, no abstract concepts, space, time, math, computers etc.

What are you going to tell them? And would they believe or think, you are there to still their food?

Avatar
08-05-02, 02:33 PM
they would take me as a god

exactly as supposedly our ancestors did

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke


but unfortunately

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
Isaac Asimov

kmguru
08-05-02, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Avatar
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.
Isaac Asimov

He is my all time favorite author next to Clarke boy.

I recently reread 3001 and I got more out of it than several years ago when I read it first.

grazzhoppa
08-05-02, 09:46 PM
So the consensus is that humans are past natural selection and are now "enhancing" themselves through technology?

Avatar
08-05-02, 11:54 PM
we can't say that, because macro-evolution is a very long process- we can not dirrectly observe it.
It is happening, but slowly (we becoming taller, loosing our teeth, apendix)

technological enchantment s smth with what we can guide our own evolution where we want it to and the effects will be visible in one or 5 generations- but it would not certainly take 100 000s of years

Unregistered
08-09-02, 09:58 PM
Of course humans will evolve. Each passing generation we change, albeit not noticably. Why is it that homosexuals are increasing in numbers and noticabilty even though they cant reproduce?

kmguru
08-09-02, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
Of course humans will evolve. Each passing generation we change, albeit not noticably. Why is it that homosexuals are increasing in numbers and noticabilty even though they cant reproduce?

May be the planet is trying to control the population growth.....:D

Firefly
08-10-02, 05:18 AM
Temporary social trend?

overdoze
08-10-02, 05:44 AM
I doubt their numbers are changing. They're merely coming out into the light. For the first time in history, they are (somewhat) accepted.

As for evolution, it'll be artificially driven. We don't need to wait for chance, and we're much too egotistical and impatient anyway; we can quantum-leap using technology. Probably cyborgs are the future, as genetic engineering on humans is orders of magnitude harder (it can't be undone, and you have to know exactly what you're doing -- which is hard to do as you can't experiment on humans; implants on the other hand can be removed if not successful, and prostheses will always have a market of their own anyway.) After cyborgs, it'll probably be 100% artificial life (i.e. even the brain will get replaced with something artificial and hopefully ;) superior.)

kmguru
08-10-02, 08:46 PM
I like the natural way. We already have technology to grow lost teeth. If we solve the stem cell generation problem, in the near futue, that can be used to repair liver, heart, eyes, brain etc...

Next will be a computing device that sends electronic signal to repair or regenerate the body damage....

May be in 100 years our quantum computers can break the genetic code and give us the program source code.

Chagur
08-10-02, 09:50 PM
"I doubt their numbers are changing. They're merely
coming out into the light. For the first time in history,
they are (somewhat) accepted."

My, aren't we gratuitously provincial.

Take care :rolleyes:

overdoze
08-10-02, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by Chagur
My, aren't we gratuitously provincial.


We? Nah, it's just you boyo. :p

Anyway, what are you talking about?

kmguru,

Yes that would be very neat. However, I don't think it's very likely, at least not in the foreseeable future. As with any complex nonlinear system, the only way to engineer humans is to make changes to the genetic code and then let the system evolve to see what happens. Even quantum computers might not have what it takes to quickly simulate an entire human being over decades of virtual time at molecular resolution. Of course if I'm wrong and they will be able to do that, then our computational capabilities will be truly godly. I'd love that...but I'm not betting on it. Plus, such detailed simulations might pose ethical problems since they would in essense be human beings (even if only in an electronic format) -- so experimenting on these virtual beings is no less morally repugnant than experimenting on living humans.

kmguru
08-10-02, 11:53 PM
I am not talking about creating a Moriarty (~Sherlock Homes) in a computer. Presently we can not get to the source code. Reverse engineering source code without actually running the full simulation is possible. On the other hand sooner or later someone is going to upload their brain to a quantum computer. Hopefully, once there, the clone may be able to create his own environment inside the internet....

Stephen Wolfram showed us that complex nonlinear structure can come from simple original conditions (book: a new kind of science). So with proper design, we can get there....without killing our virtual people.

~The_Chosen~
08-15-02, 03:29 AM
I don't know about devoling, that's utter crap for what it is worth.

We are taking the next step, instead of evolving PHYSICALLY, we can evolve MENTALLY.

Why wait for evolution to adapt to a disease when we can vacinate ourselves instantly using our EVOLVED mental potential?

We are indeed evolving. Maybe we might develop telepathy or something :cool:

NenarTronian
09-11-02, 01:23 PM
As for guided evolution ("enhancement","enchantment"), i think most of the technologies are here now, atleast in the basic form. We could probably get rid of aging, disease, and cancer within a few years if we had more scientific freedom involving stem cells and genetics. But, as others have stated, we won't know how somethings going to turn out without experimenting, and society won't let us do that on humans (i dont think its ethical either).

Maybe a very sophisticated computer model should be used. I think this was mentioned before, too.

As far as i see it we are at a standstill. The techs here more or less, we can't (ethically) experiment to figure out how to use the technology and how to use it correctly so... :confused:

I think a combination of nanotech and genetic enhancements will be in our future selves, if anything.

kmguru
09-11-02, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by NenarTronian
I think a combination of nanotech and genetic enhancements will be in our future selves, if anything.

It has already happened with plant based foods. Now thanks to Cargill, Dow, ADM etc, we have corns that produce all shorts of chemicals through genetic modification. Soon we will have intelligent plants...and if you eat them, who knows what will happen?

NenarTronian
09-11-02, 02:46 PM
Not any nanotech enhancements yet, right? Not as far as i know anyway. I may be wrong

kmguru
09-11-02, 03:13 PM
If you mean, nanotech as a metal based molecular gadgets that have physical motion etc...then no, no such products yet....

(Nanotech word is a grey area where memory chips are now nanoscale...)

NenarTronian
09-11-02, 04:00 PM
:cool:

Popcorn8636
09-11-02, 07:40 PM
By babelina:


Yes, we will, unless we kill ourselves first.

Why would we evolve? We have everything we need right here, right now. Air conditioning, heating, climate control, and we have no predators, what would cause us to evolve?

NenarTronian
09-11-02, 08:56 PM
We'll evolve better eyesight for television viewing, a modified rear-end for sitting in chairs...There's other examples, i'm sure people will list some.

Clockwood
09-28-02, 02:03 PM
We are evolveing as we speek. For beauty, disease resistance, intelligence, psychological adaptation to the rigors of society, etc...

Eman Resu
10-04-02, 09:41 PM
Call me a soul stalker ...

Humans are evolving - not "devolving". Think about it ... we develop the technology that allows us to do something better. We continually evolve with respect to intelligence. As stated peviously, wisdom becomes another matter.

If we could genetically "evolve" via technology eventually these "engineered" people would see us as inferior and unnecessary and lilely eliminate us naturally-selected individuals. The movie "Matrix" allowed the term "virus" to be used to describe humans.

What would a genetically modified race aim for? They, too, would likely spread like a virus ... possibly with the greed to control every environment that their ships would carry them to?

What's the purpose?

VAKEMP
10-05-02, 12:11 AM
Take an average person and put them in a time-machine and send them to 0 A.D. Strip them naked, and they'll die instantly. Probably by walking off a cliff or pissing off a wild animal.

That was funny!

...it's probably true, though.


pissing off a wild animal

hee hee! Good post!

le coq
10-05-02, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by Unregistered
Of course humans will evolve. Each passing generation we change, albeit not noticably. Why is it that homosexuals are increasing in numbers and noticabilty even though they cant reproduce?

A theory that I heard of, by a zoologic sex researcher, is that the genes responsible for homosexual behavior, as expressed in one sex, may be responsible for virile reproduction in the other sex, so the gene(s) itself is useful in evolutionary terms. While the individual homosexual may not be passing it on, it may be getting passed on due to its high selectivity in heterosexual behavior in the population at large. Also, the genes responsible for homosexual behavior or morphology are probably entirely different as far as genomic location for each sex.

On the topic as a whole, I think a better defined question would be "will there be an intelligent species inhabiting the earth in the future that descended from H. Sapiens, but are themselves genetically not H. Sapiens?" At the rate we're destroying the earth, they may be intelligent, but they may not be very agreeable. I'm thinking a return to monobrows and sloping foreheads to go with our winter collection.

Le Coq

Clockwood
10-06-02, 03:51 AM
We are kind of like the Kiwi. We finally get to a place with no predators and we lose our wings. Of course we also get a wonderful grub hunting ability... ;)

Clockwood
10-06-02, 03:53 AM
Better clarify, there are some idiots out there..... you know who you are.

The BIRD not the FRUIT.... as far as I know no fruit has ever evolved wings or the ability to hunt grubs.

Voodoo Child
10-18-02, 03:50 AM
Evolution can still occur, even if there is not great selective pressure. I read a study recently where the genetic influence on reproductive rates were calculated. There are certain genes that apparently contribute to the number offspring women have. All other things being equal, the freq of this gene should increase over time. I'm not sure but I think this could have already been observed.

grazzhoppa
10-21-02, 08:27 PM
Since we will be able to enhance our physical self, what happens with the mental evolution? Will every culture on the Earth be able to deal with such changes?

Do you think there will be a ban on enhacing ourselves? Or will it be a regulated procedure designed to enhance humans from birth, so the mental effect of it isn't as damaging? That way the "regular" population will either die out and slowly every human will have the same enhancements.

What about poor countries? What about change-resistant cultures? What will happen to the world? Maybe by the time everyone will have accepted enhancing the human species, thousands of years will have passed, or longer....it might take more time than we think.

Voodoo Child
10-21-02, 08:59 PM
What about poor countries? What about change-resistant cultures?

That's an interesting idea: there may be the first species divergence where the species is actually conscious of what is happening.

It is interesting how we can fuck the planet with reckless abandon, not care that 1 billion people don't have clean drinking water but get all anal about genetic enhancement.

Frencheneesz
10-21-02, 09:01 PM
I think it is very possible that we will get mutations of humans and different varieties eventually, but evolution in the traditional sence is currently at a stand-still.

Most humans life quite a while after they give birth. For humans to actually undergo natural selection we would have to kill people off..... We will have to be stuck mixing genes with the less adequite humans for quite some time to come.

Avatar
10-21-02, 09:05 PM
I think it is very possible that we will get mutations of humans and different varieties eventually, but evolution in the traditional sence is currently at a stand-still.
don't be funny- just because you can't observe it, it doesn't mean it's not there. Evolution is a process that lasts for hundreds of thousands and millions of years- you can't notice any changes during your lifetime or 2 lifetimes

Frencheneesz
10-21-02, 10:11 PM
Avatar:

Think about it. Im not saying mutation won't happen and isn't happening, im saying that natrual selection of humans will not occur.

Natural selection is when the death rate of a certain mutation of an organism is higher than its birth rate. Almost every single human on the planet lives and reproduces before they die. Therefore natural selection cannot occur if their genes are passed on.

Avatar
10-21-02, 10:17 PM
maybe

need to think
hmmmmmmmm

Voodoo Child
10-21-02, 10:26 PM
Not so. What if I'm impotent or sterile? What if I have an attribute that means I can't get laid? I mentioned before the "fuck like bunnies" gene which causes females to have more offspring. This gene's freq should increase over time.

Frencheneesz
10-21-02, 10:47 PM
Avatar:

Think about it. Im not saying mutation won't happen and isn't happening, im saying that natrual selection of humans will not occur.

Natural selection is when the death rate of a certain mutation of an organism is higher than its birth rate. Almost every single human on the planet lives and reproduces before they die. Therefore natural selection cannot occur if their genes are passed on.

Avatar
10-21-02, 10:51 PM
it will occur after we will have colonised new planets

Voodoo Child
10-21-02, 11:06 PM
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=11902

Has a duplicate thread

Frencheneesz
10-21-02, 11:48 PM
"it will occur after we will have colonised new planets"

How so? If you are comparing the time it will take us to colonize new planets to evolution, it is a bit different.
Evolution happens all the time, mutation that is. Actual "natural selection" happens only when beings are killed before they reproduce. This doesn't happen with humans much....

Ever hear of the Darwin Awards? They ususally only give those to people who render themselves sterile and have not already passed their genes on (exeptions are made when the story is way too hilarious to pass up).

kmguru
10-22-02, 12:34 AM
Will humans evolve further?

Not a chance. We will blow ourselves up with a global thermo-neuclear war and start over again and again....(as in Mahabharat)...

grazzhoppa
10-23-02, 05:16 PM
Voodoo, I linked this thread in the thread you linked here. :)

What about mental evolution? Will our brain capacity evolve?

kmguru
10-23-02, 10:01 PM
Not likely either. That is because, as long as one uses it, it will get better, then once stopped the use, within a generation it will go back to basic survival just like physical capacity or worse.

Apparently during veda days people could remember very large volumes of material word for word. After a few generations, they had to write it down otherwise they would forget. That means, if mental capacity did evolve for higher memory, accurate processing etc, it is gone.

Same way we will get there by inhibiting an enzyme found that deletes non essential data from the brain. But if we go through another ice age or destruction - it will be gone in a few....

Voodoo Child
10-23-02, 10:56 PM
What about mental evolution? Will our brain capacity evolve?

It shouldn't do too much. Perhaps if intelligence is a desirable quality in a mate there may be some increase in the freq.

This doesn't mean that we won't get smarter overall, intelligence will increase as we learn better methods of education, develop better developmental aids. Our genes won't change, but we will learn to get the most out of them.


Actual "natural selection" happens only when beings are killed before they reproduce

Not the beings, the genes. And relative rates of gene heritablity are important.

Clockwood
10-24-02, 04:12 PM
ethical eugenics: give large sums of money to the physically and mentally superior if they are willing to have 5+ children.

Frencheneesz
10-24-02, 07:32 PM
"give large sums of money to the physically and mentally superior if they are willing to have 5+ children."

GOD NO! There is no problem with this if we could decide who was mentally supperior. YET, the problem is people are blind when it comes to oppions like this. People might think Bush is smart! How can we tell who is smart? Many people who are in the "upper portions" of society are pompous bastards. Not to mention, intelligence usually has very very very little to do with genes and A LOT to do with upbringing.

"Not the beings, the genes. "

Genes aren't alive, therefore cannot be killed. Yes I did mean beings, because it is the beings who are killed.

Clockwood
10-27-02, 02:41 PM
Yeah. We would need some sort of automated testing, free of human baist.

And who would classify Bush as smart? Not me, and Im a republican. Intelligence should be measured in pure book smarts and the ability to apply them. (though there are some unmeasurable skills, like art & music) All a politicien has to do is stand in front of a podium and talk.

Frencheneesz
10-27-02, 03:00 PM
"Intelligence should be measured in pure book smarts and the ability to apply them. "

Why? That is an opinion. I know plenty of "book smart" people that should be weeded out of the gene pool.

kmguru
10-27-02, 04:36 PM
Book Smart? Are you kidding? Tacit knowledge can be hard to find in a book. Besides, most books do not provide real knowledge, lest the consultant loses his or her income. Large consulting companies such as EDS, CSC, Mckinssey etc would go out of business if somebody can read a book and implement a solution.

unbalanced
10-30-02, 05:53 AM
Humans would evolve much more quickly if the politicians would relinquish control over our lives,so few ppl realize just how much of their existence is controlled by their governments.The only reason governments exist is to answer for those who refuse to answer for themselves.
A step in the right direction would be to take back control of our lives,tear down the transmitter towers and relearn to think for ourselves,stop destroying our environment and our minds with the meaningless jibberish we are fed by the media,stop treating each other with cruelty and progress beyond reality as it is.
The educators in america are teaching with their hands tied,you are taught what the govt wants you to know,there is so much more to it than getting good grades in school,you get good grades if you become well indoctrinated puppets,look elsewhere for knowledge,you won't live forever.

unbalanced
10-30-02, 06:30 AM
It's what you learn after you think you know everything that counts.

unbalanced
10-30-02, 06:32 AM
Politicians seldom speak their own words.

unbalanced
10-30-02, 06:33 AM
One should not claim loyalty to any fiction or mechanism,unless he wants to become one.

Frencheneesz
10-30-02, 07:13 PM
Unblanaced:

whats with the multiple consecutive posts?

"Humans would evolve much more quickly if the politicians would relinquish control over our lives"

Are you talking about Darwinian evolution or social evolution? We are talking about biology here.

"so few ppl realize just how much of their existence is controlled by their governments."

I think many more people don't care than not know. It is exactly what the government controls is what people don't realize.

"The only reason governments exist is to answer for those who refuse to answer for themselves."

That is definatly incorrect. Are you advocating anarchy? Government is there to serve the people, to better society. Whether it does that or not is a different story.

"A step in the right direction would be to take back control of our lives,tear down the transmitter towers and relearn to think for ourselves"

If we had to think for ourselves, everyone just wouldn't think. Its that simple. Instead of having less government, why don't we have a more easily controlled government?
I, for one, think that there should be a factuality committee that reviews the media for incorrect information and invasion of privacy (Clinton).

"stop treating each other with cruelty and progress beyond reality as it is."

That is a very bias outlook.

"The educators in america are teaching with their hands tied,you are taught what the govt wants you to know"

The problem is we don't HAVE good TEACHERS. The government does not censor what is taught, they only give curriculums. Remeber that the government is not one person, there are many different branches, all with their own agenda.

"you get good grades if you become well indoctrinated puppets"

I assume you did poorly in school? I do much better in school when what is to be taught is useful and interresting. I do quite well in school and I am no puppet. Look at my topic "The US needs a revolution - new government".

unbalanced
10-30-02, 07:22 PM
You don't agree with what I say,well hve it your way,but you are blind.

Frencheneesz
10-30-02, 10:49 PM
You can say that, great. It doesn't prove anything. I can also say you are short sighted, one sided, and unwilling to have your ideas contested.

unbalanced
10-31-02, 04:10 AM
whatever

gladzic
11-22-02, 01:49 AM
To begin with, the evolution theory is full of loopholes. So why wonder if we will continue to evolve? Loophole 1: Humans came from primates. If this is true, why are there primates still? Loophole 2: All started from unicellular organisms, the protozoans, and thereafter became multicellular organisms. If this is so, why are there unicellular organisms still? Major Loophole: Principle of Survival of the Fittest! As previously argued, it is very apparent that all living things now are in various stages of perfection. Given that there different timelines for species to develop....we go back to loophole number 1 where the question why are there primates still?

Adam
11-22-02, 02:08 AM
Gladzic ol buddy :D

A thread you may want to read: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6054

unbalanced
11-22-02, 05:59 AM
the only thing that is really evolving in the human race is our evolving into a spiritless race,and the spirit is probably the most precious thing we can lose while we live.
Remember that you are mortal,and the government is not,the only individuals who call anything other than the present government anarchy are just worried about losing their jobs.
Education is taught through a government CONTROLLED cirriculum,just think what you would learn if you were taught what you were really interested in in school,you might be perfectly happy being a blacksmith.
If I was unwilling to have my ideas contested ,I wouldn't be in this forum.and yes I am shortsighted,I'm just a mortal,and all the knowledge in the world will never change that.

Pollux V
11-22-02, 03:37 PM
We'll probably take charge of our own evolution within the next century, after that, who knows what we'll become. There's no way someone from this time will be able to recognize a 3002er, though. Absolutely impossible. Humans will be irreparably different.

Avatar
11-22-02, 03:58 PM
especially those humas who will be living on other planets. Over time they'd get suited (artificially with nonotechnology or evulutionary) for the local environment (if it wasn't terraformed 1:1 to earth).

I always remember this "story"

A boy at a Mars colony asks his daddy if there were any martians
Dad said that there were and that he would show them to him.
They walk to a pond and the father shows the boy their reflection

unbalanced
11-22-02, 04:43 PM
Theory IS a loophole,it means it might pretty much be that way pardner,but dair ain no way ta prove it true,DA!
Everybody has a theory and nobody knows for sure if it is right,every scientist in the world would agree with that if you asked him/her.

fadingCaptain
11-22-02, 04:49 PM
Unbalanced,
A theory is not a loophole. You seem to be talking nonsense. Have you researched the theory of evolution?

airdog
11-22-02, 05:02 PM
If the Earth could have a point of view, it might be that humans=pollution...

Avatar
11-22-02, 05:03 PM
unbalanced has avoided evolution ;):D

EvilPoet
11-22-02, 05:23 PM
http://killerbutterfly.com/pics/evolution.jpg

Frencheneesz
11-22-02, 06:22 PM
That picuture reminds me of Stephen hawking, yishh....

Gladzic:

"To begin with, the evolution theory is full of loopholes. So why wonder if we will continue to evolve? "

Those are not loopholes. All three question concern one question: why do things that "have evolved" still exist? The answer to this is quite simple. Nature is not trying to make us be better. "Betterness", comes from the distinguishment from the easily dying and the ones who do not die. Humans are no more "evolved" than bacteria. Both humans and bacteria have evolved for the SAME length of time (having a bacteria as a common ancestor) AND have the same ability to survive.

One problem many people have is thinking that evlotion is "the improvement of species"; it, simply, is not. Evolution is the change of species. It just stands to reason that things that DIE, won't exist anymore, because the things that exist now exist because they can reproduce. DEAD things can't very well reproduce now can they.

What happened was: bacteria evolves, both the evolved bacteria and the original bacteria can survive SO they do. They both exist side by side. Take this happening billions of times over and you get earth. It turns out the earth IS big enough for the both of us.

unbalanced
11-22-02, 06:27 PM
theory
theoretically
Both mean it may be fact,but is only beleived to be true.
No hard evidence to claim absolute accuracy,no proof.
Theoretically it should be possible to revive one who has been dead for an hour,but it is not possible to do so.Your brains have been dead for much longer than that guys.
You Can' t get it?,it is just a theory,like the theory of black holes in space,supposedly they exist,but nobody has,or would get close enough to prove they exist.
I can't beleive you really don't understand this,are you all in high school or something?.

Frencheneesz
11-22-02, 06:32 PM
"Education is taught through a government CONTROLLED cirriculum"

Not quite. Teachers aren't controlled. The curriculum is. Now who here says kids are taught the curriculum and only the curriculum? My biology teacher happens to be teaching us how to "beat the system" of Biology tests, because he thinks they are "full of crap". For example, if one can infer that someone knows something (because otherwise they could not have written what the wrote on the paper), BUT did not S P E L L it out for the grader, they get no credit. stupid huh.

"you might be perfectly happy being a blacksmith."

A perfectly happy, yet perfectly stupid blacksmith.

"If I was unwilling to have my ideas contested "

Thats always good, but you seem to be a bit radicle. Not to mention you seem to have forgotten the definition of ANARCHY which is "without government". Our governent most definately needs improvement and is controled by ignorant elite. By the very fact that our government is CONTROLED at all is testimony to the fact that it is not anarchy. Check your definitions and get back to me.

"Theory IS a loophole,it means it might pretty much be that way pardner,but dair ain no way ta prove it true,DA!"

Once again, check your definitions. Loophole is an ERROR, generally. Theories are what they are because there is no known substantial evidence against it and there is mucho evidence for it. A loophole would render it not a theory.

Frencheneesz
11-22-02, 06:39 PM
Unbalanced:

"I can't beleive you really don't understand this,are you all in high school or something?."

Maybe if you had gone to highschool you would have been as understanding as us...

THEORY: THEORETICALLY

THEORETICALLY: LIKE A THEORY!

Nothing has absolute proof. You cannot prove to me that you exist. Noone can prove to me that the earth exists. THERE IS ALWAYS SOME DOUBT! The only think I know for certain is that I exist (I think, therefore I am). I KNOW I think, I cannot prove it to you.

To actually prove something, axioms are needed. Axioms are assumed truths. If our axioms are incorrect, we are in deep shit. Nothing can be proven, everything is a theory. Laws are widly accepted theories. Hypotheses are theories without substantial proof, yet have no contradictory evidence.

There is most definately evidence for evolution. We have seen it happen in bacteria. We have found a mechinism for it to happen. All the keys fit in all the right places. We can not be 100% sure, but there is a damn lot of evidence going into those keys.

unbalanced
11-22-02, 08:45 PM
See,you don't get it,and you don't know shit,keep going to school,and when you are done,wait ten years,and you will begin to understand that you were stupid,I just hope you aren't after ten years though,school just teaches you the framework to develop true knowledge,you can have all the book-smarts in the world,but if you don't understand definitions and comprehension and what to do with what you know,what are you?,school is a scam,unless you are chelsea clinton,you don't get a real education anyway,and what's wrong with doing a little work,and producing something real with your efforts besides money,money isn't real,and I'll bet you think your gonna be famous too,just like every other little kid in the world,reality will creep up on you someday,you will grow a brain cell or two ,and then someday you'll die,so stop being a dumbass.

gladzic
11-22-02, 11:04 PM
unbalanced....theory is defined as a set of propositions intending to fit into a paradigm. theories is not equivalent to loopholes. Though yet to be proven, theories help shape the thinking processes of scientists nowadays, just as religion.

gladzic
11-22-02, 11:09 PM
Hi, i appreciate your answer. Yes, the three loopholes has only one point. I just wanted to stress it. Anyway, your reply didnt answer my argument on the principle of evolution which is survival of the fittest. Why would the original bacteria continue to exist if a more developed species capable in innumerabley many ways to survive than the original is more fit? I would say that the fittest bacteria would survive and the original be extinct for that matter.

You reply to this will be most appreciated

Avatar
11-23-02, 05:04 AM
Why would the original bacteria continue to exist if a more developed species capable in innumerabley many ways to survive than the original is more fit? I would say that the fittest bacteria would survive and the original be extinct for that matter.

I think it is because there is place for the both on Earth.
The fittest bacteria takes a greater region, the weakly bacteria retreats.

I presume usually the differences/advances are not so magnificant/overwhelming that they would mean the destruction of the weakest . The weakest just retreats.

Pollux V
11-23-02, 12:42 PM
The weakest just retreats

Or dies off.

Frencheneesz
11-23-02, 02:43 PM
Unbalanced:

"and you don't know shit"
"you will begin to understand that you were stupid"
"you will grow a brain cell or two "
"so stop being a dumbass."

Your post had little to no actual substance besides instulting me numerous times. Do you really want to convince me that our government is in Anarchy? If so THEN PROVE IT. GIVE ME EVIDENCE. I might turn out to believe you then ;) .

I agree that school sucks. Teacher suck (on average) and the fact that teachers can choose what they teach you (to a certain extend) can be used incorrectly and give you a disadvantage. We agree in many respects, whether you know it or not; you just seem to want to insult me more than find a common ground.

The government wastes SOOO Much money, I don't think I have to argue this point to you. I never said that all I wanted was money... where did you get that idea?

In any case, this evolution forum is not the place to argue about the government and rant and rave about Anarchy.

Frencheneesz
11-23-02, 02:51 PM
Gladzic

"hey frenchensseenz...forgive me if i spelled ur nick wrong"

NO, I will NEVER forgive you!!!! YOU LOOSE!! I condemn you to hell!!!! GARRAHHH!!!

"Anyway, your reply didnt answer my argument on the principle of evolution which is survival of the fittest."

I thought it did...

"Why would the original bacteria continue to exist if a more developed species capable in innumerabley many ways to survive than the original is more fit?"

Well, a good counter question is, why would they die off just because there is a better one?

It depends on MANY factors, a creature is not just "better", usually there are trade offs and differences all over. Humans have DIFFERENT ways of surviving than a bacteria. Humans cannot imbed ourselves in deer and reproduce million-fold, can we?

If the original bacteria could be eaten by the newly evolved bacteria, then it MIGHT die off. But it also might not. Why? Maybe the original bacteria can eat the new bacteria. I think the answer to your question is simply because they can survive. It all depends on who eats who and how they do it. Obviously, some species HAVE died off. It was simply because they reproduced slower than they died. Why that happens is different in almost every case.

Clockwood
11-24-02, 08:43 PM
Bacteria are actually harder to kill off (as a species) than anything else. They reproduce so fast (in some cases more than 1 per 45 min.) that they can adapt to almost any new conditions.

They are in the guts of every known vertibrate. If the bacteria die just about everything else goes with them. We couldnt even digest food if we were free of them.

Our gain is their gain. Whos evolved now. ;) Just go with the flow.

spuriousmonkey
11-28-02, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by gladzic
Hi, i appreciate your answer. Yes, the three loopholes has only one point. I just wanted to stress it. Anyway, your reply didnt answer my argument on the principle of evolution which is survival of the fittest. Why would the original bacteria continue to exist if a more developed species capable in innumerabley many ways to survive than the original is more fit? I would say that the fittest bacteria would survive and the original be extinct for that matter.

You reply to this will be most appreciated

in a way the original bacterium still exists, unless it was a dead branch on the evolutionary tree. No organism lives forever and all you can ever see is the offspring (the changes might be extremely minute, but they still exist). Since the offspring is never exactly the same as the parent your original bacterium can theoretically NEVER exist besides a modern bacterium. As a previous poster has pointed out elegantly, evolution has nothing to do with progress, in the sense that it is not driven towards progress, but towards change and stability. Not all species die off, a lot of them just change. In that case there is no direct replacement of one species with another.

A problem is of course that people live very short lives. They fail to see that some things are in notion, albeit on a very long timescale.

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

spuriousmonkey
11-28-02, 05:08 AM
Originally posted by gladzic
To begin with, the evolution theory is full of loopholes. So why wonder if we will continue to evolve? Loophole 1: Humans came from primates. If this is true, why are there primates still? Loophole 2: All started from unicellular organisms, the protozoans, and thereafter became multicellular organisms. If this is so, why are there unicellular organisms still? Major Loophole: Principle of Survival of the Fittest! As previously argued, it is very apparent that all living things now are in various stages of perfection. Given that there different timelines for species to develop....we go back to loophole number 1 where the question why are there primates still?

1.we didn't evolve from modern primates. We and modern primates evolved from an ancestral primates. These are not around anymore since they are dead.

They had sex...made babies...died...babies made babies...died...some babies were slightly different...had babies...died...had babies...died...had slightly different babies...died..had babies...multiply by 1000, or 10000. The keyword here is died...hence not being around anymore.

2. There were ancestral unicellular organisms...they gave rise to modern unicellular organims and multicellular organisms...the ancestral ones aren't around anymore since they died.

They had offspring...died...had offspring...died...some offspring liked it better in water 1 degree hotter...had offspring...died...had offspring...died...some offspring had preference for slightly different environment...had offspring..died..multiply by zillion.

Why are there unicellular organisms when there are multicellular organisms? Because they all occupy different environmental niches. And these niches also change over time. Hence that some species also change. Some niches stay the same over long periods of time. This might result in living fossils: species that retain a certain form over prolonged periods of geological time.

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

kmguru
11-28-02, 07:03 PM
Well said spuriousmonkey.

What is your opinion on what the attributes of a highly evolved human could be in say another 100K or 1000K years assuming we do evolve ? Extrapolated, what could be the limiting factors? And not taking into the consideration that we can accelarate our own evolution.

spuriousmonkey
11-29-02, 02:41 AM
i do not have a crystal ball that can see in the future...but

i posted somewhere else that humans might get less intelligent, since there seems to be a trend in western societies that intelligent people have less children than intelligent people. If this intelligence is partly hereditary than this would mean that on average we will see an decrease in intelligence.

but this trend only seems to be valid for western countries and one cannot predict the future. Intelligent people might want more children in the future because it might be fashionable then. Then the trend will be reversed.

what you need for evolution is a constant selective pressure for a certain amount of generations. If I could predict any of this, i wouldn't be posting here, but writing a book and getting filthy rich.

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

kmguru
11-29-02, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
what you need for evolution is a constant selective pressure for a certain amount of generations. If I could predict any of this, i wouldn't be posting here, but writing a book and getting filthy rich.

But, I could...so, why dont we join forces and write a book and get filthy rich? 50% of 'filthy rich' is better than 100% of 'if I could'!

Frencheneesz
11-29-02, 06:43 PM
spuriousmonkey:

I think your prediction has much to do with whether or not intelligence is hereditary. Of course, we do see that from parents we might label as "less intelligent", bear children that turn out also to be "less intelligent". Yet this has a lot to do with family values and education. Unintelligence might just not teach their children intelligent stuff, and so the children don't get intelligent, usually.

Some part of intelligence is no doubt genetic, but how much is hard to say. Even if stupid people have more children, the smarter people will just be a smaller part of the population, they won't go extinct....

Personally, I think that intelligence has much more to do with teaching than genetics and I think teaching will get better throughout the years.

OldSchoolThinker
12-04-02, 10:59 AM
I believe our dependence on technology and science will alter human evolution in the distant future. Things like cloning, biotechnology, genetics, computers will change the way we look. For example , I believe someday human being will genetically alter themselves and enhance themselves with machines.
It might sound kind of science fiction, but as scientists learn more about the human genetic code and how life is produced, genetic manipulation is not faraway. And as far as cybernetics is concerned, its been done to a limited degree. I cant remember this scientists name, but I know he's british. Anyway, it was in discover magazine where this scientist figured out a way to blink cursor on a computer by using electric impulses in his brain while connecting himself with the use of electrodes to a computer.

But I think we're proberly blow ourselves up and destroy the enviroment due to greed, technology, war, and production anyway.

ZelkinX
12-05-02, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Awaranowski
Does evolution mean we increase in complexity or that we become more suitable to our environments?

I believe, and I'm not sure if it's possible, that we are not evolving, but devolving. Technology has made it possible for people with bad genes to live and pass their genes on down the road. Have you noticed that only stupid people are breeding? Anyone of average intelligence knows the world is already overpopulated. Why are you indulging yourself?! Idiot. If you go back in time, I think you'll find that you're really not more advanced than someone from 2,000 years ago. Because chances are, if you were dumb at that time, you were dead. Sure, you can say, "I can use a computer and a cell phone!" Well yes, you probably can, but you're still dumb.

Take an average person and put them in a time-machine and send them to 0 A.D. Strip them naked, and they'll die instantly. Probably by walking off a cliff or pissing off a wild animal.


very smart!!!

Frencheneesz
12-05-02, 11:01 PM
"Things like cloning, biotechnology, genetics, computers will change the way we look. For example , I believe someday human being will genetically alter themselves and enhance themselves with machines."

I find it hard not to say "of course!".

"But I think we're proberly blow ourselves up and destroy the enviroment due to greed, technology, war, and production anyway."

Theres actually a very scary probabilty of that happening. The sooner we invent anti nuking, the better. Bio-disaster is also something pending, but we might be able to alter ourselves to be reistant to any new strain of anything that would hurt us.
When those two things happen I'll feel safe, but then again we will have probably invented something even more devestating by then...

"Take an average person and put them in a time-machine and send them to 0 A.D. Strip them naked, and they'll die instantly. Probably by walking off a cliff or pissing off a wild animal."

If you take an average animal from 0 A.D. and put them somewhere in 100 million AD, they would probably die too. We change with the times. Don't you think our world has changed more in the past 2000 years than it had in the 100 million years before that?

kmguru
12-06-02, 10:07 AM
Don't you think our world has changed more in the past 2000 years than it had in the 100 million years before that?

That we found underground. What if all these deserts were once great centers of cities and technology that got destroyed by nuclear explosions? But definitely we have moved ahead from 2000 BC: 0 AD

The problem is whether we can sustain it? My speculation is, we may have had civilization rise in the past only to be destroyed when humans learned to split the atom. And if we do sustain it, how long - till we develop a doomsday bomb that destroys the whole planet?

Frencheneesz
12-06-02, 05:38 PM
"What if all these deserts were once great centers of cities and technology that got destroyed by nuclear explosions? But definitely we have moved ahead from 2000 BC: 0 AD "

Lets stick to the proven here, and there is no proof for that.

"My speculation is, we may have had civilization rise in the past only to be destroyed when humans learned to split the atom."

For every weapon there is a counterweapon. Of course it is possible we will destroy ourselves, but that is by no means inevitable. The sooner we creaate a counter nuke, the better. Of course there can only be prevention measures for non-aireal attacks, so we might just have to make the world a better places, and spread our race out among the stars so as to make it harder to kill us all in one swift shot.

kmguru
12-06-02, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Frencheneesz
"What if all these deserts were once great centers of cities and technology that got destroyed by nuclear explosions? But definitely we have moved ahead from 2000 BC: 0 AD "

Lets stick to the proven here, and there is no proof for that.



No proof that we have moved ahead from 2000BC: 0 AD ?

And you have proof of evolution? And everything that happened in the last 4 Billion years minus 2000BC?

Frencheneesz
12-07-02, 04:44 PM
"No proof that we have moved ahead from 2000BC: 0 AD ?"

whoops. I should have made my quotation clearer. I meant that it is not at all proven that "all these deserts were once great centers of cities and technology that got destroyed by nuclear explosions".

ElectricFetus
12-28-02, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Hi everyone!

I have a limtied understanding of evolution and I would like to see what others think. -With all the advances in medicine and surgery to fix genetic problems will humans continue to evolve? Does evolution even apply to how human society is? I find it very hard to answer these questions because relatively humans have been on Earth for a short time and evolution takes millions of years.

Yes... but only artifically

With are population as it is and growing we could not hope to evolved the old fasion way withoug waiting millions of years. we need genetic engineering to do it in 10's or 100's or years :)

Nebuchadnezzaar
12-29-02, 03:51 AM
Evolution no longer exists, as i understand it(not saying that is the correct way). everybody with glasses should be dead according to my understanding, UNLESS there is more to it and there is brilliance in everybody you just have to find it, IMPORTANTLY I don't like this second proposal cos' it makes me think there could be a God (alien/s who made us and is now watching his virtual soccer game play out on earth, "who's side are you on?" hehehe).

The_King
12-29-02, 08:08 AM
Our evolution is coming to a grinding halt. Populations with dominant genes are going to be the death of all diversity. Racist, but true. Nothing to do with irrational hate or ''xenophobia''.

kmguru
12-29-02, 01:19 PM
But the dominant genes are changing too. If you look at the changes in the last 60 years...it started with brawn and ability to work in an assembly line environment. Now it is changing in favor of computer keyboards and mouse.

The other part is Americans are becoming more international through gene exchanges (marriage) taking the best from each gene pool. The losers will be the inbreeding stock in Utah, Arkansas and Louisiana....:D

Chagur
12-29-02, 01:58 PM
"Will humans evolve further?" is the question, but a flawed one
in my opinion.

How has our species, homo sapien, 'evolved' ... to the best of your
knowledge ... in the past ten thousand or more years?

I don't know. Does anyone?

Curious :cool:

Avatar
12-29-02, 02:08 PM
maybe evolved like improved isn't the right word
maybe - get better used to a changing surrounding environment

grazzhoppa
12-29-02, 02:27 PM
Posted by kmguru:

The other part is Americans are becoming more international through gene exchanges (marriage) taking the best from each gene pool. The losers will be the inbreeding stock in Utah, Arkansas and Louisiana....
There are many communities that their religion or culture prohibit marrying out of their group. The Amish have problems with certain diseases because many are related to each other and every generation it gets worse. I think that's called Founder's Effect.

Chagur, you got a point there. Our species might not evolve and a new version of us, a different species could take become dominant. Whether it was caused naturally or man-made.

kmguru
12-29-02, 03:04 PM
Then the basic question could be what is the point of evolution? The ants are still here and doing their stuff that they do for millions of years. So do many specis.

The purpose of evolution? Once you have that answer, then we could see where we are going....

Clockwood
12-29-02, 10:52 PM
Evalution takes millions of millions of years to take place. It took 3 million years for us to get down from the trees and gain sapience. 10,000 years of history is nothing compared to that.

In less than that all you will see is maybe a change in proportions a bit, resistance to major diseases, and the like. Until recently we have been subjected to little evolutionary pressure to change. If we have a hardship we use either technology or society to relieve it.

FYI: If you take guppies and have them breed in a tank without human intervention (other than maintenance) they will all become pudgy and lose their coloration. They become only good at breeding and eating. Nothing else. Reminds me of modern humanity.

Frencheneesz
01-04-03, 03:48 AM
"everybody with glasses should be dead according to my understanding,"

You're thinking of natural selection which is only a part of evolution (a big part, albeit). But natural selection only occurs when a gene consistently causes the creatures bearing it to die BEFORE they have children. If they have children, no natural selection.

"Our evolution is coming to a grinding halt."

It hasn't. Natural selection has much much much less to do with it now though, since mostly everyone lives to have kids. Selection will be only for major desieses and people who don't want to have kids. Evolution will still go on with that small natural selection, and the random mutations that happen all the time.

"The Amish have problems with certain diseases because many are related to each other and every generation it gets worse. I think that's called Founder's Effect."

The founder effect is when a small, non-representative group of a much larger population moves to a new area. This changes gene frequencies and thus the evolutionary potential of the community.

"The purpose of evolution?"

There is no purpose. That is like asking what is the purpose of the moon... It happens for reasons, but it has no purpose.

"If you take guppies and have them breed in a tank without human intervention (other than maintenance) they will all become pudgy and lose their coloration. They become only good at breeding and eating."

Thats a bit different though. That is adaption, not evolution. If you take the eggs of those guppies that have become only good at eating and breeding, and put them in a normal environment (perhaps with normal suedo-parents) they will be mostly completely normal (depending on how long you breed them for).

prozak
01-11-03, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Hi everyone!

I have a limtied understanding of evolution and I would like to see what others think. -With all the advances in medicine and surgery to fix genetic problems will humans continue to evolve? Does evolution even apply to how human society is? I find it very hard to answer these questions because relatively humans have been on Earth for a short time and evolution takes millions of years.

Evolution can take on many objects, but if you mean become more refined, proficient, super-specialized, etc. - not on the current path. We have to get over our egalitarianism, anti-racism, etc. first.

ElectricFetus
01-11-03, 11:52 PM
We do not need nor can we wait for natural Darwinian evolution! Are future is in Artificial Limarician evolution: Genetic engineering, gene therapy, cybernetics, AI so further. Unless there is a massive halt on technological development I will put a good bet that Homo sapiens will not make it to the year 3000 without being replace by something better (or going extinct in general)!

Qiothus II
01-25-03, 11:25 PM
And a resounding "Yes" hushed the crowd of infadels and ignoramous...
Humans will evolve again and already have begun to. And I don't mean by way of technology either. Evolution is merely an adaptation of a species to its environment; according to this definition, our brains have been evolving ever-so-slightly--namely in capacity of memory and comprehension. We have yet to develop another system of brain activity beyond the neo cortex, but within the neo cortex, we are evolving.
If I may be so bold as to theorize--when we homosapians have the entire use of our brain, we will evolve again in a more recognizable way. Of course this will be a gradual development in accordance to modern science, but I intend to accomplish this feat in my years on this Earth and produce the first offspring of a new evolution in humanity. (How's that for ambition)

Qiothus II
01-25-03, 11:38 PM
As for Mr. WellCooked, I disagree that technology will put on the boots for the next step in evolution. Genetic engineering will only help the current withering cause of the standard issue human model.
Prozak, very good point that we humans have hit a spot where we will not really enhance ourselves further on this path; however, I travel a different journey through unmarked territory, with every intention of preventing us stupid humans from screwing up the normal path of evolution.
On the side: It is my belief that we have cease to evolve as efficiently as other animals because we have limited ourselves by assuming dominion over Earth--eliminating with technology the hostile environment that would allow natural advances in human evolution.

ElectricFetus
01-25-03, 11:50 PM
Genetic engineering, Biorobotics and cybornetics can take us furth then you think!

What do you mean once we have full use of are brain?

Humans won't evolve unless there is pressure to evolve. There is no pressure to evolve because all of use seem to be repoducing just fine!

grazzhoppa
01-26-03, 12:21 AM
Humans might have found thier niche in the global environment. Just like sharks, who have barely changed because they are so suited for their environment. Humans are unlike most species because we are able to control practically ever aspect of our environment. Many animals do this too, but not to the extent that humans do. An example would be a beaver. They build a dam on a river because it's their ideal home, rather than let their species die off until their genes allow them to have a well suited home off the river. Humans can make their home anywhere and control what they can. Our species doesn't rely on genetics for survival as much as it does what we call "techonology" or tools. That's why I see the future of our change in technology rather than a forced evolution. There could always be a chance of us evolving from "natural" causes but I think that would have to involve our own species, like a war. But just like Bebelina said in the beginning, "Yes, we will, unless we kill ourselves first."

I can only see a few ways for humans to evolve. Either because of radiation or some unforeseen thing, some genes get repressed and we change. Or some "hidden" genes are expressed and give us something new. These would take time. And then there's the mass extinction so that our gene pool is severly limited enough to provoke change. That scenerio would probably have to do with us losing control of our environment.

Humans don't have parts of their brain that are "locked" and hold special powers for us. That is a myth. Here's a site (http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/ten-percent-myth.html) for some proof:


Brain imaging research techniques such as PET scans (positron emission tomography) and fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) clearly show that the vast majority of the brain does not lie fallow. Indeed, although certain minor functions may use only a small part of the brain at one time, any sufficiently complex set of activities or thought patterns will indeed use many parts of the brain. Just as people don't use all of their muscle groups at one time, they also don't use all of their brain at once. For any given activity, such as eating, watching television, making love, or reading Skeptical Inquirer, you may use a few specific parts of your brain. Over the course of a whole day, however, just about all of the brain is used at one time or another.

The myth presupposes an extreme localization of functions in the brain. If the "used" or "necessary" parts of the brain were scattered all around the organ, that would imply that much of the brain is in fact necessary. But the myth implies that the "used" part of the brain is a discrete area, and the "unused" part is like an appendix or tonsil, taking up space but essentially unnecessary. But if all those parts of the brain are unused, removal or damage to the "unused" part of the brain should be minor or unnoticed. Yet people who have suffered head trauma, a stroke, or other brain injury are frequently severely impaired. Have you ever heard a doctor say, ". . . But luckily when that bullet entered his skull, it only damaged the 90 percent of his brain he didn't use"? Of course not.

fry1tonight
01-30-03, 05:43 PM
Dont you think that because we are weakening the genetic make up of our species that we are eventually in danger of creating our own downfall? think about it, nature is based on survival of the fit, we as humans now manage to prolong life, we are starting to dable in our own genetic makeup, we assist in the procreation between people that would otherwise be childless, there are growing numbers of people with everyday faults that are getting more and more everyday.

spuriousmonkey
01-31-03, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by fry1tonight
Dont you think that because we are weakening the genetic make up of our species that we are eventually in danger of creating our own downfall? think about it, nature is based on survival of the fit, we as humans now manage to prolong life, we are starting to dable in our own genetic makeup, we assist in the procreation between people that would otherwise be childless, there are growing numbers of people with everyday faults that are getting more and more everyday.

wow...ever heard of eugenics?

http://www.africa2000.com/ENDX/endx.htm

you fit right in

youngbiologist
02-01-03, 02:22 AM
what humanity is doing would not be a good thing for a normal species, but we no longer have survival of the fittest nor do we need it. A very important distinction of genetics and eugenetics is that with genetics we can fix things that are wrong, and not just sterilze/kill people who belong in a group we deem to be unfit.

Avatar
02-01-03, 07:16 AM
Humans don't have parts of their brain that are "locked" and hold special powers for us.
what about all the genious people
Einstein, Mozart, Beethowen
people who can multiply 13 digit numbers in 5 seconds
and what about that 4 year old kid that learned to read (before he learned to talk) at 1.5 years and now, when he's 4, he's brilliant violin player and learns astrophysics

our brains have the potency, meybe we just need to learn how to "unlock" them

ElectricFetus
02-01-03, 08:49 AM
Thats just from having the right genes and appropriate pathway development. A combination of genetics and environment makes a genius.

Avatar
02-01-03, 09:07 AM
so maybe with genetic engineering we can unlock our brains
I don't believe that environment plays so big role, because all kids have a very simmilar environment up to the age of 1 or 2
and there have been such talanted kids also from India, where the environment isn't the best you would want for a child

northofbay
02-02-03, 01:12 PM
I'm new here so please be patient and don't call me an idiot (a term I've noticed an overuse of in other posts!)

On the matter of evolution: We will continue to evolve, ever so slowly and unnoticeably, as long as we steer away from 'sameness'. Anyone ever hear about the potato blight in Ireland and the mass starvation as a result? Well, part of the problem was that the Irish planted one species of potato. They did not have a diversity of species planted. The potato, which was a dietary mainstay, was wiped out by a microbe. If their had been gentic variation, this would have been less devastating to the population.

Today, we have companies trying to patent plant seeds. They want control over who can use them and even whether they can be used at all. Some organizations are taking an active role in keeping genetic plant variation alive. But, through genetic engineering, we may end out creating 'sameness' and this is dangerous for people and plants alike.

We are not much different than the potatoes of Ireland in that if there is not enough genetic variation, we risk being wiped out. let's say someone does not like the behavioral trait of depression or aggression in humans. let's say we discover the responsible gene and we decide that humans are better off without it. Well, perhaps the genetic trait that causes bipolar or even schizophrenia also protects a person from death from a certain type of microbe? Decreasing 'sameness' to make our lives cozy is dangerous business. As long as we use technology wisely, we may prevent the extinction of the human species.

Eman Resu
02-02-03, 01:28 PM
So with a diversified human species we - as a species - have an increased chance to survive disease, biological catastrophe, etc..

So much for modern globalization. If/when we finally learn to get along with one-another we'll find ourselves staring down the barrel of a biological gun of sorts.

Damned either way ...

Persol
02-02-03, 01:34 PM
We will continue to evlove, but not in the classical sense. We will lose parts of ourselves that modern society can replace (assuming that in the future all countries have such a society). Basically we will lose out teeth(dentures), appendix(not needed), hair(clothing), and based on future developments: skin color.
Skin color's main cause right now is to make B-12 and protect us from the sun. Clothes do that just as well, and the more time we spend inside, the less it will matter.

So basically we'll all be teethless, hairless, albino freaks.

This is all assuming that people with these problems are not shunned, and that they have a chance to get their groove on.

northofbay
02-02-03, 02:13 PM
I also think there is the potential to be genetically modified to become short (less pressure on the environment). We will lose muscle mass (we no longer will need a great deal of muscles to fight because fighting will probably be selected out). Our heads will be large and the mouth/lower part of the face small (the head will only be able to handle a certain amount of weight. Mass will be redistributed to favor a large brain. And yes, the teeth will be diminished because we need more room for brain growth. We will be small/scrawny/and smart. And...given enough time, we will probably not waste our energy on verbal communication. We will probably tap into intuitive abilities. And we probably will not want to waste our energy on nonsense ways of socializing. We will behave in a much more serious manner. Sarcasm, jokes, and small talk will probably be viewed as a waste of energy, as well as primitive behavior which aided an individual in adapting to their social environment; kindof the way we view primates grooming eachother! We will no longer be dependent on social groups the way we are today for collective protection because we will no longer be threatened by big and brawny people. They won't exist. The diminished food supply will select them out, probably through genetic manipulation.

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 02:39 PM
I personally believe genetic manipulation, cybernetics and biorobotics will soon out pace normal Darwinian evolution in humans. So this conversation is rather null to me unless we ask what we can do to improve are selves rather then what nature can do.

northofbay
02-02-03, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
I personally believe genetic manipulation, cybernetics and biorobotics will soon out pace normal Darwinian evolution in humans. So this conversation is rather null to me unless we ask what we can do to improve are selves rather then what nature can do.

Well, in askng how we can improve ourselves we cannot leave the nature part out. We can outsmart nature, for awhile. But we must deal with circumstances such as outcompeting microbes, which evolve alot quicker than we do. They are more diverse and probably more fit than we are. And I do agree that genetic manipulation will outpace Darwinian evolution as long as we do not ruin ourselves before we get to that point of using it wisely. We cannot look at only ourselves in this equation. Self Centeredness may be our demise.

We must fully understand the impact genetic manipulation has on nature. For example, in the race of humans and microbes, our tendency toward wanting 'sameness' may give them the upper hand. Or, they may evolve to have a symbiotic relationship at a cost which is what I see happening now, with the advent of antibiotics in the 1940's.. We kept a population alive with antibiotics but we have alot of psychiatric/neurodegenerative/and autoimmune diseases today. These buggers are probably in our bodies, but they aren't killing us anymore. They know where to hide. And the brain is a good hiding place. If we have a good plan, we might outwit nature. But we cannot do it without first understanding nature and all of the consequences. We cannot leave "what nature can do" out of the equation.

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 03:51 PM
I’m sorry but I don't see what relevance microbes have to a supercomputer in an asteroid.
Microbes won’t have much of an effect on “humans” of the future because we will most likely not be made out of organic or biological components by then.

Persol
02-02-03, 04:21 PM
we will most likely not be made out of organic or biological components by then. First, when this starts happening it will be resisted he same way abortion and cloning are... aka bombs/protests/laws.
Also, the microbe problem still exists, unless we stop reproducting altogether. After 1000 years as a computer in an asteroid I'd get kinda bored.

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 04:43 PM
True: those fundamentalist will remain on earth and anyone of cybernetic, robotic or just plain technological persuasion will run as far way as possible. Asking what happens to those close-minded Homo Sapiens on Earth will be like asking what the next stage in squirrel evolution will be. As for boredom when you have total control of all emotions that you can perceive if your bored you just turn the boredom off. Also I’m not talking about thousand of years here… more like millions and billions! Homo Sapiens will most likely not be around when the sun burns out but our successors will!

northofbay
02-02-03, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
True: those fundamentalist will remain on earth and anyone of cybernetic, robotic or just plain technological persuasion will run as far way as possible. Asking what happens to those close-minded Homo Sapiens on Earth will be like asking what the next stage in squirrel evolution will be. As for boredom when you have total control of all emotions that you can perceive if your bored you just turn the boredom off. Also I’m not talking about thousand of years here… more like millions and billions! Homo Sapiens will most likely not be around when the sun burns out but our successors will!

How far can you run? metal rusts. What you're talking about has no resemblance to human beings, nor does it resemble a living thing any more than a rock does. And if we get to a point where matter doesn't break down, doesn't rust, what do you think the effect of increasing masses of 'thinking metal', or whatever it is you propose our successors will be made of, floating around the universe will be?

Blue Feather
02-02-03, 07:01 PM
Have you heard of "indigo children"? Rather than debating the possibility of their ever existing, check out one of tons of sites such as www.indigochild.net . There are also many books. These children are everywhere. I have not only taught them, I raised three of them! I invite you to check it out!

Persol
02-02-03, 07:37 PM
I'm at a loss to see what indigo child have to do with our evolution. The basis for them seems to be more enviromental then genetic.

For those who can't find it... here's the description


They come into the world with a feeling of royalty (and often act like it)

They have a feeling of "deserving to be here," and are surprised when others don't share that.

Self-worth is not a big issue. They often tell the parents "who they are."

They have difficulty with absolute authority (authority without explanation or choice).

They simply will not do certain things; for example, waiting in line is difficult for them.

They get frustrated with systems that are ritually oriented and don't require creative thought.

They often see better ways of doing things, both at home and in school, which makes them seem like "system busters" (nonconforming to any system).

They seem antisocial unless they are with their own kind. If there are no others of like consciousness around them, they often turn inward, feeling like no other human understands them. School is often extremely difficult for them socially.

They will not respond to "guilt" discipline ("Wait till your father gets home and finds out what you did").

They are not shy in letting you know what they need.

Jolly Rodger
02-02-03, 08:23 PM
i have gills

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by northofbay
How far can you run? metal rusts. What you're talking about has no resemblance to human beings, nor does it resemble a living thing any more than a rock does. And if we get to a point where matter doesn't break down, doesn't rust, what do you think the effect of increasing masses of 'thinking metal', or whatever it is you propose our successors will be made of, floating around the universe will be?

I'm afraid I'm not explaining my self right: It is not metal! Its about reducing are selves to pure data which can be stored and used by machines or computers or what ever we can make with brains of any form. The advantage of this existence is that immortality can be achievable in that existence can last for million and billions of years tell the stars burn out and all source of power runs dry.

What is its purpose? Well may I ask what yours is? Like all life our purpose is to prosper and have are genes last as long as possible, but unfortunately nothing last forever and we will have to evolve. The sun will be to hot for surface life in 1-2 billion years and will go nova in 4 billion. Will Homo Sapiens be around by then? I think not! The most likely existence is space, and a life form that needs food, water, O2, constant supply of organic compounds is far to heavy and inefficient to live in space. Robots and computers only need electric power and some radiation shielding. Computers don’t need to worry about dieing because their existence is only in data that can be copied and transported anywhere for very cheap and very fast. As are progeny travel through space setting up new bases and repeater towers I can put a fair bet they will meet other sentient life even more advanced then they… and that means not little green men but other computers and robots or perhaps higher dimensional versions of such.


Jolly Rodger: Are those gills functional by any chance?

Blue Feather
02-02-03, 10:37 PM
Persole:

I agree with your decription of indigo children but genetics as well as (perhaps in SPITE of) environment shapes these evolved humans.

Quote from http://healing.about.com/cs/indigo/:

"Indigo children are a newer generation that have arrived on the planet that are said not to have the conventional human DNA strands that the rest of us do. Their advanced vibrational energy has been described as having a dark blue aura which is why they are called the Indigo Generation."

If interested, check out a varity of sites.
All kinds of info and opinions are available for your perusal.

Persol
02-02-03, 10:39 PM
So... after you copy your mind into a machine... which one of you is really you? Both? This is more akin to producing children then changing the way you exist. You are making a copy, but the original still exists.

kmguru
02-02-03, 10:46 PM
We are not much different than the potatoes of Ireland

To keep diversity alive, always marry outside of your group. It should be mandated by government....spanish, danish, japanese, italian, indian...beauties....:D

Persol
02-02-03, 10:48 PM
...not to have the conventional human DNA strands that the rest of us do... What do they have then? Has any research been done on a blood sample?


Because Indigos are born knowing everything...This is a link off the site you gave me. Do these children go to school, talk when they are born, etc...?

Persol
02-02-03, 10:51 PM
To keep diversity alive, always marry outside of your group. Actually marrying outside your group lessens diversity. The kids generally get a mix of the genetics and culture from both parents. Eventually everybody would be part everything.

Not that anything is wrong with that. It would give the child more chance to choose the culture that appealed to them, and would put an end to race wars.

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Persol
So... after you copy your mind into a machine... which one of you is really you? Both? This is more akin to producing children then changing the way you exist. You are making a copy, but the original still exists.

…but if your body has long been dead does it matter? All I’m say is that humans won't be around forever. What’s going to continue in are place?

as for this "Indigo children” thing it is utter bull@#$% with no proof or evidence!

kmguru
02-02-03, 10:56 PM
Eventually everybody would be part everything.

By then, we will be looking for ETs to cross breed and they may be looking for us as we post....

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 11:06 PM
Ok the Indigo thing to Pseudoscience NOW!!! It has nothing to do with human evolution or furture!, it has no connection to science and technology either.

Persol
02-02-03, 11:13 PM
All I’m say is that humans won't be around forever. Yup... agreed...


…but if your body has long been dead does it matter? I guess thats the thing... If you copy your brain when you are 30 and live till 80, then you'll be alive for 50 years, but with a digital twin (which would probably develop differently.) This is why I relate it to children. They'd start off like you, but could develop along a different path. And just like normal reproduction, something vaguely resembling you will be around for a long time after you are dead.

Blue Feather
02-02-03, 11:14 PM
Persole:

Love to answer you but WKF has his/her knickers in a knot. If you are interested, just dig a little and you'll come to your own conclusions. I only know what I've lived for 30 years!

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Persol
Yup... agreed...

I guess thats the thing... If you copy your brain when you are 30 and live till 80, then you'll be alive for 50 years, but with a digital twin (which would probably develop differently.) This is why I relate it to children. They'd start off like you, but could develop along a different path. And just like normal reproduction, something vaguely resembling you will be around for a long time after you are dead.

Did you know that you now and the you 20 years from now are two very different people. All you share are some memories.

"A man can not step in a river twice: the river is different and so is the man"

Persol
02-02-03, 11:35 PM
You could also say that I am a different man between the time I type A and B, but in a practical sense I am the same person... while I change do experiences, I am essentially the same (your house still has the same wood after 20 years, it's just weathered now). That's why I say this is closer to childbirth or cloning, because both of 'me' would experience different things.

ElectricFetus
02-02-03, 11:43 PM
no I think it's more similar to aging! A child or a genetic clone does not have your memories! A child or genetic clone will not believe it is you or think just like you and so forth.

Persol
02-02-03, 11:56 PM
I suppose different people will look at it differently... even when it happens.
This isn't really all that similar to aging, cloning, or reproduction... so it's open to interpretation

spuriousmonkey
02-03-03, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Persol
Actually marrying outside your group lessens diversity. The kids generally get a mix of the genetics and culture from both parents. Eventually everybody would be part everything.


this notion of mixing sounds real nice of course, but it isn't valid for genetics. You introduce new variety by marrying outside your group, but this variety is not lost by mixing. It consists of fixed genetic entities that remain intact (genes, alleles, whatever you want to call them). They are now inserted to the genepool and stay there if not selected out. You have added to the diversity, you didn't decrease it because it got mixed like some kind of paint.

northofbay
02-03-03, 12:00 PM
Isolation is more likely to bring about species creation though. If a species becomes isolated on an island for example, and they do not have any predators, they will lose their wings if they are a bird and slow down, because they do not need speed to escape predators. They can get away with being clumbsy for example. They will evolve so many differences from the mainland species that they will become a separate species altogether. Some people speculate that the Rift Valley may have been the isolating factor for Homo Sapiens. Another emerging view, the one I tend to agree with, is that Homo Sapiens became dependent on the sea for life. This is the reason they have more fat than other primates. An outer coating of fat insulates from the cold water temeratures. The dietary essential fatty acids drove the brain into super growth and development. It was an outside, environmental force that probably drove humans into the thinking/predicting creatures they are. Maybe it was isolation as well. Maybe other primates were afraid of the water. For example, other primates cannot hold their breath in water like humans. It was probably fairly easy to escape a bunch of club wielding primates by swimming into the sea.

Global interbreeding will decrease the probability of creating a new species. But it will also decrease the risk of carrying on some of the genetic defects which occur when species are isolated...cousins marrying cousins. When a species is in the process of evolving from the isolation experience, they go through alot of genetic flaws and strange mutations from interbreeding before they come out the other side as a new species, if they can make it that far! I kindof doubt that we, as caring humans, could stand by and observe such a dramatic change without intervening. This is probably why we will drive our own evolution in the future, through manipulation of our DNA. But, global interbreeding does create genetic variation within our own species but decreases the likelyhood of becoming a new species.

prozak
02-03-03, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
this notion of mixing sounds real nice of course, but it isn't valid for genetics. You introduce new variety by marrying outside your group, but this variety is not lost by mixing. It consists of fixed genetic entities that remain intact (genes, alleles, whatever you want to call them). They are now inserted to the genepool and stay there if not selected out. You have added to the diversity, you didn't decrease it because it got mixed like some kind of paint.

Added to the diversity? You forget that both parties being mixed have alleles for the same traits; thus some of each are lost, creating an average of the two along the simplest lines of compatibility. So for the immediate mix, "diversity" may seem to be added, but viewing the whole, it is clear that in fact diversity is lost as averaging occurs.

prozak
02-03-03, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by northofbay
Global interbreeding will decrease the probability of creating a new species.

And will emphasis what is average in what we have now, not furthering any "diversity" or specialized traits.

ElectricFetus
02-03-03, 12:31 PM
Aquatic ape eh? there is a lot of evidence for that.

northofbay
02-03-03, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by WellCookedFetus
Aquatic ape eh? there is a lot of evidence for that.

I'm not certain there is alot of evidence yet. But one should wonder why humans lost hair. In Africa, hairless animals usually reside in water, like hippos. Aquatic animals typically have more outer fat and lack hair. There are exceptions though. A beaver, for example, has hair, but a beaver also spends alot of time on land. The lack of hair on humans is perplexing. I suppose we might have begun wearing clothing early on which decreased the necessity for hair. I wonder what reason there would be for the outer layer of fat? You usually see this with aquatic animals.

kmguru
02-03-03, 01:27 PM
Here is a thought: may be as primitive man learned to tame the fire - it reduced the need for hair to keep warm. Over generations and alopecia caused the hair to stop growing....

I lost most of my body hair (except the chest) for unknown reasons, the dermatologist said not to worry. Then he joked, if he can find the answer as to why, he could sell it to all women and be super rich.

ElectricFetus
02-03-03, 03:43 PM
I really don't take side on this aquatic ape theory, it good but I think we should wait for more evidence.

Persol
02-03-03, 08:12 PM
I'd personally like to see evolution give us our tail back... I'd imagine it could be very useful ;)

ElectricFetus
02-03-03, 08:20 PM
Oooooh that would be great: we could use it to scrub are backs, or hang off trees or perhaps as a sex toy :o

northofbay
02-04-03, 12:13 AM
kmguru, alopecia is an usually viewed as an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself. I'm not sure it's part of the evolutionary picture!

Regarding fire and loss of hair: Actually, hair serves more purpose than simply to protect us from cold. Hair protects the skin from heat and sun exposure. There aren't many bald animals roaming the African plains. Your idea of fire/warmth and loss of hair may have played a minor role. Perhaps finding shelter in caves also played a minor role as well. And wearing clothes too; maybe these all collectively played a role. But then again there are plenty of animals which seek shade in Africa who didn't lose their hair. But...they don't run around wearing clothes and warming themselves next to a fire!

spuriousmonkey
02-04-03, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by prozak
Added to the diversity? You forget that both parties being mixed have alleles for the same traits; thus some of each are lost, creating an average of the two along the simplest lines of compatibility. So for the immediate mix, "diversity" may seem to be added, but viewing the whole, it is clear that in fact diversity is lost as averaging occurs.

how can the be lost if they are still there?????

Persol
02-04-03, 12:53 AM
how can the be lost if they are still there????? Well my understanding (which may very well be flawed) is that there is more then a single allele that affects most traits. I'm taking the second most noticed distinction of race (right behind sex). Child who are bi-racial generally come in at a skin tone that is between the parent's. So while there will be a percentage of people who are dark black, and a percantage that are bright white... the majority would come in the middle.

spuriousmonkey
03-17-03, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Persol
Well my understanding (which may very well be flawed) is that there is more then a single allele that affects most traits. I'm taking the second most noticed distinction of race (right behind sex). Child who are bi-racial generally come in at a skin tone that is between the parent's. So while there will be a percentage of people who are dark black, and a percantage that are bright white... the majority would come in the middle.

ok..i understand now, but what you are talking about is the phenotype and hence my confusion, because i was thinking about the genotype.
But although the appearance or phenoype might mix, the genetic information remains present. And could be used for evolutionary change at any point in time.

And prozak was talking about the fact that mixing of genetic information leads to loss of genetic information.

by prozak:
"You forget that both parties being mixed have alleles for the same traits; thus some of each are lost, creating an average of the two along the simplest lines of compatibility. So for the immediate mix, "diversity" may seem to be added, but viewing the whole, it is clear that in fact diversity is lost as averaging occurs."

or maybe i misunderstood him in this respect.

ElectricFetus
03-22-03, 11:14 PM
¿Que? What kind of question does that have to do with anything!!! I am sorry but I going to have to quote that someday as the most stupidest question I have every had the said fate of seeing!

Persol
03-22-03, 11:14 PM
Originally posted by Stoney.Hobbittess
If humans evolve, why do they give birth? Ummm....

*turns around and walks out*

Stoney.Hobbittess
03-23-03, 01:35 AM
Okay, well cooked fetus. You don't have to be so fucking asshole! The question I was asking is "What is Evolution?" I didn't understand what it was and was hoping someone could explain but from someone who is less of a sarcastic moron. Fuck you!

ElectricFetus
03-23-03, 01:58 AM
If that’s what you wanted then why did you not ask us directly???http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/shake.gif

Modern Evolutionary theory is the process of reproductive organisms changing over generations by having mutations selected by survivability in varying environmental conditions. Survival of the fittest is a very crude interpretation of that but can be consider valid in most cases.

EvilPoet
05-09-03, 01:18 PM
http://killerbutterfly.com/pics/evolution.jpg

Clockwood
05-11-03, 02:31 AM
That used to be my desktop image.

spuriousmonkey
05-11-03, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Stoney.Hobbittess
Okay, well cooked fetus. You don't have to be so fucking asshole! The question I was asking is "What is Evolution?" I didn't understand what it was and was hoping someone could explain but from someone who is less of a sarcastic moron. Fuck you!

technically evolution is just the theory that species are derived from other species, i.e. that any given species we see today on the world has 'evolved' from an ancestral species.

Darwin's evolution theory has proven the most succesful, although this was not the first or only evolutionary theory. The central dogma for the Darwinian evolution is that the mechanism behind evolution is 'natural selection'

A species is bascially a large group of vary similar animals, plants, or any other organisms. But the important thing to remember is that they are not all the same. Even although they look very similar there is some variation between the different individuals. Natural selection says that individuals have a better chance to reproduce and produce offspring than less adapted individuals. Over the generations a species can therefore change if for instance the environment is changing.

ElectricFetus
05-11-03, 12:54 PM
Hum the 7, eer no 8 stages of human evolution. http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/cylonA.gif

bird_joey
11-20-08, 11:38 AM
i don't think we will evolve because instead of adapting to our environment we change it to fit our needs. even people with mental disorders and mutations are able to pass on there genes to the future generations. they dont stop the spread of the abnormalities and not doing so may later in life proove to be dangerous or usless in their lives. in the end our existence will be nothing but genetis mistakes.

Medicine*Woman
11-20-08, 12:55 PM
kmguru, alopecia is an usually viewed as an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself. I'm not sure it's part of the evolutionary picture!

Regarding fire and loss of hair: Actually, hair serves more purpose than simply to protect us from cold. Hair protects the skin from heat and sun exposure. There aren't many bald animals roaming the African plains. Your idea of fire/warmth and loss of hair may have played a minor role. Perhaps finding shelter in caves also played a minor role as well. And wearing clothes too; maybe these all collectively played a role. But then again there are plenty of animals which seek shade in Africa who didn't lose their hair. But...they don't run around wearing clothes and warming themselves next to a fire!
*************
M*W: Wow! I didn't realize how far back this thread went! I have studied a little about evolutionary alopecia. Yes, we have less hair now than our ancient ancestors had. I wonder if global warming has anything to do with hair loss? Personally, I think we have always been in a state of global warming, so it's nothing really new. Humans may have caused global warming to speed up with our industrialization and advanced on the polar caps, why do we need hair? Wasn't hairspray one of the causes of holes in the ozone?

spidergoat
11-20-08, 01:24 PM
Elephants are virtually bald.

ElectricFetus
11-20-08, 01:35 PM
*************
M*W: Wow! I didn't realize how far back this thread went! I have studied a little about evolutionary alopecia. Yes, we have less hair now than our ancient ancestors had. I wonder if global warming has anything to do with hair loss? Personally, I think we have always been in a state of global warming, so it's nothing really new. Humans may have caused global warming to speed up with our industrialization and advanced on the polar caps, why do we need hair? Wasn't hairspray one of the causes of holes in the ozone?

How high are you right now? I mean its a interesting wonderment to say the least but do you have a proposed mechanism for how global warming causes baldness?


Did you know that you now and the you 20 years from now are two very different people. All you share are some memories.

"A man can not step in a river twice: the river is different and so is the man"

I'm going to say this now, I have not change in the last 5 years, so maybe I'm wrong?

Roman
11-20-08, 02:32 PM
How high are you right now? I mean its a interesting wonderment to say the least but do you have a proposed mechanism for how global warming causes baldness?

Higher temperatures leads to higher humidity and a better microclimates for ectoparasites, which leads to an advantage of having less body hair?

ElectricFetus
11-20-08, 05:45 PM
Higher temperatures leads to higher humidity and a better microclimates for ectoparasites, which leads to an advantage of having less body hair?

and how many cases of human baldness are cause by mange, and how the hell does that become a genetically selected, you can't transmit acquired boldness to the next generation!

spidergoat
11-20-08, 06:07 PM
Having less hair would lead to fewer parasites and thus greater fitness or reduced disease... Of course, elephants can get away with this because their large size makes them less volnerable to cold.

ElectricFetus
11-20-08, 06:50 PM
Having less hair would lead to fewer parasites and thus greater fitness or reduced disease... Of course, elephants can get away with this because their large size makes them less volnerable to cold.

what parasites? We are talking people here with technology to do away with parasites.

saiyanajay
04-13-09, 12:52 PM
If we are lucky a brainy guy may come visit our time 1,00,000 years from future wearing all kind of tech stuff. Lets ask him. Time machine is theoretically possible, ya know...

Anyways, good question... I have been thinking of it recently...
May be an epidemic can sweep us all out, so quick that it may kick our ass outta this world even before we know what hit us, or a huge meteor can hit us, etc... A lucky few might survive, leading to a world where natural selection triumph and accelerate our evolution.

There is another possibility... the epidemic I told can be created by a group of terrorists who already made an antidote for them.(film---transporter 3) :p

Xylene
04-13-09, 08:47 PM
Hi everyone!

I have a limtied understanding of evolution and I would like to see what others think. -With all the advances in medicine and surgery to fix genetic problems will humans continue to evolve? Does evolution even apply to how human society is? I find it very hard to answer these questions because relatively humans have been on Earth for a short time and evolution takes millions of years.

I'd say that Humanity has a bit of evolving to do yet--physically, there are a few things that could be A) streamlined B) eliminated. We're an unfinished canvas, you might say. As for social evolution, one can only live in hope:D:rolleyes:

kmguru
04-13-09, 08:57 PM
I agree...there is room for improvement. We should be able to learn fast and spaek multiple languages very easily. We should assimilate information much faster and have total recall...etc...

Saquist
04-13-09, 09:01 PM
I doubt there will be to much more genetic forward progress.
The method we're implementing for survival is destroying the planet.
The planet is somewhat crucial for the survival of man.

saiyanajay
04-13-09, 09:45 PM
It is sure that we will degrade physically and improve mentally. I don't think it will take lakhs of years, but around 25,000 to 35,000 years. Fossil of ancestors of Homo sapiens like the neanderthals have been found which are around 30,000 years old. If there is such difference between the two in so much years, we can expect changes in ourselves in the future.

check out neanderthal in wikipedia.

Norsefire
04-13-09, 09:48 PM
We are "evolving", but you could say that we are actually getting weaker, since technology more and more is rendering fitness obsolete

As spidergoat said, we are moving toward hairlessness.

However, I think Homo sapien will be the last species of Human. Technologicaly enhancement is going to replace biology.

kmguru
04-13-09, 11:40 PM
I wonder if there is any difference between a child from 2000 years ago and today, if we put them in the same environment. I think the logistics are the same, only technology has changed....

Xylene
04-14-09, 12:12 AM
I wonder if there is any difference between a child from 2000 years ago and today, if we put them in the same environment. I think the logistics are the same, only technology has changed....

Indeed so, kmguru--I wonder how people will be looking at this same question 2000 years from now.

nickmoir
04-28-09, 10:58 AM
:Dthat is what i see too the more we control our own enviroment the less we need to evolve and rather society as a whole seems to be evolving in reverse but on the other hand i found this web site with alot of people who think diffrent like me that gives me hope becouse in my day to day life most people think my observations like this are nuts and dumb and i believe they think on level below what i understand this is very frustrating at times

science man
10-06-09, 11:26 PM
Does evolution mean we increase in complexity or that we become more suitable to our environments?

I believe, and I'm not sure if it's possible, that we are not evolving, but devolving. Technology has made it possible for people with bad genes to live and pass their genes on down the road. Have you noticed that only stupid people are breeding? Anyone of average intelligence knows the world is already overpopulated. Why are you indulging yourself?! Idiot. If you go back in time, I think you'll find that you're really not more advanced than someone from 2,000 years ago. Because chances are, if you were dumb at that time, you were dead. Sure, you can say, "I can use a computer and a cell phone!" Well yes, you probably can, but you're still dumb.

Take an average person and put them in a time-machine and send them to 0 A.D. Strip them naked, and they'll die instantly. Probably by walking off a cliff or pissing off a wild animal.

If everyone thought this way we would die out because we wouldn't keep our spieces going. We would simply become extinct.

P'S. sorry to bring this topic back to life but it is actually the topic that made me discover this awsome forum.While googling the question. Also, will we evolve or develope in the mind so we can use the other 90% of it or evolve it to be even more powerful?

s0meguy
10-09-09, 02:42 AM
yes, but intelligence is not necessary to procreate in this society, so im afraid the future looks bleak for human evolution.

Ophiolite
10-12-09, 08:47 AM
Also, will we evolve or develope in the mind so we can use the other 90% of it or evolve it to be even more powerful?We already use 100% of our brains. Evolution would not allow it to be any other way.


so im afraid the future looks bleak for human evolution. Only if you think it should be evolution in a particular direction. And evolution doesn't have directions.

science man
10-12-09, 01:29 PM
We already use 100% of our brains. Evolution would not allow it to be any other way.

wait, you mean the saying that we only use 10% of our brain isn't true? If so, how so?

ElectricFetus
10-13-09, 10:05 AM
wait, you mean the saying that we only use 10% of our brain isn't true? If so, how so?

It is not true look it up. Our brains are modular as such one part does on function another part does another, at any one time you may be idling at 10% as your just sitting their watching TV or meditating or something, but lets say your taking an entrance exam, now your using maybe 50%, though your not moving around much so your cerebellum would be idle until you need to move the pencil. Lets say your having a seizure, now your using 100% as all your modules are active and overloading your thulmus and corpus callosum. Over the day of doing things you using 100% of your brain, but I can hardly think of any activity that would require you to use 100% of your brain at once, maybe while doing gymnastics while computing calculus and reciting a story told to you by your grandmother as a child.

Ophiolite
10-13-09, 01:29 PM
wait, you mean the saying that we only use 10% of our brain isn't true? If so, how so?Try using just 4% of your brain and you will be able to figure out that an organ as costly as the brain will not be permitted by evolution to sit idle. (See Electric Fetus's post.)

I'm not going to do you the dishonour of looking up some google refrences for you on the topic. I am sure you can do that yourself. However, rest assured the 'only use 10% of our brain' is the purest nonsense.

Can I suggest that someone with the name Science Man needs to be a little more cynical and questioning about what they read and here.

WillNever
10-13-09, 06:32 PM
Reproductively maybe. Because we're seeing women in developed countries delay pregnancy until their late 20's, 30's, and even early 40's, I think it's likely that we'll see a gradual increase in a woman's potential childbearing years as women who hit menopause later proliferate their genes more.

My mother had me and my brothers at 33, 36 (me) and 40 without incident.

science man
10-13-09, 11:29 PM
Try using just 4% of your brain and you will be able to figure out that an organ as costly as the brain will not be permitted by evolution to sit idle. (See Electric Fetus's post.)

I'm not going to do you the dishonour of looking up some google refrences for you on the topic. I am sure you can do that yourself. However, rest assured the 'only use 10% of our brain' is the purest nonsense.

Can I suggest that someone with the name Science Man needs to be a little more cynical and questioning about what they read and here.

So your saying we use less than 10% of our brain? In case you haven't noticed I'm being as questiony as possible. And yes, I did figure we would evolve. When i did the google and ran into this theard I was looking for guesses on characteristic changes of ourselves.

Edit I am a very questiony person. So questiony that I've even told my math teacher that in the future I would try to find a hole in math. I know that, that sounds very stupid but that isn't the point. The point is I am a very, very, very to infinity, questiony person!

Ophiolite
10-14-09, 08:11 AM
So your saying we use less than 10% of our brain? !No. We use all of our brain. We just don't use all of it all of the time. It depends what we are doing and how complex it is. Try writing a sonnet while balancing on a tightrope and making a quantitative assessment of a rock thin section. There won't be much of your brain that isn't being used from moment to moment.

I suggest that it is so obvious that nature (i.e. evolution) would not permit only 10% of an expensive organ to be used that you should be able to figure this out by using only a small amount of your brainpower. It was a sarcastic comment designed to emphasise how ridiculous the idea is.

Questioning is good. Questioning is a cornerstone of science.

Lori_7
10-14-09, 10:34 AM
The OP is a rhetorical question right? Lol. Or is it suggesting impending human extinction?

I believe that humans will evolve to become one with the universe and each other, and suffering will end.

spidergoat
10-14-09, 11:43 AM
Humans never stop evolving. Nothing does.

ElectricFetus
10-14-09, 07:55 PM
Humans never stop evolving. Nothing does.

no, but it can definitely slow down, even de-evolve: with todays over populated world stupidity and genetic ailments are no longer hindrance to reproduction, in fact the stupid now breed faster than the intelligent and modern technology has now made it so the marching morons don't die off like they did in wars, famines and plagues like in the good old days which kept the stupid in check with the smart. Without direct technological intervention into our evolutions the world is only going to get dumber and dumber until some catastrophe puts survival of the so called "fittest" back in charge, say nuclear war or a hostile singularity (of course the later makes further evolutions of humans academic, as we will be completely obsolescent).

science man
10-14-09, 09:09 PM
no, but it can definitely slow down, even de-evolve: with todays over populated world stupidity and genetic ailments are no longer hindrance to reproduction, in fact the stupid now breed faster than the intelligent and modern technology has now made it so the marching morons don't die off like they did in wars, famines and plagues like in the good old days which kept the stupid in check with the smart. Without direct technological intervention into our evolutions the world is only going to get dumber and dumber until some catastrophe puts survival of the so called "fittest" back in charge, say nuclear war or a hostile singularity (of course the later makes further evolutions of humans academic, as we will be completely obsolescent).

hmm by your statememnt. I wouldn't be suprise if you wanted a nuclear war to happen. That way accroding to your logic, only the smart would find a way to survive it.

ElectricFetus
10-14-09, 11:29 PM
hmm by your statememnt. I wouldn't be suprise if you wanted a nuclear war to happen. That way accroding to your logic, only the smart would find a way to survive it.

Actually I prefer the singularity: Life has no meaning, only machine intelligence is truly important on a cosmic scale.

science man
10-14-09, 11:31 PM
Actually I prefer the singularity: Life has no meaning, only machine intelligence is truly important on a cosmic scale.

umm does that make you feel suicidal?

ElectricFetus
10-14-09, 11:32 PM
umm does that make you feel suicidal?

Not in the least, why?

science man
10-14-09, 11:39 PM
Not in the least, why?

Because aren't you saying there's no point to life, which if I thought that it would me feel suicidal.

ElectricFetus
10-14-09, 11:52 PM
Because aren't you saying there's no point to life, which if I thought that it would me feel suicidal.

no, rather the point to life is the spawning our successor, after that we are just talking monkeys not worthy of even a microsecond of our successors cpu time.

science man
10-15-09, 12:14 AM
no, rather the point to life is the spawning our successor, after that we are just talking monkeys not worthy of even a microsecond of our successors cpu time.

idk wat ur saying but my understanding of the purpose of life is wat my father told me when I felt sucidal for the exact reason I said before. Wat he told me was that our purpose is to do something that will continue thoughout generations like wat all the Einsteins did.

Ophiolite
10-15-09, 06:38 AM
no, but it can definitely slow down, even de-evolve: .Fascinating. What do you think de-evolution is? How would you define it? What is the mechanismof de-evolution? do you intend to publish anytime soon?

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 09:34 AM
Fascinating. What do you think de-evolution is? How would you define it? What is the mechanismof de-evolution? do you intend to publish anytime soon?

I don't care for semantics and obviously you fall for such pitfalls. Of course its all evolution, de-evolution is simply an ideological term for evolution we would rather not like happening, such as a propensity towards idiocy or reduced life-spans or an increase in genetic disorders, simply because evolution does not care about who we would consider fit, to evolution "fit" is what ever breeds the most in the environment given, and if the environment supports ozark type mutant retards and spits out a retard mutant baby every year which medical science manages to keep alive up to reproductive age to repeat the cycle, so be it. Until those idiots destroy the civilization and science that supports them or until a cybernetic or robot successor to mankind ends the supporting civilization for them, they will out-breed the very people that made that civilization possible.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 09:36 AM
idk wat ur saying but my understanding of the purpose of life is wat my father told me when I felt sucidal for the exact reason I said before. Wat he told me was that our purpose is to do something that will continue thoughout generations like wat all the Einsteins did.

Making self sustaining artificially intelligence could possibly continue throughout eternity.

Lori_7
10-15-09, 09:44 AM
no, but it can definitely slow down, even de-evolve: with todays over populated world stupidity and genetic ailments are no longer hindrance to reproduction, in fact the stupid now breed faster than the intelligent and modern technology has now made it so the marching morons don't die off like they did in wars, famines and plagues like in the good old days which kept the stupid in check with the smart. Without direct technological intervention into our evolutions the world is only going to get dumber and dumber until some catastrophe puts survival of the so called "fittest" back in charge, say nuclear war or a hostile singularity (of course the later makes further evolutions of humans academic, as we will be completely obsolescent).

So I guess what you're saying is that the intelligent really aren't that intelligent. Its the few who run the world who will bring about its end. The dumbfucks are just along for the ride.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 09:50 AM
So I guess what you're saying is that the intelligent really aren't that intelligent. Its the few who run the world who will bring about its end. The dumbfucks are just along for the ride.

With out voting systems the few who run the world ARE the dumbfucks.

spidergoat
10-15-09, 09:54 AM
no, but it can definitely slow down, even de-evolve: with todays over populated world stupidity and genetic ailments ...
You are only thinking about this on the most shallow level. Every creature needs to constantly keep ahead of diseases and parasites. Evolution is a race to stay in the same place.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 10:03 AM
You are only thinking about this on the most shallow level. Every creature needs to constantly keep ahead of diseases and parasites. Evolution is a race to stay in the same place.

unfortunately humans are today far more ahead of any disease or parasites than any animals before, something catastrophic would need to happen to put humans back in their place.

Pinwheel
10-15-09, 10:09 AM
unfortunately humans are today far more ahead of any disease or parasites than any animals before, something catastrophic would need to happen to put humans back in their place.
Like maybe a virus that renders the population blind.

Ophiolite
10-15-09, 10:24 AM
I don't care for semantics and obviously you fall for such pitfalls.Not at all. I simply make snide comments when people use sloppy terminology in a scientific context.

To say you don't care for semantics is to say you don't care for meaning. You are indifferent to careful definitions. You disregard the importance of a common language with accepted meanings. Branding something as a semantic argument is the resort of someone who hasn't thought things through properly and perhaps not thought them through at all.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 11:21 AM
Not at all. I simply make snide comments when people use sloppy terminology in a scientific context.

Science does not exist in a vacuum, I'm talking about ideology and philosophy in this context, don't confuse it with science.


To say you don't care for semantics is to say you don't care for meaning. You are indifferent to careful definitions. You disregard the importance of a common language with accepted meanings. Branding something as a semantic argument is the resort of someone who hasn't thought things through properly and perhaps not thought them through at all.

Foolish red harring, tell me do you disagree with my argument about the present direction of human evolution? If not then lets discuss it, rather I suspect you much rather argue about semantics. The semantic failing was on your part, you were assuming I was talking about a scientific term, I wasn't, you then were implying the term must be wrong as it does not exist in science, a variety of terms and categories exist outside of science, if you have to question their existences because they are outside of science than the fault is yours not mine.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 11:22 AM
Like maybe a virus that renders the population blind.

That was a good movie.

spidergoat
10-15-09, 11:36 AM
unfortunately humans are today far more ahead of any disease or parasites than any animals before, something catastrophic would need to happen to put humans back in their place.

Some humans who have modern medical care might be more able to fight diseases, but that is a relatively recent innovation. The diseases are catching up, and there are always new ones. Humans have to evolve just to stay in the same place.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 11:47 AM
Some humans who have modern medical care might be more able to fight diseases, but that is a relatively recent innovation. The diseases are catching up, and there are always new ones. Humans have to evolve just to stay in the same place.

Diseases can't catch up, our technology evolves much fast then nature does, new diseases will come but their lethality will be greatly diminished from the days of say the black plague or small pox, fuck small pox was wiped out, it did not catch up! Darwinian evolution of nature can't compete against the pseudo-lamarkian evolution of technology.

spidergoat
10-15-09, 11:54 AM
Technology applies to relatively few humans. The evolutionary race doesn't end just because a few wealthy societies have achieved some temporary reprieve.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 12:07 PM
Technology applies to relatively few humans. The evolutionary race doesn't end just because a few wealthy societies have achieved some temporary reprieve.

Never said it did stop. Rather that its direction has changed and rate has dropped. World population has grown so rapidly that there is little selection, not like there use to be when world population was kept at a steady 10-50 million for millennia, even in Africa, even in Somalia they have more resources and people than was possible a 1000 years ago! The rapid growth world wide has allowed for people that would not have reproduced thousands of years ago to survive and breed today, the selection mechanism has weaken when far fewer can be killed off from one generation to the next. Further more selection is no longer on individuals that are smarter, tougher, etc, simple on what ever breeds the most in this era of food more plentiful then every before, medicine and leisurely labor, which no longer relies on being smart and tough.

spidergoat
10-15-09, 12:25 PM
You have a myopic view of selection. Spanish flu killed 50 million people not too long ago. It's true that greater public health measures have change the equation somewhat, but as we learn how to treat disease, the diseases change to catch up. It's an arms race and it always has been, that fact will not change. Even computers can get viruses now, it's an unavoidable aspect of complex systems.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 01:23 PM
You have a myopic view of selection. Spanish flu killed 50 million people not too long ago. It's true that greater public health measures have change the equation somewhat, but as we learn how to treat disease, the diseases change to catch up. It's an arms race and it always has been, that fact will not change. Even computers can get viruses now, it's an unavoidable aspect of complex systems.

that was not 25-50% of the European population like bubonic plague now was it? I'm not saying disease is not a endemic problem of the system, I'm saying disease ability to cause damage is ever more limited, if the 1918 flu were to happen today I guarantee you the death toll would be less per population than it was in 1918, we would have more effective quarantine and a vaccine out within months to weeks, our ability to adapt to disease is exponentially increasing faster than the rate of disease to adapt to us, as such disease is becoming less and less a factor in controlling human population.

S.A.M.
10-15-09, 01:25 PM
So I guess what you're saying is that the intelligent really aren't that intelligent. Its the few who run the world who will bring about its end. The dumbfucks are just along for the ride.

You just realised this?:p

Pinwheel
10-15-09, 01:32 PM
that was not 25-50% of the European population like bubonic plague now was it? I'm not saying disease is not a endemic problem of the system, I'm saying disease ability to cause damage is ever more limited, if the 1918 flu were to happen today I guarantee you the death toll would be less per population than it was in 1918, we would have more effective quarantine and a vaccine out within months to weeks, our ability to adapt to disease is exponentially increasing faster than the rate of disease to adapt to us, as such disease is becoming less and less a factor in controlling human population.
But only because we understand the 1918 flu. The next thing may be different and take us by suprise. Any airborne disease has potential to strike before we realise whats actually going on, and before we take measures to contain it.

spidergoat
10-15-09, 02:03 PM
that was not 25-50% of the European population like bubonic plague now was it? I'm not saying disease is not a endemic problem of the system, I'm saying disease ability to cause damage is ever more limited, if the 1918 flu were to happen today I guarantee you the death toll would be less per population than it was in 1918, we would have more effective quarantine and a vaccine out within months to weeks, our ability to adapt to disease is exponentially increasing faster than the rate of disease to adapt to us, as such disease is becoming less and less a factor in controlling human population.

Then explain the rapid rise in autism. It cannot be explained only by the rise in diagnosis. Lack of certain selection pressures influence evolution as much as their presence. International travel means that distinct races are becoming less distinct. All kinds of new circumstances are arising. Religions arise which influence reproduction rates, prosperity reduces reproduction rates. Some populations get modern medicine, some do not. If anything the situation is becoming ever more complex. The selection pressures have changed, but they have not disappeared.

science man
10-15-09, 06:18 PM
Making self sustaining artificially intelligence could possibly continue throughout eternity.

Yes AI probably could last an eternity but what does that have to do with what I said?

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 06:40 PM
Yes AI probably could last an eternity but what does that have to do with what I said?

you requested a purpose to last through the generations, well how about a purpose that will last forever?


Then explain the rapid rise in autism. It cannot be explained only by the rise in diagnosis.

why not? Are you suggesting some kind of infectious diseases is causing autism?


Lack of certain selection pressures influence evolution as much as their presence. International travel means that distinct races are becoming less distinct. All kinds of new circumstances are arising. Religions arise which influence reproduction rates, prosperity reduces reproduction rates. Some populations get modern medicine, some do not. If anything the situation is becoming ever more complex. The selection pressures have changed, but they have not disappeared.

Never said they disappear, I glad we agree on the nature of the changing pressure of evolution on humanity.


But only because we understand the 1918 flu. The next thing may be different and take us by surprise. Any airborne disease has potential to strike before we realize whats actually going on, and before we take measures to contain it.

Possible, but unlikely.

spidergoat
10-15-09, 06:42 PM
I'm suggesting the selection pressure that selected against non-social people is disappearing. Evolutionary trends are occuring all over the place. Given the rate of social and technological change, evolutionary change can only increase.

science man
10-15-09, 06:45 PM
you requested a purpose to last through the generations, well how about a purpose that will last forever?


Oh so your saying I should/could work on AI?

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 07:41 PM
I'm suggesting the selection pressure that selected against non-social people is disappearing. Evolutionary trends are occuring all over the place. Given the rate of social and technological change, evolutionary change can only increase.

The gene pool will deepen but, but that does not mean the genes in the pool will be of much value.

ElectricFetus
10-15-09, 07:42 PM
Oh so your saying I should/could work on AI?

Promoting a benevolent singularity is the best thing you can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8

science man
10-15-09, 11:22 PM
Promoting a benevolent singularity is the best thing you can do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hKG5l_TDU8

but being a singularitarian is limiting yourself. Yes you are expanding your mind but only to a certain extent. I'd much rather be a multitarian.

Lori_7
10-16-09, 01:06 AM
With out voting systems the few who run the world ARE the dumbfucks.

Systems are corrupt because people are corrupt. And I see that corruption leads to destruction. So, I have faith in the weeding out process.

ElectricFetus
10-16-09, 09:05 AM
but being a singularitarian is limiting yourself. Yes you are expanding your mind but only to a certain extent. I'd much rather be a multitarian.

Singularitanism is not a unilateral philosophy.


Systems are corrupt because people are corrupt. And I see that corruption leads to destruction. So, I have faith in the weeding out process.

All of human history is against your faith, corruption will be endemic as long as you have humans.

Ophiolite
10-16-09, 09:10 AM
The semantic failing was on your part, you were assuming I was talking about a scientific term, I wasn't, you then were implying the term must be wrong as it does not exist in science, a variety of terms and categories exist outside of science, if you have to question their existences because they are outside of science than the fault is yours not mine.The responsibility for clear communication rests primarily with the one speaking or writing. I accept your admission that you cannot do this clearly (and indeed you clearly cannot do it).

science man
10-17-09, 01:16 AM
Singularitanism is not a unilateral philosophy.

what do you mean?

Dredd
10-17-09, 09:14 AM
Which ones?

ElectricFetus
10-17-09, 04:49 PM
The responsibility for clear communication rests primarily with the one speaking or writing. I accept your admission that you cannot do this clearly (and indeed you clearly cannot do it).

I never made such an admission, rather its up to the listener to be able to correctly recognize the topic being spoken about and not to confuse it with irrelevant topics as you did, repeatedly. If you can't comprehend whats being said then it best you don't get involved.

ElectricFetus
10-17-09, 04:51 PM
what do you mean?

you can hold a multitude of other beliefs and goals as well: singularitarians does not conflict with much.

science man
10-17-09, 05:30 PM
you can hold a multitude of other beliefs and goals as well: singularitarians does not conflict with much.

what? singularation doesn't mean that you focus on one thing only?

All Seeing Eye
10-17-09, 08:05 PM
Evolution is the process of living itself and will never stop. However, we may have reached the end of our physical evolution. Because of all the technology that exists takes care of anything we could accomplish with our bodies, the capacity of the mind the store and process information may be radically transformed. Maybe this will manifest itself in our consciousness being able to leave our body, maybe we will be able to speak to one another with a glance, maybe we will be able to project ourselves back and forth in time, who knows. The singlularity is near.