Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve?
Some key topics you may want to considor are:
Medicine
Weaponry
Language
Emotions
Behavior
ETC.
| hanay wrote: |
| Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve? |
Beg to differ: human beings have an immune system. This is a natural defence mechanism: it stops thousands of bacterial and viral specides from attacking our metabolic processes. Humans also can climb trees (climbing trees does not require high intellegence, although deciding whether or not to climb a tree may require high intelligence).
Further: human's inteligence is certainly a survival factor (which is more general than simply a defence mechanism) in the environment in which they live. However, if the environment changes so that, say, having a warm fur coat, is more important as a survival factor than intelligence, then human beings would have to evolve (and, therefore, cease to exist as human beings) or cease to exist as human beings.... pure energy beings... hmmn no preditors..
There is nothing called evolution, we haven't evolved from some apes or monkeys, we are the great handiecraph work of the God in heaven! 
Evolution is just a sciencefiction, that means that it is a lie! 
Before Darwin's death he claimed to be wrong and told that the whole theory of evolution is false! 
| Panthrowzay wrote: |
| ... pure energy beings... hmmn no preditors.. |
Who says other pure energy beings wouldn't try to prey on weaker ones in order to replenish their energy? | Whong wrote: |
There is nothing called evolution, we haven't evolved from some apes or monkeys, we are the great handiecraph work of the God in heaven!
Evolution is just a sciencefiction, that means that it is a lie!
Before Darwin's death he claimed to be wrong and told that the whole theory of evolution is false! |
I can't tell what you are trying to say, but I just want to emphasize that there is NO compelling evidence that Darwin ever recanted.... I'll just point you to a ref on AnswersInGenesis, an chritian site, that discusses the origin of the rumor...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.aspThe theory of evolution is being more and more discredited. the proof is weak, mostly based on theory and inacurate means of "measuring".
My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is where did it all start? before dinosaurs everything live in the water, evolved from single cell creatures, evolved from something. A meteor that contained bacteria fell in the ocean and brought life to earth. All pointing back to the "big bang" theory.
Big bang theory, exactly what it is a theory. Can anyone tell me where the gasses that caused the big bang come from? No-one can give concrete evedience on that question, we can merely theorise ...
| springbok wrote: |
| The theory of evolution is being more and more discredited. the proof is weak, mostly based on theory and inacurate means of "measuring". |
No: the theory of evolution keeps being attacked, not discredited. There is loads of evidence (well measured) for it's applicability and usefulness. The proof isn't based on theory, it's based on observation coupled with logical deduction. It's not based on a preconceived notion of how things should be in order to justify some preconceived idea of how the universe is organised.
| springbok wrote: |
| My biggest problem with the theory of evolution is where did it all start? |
It started the moment that the Universe came into existence: things that could "survive" for longer periods of time than others became predominant. If the temperature is 102 degrees Celsius, water is a gas and liquid water can't "survive" (assuming the pressure isn't too high, but let's not complicate things).
| springbok wrote: |
| Big bang theory, exactly what it is a theory. |
A theory is a well-supported hypothesis. A hypothesis is something like "The moon is made of green cheese". Another is: "The moon is made of rock". We gather evidence and realise that it seems to support the second hypothesis. We now have a theory (the Moon Is Rock Theory). Finally we get so much evidence that it becomes a fact (or a law). That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
| springbok wrote: |
| Can anyone tell me where the gasses that caused the big bang come from? No-one can give concrete evedience on that question, we can merely theorise ... |
There were no "gasses" or anything else. There was nothing. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Why does there need to be anything?Hey the animals on this earth are the final products of evolution
WE, one the other hands are the by products of evolution, not worth a cent
| woja wrote: |
| springbok wrote: | | Can anyone tell me where the gasses that caused the big bang come from? No-one can give concrete evedience on that question, we can merely theorise ... |
There were no "gasses" or anything else. There was nothing. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Why does there need to be anything? |
Why does there need to be anything, well when last did you make something from nothing? 
Frankly that evolution HAPPENS is proved beyond doubt. We've SEEN it happen. It's perfectly documented in a species of moth common in England during the beginning of the industrial age. It also begs the question of why we have a coccyx, an appendix, or half a dozen over vestigial bodyparts. As a wise man once put it, a poorly designed watch is evidence of a blind watchmaker.
Whether it is capable of speciation and genesis get more complicated, because the proofs are complex and often beyond the understanding of the average layman.
Further, it's irrelevant. This is not the topic of the debate.
ASSUMING THAT evolution is true, are we the final product?
* * * * * *
I would have to say no. We are still evolving now, after all. Our intelligence is our greatest weapon and tool for survival.
Medicine - We have immune systems, and pretty good ones at that. They are in a constant state of evolution even within the lifetime of one human. But we have also supplemented that with medicines, sterilisation and vaccines.
Weaponry - this is one of the things that's really put us a step ahead. Our natural weaponry is extremely limited. We're not that strong, we're not that fast, our senses aren't that sharp, our teeth are small... but we had fire, and we had tactics. Then we had spears, arrows, swords... then we had guns. Then our desire for power pushed us to keep developing, weapons greater than anything needed to combat the natural world - weapons designed purely to fight the only thing worth fighting anymore. Ourselves.
In this sense, we've evolved past the point of survival. We don't fight to survive anymore, or at least not usually. We fight over luxuries, over pride, over power.
Language - Hundreds of languages, spoken and written. Other creatures have extremely rudimentary systems, but we have developed the ability to express abstract concepts and... well... look at what I'm doing now. Converting a written language to a binary, electronic language, so that it can be transmitted at the speed of lightning to others all around the world, and converted back to a written language, just so we can debate the topic of language.
Again, beyond the point of survival.
Emotions
"Oooh, you're so sharp you'll cut yourself."
It often seems there's a fine balance between intelligence and stability. Many of the most brilliant minds have been... "eccentric", is the term usually used. The human mind has ruthlessly developed for intellect, and there can be a price to pay. I know someone who swings between hyperactive cheerfulness, and feeling intensely guilty for ever believing she was happy at all.
Beyond the point of survival - so far, it can actually prove a hindrance.
Behavior
That's a broad topic... very broad. One I don't have the immediate facts or, frankly, the time to discuss.
Another important factor though, is the welfare state. A tiger born with stunted teeth wouldn't last long, nor a bird with withered wings. A stupid human can last quite well - and certainly pass on their genetic traits. (In fact it often seems they pass them on more 
)
A fat human, a weak human, a human with a poor immune system - all can survive to pass on their traits, so these undesirable characteristics are not pruned out by Darwinian selection. Our evolutionary process is slowed by a self-made system by which our survival is so easy.
We have a long way to go. It's a journey without a destination. But we are comparatively well advanced. Most living creatures are no threat to us now, except for bacteriological strains, which can evolve quickly due to such a short generation-span, and which we can't see coming. Our intelligence provides us with extra defences in the form of antibiotics, but they are evolving to them as well. Viral strains need mention here as well, even though they're not alive by most definitions.
[[As a final note, remember that VERY severe defects are kept to a minimum even so. Downs Syndrome, mental retardation, defective hearts, etc... we have the ability and the compassion to keep unfortunate victims of chance alive, and comfortable far longer than they would in earlier days. But they seldom pass on their traits, and so they are selected against by default.]] I have a hard time calling what we are today the product of evolution. To me, in many ways, we have evolved and devolved at the same time. We've learned t odo all kinds of things, built large colonies to live in, but the simplicity of getting up, killing or growing food, eating, and then going to sleep is gone. Now we live our lives by a clock, always having to get up at a certain time, or be somewhere for a certain time, or do something at a specific time. Instead of just living and enjoying the fruits of our evolution, we have become slaves to it, having to work to pay for everything.
Sometimes I think the cavemen might not have had it so bad.
There is no "Final product" of evolution, its a continuing process. Species evolve all the time, but only the offspring that have beneficial mutations survive.
And there is in fact some pretty solid evidence that evolution exists.
http://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/Biston_dark_moth_on_light.gif
An example is that moth, which has evolved to blend in better on trees that have been darkened by pollution. What about the Human Genome Project??
we will find cures to all genetic defects and improve ourselves, it is just a matter of time.
if we change ourselves ourself, is that considered evolution or just science??
think about that one 
| woja wrote: |
| springbok wrote: | | Can anyone tell me where the gasses that caused the big bang come from? No-one can give concrete evedience on that question, we can merely theorise ... |
There were no "gasses" or anything else. There was nothing. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Why does there need to be anything? |
Wrong. Before the big bang, everything already existed but in a different state as a hyper dense mass. The big bang realeased all the stored energy and spread the matter far and wide.Gives me such a headache...god's creation blah blah blah, god's will blah blah blah. And like someone already said. There is no "final product."
Darwin was just a humanbeing like we, how can we know that he is right, I can't believe in just one man's word for a thing like that!
Science thinks or atleast tries to have all the answers to everything, science can't expalin what happens after death, or why are we on this planet, and so on! Science doesn't have and will never have the answers to everything! | Whong wrote: |
| Darwin was just a humanbeing like we, how can we know that he is right, I can't believe in just one man's word for a thing like that! |
Why not? Are human beings incapable of being right? Remember that you're saying this using machines and mechanisms complex beyond your vaguest comprehension (not meaning to cause offense - almost no-one understands completely how computers and networking work, in terms of digital signalling, Boolean algebra and electrical physics) that have been created entirely by Human minds. It seems to work, doesn't it?
| Quote: |
| Science thinks or atleast tries to have all the answers to everything, |
Yep. But that's a GOOD thing.
| Quote: |
| science can't expalin what happens after death, |
Yes it can. Decomposition happens after death. And we understand the mechanisms of that quite well.
| Quote: |
| or why are we on this planet, and so on! |
Does there have to be a reason?
| Quote: |
| Science doesn't have and will never have the answers to everything! |
No, probably not. But we keep trying, and we certainly do have the answers to a lot of things.
What was your point again? | Subsonic Sound wrote: |
What was your point again? |
My point was that some things can't be proven right like evolution, there is no 100% guarantee that it is true! The subject was:
"Is the human race truly the final product of evolution?"
I think everyone here who understands and accepts evolution agrees that the human race is not the final product of evolution. Evolution is an ongoing process in all species and will continue (given the chance) to produce different species.
If you don't accept evolution, the answer is no also, right?
So, let's end this thread and if we want to debate whether evolution is true, start a new thread for that. Heck, from looking around here that should be a stickie topic | Whong wrote: |
| Subsonic Sound wrote: | | What was your point again? |
My point was that some things can't be proven right like evolution, there is no 100% guarantee that it is true! |
Of course there is no 100% guarantee that it is true. Nothing, not even mathematic proofs are 100% guaranteed to be true. There is no complete truth in this life.
The computer you see in front of you, might not be there for real. Maybe David Copperfield gave you the illusion that it was there. But the chance it is there is so big that we assume it is that way; that it is real. It's the same for everything.
Maybe the second world war did not happen. It's possible, but highly unlikely. That's why we teach it during history. Some religions deny the fact that it did happen. But there is no way, we are going to teach their opinion as an alternative during history lessons.
Also, like HoboPelican just said, let's get back to the topic.lol I cant believe people still question the theories behind evolution in this day and age, you do not have to look to darwin, just think for yourself for five minutes instead of reading from a very old out dated book that was written when people were ignorant, and as for have we stopped evolving, well we definitely have slowed down, but I think thats because we are just very good at what we do, something that is so successful doesnt need to evolve, evolution happens when things change, and life has to adapt with it, climate altering, predators, food sources etc evolution can be gradual or fairly quick as with moths that evolve different wing patterns to blend in with different barks and leaves, people stuck in old ways of thinking cant deny the existance of genes and how they work, that would be just ludicrous as we have used them for decades in genetic engineering, you cannot deny that it works can you?, maybe thats why it scares you so much and you say this is wrong, things will get out of hand, its true we do
have to be careful with these things, but not because its against nature or god, also what about the breeding and adapting of dog breeds, horses, cattle etc, selective breeding, if thats not evolution in play under our control what is it?
There is no final product of evolution, everything is constantly evolving to suit the changing environment.
Even I don't believe in anything called 'EVOLUTION'.
To think that we were once hairy apes really scares me!
actually, WE weren't hary apes. They were, our ancestors. I believe in Darwin's ideas, it makes a lot more sense than the biblical explanation. We are also genetically related to apes and our body figures are similar too. Therefore Darwin's theory is more accurate than a sentance in over 2000 year old script which was written by men over 2000 years ago. Some might say "God wrote the bible"...c'mon...MEN wrote the bible. And science was more like magic tricks and rituals back then. (Apart from math).
So the question is if we will develope into somthing else like the apes developed into us. That's a tricky one. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply as much in our civilization as it does to other species. The "weak" (those who are handicapped) get professional help and are taken cared of.
Evolution is technically a continuous process - and as such, we would never be the last step.
I believe survival of the fittest, given the advancements of science and technology, will take on a new definition beyond natural biological characteristics. Things like access to medicine, weapons, money, and in some ways, high level human traits like intelligence, leadership, etc. will drive 'natural' selection.
| druidbloke wrote: |
people stuck in old ways of thinking cant deny the existance of genes and how they work, that would be just ludicrous as we have used them for decades in genetic engineering, you cannot deny that it works can you?, maybe thats why it scares you so much and you say this is wrong, things will get out of hand, its true we do
|
Well they actually can't deny it, so they try to disprove it by altering somthing in their religion by adding something that was not there before. There is proof of that, several religions supported scientists that stated things but never tested them, ex: some religious scientist stated that objects of different wheights fall at different speeds and was accepted for years until another man came along and preformed the expieriment in front of them to show them they were wrong, and they still said he lied even after he proved them wrong.
Now on topic:
Like pretty much everyone has said, I'm excluding the 2 people in the entire world who disagree of coruse evolution will never stop, not in us( unless we slaughter each other with nuclear missiles so we dont exist anymore of course), not in any other creature. So cheers to evolution The FINAL PRODUCT of evolution??????
How completely ridiculous.
IF we accept the theory of evolution... that orgnisms adapt to their changing environments (in a very small nutshell)...
AND we are the final product of said process...
THEN our environment must be static?
So we have nothing to adapt to anymore?
That's absolutely preposterous.
Evolution by definition is an ongoing transformation. There is no Final Product, there is no goal, and there is no plan. There is cause and effect, there is pressure and adaptation.
I can pretty much scientifically rebuke any attempt to describe an environment that would slow evolution to a stand still (Obviously, if your answer to this is: An environment where evolution doesn't occur because it has never occurred, a divinity created all modern life, I won't have a scientific answer).
Humans, Dogs, Pigmy Tree Flies and Microbes Plankton are all currently and in evolution. Every mutation that manages to procreate is a miniscule step towards an evolutionary change. It's a continual action. It's a result of pressures which act on all species. It doesn't stop when the pressure is overcome, it could only stop if all pressures would cease.
Examples of slight variations in humans over the years:
Hereditary immunity to specific diseases (Europeans bringing bacteria they were already immune to for thousands of years to human populations without said immunities)
Increased Finger length (The average modern human hand is larger than the average ancient human hands traced in cave dwellings)
Issues like increased height (as proven by studies showing that the average human male height in Europe has increase by 3 cm in 60 years) and increased adult female breast size are not evolutionary, rather they are the result of better nutrition.
The lactase mutation (allowing adults to drink milk, appears in 90% of Europeans, as they've been consuming dairy products for about 18,000 years; and in only 4% of Polynesians)
Many more similar and also more complex and detailed examples can be found here: http://www.perceptions.couk.com/ This is one question that has been beaten to death, and beyond. Untill more data becomes available, you will see repeat opinions and arguments that have come up a million times.
| Whong wrote: |
There is nothing called evolution, we haven't evolved from some apes or monkeys, we are the great handiecraph work of the God in heaven!
Evolution is just a sciencefiction, that means that it is a lie!
Before Darwin's death he claimed to be wrong and told that the whole theory of evolution is false! |
Do you really wish to offend all Christians, including me? Most of the Christian churches does agree with the theory of evolution, the rest is just oversensitive and overreacting.
| Quote: |
| Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve? |
But mutations that lead to evolution are accidental - only one in a million improves something, most of them do not. And you could never predict what would happen in human genetical code - not only for good but for bad as well. Don't worry, the evolution is much faster than before, all the radioactive waste causes quicker mutations in genes. So we'll see the results earlier. :/ I certainly hope that humans continue evolving, for there is certainly room for improvement. It would be nice to see an end to drug dependence and the resultant crime and senseless violence that often comes with it, if nothing else. There is also a lot of neglect and abuse of children in homes where parents are drug users. The world could be a far far better place.
| Whong wrote: |
| My point was that some things can't be proven right like evolution, there is no 100% guarantee that it is true! |
You can ask any scientist what the definition of evolution is, or look it up. The definition of evolution is "change over time." Therefore I believe that evolution can be proven, going on that definition.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution = see Evolution as a Noun.
As for the Theory of Evolution... It is just that, a theory. Science names something a theory when it cannot be 100% proven by their means.
After saying this, that is not the topic of discussion. Whatever your beliefs are doesn't matter as this is pretty much a 'what if' question.
I do not believe we (the people of today) the final evolutionary step. There are so much more advances that can be made, genetically as well as intellectually.
As far as medicine goes, there is no cure for cancer, and our immune systems can be shut down by things like HIV. Weaponry: we can create tools to help us fight and do jobs more effectively and efficiently. As languages go, we have many types including several non-verbal ways to communicate. Emotions are strange things, but they come out of us because we can differenciate from right and wrong (most of the time). Behavior is something that seems to be, for the most part, related to region and society. [/url]I recently had the privledge of attending a lecture by the head of the vatican astronomy division. (believe it or not, they actually have some really good astronomy studies out on black holes and other things).
Anyways, his biggest point was that science and religion go hand in hand. He did not know how it would be possible to leave one out in favor of the other. Science is simply a way of further understanding a world already created by God he would claim. If we stop discovery in favor of saying God created it, how are we supposed to keep expanding our knowledge we were given from God?
Other people take this farther and say evolution exists perhaps, and it compliments theories which say God created us. They'd say - well, don't you think God would have expected us to figure this stuff up, or come up with these theories? He is God afterall.
All this debate is rubbish really. If kids want to learn about creationism in school - let them attend a catholic school where religion may merge with school. Otherwise, if they attend a public school - let them find their own beliefs about creationism through religion. Religion is based on a free will afterall.
We as a people need to evolve beyond these rudimentary arguments if we are to find better truths in our physical world.
Evolution is the change in an organism to improve the being and to increase its chances of survival or to make survival easier. For every evolution there is a cause. Humans started relying on their intelligence instead of strenght and speed in pre-historic times. Therefore evolution took place to make our brains more adaptable to learning and increased our intelligence, in return our bodies became less hairy, not as tough, and weaker than they used to be back then, because the was no more need for it. But i do like the idea of us becoming pure energy. (and there will be no predators for energy can neither be created or destroed) And pure energy cannot be converted into anything else.
I hate to add to the posts already made, but yeah, evolution doesn't "stop", nor are we final for our own species in any way. With changing selective pressures, our species, like the species before us, adapt or die. Our intellegence has allowed us to adapt to great deal of changes, which is why we haven't seen humans taking on greatly different traits due to climate change or otherwise to the point of speciation.
Here's a question: Is it actually possible to discuss evolution without it degrading into a church vs. heathens conversation???
IGNORING all the pseudo-philosophical jabber regarding that notion, this question is an interesting to one to consider. We would like to regard ourselves the center of all things. We've been doing it for years... geocentricity vs. heliocentricity. So, it really is a question of your full understanding of evolution. If you consider evolution to be a linear progression of 'prototypes' in which each generation is incrementally better than previous ones, then your definition is quite limited. In fact, it almost suggests that there is actually only one species in the world... the one that keeps evolving (albeit slowly). This is clearly not true. Biodiversity is abound; implying that evolution is not a linear progression towards improvement, but rather a stochastic set of genetic successes. given this as a definition, then there is no pinnacle of evolution per se. As a tree which is alive today is as equally evolutionarily 'seasoned' as we are.. as compared to the sabre toothed tiger.
| springbok wrote: |
| Why does there need to be anything, well when last did you make something from nothing? |
And how God made something from nothing? | Assiez wrote: |
| woja wrote: |
| springbok wrote: | | Can anyone tell me where the gasses that caused the big bang come from? No-one can give concrete evedience on that question, we can merely theorise ... |
There were no "gasses" or anything else. There was nothing. Zilch. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Why does there need to be anything? |
Wrong. Before the big bang, everything already existed but in a different state as a hyper dense mass. The big bang realeased all the stored energy and spread the matter far and wide. |
Not to side with the creationist point of view, but where did this hyper dense mass come from?
Full circle?
Ultimately, both sides of the debate suffer the same inability to explain the origin of everthing. Science readily admits it does not know and possibly/probably never will. Creationists however claim faith as the ultimate proof. Theirs is an argument that no amount of logic can hope to overcome. | nam_siddharth wrote: |
| springbok wrote: | | Why does there need to be anything, well when last did you make something from nothing? |
And how God made something from nothing? |
BECAUSE HE'S GOD LOL!
Yeah, that's probably what he'd say.evolution is a constant proses, we are still evolving to this day and we will continue to evolve until humanity ceases to exist.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| evolution is a constant proses, we are still evolving to this day and we will continue to evolve until humanity ceases to exist. |
Hmm. not disagreeing, but here's thought food. Much of the environmental pressures that drove (allowed?) evolution to continue are now not really survival issues (for humans, of course). Climate, defense, food gathering, all these are matters for technology and not physical features. Has man's advancement halted his evolutionary path? Even sexual cues like blonde hair, shape, whatever can be procured through tech and do not need to be DNA based.
Has human evolution through natural selection stalled for now?Well HoboPelican, I certainly agree that a lot of the environmental are negligible for humans at the moment. However, other factors like social infuences and even religion are now much more important and will have an impact on the evolution.
| Bondings wrote: |
| Well HoboPelican, I certainly agree that a lot of the environmental are negligible for humans at the moment. However, other factors like social infuences and even religion are now much more important and will have an impact on the evolution. |
Interesting stuff. I recognize that there will be other criteria that will influence the selection process, but do you think we will be selecting genetic traits or things that we have learned to change through tech? Today looks can be modified through cosmetic surgery, hair dye, skin dyes, colored contacts, etc.
Thinking on it now, I wouldn't be surprised if we really are the last stage of natural selection for humans and that future evolution will be "selected" by gene manipulation... SciFi stuff, but not out of the question.
(this is just Thought-Puke, I'm not really advancing this as my belief
) | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Thinking on it now, I wouldn't be surprised if we really are the last stage of natural selection for humans and that future evolution will be "selected" by gene manipulation... SciFi stuff, but not out of the question. |
Indeed, what will be the relevance of a process that takes millions of years if we can do similar things just by manipulating the dna?
Another thing is that we will most likely find a cure to the old-age 'disease'. Without natural death causes, humans will become 600 years on average, at least with the current rate of accidents, suicides and murders. However, some people will reach thousands of years (if not more) while still be able to reproduce (or we'll just freeze the sperm, that has the same effect). Then newer generations will be able to reproduce with older ones, totally messing up the 'current/normal' evolution as we know it today. | Bondings wrote: |
| ...Then newer generations will be able to reproduce with older ones, totally messing up the 'current/normal' evolution as we know it today. |
That is a bizarre concept... Any traits from neandertal man that might enhance athletic performance? I'm sure some of the bodies found in bogs and glaciers have recoverable DNA... | HoboPelican wrote: |
| That is a bizarre concept... Any traits from neandertal man that might enhance athletic performance? I'm sure some of the bodies found in bogs and glaciers have recoverable DNA... |
I don't think the DNA is that complete. However if that's the case, I'm pretty sure that scientists will in the not-so-far-future be able to make sperm/eggs from normal cells. (if our body is able to do it, then machines are able to do it to)
However, are all those experiments moral? I mean if we are talking about human ancestors. At the moment there is a clear difference between humans and the other animals. However, our ancestors are not 'smart' enough to be complete humans, while not 'dumb' enough to be treated as animals. It would be like creating a second-class human sort/race. If we then would be able to reproduce (partly or completely) it would even become more complicated. | Bondings wrote: |
...
However, are all those experiments moral? I mean if we are talking about human ancestors. At the moment there is a clear difference between humans and the other animals. However, our ancestors are not 'smart' enough to be complete humans, while not 'dumb' enough to be treated as animals. It would be like creating a second-class human sort/race. If we then would be able to reproduce (partly or completely) it would even become more complicated. |
There we were, having a nice "scientific" discussion and you had to bring up morality Yeah, the moral issues could be huge. But what is 'moral' now is likely to change (in ways we can't can't even imagine) in the future. Mankind marches on!I think its great people of the christian faith and others contribute to science and say both their faith and science go hand in hand, but I just dont see how they are compatible, the word of the bible and evolution just dont fit together.
| druidbloke wrote: |
| I think its great people of the christian faith and others contribute to science and say both their faith and science go hand in hand, but I just dont see how they are compatible, the word of the bible and evolution just dont fit together. |
I understand what you are saying, but I think there is no problem as long as you don't insist on a literal translation of the old testament. Many christians do not believe that the OT needs to be read literally.Have you seen X-Men?? HHHEEEHEHE
well actually i feel that there is another point of conciousness that can evolve from the current one that we find ourselves in.
First to quell the non-evolutionist on this forum from closing thier minds to any further points I might try and bring up in this posting by demanding that evolutions does not happen. Evolution does occur and is mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps it does not occur as exactly as Darwin theorized yet evolution, the changing of organisms through time, does occur. Cell mutation does occur. Adaptation in humans does occur. In the Bible it says that mankind lived on average 900 years before the flood. After the flood only 120 years are given to mankind. This was a radical change in humanity.
As to how humanity will change to meet the needs of the future depends largely on the upcoming future. With 8 Billion people in the world and growing there are more people NOW than ever before.
If we are to look not at humanity but at the earth; Gaia and its/her evolution certainly a great change is close at hand also. The planet has established a fine balance of organisms that perform the functions of a living organism. trees fuctions as do our lungs fuction. rivers and oceans functions as our arteries and heart functions. the soil functions much as our capillaries and livers functions. Human minds function just as a single neoron functions. with 8 billion neorons Gaia can actually birth a conciousness of her own. a conciousness that we are all apart of.
When this happens I feel that our bodies will change to better adapt to this new way of life. For now i think we might be last step, but what the future will bring that noone knows maybe we eradicate even ourselves or we fall to some deadly virus, okok thats a bit pessimistic I agree with the statement that you should think for yourself for a moment. Evolution takes millions of years to happen. And it's usually a response of enviromental stimuli.
Some of my thoughts....
When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species he had no idea what kind of impact it would have on our lives and how even after nearly 150 years it still stirs up the news. The newest debate? Darwin vs. Intelligent Design (ID from here on).
Religious parties have latched onto ID as proclamation that God exists as they believe that the theory shows that there is intelligence between life, Pro-Darwinians of course contest this idea and are highly against the idea. As always religious bigotry is to blame for muddling the arguement and understanding of what ID is.
Intelligent Design does not pose directly that God has responsible for life, ID developed from the intense study of microscopic processes in the living body where molecules are arranged intriactely to provide roads of supply for nutrient distribution, with what looks like an intricate molecular systems of transportation mechanisms. The most complelling is the existence of outboard motors for certain bacterial cells, that under microscope look almost mechanical, and are so intricate that no ireations of evolutionary mutation could explain it. Looking at the scientific evidence only there is a viable case for Intelligent Design. However I don't believe it proves (or disproves the existence of God), it is more questions that get tucked under the wide branch of "How did life evolve on this planet".
Quite frankly, for all we know our existence on this planet could have occured due to pan-spermia, where comets pounded the early Earth billions of years ago, bringing the planet organic molecules that reacted with light and heat from the sun, eventually providing the rich chemical soup from which all life began. The ID could have come with these organic molecules, whether those have evoluted naturally elsewhere or who knows where designed by some aliens... well thats not for me to answer or speculate on. The pan-spermia theory, initially opposed as outlandish by some scientists, is steadily winning converts, although it remains reviled by fundamentalist Christians as an assault on creationism.
What made me look into Intelligent Design deeper is this basic question that seems to really pose problems for Darwin's theory... How could natural evolutionary mutation lead to creation of DNA?
We might be the best product actually available. On a strictly biological point of view, the human being is inferior to many of its animal counterparts. No claws, no ultra-developed senses, no particular defenses. However, aside from the well-known brain advantage, we have other things on our side. First, we're mammals, the actual ruling class of animals regarding complexity and capacity to take over other species. Second, we live in colonies. Of course, it's not the way one would see it, but it's exactly it: we are some kind of developed ants that modify the surroundings in order for it to be suitable to live. This colony aspect gives us the strength of the number. Next, adaptability. Regarding its limited physical capacities, the human being is however able to make do with unknown situations quite well and with the meanings available. This is for the biological and basic social aspect.
Now on to the behavior, we're a bit worse. We climbed to the top of the food chain, then occupied the place forever. This lead to unbalancement of the fragile balance there was before, and since the human being is there, the situation is unsure. We're exactly like those animals that, in absence of any predation, reproduce to excess, eat all the food and then die in mass of starvation and illness (and that many of us would juge stupid at the first sight).
Human are currently at the top. Be it natural or not, it's quite obvious. Wether we will survive ourselves (either by modifying behavior, which is a kind of evolution, or by changing physically to survive the modifications that will come) or extinct, it won't be the Homo Sapiens Sapiens that will rule later on. Maybe a new type of human, maybe something else... To be continued? The problems with evolution are numerous but the best example I could possible give is that they don't have any single fact that fits the theory, which has lasted any longer than about 5 years I would say. Almost every textbook example or "proof" of evolution has been disproven. (although they still keep it in the textbooks because there is no replacement for it)
That I think should be the first issue that you tackle if you wanted to convince me or anyone in the scientific community that evolution even exists.
I would also like to note that we have NEVER seen a beneficial mutation. There have been mutations that appear to have benefits, but only in specific situations and overall the organism is not better off.
| dark_lard wrote: |
The problems with evolution are numerous but the best example I could possible give is that they don't have any single fact that fits the theory, which has lasted any longer than about 5 years I would say. ...
I would also like to note that we have NEVER seen a beneficial mutation. There have been mutations that appear to have benefits, but only in specific situations and overall the organism is not better off. |
I guess the best response is to requote an earlier post by Sub Sonic that you might have missed.
| Quote: |
Frankly that evolution HAPPENS is proved beyond doubt. We've SEEN it happen. It's perfectly documented in a species of moth common in England during the beginning of the industrial age. It also begs the question of why we have a coccyx, an appendix, or half a dozen over vestigial bodyparts.
...
Further, it's irrelevant. This is not the topic of the debate.
ASSUMING THAT evolution is true, are we the final product? |
The last two lines are important. assuming that evolution is true, which base from science is already true and is the core theme of biology, the answer is no. No we're not the final product of evolution. that's why its called evolution, a continuing process thru natural selection as its mechanism. as long as energy is present in the environment that the organisms can utilize then there will always be struggle resulting to evolution. second law of themodynamics states that the entropy of the universe is greater than zero. applying that to real world analogy, as long as the universe is in a state of disorder, it will remain spontaneous and will proceed in such direction as to consume its energy. by comparison to evolution, until the system (the universe) has consumed all its energy, there's always a driving factor(energy) that can drive evolution. | dac_nip wrote: |
| assuming that evolution is true, which base from science is already true and is the core theme of biology, the answer is no. No we're not the final product of evolution. that's why its called evolution, a continuing process thru natural selection as its mechanism. |
I understand that, but what do you think about the idea that civilization itself is nullifing the effects of natural selection? We've pretty much made the environment a non-issue for selection. Humans born with defects that would not have allowed survival in the natural world thrive and pass on genes. Is technology playing a bigger role in altering the species than any other mechanism?
Im not sure any more if man is still subject to natural selection, which brings into question whether we are evolvling. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| dac_nip wrote: | | assuming that evolution is true, which base from science is already true and is the core theme of biology, the answer is no. No we're not the final product of evolution. that's why its called evolution, a continuing process thru natural selection as its mechanism. |
I understand that, but what do you think about the idea that civilization itself is nullifing the effects of natural selection? We've pretty much made the environment a non-issue for selection. Humans born with defects that would not have allowed survival in the natural world thrive and pass on genes. Is technology playing a bigger role in altering the species than any other mechanism?
Im not sure any more if man is still subject to natural selection, which brings into question whether we are evolvling. |
No, people who more prone to diseases are still less likely to survive and reproduce. The difference in likely hood may be very small but thats all it takes.We could easily evolve more but it just depends on whether we have the time left on this planet to do that in. If we get off this particular planet before it's completly destroyed and spread we definatly have the potential to become another form eventually.
I remember some kind of proven evolution in a family of Italy, though you are free to believe me or not as I can not state the source (might be in a Reader's Digest). They had a specific blood which stood astonishingly high rates of cholesterol without harm. They were almost proof against heart attacks due to cholesterol, even with a real bad diet. It was the case of a few individuals, but they were under study back then...
I don't know where this has gone so far.
New evolutions will face the new problems, that's all. The air is getting worse? Improve your lungs and natural filters! Spending much time in front of TV or such? Eyes will adapt! Maybe... Anyway things have already changed, such as the amount of hair the humans have.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
No, people who more prone to diseases are still less likely to survive and reproduce. The difference in likely hood may be very small but thats all it takes. |
But can you think of a genetic trait or minor mutation that would increase the likelihood of propagating? What sort of change do see as being likely to thrive over the general population? It would have to be something that gave a procreational advantage to a particular gene pool, I'd think.
<edit> I missed the new page, so I missed the last post. Can't respond to the Italian family thing since no references can be given. But the things mentioned are things that can be medically treated, so those genes would have as much chance of propagating as the new ones. That is my point, we adjust to changes through technology faster than natural selection can even start to work.I would put the question the other way around:
Is evolution the final product of man?
| Whong wrote: |
There is nothing called evolution, we haven't evolved from some apes or monkeys, we are the great handiecraph work of the God in heaven!
Evolution is just a sciencefiction, that means that it is a lie!
Before Darwin's death he claimed to be wrong and told that the whole theory of evolution is false! |
err well hav u thought about god creating ape allowing it to evolve to human. do u really think god would spend all his time making a just a human and just animals y not make it so they evolve hey it saves creation time | Whong wrote: |
There is nothing called evolution, we haven't evolved from some apes or monkeys, we are the great handiecraph work of the God in heaven!
Evolution is just a sciencefiction, that means that it is a lie!
Before Darwin's death he claimed to be wrong and told that the whole theory of evolution is false! |
....
the christians said: "The earth is flat!" is it... NO!
and other things, if god DID exist, how come that there are... skeletons from dinosaurs?
further, humanity is going to evolve further slowly but steadily, wel come mote used to new things so that we can survive easilier.
Last edited by Klaw 2 on Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:38 pm; edited 1 time in total | lasdjfk wrote: |
I would put the question the other way around:
Is evolution the final product of man? |
i agree we could quite easily be the next to evolve especial during climate changeIf you think about evolution as a natural effort to adapt and proliferate in different places, human being's evolution is now constrained by its ability to modify the environment much faster and better than natural selection can "choose" better individuals to procreate in that particular environment. If you think about it, we've grown stagnant as of physically affecting genetic mutations, and we don't need it. pseudo philosophically speaking, this is as far as our genetic branch goes, because there's no NEED for biological changes, as long as we can trash the world to make it better for us to breed.
That said, which do you believe will be the next mankind? I mean, eventually our species will disappear, either by endogenesis or any plausible reason...who might take the top of the foodchain?
| polarBear wrote: |
That said, which do you believe will be the next mankind? I mean, eventually our species will disappear, either by endogenesis or any plausible reason...who might take the top of the foodchain? |
I tend to agree with your line of thinkng (see posts above). Next king of the food chain will likely depend on which environment we screw up the least during our disappearance. Dolphins, bonobos, rats, cockroaches all have shots depending on how badly we muff up the world before finally bowing out! | Quote: |
| We were created by god |
Oh, yes indeed. So what? Stick to the topic or better yet, start a new one at religion and thati am we were talkin about revolution so i said no its not true we were created by god
| Quote: |
| i am we were talkin about revolution so i said no its not true we were created by god |
...?
1st of all, no Revolution . it's the evolution baby.
2nd, can you prove it? | rpgmaker wrote: |
| i am we were talkin about revolution so i said no its not true we were created by god |
And actually the topic as listed in the first post....
| Quote: |
Is the human race truly the final product of evolution?
Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve?
|
To me it seems that the question pre-supposes evolution is true and that we should be discussing the future of man based on it. You may disagree with evolution, but that is not the question. | Quote: |
I guess the best response is to requote an earlier post by Sub Sonic that you might have missed.
Quote: | Quote: |
Frankly that evolution HAPPENS is proved beyond doubt. We've SEEN it happen. It's perfectly documented in a species of moth common in England during the beginning of the industrial age. It also begs the question of why we have a coccyx, an appendix, or half a dozen over vestigial bodyparts.
... |
Further, it's irrelevant. This is not the topic of the debate.
ASSUMING THAT evolution is true, are we the final product?
|
Well if you assume things then I'd say sure we're the end and agree with the modification of our enviroment statements.
However I did read the earlier qoute and didn't specifically respond to it because it was not true. The moth doesn't prove macro evolution. I'll agree only to the fact that the word evolution means change over time and that that exists withind KINDS* of animals everywhere. I define a Kind of animal as any animal that can reproduce with another. So a horse a zebra and a mule would all be the same KIND. You can have all the mutations and new "species" you want but they havn't evolved in the sense that we are talking about because they are still the same kind.
And it's not known that we have ANY 100% vestigial parts. You can live without an arm but does that mean it's vestigial? NO by the way whoever told you that your coccyx was vestigial must have been lied to, was lying to you, or is a moron. Ask a few doctors sometime. Or hey have yours removed and see how well you do. The appendix you can indeed live without but as more time goes on we find that the appendix is possibly more usefull than we realized.
| Quote: |
the christians said: "The earth is flat!" is it... NO!
and other things, if god DID exist, how come that there are... skeletons from dinosaurs? |
Well there are plenty PLENTY of christians that are wrong that doesn't mean that christianity is. Look at the bible for all of the answers not what other christian people say. And the bible refferences the earth as a circular or spherical shape. The bible also includes dinosaurs. They didn't live millions of years ago they lived right here with us and some are still alive today in africa. A cowboy even shot a terridactyl in the wild west, or that what some people think. Glenrose, TX has a cool dinasour park with *shocking* dinosaur and human footprints in the same spot. Don't believe everything your teachers tell you go research some of it for yourselves.
Isaiah 40:22
and about some dinos look here
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
I did not read the whole site so i'm not claiming they are totally accurate but they explain a little of it wellMacro vs Micro? Its the the same process as far as I can see. The fact is that Creationist started making a distinction once they saw that evolution could proved (the moth, for example). By focusing on macroevolution, a very long term process, they could again claim that we haven't seen examples of it.
| Quote: |
They didn't live millions of years ago they lived right here with us and some are still alive today in africa. A cowboy even shot a terridactyl in the wild west, or that what some people think. Glenrose, TX has a cool dinasour park with *shocking* dinosaur and human footprints in the same spot. Don't believe everything your teachers tell you go research some of it for yourselves.
|
References for any of this? This quite a bit of nonsense to fit in one paragraph. The Glen Rose site has been examined and discussed extensively and analysis supports that the "human" tracks are actually a "variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock)"
<http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm>
Other sites dealing with this
<http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm>
<http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm>
<http://paleo.cc/paluxy/retrack.htm>
You make a good point about not believing your teachers completely. But most of my teachers taught how to evaluate facts and how do my own thinking. I guess your teachers where more into dogma than thinking. To successfully answer this question we have to avoid discussion the history of evolution.
If we look back in history we have vast evidence for evolution, but the complete history is not yet available.
That is we can only theorise down to parts of a second after the expansion of the universe, we have only evidence of life at best 2-3 billion years ago.
Geneticists are caught between the intron early and intron late stages of DNA evolution. This is a big decider on evolution. Did bacteria evolve from the stereotype prehybrid organism or did eukaryotes (including animals) evolve from precursor bacteria.
Anyway, like I said, it's a nightmare to have a discussion about whether evolution is valid. That's like saying is gravity valid. we have theories about gravity that are well-accepted as fundamental principle, fact.
So to avoid this whole evoltuion-creation debate, let's take a jump into our present situation.
From evolution we have a wide range of species; birds, fish, mammals, insects etc.
These are all evolved and differentiated from the one organism.
We assume evolution has taken place.
So all the species that exist today are the final products of evolution, each one in their own field. Of all mammals, the extinct mammals were the precursors. The extinct mammals have evolved into more diverse final products.
So the humans are not the only final species along the line.
It is not just a single dimension
bacteria->fungi->jellyfish->fish->dolphin->chimpanzee->homo sapiens.
So instead we have branches. Different groups.
Is there any more evolution to be expected? Yes, as long as there is DNA mutation, translocation, exon shuffling etc, there will be effects produced leading to evolution. That means as long as all species are exposed to all these DNA errors/functions, these species are expected to evolve.
And last but not least.
Why the hell do we want to know about evolution as a whole when we can't apprecieate the species that we live with now, the species we are currently putting out of existence by our pollution and ignorance.
The author of this topic should realise that the search for purpose and meaning in life, including existence and evolution, is more philosophical than scientific. Why we are here is philosophical. How we are here is scientific. I think the author is more directed at the philosophical, but yet seems confused.
| Lennon wrote: |
And last but not least.
Why the hell do we want to know about evolution as a whole when we can't apprecieate the species that we live with now, the species we are currently putting out of existence by our pollution and ignorance. |
Forgive me, but I have a habit of answering rhetorical questions.
We want to know about evolution as a whole for the same reason that we study any other scientific discipine -- because it provides a picture of the world as it really is. From that we can derive the philosophical motivation to save or not save ourselves as a species.
It's also not a question of one or the other. You may as well ask why people go bowling when we should all be sitting around "appreciating our species".
I'm sorry, but I always find these dewy-eyed "can't we all just get along" appeals to always be about ten steps removed from reality. The way to effect change is through a thorough, clear-headed understanding of the issues involved, followed by pragmatic action.The course of evolution should continue..and no one can predict or lock it as frozen.But the only thing is that te current human brain capability is supposed to be in the saturated level and anything..that can be called as a new one ..that's n evolution can't happen without his permission..
| Basil Joy wrote: |
| The course of evolution should continue..and no one can predict or lock it as frozen.But the only thing is that te current human brain capability is supposed to be in the saturated level and anything..that can be called as a new one ..that's n evolution can't happen without his permission.. |
Sorry, but could you elaborate on what you mean about the "te current human brain capability is supposed to be in the saturated level and anything..that can be called as a new one ..that's n evolution can't happen without his permission.."?
Sounds like an interesting thought, but, for the life of me, I can't tell what you are trying to say exactly.
I see no reason why we can't evolve further. Natural selection will probably no longer work (what does survival of the fittest mean when everyone survives nowadays?). However there is a lot of scope for evolution to continue by other means: genetic screening to remove defects, direct genetic engineering (which is illegal of course). As for improving in the here and now we have emergent transhuman technology in its infancy.
Darwin was right; even if, in future, it looks like natural selection is over for humanity.
Is there anyone else out there beyond us? It doesn't look like it. If they're there then why aren't they here? It's likely that intelligent life can only evolve in the outer-spiral arms of Galaxies. Super Novae would be too common near the Galactic center - frequently zapping the more advanced forms of life - hundreds of millions of years are needed for advanced intelligence to evolve - that may explain why we'll discover no intelligent life in the vast majority of inhabitable planets - when we finally get around to exploring our galaxy.
lol @ topic, really if we are nature made some MAJOR mistakes in evolution, also i think that with the ever changing world/universe it would be pretty suicidal to stay as we are (not that thats a bad thing if you look at our destructive ways of living).
Humans are highly evolved species. Evolutionary principles have been well regulated and the present day human beings are the product of this evolutionary process. Nature and its creation is a perfect system, so to say the human beings. We have a fantastic inbuilt defence mechanism which prevents us getting trapped in to either physical or mental illnesses. since everything depends on the freedom aspect of an individual, its in his/her hands to use the positive forces effectively or rather not use the negitive forces. Intelligence is special ability of the higher species and this intern can help one to evolve better.
| hanay wrote: |
Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve?
Some key topics you may want to considor are:
Medicine
Weaponry
Language
Emotions
Behavior
ETC. |
| Whong wrote: |
Darwin was just a humanbeing like we, how can we know that he is right, I can't believe in just one man's word for a thing like that!
Science thinks or atleast tries to have all the answers to everything, science can't expalin what happens after death, or why are we on this planet, and so on! Science doesn't have and will never have the answers to everything! |
Nothing happens after death. End of biological function. People die. It's as simple as that. If there are ghosts on these planet, why should there only be 'human' ghosts? Who can explain the so-called 'clothes' the ghosts wear? Why aren't there animal ghosts? Or Fungi ghosts? Protist ghosts? Or bacteria, virus and insect ghosts? Because there ARE no ghosts. Science cannot explain everything. I admit that, but it also confuses me why religious folks have an explanation to everything. Honestly, why SHOULD God create earth, the heavens and human? Why are things the way they are? Science make enough sense to me.Of course it is clear that evolution is an on-going process, so why would it stop with humans. In the opposite we see that the evolution is accelerating. The only way to stop (or maybe only slow down) everything will be that the man destroy the whole planet, that is not quite impossible. But I guess it will anyway remain some species of bacteries or something and then it will continue anyway.
For people who ask what was before big bang, or what it comes from they should read some interesting books on the subject (I mean not scientific books). We are currently able to "see" the universe something like 1/10 s before big bang. But it seems impossible to reach the big bang point because time is not linear. The point being that "before" big bang there was no time. So in fact there was no "before". Of course it's pretty difficult to understand that time didn't eist as our lives are only defined by time...
| fx-trading-education wrote: |
| Of course it is clear that evolution is an on-going process, ... |
Are you sure about that applying to man? What ecological pressures would drive any further changes in man? Our mastery of our current environment would seem to preclude any need for natural selection, wouldn't it? What mechanism would drive any natural changes to to man?Agreed with HoboPelican, I believe that we are on our peak, and the only direction that could be possible to go is... down. And we'd most likely do it to ourselves (for example, blowing the world up in nuclear warfare).
Short of the world flooding again and we like... evolve to have gills and be able to breathe underwater or something.
i also tend to agree, i dont think man will evolve any further on this planet, maybe other creatures on earth might be we wont.
but then i think that maybe we might adapt in space or on the moon to be more capable of living there, but that would take a long time.
| Quote: |
fx-trading-education wrote:
Of course it is clear that evolution is an on-going process, ...
Are you sure about that applying to man? What ecological pressures would drive any further changes in man? Our mastery of our current environment would seem to preclude any need for natural selection, wouldn't it? What mechanism would drive any natural changes to to man? |
I don't see why man should be special , that all other species should evolve except man. I don't think we really master our environment, because if it would be the case we wouldn't destroy it (meaning destruction of other species or usage of natural ressources at a rythm higher that it can be produced). In my opinion, man is really not in control. A lot of things can make him evolve. Among them climate change, lack of natural resources, and even evolution in feeding. | fx-trading-education wrote: |
I don't see why man should be special , that all other species should evolve except man. I don't think we really master our environment, because if it would be the case we wouldn't destroy it (meaning destruction of other species or usage of natural ressources at a rythm higher that it can be produced). In my opinion, man is really not in control. A lot of things can make him evolve. Among them climate change, lack of natural resources, and even evolution in feeding. |
Granted we don't fully control the worlds environment. What I was trying to say was that we control the effects very well. Clothing, buildings, heating, cooling, air purification, all these things allow us to control our immediate environments. What climate change can you imagine that wouldn't be handled faster by clothing adaptation than by genetic adaptation? To take hold, the mutation would have to give the possessor a greater chance of procreating than the "standard" human. And for an extended time.
My thought is that, barring an extreme cataclysm, our technology is how we adjust to our world now. | squirrelmaster wrote: |
i also tend to agree, i dont think man will evolve any further on this planet, maybe other creatures on earth might be we wont.
but then i think that maybe we might adapt in space or on the moon to be more capable of living there, but that would take a long time. |
Back to basics needed before this can move on. Allow me to offer a definition of basic terms..
Evolution is a process of natural selection whereby genetic mutation causes an advantage in an organism which, by means of enhanced probability of reproduction, is propogated throughout the population leading ulimately to new populations; in the sense that members of this population are sterile with respect to members of the original population. At this point we have a new species.
People often forget this basic mechanism when discussing evolution. Basically in human terms if something makes you more sexy/attractive and it is caused by a genetic difference, then it will spread. If the difference or trait is non-genetic then it might also spread in some circumstances, but this is not conventional evolution. While this is an interesting field of debate on its own merit, of course (cf R Dawkins on 'memes') it is not within the scope of the original question unless 'evolution' was meant more generally than normally accepted.
In this sense I think that Hobo has a powerful, if not decisive, point.
Cheers
Chris | Quote: |
| What I was trying to say was that we control the effects very well. Clothing, buildings, heating, cooling, air purification, all these things allow us to control our immediate environments. What climate change can you imagine that wouldn't be handled faster by clothing adaptation than by genetic adaptation? |
I see your point and it is truly interesting. You say that in fact the best answer to external changes will be rather technological than a change in genetic code because it can provide a faster answer. Personaly I don't see technology and genetics competing. From the past history I would rather say that it goes together.
For instance in the Prehistoric ages people already had answers to clothing, building, heating... and I guess that they were thinking that the way they did it was good enough. Anyway the way we do things have changed and people as well.
In my opinion, evolution is not only driven by necessity but is also an in-going improvement. For instance people are now talller than few centuries ago because they eat differently. But there was no need at all for people to be taller. It doesn't help us. Anyway the change as occured...
I think that the new technology that will appear and also changes in food, wil make still people will evolve even if it is not to fill a need.
Another factor that may trigger a change are new diseases. For some of them we may not find a technological solution. | fx-trading-education wrote: |
....In my opinion, evolution is not only driven by necessity but is also an in-going improvement. For instance people are now talller than few centuries ago because they eat differently. But there was no need at all for people to be taller. It doesn't help us. Anyway the change as occured...
|
Well, as to the on-going improvement thing, what do you think the mechanism is for that? When most of us think of evolution, we think of natural selection (Bikerman did a good job of explaining that, so I won't repeat it). If technology is replacing the need for genetic changes, what would be causing the on going changes you speak of?
As to the increase in height, I don't think you can call that evolution, since no genetic change occurred, simply better nutrition. | fx-trading-education wrote: |
....In my opinion, evolution is not only driven by necessity but is also an in-going improvement. For instance people are now talller than few centuries ago because they eat differently. But there was no need at all for people to be taller. It doesn't help us. Anyway the change as occured...
|
Sorry, no. Evolution is defined and understood as reproductive selection. There is no requirement to be necessary or not and certainly no specification of 'improvement' in the concept. Evolution can and has produced results which could class as detrimental in some regards. In animals the mahor deciding factor is certainly survival so evolution will produce better adaption to environment, but in humans not so much the case, since survival is almost a given.
Chris | Quote: |
| As to the increase in height, I don't think you can call that evolution, since no genetic change occurred, simply better nutrition. |
Are you sure that no genetic changes have happened because of nutrition? I don't know, but what I know is if our ancestors wouldn't have eaten meat, their brain wouldn't have develop so fast and we wouldn't be what we are today. And also it is written on the milk powder that I give to my baby that it shouldn't be to hot when I melt it because it could affect the genes of the baby (it's a joke but it's really written on the pack !)
| Quote: |
| but in humans not so much the case, since survival is almost a given. |
I think that people in Africa that don't have medicine against aids will disagree with you. Currently a lot of the genetic history is being lost there I think.
And as bacteries and viruses evolves as well, can you imagine a disease like aids but that could be transmitted like flu...food/nutrition is absolutely an evolutionary factor; I don't care if you are human or other organism on this earth. Nutrition predisposes you to a variety of events, good and bad, which produces a different evolutionary pressure than if you were not eating as well. Humans, generally, eat much better than they have ever eaten in our geologic history. Consequently, we are living much longer lives. Cardiac diseases are just one category of human affliction which was not as large an issue even 100 years ago. This is just one reason of how food/nutrition has directly changed our evolutionary path. Evolution is not an end; it is a means. we are not the final product as that would imply that there is a finality to evolution.
| fx-trading-education wrote: |
Are you sure that no genetic changes have happened because of nutrition? And also it is written on the milk powder that I give to my baby that it shouldn't be to hot when I melt it because it could affect the genes of the baby (it's a joke but it's really written on the pack !)
|
What brand is that? I used to work for the makers of Similac, a major supplier of infant formula and I'd be interested in seeing that label. Could you tell me the brand and any manufacturer info in PM? But I don't think there is anyway that formula or heat is going to have any genetic effect. I'm always open to being shown wrong, but I think that is impossible.
| Quote: |
I think that people in Africa that don't have medicine against aids will disagree with you. |
I need to think about that a bit. This might a definitional thing, but is the building of genetic-based immunities evolution? Maybe, but not in the sense of speciation, I don't think.... Thoughts, Bikerman? | HoboPelican wrote: |
ys open to being shown wrong, but I think that is impossible.
| Quote: |
I think that people in Africa that don't have medicine against aids will disagree with you. |
I need to think about that a bit. This might a definitional thing, but is the building of genetic-based immunities evolution? Maybe, but not in the sense of speciation, I don't think.... Thoughts, Bikerman? |
Genetic based would be the key I suspect - making the answer yes. It is classical natural selection in that sense - selection of genetic mutation by reproductive mechanisms.
Food can be evolutionary as well, of course, which I never sought to deny.
Many foods are genetically 'active', for example. My point was that better diet on it's own, whilst certainly influencing survival prospects, does not pass on an advantage to the offspring and therefore even if the better nourished person reproduces as a result of the better diet, the children are at no advantage in the population and the selection pressure is therefore equalised again.
NB - the case of a pregnant woman, the argument for evolutionary effects in diet are made, I think. There is a lot of research showing genetic changes in foetuses which can be attributed to the mothers diet.
ChrisThe only end product of evolution is extinction.
| Roberts'Classes wrote: |
| The only end product of evolution is extinction. |
Seems like a non-sequeter to me....can you explain ?Well here's what we do know, the six finger per hand thing is DOMINANT, so I think that, to me, says that the human race is no tthe final product of evolution. If anything we're way off and we're stopping it because we've become aware that being different will eventually isolate you/get you killed. You know those tumors and such we cut off daily by the help of science/medicine? For all we know that could be a tail, wings, horn, whatever someday, but I think we're pretty much locked down for now until humans gain a better acceptance of being different.
I'll admit it myself, if I see a guy with ugly wings, I'd be afraid, but if they were cool wings, I'd accept him at a friend.
| hanay wrote: |
Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve?
Some key topics you may want to considor are:
Medicine
Weaponry
Language
Emotions
Behavior
ETC. |
| QrafTee wrote: |
| Well here's what we do know, the six finger per hand thing is DOMINANT, so I think that, to me, says that the human race is no tthe final product of evolution. |
Interestingly, the fact that it is a dominant trait has little to do with it ever becoming the "norm" for us. You can look it up, but it has something to do with gene frequency in a populatin not changing unless it has a survival effect. Look under "Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium".
This drove me nuts in jr high school. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Roberts'Classes wrote: | | The only end product of evolution is extinction. |
Seems like a non-sequeter to me....can you explain ? |
Yes, I can explain. If a trait works, the trait is retained, if it doesn't and no alternative arises then the result will be extinction. Evolve or dye out. We can't even begin to imagine what humans wil do in the course of their evolution. Human intelligence may just be the trait that doesn't work. | Roberts'Classes wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | Roberts'Classes wrote: | | The only end product of evolution is extinction. |
Seems like a non-sequeter to me....can you explain ? |
Yes, I can explain. If a trait works, the trait is retained, if it doesn't and no alternative arises then the result will be extinction. Evolve or dye out. We can't even begin to imagine what humans wil do in the course of their evolution. Human intelligence may just be the trait that doesn't work. |
Hold on...If a trait works then it is retained...OK...
If it doesn't ? Well if no genetic mutation occurs, or it is not selected for, then we simply stay as we are....there is no significant environmental pressure forcing evolution for humans so stasis is a real option. In fact evolution is going on all the time but humans are different in that they can choose a mate on any criterion they like so a mutation would have to be generally attractive or useful for it to get established in the population.
As a trivial annecdotal illustration which may just be urban myth :- a friend of mine says he has seen research which shows that the average thumb of a Japanese 30 year old is over 1.5mm longer than the last generation. Why ? Because of mobile phones. Those best at texting tend to have more dextrous thumbs and being good at texting is an advantage with respect to meeting the opposite sex, so longer thumbs are selected for. True or not it illustrates the sort of processes which are, or could, drive evolution in the human population.
Chrishaha that's funny.
as a quick note, that goes with lamarck's theory of passing on used appendages...
its the DNA that is passed on, not the phenotype (physical properties). so if japanese people have longer thumbs because of cell phone use, there's no way in hell that would change a person's DNA. if, let's say, using cell phones dramatically improved your chances for survival (which sound ridiculous), the trait wont be passed on. something is only retained if the opposite trait basically kills you...
lol...texting to attract the opposite sex...
and there's really no way to tell if humans are the end of evolution...evolution is a series of change and adaptations: it is Not a process of working towards a goal of sorts....
besides, every mass extinction, a more advanced species develops. since we are screwing over the earth as it is, perhaps we will all destroy ourselves and make room for a new population...
| hofodomo01 wrote: |
haha that's funny.
as a quick note, that goes with lamarck's theory of passing on used appendages...
its the DNA that is passed on, not the phenotype (physical properties). so if japanese people have longer thumbs because of cell phone use, there's no way in hell that would change a person's DNA. if, let's say, using cell phones dramatically improved your chances for survival (which sound ridiculous), the trait wont be passed on. something is only retained if the opposite trait basically kills you...
lol...texting to attract the opposite sex...
and there's really no way to tell if humans are the end of evolution...evolution is a series of change and adaptations: it is Not a process of working towards a goal of sorts....
besides, every mass extinction, a more advanced species develops. since we are screwing over the earth as it is, perhaps we will all destroy ourselves and make room for a new population... |
its not the cell phone affecting the human genetics, it's selective reproduction.
people with shorter thumbs can't text well, and texting is a good way to get a spouse and have offspring, so the person with a shorter thumb will be less likely to find a date (and therefore reproduce)
so a person born with a longer thumb would have better chances of reproduction because he can text better to find a mate, therefore his traits would be passed on. | squirrelmaster wrote: |
its not the cell phone affecting the human genetics, it's selective reproduction.
people with shorter thumbs can't text well, and texting is a good way to get a spouse and have offspring, so the person with a shorter thumb will be less likely to find a date (and therefore reproduce)
so a person born with a longer thumb would have better chances of reproduction because he can text better to find a mate, therefore his traits would be passed on. |
Wait a sec here. Are you guys proposing digits more adept at texting have evolved in the past, what, 5 or 6 years? I must be missing something here, because that is just insane, isn't it? That's not even a generation. | hofodomo01 wrote: |
| besides, every mass extinction, a more advanced species develops. since we are screwing over the earth as it is, perhaps we will all destroy ourselves and make room for a new population... |
haha perhaps? i think it's inevitable at this point. the way we're using up our resources and how fast our population has increased in recent history, not to mention all the strife in the world in so many areas. it's over man!
maybe the new species will have 20' thumbs from texting 
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| Wait a sec here. Are you guys proposing digits more adept at texting have evolved in the past, what, 5 or 6 years? I must be missing something here, because that is just insane, isn't it? That's not even a generation. |
I wasn't proposing that it was true, i was using it as an example of natural selection.
But if it were true in a few generations, it's a good example. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| squirrelmaster wrote: |
its not the cell phone affecting the human genetics, it's selective reproduction.
people with shorter thumbs can't text well, and texting is a good way to get a spouse and have offspring, so the person with a shorter thumb will be less likely to find a date (and therefore reproduce)
so a person born with a longer thumb would have better chances of reproduction because he can text better to find a mate, therefore his traits would be passed on. |
Wait a sec here. Are you guys proposing digits more adept at texting have evolved in the past, what, 5 or 6 years? I must be missing something here, because that is just insane, isn't it? That's not even a generation. |
LOL, longer thumb?
But in this case, it wouldn't be humans that would evolve. It would be the cell phone since it changes every month. I think evolution may extend to "machines" if they would become automated.
Evolution would still continue long after us humans. But we will leave our legacy anyway. | Whong wrote: |
There is nothing called evolution, we haven't evolved from some apes or monkeys, we are the great handiecraph work of the God in heaven!
Evolution is just a sciencefiction, that means that it is a lie!
Before Darwin's death he claimed to be wrong and told that the whole theory of evolution is false! |
well, then how do you explain dinosaurs? They are not recorded in the bible, the bible didn't explain god create dinosaur millions years before human. I believe in evolution and the bible, but I believe in evolution more because I learned more about it. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| squirrelmaster wrote: |
its not the cell phone affecting the human genetics, it's selective reproduction.
people with shorter thumbs can't text well, and texting is a good way to get a spouse and have offspring, so the person with a shorter thumb will be less likely to find a date (and therefore reproduce)
so a person born with a longer thumb would have better chances of reproduction because he can text better to find a mate, therefore his traits would be passed on. |
Wait a sec here. Are you guys proposing digits more adept at texting have evolved in the past, what, 5 or 6 years? I must be missing something here, because that is just insane, isn't it? That's not even a generation. |
No, I think the suggestion is that those with extant long digits are being selected for by the phenomena since they are more likely to have had children in the last 20 yrs or so..... | Bikerman wrote: |
No, I think the suggestion is that those with extant long digits are being selected for by the phenomena since they are more likely to have had children in the last 20 yrs or so..... |
Ok, well, that will be something to watch for. Could be interesting. But how long has texting been common? I know the US is behind the curve in cell phone tech and usage, but 20 years? Am I wrong in thinking texting has only been common for about 7 years? I found a wiki article that seems to imply that the first SMS was sent in '92, but it didn't really start to take off until 2000.
But I do think it is worth asking for a government grant to study. | HoboPelican wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
No, I think the suggestion is that those with extant long digits are being selected for by the phenomena since they are more likely to have had children in the last 20 yrs or so..... |
Ok, well, that will be something to watch for. Could be interesting. But how long has texting been common? I know the US is behind the curve in cell phone tech and usage, but 20 years? Am I wrong in thinking texting has only been common for about 7 years? I found a wiki article that seems to imply that the first SMS was sent in '92, but it didn't really start to take off until 2000.
|
Yep - that fits with my info as well....so only 14 yrs old. Still, this would be long enough for a selected difference to show up in primary school studies one supposes. It's probably an urban myth but it is interesting because it forces you to think about selection in humans and how it could differ. If an inherent genetic trait is suddenly selected for by an emergent technology and the mechanism is good old reproduction then it has to be evolution, even though there is no new mutation necessary and no issue of survival (although there never was - that's an old mistake that gets constantly repeated because in the animal kingdom survival and reproduction are so closely linked that you can get away with it). So this form of evolution would operate using the classic selection mechanism but would operate on extant genes rather than natural mutations and the selection would be driven via technological change (which would have to be 'trendy' or appealing to the other gender - as mobile phone texting certainly seems to be).
It's a nice little thought experiment even if it is baloney
Chris | Bikerman wrote: |
| Roberts'Classes wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Roberts'Classes wrote: | | The only end product of evolution is extinction. |
Seems like a non-sequeter to me....can you explain ? |
Yes, I can explain. If a trait works, the trait is retained, if it doesn't and no alternative arises then the result will be extinction. Evolve or dye out. We can't even begin to imagine what humans wil do in the course of their evolution. Human intelligence may just be the trait that doesn't work. |
Hold on...If a trait works then it is retained...OK...
If it doesn't ? Well if no genetic mutation occurs, or it is not selected for, then we simply stay as we are....there is no significant environmental pressure forcing evolution for humans so stasis is a real option. In fact evolution is going on all the time but humans are different in that they can choose a mate on any criterion they like so a mutation would have to be generally attractive or useful for it to get established in the population.
As a trivial annecdotal illustration which may just be urban myth :- a friend of mine says he has seen research which shows that the average thumb of a Japanese 30 year old is over 1.5mm longer than the last generation. Why ? Because of mobile phones. Those best at texting tend to have more dextrous thumbs and being good at texting is an advantage with respect to meeting the opposite sex, so longer thumbs are selected for. True or not it illustrates the sort of processes which are, or could, drive evolution in the human population.
Chris |
I still don't think you understand. A trait doesn't have to be visible or attractive to be passed on. Many traits are biochemical pathways that affect things like the nervous system, digestion or glucose use. Mutations may accumumlate that can't deal with the changes in the organism's environment (ie obesity, diabetes, mental diseases) This may lead to the extinction of this species.[quote="Roberts'Classes"] | Bikerman wrote: |
I still don't think you understand. A trait doesn't have to be visible or attractive to be passed on. Many traits are biochemical pathways that affect things like the nervous system, digestion or glucose use. Mutations may accumumlate that can't deal with the changes in the organism's environment (ie obesity, diabetes, mental diseases) This may lead to the extinction of this species. |
Let's see if I understand you correctly first.
I think you are saying that there is a natural build up of genetic 'negative' factors which ultimately will present in the organism and lead to extinction. Whilst these may not be individually detrimental to the organism whenconsidered in isolation, the accretion of such changes will ultimatetely always be detrimental and this means that the organism becomes increasingly unable to adapt to it's environment and ultimately goes extinct. Is that a fair statement of your point ?
C. We are smarter, have better weapons everything is way better than animals, but we can never beat everything look at all these superdesiess like AIDS and Bird Flu we will beat them someday and even evolve against them but new ones will come and we will evolve furthor, we can never stop evolving.
I hope that made scence
| reddishblue wrote: |
We are smarter, have better weapons everything is way better than animals, but we can never beat everything look at all these superdesiess like AIDS and Bird Flu we will beat them someday and even evolve against them but new ones will come and we will evolve furthor, we can never stop evolving.
I hope that made scence |
This is not evolving 'against' the diseases because how could the body 'preadapt' to a yet unknown organism. What will happen, perhaps, is any genetic resistance/immunity, if sufficient selection pressure exists (ie if enough people die) will be selected for and the population will inherit immunity to that particular disease or organism. This does not necessarily help next time and it may even hinder.
Sickle-cell disease in the black populations is a good example of what I mean here. The genetic change to the haemoglobin to produce 'sickle haemoglobin confers an increased immunity to malaria in the person. The problem is that this also means that 2 parents with the genetic change will both pass on the altered gene and the normal gene. If offspring get 2 copies of the altered gene then they will suffer from sickle-cell disease. Evolutionary speaking this is a good trade-off if the mortality from Malaria is very high.
Regards
ChrisIt seems to me that evolution has no "goal" it is a process in itself and it is the process--it is not about the goal it is all process. I do think however that "evolution" per se is inhibited in its process by technology--becasue now we use technology to overcome things that evolution would have ruled out and moved beyond...
| hanay wrote: |
Humans have no natural defence mechanisms besides their level of intelligence, does this mean that there is no more room to improve?
|
God I really hope there is because if this is the peak of evolution, this theory has some splainin' to do. | snjripp wrote: |
| It seems to me that evolution has no "goal" it is a process in itself and it is the process--it is not about the goal it is all process. I do think however that "evolution" per se is inhibited in its process by technology--becasue now we use technology to overcome things that evolution would have ruled out and moved beyond... |
yeah thats a good one to think on, we would have evolved to adapt to things, like our tech helps us with anyway. we just sped up the process to a point, but after that point is back up to evolution or DNA manipulaiton. In either case, the human race will continue to get "better". | Roberts'Classes wrote: |
| Human intelligence may just be the trait that doesn't work. |
To the extent that it keeps impairing natural selection, I'd have to agree.
