Haram And Taboo Are Words From Other...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Human evolution
22 Answers
what will our spiecies look like in one million years time?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by johnlambert. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't think there will be much difference as natural selection has effectivley been halted by human intervention. Essentially faulty genes are just as likeley to propagate which is not true in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example an animal with defective vision will generally get eaten before it has a chance to reproduce. In humans we just wear glasses and have children anyway, hence the faulty design is continued. I think that evolution is therefore transferred to a sort of evolutionary overdrive where survival of the fittest has been replaced by technological solutions to problems that to the rest of the animal kingdom would end the road for those particular genes.
The human race won't be around in a million years.
Even if we did survive for another million years, the only major difference would be our height if the conditions of the earth stay the same.
But, there is a possibility that we might counter-evolve a lot.
Counter-evolution is when a species gets so adapted to it's environment the only changes that can happen are negative, it's already happening to humanity
Even if we did survive for another million years, the only major difference would be our height if the conditions of the earth stay the same.
But, there is a possibility that we might counter-evolve a lot.
Counter-evolution is when a species gets so adapted to it's environment the only changes that can happen are negative, it's already happening to humanity
-It will probably not be around (there are quite a few good resources at the moment, and technology is moderate, and we still insist on beating the crap out of one another and the planet). Our hope for survival is in occupying other planets, so we can beat the crap out of each other there and destroy them instead.
-chakka is right, however because (as Loosehead says), we have overcome many of the devices of natural selection (survival of the fittest), this means that there is a LARGER spread of genetic mutations to select from (poorer mutations are surviving as well as useful ones)However, new available niches which we could occupy, which would require change and thus preference for a given mutation are very small.
-Unless there is a major development/intervention, then the planet will be occupied solely by women, probably cloning other women. The Y chromosone that makes a man a man is fatally flawed, and does not repair itself, it will be damaged beyond repair within 100-200 thousand years.
-There are lots of technological advances around today (cloning, supercomputing, superconductivity, nanotechnology), quantum mechanics, that were not even really properly formed in people's heads as concepts 100 years ago: in 100 years time there will be new technologies that we can only guess at, thus making futurology no more than a guess.
-Would have to disagree with Jim, and agree with Dakota on that point in question. Human beings are the only living creatures that radically defy the whole natural direction of evolution. Change in a way that wholely goes against the natural long term flow of our change into our ecological niche is possible, because we are aware of the forces at play, and can subvert them. Thus counter-evolution is entirely possible.
What thinketh ye?
ps. Has anyone read 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Dawkins?
Hi Jim,
Proof of what I am saying is all around us, look at obesity for instance. Fatness isn't evolution - it's the absence of evolution......If we could adapt to our low activity high calorie lifestyles then that would be.... <unfinished thought>
Survival of the fittest no longer applies to todays humans so the weak and inferior are able to reproduce.
Interesting take on evolution but it simply doesn't work like that. Pepole getting fat is not "counter evolution". It just means that at this particular time we see a lot of fatties. If a new predetor came into our towns who liked to eat fat people then maybe fatness would start to reduce in the general population. Alternativly, if at some time in the future we face climatic conditions which mean we have to hibernate for a few months each year maybe it will only be the fatties who survive thus changing the gene pool forever. The point is: Evolution does not have an end goal that once reached it has nowhere else to go.
jim
The ability of a species to survive in a certain environment is what drives evolution. Therefore, the deveolopment of technology to improve the survivability of our species in large range of different environments appears to play along with with what evolution is all about. As jimmer says, evolution does not have an end goal, and it does not have a preplanned path. Therefore, I don't think we defy the natural direction of evolution at all.
I think we will probably all have mobile phones genetically attached to the sides of our heads and plugs that will mean we can jack straight into the net and won't need to use our hands, we will be able to just navigate our way round using our brains.
Or maybe we'll have over developed thumbs from all the texting.
We probably won't have mouths, because we won't need to debate,we'll have instant messanger; we won't have noses because we won't have to smell, we'll heat up a microwave dinner; we won't have eyes because there won't be any great works of art left to see, and we won't have hands because we won't have to anything left to write.
Maybe, we won't have hearts. The world already displays peoples who have lost the will to love. Survival of the fittest? That only leaves the computers. Maybe the future is bleak; the future is Orange.
therefore as Bill Gates once said: Be nice to Nerds. One day they will rule the world.
Jim, after some thought and after reading what dreddnaught has said, I have another theory, remember I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, just thinking about it, so:
Say it's not survival of the fittest but survival of the sexiest.
You might have been born with a cool mutation that allows you to breath underwater... but if no-one fancies you, then that little adaptation is worthless isn't it? Even if it allows you to survive...
So - in the future, people will be beautiful
The driving force behind evolution is not 'survival of the fittest' (a common misbelief) but is in fact 'survival of the sexiest'.
It is irrelevant how adapted you might be to any kind of environment if you don't mate and pass those genes on.
For sure, over time environment will mould evolution - but without that sexiness drive, it's meaningless...
Take a peacock.. any peacock... see those great big feathers....
They're bloody useful for taking off aren't they and outrunning cats... of course not - they have evolved as a mating ritual. One day, in the future, there might be an environment in which those stupid feathers might come in useful (perhaps a waterworld and they use them as sails).
A future sentient being in that world (dolphins) might look at the peacock and say: 'ooo look at them, survival of the fittest that was...' and then eat them.
So - to recap: the driving force behind evolution is the need to mate. The second driving force is the need to survive within an environment.
absolutely dakota
Darwin believed that sexual selection drove humans to lose their body hair. Basically, the theory states that males tend to select females (very contentious)and started to prefer females with less hair. Man then followed this trend but not quite to the same extent. If this is the case, we should also ask why a a person would chose a mate based on lack of hair? Is it just that they look better? The main theory behind this type of seemingly arbitrary selection is to show your mate you are free from parasites.
Peacocks almost certainly have elaborate fans exclusively to attract Peahens - peahens don't have a colourful fan because they do the choosing � and not because the tail offers any utility. This highlights the fundamental importance of sexual selection on evolution.
But as you imply. If the specific quality that invites sexual selection is a negative fit environmentally it will not become an inherited trait. For example, if the Peacock's fan gets so big that it makes him topple over, he's not going to get lucky.
jim
Latest Posts
Reeves' Wrecking Ball Will Be Swinging...
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Asma Al-Assad Cannot Return To The Uk
News18 mins ago
