How much further can humans evolve?
- Thread starter Dominic Burchnall
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the big issue really is the success rate of humans is unfathomably high, it's change that causes death that is the most prominent factor in evolution, not just the mutation effect by itself
really, by the time a species can build computers and have 50% + leisure time, they no longer need to evolve, but they will continue to mutate for sure
the main thing we will see is the blending of the races into one ubergene race, the problem is, by comparison mutations will seem ever more bizzare as everyone comes toward a singular gene pool, and that will happen because eventually you will have a member of each race in your family and therefore, all the genes
( still in varying amounts, mind we won't all look identical just similar )
it's going to take a long time, probably thousands of years seems like a reasonable number
if we last that long that is
really, by the time a species can build computers and have 50% + leisure time, they no longer need to evolve, but they will continue to mutate for sure
the main thing we will see is the blending of the races into one ubergene race, the problem is, by comparison mutations will seem ever more bizzare as everyone comes toward a singular gene pool, and that will happen because eventually you will have a member of each race in your family and therefore, all the genes
( still in varying amounts, mind we won't all look identical just similar )
it's going to take a long time, probably thousands of years seems like a reasonable number
if we last that long that is
I don't see why technology is going to limit us at all from evolution. In fact, technology will force us to evolve faster.
Over thousands of years, environmental settings and daily physical activity will influence the human body. For instance, most low-lying Asians are significantly shorter, more stubby, backs are slightly different. This is because they've been farming for a lot longer than the Western world has been - they may have been farming since 12,000 years ago, while the West may have been farming since 8,000 years ago, and in some areas, maybe only 5,000 years ago. Their rice-based diet has affected their physiology rather significantly. In another example, an Asian exception, the Nepalese actually have a very different breathing mechanic than most humans, due to their living in a much higher elevation than everyone else. Our bodies have become used to gluten, as someone may have mentioned already.
With the advent of new technology, we may experience more interesting changes to humanity over time. We will always adapt to new settings and new tools, the question is when we get to the point where our bodies rely on such technologies, and if these technologies disappear, then what happens to us?
Anyway, if you want possible changes to us, there's a whole section on biomodification and implanting mechanical parts into our bodies, which is an ongoing process. As for natural modifications, I imagine smaller, nimbler fingers for factory work would be the most technology-driven evolution we may experience.
Over thousands of years, environmental settings and daily physical activity will influence the human body. For instance, most low-lying Asians are significantly shorter, more stubby, backs are slightly different. This is because they've been farming for a lot longer than the Western world has been - they may have been farming since 12,000 years ago, while the West may have been farming since 8,000 years ago, and in some areas, maybe only 5,000 years ago. Their rice-based diet has affected their physiology rather significantly. In another example, an Asian exception, the Nepalese actually have a very different breathing mechanic than most humans, due to their living in a much higher elevation than everyone else. Our bodies have become used to gluten, as someone may have mentioned already.
With the advent of new technology, we may experience more interesting changes to humanity over time. We will always adapt to new settings and new tools, the question is when we get to the point where our bodies rely on such technologies, and if these technologies disappear, then what happens to us?
Anyway, if you want possible changes to us, there's a whole section on biomodification and implanting mechanical parts into our bodies, which is an ongoing process. As for natural modifications, I imagine smaller, nimbler fingers for factory work would be the most technology-driven evolution we may experience.
we will not evolve any further.(period)
reason number 1
for evolution there must be natural selection
but we humans developed such a strong social composition that we work actively against natural selection(you know with keeping all the sick, disabled, retarded people alive...)
reason number 2
evolution takes time, much time
but since our technology is evolving much faster than we are it will outrun natural evolution
i'm talking augmentation a la deus ex here
humans won't wait for evolution to give them wings...we build flying machines
reason number 1
for evolution there must be natural selection
but we humans developed such a strong social composition that we work actively against natural selection(you know with keeping all the sick, disabled, retarded people alive...)
reason number 2
evolution takes time, much time
but since our technology is evolving much faster than we are it will outrun natural evolution
i'm talking augmentation a la deus ex here
humans won't wait for evolution to give them wings...we build flying machines
Evolution can't stop, what happened is that the paradigm of evolution has changed. Maybe the next step along the human genome is not superpowers (sorry, X-Men fans), but a human who can utilize the technology that surrounds us better (like Technopaths from Shadowrun), because life evolves according to it's surrounding and environment, change happens not when change is due, but gradually.Kopikatsu said:
I personally believe that humans have all but stopped evolving. Not completely, that can't be stopped. We will always mutate through different generations but I don't believe that we are evolving in the sense that we are becoming more suited to our environment. Like the OP says, since we no longer have to worry about predators, foraging or environmental factors, we are no longer being killed off if we are not able to survive in the natural world. But I think the biggest factor towards this is modern medicine. So many illnesses that would kill people without modern medicine are now passed down through the generation, so the human race isn't really "progressing" in the sense that our evolution is not heading in the direction of resistance to illness and better survival ability.
The way I see it is that humans are now spreading out, in terms of genetic variation, instead of heading in a direction. Because all types of people are able to survive now and pass on their genes the human race is spreading out in to all types, most of which are really required for survival.
That could be a good thing or a bad thing. Good because if we are required to head in a direction in the future we may be more likely have members of the species that are already suited, instead of all of us dying through overspecialisation. Although it could be bad because if we are required to go back to nature and lose our reliance on technology. Then again perhaps those things amount to the same thing anyway. And perhaps the members of our species whose lives haven't changed in tens out thousands of years will be the ones who survive any catastrophe in which we are unable to rely on our technology.
The way I see it is that humans are now spreading out, in terms of genetic variation, instead of heading in a direction. Because all types of people are able to survive now and pass on their genes the human race is spreading out in to all types, most of which are really required for survival.
That could be a good thing or a bad thing. Good because if we are required to head in a direction in the future we may be more likely have members of the species that are already suited, instead of all of us dying through overspecialisation. Although it could be bad because if we are required to go back to nature and lose our reliance on technology. Then again perhaps those things amount to the same thing anyway. And perhaps the members of our species whose lives haven't changed in tens out thousands of years will be the ones who survive any catastrophe in which we are unable to rely on our technology.
well we could grow wings (face it were going to need some sort of transport in the future that isnt cars or trains and what have you) oh and maybe we could get our tails back ive always wanted a tail.
shift keys on keyboards and dozens of other devices suggest otherwise.xXAsherahXx said:
The rule with evolution is: "Use it, or lose it"
We lost our keen animalistic sense of smell when millions of years ago our ancestors began walking on two legs, so several feet off the ground is no position to be following the scent trail of things left on the ground. Our sense of smell for telling if food is rotten (as we bring it to our mouths to eat) is actually very good because we keep using that.
You can tell by sniffing when milk has gone off far sooner than all but the most expensive scientific equipment. Yet we can't follow the trail of animal musk on the ground like a dog can.
A function we are not using much right now is callous formation. We wear very comfortable shoes outside almost universally, and gloves for any abrasive work, we don't really need to form callouses on our skin where it is worn the most. The presence of man-made physical pollutants (broken glass, nails, etc) pretty much mandate shoes to protect from cuts that callouses never could. So this is likely to be a long term trend in humanity.
You aren't going to lose something that could cost your chances of making a family.
Being "deformed" and missing digits does reduce your chances of finding a partner and passing on your genes. It's not like it takes a huge amount of energy to have pinkie fingers.
Our ape ancestors for millions of years lived on a high fruit diet which gave them plenty of vitamin C, so much so the process in their liver of synthesising vitamin C became redundant and there was no pressure to retain it. Now all the great apes - including humans - are quite unique among mammals in absolutely NEEDING vitamin C in our diet, if we don't get it from an outside source then we get scurvy as out blood vessels disintegrate and eventually we die from massive haemoraging and infection.
Stop listening to Kesha, Eminem and Black Eye Peas could be next step perhaps, and switch to something that could actually be called music.
Technology wise?
Well, we could build a monorail.
Technology wise?
Well, we could build a monorail.
Sir, you are amazing. I've always wondered that and no one has ever truly understood what I was saying. I've asked myself, and many others, that same question for years yet I've been unable to come up with anything solid. Either way, thanks for making me feel like I've been asking a good question.Dominic Burchnall said:
With all due respect, but you, sir, would not be able to recognise the Second Law of Thermodynamics if Rudolf Clausius himself showed up at your doorstep and smacked you over the head with a copy of 'On the mechanical theory of heat'.Randomosity said:
Not to mention that Biogenesis is not even relevant to the entire theory of evolution.
No animal evolves because it wants to or needs to. Nature simply wipes out anyone who isn't fit for survival.Hectix777 said:
By the way, DNA changes all the time. Anyone who has ever been exposed to the sun has had their DNA altered in some cells.
Evolution is not harder just because you believe in something. Evolution is a matter of disposing of what is unwanted - whatever survives gets to die another day.