Human Evolution
zebFish
Join Date: 2003-08-15 Member: 19760Members
Join Date: 2003-08-15 Member: 19760Members
in Discussions
While in the shower today I was thinking... with this increase in high-tech society eventually we will all be (maybe?) doing our work via computer so traits such as long-distance may eventually die out completely (as short-range vision will be *much* more useful). Also, there may be a change in importance between our feet & hands; whereas before our feet were (one) of our most important limbs; in a high-tech future arms (for typing / manufacturing etc) would be more important.
Any comments / additions?
Any comments / additions?
Comments
maybe we'll evolve more fingers to allow for even faster typing - or better yet, a third hand! that would be might useful... can never have enough binds in game
As Stakhanov said, because we have an extremely high level of technology, we have, for all intents and purposes, removed ourselves from dependence on our environment. For example, if the earth was to get colder, we wouldn't evolve a nice sleek coat of glossy fur because we have the ability to make coats that keep us sufficiently warm.
Furthermore, I can't see there being any evolutionary changes caused by the technology, the main reasons being that;
a) This technology is engineered for our current human form, there shouldn't be, if it is properly made, any need to evolve. If there were to be a need for any adaptations to the technology, we would, hopefully, see the need for the adaptations worked out long before any true evolutionary changes.
b) Though strict Darwinism has its problems, the basic idea that a mutation that gives its bearer a reproductive advantage is more likely to eventually translate to an evolutionary change, still makes quite a bit of sense. I'm sorry, but in my experience the ability to use technology better than others isn't exactly the gilt holy grail of chick magnets.
c) Our technology is rapidly kicking the stuffing out of our environment. Realistically we aren't going to "destroy the planet", but over the time frame needed for an advanced organism to evolve (many many thousands to millions of years) I would question our ability to maintain our current level of technology and still have a planet capable of supporting our massive over population.
That doesn't really apply to technology. So i personally think we've stopped evolving (physically, that website/book The Darwin Awards shows we've still got room for mental evolution and that dumb people are dying off).
Queit a worrying thought.
Was almost tempted to throw out my comp -> then realised wouldnt be able to play NS <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo--> or even post here <!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/nerd.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly, if the new organism occupies a different niche, say can eat big nuts where the original can only eat small nuts, they can both coexist perfectly fine. Same thing occured in Salmon that live in deep sea water (antifreeze genes) and those that live in warmer waters. Natural selection speciated out the fish so that one group with the cold adaption lived in an entirely different niche to the original species, and hence both organisms coexist.
its an interesting thought, but sentience throws too many spanners into the works, eg. not every computer programmer will marry a computer programmer...
also the things you mention are learned traits, in your example people who work with computers are less likely to get the job based on their vision, or the 'strength of their arms', then they are on say, their atitude or what they wore to the interview...
basically the only thing I think is evolving is sociabilty and even thats questionable because its mostly passed on directly through learning from the previous generation rather then through genes.
its an interesting thought, but sentience throws too many spanners into the works, eg. not every computer programmer will marry a computer programmer...
also the things you mention are learned traits, in your example people who work with computers are less likely to get the job based on their vision, or the 'strength of their arms', then they are on say, their atitude or what they wore to the interview...
basically the only thing I think is evolving is sociabilty and even thats questionable because its mostly passed on directly through learning from the previous generation rather then through genes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kill Bill Gates, kill him now.
In all seriousness, technology is built to ease our difficulties as a race, and bring the fringes of sociaty into a place where they can be just as productive as the upper levels. There is no natural method to kill off the "weak", and therefore the "strong" aren't dominating the gene pool, and therefore, evolution has all but frozen in the human race.
Also consider that we are keeping more and more people alive through medicine. This preserves mutations through the generations and in actual fact adds variety to mankind.
Wether these mutations are positive or negative is another topic but I for one think that evolution could go either way. Either stagnate until something prods it into form or take off like never before.
Civilisation is unprecedented on this world. Fact of the matter is we just dont know for certain what the outcome will be.
lol or something else entirely <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the man who creates a product/tool so poorly designed that it causes the human race to evolve around/into it, will soon be struggling to keep up those mortgage repayments...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Kill Bill Gates, kill him now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo, thats the one. However I must applaud his puppeteering skills.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While isolated populations do increase the speed of evolution, I'm personaly would be skeptical about "evolution" from a Martian colony, at least within the contest you frame. Yes, they would adapt to the low gravity (not sure about the higher radiation...in my opinion if it was high enough to need an adaptation for theres a good chance cancer would kill the colony long before any adaptations were made...if ont he other hand it was livable the increaes radition would increase the random mutations that lead to evolution, so in that regard there may be chages, but "adaptations to the radiation so much as "changes caused by the radiation. Sounds like I'm splitting hairs, I know, but it really is a big difference) but I personaly doubt that this would be true evolution.
For example the biggest area of adapation would probably be low density bones.The problem is that when people spend time in low gravity situtations, like aboard the space stations, they loose bone density too, because its not needed in wieghtlessness.
Likewise a child born on Mars, or an adult spending a long time there, would presumably develope lower bone density. But upon going to earth, they would, like the astronaughts, over a period of time increase their bone density to deal with the higher gravity.
This is not true evolution, but individual variation. This process is know as Ontogeny. Phylogeny on the other hand deals with changes that are in fact evolutionary changes in that they would be present in the offspring regardless of the environment in which it was raise.
It can be very difficult to figure out what represetns an Ontological change versus Phylogenic one; currently in Paleotology there is a large schism between the "lumpers" and the "splitters". The lumpers tend to feel that many of the differences that currently are used to define specis are Ontolgical differences, not Phylogenic ones. THe splitters take a diffrent aproach. I tended to side with the lumpers, whcih may accoutn for some of the opinions experssed above...
<i>but their right</i> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A major structural change like extra fingers or a whole extra arm would require a rather large mutation in the hox genes which control development, something that is not only unlikely to happen at all in the next few centuries, but also any muatation that does occur would most likely either be fatal or unnoticeable. The chance of a beneficial mutation of this magnitude is roughly zero.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For example the biggest area of adapation would probably be low density bones.The problem is that when people spend time in low gravity situtations, like aboard the space stations, they loose bone density too, because its not needed in wieghtlessness. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not evolution nor adaptation. It doesn't matter what changes are made to a human being once he or she is born, if it doesn't affect their DNA it won't be passed on to their children. In this case, if a person with low density bones had a child, that child's bone density at birth would be the same as the bone density of an infant born on Earth. Of course, the bone density would then diminish if the child grew up in space, and most likely the child would never develop strong legs. However if that child grew up and had a child of their own, and if <u>that</u> child were to be born on Earth, he WOULD develop strong bones because that's how a normal human under normal Earth's conditions with <u>normal</u> genes develops.
My view:
One day we will all be cyborgs or androids. And the difference might become hard to tell. I don't see why I couldn't fall in love with a female android, heck it might become incredibly difficult to tell who's human and who's binary.
Off-Topic
EEK I fully agree. In the mapping forum, the other week someone bumped a thread that hadn't been posted in for a year, with the simple statement "any progress?"
Off-Topic
EEK I fully agree. In the mapping forum, the other week someone bumped a thread that hadn't been posted in for a year, with the simple statement "any progress?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evolution is dependant on natural selection, natural selection has compleatly stopped happening on the human race, therefore THERE IS NO HUMAN EVOLUTION GOING ON.
The brain is not some magical organ, it works the same way as any other organ in the body, the effective status of a parent's brain does not effect thier ofspring in any way. True people may become more and more educated (that is a big may, the fact that there is more total information doesn't nessicarily mean smarter humans, just that the have a higher platform to start from) but that is not a genetic nor transferable state of being.
The latest precedents in human evolution occured with the Thumb/Brain positive feedback loop. The thumb got shorter, the brain got larger, and an improvement in one spurred the improvement of the other.
Today we live with more things that require the use of our hands then ever before. Using a keyboard efficiently requires a finnesse that hasnt been parallelled since the invention of writing and actually USING most of nearly everything requires SOME gray matter (call centre peoples, kindly keep away).
Granted our technology will move faster then evolution ever could but that isnt the basis on which to say our evolution has stopped. If anything, the Thumb/Brain feedback is probably still occuring to this day, and possibly for a while to come as we depend evermore on our brains and our thumbs. There is a selective pressure in that people that can use their brains and their hands often go further then those that dont. Good Brain + Good hands == Success --> Continuation of genes.
And dont say that successful people may not necessarily always get married. Ask any woman that wants to have children and they will want a safe future for their children complete with education and the like and only success can deliver that.
And dont say that successful people may not necessarily always get married. Ask any woman that wants to have children and they will want a safe future for their children complete with education and the like and only success can deliver that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh... afaik computer illiterates do have a much larger offspring than geeks <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In many densely populated countries nowadays , women can't even choose their husband , so their opinion is mostly irrelevant to global demographics.
I also disagree that "success" requires intelligence or skills. Not to derail the thread , but this argument looks weak when you consider the case of George W. Bush <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->