Evolution is not something that stops. It is a reaction to the forces which act upon us. If I recall correctly an article I read not long ago, humans are not the fastest evolving creatures, that distinction belongs to a distinguished old lizard called the Tuatara. Even then the rate is pretty damn sluggish.
Humans can't evolve.
- Thread starter hypothetical fact
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Samurai Goomba said:
Yeah that was probably in the Christian Science Monitor or some other Creationist puesdo-science bullshit thing that mis-states facts to prove Goliath was real and therefore every word in the bible is complete fact.
Simple science as to why giants don't and have never existed. If you got a person and made them twice as large in every dimension they would have 8 times the volume and only 4 times the surface area. Because of this lack of surface area the cells would not be able to get rid of enough excess heat and the giant would die of overheating.
That's not true actually. 'Giant' creatures have lived in the past. It's more a matter of the homeostasis mechanisms evolving with them over time. Bone density is another important issue, which is why these are gradual changes rather than instantaneous ones. Doubling a creatures body size implies that you double their bone size, but the density thereof remains standard. The bones would be unable to stand up to the load.Infinitebat said:
Damn, Infinitebat is getting hella scientific on us. As to the question of or, rather, statement that we can't evolve the way we are, I would ask you first whether you really understand what drives evolution and since I don't want to wait for your answer, I'll tell you.
Evolution is driven by the environment. That is it. What is in the environment and how it is structured is what drives evolution. It's a simple case of cause and effect. When the shit hits the fan, it's the people with the umbrellas that come away clean and move on with their existence.
We don't need to evolve and that's why we've got all these... different people. When the time comes, we will evolve. Or we'll die. Whatever works.
Evolution is driven by the environment. That is it. What is in the environment and how it is structured is what drives evolution. It's a simple case of cause and effect. When the shit hits the fan, it's the people with the umbrellas that come away clean and move on with their existence.
We don't need to evolve and that's why we've got all these... different people. When the time comes, we will evolve. Or we'll die. Whatever works.
I believe humans are still evolving, however since it's such a slow process and our environment is changing so quickly, it would be unbelievably difficult to actually measure this change. Just look at our technological vs. Biological evolution in the last 1-2 million years. We have gone from hunter gatherers living in caves to the modern lifestyle and all that that entails, however in terms of physical changes there is quite little difference (which is why we are all growing obese with our now-abundant food supply). As our technological advancement increases, I think that the only real evolution will be either self-created via cybernetic implants, if you can call that evolution, or total physical deterioration when the robots are doing all our work.
I think you'll find evolution happens (for better or worse) whether you like it or not.hypothetical fact said:
As a species we are getting taller and our little fingers and toes are receding, we're also losing a pair of ribs and two pairs of teeth.
The idea of forced breeding is Eugenics rather than Evolution. Evolution is extremely slow, too slow for any living being to notice or measure, but it never stops.
I think the human species is evolving, but in a very erratic way, because humanity is now capable of changing its environment within a generation and evolution actually needs thousands of generations for serious changes.
I'm sure people have heard the theory that humanity will diverge into two species. One of incredibly tall long-lived aesthetes and the other a sort of servant race of shorter squat beings who actually did all the manual labour. This was the sort of thing very much on the mind of H.G.Wells. He described in "The Time Machine" the Eloi and the Morlocks which were supposedly how the classes had undergone divergent evolution.
TBH I think if you replace Morlocks with Robots, then that's where were headed. It sounds OK to me, except the population might have to be strictly controlled or we will all end up in a kind of rigid authoritarian society out of necessity when there are too many people to support. Either that or massive famines and starvation. What then? Space? Well its in Asimov's Elijah Baley stories. Probably should stop reading so much scifi.
Its pretty fair to say that this whole area is a complete house of horrors, and thinking about it too hard takes you to some nasty places. I wouldn't really worry about it.
I'm sure people have heard the theory that humanity will diverge into two species. One of incredibly tall long-lived aesthetes and the other a sort of servant race of shorter squat beings who actually did all the manual labour. This was the sort of thing very much on the mind of H.G.Wells. He described in "The Time Machine" the Eloi and the Morlocks which were supposedly how the classes had undergone divergent evolution.
TBH I think if you replace Morlocks with Robots, then that's where were headed. It sounds OK to me, except the population might have to be strictly controlled or we will all end up in a kind of rigid authoritarian society out of necessity when there are too many people to support. Either that or massive famines and starvation. What then? Space? Well its in Asimov's Elijah Baley stories. Probably should stop reading so much scifi.
Its pretty fair to say that this whole area is a complete house of horrors, and thinking about it too hard takes you to some nasty places. I wouldn't really worry about it.
Quoted for being correct.GloatingSwine said:
In fact, this is the time when "major" evolution can occur. With limited constraints on what a human needs to survive (at least, in the first world), mutations that would not normally survive (either because they disadvantage the species or are simply "wasteful") are allowed to survive. These are the times nature "can experiment" largely freely. "What if humans work better with 2 thumbs? Lets find out!" - "What if they had tails again?" - etc.
Normally predators, limited food supplies, or outright environmental hostility would kill of these "mutants" and nature would have to stick to a narrow band of what a "fit" human is.
Obviously, if the world were to turn hostile again, the unadapted to the new environment would be likely to die off, but its entirely possible some of these "mutants" would survive better than the typical human of today, evolving the species down a different path.
Hold your horses there buddy. By your definition you wouldn't want those with one honed faculty to breed, only those that "tick all the boxes"? Sorry, no such thing. If you don't agree name me a Harvard Professor of Law that was also an Olympic Gold Medalist or a football player whom later became an astrophysicist. Human race thrives on diversity. We need the thickos for labour and intellectuals to think of something for them to do.hypothetical fact said:
Here's a caveman analogy: We wouldn't of left the cave without the strong and brave but we would of been extinct had the paranoid not told us to watch out.
I could go on with the "If and but".. but I won't.
Nature doesn't care if something seems "stupid". Look at the beaver or the duck-billed thingy. Or the kangaroo!hypothetical fact said:
For example, sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease that can seriously damage a person's general health. However, this same mutation often results in an immunity to malaria. Hence, in area's where malaria is a widespread killer, these people with "stupid" genes are the "fit" ones.
Interesting about the fingers, toes, and ribs, had no idea that was the current trend. Knew about the teeth.fix-the-spade said:
Although you are technically incorrect about the speed of evolution - it occurs in microbes and some species of insect at an extremely fast rate due to their rapid lifecycles. This is how germs are managing to become resistant to antibotics.
As for flies, a few species of fruit flies are used in genetic/evolutionally science experiments due to their larger size and somewhat slower reproductive rates.
I'm a believer in eugenics; it's why I 'm not having kids. Forced breeding is stupid however, because it's forced. I believe in letting people do whatever they want. Besides, if you want superior, just wait for the robots and DNA changing viruses. Plus: Racists.
Definitely sounds like it.
What do you mean medical science saves the stupid? There is no medical cure for stupidity, but we are able to cure many lethal diseases at this point. Without medical science the way it is many people you know would not be alive right now. I know I wouldn't be alive right now if it wasn't for medical science, so I find your post offensive and arrogant.
Hmmm. You may have a point that evolving would be difficult because we do tend to save everyone from their terrible fate by flashing them with medical science.
As far as "perfecting" the process on dogs. Well...dogs are hyrbid monsters because every self-absorbed rich person wanted all the specific attributes and it became a crossbreading orgy against god (No, I didn't mean that in the zealous Christian way. I am christian but not zealous. I'm actually having conflciting thoughts on that subject.). Kind of like in cliche movies where you have the stuck up fat rich woman wearing all the gawdy jewelry and fur coats and other than her alligator skin purse she has some little yappy dog that has genes from at least three other dog species.
Ok, on the "best for humanity" part. Ahem. "Best for humanity" is very subjective to what culture you're from. The Palestinians for example, it says in their constitution that the Jews must die. Is that best for humanity? According to Israel's allies and Israel that is a resounding "NO!". The process of people isn't random as you (kind of) put it. It has to do with a very complicated emotion called love. And yes, ethics and morals are getting in the way but I would MUCH rather be dead than live in a world without moral and ethics. The world would be chaos, people would be like "Hello thar" *stabs you randomly and runs off like a psycho person laughing in the distance*. But because MOST people are moral, in some way, won't usually do that (or at least where I live).
I'm not flaming, just pointing out some stuff. I flame some subjects because They tend to be zealously defended by people with no concept of opposing viewpoints and have zero respect for them. I repect your view on forced breeding making humanity "better", but I wholeheartedly disagree with some stuff you used to support it.
And this is a joke i just thought of concerning the dog-breeding: What do you get when you cross a Bull dog and a Shitzu? A bullshit. harr harr harr
As far as "perfecting" the process on dogs. Well...dogs are hyrbid monsters because every self-absorbed rich person wanted all the specific attributes and it became a crossbreading orgy against god (No, I didn't mean that in the zealous Christian way. I am christian but not zealous. I'm actually having conflciting thoughts on that subject.). Kind of like in cliche movies where you have the stuck up fat rich woman wearing all the gawdy jewelry and fur coats and other than her alligator skin purse she has some little yappy dog that has genes from at least three other dog species.
Ok, on the "best for humanity" part. Ahem. "Best for humanity" is very subjective to what culture you're from. The Palestinians for example, it says in their constitution that the Jews must die. Is that best for humanity? According to Israel's allies and Israel that is a resounding "NO!". The process of people isn't random as you (kind of) put it. It has to do with a very complicated emotion called love. And yes, ethics and morals are getting in the way but I would MUCH rather be dead than live in a world without moral and ethics. The world would be chaos, people would be like "Hello thar" *stabs you randomly and runs off like a psycho person laughing in the distance*. But because MOST people are moral, in some way, won't usually do that (or at least where I live).
I'm not flaming, just pointing out some stuff. I flame some subjects because They tend to be zealously defended by people with no concept of opposing viewpoints and have zero respect for them. I repect your view on forced breeding making humanity "better", but I wholeheartedly disagree with some stuff you used to support it.
And this is a joke i just thought of concerning the dog-breeding: What do you get when you cross a Bull dog and a Shitzu? A bullshit. harr harr harr
