human evolution

catefrances

what if this is as good as we get. what if what and where we are now in our evolution is the human form at its pinnacle?

South of Seattle

catefrances wrote:

what if this is as good as we get. what if what and where we are now in our evolution is the human form at its pinnacle?

I sure hope not. Being as I just got off the phone with someone that didn't know the difference between uppercase and lowercase letters. ( the beauty of tech support )

Personally, I could use another finger

catefrances

South of Seattle wrote:

I sure hope not. Being as I just got off the phone with someone that didn't know the difference between uppercase and lowercase letters. ( the beauty of tech support )

Personally, I could use another finger

as a mother, ive always wanted/needed another arm. could do without the extra head though. a prehensile tail would be cool too.

sponger

If so, then let Pearl Jam be synonymous with that pinnacle.

I was thinking of this subject sometime back, and I remembered the Flynn Effect, which states that as a whole, the intelligence of the population gradually increases with time.

For example, a person who scored an IQ of 100 at the turn of the 20th century would score much less than that by today's standards.

When I think of the evolution of man, I think of Einstein, who in fact had a brain that was shaped differently from ours. The section of the brain that performed analytical work was enlarged, and the division between the left and right hemispheres was less pronounced, which allowed them to more easily communicate with each other.

Maybe that's where we're headed. Maybe that shift in brain development will be our future.

This article by Time magazine states that human beings' most dramatic stage of development occured when the mouth got smaller, which allowed for the cranium to get bigger.

Well, whether or not you believe in aliens, we all know that the most popular depiction of alien beings shows a very large cranium and a very small mouth.

So, even before scientists figured out the purpose of the proportions of those physical features, aliens were already being drawn to show those characteristics to an enhanced degree.

And so I think maybe that's where we're headed. Maybe aliens one day flew down to earth before earth had seen the dawn man and injected alien DNA into champanzees just for shits and giggles, and we are what resulted from it.

catefrances

sponger wrote:

If so, then let Pearl Jam be synonymous with that pinnacle.

I was thinking of this subject sometime back, and I remembered the Flynn Effect, which states that as a whole, the intelligence of the population gradually increases with time.

For example, a person who scored an IQ of 100 at the turn of the 20th century would score much less than that by today's standards.

When I think of the evolution of man, I think of Einstein, who in fact had a brain that was shaped differently from ours. The section of the brain that performed analytical work was enlarged, and the division between the left and right hemispheres was less pronounced, which allowed them to more easily communicate with each other.

Maybe that's where we're headed. Maybe that shift in brain development will be our future.

This article by Time magazine states that human beings' most dramatic stage of development occured when the mouth got smaller, which allowed for the cranium to get bigger.

Well, whether or not you believe in aliens, we all know that the most popular depiction of alien beings shows a very large cranium and a very small mouth.

So, even before scientists figured out the purpose of the proportions of those physical features, aliens were already being drawn to show those characteristics to an enhanced degree.

And so I think maybe that's where we're headed. Maybe aliens one day flew down to earth before earth had seen the dawn man and injected alien DNA into champanzees just for shits and giggles, and we are what resulted from it.

what if were the aliens?

what if were someone elses mars colony experiment?

pateljam

catefrances wrote:

what if this is as good as we get. what if what and where we are now in our evolution is the human form at its pinnacle?

Yeah this is it... just look around... this is as good as it gets, the fabric of society is falling apart...

ClimberInOz

From a biologists perspective it is hard to predict any possibe evolutionary future, due to the partial removal of selection. Traits that traditionally would have caused premature death and been removed from the gene pool are now allowed to pass on due to modern medicine.

The question is do traits that can be linked with the genetic code still produce survival and reproductive advantages? Or are the traits that lead to survival and reproductive advantages more closely linked to social causes?

And in terms of speciation (1 species into 2) it is even more complex, because barriers have been removed and the vast majority of people can now freely interbreed. Perhaps the future of human speciation is linked to social barriers, such as class, money etc.

Hypothetically if the vast majority of rich people only breed with other rich people, and as a group they are subject to differing selective pressures, they may evolve in a different direction to other groups of people. Allow this to continue for long enough and you may end up having speciation occuring. Of course rich people don't always stay rich, which is why it is difficult for class, wealth etc. to act as a barrier to gene flow.

interesting question...

know1

catefrances wrote:

what if this is as good as we get. what if what and where we are now in our evolution is the human form at its pinnacle?

It's not.

catefrances

know1 wrote:

It's not.

how do you know?

Collin

Interesting question, indeed.

I don't know, we're finding out more and more about the human brain, I wonder if, once we know more or everything about it, it'll ever be possible to sort of force our evolution or aid it, so to speak.

polaris

i don't think we've reached our end in terms of evolution ...

kids these days are a lot smarter at an earlier age ... we are bigger and stronger ... granted there is a lot of people de-evolving but for the most part we are still evolving ...

sponger

ClimberInOz wrote:

From a biologists perspective it is hard to predict any possibe evolutionary future, due to the partial removal of selection. Traits that traditionally would have caused premature death and been removed from the gene pool are now allowed to pass on due to modern medicine.

The question is do traits that can be linked with the genetic code still produce survival and reproductive advantages? Or are the traits that lead to survival and reproductive advantages more closely linked to social causes?

And in terms of speciation (1 species into 2) it is even more complex, because barriers have been removed and the vast majority of people can now freely interbreed. Perhaps the future of human speciation is linked to social barriers, such as class, money etc.

Hypothetically if the vast majority of rich people only breed with other rich people, and as a group they are subject to differing selective pressures, they may evolve in a different direction to other groups of people. Allow this to continue for long enough and you may end up having speciation occuring. Of course rich people don't always stay rich, which is why it is difficult for class, wealth etc. to act as a barrier to gene flow.

interesting question...

My answer to that is that in any other century besides the one that just ended, a person like Stephen Hawking would've been the village idiot. His obvious physical limitations would've precluded him from any investment in his future. He would've been an embarassment to any family.

So, despite the fact that advancements in science have allowed for certain genes to pass when natural selection may have very well weeded them out, the flipside to that is the promotion of other traits that otherwise may not have passed were it not for the promotion of social causes, such as equality in educational opportunities.

And as for your second hypothesis, believe it not, I've given considerable thought to that too.

The reason being is that I grew up in a filthy stinking rich city in southern california. That city's one and only high school is ranked among the nation's highest scoring, and is probably one of the few in the nation that openly expects the teachers to prepare students for an Ivy League education. When I was in the 8th grade, the teachers began saying, "Now, when you go to Harvard, they're going to expect you to know this."

And that begs the question: Is wealth correlative to intelligence? And if so, does this mean that rich cities are gene pools of intelligence?

I think there is some truth to that. However, I was not rich. I just happened to live in that neighborhood because it was adjacent to a military base, and I was a military brat.

Regardless, there were kids in my humble military neighborhood including myself who were scoring in the top percentiles in our classes.

And that's why I think it's not so much a question of genetics so much as it is a question of resources and environment. The school district there had no fights, no gangs, and parental involvement in their children's education was probably unrivaled due to their not having to work double-shifts at minimum wage.

But, I will say this: the girls at that school were amongst the most beautiful I've ever seen, and I do think it is evidence to gene selection. That is, rich men can afford beautiful wives.

Strangest Tribe

we've done all we can to eliminate natural evolution. With our antibiotics, hepa filters, water filters, air conditioners, processed foods, etc.. we've allowed weak genes to persist.
Though we are evolving into a more superior intelligence our lifestyles have weakened our immune systems drastically and all this can be measured now by studying the last few decades as opposed to millenia studies. It's frightening that at any time a "super virus" could wipe us out.

Collin

Strangest Tribe wrote:

we've done all we can to eliminate natural evolution. With our antibiotics, hepa filters, water filters, air conditioners, processed foods, etc.. we've allowed weak genes to persist.
Though we are evolving into a more superior intelligence our lifestyles have weakened our immune systems drastically and all this can be measured now by studying the last few decades as opposed to millenia studies. It's frightening that at any time a "super virus" could wipe us out.

I was going to mention a pandemic as well. I wonder if the didive in wealth can influence that as well. The rich might be able to store up on goods and live in quarantine, pay for vaccines or medication (that might be scarce), they could afford other medical attention...

Either way, rich or not, is there in validity in saying only the strongest would survive after a pandemic?

OffHeGoes29

Well if no one else is going to say it, I will....

DO THE EVOLUTION

decides2dream

catefrances wrote:

what if this is as good as we get. what if what and where we are now in our evolution is the human form at its pinnacle?

does it really make a difference?
we are where we are, whether this is *it* or we evolve further. *we* won't be around to see further developments, so.....whatever. i know we as a species are far from 'perfect' and do a lot of Fed up things to this world, but we also are pretty damned amazing too.....just like most things...



Come to send, not condescend
Transcendental consequence
Is to transcend where we are
Who are we? Who we are
Trampled moss on your souls
Changes all you're a part
Seen it all, not at all
Can't defend fucked up man
Take me a for a ride before we leave...
Circumstance, clapping hands
Driving winds, happenstance
Off the track, in the mud
That's the moss in the aforementioned verse

Just a little time, before we leave...
Stop light, plays its part
So I would say you've got a part
What's your part? Who you are
You are who, who you are

Strangest Tribe

Collin wrote:

I was going to mention a pandemic as well. I wonder if the didive in wealth can influence that as well. The rich might be able to store up on goods and live in quarantine, pay for vaccines or medication (that might be scarce), they could afford other medical attention...

Either way, rich or not, is there in validity in saying only the strongest would survive after a pandemic?

It could be argued that the wealthy would be at less an advantage to survive a pandemic as opposed to mostly rural "outdoors" type people who have been exposed to more natural bacteria and viral microphages throughout their lives.