Humans can't evolve.

[Lukeje]

Also, that whole whatever % that we use of our brain is not true. We always use 100% of our brain. That myth doesn't even make sense, why would we evolve a brain like ours if we didn't use it. Also, if we only used 10%/5% or whatever you believe in, of our brains, why does brain damage of even the smallest portion of our brain severely affect our mental processes?

Oh dear. Yes, that myth is stupid but not for the reasons you've given. The brain is split roughly into regions for different thought processes, such as short term memory, long term memory, movement, vision, etc. So you see you can never use all your brain at once because you would have to be doing an impossibly high number of conflicting tasks at once...

That would be 'having a seizure'...

Why does the term I.Q [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ] exists then? If everyone has the same brain capacity and potential, why are some people labelled as more intelligent then others?

Because they happen to be good at the tasks that are tested. A true measure of intelligence has yet to be made; we'd have to know exactly what it was first.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yes, exactly like Mendels peas. But it has to be applied to natural selection rather than genetic inheritance due the dominiance of a particular gene within a pair.

Ahh, you mean like the research they're doing on fruit flies.

The problem with that is those are genetic experiments rather than a test of natural selection. Natural selection isn't cut and dried for a few inconsistencies that have appeared in the fossil record. For example Thylacosmilus - the sabre toothed marsupial that lived in South America just a few million years ago. When the Panama Ithsmus opened up, Smilodon migrated to the new lands, and the two sabre-tooths met. Thylacosmilus was gone soon afterwards, but why? There wasn't a discernable advantage the cat had over the marsupial. Quite the contrary, smilodon wasn't adapted for the animals and predators that dwelled in those lands, while Thylacosmilus had evolved along with them. Why did they disappear?

In fact, the animals of South America fared extremely badly when faced with the invasion from the north. Dogs, cats, bears, mustelids, and pigs, and a host of others all moved in and populated the continent very quickly. By contrast, only diatrymas and a few members of the armadillo family successfully moved to North America. And how many of South Americas old marsupials survive today?

Given that the marsupials actually evolved among the fauna of South America, while the invaders didn't, the natural-selection bets would have been on a slow equilibrium of both species gradually moving north/south, rather than one set wiping out the other. That is just one example among many which have come about.

I am not saying that natural selection is wrong, but right now it is very far from being established fact.

 

[Lukeje]

Yes, exactly like Mendels peas. But it has to be applied to natural selection rather than genetic inheritance due the dominiance of a particular gene within a pair.

Ahh, you mean like the research they're doing on fruit flies.

The problem with that is those are genetic experiments rather than a test of natural selection. Natural selection isn't cut and dried for a few inconsistencies that have appeared in the fossil record. For example Thylacosmilus - the sabre toothed marsupial that lived in South America just a few million years ago. When the Panama Ithsmus opened up, Smilodon migrated to the new lands, and the two sabre-tooths met. Thylacosmilus was gone soon afterwards, but why? There wasn't a discernable advantage the cat had over the marsupial. Quite the contrary, smilodon wasn't adapted for the animals and predators that dwelled in those lands, while Thylacosmilus had evolved along with them. Why did they disappear?

In fact, the animals of South America fared extremely badly when faced with the invasion from the north. Dogs, cats, bears, mustelids, and pigs, and a host of others all moved in and populated the continent very quickly. By contrast, only diatrymas and a few members of the armadillo family successfully moved to North America. And how many of South Americas old marsupials survive today?

Given that the marsupials actually evolved among the fauna of South America, while the invaders didn't, the natural-selection bets would have been on a slow equilibrium of both species gradually moving north/south, rather than one set wiping out the other. That is just one example among many which have come about.

I am not saying that natural selection is wrong, but right now it is very far from being established fact.

Unfortunately there isn't that much data from that far back; all we have are guesses. Just because we can't see an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean there wasn't one. Another example is the Neanderthals; why did they die out? There is no readily apparent reason for why they did (unless of course we ate them...).
The fossil record is hardly complete; short of building a time-machine, educated guesses are all we have.
Oh, and the best way to see why they died out? A massive computer simulation. Of course, if we had the capability for that, then why couldn't we be a computer program? (A little tangential, but still interesting).

You're awesome.

*Takes a bow* Why thank you.

 

[Starblazer117]

awwww....

 

[Lukeydoodly]

Heh, good point.

When a problem arises, we use technology to overcome it. So I doubt we will change anymore.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Yes, exactly like Mendels peas. But it has to be applied to natural selection rather than genetic inheritance due the dominiance of a particular gene within a pair.

Ahh, you mean like the research they're doing on fruit flies.

The problem with that is those are genetic experiments rather than a test of natural selection. Natural selection isn't cut and dried for a few inconsistencies that have appeared in the fossil record. For example Thylacosmilus - the sabre toothed marsupial that lived in South America just a few million years ago. When the Panama Ithsmus opened up, Smilodon migrated to the new lands, and the two sabre-tooths met. Thylacosmilus was gone soon afterwards, but why? There wasn't a discernable advantage the cat had over the marsupial. Quite the contrary, smilodon wasn't adapted for the animals and predators that dwelled in those lands, while Thylacosmilus had evolved along with them. Why did they disappear?

In fact, the animals of South America fared extremely badly when faced with the invasion from the north. Dogs, cats, bears, mustelids, and pigs, and a host of others all moved in and populated the continent very quickly. By contrast, only diatrymas and a few members of the armadillo family successfully moved to North America. And how many of South Americas old marsupials survive today?

Given that the marsupials actually evolved among the fauna of South America, while the invaders didn't, the natural-selection bets would have been on a slow equilibrium of both species gradually moving north/south, rather than one set wiping out the other. That is just one example among many which have come about.

I am not saying that natural selection is wrong, but right now it is very far from being established fact.

Unfortunately there isn't that much data from that far back; all we have are guesses. Just because we can't see an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean there wasn't one. Another example is the Neanderthals; why did they die out? There is no readily apparent reason for why they did (unless of course we ate them...).
The fossil record is hardly complete; short of building a time-machine, educated guesses are all we have.
Oh, and the best way to see why they died out? A massive computer simulation. Of course, if we had the capability for that, then why couldn't we be a computer program? (A little tangential, but still interesting).

Neandertals are an interesting case, not least because they could reveal some of the mechanisms and "hows" of evolution were we have no real data. Specifically - did they really die out at all? Or were they assimilated into other human populations? There is an interesting theory going around which says that Neandertals bred with Cro Magnons, and that resulted in modern humans. We know lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars can all breed. All kids of different dogs can breed. Wolves and coyotes can breed, grizzlys and polar bears can breed. Maybe there is more to the creation of new species than simply natural selection, it is possible that while that plays a part breeding between extremely similar animals of different species is what produces the big "jumps", which is why there are so many gaps in the fossil record.

In essense, I am saying that a human should find bigfoot and mate with her, then human evolution will get underway again.

 

[Lukeje]

Neandertals are an interesting case, not least because they could reveal some of the mechanisms and "hows" of evolution were we have no real data. Specifically - did they really die out at all? Or were they assimilated into other human populations? There is an interesting theory going around which says that Neandertals bred with Cro Magnons, and that resulted in modern humans. We know lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars can all breed. All kids of different dogs can breed. Wolves and coyotes can breed, grizzlys and polar bears can breed. Maybe there is more to the creation of new species than simply natural selection, it is possible that while that plays a part breeding between extremely similar animals of different species is what produces the big "jumps", which is why there are so many gaps in the fossil record.

In essense, I am saying that a human should find bigfoot and mate with her, then human evolution will get underway again.

...or an alien. And why is bigfoot female?

 

[Mr. Moose]

Humanity is evolving. The average height two hundred years ago was a lot smaller then the standard height today.

Survival of the Fittest is gone (for now...) but that doesn't mean we are not changing as a species.

That's mostly the consequence of better nutrition, not genetic drift.

-- Alex

Bullshit

Good health doesn't make an entire species get 2 feet taller on average.

 

[FuckYouDad]

Yes, exactly like Mendels peas. But it has to be applied to natural selection rather than genetic inheritance due the dominiance of a particular gene within a pair.

Ahh, you mean like the research they're doing on fruit flies.

The problem with that is those are genetic experiments rather than a test of natural selection. Natural selection isn't cut and dried for a few inconsistencies that have appeared in the fossil record. For example Thylacosmilus - the sabre toothed marsupial that lived in South America just a few million years ago. When the Panama Ithsmus opened up, Smilodon migrated to the new lands, and the two sabre-tooths met. Thylacosmilus was gone soon afterwards, but why? There wasn't a discernable advantage the cat had over the marsupial. Quite the contrary, smilodon wasn't adapted for the animals and predators that dwelled in those lands, while Thylacosmilus had evolved along with them. Why did they disappear?

In fact, the animals of South America fared extremely badly when faced with the invasion from the north. Dogs, cats, bears, mustelids, and pigs, and a host of others all moved in and populated the continent very quickly. By contrast, only diatrymas and a few members of the armadillo family successfully moved to North America. And how many of South Americas old marsupials survive today?

Given that the marsupials actually evolved among the fauna of South America, while the invaders didn't, the natural-selection bets would have been on a slow equilibrium of both species gradually moving north/south, rather than one set wiping out the other. That is just one example among many which have come about.

I am not saying that natural selection is wrong, but right now it is very far from being established fact.

Unfortunately there isn't that much data from that far back; all we have are guesses. Just because we can't see an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean there wasn't one. Another example is the Neanderthals; why did they die out? There is no readily apparent reason for why they did (unless of course we ate them...).
The fossil record is hardly complete; short of building a time-machine, educated guesses are all we have.
Oh, and the best way to see why they died out? A massive computer simulation. Of course, if we had the capability for that, then why couldn't we be a computer program? (A little tangential, but still interesting).

Neandertals are an interesting case, not least because they could reveal some of the mechanisms and "hows" of evolution were we have no real data. Specifically - did they really die out at all? Or were they assimilated into other human populations? There is an interesting theory going around which says that Neandertals bred with Cro Magnons, and that resulted in modern humans. We know lions, tigers, leopards, and jaguars can all breed. All kids of different dogs can breed. Wolves and coyotes can breed, grizzlys and polar bears can breed. Maybe there is more to the creation of new species than simply natural selection, it is possible that while that plays a part breeding between extremely similar animals of different species is what produces the big "jumps", which is why there are so many gaps in the fossil record.

In essense, I am saying that a human should find bigfoot and mate with her, then human evolution will get underway again.

Species can mate, but their offspring becomes sterile. That's why we don't have that many "ligers". They exist, but can't bring their genes onwards. Dogs have "races", but they are essentially the same species. I'm not an expert in biology, so don't quote me on this though.

Also, regarding the anti-christian/socialism part, I don't understand why in a world full of people, we need to put individuality as our common cause. Not that I want a hivemind, but to quote Pulp Fiction: "They have a word for that you know. It's called a 'bum'."

Edit: I do in no way support Marxist-Leninism.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Species can mate, but their offspring becomes sterile. That's why we don't have that many "ligers". They exist, but can't bring their genes onwards. Dogs have "races", but they are essentially the same species. I'm not an expert in biology, so don't quote me on this though

Not always. There have been several cases of fertile mules, also look at coywolves (which can often be fertile) and some of the cases of genetic similarity between coyotes and red wolves. Grizzlies and polar bears can also produce fertile offspring.

...or an alien. And why is bigfoot female?

A human guy giving it to a female bigfoot was slightly more easier on the imagination than the reverse.

 

[serialchillah]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you're seriously a f%#&ing idiot if you think this is a remotely original idea. Go read a book, moron.

 

[mattttherman3]

Genetic engineering will eventually be done, first for soldiers, then after the war is won, for regular people. Then there will be a war between people that are born geneticly modified and those that are not because the normal people won't like feeling inferior while the geneticly modified ones will consider themselves superior(which they WILL BE so they will most likely win said war).

 

[Auron555]

Survival of the fittest is no more in this world. Hey, some species or deer and moose are having the reverse happen, due to the best being killed off for their antlers.

 

[axia777]

I couldn't care less about evolution. Who needs that anymore. The only thing that needs to evolve is technology.

Yes, the technology of genetic manipulation. So humans can manipulate the species into super beings of incredible power. That is the real future of human kind. Once scientists master the genetic codes who knows what they can do. They might even be able to lengthen the lives of people up to 200+ years. We could most ly be strong as apes and fast as cheetahs. People may laugh at these ideas, but I am being very very serious. No more baldness, sickness, cancer, AIDS, none of it anymore. Everyone will be a genius. It will be awesome!

Genetic engineering will eventually be done, first for soldiers, then after the war is won, for regular people. Then there will be a war between people that are born genetically modified and those that are not because the normal people won't like feeling inferior while the genetically modified ones will consider themselves superior(which they WILL BE so they will most likely win said war).

Yup. They better species will eliminate the weaker one. It is for the good of all that way.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Humanity is evolving. The average height two hundred years ago was a lot smaller then the standard height today.

Survival of the Fittest is gone (for now...) but that doesn't mean we are not changing as a species.

What about the average height four or five THOUSAND years ago? What about all the stories about giants, and the giant-sized stuff that archiologists (sp) keep digging up? What about documentation in ancient texts about giants?

I'm not saying you're 100% wrong, or that's there's no way you could be right, but I think you're making one big blanket statement. Qualify that sucker.

Actually it has been documented that humans were MUCH taller than us when we were first around. Then came the Ice Age, and we got smaller and shorter so we would need less food. After that, we began to get taller and bigger again.

 

[axia777]

Another point is that humanity is cross breeding like never before. This will lead to a rise of more and more human "mutts". This is a good thing I believe as mixed breeds, like in dogs, are genetically superior in many ways. I would actually love for some college to do a study on this in humans. I know that cross breed dogs are less inclined to all of the genetic defects that plague most pure breeds. I have a theory that humanity will become more and more cross breed as the centuries go on. If this continues at such a high rate there will almost humans that are not of some major mixed race. Tiger Woods is a perfect example of this. I think it is wonderful.

I couldn't care less about evolution. Who needs that anymore. The only thing that needs to evolve is technology.

Yes, the technology of genetic manipulation. So humans can manipulate the species into super beings of incredible power. That is the real future of human kind. Once scientists master the genetic codes who knows what they can do. They might even be able to lengthen the lives of people up to 200+ years. We could most ly be strong as apes and fast as cheetahs. People may laugh at these ideas, but I am being very very serious. No more baldness, sickness, cancer, AIDS, none of it anymore. Everyone will be a genius. It will be awesome!

Not even. Mind uploading all the way, genetic engineering is too messy. Besides, how do you know what horrible repercussions curing cancer might have? It might be a side effect to a necessary genetic trait.

How on Earth can you know if genetic manipulation is "too messy"? Scientists just need to master the genetic DNA sequence of humans. Sure some bad mistakes will be made along the way, but as the old saying goes "You have to crack as few eggs to make an omelet."

Mind uploading is only good for individuals. Genetic manipulation of the whole race will help all future humans over a period of time. It is much more permanent that way.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

Evolution does not mean becoming "stronger, faster, smarter, etc.", it means becoming more suited to the environment in which a species lives.

Humans will continue to evolve to match the environment we have created for ourselves.

Precisely.. Let's /thread now and save our time.

 

[axia777]

Evolution does not mean becoming "stronger, faster, smarter, etc.", it means becoming more suited to the environment in which a species lives.

Humans will continue to evolve to match the environment we have created for ourselves.

Precisely.. Let's /thread now and save our time.

How about humans genetically manipulate ourselves into beings that can adapt to any environment? That is the future.