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.
Would a non-violent race stop evolving?
- Thread starter roadkill
- Start date
- Status
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.
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.
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.
eburacum45
Valued Senior Member
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
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
paulsamuel
Registered Senior Member
evolutionary biologist's perspective
given a species with variable traits that are inherited plus natural selection, evolution occurs. nothing else is needed.
given a species with variable traits that are inherited plus natural selection, evolution occurs. nothing else is needed.
Re: evolutionary biologist's perspective
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.
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.
Crystal, stop going around the forums embarrassing yourself. Seriously.
Shalashaska
Registered Member
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.
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.
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.
I picture humanity 10,000 years from now as a log with one long index finger for pushing his remote.
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.
Last edited:
Shalashaska
Registered Member
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.
That comes back to males and females. Women like taller men.
That comes back to males and females. Women like taller men.
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!
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!
eburacum45
Valued Senior Member
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
they toil not, nor are they violent.
Smug little bastards
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
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.
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.
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
- KitNyx
- Status