|
On August 13 2008 04:35 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2008 04:23 dancefayedance!~ wrote:On August 13 2008 04:14 travis wrote:On August 13 2008 04:06 dancefayedance!~ wrote:On August 13 2008 04:03 travis wrote:
it wouldn'ttake 5 million years for us to evolve into something different (imo)
evolution in humans is happening faster now than ever
hopefully we stop having so many babies tho i major in evolutionary biology and i can tell you that that isnt happening. im curious as to why you would think it would be happening? saying that you major in evolutionary biology means very little to me. people learn what they are taught, and what they are taught is never the full picture. if it was u wouldn't be able to get a job. it's not just our bodies that evolves. our brains are incredibly complex, I am sure you will agree. what accounts for the incredible differences between the brains of one human being to the next? and really our bodies differ vastly as well, especially compared to other animals. we also mate with partners that have vast differences from ourselves, what other animals do that? here read this it sums up what im trying to say http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1 majoring in evolutionary biology should mean a lot. i love evolution and have loved it since i was a little boy. ive always been fascinated by it and now i have professors able to guide me in the proper directions. i dont think we should simply agree with everything that comes out of their mouths, ive disagreed with with my superiors on numerous occasions; however, its safe to assume they have a much better understanding about evolution than people who dont have any interest in other fields. that being said what makes you think you have the full picture? and when you say "and really our bodies differ vastly as well, especially compared to other animals. we also mate with partners that have vast differences from ourselves, what other animals do that?" that is the very reason why any biological evolution ceases. there is no surival of the fittest. the best genes arent necessarily the best genes according to humans anymore. and now any genes are capable of survival. so what, you're saying that genes don't play a role in our behavior and cognition? and since when is biological evolution necessarily fueled by survival of the fittest? that is natural selection, not biological evolution. evolution is about adaptation of every sort - evolution doesn't need to make sense it just happens.
Wtf is this? Take this back to the Dawkins thread... What a pointless and futile discussion, my god. Don't let yourself get sucked in Dancefaye, i smell trolling attempt.
Anyways, yeah - i avoided voting in this thread as i'm an optimist. I don't think human life will see an "end". I think by the next Big Bang we'll have learned how to, how shall i put this, make time work to our favour, so to speak.
I honestly don't forsee a doomsday and the day i at least FULLY believe 100% that by the end of my life, i won't be corrected.
|
truthfully im worried about the environment. theres always the possibility of a ww3, but after watching a national geographic show on global warming i'll admit i was pretty scared. i was also pretty high.
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
|
On August 13 2008 04:49 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2008 04:35 travis wrote:On August 13 2008 04:23 dancefayedance!~ wrote:On August 13 2008 04:14 travis wrote:On August 13 2008 04:06 dancefayedance!~ wrote:On August 13 2008 04:03 travis wrote:
it wouldn'ttake 5 million years for us to evolve into something different (imo)
evolution in humans is happening faster now than ever
hopefully we stop having so many babies tho i major in evolutionary biology and i can tell you that that isnt happening. im curious as to why you would think it would be happening? saying that you major in evolutionary biology means very little to me. people learn what they are taught, and what they are taught is never the full picture. if it was u wouldn't be able to get a job. it's not just our bodies that evolves. our brains are incredibly complex, I am sure you will agree. what accounts for the incredible differences between the brains of one human being to the next? and really our bodies differ vastly as well, especially compared to other animals. we also mate with partners that have vast differences from ourselves, what other animals do that? here read this it sums up what im trying to say http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1 majoring in evolutionary biology should mean a lot. i love evolution and have loved it since i was a little boy. ive always been fascinated by it and now i have professors able to guide me in the proper directions. i dont think we should simply agree with everything that comes out of their mouths, ive disagreed with with my superiors on numerous occasions; however, its safe to assume they have a much better understanding about evolution than people who dont have any interest in other fields. that being said what makes you think you have the full picture? and when you say "and really our bodies differ vastly as well, especially compared to other animals. we also mate with partners that have vast differences from ourselves, what other animals do that?" that is the very reason why any biological evolution ceases. there is no surival of the fittest. the best genes arent necessarily the best genes according to humans anymore. and now any genes are capable of survival. so what, you're saying that genes don't play a role in our behavior and cognition? and since when is biological evolution necessarily fueled by survival of the fittest? that is natural selection, not biological evolution. evolution is about adaptation of every sort - evolution doesn't need to make sense it just happens. Wtf is this? Take this back to the Dawkins thread... What a pointless and futile discussion, my god. Don't let yourself get sucked in Dancefaye, i smell trolling attempt..
what??
could you at least EXPLAIN yourself?
|
|
|
On August 13 2008 04:48 dancefayedance!~ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2008 04:35 travis wrote:On August 13 2008 04:23 dancefayedance!~ wrote:On August 13 2008 04:14 travis wrote:On August 13 2008 04:06 dancefayedance!~ wrote:On August 13 2008 04:03 travis wrote:
it wouldn'ttake 5 million years for us to evolve into something different (imo)
evolution in humans is happening faster now than ever
hopefully we stop having so many babies tho i major in evolutionary biology and i can tell you that that isnt happening. im curious as to why you would think it would be happening? saying that you major in evolutionary biology means very little to me. people learn what they are taught, and what they are taught is never the full picture. if it was u wouldn't be able to get a job. it's not just our bodies that evolves. our brains are incredibly complex, I am sure you will agree. what accounts for the incredible differences between the brains of one human being to the next? and really our bodies differ vastly as well, especially compared to other animals. we also mate with partners that have vast differences from ourselves, what other animals do that? here read this it sums up what im trying to say http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1 majoring in evolutionary biology should mean a lot. i love evolution and have loved it since i was a little boy. ive always been fascinated by it and now i have professors able to guide me in the proper directions. i dont think we should simply agree with everything that comes out of their mouths, ive disagreed with with my superiors on numerous occasions; however, its safe to assume they have a much better understanding about evolution than people who dont have any interest in other fields. that being said what makes you think you have the full picture? and when you say "and really our bodies differ vastly as well, especially compared to other animals. we also mate with partners that have vast differences from ourselves, what other animals do that?" that is the very reason why any biological evolution ceases. there is no surival of the fittest. the best genes arent necessarily the best genes according to humans anymore. and now any genes are capable of survival. so what, you're saying that genes don't play a role in our behavior and cognition? and since when is biological evolution necessarily fueled by survival of the fittest? that is natural selection, not biological evolution. evolution is about adaptation of every sort - evolution doesn't need to make sense it just happens. im not saying genes dont play a role in our behavior or cognition. im saying these traits dont matter in the scope of things because we are so diverse and we dont always pick the best mate. animals are completely objective whereas human beings decide their mate subjectively. natural selection is the process by which biological evolution changes. and natural selection is not just survival of the fittest. we are not adapting by the best genes because there hasnt been any reason to do so. with science and technology we all can all adapt. it has nothing to do with our genes anymore.
what about genetic drift??
what do you think biological evolution is?
how about if we find out a comet is going to smash into earth, so we need a team of geniuses to come up with the solution.
try to tell me that the diversifcation of human genes doesn't help create these geniuses.
evolution is about adaptability, it is about filling niches. it is not about becoming the "top dog"
|
travis when have i said any of those things?
textbook definition to biological evolution : genetic changes in a population that are passed down to other generations. however in the animal world those genetic differences would only be passed down if they were 'better' genes. that could mean yes they were stronger, faster, able to reproduce faster which would compete against and exterminate other species unable to compete for mates or for food, territory, etc. there are other cases where those genes give immunity to a certain disease or virus. there are many reasons for the 'better' genes. imagine we were all short necked giraffes and our food source was destroyed and the only thing we could eat now were on trees to tall for us to reach. now evolution could adapt to the situation through random mutations. there just so happens that there is a giraffe with a long neck he's able to eat, thus he can reproduce - everything an animal does is for reproduction - and pass on his genes, which in this given situation are the better genes. now human beings are clever enough to create devices that allow us to get the food without having to depend on biological mutations. i guess you could say one is evolution of another sort but that is not biological evolution.
i dont think our diversification of human genes help create human geniuses. we've always had geniuses - look at some of the most monumental ones. they're an oddity and the only reason why we have more today is because we have more people so the statistical chance of that happening is higher than it was before.
explain to me why the diversification of human genes would create geniuses? assuming geniuses are a random mutation that adapted and is now able to solve a problem people without that random mutation cant. will their genes be passed on? sure but not like it would be passed on in lets say the situation with the giraffes. their genes may not even be passed on. this is why humans wont become some super race of geniuses through biological evolution. animals lives are focused around reproduction - passing their genes. whereas we focus on other things, and even when w reproduce they are because of that persons personality or things weve ecperienced in our lives that dictate somebody as attractive to us. like is aid again. reproduction these days has nothign to do with genes in the same way it did with animals.
|
oh and genetic drift really does not have that much effect in larger populations.
|
that wasn't my point!
what I am saying is that you seem to classify evolution in terms of having purpose. evolution just is! evolution is the flow of change. humanity is diversifying. how is that not evolution "speeding up". you can't judge purpose because you don't know what is going to happen in the future.
humanity is not "blending together", it's "coming apart".
there are no "best genes". "best genes" are defined by what is going to happen in the future. do you know what is going to happen in the future?
|
ehh. im not saying evolution has a purpose. its hard to talk abotu these things without seeming like im giving it purpose. i do agree evolution just is and they way things are arent for any purpose but just because they are.
however in order to talk and discuss these things you must classify certain things. i understand evolution cant see into the future, but that doesnt change my original statement.
let me try to make it clearer.
he asked how the world will end at least our given world and one of the choices was that we'd evolve into some new species. i said thats rather unlikely because we dont evolve anymore because there are no genetic incentives like with animals. we reproduce because we're in love with that person for other things besides their genes. this is putting it simply of course but it still holds true. biological evolution happens through natural selection and we are no longer undergoing any kind of natural selection.
best genes are defined by what works best in the present and that ultimately can change. the problems that we face right now in the present wont be solved through biological evolution. lets say we want to rid the world of racism and lets assume racism is a genetic issue. the only way to get rid of that problem is by eliminating the genes that create a racist disposition.
so how can we possibly evolve in something higher than our current selves? force short, weak, stupid people not to reproduce? only let the best genes survive because obejectively speaking in our competitive world the strong and intelligent out compete the former. the are deemed the better genes but lets say they also lack the gene to fight some lethal virus, the better genes for that given situation would be the weaker race. now im not trying to classify people into groups like that, but i haev to do so only to prove a point.
everyone is passing on their genes. no genes take precedent over another. the genes that do perform better in a given environment make no differene to the ones not even performing. this will always be the case because we do not see people like animals see other animals. we have consciousness and we can choose things for ourselves. this thwarts biological evolution which happens thorugh natural selection which is fueld by reproduction. now a virus could wipe out a large portion of society and currently we administer vaccines to people who dont have the genes to fight it off. so none of the better genes in the present are passing down their own genes like the giraffe with a long neck would be passing down his.
|
Netherlands6142 Posts
Wouldn't know, but humanity will definitely destroy itself (or the earth) before aliens or disasters get a chance to. I'd reckon we'd never get to the year 3000. (Well, maybe the survivors can start anew, a couple of times, but in that case, who can tell?)
On August 13 2008 03:53 obloquy wrote:Madagascar will live on!!!!!!!
n_n
|
On August 13 2008 05:48 dancefayedance!~ wrote:
ehh. im not saying evolution has a purpose. its hard to talk abotu these things without seeming like im giving it purpose. i do agree evolution just is and they way things are arent for any purpose but just because they are.
however in order to talk and discuss these things you must classify certain things. i understand evolution cant see into the future, but that doesnt change my original statement.
let me try to make it clearer.
he asked how the world will end at least our given world and one of the choices was that we'd evolve into some new species. i said thats rather unlikely because we dont evolve anymore because there are no genetic incentives like with animals. we reproduce because we're in love with that person for other things besides their genes. this is putting it simply of course but it still holds true. biological evolution happens through natural selection and we are no longer undergoing any kind of natural selection.
best genes are defined by what works best in the present and that ultimately can change. the problems that we face right now in the present wont be solved through biological evolution. lets say we want to rid the world of racism and lets assume racism is a genetic issue. the only way to get rid of that problem is by eliminating the genes that create a racist disposition.
so how can we possibly evolve in something higher than our current selves? force short, weak, stupid people not to reproduce? only let the best genes survive because obejectively speaking in our competitive world the strong and intelligent out compete the former. the are deemed the better genes but lets say they also lack the gene to fight some lethal virus, the better genes for that given situation would be the weaker race. now im not trying to classify people into groups like that, but i haev to do so only to prove a point.
everyone is passing on their genes. no genes take precedent over another. the genes that do perform better in a given environment make no differene to the ones not even performing. this will always be the case because we do not see people like animals see other animals. we have consciousness and we can choose things for ourselves. this thwarts biological evolution which happens thorugh natural selection which is fueld by reproduction. now a virus could wipe out a large portion of society and currently we administer vaccines to people who dont have the genes to fight it off. so none of the better genes in the present are passing down their own genes like the giraffe with a long neck would be passing down his.
well, I just plain disagree. I don't think you have a wide enough view to claim that nothing is driving our evolution - there is way too much information to follow.
if anything, I think classifying mechanisms that fuel biological evolution limit the ability to understand it. biological evolution happens regardless of the driving force.
the pressures may change but it is still "trial and error" on every scale.
I also dispute the claim that one organism is "higher" than another. If you simply mean that humans aren't evolving into anything new, I have to bring that into question as well. People are lookin different and changing sizes all over the place. we've got people with weird traits and weird mutations all over the place.
|
There will be only so much resources left that countries will fight for them, then in the countries the people and then free for all.
|
Aliens much more evolved will prevent us from destroying ourselves.
|
|
|
Sry dancefayedance, but there definetely are genetic incentives even in modern times. Why do you think there are no selection processes anymore ? Women choose their partners even today, and they choose them according to their status. Call it artificial selection if you like. There are studies about that. There are studies as well about obese people marrying obese people, asocial people are still sorted out etc etc. Read it up!
Art, romance, music etc why do you think we enjoy such things? There is more to human evolution then your narrow view seems to indicate. Just like there are "beautiful" birds there are "beautiful" minds.
The diversifying Travis speaks of definitely happens, although probably not in the linear way you would imagine and not leading to some kind of next stage, genetic engeneering will step in before that I guess.
|
On August 13 2008 06:32 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2008 05:48 dancefayedance!~ wrote:
ehh. im not saying evolution has a purpose. its hard to talk abotu these things without seeming like im giving it purpose. i do agree evolution just is and they way things are arent for any purpose but just because they are.
however in order to talk and discuss these things you must classify certain things. i understand evolution cant see into the future, but that doesnt change my original statement.
let me try to make it clearer.
he asked how the world will end at least our given world and one of the choices was that we'd evolve into some new species. i said thats rather unlikely because we dont evolve anymore because there are no genetic incentives like with animals. we reproduce because we're in love with that person for other things besides their genes. this is putting it simply of course but it still holds true. biological evolution happens through natural selection and we are no longer undergoing any kind of natural selection.
best genes are defined by what works best in the present and that ultimately can change. the problems that we face right now in the present wont be solved through biological evolution. lets say we want to rid the world of racism and lets assume racism is a genetic issue. the only way to get rid of that problem is by eliminating the genes that create a racist disposition.
so how can we possibly evolve in something higher than our current selves? force short, weak, stupid people not to reproduce? only let the best genes survive because obejectively speaking in our competitive world the strong and intelligent out compete the former. the are deemed the better genes but lets say they also lack the gene to fight some lethal virus, the better genes for that given situation would be the weaker race. now im not trying to classify people into groups like that, but i haev to do so only to prove a point.
everyone is passing on their genes. no genes take precedent over another. the genes that do perform better in a given environment make no differene to the ones not even performing. this will always be the case because we do not see people like animals see other animals. we have consciousness and we can choose things for ourselves. this thwarts biological evolution which happens thorugh natural selection which is fueld by reproduction. now a virus could wipe out a large portion of society and currently we administer vaccines to people who dont have the genes to fight it off. so none of the better genes in the present are passing down their own genes like the giraffe with a long neck would be passing down his. well, I just plain disagree. I don't think you have a wide enough view to claim that nothing is driving our evolution - there is way too much information to follow. if anything, I think classifying mechanisms that fuel biological evolution limit the ability to understand it. biological evolution happens regardless of the driving force. the pressures may change but it is still "trial and error" on every scale. I also dispute the claim that one organism is "higher" than another.
i do have a wide enough view. you can disagree but give me evidence where i am wrong. show me where large populations can biologically evolve without reproducing. biological evolution does just happen but it is dependent on natural selection. things can evolve and be 'better' adapted at solving a particular problem but without natural selection the genes would just die out if it were unable to reproduce. i dont know how to make that any simpler.
of course it is trail and error but we've evolved because of the fact of competition. that is a fact. i recommend you read origin of species for a better understanding of this very basic and necessary concept. yes the genetic mutations are random and they may or may not work, but without natural selection whats the point of biological evolution?
and i dont think one one organism is higher than another. but lets be objective. some organisms out perform others thats why some organisms die and even become extinct. i think by understanding evolution we can steer people away from these natural instincts and start making conscious, rational decisions.
so far ive explained my side and all you've done is say you disagree or evolution is this and not that, yet you've offered me no evidence or given my anything valid except your subjective opinion.
|
On August 13 2008 06:42 Maenander wrote:
Sry dancefayedance, but there definetely are genetic incentives even in modern times. Why do you think there are no selection processes anymore ? Women choose their partners even today, and they choose them according to their status. Call it artificial selection if you like. There are studies about that. There are studies as well about obese people marrying obese people, asocial people are still sorted out etc etc. Read it up!
Art, romance, music etc why do you think we enjoy such things? There is more to human evolution then your narrow view seems to indicate. Just like there are "beautiful" birds there are "beautiful" minds.
The diversifying Travis speaks of definitely happens, although probably not in the linear way you would imagine and not leading to some kind of next stage, genetic engeneering will step in before that I guess.
i dont think the reason we like art, music, romance, etc is because of our genes. i understand there are highly complex selection processes in human nature, but i disagree it comes to a matter of genes. i dont want to be called narrow minded for something when im arguing a single point. i never disagreed that diversifying happens. we are no longer limited to biological evolution. we evolve in many different ways but that will not bring about a biologically evolved super race because we are not biologically evolving in the same sense.
and how does telling me fat people mate with other fat people a genetic incentive? and i did say earlier that there are indirect ways genes influence us but things like memes are the only way we currently evolve today. of course a women may choose a rich man and he's rich because of his superior intelligence, which is arguable if its all genes. however a large majority of people arent like that. ideas like status, hygiene, beauty are all impacted and influenced by society and culture. these are memes and are not biological evolution. yes we are still evolving, just not biologically.
|
On August 13 2008 03:48 DrainX wrote:Show nested quote +Global Catastrophe
Either one or a combination of global warming, pollution, disease, famine or similar causes kill us all of some time in the future. Are you people reading the thread before posting  ?
Here comes DrainX, the comprehension police!
|
and just to clarify for people who seem to think im saying as humans we can only evolve through natural selection. that is not waht im saying. im saying biologically we are not evolving because we are mixing all of our genes and specific genes arent superior like they are in the animal kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.idwpublishing.com/desktops/zombies800.jpg)
