Wet1 gave me the idea for this thread. He brought up the subject of radiological mutation as a driving force for change. Random mutational changes are a necessary part of nature. Mutations are more often than not an impediment to survival. Animals generally weed out the less suitable members through simple competition. Those least adept at fitting into the environment are more likely to die before reaching breeding age. Therefore over time the species tends to stay the same. Only when a mutation proves helpful to survival does it gradually spread into the gene pool of that species. As environments change, even the most perfectly adapted animals must change with it or be replaced by more adaptable animals. This is evolution. But what if an apex predator reached the very top of the food chain and became smart enough to take control of nature? If it automated everything. No longer needed to run down prey or compete for resources. Even money was abolished. Population controls keeping society static. No more competition. Wouldn't radiation continue mutating the animal but both good and bad changes would go unattended. Ignored. Wouldn't the bad mutations which ofcourse outweigh the good by several magnitude result in devolution? We may already be on this track. Although we do compete with ourselves to a certain extent it is not as brutal a contest as that found in other parts of nature. Physically we are very weak compared to other animals. A case of use it or lose it applies to mother nature and our minds are the only part of us essential to modern day survival and reproduction.

No, I think that evolution would still continue in a species advanced enough to eliminate the difficulties of survival. There will always be attributes that make certain members of the spcies more attractive than others. It's possible that evolution will take unusual turns in such a case, since attributes that aid survival are not such a deciding factor. Of course, it's also likely that there will be residual preference for "survival" features even after survival is not a problem. It certainly has happened with humans. Just looking at what people look for in their mates is quite telling. Men look for "attractive" females. What is considered attractive is a combination of current culture and properties that allow for successful childbearing. Women, on the other hand, look for strong, confident, successful individuals, who are likely to provide protection and security. This is all, of course a generalization, but the point remains.

So, in short, I'd say that even without the difficulties faced by a "wild" species, evolution will still work. In humans, at any rate, we still look for the same old stuff. As long as there is some selectivity in which member of the opposite sex an individual chooses, I think evolution will still fuction and produce changes.

A species that isn't "violented upon" stops evolving.
Humans kill eachother but there's no real order to the carnage. They will VERY slowly evolve microscopically, but unlike other animals it won't be in any positive direction.

It could be possible that a civilised race becomes isolated from evolutionary pressure and subject to only random genetic drift; perhaps if we explore the galaxy we will find a number of static worlds where no change has occured for millions of years;
like the coelocanth, however, I think these worlds will be very much in the minority.

If humanity spreads out to the stars it seems to me that diversity will become the rule, not the exeption; especially as we will be able to manipulate our own genome, not only will each solar system have a different sub-species of humanity, each planet within each system may well have an adapted race,
and sometimes several on each planet, not to mention hybridisation wherever contact is possible.

Then there may well be self-designing artificial lifeforms;
don't worry too much about stagnation in the genepool; ain't gonna happen to us, IMO.
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

given a species with variable traits that are inherited plus natural selection, evolution occurs. nothing else is needed.

Originally posted by paulsamuel
given a species with variable traits that are inherited plus natural selection evolution occurs. nothing else is needed.
Well natural selection would be whats lacking when we are talking about homo-sapiens or any domestic species for that matter.

Thats a very good point about competition between males for females. Some women certainly do look for strong athletic intelligent men but not always.

In any litter of puppies there are runts. In nature the weakest die before reaching maturity. We seem to be concentrating on the sexual attraction between male and female and assuming this will make up for trials of nature.

Firstly, attraction is also a result of evolution. It is changeable. As a species evolves and changes those females drawn to the slightly different but better adapted males will secure the future of their offspring. It's a random thing. Today any partner you choose is likely to have surviving offspring. So tastes in men and women are no longer shaped by evolutionary forces. Many women now pick a guy with a good sense of humour.

Fertility rates are going down by the way. I think its because in the past there was an urgency about having children. Most of them would die so the more you had the more likely it was a few would survive. Even in my grandparents generation it wasn't unusual to have a dozen kids. Now the urgency is gone. You can afford to wait to have children and the 2.2 child nuclear family has replaced the big households. Fertility is gradually dropping because we don't need to be very fertile. Those who aren't very fertile eventually have kids and pass on their low fertility. Those kids marry more fertile people and gradually fertility reduces. Only in third world countries has fertility rates remained high.

The original author apparently has NO KNOWLEDGE of evolution whatsoever.

violence has NOTHING to do with evolution.

Do you even know what evolution is?

Crystal, stop going around the forums embarrassing yourself. Seriously.

I think evolution would be possible without violence, and outside of male for female competition, if the enviroment the evolution would take place in was particularly harsh. Our planet is relatively ideal for life, so once life started, it was free to develop with only competition from other lifeforms. However, life froms developing in planets with excessivly hostile conditions would evolve in order to survive these.
So, in essence, it is violence causing evolution, but not from other creatures, as I think was suggested in the original statement.

Also, in the original statement it was suggested that we are becoming more and more genetically undesirable, because we are weaker than most other animals. If humanity defined itself by pure brute strength, we would be a sad species. However, most of our species defining accomplishments are in the area of knowledge, and science. Generally, atleast in the first and second worlds, people who are more intelligent have a greater chance of reproducing than those who are less intelligent.
Therefore, we are evolving, but on a intellectual rather than physical level.
A final note, humans have been evolving in minor ways since the dawn of our existence, it has never stopped. For example, early humans were much shorter than modern ones. This has continued uninterrupted to the present day. Many think that Napoleon was very short(hence, the Napoleon complex) however, he was of average for his time period, and that was only 3 centuries ago.

violence has NOTHING to do with evolution.

It was violence that created Life. A young violent Earth. Highly radioactive and with a thick poisonous atmosphere perpetually attacked by lightning streaks. The primordial soup formed in this violent cooking pot and violent competition was the driving force of advancement. Only a tiny fraction of new life is as well adapted or indeed better adapted than its predecessors. The rest are thrown to the winds. Look at as simple a thing as a poisonous cane toad. It lays thousands of blobs of jelly. Maybe a couple of these eggs will survive to reach adulthood and breed successfully. Mother narture is cruel but for good reason. For most of the life on Earth every day is a challenge. Those who can't meet that challenge simply die. Tests of perception, judgement, memory, intelligence, jumping, balance, swimming, climbing, standing still, creeping, hiding, looking big, swerving, eating quickly, finding water and so on and so on and so on. I've read a few books on evolution and I even met the only living aquaintance of Darwin. A galapagos giant tortoise with Darwins initials inscribed in its shell, lol.

If humanity defined itself by pure brute strength, we would be a sad species. However, most of our species defining accomplishments are in the area of knowledge, and science.

I picture humanity 10,000 years from now as a log with one long index finger for pushing his remote.

:D


Ofcourse we can never totally separate ourselves from evolution so long as we compete amongst ourselves. A completely peaceful race on the other hand is another matter. It's interesting to note that we are not the only race on Earth partly detached from evolution. We've taken a few others along for the ride. Domesticated animals shouldn't be ignored. Survival for them is slightly more brutal than it is for us but they are still more sheltered than wild beasts. Dogs for example. Their shape and form is almost completely shaped by breeders. From a Chiuaua(?) to a Great Dane. Except for those specifically bred to fight such as Pit Bulls we have seen a general decline in their physical strength. Not many could stand up to a 400lb timber wolf. The main survival characteristics now consist of being capable of stealthily escaping the yard to procreate, demonstrating obedience, not attacking children and looking cute. Those lucky enough to look nice might be allowed to breed. Then there are cattle and sheep. No thinking is necessary on their part. Only good meat and coat. Consequently they are virtually mindless after thousands of years.

:D I think Jabba the Hutt would be more appropriate, we're already halfway there!

Yeah, I've met a few Jabba's. With no controls on genetic diversification every possible mutation is allowed. Fat people, short people, people with no arms or legs, anything is possible and it all gets mixed into the gene pool if they breed. Incredibly sensitive organisms are the first to get noticed in a devolving race. Short legs and arms or stupidity can go unnoticed as they happen gradually but some things like the eye only need a very small mutation to become useless. Thats why an increasingly large percentage of the population need glasses to see.

A final note, humans have been evolving in minor ways since the dawn of our existence, it has never stopped. For example, early humans were much shorter than modern ones.

That comes back to males and females. Women like taller men.

:D

Another thing about the average height of people over the years is this:

The smaller someone is the less food they eat and the more they can live on limited food.

For instance two 6 foot tall people would need to eat as much as three 4 foot tall people in order to live.

So the smaller you are the more people you can have.

Today people are taller because theres no food limit except in third world countries.

So in the past the dwarfs ruled the planet!:D

Anyone care to give me an example of a 'non-violent' life form?

I have a problem with the concept and am curious.

:m: :cool: :m:

Consider the lilies of the field...
they toil not, nor are they violent.
Smug little bastards
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

As a phyla, plants, and no doubt the lilies of the field, are every
bit as aggressive, and violent, as any other life form on this
plant. Survival requires violence.

:m: :cool: :m:

I visited the town Park the other day, and got a glance of a peacock doing it's best to attract some of the female peacock (actually called peahens), by vibrating his spread-out train of colourful feathers.

Instead of fighting eachother, the males use their appearance to attract females. The more "eyes" on it's train, the better. The females rarely seem interested, and only mates when it's time to do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, this is what I heard briefly by a couple of friends when we saw it.

http://www.honoluluzoo.org/images/peacock_wayde_small.jpg

Yup your right about the peacock.

Their tail feathers attract mates.

But I'm not sure it the number of tail feather "eyes" attract more mates or not.

We are a violent species and I am not sure we are evolving anymore. Evolution as I understand it is basically the survival of the fittest. The individuals with the most survival traits should live the longest and propagate the most. However, at least here in America, the most intelligent and most capable individuals seem to be having the fewest children. Not only are the most fit breeding the least, but the strong are caring for the weak, allowing them to survive to breed as well. All put together, I think our species is on a downward spiral unless we begin a program of genetic screening and engineering. Of course, this is just my opinion...

- KitNyx

re: peacocks: it appears to be the overall show that attracts the females, not the specific number of eyespots.


I was going to mention sexual selection. This is a perfect example. Were a species to become non-violent, there would still be sexual selection, which would drive evolution along. it would just run slower than a species which had both violent survival and sexual selection pushing it. Don't forget that while peacocks love to show off for the ladies, they will attack each other, too. they are not in the "non-violent" catagory.


For a plant to live, it has to pull in more water, get more light, and inhale more air than it's neighbors. if it doesn't, it neighbors outgrow it, and shade it out, killing it. For animals to survive, they must consume organic matter of some sort. As long as there is a limited supply of energy and a limited amount of area in which to live, living requires that you create a certain amount of suffering in the other things which are alive. Every time I wlk to my car, I crush insects, break grass leaves, inhale oxygen which could be used by other living things. this is after eating a breakfast of dead plants and sometimes dead animals. Often I add to that a tall glass of white liquid produced by cows, and meant for consumption by baby cows.

My main issue was mentioned on page 1: if you have an entire species become non-violent; the next bay that is born has a choice. be non-violent, and be a peace with everything, or choose to be violent (which is natural for humans), and take over. No one else is violent, so no one will stop you. the temptation to rule with such ease would be very hard to resist. the only thing which would prevent this is if the peacefull people were willing to simply put up with the violence of the person in question. allow him to kill, main, etc, without responding in any way. fully ignore the person through out their life. they would gain no power as long as no one recognised it. All they would have is the ability to hurt people who don't react when they are hurt. you can get no servents that way.

so would a no-violent species continue to eveolve? yes, IMO. at the same rate? no, IMO. however, their culture will continue to evolve, and may evolve faster, thanks to the extra time available, now that war has ended. Technology advances may slow down significantly, though.

First off, WE ARE NOT A VIOLENT SPECIES. Dont let people or politicians fool you into thinking that so we can bomb whatever country we want. We have choices (freewill), and i chose not to harm others, and i chose not to be violent. Saying we are a "violent species" is like implying that it is acceptable for anyone to commit violent acts onto others as if it were ok. "hey, what can you do, its in our nature." NO IT IS NOT. We ALWAYS have the final choice, just use your frontal lobes (super-ego). Take responsibilty for your own actions people, stop using crutches like a bible or some other ideology you thought up that can relieve you of all responsibilty.

Second, as for us evolving further more, i'll answer your questiong be quoting Physicist Michio Kaku...

"Assuming the laws of biological evolution on a Type 1 planet like ours, one can conclude their evolution will cease. Evolution tends to accelerate when there are isolated pockets of individuals and harsh environmental conditions. Whithin a small colony or tribe, small genetic differences due to inbreeding are gradually magnified, creating genetic "drift" within the same species...in general, the larger the breeding population, the slower the rate of evolution...because a Type 1 civilization will no longer have isolated breeding populations, there will be gradual mixing of peoples which will terminate their evolution as a species"

Ultimately, i think our "giant" leap in evolution will not be a new uber-species of humans (although a possibilty if genetic engineering gets out of hand). But It may well be that humanity's fate is to give birth to new lifeforms, including advance electronic ones. Certainly seems that way to me.

Evolution doesn't stand still when you become peaceful. Let's knock that theory on the head. Michio Kaku is a fool. A well educated physicist without a shred of common sense. Mutations happen. That is fact. Look at your siblings. Your brothers and sisters don't look exactly like you despite having the exact same parents. Unless ofcourse you are identical twins from the same cell which split. The race is mutating every single generation and the mutations are completely random. Both physical and mental details of your being do not get passed on exactly. Survival of the fittest is nothing more than a natural mechanism for preventing genetic spread diversifying too far. There is nothing else to stop it. You might pick a handsome husband or pretty wife but such selections are skin deep and don't reveal inner problems. Diabetes, weak heart, onset of muscular dystrophy, short lifespan, weak eyesight hidden by contacts and so on. Even appearance can be cloaked with makeup for bad skin and wigs for hair loss. Once attachments are made they often stick out of feelings of love and pregnancy.

The Coelacanth isn't a peaceful animal. It has big teeth. The reason it has hardly changed since the era of the Dinosaurs is because it's shape works well in its environment. It hasn't advanced much further but neither has it devolved into mush. Survival has kept the species in shape.

A Peacock has big feathers for attracting hens. It must also carry those heavy decorations when running away from wild dogs and cats. It's not just about who has the biggest most colourful feathers. It's who can drag them around long enough to breed and pass on their genes.

Originally posted by roadkill
Evolution doesn't stand still when you become peaceful. Let's knock that theory on the head. Michio Kaku is a fool.

Read the post again, it has nothing to do with becoming "peaceful." Kaku was referring to breeding peopulations, mutations become magnified the smaller the breeding peopulation ("In ancient time, for example, one could marry someone from the same neighboring tribe, with a total breeding population numbering less than a hundred. Today, breeding populations are usually in the millions").
Lets look at the Innuits, they live in a harsh frigid environment and have an isolated breeding population. Because of that, their mutations become magnified. they have short stocky bodies, with wider mid-section to store more heat.
Harsh environments+small breeding population = Genetic drift

I understand that and agree completely. Isolated small numbers of a species have a reduced gene pool to draw upon. Survival is still important but there are fewer adults from which to draw genes. All of us are unique and in such a small community large mutations are more likely. Especially with inbreeding enforcing genetic differences.

I believe human evolution must have been kickstarted by such segregation. Human beings diverged from apes too markedly and too fast for any other likely explanation.

How did we survive on the ground before super intelligence and tool use developed? I'm sure it wasn't by offering flowers to the lions and hyaena's of the savannah.

How do gorillas survive on the ground? There are other ground-dwelling apes in the world that are still alive. I guarantee early humans did not march around the African grasslands slaughtering all the lions and hyenas.

"Natural" selection will occur on any species where it is possible to develop a condition through mutation or disease that renders the individual sterile or otherwise unable to reproduce. Selection is all and only about reproduction, unless you live forever, which nothing really does.