Would you fight a 'New Evolution'

[Leonardo]

boorite,

I think you are being rather constricted in your thinking there. Adaptive evolution is a primary response to stress on the organism from the environment (habitat, resources, competition etc). To say humans cannot continue to evolve is to deny there is any stress on us as a species and I think this is a very untrue statement.

[sbradj]

what if scientist wanted a "Superhuman"...cloning seems to be a way to go..they could so to speak "invent" exactly what they wanted..a gene here a gene there..an unstoppable "superbeing" evolution could take a wild twist..

[Bella-Angelique]

X-Men anyone? I think the next step in human evolution has to do with the human genome project. Unnatural evolution.

I will go with this one as my pick.

[+Sherapy]

It is not about right or wrong, it is about survival. If 'we' felt threatened, then we should/would fight. And if we destroyed these superior beings, then they wouldn't be superior... its a matter of interpretation of course. I don't believe it is humanity's desire as a whole to be superior to all things, I just believe we desire to flourish. Some may call our journey here superior to all other animals' journeys, and in a certain perspective that is true, but with greater talent comes greater responsibility.

Arty you have lost me i am not seeing how the human is 'superior other than in the ways he has decided he is and its really all in his head, i guess cause he projected the eye outward calls it a camera and voila you have genius oy vey........ truly superior or highly evolved being makes choices based on what benefits the whole and is clear on what is a benefit and what isn't... ideas that allowed for harm would not be part of the that which benefits.....Its innate in all thiings to lean towards more of, but more of what???? fittest has come to mean by a primitive human conciousness better, bigger than, kills the most, takes the most, harms the most., calls esteem of the self 'bad' sinful natural and victimhood noble etc..........To often as a humanity we deny the truth of what we are, being in kindergarten is being in kindergarten....part of awareness is seeing what is so and calling it that......A 'superior' human can solve conflict without violence and get along with the whole and excersice great compassion, can discern between what is beneficial what isn't, lets go easily of that which isn't unity building.... and stewards the land and creatures that nurture and support it etc..this is not the place the majority of humanity is in as of yet....

[Loge]

Here comes the only proof of Darwin's Theory of Evolution!

His children, all the disappointed evolutionists will fight to the death against any "New Evolution"

All the Atheists, Owners of all Newspapers, will make public the New Evolution.

[boorite]

boorite,

I think you are being rather constricted in your thinking there. Adaptive evolution is a primary response to stress on the organism from the environment (habitat, resources, competition etc). To say humans cannot continue to evolve is to deny there is any stress on us as a species and I think this is a very untrue statement.

There are too many technical problems with your statement for me to engage it in terms of current evolutionary theory. For example, "stress on us as a species" doesn't mean anything in terms of natural selection, as far as I can tell, because the species is not the unit of selection. Just what is the unit of selection is debatable, but the notion of species selection has been deprecated for 40 years now. The same goes for the concept of adaptation except in the loosest, most indirect sense. Strictly speaking, "adaptation" implies either a teleological or a Lamarckian dimension that doesn't seem to exist in fact.

But let my try to make what I'm trying to say clearer: The rate of speciation depends on at least two things, which for human populations are currently and forseeably at or near zero: geographic isolation and selection. Natural selection cannot-- cannot-- result in speciation under these circumstances. If speciation occurs in the human population as it exists now, it cannot be a result of natural selection as that term is currently used. That is by definition.

This is not a controversial or speculative statement. It is like saying a cannonball cannot "float on air" anywhere on Earth. This is because a cannonball's weight exceeds the weight of the air it displaces. Thus, by the very definition of buoyancy, if a cannonball is seen to levitate, it cannot be because it is "floating."

It is like saying that sound cannot propagate in a vacuum. Sound is periodic compression and rarefaction of an elastic medium. No elastic medium, no sound.

Similarly, no selection and no geographic isolation, no speciation resulting from natural selection. Think about the setting in which Darwin discovered his theory, and the observations on which that theory was based, and you should immediately understand the point.

On a side note: What you call "stress on the species" is, I think, currently conceptualized as "selection." This is the rate at which the current environment statistically "favors" (or is biased against) the reproduction of a given gene (or trait or phenotype or even individual, depending on the proposed unit of selection). In short, it is all about what does and does not get copied, and at what rate. That's selection in a nutshell. If you think for a moment, it will become obvious why scientists say it is not currently happening in the human population.

[ivytheplant]

All the Atheists, Owners of all Newspapers, will make public the New Evolution.

I thought the Jews controlled the media.

[boorite]

what if scientist wanted a "Superhuman"...cloning seems to be a way to go..they could so to speak "invent" exactly what they wanted..a gene here a gene there..an unstoppable "superbeing" evolution could take a wild twist..

That's possible-- some would say likely or even inevitable-- but it is not Darwinian evolution, i.e., speciation by natural selection. It's artificial selection and is really not qualitatively different from how we have bred domestic animal and plant species. If there are to be new species of humans in the world as we know it today, they'll have to originate in exactly this way and not in the way that Darwin discovered out there in the Galapagos.

Edit: spelling.

Edited December 9, 2006 by boorite

[Loge]

I thought the Jews controlled the media.

A Religion without Goddesses is found halfway on the path of Atheism, because Elohim does not mean God, but Gods and Goddesses. Elohim is a Hebrew feminine name with a plural masculine ending.

Edited December 9, 2006 by Loge

[ivytheplant]

A Religion without Goddesses is found halfway on the path of Atheism, because Elohim does not mean God, but Gods and Goddesses. Elohim is a Hebrew feminine name with a plural masculine ending.

So you're saying that deities are confined to the human idea of gender. That a deity which created hermaphrodites, three sexed organisms, asexual organisms, transgendered organisms, organisms which have reversed gender rolse, organisms which can change gender at will, etc has to be limited to only two sexes that are found in humans.

In that case, it's not an omipotent, omniscient deity at all; it's merely a limited human interpretation of the idea of a deity.

I understand how the ancient Greeks (and other religions) interpreted their idea of deities. Because the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient deity is too huge for a hman mind to grasp in totality, they broke it up into many aspects that the totality of the universe encompassed. Love, hate, war, beauty, the sun, the moon, etc. But by saying someone who follows the path of Aphrodite is "halfway on the path of Atheism" because they don't follow, say, Ares, then that's just ridiculous. What that person is doing is following one aspect of deity more than others; nowhere does that mean that the person completely ignores the other aspects of deity. Being human, it would be impossible to.

So a person who chooses to view deity as a male entity or a person who chooses to view deity as a female entity isn't "halfway to the path of Atheism," they are actually just viewing deity the way their minds are able to conceptualize a being which is impossible for the human mind to grasp in totality.

[Atheist God]

H. sapiens sapiens.

We believe (well some believe) it is our god-given destiny to be rulers of Earth. Masters of the animals et cetera, et cetera...

What if a new, 'more evolved' species were to arise (H. sapiens superior)? Would H. sapiens sap. fight to continue our dominance? Would this new species be the 'meek' who will inherit the Earth?

First we have to determine what the superior evolution would be. There are several possibilities but lets go with the most logical conclusions.

A: Genetically and technologically enhanced and engineered humans.

Fighting this step is futile there will be those that oppose but as numbers of these new superior humans grow normal human numbers dwindle. If it is one thing evolution teaches us it is that the superior species always dominates it's inferior counterpart and eventually prevail over them causing extinction.

B: Computers and self sufficient machines.

Many scientists predict that computers will in the not to distant future be billions of times more powerful then the human brain. Humanity is already working towards powerful AI modelled after our image, If a computer were to become self aware and at the same time able to out smart any human on the globe, it would result in one of two conclusions.

1: It destroys us using our own tools again'st us in an act of self defense in a pre-emptive strike destroying our civilization.

2: Enslavement to protect us from our selves seeing itself or them selves as a parental figure for humanity.

'B' is already happening today as well as 'A'...

'B' scares me the most however because we are closer to this one. Already we are handing over control of everything from manufacturing to military systems. All computers will eventually be linked as well forming a neural network in which the software operates from and grows.

Of course I know we would fight, it's our nature to want to continue to exist, but would we be right to do so? If not fight, would you want to be 'second-class citizens' to obviously superior beings?

We fight to survive and live on in future generations humans would of course fight but would simply be not intellegent enough nor powerful enough to survive our next evolution.

I wouldn't want to be looked on as we have looked on H. neandethalensis, but would this be the inevitable consequence?

Once we are gone our information will be saved in data bases for future references. The search for human fossils would be irrelevant as we are now capable of recording our history within cyberspace.

Lastly, and obviously not least, how would this affect the religious mindset of those on here? Is this the main reason many religious people (not those here) fear evolutionary theory?

The spiritual and religious will of course fight and already are. One thing to remember is that religious people are fatalists and only reckognize their apocolypse as the only way. Eventually we will overcome the death barrier and physically become immortal using our advancements in science.

[boorite]

If it is one thing evolution teaches us it is that the superior species always dominates it's inferior counterpart and eventually prevail over them causing extinction.

Actually, such a statement most emphatically is not any part of current Darwinian theory.

[Leonardo]

boorite,

Please read the article in this link.

It is possible we can create the conditions which may require us to 'evolve' unnaturally. Of course you first must accept that human behaviour, through our use of technology, can affect the environmental conditions of Earth on a global scale. But, once you accept that, you find we can cause this 'stress' I speak of - and the result could be a forcible adaptation to the new environment (or a creation of a 'bubble' environment suitable for our existence without adaptation).

I did not say we are currently evolving (although the gene change mentioned in the above link indicates we may be), I said we are still subject to the forces of evolution. Where was the 'technical problem' with that statement? If you wish to assume I said we are evolving then you assume incorrectly.

I do understand the context in which Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, I can simply think beyond a species or two on an island (or a few islands) and apply this theory to other situations.

[boorite]

boorite,

Please read the article in this link.

It's a good article. What it says about how new species of humans might or might not arise is precisely what I'm getting at.

It is possible we can create the conditions which may require us to 'evolve' unnaturally.

Exactly. Un-natural selection. What I called "artificial selection."

Of course you first must accept that human behaviour, through our use of technology, can affect the environmental conditions of Earth on a global scale. But, once you accept that, you find we can cause this 'stress' I speak of - and the result could be a forcible adaptation to the new environment (or a creation of a 'bubble' environment suitable for our existence without adaptation).

No, that's not quite right. A changed environment does not force adaptation, resulting in speciation. ("Adaptation," again, is a deprecated concept and a very strained metaphor for evolution by natural selection, for reasons we can go into if you like.) At most, a novel environment selects for different traits from the ones selected for in the previous environment. What is necessary is selection, i.e., something in the environment must change the probability that a given gene will be copied-- or that an individual with a given trait will produce offspring capable of reproduction, if you prefer. The chances of this occurring in a contemporary human population are vanishingly low. That's one of the things the author of your article points out, citing Mayr.

I did not say we are currently evolving (although the gene change mentioned in the above link indicates we may be), I said we are still subject to the forces of evolution. Where was the 'technical problem' with that statement? If you wish to assume I said we are evolving then you assume incorrectly.

I don't assume that. I tried to make two of the difficulties clear in my previous message. If it's still not clear, it's not worth going on about, because we're startlingly close to agreeing.

I do understand the context in which Darwin formulated his theory of evolution, I can simply think beyond a species or two on an island (or a few islands) and apply this theory to other situations.

Apply the theory, then, to the question of speciation in contemporary humans. What are the main variables governing speciation rates? What are the values of those variables in any technologically advanced human population?

The upshot of the article you linked (as it bears on this thread) is that evolution of a new human species by natural selection is very unlikely. If a new species of humans arises, it will be through artificial manipulation of the genome-- "unnaturally," exactly as you say-- not through straightforward Darwinian processes.

Which is all I'm saying.

Edit: I'm wondering what your background in evolutionary theory is, where you came by your idea of it, what it means to you, that kind of thing. Have you read Mayr, for example? Do any particular writers or theorists spring to your mind when you think of evolutionary theory post-Darwin? If I know where you're coming from theoretically, I might not have so much difficulty making sense of what you're trying to tell me.

Edit 2: Note that the author of your article is not a biologist. It's still a good article, and he does cite Mayr. It is, however, what it is, which is a highly speculative article by a non-biologist. The best way to get hold of evolutionary theory is to read Mayr himself or other working research biologists. Just a suggestion. Still, a thought-provoking article, so thanks.

Edited December 9, 2006 by boorite

[Leonardo]

Cheers boorite.

I think you are correct, that we are actually talking about the same thing (unnatural selection) but simply approaching it from different perspectives.

[boorite]

Cheers boorite.

I think you are correct, that we are actually talking about the same thing (unnatural selection) but simply approaching it from different perspectives.

Yes, that makes sense to me.

[Loge]

So a person who chooses to view deity as a male entity or a person who chooses to view deity as a female entity isn't "halfway to the path of Atheism," they are actually just viewing deity the way their minds are able to conceptualize a being which is impossible for the human mind to grasp in totality.

Exactly, since it is impossible for the human mind to grasp God, a Being or a Deity in its totality, people’s minds are actually partially Theists just in the way their minds are able to conceptualize God, a Being or a Deity; and they are partially Atheists just in the way their minds are incapable to conceptualize God, a Being or a Deity.

And both, Theists and Atheists, can go backwards or forwards, in other words, a Theist can become more or less Atheist and vice versa.

It is impossible for the mind to grasp what God is, since that which people call God cannot be bottled up.

Only God can know itself in its totality. The mind can only speculate about it.

[artymoon]

......A 'superior' human can solve conflict without violence and get along with the whole and excersice great compassion, can discern between what is beneficial what isn't, lets go easily of that which isn't unity building.... and stewards the land and creatures that nurture and support it etc..this is not the place the majority of humanity is in as of yet....

Sheri, that is merely your definition of what is superior. As I wrote above, superior is a matter of interpretation... there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer, there is only--"who can I convince or force to go along with me?" In a diverse world, not all will come to a unified consciousness, but that is good thing--- a flock of sheep can be easily lead and manipulated. Conflicts, I agree, can be solved without violence. But, I also believe that solving conflicts with violence is sometimes necessary. Both (non violence, violence) are legitimate actions. To believe that violence is not a necessity at times is to be naive IMO. Look at all living creatures, violence is an appropriate action to settle certain conflicts. I don't like violence, and rarely have I used it (I'm a peaceful dude 99.9% of the time ), but when the time arises (and discussion is not an option), it will be used for defense.

But anyway, as far as living organisms go, bacteria are the most superior IMhO , they'll be here long after we're gone. So enjoy life and respect it while you can and be decent to each other. And only use violence when other reasonable options are exhausted.

[Azariah]

I definitely agree with you boorite about speciation not occuring in humans right now, but I think it should be pointed out that it's not geographic isolation that's necessary for speciation, only genetic isolation (or, restricted gene flow between populations). Though it is most often caused by physical isolation, speciation can also be caused by any factor that reduces gene flow (example: changes in chromosome number or form, examples of which are abundant in plants, though only suspected in the speciation of a very few mammals). Also, there's alternate mechanisms for divergence other than natural selection. Example: sexual selection, which I think plays a significant role in contemporary human evolution (note: evolution, NOT speciation), though it's difficult to demonstrate because human's mating behavior is so greatly influenced by culture.

In summary, the two requirements for speciation are not necessarily geographic isolation and natural selection, but (more broadly) genetic isolation, followed by a mechanism to cause divergence. Neither of which apply to humans at this point in time.

[ivytheplant]

I definitely agree with you boorite about speciation not occuring in humans right now, but I think it should be pointed out that it's not geographic isolation that's necessary for speciation, only genetic isolation (or, restricted gene flow between populations). Though it is most often caused by physical isolation, speciation can also be caused by any factor that reduces gene flow (example: changes in chromosome number or form, examples of which are abundant in plants, though only suspected in the speciation of a very few mammals). Also, there's alternate mechanisms for divergence other than natural selection. Example: sexual selection, which I think plays a significant role in contemporary human evolution (note: evolution, NOT speciation), though it's difficult to demonstrate because human's mating behavior is so greatly influenced by culture.

In summary, the two requirements for speciation are not necessarily geographic isolation and natural selection, but (more broadly) genetic isolation, followed by a mechanism to cause divergence. Neither of which apply to humans at this point in time.

Uh, no. Geographic isolation is very necessary.

I can't even figure out where to start with that. Other than completely over again. For the nth time. I'll let boorite do it, otherwise I'm going to end up banging my head somewhere.

[Cadetak]

Uh, no. Geographic isolation is very necessary.

I can't even figure out where to start with that. Other than completely over again. For the nth time. I'll let boorite do it, otherwise I'm going to end up banging my head somewhere.

May I have a go at it?

I'll give the short version(because nobody reads long posts ):

If a population lives in a cold inviroment the population will evntually give birth to children with a lower metabolism to the can store it to make fat which would make them warmer.

If a population lives in a cave where the ceiling is only 5ft tall the populations will eventually give birth to 4ft babies so they can live better in the cave.

Africans perspire differently then other races because they live in a very warm environment so their sweat is thicker to cool them better.

And for de-evolution: If you have a dog and train it to eat from a bowl and you train all its puppies and those puppy's puppies that line of dogs will eventually lose their abilities to hunt and live in the wild.

etc. etc. etc.

Evolution is just a permanent form of adaptation that is obtained from your ancestory.

I could be absolutely wrong on this though...I don't know a whole lot on the subject.(I learned this from a 5th grade color by numbers book)

Edited December 10, 2006 by Cadetak47

[boorite]

I definitely agree with you boorite about speciation not occuring in humans right now, but I think it should be pointed out that it's not geographic isolation that's necessary for speciation, only genetic isolation (or, restricted gene flow between populations). Though it is most often caused by physical isolation, speciation can also be caused by any factor that reduces gene flow

Yes, genetic isolation is more precisely what's required. If that occurs in human populations, it's overwhelmingly likely to be because of physical isolation, humans being highly exogamous. And physical isolation is easier to talk about, so it makes a convenient stand in for all kinds of genetic isolation. But it's true that any mode of genetic isolation would do.

Also, there's alternate mechanisms for divergence other than natural selection. Example: sexual selection, which I think plays a significant role in contemporary human evolution (note: evolution, NOT speciation)

True enough. I blame our ridiculously big brains on sexual selection. (I could be wrong, but I think our brains are just as absurd as the peacock's tail.) That's still what I keep calling a Darwinian mechanism, and there is even plenty of question as to whether or not sexual selection can be understood as a type of natural selection. (It's such a complicated field-- God help us if we go into that when we're having trouble getting the basics down.) Anyway, the point I keep stressing is that selection has to occur at a rate sufficient to result in speciation.

though it's difficult to demonstrate because human's mating behavior is so greatly influenced by culture.

That's so true, and I had it in mind while I was posting here. I was thinking along the lines that culture acts as a buffer between environment and genes, drastically lowering the rate of selection. I haven't thought about it too hard, but that seems about right. Then again, some aspects of culture seem heavily influenced by genes. Anyway, I wanted to avoid going off the deep end into sociobiology for now, but it was certainly on my mind.

In summary, the two requirements for speciation are not necessarily geographic isolation and natural selection, but (more broadly) genetic isolation, followed by a mechanism to cause divergence. Neither of which apply to humans at this point in time.

Yes, that's the main point. And so if new a species of humans is to occur, it will be through deliberate manipulation of the variables we've been discussing. I.e., mad scientist stuff.

[+Link of Hyrule]

There are isolated ancient tribes in remote areas of Indonesia (as one example only) that still live on a hunter/gatherer mentality and never have contact with the outside world. Why have they not evolved?

[boorite]

If a population lives in a cold inviroment the population will evntually give birth to children with a lower metabolism to the can store it to make fat which would make them warmer.

If a population lives in a cave where the ceiling is only 5ft tall the populations will eventually give birth to 4ft babies so they can live better in the cave.

This is not quite right. In fact, strictly speaking, it's wrong in a crucial way, as it implies that Darwinian evolution acts with some goal or purpose in mind-- that it is teleological-- the problem being that Darwinian processes are essentially mindless.

It is not so much that persons living in a cold place will eventually, as a result, give birth to offspring who possess a trait we'll call cold tolerance. It's more like this:

At some point in time, a population of animals finds itself stuck in an environment that is colder than the one they inhabited previously. At that time, there is variation among individuals in the amount of cold tolerance they possess. The trait falls along a normal distribution or bell curve. Very few individuals have (relatively speaking) very little or very much of the trait, and the vast majority lie well between the extremes. Now suppose that cold tolerance affects one's reproductive success (RS) in the new, colder environment: Individuals with lower cold tolerance have, on average, far fewer offspring who themselves manage to reproduce, while individuals with high cold tolerance have higher RS-- more grandchildren, in a nutshell. In a very short time, you will see the normal distribution in that population change with respect to the trait of cold tolerance. The low-cold-tolerance genes shall not have copied themselves nearly as well as the high-cold-tolerance genes, if at all, and so they are soon statistically overwhelmed. In suprisingly few generations, what used to count as a very cold-tolerant individual will be about average, right in the middle of the curve. And way out at the right-hand end of the bell curve will probably be individuals who are more cold-tolerant than any in the founding generation. If cold-tolerance continues to correlate strongly with RS, the peak of the bell curve continues rolling forward, so to speak. Eventually, individuals in this population may not be able to breed any longer with members of the founding population, and in that case, speciation has occurred.

In short, the genes that don't get copied aren't there. The ones that do get copied are there. The environment (among other things) strongly determines which ones do and don't get copied. There's evolution by natural selection a nutshell.

And for de-evolution: If you have a dog and train it to eat from a bowl and you train all its puppies and those puppy's puppies that line of dogs will eventually lose their abilities to hunt and live in the wild.

Maybe, in a sense, at a stretch-- but not because of inheritance of this acquired characteristic.

What I hope to make clear here is why no less a theorist than George C. Williams considered "adaptation" a very unhelpful concept, something that doesn't belong to Darwinian theory.

Edited December 11, 2006 by boorite

[ivytheplant]

Besides, I have yet to see a dog that can't hunt just because it's family line has been eating from bowls for many generations. Strange little dusters that are lap dogs are products of artificial selection, but most of those I've seen still have hunting instincts, despite a lineage of luxury.