Should We Be Taking Nuclear Threats More...
News1 min ago
Evolution - where do we go from here?
42 Answers
Assuming that human beings evolved from the neanderthal and have lost the elongated brow among other features, what do you think will happen to the human race in the future, assuming of course we don't obliterate each other first. I heard once that humans will eventually lose their mouths, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this. Maybe
because all food will be in tablet form by then and we will communicate by mindpower. Any theories floating about out there?
because all food will be in tablet form by then and we will communicate by mindpower. Any theories floating about out there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by styley. 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.
-- answer removed --
Since more tham 99% of all species that ever existed on Earth are now extinct it is a fair bet that humans will become extinct too. Will their relatively high level of intelligence save them? I think not. Cockroaches have been around for over 200 million years and although highly adaptable insects are hardly the brightest lights on the evolutionary tree!
It is a pointless speculation since we cannot predict how any living creature will evolve.
The first stage of an evolutionary step is random mutation or a series of them. The viable ones will survive (natural selection), some of them neutral, some of them advantageous. But one cannot, by definition, predict randomness.
One can speculate, or even work out, what the environment might be like in, say, a million years time and what sort of human would best suit (be 'fit' for) that environment. But there is no reason to suppose that the mutations will take place to produce that human.
Unless, of course, science one day allows us to take the randomness out...
The first stage of an evolutionary step is random mutation or a series of them. The viable ones will survive (natural selection), some of them neutral, some of them advantageous. But one cannot, by definition, predict randomness.
One can speculate, or even work out, what the environment might be like in, say, a million years time and what sort of human would best suit (be 'fit' for) that environment. But there is no reason to suppose that the mutations will take place to produce that human.
Unless, of course, science one day allows us to take the randomness out...
For about the past 5000 years humans have been evolving faster than ever before. These changes are not particularly obvious as they are more biochemical than morphological.
With the ever increasing assault of chemicals in the environment the ability to maintain stability and resist cancer will probably be the prevalent changes.
In a society where everyone is looked after, evolution is governed by the breeding rate. Unfortunately the stupid people are producing the most children so we are actually becoming less intelligent as a species.
Eventutually the whole thing will collapse when the stupid people become too much of a burden on those who are productive. It is the basis for the rise and fall of Rome and many other societies.
With the ever increasing assault of chemicals in the environment the ability to maintain stability and resist cancer will probably be the prevalent changes.
In a society where everyone is looked after, evolution is governed by the breeding rate. Unfortunately the stupid people are producing the most children so we are actually becoming less intelligent as a species.
Eventutually the whole thing will collapse when the stupid people become too much of a burden on those who are productive. It is the basis for the rise and fall of Rome and many other societies.
Just found this.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconcept ions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconcept ions.html
Clanad, you're wrong, and I don't seriously believe you don't understand why Chakka and I are able to say what we say and both be correct.
If you don't then you greatly surprise me, it's evolution 101. Should we just assume you're being mischievious?
Natural selection is the process by which organisms that are most fit for their environment as a result of random mutation survive.
The gentic variation (which Chakka was discussing) on which Natural Selection acts is therefore random, but Natural Selection is the very opposite of random because it explicitly means that the best adapted organisms in an environment will survive (which I was discussing).
If you don't then you greatly surprise me, it's evolution 101. Should we just assume you're being mischievious?
Natural selection is the process by which organisms that are most fit for their environment as a result of random mutation survive.
The gentic variation (which Chakka was discussing) on which Natural Selection acts is therefore random, but Natural Selection is the very opposite of random because it explicitly means that the best adapted organisms in an environment will survive (which I was discussing).
Precisely, evolution happens in respect to environment.
So you first have to ask how our environment is likely to change.
Remember too that many of the changes are likely to be invisible to us.
Things like a growing immunity to certain diseases spring to mind.
Of course diseases evolve too!
It's suggested that the widespread usage of alcohol in Europe for thousands of years has lead to a protein that helps metabolise alcohol more efficiently.
I don't know whether or not that's aan urban myth but it doesn't matter because it's the sort of change you're likely to see.
More likely than the loss of a mouth certainly
So you first have to ask how our environment is likely to change.
Remember too that many of the changes are likely to be invisible to us.
Things like a growing immunity to certain diseases spring to mind.
Of course diseases evolve too!
It's suggested that the widespread usage of alcohol in Europe for thousands of years has lead to a protein that helps metabolise alcohol more efficiently.
I don't know whether or not that's aan urban myth but it doesn't matter because it's the sort of change you're likely to see.
More likely than the loss of a mouth certainly
Oh, gee... there's me taking stated opinions at face value only to be certainly set straight that, unlike the experts, I haven't a clue as to the "basic principles". (How is it mischief to point out disagreements by two or more proponents of the same position? Happens all the time among the elite illuminati) I fully understand though, that Richard Dawkins has, somehow or another, been coronated or better yet, deified, as the sole holder of any valid opinions concerning origins.
So, if there is randomness (or not, depending on the opiner) can one explain why a growing number of scientists of all persuasions are sticking their toe in the uncharted waters defined as the Sea of Direction? One only has to peruse the offerings such as here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7F4lXeLTeOgC& dq=evolution%27s+arrow&pg=PP1&ots=oWegDyBwjO&s ig=db1iaTqd1eBe-2w0PR1hF2Ac5-w&hl=en&prev=http ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Evolution%27s +Arrow&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=tit le&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA5,M1
(Apologies for the lengthy URL).
More and more articles are being written and peer reviewed that reveal a willingness to consider that evolution has direction. But how can that be? Unless, of course, I and others don't know randomness from roadsigns. I'll leave the reply to our resident experts whose bombastic and sneering replies do nothing to enhance communications, by the way...
So, if there is randomness (or not, depending on the opiner) can one explain why a growing number of scientists of all persuasions are sticking their toe in the uncharted waters defined as the Sea of Direction? One only has to peruse the offerings such as here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7F4lXeLTeOgC& dq=evolution%27s+arrow&pg=PP1&ots=oWegDyBwjO&s ig=db1iaTqd1eBe-2w0PR1hF2Ac5-w&hl=en&prev=http ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Evolution%27s +Arrow&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=tit le&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA5,M1
(Apologies for the lengthy URL).
More and more articles are being written and peer reviewed that reveal a willingness to consider that evolution has direction. But how can that be? Unless, of course, I and others don't know randomness from roadsigns. I'll leave the reply to our resident experts whose bombastic and sneering replies do nothing to enhance communications, by the way...
Okay, you're not being mischievious. You apprently just didn't know that mutation is random and natural selection isn't.
For someone who criticises evolution as often and as forcefully as you do, I'm really shocked and surprised, because this is incredibly basic stuff and rather undermines your ability to make a worthwhile argument. If you don't understand that, I'm not sure how you can seriously claim evolution is wrong - unless it's just on the basis of appeals to authority or something.
I'm really quite bemused. It never occured to me you didn't know this stuff.
For someone who criticises evolution as often and as forcefully as you do, I'm really shocked and surprised, because this is incredibly basic stuff and rather undermines your ability to make a worthwhile argument. If you don't understand that, I'm not sure how you can seriously claim evolution is wrong - unless it's just on the basis of appeals to authority or something.
I'm really quite bemused. It never occured to me you didn't know this stuff.
Despite our differences, Waldo, I've usually respected you for your eruditemess... however, you're the one that unequivocally stated that randomness had no place in evolution... I found that strange and certainly considered that, perhaps you meant an initial, random genetic mutation could be responsible for initiating further changes... however, I'm loathe to put words in other people's mouths, and took your statement, in its entirety at face value... for that I'm the one that's short of shrift on basic "stuff"? Unique concept...
