Natural selection has taken up shape

actually I want it to be taken seriously. When you criticize me please give me your reason so that I can improve my theory

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay doke.
1) You didn't answer my questions.
2) Your claim "Right from time of civilization we have been focusing on technological development and haven't evolved" contains two errors and an apparent assumption.
2a) We can't stop evolving, it's not in our control, thus to claim that we haven't evolved "from the time of civilisation" is wrong.
2b) Nor have we been "focussing on technological development" from that time.
2c) The implication is that the (supposed) focus on technological development would have stopped evolution for us. This is also not true since the one doesn't, and can't, have such an effect on the other.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I used the term merely to draw a distinction between the common understanding that evolution is a positive evolvement in the direction of more sophisticated skill and adaptation, whereas devolution is more of a devolvement in the direction of lesser skills and adaptive powers.

Our society is evolving in some ways, but devolving in other ways. Of course they are two sides of the same coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well I now get your point. Do you know that we are homo sapien sapien and not just homo sapiens. This is speciation. What I wanted to say was that homo sapiens(the cave man) were a lot in the natural condition open to different things. We live in a man made world hence we never face the actual natural surrounding we make our body so comfortable that it doesn't make changes in theDNA structure thus we actually don't evolve

 

Where on Earth did you get that idea from? It's wholly inaccurate.

 

when you're open to different things you actually have to face things which you're body tries to adapt to but when you're comfortable what will you adapt to?

 

You seem to be implying that evolution works on Lamarckian principles?

 

not exactly

 

Evolution is really "ordering process", by trial and luck, not specifically geared to adaption.
The decision of "adaptability"is made by "natural selection". The survivors are said to have evolved adaptive skills, the devolved organisms may live less than a day, or if the genetic changes are not pertinent to survival, they may continue to live in their niche.

A perfect example is the "Silvery salamander" which by all odds should have become extinct long ago.
It is truly an amazing animal that has managed to survive due to isolation of habitat.

The do not evolve, they are all identical clones of the mother. An evolutionary "dead end". But they found a way to survive. A truly amazing story (which only enhances my awe and wonder of Nature and its creations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvery_salamander

and a few more miraculous tricks nature has imbued this remarkable ancient animal
http://www.ohioamphibians.com/salamanders/Unisexual_Ambystoma.html

How ancient?

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/prehistoric-amphibians.htm

 

There are arguments for and against this.

One argument is that the human skull can contain only a limited size brain, thus the limit is physical.
However, as I understand it, a genetic mutation was causal to DNA commands resulting in the growth of more folds in our brain structure than in our forefathers, thereby increasing room for neural development and the evolution of advanced abstract thought, along with our environmental experiences (knowledge)

It appears that our physical limitations are perhaps stifling the development of even more neural networks, mirror neural networks, memory, etc. Are we doomed to be trapped. like genies trapped in a bottle?

Question is; can the human brain fold in even more functional forms allowing for additional neural networks and processing power?

We have some evidence for this: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

a better neural cortex, increased no. of sulci and gyri result in increased brain capacity increasing our mental ability. Increased thinking leads to lesser physical activity and reduced strength.

 

So.. evolving then?

This is nonsense.
Bodies don't evolve, species do.
We (and everything else) evolves because of environmental pressures (to put it simply) - whether that environment is "natural" or "man made" is irrelevant.
(And, in fact, there's some argument that not only has human evolution NOT stopped but that it's accelerating).

 

And most likely to lower fertility,
Add that to global wars for fear of having to defend against the "strongest technology"

 

In a purely objective way, you are correct of course.
But if we evolved from mud and eventually will return to mud, would that be human evolution?

 

Would that include a couple of billion years as gas clouds, and as downloads, before returning to the classic 2-arms-2-legs-1-head shape?

 

I agree, but are we evolving in a balanced way. IMO, there lies the problem. Many species evolved senses well beyond our own brain ability, but only in very specific ways, for a specific function in their environment.

Are we accelerating our brain power in a direction which may prove fatal in the end. Are we becoming Wiser?

 

For some of us, YES (as a few molecules perhaps), it's part of the natural cycle.
Depends on the conditions on earth doesn't it?

 

Of course. If in 100,000 years mankind is a small brained tree dweller, that would simply mean we evolved to that type of animal.

 

What does that mean?

OK

How are we accelerating our brain power? Do you mean we are accelerating the rate of attaining knowledge?
I think we are becoming wiser, but we have a long, long way to go.

 

Sorry, I forgot the question mark in the original post. It was a question, not a statement.

I agree.

Replace "accelerating" with "evolution" of brain power. I am sure you agree that our brains are not perfect and need further growth and/or refinement. But brain power is directly proportional to brain size and sophistication of neural network functions.
Thus we can grow larger skulls (greater volume), which presents additional problems for the female in childbirth, or the brain needs to acquire more folding to increase internal processing power.
The latter seems more efficient.

Attaining knowledge does not make us smarter or wiser. IMO, we are indeed accelerating in attaining knowledge, it is an exponential function. But I think we are in agreement that storing data does not make us smarter or wiser, only more kowledgeable (a double edged sword).

Bottom line, our brains have by no means attained optimum functionality. Optical illusions are proof of its limitations and some choices we made were very "unwise" as is becoming obvious.

I think we are in fundamental agreement, but our language is somewhat "confounded".