I generally have a love of science, and it really amazes me sometimes how little people seemed to pay to it in school. I did this stuff nearly 10 years ago and still remember a good amount of it.TheDist said:Indeed. Blue eyes in mammals, other than humans, is actualy quite rare if I recall correctly.ash-brewster said:defect is the wrong word really, its a genetic mutation, a accident if you will.TheDist said:Realisticaly it isn't, an argument could be made in terms of sexual selection that it could be an advantage or disadvantage, or a non factor. All on how you wanna define it, that is where the arguments come in evolution, the fact evolution happens isn't, it is all the little why's that are.David Huff said:How is having blue eyes a genetic defect
As I say, allelic frequency in a population over time.
The thing is the change doesn't need to be an advantage or disadvantage, there are many that do basicaly nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3323607/Blue-eyes-result-of-ancient-genetic-mutation.html
Mutation is a word that people confuse a lot too, often drives me mad when people hear mutation then think of say x-men type stuff, or that it'd be something "bad".
I love the subject of evolution.![]()
As long as our environment changes, and new factors are added to those environments, we will never stop evolving. Evolution does not stop with technology, technology simply makes the process of Evolution around us daily seem more irrelevant than it really is - it distracts us from a far more subtle process than most people realize it is (as in, the most noticeable effects of Evolution do not work in decades, but rather in centuries - or even thousands/hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions to billions of years). It's an unthinking, inhuman force of nature that has no "concern" for anything or anyone. We could no sooner stop Evolution than we could stop the inevitable rebound of our Universe into another Big Bang in billions of years time.Dominic Burchnall said:This is just a thought which came to me the other day. I was looking out the window of the bus and realised how far humanity has come since the early days. Scientific and technological advancements have compensated for nearly all our shortcomings. Cars, heavy machinery, computers, medical achievements, have allowed us to become lords of the planet.
Then a thought struck me; have we taken ourselves outside of evolution? Wild animals have predation, harsh weather conditions, foraging or hunting for food, sickness, and a myriad other worries, but for humans, dangerous animals can be repelled or destroyed, houses (and in extreme cases, bunkers) protect us from the weather, or food is easier to access than ever, and we have a greater understanding of diseases and inherent frailties and how to compensate for them than ever before. So I wonder, do humans have ANY remaining evolutionary pressures, in the First World climate at least, and if so what traits would they select for?
Then you really need to take another science class, sir, as your interpretation of Evolution is rather naive. The Common Cold, Cancer and Modern Medicine (Germ Theory) alone refute your theory that Evolution only works during human times of necessity - heck, it even works against us at times. Evolution does not care about the conditions humans, animals, or any other living being in the universe. It's simply a process that occurs because it does, not unlike gravity. It's always there, but it's not always going to be noticeable to you. In-fact, very rarely so.Sonicron said:The human evolution is done, I think, at least the significant parts of it. Evolution (as I understand it) happens out of need (and can, as such, not be a selective process), and since we've firmly established ourselves at the very top of the food chain and developed technology to help us overcome our inbuilt limitations, the need has ceased, and therefore so has the evolutionary process.
Who knows, maybe in a few thousand years our bodies will wise up and ditch unnecessary components like the little toe or the appendix, but other than that, yeah, no more change.
That said, if we could select the direction of further (hypothetical) evolutionary process, I'd opt for an extra set of arms and the ability to levitate. (Too bad it wouldn't do me any good, since the fruits of evolution are only yielded to subsequent generations.)
I see us splitting off into two evolutionary groups, the preferable traits for partners now (tall, smart, good looking) and your Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer evolutionary backwash (thick, fuck ugly, Daily Mail readers)wooty said:Humans have.....evolved? Not from what I've just seen in the crowd lurking outside of McDonalds.
I'm pretty sure you've never played an RTS...Sonicron said:The human evolution is done, I think, at least the significant parts of it. Evolution (as I understand it) happens out of need (and can, as such, not be a selective process), and since we've firmly established ourselves at the very top of the food chain and developed technology to help us overcome our inbuilt limitations, the need has ceased, and therefore so has the evolutionary process.
)
Yes. How could I forget.mateushac said:I'm pretty sure you've never played an RTS...Sonicron said:The human evolution is done, I think, at least the significant parts of it. Evolution (as I understand it) happens out of need (and can, as such, not be a selective process), and since we've firmly established ourselves at the very top of the food chain and developed technology to help us overcome our inbuilt limitations, the need has ceased, and therefore so has the evolutionary process.
)
YOU-NEVER-CEASE-EXPANSION!
NEVER!!!!
(or else them aliens will be comming with palladins and gunmen while we only have men-at-arms and scouts)
what in the hell is this "dominant digit" on the hand thing? i have never heard it nor do i quite get what you are saying..Sleekit said:yes it is.Fieldy409 said:apparently we are getting taller. Thats evolution right?
selective through sexual preference.
we are getting taller, smarter (by 3% every decade), the dominant digit on the hand has changed in just the last 20 years (from forefinger to thumb, because of the "tools" we use) blonds are likely to go extinct and i suppose eventually someone will be born without an appendix.
its not standing still
in fact recent developments have shown that changes are happening far faster than they previously though possible (the dominant finger thing really shocked evolutionary scientists)
I think the biggest mistake most people make when considering humans and evolution is to see humans and evolution as separate; to see humans as somehow outside of evolutionary processes. Yes we made houses and access food easily but how is that any different from a bird's nest, or a bird's ability to fly to various food sources across the world? It's slightly more complex, that's all.Dominic Burchnall said:This is just a thought which came to me the other day. I was looking out the window of the bus and realised how far humanity has come since the early days. Scientific and technological advancements have compensated for nearly all our shortcomings. Cars, heavy machinery, computers, medical achievements, have allowed us to become lords of the planet.
Then a thought struck me; have we taken ourselves outside of evolution? Wild animals have predation, harsh weather conditions, foraging or hunting for food, sickness, and a myriad other worries, but for humans, dangerous animals can be repelled or destroyed, houses (and in extreme cases, bunkers) protect us from the weather, or food is easier to access than ever, and we have a greater understanding of diseases and inherent frailties and how to compensate for them than ever before. So I wonder, do humans have ANY remaining evolutionary pressures, in the First World climate at least, and if so what traits would they select for?