Poll: is the evolution of humans stagnating?
- Thread starter chaos order
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Evolution is a constant thing, it doesn't stop and our world will never stop being hostile.
There's always other things trying to survive and we're not really up the top.
It could be argued that evolution will follow a natural adaptive route until we ourselves learn how to tamper with DNA and then do it ourselves, then moving onto cybernetic and metaphysical evolution.
There's always other things trying to survive and we're not really up the top.
It could be argued that evolution will follow a natural adaptive route until we ourselves learn how to tamper with DNA and then do it ourselves, then moving onto cybernetic and metaphysical evolution.
I guess we'll find out in a few thousand years, mutation on the other hand seems promising. So as long as it isn't cancer of course.
Human evolution is dead. Evolution is triggered by a physical need to adapt to extremely adverse living conditions - and yes, I suppose these still exist in some places, but since we've already made this planet our ***** by being the smartest and meanest tosspot in the sandbox we'll tackle these problems and conditions (and any other that might potentially arise in the future) by employing science, thus quashing the need to evolve.
I guess the one thing that might jumpstart the heartbeat of evolution once more is a big reset, a global catastrophe of sufficient proportion to knock us back into the stone age.
I guess the one thing that might jumpstart the heartbeat of evolution once more is a big reset, a global catastrophe of sufficient proportion to knock us back into the stone age.
"Evolving" in the sense of our descendants becoming a different species...well, no real way to tell at this point, but probably not.
We're still "evolving" in the general sense of our genes mutating and spreading throughout segments of the population. We're like sharks, that way.
We're still "evolving" in the general sense of our genes mutating and spreading throughout segments of the population. We're like sharks, that way.
Yes and no. Medical technology has all but killed natural evolution.
However, with genetic engineering and cybernetics just over the horizon, the potential for self determined evolution is coming about for us.
Personally I think it is quite exciting.
However, with genetic engineering and cybernetics just over the horizon, the potential for self determined evolution is coming about for us.
Personally I think it is quite exciting.
Someone hasn't taken a basic college level science class, have they? It took us 7 million years to diverge from our basic chimpanzee-like ancestors. Despite what you've seen in the X-Men evolution does not 'leap forward'.
Homo sapiens have been around for 100,000 years. If you're looking for obvious evolutionary changes in recorded human history you're shit outa luck.
Just because the X-men has not become prophecy doesn't mean we have stopped evolving.
Just because the X-men has not become prophecy doesn't mean we have stopped evolving.
First up, I think evolution is a far too complex and badly understood phenomena for anyone to be able to give a fast answer to this one.... that said, here's my fast answer:
Yes, human evolution has completely stagnated.
The evolution of a species is driven by the need for that species to adapt to the changing conditions of their environment or die out. Ever since we humans took control of our environment via our technology, our need to adapt has disappeared completely.
If another ice age were to come around, we - as a species - wouldnt be forced to adapt to the cold or go extinct. We'd simply turn up the heating.
Yes, human evolution has completely stagnated.
The evolution of a species is driven by the need for that species to adapt to the changing conditions of their environment or die out. Ever since we humans took control of our environment via our technology, our need to adapt has disappeared completely.
If another ice age were to come around, we - as a species - wouldnt be forced to adapt to the cold or go extinct. We'd simply turn up the heating.
Evolution is split into two eras: biological evolution and technological evolution.
The "goal" of biological evolution is biological adaptation: to take humans as an example, our bodies adapted to changing conditions until we achieved sentience.
The goal of technological evolution is technological adaptation: humans using their ability to manipulate their surroundings and create things that allow us not just to survive, but to flourish.
In essence:
biological evolution: survival until sentience is achieved
technological evolution: continued survival until civilization is achieved
The "goal" of biological evolution is biological adaptation: to take humans as an example, our bodies adapted to changing conditions until we achieved sentience.
The goal of technological evolution is technological adaptation: humans using their ability to manipulate their surroundings and create things that allow us not just to survive, but to flourish.
In essence:
biological evolution: survival until sentience is achieved
technological evolution: continued survival until civilization is achieved
No. We've replaced it.
WITH SCIENCE!
No longer bound by the painfully slow and unpredictable mistress that is evolution, we can do so much more.
We've been into fucking SPACE. Evolution would never have done that.
We have the internet, too- we can communicate (and fight to the death) with anyone, any time.
Anyone who wants to tell me we aren't in the future can get out of here, stalker.
We're going to take evolution, show it the rest of science, then chastise it for being too slow.
I refuse to agree with this constant negativity about everything. You worry about what tomorrow holds, I think there's only one way to find out- go there and make something of it that we can hope for.
Yes, there are problems, but things are getting better. Hell, the cold war is (arguably) over, so we're further away from blowing ourselves to hell than we were a few decades ago.
Sure, there are a few people who have become complacent (Them chavs on benefits, people who don't believe in science... as though you had a choice about "believing " in science.), but they will be crushed beneath the steel boots of progress!
Kirill was a man with vision! HAPPINESS FOR EVERYBODY, FREE, AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED!
WITH SCIENCE!
No longer bound by the painfully slow and unpredictable mistress that is evolution, we can do so much more.
We've been into fucking SPACE. Evolution would never have done that.
We have the internet, too- we can communicate (and fight to the death) with anyone, any time.
Anyone who wants to tell me we aren't in the future can get out of here, stalker.
We're going to take evolution, show it the rest of science, then chastise it for being too slow.
I refuse to agree with this constant negativity about everything. You worry about what tomorrow holds, I think there's only one way to find out- go there and make something of it that we can hope for.
Yes, there are problems, but things are getting better. Hell, the cold war is (arguably) over, so we're further away from blowing ourselves to hell than we were a few decades ago.
Sure, there are a few people who have become complacent (Them chavs on benefits, people who don't believe in science... as though you had a choice about "believing " in science.), but they will be crushed beneath the steel boots of progress!
Kirill was a man with vision! HAPPINESS FOR EVERYBODY, FREE, AND NO ONE WILL GO AWAY UNSATISFIED!
Bear in mind that if you could see a human as we would be in a thousand years time, there would almost certainly be no real difference when compared to our current selves. We're never going to sprout that extra arm, but we will see changes in other ways, like how we can naturally resist disease. Evolution is not stagnating, it's just that there will be nothing to see for centuries.
Eh. No. Kind of. We're no longer working on a system whereby only the fit, strong, intelligent or all three survive. That doesn't mean we're not evolving. It simply means that there are less selection pressures to strongly channel the evolution. Again, that's not a bad thing, per se. Y'see, when so many of us survive, there are a lot of different genes out there which would not otherwise be present. As such, these 'stagnation' periods increase genetic diversity. Ergo, if the environment rapidly changes, or if a new disease emerges, there's an increased liklihood that a reasonable population will already be well enough adapted to the new environment to survive, or immune/resistant to said disease, simply because a lot of traits are surviving that otherwise would not have.
To suggest that evolution is "slowing" is to confess a certain ignorance of just how evolution works. We are rapidly adapting to a new environment of our own creation, so not only are humans continuing to evolve but we are basically playing in god mode, manipulating the very rules of the evolutionary game.
The species impresses me. I'm quite proud to be part of it, even though the 300 million Homo sapiens specimens in my own section of the ecosystem are such imbeciles.
The species impresses me. I'm quite proud to be part of it, even though the 300 million Homo sapiens specimens in my own section of the ecosystem are such imbeciles.
Uh, ADD doesn't work that way. True ADD (And by extension, ADHD) is not the ability to multitask, it's finding it difficult to focus on anything at all, even if one wants to. Taking medication such as ritalin doesn't stop one from multitasking at all, it simply allows one to focus on something (be it one thing or several simultaneous things).2012 Wont Happen said:
People who give ritalin to children who can focus on several things at once are idiots, that's not ADD at all.
And yes, I am talking from experience.
It is a slow process, so I don't think it is stagnating. However in todays world with modern medicine and technology I think humans as a race don't have a "need" to evolve as much, and in my eyes this would make evolution harder to spot (both directional and stabilising).
My point is that a favourable characteristic that may be due to an evolution is as is as likely to be passed on as the genes of someone who has the more unfavourable characteristic because modern medicine and technology can make up for more favourable characteristics.
At my attempt of a summary I think I'm trying to say that modern medicine and technology mean that the survival of the fittest isn't exactly true.
My point is that a favourable characteristic that may be due to an evolution is as is as likely to be passed on as the genes of someone who has the more unfavourable characteristic because modern medicine and technology can make up for more favourable characteristics.
At my attempt of a summary I think I'm trying to say that modern medicine and technology mean that the survival of the fittest isn't exactly true.