Will humans evolve further?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by grazzhoppa, Aug 4, 2002.

  1. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    We have made our environment more conducive to individuals who have what previously would have been conceived of as weaknesses. In an environment where I can receive corrective lenses for my myopia I am at no practical disadvantage compared to someone who does not suffer from this limitation. I am perfectly fit, in this regard, for an environment that includes affordable optometrists.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    You see Ophiolite perspective is purely analytical on this, which is why he had such a hesy fit over the word "de-evolution", because it suggest a different kind of evolution, in actually evolution did not change but our judgment on what its doing did. Evolution simply put goes with what ever breeds the most (exceptions and special circumstances always exist when making a generalization like that). As I stated stupid people now breed far more rapidly than smart people and the traditional mechanisms for weeding out the stupid no longer appear to be effective, thus over just a few generations the populations average IQ we would expect to evolve in a downward direction, not something we would consider fit, but evolution does not care what we consider fit. Though I'm assuming an idiocracy is not possible as the stupid will eventually destroy society and reestablish selection pressure for what we would consider fit (smarter people able to live in minimalist environment) after they have collapsed civilization by one means or another.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Evolution is one of the things which cannot be stopped. It is very slow but definitely certain. There is no thing such as "devolution" IMO. One who lives must go on living.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478

    lol..seen the movie..Idiocracy..funny..
    they replace water with gatorade and wonder why the plants ain't growing..
     
  8. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    hmm..so what part of a human being has actually been proven to have evolved?
    knowledge is the only thing capable of evolving IMO...
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I'll ignore all the typographical and grammatical errors in EF's post, since he doesn't like to be corrected over trivia. That still leaves a pile of substantial errors to deal with. First, Philosophy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So you would like me to mix up the analytical with the emotional, or the irrational. I don't think so. I can't compete with you in that arena.
    Next, the History of Science
    Crap. Cite instances where any bona fide, mainstream scientist studying evolution has argued for the reality of deevolution.

    Then a genuine piece of information dispersal.
    But there is recent evidence - go0gle scholar may help you - that the birth rate of intelligent people in the wealthiest societies is now increasing.

    No. Completely wrong. Well, almost completely wrong. You would expect the average IQ to evolve in a downward direction. Anyone who had studied the issue rather than making half assed guesses would not have expected that. Perhaps you are unaware that really dumb parents tend to have children that are smarter than themselves and really smart parents tend to have children that are dumber than themselves. The overall tendency is for intelligence of offspring to tend towards the norm. Certainly the norm may itself be changing, but if it is changing then it is trending up, not down.
    The Executive Summary of the above is that you are talking crap based upon your reasoning and not upon observation of reality.
    Even if you were correct and average IQ was to fall because dumb parents really do have more and dumber children your definition of fitness is flawed. Well, not flawed, just wrong.
     
  10. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    I not arguing for the "reality" of de-evolution, you still have not figured out that its is merely a word for our desires, and as such valid as a descriptor of desires and preference but you keep confusing it with an attempt to describe a physical phenomena, which it is not. Spelling and grammar ad hominems aside, yours is a case of incomprehension and in ability to grasp semantics.

    Compared to stupid people? oh no please cite that one.

    Of course it is as the lower the IQ the more you breed, and I would like to see citation as well.

    Things have changed radically in the last few decades, we can't take the simple trend of 1900 to 2000 in IQ as a projector of future IQ as we had two world wars and epidemics that provided evolutionary pressures even in first world countries, but only for the first half of the 1900's. IQ by 2050 may be radically different from what we would extrapolate as technology is likely to allow for ever greater levels of incompetence and laziness to survive and breed, not to mention the singularity which would place technological development beyond the range of the unaugmented human brains comprehension, downward IQ or not.

    Well then define "fit" by evolutionary standards. Don't merely say "your wrong" provide evidence, state clearly why, etc.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    All parts evolved. Science doesn't "prove" anything.

    Try getting a bit of an education rather than opining from ignorance.
     
  12. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    Some will, and some won't. Whoops...I said too much!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    Proven?? I do not think evolution can be scientifically or mathematically proved. Have you not seen how we evolved from apes to homo sapiens. We lost our physical edge of our ancestors to develop our mental faculties better. Man lost it gradually because it was more efficient over growing more muscles.
     
  14. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    what about those who say too much, will they or will they not?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I say those folks will have their tongues shortened by evolution...real shortened...
     
  15. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    Do you think that if generations after generations people would get their tongues cut off, that those tongues would just simply stop growing at a certain point in humanity?
     
  16. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    nope its just that people with long tongues...ehhem like psychopuppy people...will have a less likely chance of passing on their genes to a next generation, as a result of these those with shorter tongues will pass their genes and there will be a much higher destribution of people with shorter tongues as a result. The reason why people with cut of longer tongues genes will not be present in the genepool is because those people lack the skills in todays world to fully function in the society that requires majorly to speak.
     
  17. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    Did you know that the former example I presented was the method used by Weismann to refute Lamarck's theory of evolution? Hehe...and this bullshit is being passed down generation after generation, in schoolbooks.

    In 1889, German biologist August Weismann showed that Lamarck's [explanation of evolution] was incorrect. Weismann cut off the tails of hundreds of mice for 22 generations. Lamarck's hypothesis [sic] would predict that eventually mice would be born with shorter tails or no tails at all. However, Weismann's mice continued to produce baby mice with normal tails. Weismann concluded that changes in the body during an individual's lifetime do not affect the reproductive cells or the offspring.

    Lamarck wasn't talking about actions of external agents, he was speaking of the individual's drive, and actions leading to that form of evolution such as the giraffe's neck getting longer.

    Stupidity has no ends.
     
  18. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    yes I know about PsychoTropicLamark
     
  19. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,538
    I love you, too, draqon. By the way, where's the Vodka you promised me? I wanted to go all: "приветственные восклицания!" on you.
     
  20. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    they have lots of genetic evidence of what can and cant be done,they have managed to insert genes into subjects who wouldn't normally have that gene
    creating a bigger better subject..

    oh wait..farmers have been doing that for thousands of years..splicing one plant into another to create a bigger better plant.
    and with cows,pigs,turkeys..etc, they have been selectively breeding them to produce bigger better animals...

    they have a pretty good clue as to how long it takes to produce evidence for evolution..

    just in my lifetime, my dads lifetime, and maybe even my grandpas lifetime they have created bigger better plants,animals,and other things..why is it taking so long to show any evolutionary change in us humans??

    ((all the battles between evolution and creationist would become a waste of time if we finally learned it was something that we hadn't even considered..))
     
  21. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    So what you are saying is that we should immediately start sprouting additional arms so that we can multitask better?
    There is probably so scale on which you can measure evolution I really don't know what you are implying here.
     
  22. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    evolution is a theory..
    selective breeding seems to do what evolutionist claim evolution does..
    ppl aren't very selective about who they breed with...
    the only thing that evolves is knowledge..
    i believe if we could bring a caveman to the present and teach him things he needs to know..we would not be able to distinguish him from any other person..
     
  23. raggamax Banned Banned

    Messages:
    175
    I think you are wrong here. Selective breeding cannot take the place of evolution. Selective breeding won't have what it takes to produce an offspring capable of best coping with his immediate environment. We humans used selective breeding to help produce a species which is most helpful to us not to the new species itself. You may wonder what great features the new animal or plant has from cross breeding but the thing is you cannot prove that this is best for the species itself.
     

Share This Page