Quote: chipolata @ February 19 2010, 7:23 PM GMTYou can be both attractive and intelligent!
We are a rare breed...
Evolution Page 4
Quote: Paul W @ February 20 2010, 1:40 PM GMTWe are a rare breed...
And yet so often misunderstooded!
Quote: deckard @ February 19 2010, 6:37 PM GMTI'm not buying that. Humans are sentient and we have already mapped the human genome. We know what makes us, us. It seems to me that when the human becomes something else (when human DNA becomes post-human DNA), there will certainly still be humans in existence (if not, there could be nothing from which to evolve).
Hi Deckard 
I'm not saying definitely we won't evolve into something else, just we won't last long enough as species to do so. For a species to evolve from one thing to another certain things have to happen:
1. A random genetic mutation in the DNA that gives the the host a distinct advantage over the rest of the gene pool.
2. Some kind of barrier that stops the new gene pool from breading with old gene pool be it geographical or social.
plus many other factors that we cannot determine or control.
These days groups of humans are less and less cut off from each other, so the chances of us producing a new species are rapidly dwindling I think. Most of evolution is driven by an arms race between predator and prey ( think cheetah and gazelle).
Our battle as a species is with viruses. That is why we have to keep strengthening all our antibiotics and such because a virus has such a short generation span they evolve to resist current ones extremely quickly. If we do evolve I reckon it will be mostly within our immune system.
It is interesting to think about. Humans are in a position not only to describe 'evolution' but also to stop it (or at least engage in behavior that is anti-evolutionary). There is a whole distopian scenario in which humans can identify further 'evolution' as well as steer it and manipulate it.
It is very interesting to think about I agree. This could be possible in the far future but so far we have only decoded the human genome. We are a long way off knowing what each gene does as the role of each gene is not only determined by what it is but also where it sits along the chromosone and what genes are located next to it. At the moment we can tweak a few things possibly but not create a new species.
The only behaviour that could be considered anti-evolutionary is inbreeding and there's not a lot of that going on compared to outbreeding.
If you think that humanity is going to sit idly by while some sort of post-human inherits the world, you are mistaken.
I'm sure that Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Neanderthalansis to name a few, all thought the same. If you think that we are somehow immune to extinction then you are mistaken also. 
Quote: scratchyr @ February 20 2010, 4:08 PM GMTHi Deckard
1. A random genetic mutation in the DNA that gives the the host a distinct advantage over the rest of the gene pool.
2. Some kind of barrier that stops the new gene pool from breading with old gene pool be it geographical or social.
plus many other factors that we cannot determine or control.
These days groups of humans are less and less cut off from each other, so the chances of us producing a new species are rapidly dwindling I think. Most of evolution is driven by an arms race between predator and prey ( think cheetah and gazelle).
Our battle as a species is with viruses. That is why we have to keep strengthening all our antibiotics and such because a virus has such a short generation span they evolve to resist current ones extremely quickly. If we do evolve I reckon it will be mostly within our immune system.
I'm sure that Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster, Homo Neanderthalansis to name a few, all thought the same. If you think that we are somehow immune to extinction then you are mistaken also.
My bad! I thought you meant that we wouldn't realize when the human species has evolved into another species, and not that we would not evolve into another species.
No bad at all Deckard. To be honest I have no idea if we would be aware or not. It's all far too complicated to predict. One thing's for sure Scratchyr and Deckard will be long gone so we won't.
"But surely this is all very short term and temporary in the great scheme of things. Evolution is about the long haul? About what humans will be like in millions of years time? And I doubt very much guests on the Jeremy Kyle show will have de-evolved into their own subspecies."
The split has just begun.... Jeremy Kyle show guests in about a million years may have evolved into a subspecies... It depends on the environment... whether the rich/poor divide will continue to expand....
Rough - massively general and pretty bad example.....
One species of human may become ... maybe..more muscular... faster at running... able to see in the dark better. (Ha... just like the morlocks)
However...for this to really happen... society as we know it might have to break down a few times - as they are in various parts of the world.
As things stand now... 'democratic countries' are supposedly trying to bring people to a similar level(behaviour/financial* etc) ... so unless society breaks down... we may NEVER evolve.
*Financial doesn't mean everyone's going to have the same amount of money... just that everyone can at least survive....
Quote: chipolata @ February 20 2010, 8:49 AM GMTI doubt very much guests on the Jeremy Kyle show will have de-evolved into their own subspecies.
They already have, Chip.
Quote: Ben @ February 19 2010, 8:47 PM GMTGod bless survival of the fittest.
I disbelieve the idea because it fails to explain the existence of the Crankies. 
As to evolution along beauty or economic lines - not so - beauty and the rich and poor have always been with us from our social prehistory. It's failed to stratify society so far, so there's no reason to think it will in the future. Plus economic division isn't permanent. People become rich, people lose their wealth. It's highly fluid, not a genetic barrier.
As to a virus causing evolution, again, any resistance we (or a sector of society) may have to a new virus is already in our gene pool, it didn't suddenly appear in response to the virus. All that happens is the sector with resistance becomes numerically dominant within the population. No change in the gene pool occurs, just a redistribution of pre-existing material.
Since we developed the ability to modify our surroundings, we removed any pressures to devolve.
Quote: SlagA @ February 22 2010, 2:21 PM GMTThey already have, Chip.
I disbelieve the idea because it fails to explain the existence of the Crankies.
As to evolution along beauty or economic lines - not so - beauty and the rich and poor have always been with us. It's failed to stratify society so far, so there's no reason to think it will in the future. Plus economic division isn't permanent. People become rich, people lose their wealth. It's highly fluid, not a genetic barrier.
Since we developed the ability to modify our surroundings, we removed any pressures to devolve.
Good points. Didn't consider social economic fluidity. What are your thoughts on the domestication of our species? If you consider how different a poodle looks and behaves to a wolf, do you think similar comparisons could be made between us and early humans? Do you know of the famous Russian silver fox experiment?
Quote: scratchyr @ February 18 2010, 10:23 PM GMTIt's natural selection acting on random genetic mutation. sorry , sorry.
I am well outside my area of expertise, but isn't the latest scientific thinking that natural selection does not provide a wholly satisfactory mechanism for evolution? The objection as I understand it is that natural selection cannot work at the genetic level in quite the way that neo-Darwinists like Dawkins have claimed. Scientists are supposedly coming to realise that environment is not necessarily the dominant filter on random variation. If a single variation at the genetic level results in a range of morphological changes, then natural selection, by selecting for one trait on the basis of fitness, would facilitate others that were non-adaptive.
Quote: Timbo @ February 22 2010, 3:52 PM GMTI am well outside my area of expertise, but isn't the latest scientific thinking that natural selection does not provide a wholly satisfactory mechanism for evolution? The objection as I understand it is that natural selection cannot work at the genetic level in quite the way that neo-Darwinists like Dawkins have claimed. Scientists are supposedly coming to realise that environment is not necessarily the dominant filter on random variation. If a single variation at the genetic level results in a range of morphological changes, then natural selection, by selecting for one trait on the basis of fitness, would facilitate others that were non-adaptive.
Yeah I think there is still a lot of debate over the finer details of the mechanisms involved. Natural selection must act on the organism as opposed to the actual gene. Is this what you mean? You seem a lot more within your area of expertise than I am.
Quote: scratchyr @ February 22 2010, 4:00 PM GMTYou seem a lot more within your area of expertise than I am.
There was a copy of New Scientist in the dentist's waiting room.
Quote: Timbo @ February 22 2010, 4:11 PM GMTThere was a copy of New Scientist in the dentist's waiting room.
From memory? Or were you coming live from the Oral Hygiene Megaplex?
Quote: Timbo @ February 22 2010, 3:52 PM GMTisn't the latest scientific thinking that natural selection does not provide a wholly satisfactory mechanism for evolution? The objection is that natural selection cannot work at the genetic level in quite the way that neo-Darwinists like Dawkins have claimed.
An accurate summary. Echo Scratchyr's comment re: your memory too.
I have also read that 'survival of the fittest' is itself a tautology. If we define survival as producing offspring and the fittest as those who produce the most offspring (as it is impossible to isolate what trait is more fitting than another without begging the question) then 'survival of the fittest' is simply survival of those that leave the most offspring.
Quote: deckard @ February 26 2010, 3:33 PM GMTI have also read that 'survival of the fittest' is itself a tautology. If we define survival as producing offspring and the fittest as those who produce the most offspring (as it is impossible to isolate what trait is more fitting than another without begging the question) then 'survival of the fittest' is simply survival of those that leave the most offspring.
Not really a tautology - the best suited to their particular ecosystem at that particular time are the most likely to survive to produce offspring which also survive to produce offspring. It's the differential that counts. And it doesn't mean they are any better than anything else, just more suited at that time/place. Conditions can change and suddenly they aren't so 'fit'.
It's 'fittest' as in 'fit for purpose' rather than as in 'best by some arbitrary standard/target'.
I think it's extremely naive to presume that we have stopped evolving, humans have hardly been on the planet for any time at all. Our technological advances and ability to adapt our surroundings to us rather than adappting to our surroundings may have slowed or altered evolution but as long as parents keep producing offspring which aren't clones of themselves and as long as some people die having spawned less than others, as long as the odd bit of cosmic radiation (or the massive amount of chemical interractions we face in the modern world) causes non-lethal mutations and as long the occasional virus goes endogenous - evolution of the human race will continue.
We might not notice it as we will still count ourselves as human no matter how much our collective DNA changes (it's populations which evolve, not individuals BTW) but it is happening.
As to why there are still apes when we evolved from apes - same reason there are still branches even when the tree grows twigs.
And we are apes. We are so closely related to chimpanzees that there is discussion as to whether they should be reclassified from pan troglodytes to homo troglodytes.