Will humans evolve further?
- Thread starter grazzhoppa
- Start date
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.
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.
Theory
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?.
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?.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
assumed
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.
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.
hey frenchensseenz...forgive me if i spelled ur nick wrong
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
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
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.Re: hey frenchensseenz...forgive me if i spelled ur nick wrong
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.
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.
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.
kmguru
Staff member
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Registered Senior Member
Technology will evolve us and hurt us
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.
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.