Here is a topic I hope can spur some interesting debate. How do you think humanity will end? I've given a few theories here that I think might be the most popular or most probable and then a poll. Do you think you have any better suggestions or do you want to argue that one of my suggestions is more likely than any other? Please vote and reply
Evolution Five million years from now our descendants will have evolved to a state where they are as different from us that we are from the other primates. If one of us traveled there in a time machine we would not be able to breed with them and they would be classified as a different species. Humanity as we know it would be no more.
Genetic Engineering When our understanding of genetics improves at first we start by removing the genes that cause genetic disease. As time goes by we start changing our genes more and more. Withing a few hundred or thousand years we will reach the same state as in the theory above.
Technological Singularity Machines start getting smarter and smarter. Soon they pass humans in intelligence and continue evolving faster than us. Either they kill us off or in time humanity will just become an irrelevant concept next to our new technological descendants.
World War III A nuclear war exterminates all life on earth.
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.
Cosmological Catastrophe Either a meteor hits the earth or a black hole(LHC!) swallows us.
Aliens The Vogons finally decide that its time to build that intergalactic expressway and the earth just happens to be in the way.
Rapture God will finaly bring the last of us up to paradise (Or some other religious or mythical ending to the world).
Poll: How will humanity end? (Vote): Evolution (Vote): Genetic Engineering (Vote): Technological Singularity (Vote): World War III (Vote): Global Catastrophe (Vote): Cosmological Catastrophe (Vote): Aliens (Vote): Rapture (Vote): Other
My 1st option is that we'll endup fire the weapons of chemical dust :-/ My second is catastrophe. My third is that someone from an obscure internet forum will become a scientist and play a game of pandemonium on his workputer...
i doubt people will evolve much beyond this point. you cant have biological evolution without natural selection and without competition no natural selection. we - as humans - do not face the competition needed to drive natural selection.
The very mention of the name used to... (I don't remember the rest)
I say it will either be genetic/triggered evolution into tracendent beings or we get pwned by aliens.
WWIII won't happen.
1. I beleive, we learned our lesson after WWI and WWII 2. Wars are too expensive to wage today. The average cost to proprely equip a soldier has jumped to ridiculous proportions. Mobility is also a problem. China has a monstrous army, but they can't fuck with even CANADA because it's too far. 3. The world is becomming smaller. Europe is ALMOST a country. Same currency, no more border guards. People want to ally with each other, except for Russia and China.
If WWIII DOES happen, imo it will look alot like BF2142 (story wise, not the Mechs and Titans)
On August 13 2008 03:47 dancefayedance!~ wrote: i doubt people will evolve much beyond this point. you cant have biological evolution without natural selection and without competition no natural selection. we - as humans - do not face the competition needed to drive natural selection.
Technology is doing all the evolution for us.
well if you mean genetic evolution then yes i agree. technology isnt actually helping us evolve but through it we can live longer and perform better, fight diseases and possibly cure genetic defects. technology for the most part is accessible or is at least becoming accessible to many people, and we're becoming dependent on it. the only places where any form of biological evolution takes place are very primitive societies like tribes in new guinea
On August 13 2008 04:01 dancefayedance!~ wrote: i doubt people will evolve much beyond this point. you cant have biological evolution without natural selection and without competition no natural selection. we - as humans - do not face the competition needed to drive natural selection.
I think you are looking at evolution, even biological evolution, the wrong way
competition comes in more forms than fight or flight - kill or be killed
we are competing with each other now - we are filling the niches
I'm betting on computers. The technological singularity is probably inevitable, at which point we will be rapidly replaced as the most intelligent species on the planet.
Though I am not sure if this will mean death to all humans, or simply a different spot in the ecosystem.
Edit: To add to the OP, the technological singularity happens when humanity succeeds in creating a machine more intelligent than us, (collectively). At that point, assuming we have a intelligence factor of 1, and we managed to create something with an intelligence factor of 1.1, then that creation can now make something more intelligent than itself (1.21), and so on.
Basically the singularity is the point at which the exponent of technological improvements becomes greater than one. At which time each new machine can effectively create something more intelligent than itself, leaving us in the dust.
Can aliens be like, some meteor crashes into earth and we'd get infected with a disease that like kills us and can be transfered through sex? ALIEN DISEASEEEEE.
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?
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?
Cool If I didn't study computer science I would probably study evolutionary biology as well. Could you recommend me some books? I've read The Selfish Gene and I'm planning to read The Extended Phenotype.
On August 13 2008 04:01 dancefayedance!~ wrote: i doubt people will evolve much beyond this point. you cant have biological evolution without natural selection and without competition no natural selection. we - as humans - do not face the competition needed to drive natural selection.
I think you are looking at evolution, even biological evolution, the wrong way
competition comes in more forms than fight or flight - kill or be killed
we are competing with each other now - we are filling the niches
actually im not. i wasnt talking about kill or be killed. evolution is much deeper and more complex than that. even the idea of kill or be killed is incredibly naive. i was talking about sex actually. we are possibly the only species that has sex and reproduces with another person not just because of their genes. many factors play an important role. it isnt all up to perfect symmetry or the guy with the best genes. so the best genes arent necessarily being the only ones passed on. thus you have this huge pot of genes where it doesnt directly matter which genes you have. yes their are a lot of 'vain' people out there but most people cherish and prefer personality over good looks.
of course there can be indirect influences of our genes but not enough to guide or drive evolution.
On August 13 2008 04:01 dancefayedance!~ wrote: i doubt people will evolve much beyond this point. you cant have biological evolution without natural selection and without competition no natural selection. we - as humans - do not face the competition needed to drive natural selection.
I think you are looking at evolution, even biological evolution, the wrong way
competition comes in more forms than fight or flight - kill or be killed
we are competing with each other now - we are filling the niches
actually im not. i wasnt talking about kill or be killed. evolution is much deeper and more complex than that. even the idea of kill or be killed is incredibly naive. i was talking about sex actually. we are possibly the only species that has sex and reproduces with another person not just because of their genes. many factors play an important role. it isnt all up to perfect symmetry or the guy with the best genes. so the best genes arent necessarily being the only ones passed on. thus you have this huge pot of genes where it doesnt directly matter which genes you have. yes their are a lot of 'vain' people out there but most people cherish and prefer personality over good looks.
of course there can be indirect influences of our genes but not enough to guide or drive evolution.
well tell me, what is evolution guided by.
does the situation u are describing (which I agree) lead to more differences between humans, or less?
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?
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.
Evolution is guided by evolutionary pressure. Either a small population has to be isolated and/or some variation in the genes must be a lot more suitable for survival and reproduction. Most humans survive to reproductive age and many who do choose not to get kids/use contraceptives etc.
On August 13 2008 04:01 dancefayedance!~ wrote: i doubt people will evolve much beyond this point. you cant have biological evolution without natural selection and without competition no natural selection. we - as humans - do not face the competition needed to drive natural selection.
I think you are looking at evolution, even biological evolution, the wrong way
competition comes in more forms than fight or flight - kill or be killed
we are competing with each other now - we are filling the niches
actually im not. i wasnt talking about kill or be killed. evolution is much deeper and more complex than that. even the idea of kill or be killed is incredibly naive. i was talking about sex actually. we are possibly the only species that has sex and reproduces with another person not just because of their genes. many factors play an important role. it isnt all up to perfect symmetry or the guy with the best genes. so the best genes arent necessarily being the only ones passed on. thus you have this huge pot of genes where it doesnt directly matter which genes you have. yes their are a lot of 'vain' people out there but most people cherish and prefer personality over good looks.
of course there can be indirect influences of our genes but not enough to guide or drive evolution.
well tell me, what is evolution guided by.
does the situation u are describing (which I agree) lead to more differences between humans, or less?
to put it simply evolution is guided by natural selection which is guided by competition.competition does not mean just kill or be killed. there are many variables and if you're interested i can explain by pm as to not entirely derail the thread.
this is an important question to ask and one i cant really answer without putting in much thought. ive heard - to sum it up simply - that we would all become incredibly similar because of dominant genes. once again if you're interested in why i could do my best to explain through pm but this is just one view ive heard and doesnt mean i agree with it. from what i know its hard to say where exactly i stand. its seems obvious to assume we'd be vastly unique and different but you must take account into many small yet important variables.
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?
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.
if you want to pm me thats fine we don't have to continue the discussion here
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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..
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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.
I don't want there to be a fight, we can stop now and leave it at disagreement. I really don't even know how to present what I am trying to say any more clearly.
On August 13 2008 06:56 dancefayedance!~ wrote: 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.
ugh, but it's still evolution. evolution doesn't have to have a point. "superior" doesn't mean anything until it's put to the test
specific genes ARE superiour, however i predict our time evolving primarily through the means of natural selection is over. future evolving will be to genetic engineering/other scientific progress. i think we should aim for the stars but imo odds are against us.
maybe its best to end it here with a disagreement. maybe you;re not being vclear enough and you're not reading what im saying properly either. mabybe im not being clear enough. i think we have different definitions for different words and thats making this really hard to discuss. things can be superior like our cognition is superior to a bacterias or our eyes our superior to a fish, etc, etc. you guys think im applying this to human beings that humans are supieror than other etc etc. im not stating that at all. animals do find genes superior because some of them are. they are able and will continue to evolve biologically whereas humans are now dependent on ideas, culture, society. read about memes and the evolution of language.
edit: heres an interesting article that supports non-biological evolution.
I can't believe Rapture is in second place? Wtf???
I would put my money on either something man made (either weapon or something that backfired like the Matrix), some unstoppable evolving disease, or some doomsday thing from space (meteor, gamma ray burst, etc, etc.)
Something like global warming or a super volcano will probably devastate the earth really badly but not everyone will die. The strong will survive. As history/prehistory has shown geologists most of the wipeouts like the shit that killed the dinosaurs or the end of the Cambrian period were not just 1 meteor that killed everything, it was usually a combination of a meteor (there is a GRB theory as well) and something else earth born combined which wiped everything out.
as far as this topic, there is probably one of these every year and I post this every time:
In the near all of the world will be playing matrix-like games, which will work directly with your nervous system and die off, because virtual sex will always be better than real life sex(or from hunger/thirst, since they would be annoyed by these things and "override" them).
On August 13 2008 06:56 dancefayedance!~ wrote: 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.
ugh, but it's still evolution. evolution doesn't have to have a point. "superior" doesn't mean anything until it's put to the test
I think the guy has a point. Ever since humans started changing the environment around them, we stopped letting the environment change us -> we're not really evolving any more.
Really, how is today's human better than 4000 years ago-human? Are we stronger? Do we have stronger anti-bodies? Have we eliminated blond hair, blue eyes, pale skin? No, we're just as vulnerable as they were, if not WEAKER. You'd tend to say we're smarter, but we're not. We just have more to work with. Technology evolves, not people. We're not smarter or more intelligent than 4000 years ago, in other words, as Joe Rogan put it: "If I left you alone on a deserted island with nothing but a club, how long before you could send me an e-mail?"
I'll go with the cia gray ending. We release nanites to devour a oil spill off the alantic ocean only problem is these nanites are ill program and start devouring all carbon based material breaking them down then. But they do as they are program eat multiply until the world is just ash,
I'm tempted to think being consumed by the Swarm is cooler but given the way we're treating our environment lately, natural disasters seem a far more likely candidate. Mother Nature has shown in the past repeatedly, it CAN pwn us if it wants to.
Grey goo, black holes, supermeteors, very low probability. Somehow I think a minimum sustainable population could survive other global events. The tough humans (not me!) are hardier than you guys seem to think. If the "human species" ends, I predict it will be of our own volition, and not in the "dead end" type of end - genetic manipulation ftw.
Also, on "evolution" -- the term merely means change over time. Surely such a descriptive term has no "purpose." Although evolution (which means, remember, "change over time") does tend to kill off genes (or genotypes, whichever you prefer) of certain traits, and tends to support the proliferation of those with other traits.
Kind of like attaching a purpose to gravity. It WANTS bricks to sink. And it WANTS birds and rockets and humans to constantly fight against it. Silly, huh?
On August 13 2008 07:38 CharlieMurphy wrote: I can't believe Rapture is in second place? Wtf???
I would put my money on either something man made (either weapon or something that backfired like the Matrix), some unstoppable evolving disease, or some doomsday thing from space (meteor, gamma ray burst, etc, etc.)
Something like global warming or a super volcano will probably devastate the earth really badly but not everyone will die. The strong will survive. As history/prehistory has shown geologists most of the wipeouts like the shit that killed the dinosaurs or the end of the Cambrian period were not just 1 meteor that killed everything, it was usually a combination of a meteor (there is a GRB theory as well) and something else earth born combined which wiped everything out.
as far as this topic, there is probably one of these every year and I post this every time:
Very interesting read but lots of shit to read, be prepared to kill more than a few hours. (some of it is just plain silly but still a possibility?)
Thats a really good link Charlie.
I think humans will die in two ways. Either we'll simply destroy ourselves which is the most obvious answer, or we'll develop AI that surpasses us by leaps and bounds within a very short time frame. Eventually, we'll be obsolete.
There is one option missing that I believe is likely to happen. Humans are evolving to small things very rapidly, so adaptation isn't a big deal. But overpopulation and increasingly oppressive and centralizing governments will create a conflict between the poorest needing the absolute necessities and widening gap with the ruling powers that be. It'll be a global civil war where humanity gets ripped to shreds by our ownselves.
Eg when we consume all currently useable resources, and due to lazyiness/greed/lack of foresight we fail to put enough effort into technological advancement to either live on other planetary bodies and exploit their resources or make use of the remaining resource on earth that we now don't have the technology to utilize. Leading to a slow energy starved death of the world.
Yep, i'm an optimist with faith in humanity's ability to look after itself.....
lol @ rapture. while genetic engineering is a scarey prospect, i don't think it will wipe out humanity. global catastrophe... maybe, an asteroid; again, i don't see famine or disease wiping out humanity totally.
my bet would be a massive nuclear war and throw some ai/robotics/nanites in for good measure.
:edit: actually, i take it back and go with evolution.
i just don't see our present countries entering into a total nuclear war.
reading this kind of makes me want to be a nicer person in real life. i still plan to be a total dick online. and i hope humanity dies of natural causes. i really don't want aliens to kill us or have global warming eventually killing us. just have the sun swallow us up, so much calmer.
You guys totally underestimate humans, or misunderstand what "extinction" means.
Even when we're trying to kill every human inside a small area of several square miles, we have a really tough time doing it and we're not sure that it worked.
Global warming will kill us? Pshaw. Unless there is absolutely no pocket ecology left in the world and all the water's boiled away (not saying we still can't build condensors) and whatnot, it won't kill EVERYONE. It might kill me and you, and that's what's important to me and you, but that's still not extinction of the human race.
Genetic engineering won't kill us any time soon, if ever. See, it's fucking expensive. So we're going to have a group of people who will manipulate their genes, and the other group of people who can't or won't do it for various reasons. Genetic manipulation might wipe out one group, but it can't touch the one that doesn't use it. The only way that genetic manipulation would destroy humans if it became so beneficial that we're no longer human. But I still don't see that happening - there's a population of purists everywhere. See the Amish.
On August 13 2008 12:01 BottleAbuser wrote: You guys totally underestimate humans, or misunderstand what "extinction" means.
Even when we're trying to kill every human inside a small area of several square miles, we have a really tough time doing it and we're not sure that it worked.
Global warming will kill us? Pshaw. Unless there is absolutely no pocket ecology left in the world and all the water's boiled away (not saying we still can't build condensors) and whatnot, it won't kill EVERYONE. It might kill me and you, and that's what's important to me and you, but that's still not extinction of the human race.
Genetic engineering won't kill us any time soon, if ever. See, it's fucking expensive. So we're going to have a group of people who will manipulate their genes, and the other group of people who can't or won't do it for various reasons. Genetic manipulation might wipe out one group, but it can't touch the one that doesn't use it. The only way that genetic manipulation would destroy humans if it became so beneficial that we're no longer human. But I still don't see that happening - there's a population of purists everywhere. See the Amish.
noone said it had to happen quickly, a major change in climate, or a genetic engineering breakthrough may not kill us off outright, but it can set into motion events that will eventually see us out-competed. Most extinctions are not all that sudden, it's just a shift in the balance causing eventual death of a species. Our extinction should it occur might take longer given our greater ability to manipulate our environment but we are certainly not immune to those phenomena causing extinction.
It's also very possible that Earth's axis of rotation will chaotically tilt. We'd never be able to calculate when or how due to the nearly infinite number of gravitational bodies that affect the planet. No data at all - we have absolutely no clue if or when it would happen.
I think humans have a huge advantage that we can create tools that can allow life in hostile environments - other organisms take millenia to develop mutations that are beneficial, while we take something on the order of years.
i think that evolution theory is bogus as hell, we might not look like humans, but i doubt natural selection is going to be like hey these guys dont need brains, toss that shit out. We might interpret different, we might sound different, look different, live different, but essentially we will still be human inside, just like now we are still primate inside (dont believe me about the primate thing? try not having sex for a month.)
There are an estimated 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world. As every second passes, there is a chance that we will set one off. Sure, it may be something like a .00001% chance, but give us a few centuries and I'm nearly positive someone somewhere will nuke something.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -Albert Einstein
The chance is not as high as .00001%/sec. If we compounded this we'd have a 50% chance of having a nuclear weapon exploding every 2 months. Besides, there is no event that affects the use of a nuclear weapon every second. Silly. We have way too small of a data set to perform statistics on it - nuclear weapons have been used exactly TWICE, in ONE war.
We could quantify the probability of every other event happening, and assign some arbitrary value to the probability of the rapture occuring (let's say 1/100^100), then we could suggest that it's more likely that the rapture will end human life as we know it before anything else does, and it would be based only on our lack of data on the rapture, not ignorance or assholeness.
On August 13 2008 13:56 BottleAbuser wrote: The chance is not as high as .00001%/sec. If we compounded this we'd have a 50% chance of having a nuclear weapon exploding every 2 months. Besides, there is no event that affects the use of a nuclear weapon every second. Silly. We have way too small of a data set to perform statistics on it - nuclear weapons have been used exactly TWICE, in ONE war.
Well, the chances are probably much smaller (I wasn't doing math, just throwing something small out there). You are right, I mistakenly presented that post as a very concrete and mathematically describable problem. It is not, and I am incorrect on that point. But, I still believe that chance shows that with 20,000 of these things sitting around, something is bound to happen soon!
But when you say there are no events that affect the use every second? I disagree.
There are lots of unaccounted nukes that slipped away right after the fall of the Soviet Union. They didn't have the money to pay their scientists or to guard the facilities well, and many nukes have "disappeared". What happened to them? Terrorists? Black market? They just got lost?
You also have Iran. And an increasing number of countries working on nuclear weapons.
Don't forget nearly any armed conflict involving large powers (Russia, cough cough). Although it is highly unlikely these powers will use nukes, there is always that chance.
There is also the standoff concerning Taiwan (er, excuse me, "Chinese Taipei" as referred to in the Olympics) between the U.S. and China. Both of who have lots of nukes.
Sure, now the likelihood of them being used is small, but who knows what will happen years from now? The chance of someone eventually using them is very high.
A 10 kiloton fusion bomb dropped on NYC would kill millions and leave a radiation cloud that would kill even more. Responding to a nuke with a nuke has always been a inferred policy of many large nations like the U.S., and we all know this could slide towards all out nuclear war.
It might not be in my lifetime or my children's lifetime, but we both know that if it happens then nuclear war is very much a possible end result. It is the war were no one wins.
Unless we dismantle all of our warheads, there will always be a large chance of ending our own civilization with nukes. Sure, we only have to roll the dice for 70 years until we die. But if you are talking about the existence of Humanity, you have to roll those nuke dice for awhile...and that's not a game I think we can win for many more millenia.
It will be either nukes or some other weapon of mass destruction, created by ourselves, that will kill us.
dancefayedance!~ I really enjoy reading your posts; the arguments you present are worded properly and very thought provoking.
Travis, you should recognise the fact that you don't actually present many arguments, making it extremely difficult for any opponent to debate your stance.
I think your idea of diversification is interesting. But dancefayedance already posted a rebuttal that you conveniently failed to address (which seems to be a common trend in the way you debate).
Claim -- Opponent explains --> New claim -- More thorough explanation --> Modification of claim -- Rebuttal --> Posting new questions instead of answering rebuttal -- End of discussion.
I'd actually like to see a continuation on the diversification debate. fayedance seems to argue that diversification is pretty much random, the ratio of geniuses produced relative to the human populace remains constant. And furthermore seems to sement that fact by showing that -- since human reproduction doesn't seem to be guided by natural selection -- children and grandchildren of those geniuses don't necessarily get to see those traits passed on unto them. Beneficiary genes face the probability (and probably a high one at that -- every new generation) of washing out due to humans not employing natural selection. Albert Einsteins and other "geniouses" don't produce genious children --> thus diversification seems mostly random, and likely devoured by human reproductionary patterns within a couple of generations.
I.e. If biological evolution occurs -- most likely, within the first generation of reproduction -- it is already in the process of being weeded out.
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.
And what follows when it happens? You make the assumption that evolutionary changes (due to as you call it "diversification") automatically survive and get a foothold. Like something out of the show Heroes, where interestingly most of the characters breed with eachother, and seem "magically connected". The problem being that this is not how it happens in the real world. In the real world the "diverse hero" would have 3 billion potentially DNA-polluting humans to choose between and maybe just a few hundred other "diverse heroes" where success is guaranteed. If the hero by chance manages to pass on his/her gene despite breeding with a normal human, the next generation hero child will have just as big a chance to run into a more dominant gene, and so on and so forth...
With no natural selection evolution will be contaminated.
I was going to ask dancefayedance why it seems humans are getting taller. But I decided to turn to google first and I found some very interesting articles:
Memetic evolution and diversification and its possible implications may perhaps be viable enough to discuss. After all, most clashes for survival today are the result of cultural differences, religion, ideology...
We are fighting for the survival of memes rather than genes.
Well, my main problem was with the wording, which you've conceded was poor.
But I somehow think that a minimal number of humans would survive a nuclear war, too. We have enough nukes to bomb every major city in the world twice over, and maybe that'll get 90% of the population. That's still far from 100%. Which is what we'll need if you want to call it extinction.
We'll need a planet buster if we really want to kill ourselves.
On August 13 2008 15:06 BottleAbuser wrote: Well, my main problem was with the wording, which you've conceded was poor.
But I somehow think that a minimal number of humans would survive a nuclear war, too. We have enough nukes to bomb every major city in the world twice over, and maybe that'll get 90% of the population. That's still far from 100%. Which is what we'll need if you want to call it extinction.
We'll need a planet buster if we really want to kill ourselves.
I really don't know, the radiation clouds churned up from the massive nuclear holocaust would kill many people who were not directly hit by the nuclear weapons. The surviving population would have to live in a world where the amount of dust churned up by the nuclear warheads blocks out the sun and kills many plants, demolishing the already nuked foodchain that relies on them (ie livestock). Water sources would be contaminated with massive amounts of radiation. A nuclear winter would also soon ensue, amplifying the damage on the human food source.
Sure, some people might survive, but for how long? I don't think nukes would directly wipe us out, but they would leave a very small, very fragile population in a very scarce world. If humans did somehow manage to survive, we would be set back so far in technology it would be insane.
All the infrastructure, government, food supplies, electricity...every modern day convenience would be gone. And do you have faith that a handful of randomly picked humans has the capacity to survive without these modern conveniences in a world were you can't hunt for food to eat because it is all dead?
I'm pretty sure a nuclear holocaust would be the end of us.
Interestingly enough, on a related note, I read somewhere that the US did a post WW-II study on how large of a bomb it would take to prettymuch wipe out the United States. Turns out it was a 10 Megaton bomb...around 400 times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
I don't think this study is entirely accurate but there are plenty of nukes in the world that are in this range. In fact, the Russians once made a bomb called the "Tsar Bomb" in 1961, initially 100 Megatons. They scaled it down to 50 megatons and then tested it via an air burst (the detonated it slightly above the ground to prevent a lot of fallout). The resulting footage is horrifying.
From over 650 miles away, you could see and feel the heat from the fireball. At this same distance there was also blast damage. In Finland, a few hundred miles away, windows were broken. Everything was incinerated within a 150 mile radius. The explosion also caused such a large seismic shock that it registered as a 5.5 on the richter scale and the shockwave passed around the Earth three times.
This bomb was made in 1960, and is only one bomb. And there are 20,000 nukes in the world, and we definitely have the capability to make ones larger than this (a 100 Megaton one is theorized to be able to fracture the Earth's crust at ground zero).
I have no doubt that we can destroy ourselves...entirely...with these.
Well, we really could all kill ourselves if everyone got the word out and we all slit our own throats.
I'm thinking that lucky, intelligent, prepared, and quick people (people with all 4 traits, I mean) would survive. Volcanoes easily throw up more debris than any man-made explosive, including nuclear weapons. Mount Helen, for example, is sometimes quoted as being equivalent to a 400 megaton explosive (and that's just a moderate-sized volcano - a really big volcano really could wipe us out... maybe). No human casualties. Surely it would be harder to survive a smaller, but targetted explosion, but I really doubt we could manage to kill EVERYONE. Especially if they were trying damn hard not to die.
On August 13 2008 12:50 yOko[LuNyA] wrote: i think that evolution theory is bogus as hell, we might not look like humans, but i doubt natural selection is going to be like hey these guys dont need brains, toss that shit out. We might interpret different, we might sound different, look different, live different, but essentially we will still be human inside, just like now we are still primate inside (dont believe me about the primate thing? try not having sex for a month.)
Well the general biological convention is that if some generations down the track, we are no longer to breed with what we are now, then we are 2 different species.
So your right in that it dosen't matter if we look and live different.
But the theory still holds, if we evolve enough to be classified as a different species, and all members of the same species as we are now are dead, then our species is extinct
Ok, so I decided to do some rough calculations for kicks using some numbers I found.
So let's say humans only can live on land for extended periods of time.
->Land surface area on Earth: 148,940,000 square kilometers
Let's estimate the number of active nukes in the world. And I read in a few places that the average weapons yield is around 1 Megaton.
->Number of active nukes: 20,000 ->Total yield: 20,000 Megatons -> # of Tsar Bomb Equivalents: 400
The Tsar bomb's fireball incinerated everything immediately within a 120 mile radius. So let's find a rough estimate of our megatonnage converted to incinerated area by converting that radius to km and doing an area calculation:
This means that 31.4% of our landmass can be directly incinerated by our nukes. Outside that radius, there is still massive burn damage and shock wave damage, not to mention the radiation effects. Keep in mind that Humans don't even inhabit all 148 million square kilometers of the land on Earth.
So maybe we can't GLASS the Earth entirely, but we can sure fuck it up (imho) enough to cause humans to die off.
Number of nukes that can be launched with 2 minute notice is probably the number we're more interested in, as nuke silos are probably going to be primary targets I think that number will be less than 20k.
Anyways, I don't think we'd end up with a nuclear holocaust in the first place, but that's a lot harder to argue o.o
On August 13 2008 14:54 LaLuSh wrote: dancefayedance!~ I really enjoy reading your posts; the arguments you present are worded properly and very thought provoking.
Travis, you should recognise the fact that you don't actually present many arguments, making it extremely difficult for any opponent to debate your stance.
I think your idea of diversification is interesting. But dancefayedance already posted a rebuttal that you conveniently failed to address (which seems to be a common trend in the way you debate).
Claim -- Opponent explains --> New claim -- More thorough explanation --> Modification of claim -- Rebuttal --> Posting new questions instead of answering rebuttal -- End of discussion.
I'd actually like to see a continuation on the diversification debate. fayedance seems to argue that diversification is pretty much random, the ratio of geniuses produced relative to the human populace remains constant. And furthermore seems to sement that fact by showing that -- since human reproduction doesn't seem to be guided by natural selection -- children and grandchildren of those geniuses don't necessarily get to see those traits passed on unto them. Beneficiary genes face the probability (and probably a high one at that -- every new generation) of washing out due to humans not employing natural selection. Albert Einsteins and other "geniouses" don't produce genious children --> thus diversification seems mostly random, and likely devoured by human reproductionary patterns within a couple of generations.
I.e. If biological evolution occurs -- most likely, within the first generation of reproduction -- it is already in the process of being weeded out.
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.
And what follows when it happens? You make the assumption that evolutionary changes (due to as you call it "diversification") automatically survive and get a foothold. Like something out of the show Heroes, where interestingly most of the characters breed with eachother, and seem "magically connected". The problem being that this is not how it happens in the real world. In the real world the "diverse hero" would have 3 billion potentially DNA-polluting humans to choose between and maybe just a few hundred other "diverse heroes" where success is guaranteed. If the hero by chance manages to pass on his/her gene despite breeding with a normal human, the next generation hero child will have just as big a chance to run into a more dominant gene, and so on and so forth...
With no natural selection evolution will be contaminated.
I was going to ask dancefayedance why it seems humans are getting taller. But I decided to turn to google first and I found some very interesting articles:
Memetic evolution and diversification and its possible implications may perhaps be viable enough to discuss. After all, most clashes for survival today are the result of cultural differences, religion, ideology...
We are fighting for the survival of memes rather than genes.
Why should the process of evolution suddenly stop? You think love is some concept of randomization ? Then why do so many men search in the internet for a concept to get more women ?? Of course it got more complicated with the anti-baby pill nowadays and so on. But to say there are no selection trends anymore in the modern world is preposterous.
Yes, memetic evolution matters more, because it´s a much faster process, especially nowadays.
Memetic and genetic evolution were probably intertwined in the past, that´s one reason for the fast advances the human race could make. Better mental capabilities lead to a more refined culture and a more refined culture privileged humans that could "use" the culture to their advantage (more intelligence, more language skills, more art etc., better mental capabilities overall).
I don´t really have time to discuss this any further, so I just threw in some (hopefully) interesting points.
I think it's very unlikely that a third world war or a global catastrophy would COMPLETELY wipe out the human race. There would be enough survivors to carry on the human race.
That leaves 2 other options that make sense: 1. Evolution (or genetic engineering, same outcome) will with time make us so different from people that lived a long time ago - how long it will take is irrelevant, it will happen sometime.
2. Technological singularity. Even though it's hard to imagine it, this is for me the most plausible option, mostly because genetic engineering will take at least hundreds of years, and 'natural' evolution probably thousands of years.
Peak oil causing global recession followed by world war compounded by climate change will put us on a quite strong path toward annihilation. But as guy above said some will survive. But a deep deep ice age may do the trick.
Unless we start conquesting other planets, we'll die due to the sun turning into a red giant. We won't even survive to get to the exploding part yet. Hmm.. then again more likely we'll die before that.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
The Australian "peak oil" guy makes me laugh. It's amazing how much each country's media and school system dictates the views of its people. The three people most obsessed with peak oil I've ever met have all been from Australia. At the opposite end, the British media has completely dismissed global warming as a hoax, and so very few of its citizens care about it. The US is kind of in the middle, since we're generally just uninformed.
It's something you kind of expect in countries like Iran and China, but it's kind of shocking the extent that even the top countries' citizens are all but brainwashed by the government and media.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
6-10,000 years ago a lot fewer people reached reproductive age though. I think part of the argument was that with our welfare systems etc. almost everyone reaches reproductive age and doing so or not has very little to do with your genes. 10,000 years ago or just 500 years ago there was room for evolutionary pressure in a way that it isn't today. Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
On August 13 2008 23:57 LonelyMargarita wrote: The Australian "peak oil" guy makes me laugh. It's amazing how much each country's media and school system dictates the views of its people. The three people most obsessed with peak oil I've ever met have all been from Australia. At the opposite end, the British media has completely dismissed global warming as a hoax, and so very few of its citizens care about it. The US is kind of in the middle, since we're generally just uninformed.
It's something you kind of expect in countries like Iran and China, but it's kind of shocking the extent that even the top countries' citizens are all but brainwashed by the government and media.
Umm, global warming is in the news all the time and a lot of people in this country are literally fanatical about stopping it.
On August 13 2008 23:57 LonelyMargarita wrote: The Australian "peak oil" guy makes me laugh. It's amazing how much each country's media and school system dictates the views of its people. The three people most obsessed with peak oil I've ever met have all been from Australia. At the opposite end, the British media has completely dismissed global warming as a hoax, and so very few of its citizens care about it. The US is kind of in the middle, since we're generally just uninformed.
It's something you kind of expect in countries like Iran and China, but it's kind of shocking the extent that even the top countries' citizens are all but brainwashed by the government and media.
Umm, global warming is in the news all the time and a lot of people in this country are literally fanatical about stopping it.
I think it would be a combination. WWIII or whatever, some assholes start slinging nukes around and kills a good hunk of the population. Chaos ensues, famines, plague, etc and we die off.
Even if it's global warming on a catastrophic level, or a meteor, neither of which will kill us 100%. There's gonna be a few people not fortunate enough to die right away, and will live through the last years of the world in the stone age.
Personally, I'm holding out for the Zombie Apocalypse, so I can assemble the awseome team I named back in the thread I made.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
Indeed. The fun thing is that we actually do the opposite that one would expect from us or all animals: the people who have a rather low life standard, low education etc. are the ones who reproduce the most, the ones who are more intelligent get less children and later (or none at all).
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
6-10,000 years ago a lot fewer people reached reproductive age though. I think part of the argument was that with our welfare systems etc. almost everyone reaches reproductive age and doing so or not has very little to do with your genes. 10,000 years ago or just 500 years ago there was room for evolutionary pressure in a way that it isn't today. Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
6-10,000 years ago a lot fewer people reached reproductive age though. I think part of the argument was that with our welfare systems etc. almost everyone reaches reproductive age and doing so or not has very little to do with your genes. 10,000 years ago or just 500 years ago there was room for evolutionary pressure in a way that it isn't today. Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
drainx is correct
Whenever I read papers on modern anthropology, it clearly indicates that humans are experiencing rapid evolutionary change. You tried to claim that wasn't the case. The blue eyes are just one example.
Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
If some culture considers it extremely sexy to have, let's say, a large nose, then the large nose people will be more successful in reproducing. It's that simple.
On August 13 2008 14:01 spetial wrote: i hate everyone that voted rapture because they are most likely a bunch of ignorant assholes
I voted rapture because i didn't know what the word meant exactly (even tho there's this song called Rapture, by Io or something?) and the translation is really cool in dutch as well. Haha these polls really reflect people's opinions...
I don't think theres going to be any more natural evolution. Humans will evolve themselves. For example, take cellphones: they are doing everything nowadays (go online, download music, watch tv, communicate). Give it some time and eventually we will be able to integrate similar systems into our bodies, that is to say, we won't have to carry around a cellphone anymore....maybe we'd have a chip implanted into our brain instead. Im not saying that its gonna happen anytime soon, but eventually its inevitable with the increasing pace that our technology is developing at.
Thats what i mean by evolve ourselves, we're going to change ourselves so much that evolution becomes too slow to be relevant. I mean, that in itself is a huge accomplishment of evolution: to develop a being intelligent enough to alter and improve itself.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
That's funny because I read somewhere that blue eyes are genetically inferior to brown-back eyes, in the sense that they are less prone do outside damage (are more sensitive to strong light and so on). I will try and find some evidence of this (look it up and ask some friends who study medicine). Also, aren't blue eyes far more rare than other kinds? That's why we find them attractive, because they're "special".
On August 14 2008 09:25 CubEdIn wrote: Also, aren't blue eyes far more rare than other kinds? That's why we find them attractive, because they're "special".
I think you're oversimplifying human attraction. If being "special" or mutated was attractive in and of itself, why aren't the occasional mutants/retards considered conventionally attractive?
With respect to the blue eyes thing: particular colors are known to evoke specific emotional reactions. It could be that blue is a color which is inherently attractive to the majority of people: potentially a strong heading for evolutionary forces.
As far as dark vs light eyes: blue eyed people tend to have lower levels of melanin, which is actually an advantage in overcast locales; the skin makes more efficient use of the sun for vitamin D production, etc. Darker skin/darker-eyed people have an advantage in tropical and desert climates, because they're more sun resistant.
That pretty much descibes the weather in most of northern and western Europe where blue eyes are most promenent in the genepool.
Evolution in a lot of societies has less enviromental pressure. We are living sheltered lives. Evolution benefits only the strains that are breeding like rabits. No contraception and abortion or planning. Lack of money doesn't slow most of them down. Ergo the religious and the irresponsible. I don't like were it is going.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
6-10,000 years ago a lot fewer people reached reproductive age though. I think part of the argument was that with our welfare systems etc. almost everyone reaches reproductive age and doing so or not has very little to do with your genes. 10,000 years ago or just 500 years ago there was room for evolutionary pressure in a way that it isn't today. Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
drainx is correct
Whenever I read papers on modern anthropology, it clearly indicates that humans are experiencing rapid evolutionary change. You tried to claim that wasn't the case. The blue eyes are just one example.
As far as I know no one in this thread has disputed that evolutionry change was taking place in humans up to very recently. In fact, I think evolution was happening very quickly until recently. The changing from nomad/hunter gatherer to setteling down in communities would have changed the evolutionary pressure on humans a lot and that only happened some 15,000 - 50,000 years ago. The debate was whether or not it is taking place right now and whether or not it would make us evolve into another species.
Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
If some culture considers it extremely sexy to have, let's say, a large nose, then the large nose people will be more successful in reproducing. It's that simple.
That is not enough for evolutionary change to happend.
First of all sexual preference varies. During the 1700s in Europe it was considered attractive to be fat since it was a simbol of wealth. Just a few years ago what was considered attractive was different from what it is today. Like you say it has to do with culture and culture changes. For evolutionary change to happend the pressure has to be in a certain direction for thousands of years not for ten or a hundred years that a cultural fad lasts.
Secondly since the invention of contraceptives coupled with humans ability to plan ahead and make decitions that go againt their instincts being sexy in the eyes of other humans doesnt mean you will get more offspring. You can have sex every day since you turn 15 and never have children. Many attractive and succesful people choose not to have any kids since they dont have the time and even here culture has a large effect on how many kids we get.
We're failing to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution here. Blue eyes are not a new genetic trait. We're not seeing anything new here - the frequency of the gene in the population may be changing, but we're not seeing any changes to the gene.
If we started seeing, say, purple eyes, or 4 eyes, or 2 hearts, or whatever, that would be macroevolution and the stuff of species distinction.
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
On August 14 2008 16:21 BottleAbuser wrote: We're failing to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution here. Blue eyes are not a new genetic trait. We're not seeing anything new here - the frequency of the gene in the population may be changing, but we're not seeing any changes to the gene.
If we started seeing, say, purple eyes, or 4 eyes, or 2 hearts, or whatever, that would be macroevolution and the stuff of species distinction.
Blue eyes are a new genetic trait. I'm not exactly sure what your point about micro/macro evolution is but macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution. There is no differance between them other than the timespan.
The term 'microevolution' has recently become popular among the anti-evolution movement, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other is seen to occur over thousands of years (ie. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.
The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[2]
I'm gonna have to disagree with Wikipedia and American Association for the Advancement of Science here.
There is the change in the genetic pool where the frequency of certain traits change, and then there is the change where new genes are added and some are removed. The former happens quickly enough for us to observe visibly. The latter happens on such a slow scale that we won't be able to see any changes in our lifetimes. Probably.
Use your own terms to tell the two apart, I prefer the terms microevolution and macroevolution.
On August 14 2008 21:10 BottleAbuser wrote: I'm gonna have to disagree with Wikipedia and American Association for the Advancement of Science here.
There is the change in the genetic pool where the frequency of certain traits change, and then there is the change where new genes are added and some are removed. The former happens quickly enough for us to observe visibly. The latter happens on such a slow scale that we won't be able to see any changes in our lifetimes. Probably.
Use your own terms to tell the two apart, I prefer the terms microevolution and macroevolution.
The definitions are inadequate. After all if we take the assumption that a given animal will always be able to reproduce with a parent then the result is that the parent of every animal is the same species as the animal, as is their parent and so forth. And it doesn't matter that after 50 generations the first and the last can't reproduce and are therefore different species because the ones in the middle can reproduce with each and therefore are the same species as both and therefore both are the same species. In short, evolution between species = evolution within species and evolution itself renders the entire concept of species rather pointless.
In five million years, however different our descendants are I think for this discussion we could still consider them as humanity. In any case in five million years we'll surely have reached either a technological singularity of kind you describe, or the other option that seems more likely than many of the others you listed is that the Earth becomes completely depleted of usable resources, we can't develop interstellar travel fast enough and humanity just starves.
On August 14 2008 21:10 BottleAbuser wrote: I'm gonna have to disagree with Wikipedia and American Association for the Advancement of Science here.
There is the change in the genetic pool where the frequency of certain traits change, and then there is the change where new genes are added and some are removed. The former happens quickly enough for us to observe visibly. The latter happens on such a slow scale that we won't be able to see any changes in our lifetimes. Probably.
Use your own terms to tell the two apart, I prefer the terms microevolution and macroevolution.
The term I'd use for the first one is genetic drift or selection, and for the second one mutation. Two parts of evolution. Genes can become removed when their frequency drops to zero (which is encompassed by genetic drift and selection).
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?
Travis is correct.
Random genetic drift coupled with selective breeding steers our evolution. Arbitrary human prerogative has great effect.
It was recently discovered that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who lived near modern Turkey, about 6-10,000 years ago. Considering the current population distribution, blue-eyed people have enjoyed a 5% reproduction advantage compared to non blue-eyed people. I've heard that it's the single most successful trait evolved by homosapiens.
Our cocks guide our evolution now.
6-10,000 years ago a lot fewer people reached reproductive age though. I think part of the argument was that with our welfare systems etc. almost everyone reaches reproductive age and doing so or not has very little to do with your genes. 10,000 years ago or just 500 years ago there was room for evolutionary pressure in a way that it isn't today. Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
drainx is correct
Whenever I read papers on modern anthropology, it clearly indicates that humans are experiencing rapid evolutionary change. You tried to claim that wasn't the case. The blue eyes are just one example.
As far as I know no one in this thread has disputed that evolutionry change was taking place in humans up to very recently. In fact, I think evolution was happening very quickly until recently. The changing from nomad/hunter gatherer to setteling down in communities would have changed the evolutionary pressure on humans a lot and that only happened some 15,000 - 50,000 years ago. The debate was whether or not it is taking place right now and whether or not it would make us evolve into another species.
Also random genetic drift only has a substantial effect on small isolated populations.
If some culture considers it extremely sexy to have, let's say, a large nose, then the large nose people will be more successful in reproducing. It's that simple.
That is not enough for evolutionary change to happend.
First of all sexual preference varies. During the 1700s in Europe it was considered attractive to be fat since it was a simbol of wealth. Just a few years ago what was considered attractive was different from what it is today. Like you say it has to do with culture and culture changes. For evolutionary change to happend the pressure has to be in a certain direction for thousands of years not for ten or a hundred years that a cultural fad lasts.
Secondly since the invention of contraceptives coupled with humans ability to plan ahead and make decitions that go againt their instincts being sexy in the eyes of other humans doesnt mean you will get more offspring. You can have sex every day since you turn 15 and never have children. Many attractive and succesful people choose not to have any kids since they dont have the time and even here culture has a large effect on how many kids we get.
Physical attractiveness is the perception of the physical traits of an individual human person as pleasing or beautiful. It can include various implications, such as sexual attractiveness and physique. Judgment of attractiveness of physical traits is partly universal to all human cultures, partly dependent on culture or society or time period, and partly a matter of individual subjective preference.
Despite the existence of universally agreed upon signs of beauty in both genders, both heterosexual and homosexual men tend to place significantly higher value on physical appearance in a partner than women do.[1] This can be explained by evolutionary psychology as a consequence of ancestral humans who selected partners based on secondary sexual characteristics, as well as general indicators of fitness (for example, symmetrical features) enjoying greater reproductive success as a result of higher fertility in those partners, although a male's ability to provide resources for offspring was probably signalled less by physical features.[1] There appear to be universal standards regarding attractiveness, such that raters agree who is and isn't attractive both within and across cultures and ethnicity.
Attraction is only partially relative.
There is no tangible advantage for having blue eyes, and I don't hear your argument accounting for that. And like I said, from what I've read, there is a ridiculous 5% flat advantage enjoyed by those with blue eyes.
It makes sense, and frankly, is intuitive, that blue eyes are successful because they are attractive.
weve stopped a lot of evolution with medicine. people that should be dying to diseases arent etc etc. i vote global catastrophe. other vote would be war
Global Catastrophe probably. But we as a species are pretty stupid so we might just keep killing each other and drain the planet's resources, hell wars have started over Water, Oil, Diamonds etc. Thus Global Catastrophe, and near the end we will be blaming each other and probably exacting revenge against each other. We will never change.
EPT
?
![[image loading]](http://www.idwpublishing.com/desktops/zombies800.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF111-Reset.jpg)
