There is a case to be made for the slowing of biological evolution, and the increase in technological evolution. Or, at the very least, the reduction of chance's influence on evolution.
Into that Now, on a more serious note, taking into consideration the advancements in technology, i think in 100 years or so we may be going for the stars...Now if that's a good thing or not, remains to be seen. I'm also saying that going to the stars might also in time bring about a new subspecies (you may know the long-term effects of no gravity on living creatures).
As for present day, hopefully everyone will realise that what we do is bad, get some sense in their heads and stop it -> a new golden age.
Anyways, the only thing that we are sure to evolve will be our brain.
That if we don't blow the gak out of ourselves first
Please do not attach non-wargaming pics to the dakka server.
Waaagh_Gonads
That "intelligence" is probably due to successive generations being better educated- after all, the IQ tests can be improved upon with practice and they are culturally biased.
Really, thinking of things as "a step forward" or a "regression" is wrong headed. Evolution is a process involving the interaction of certain genes with the environment. If the environment changes dramatically, what was previously useful could now be a liability.
The social aspect of human evolution makes it difficult to determine what genes are most beneficial for reproduction and survival. It could be that incurious and lazy people who are highly fertile are the best in evolutionary terms. We've also got to consider the idea that the world's environments are not homogenous. So some speciation may be occurring. Of course, this is massively diluted by the freedom of movement of populations these days. In short, I've no idea!
I would be interested to see if people start developing resistance to contraceptive drugs. Not likely in our lifetimes, but possible sometime.
Albatross wrote:There is evidence that successive generations are becoming more intelligent - there are also increasing numbers of kids with ADD/ADHD/Autism.
I think a large part of that is increase in detection rates, coupled with over diagnosis of kids who are just badly behaved.
After all, it can't possibly be someones fault the kid is badly behaved! :O
I personally see the next step forward being through genetic modification rather than a more natural process, with people being given upgraded immunity, better health, increased intelligence, etc. Small things to start with.
Albatross wrote:There is evidence that successive generations are becoming more intelligent - there are also increasing numbers of kids with ADD/ADHD/Autism.
That's two sides of the same coin and has to do with information saturation. Today's kids are bombarded with far larger amounts of information than previous generations, so they develop more sophisticated information-processing abilities. However, there is some evidence (particularly of the common sense variety) that links giving Joey a quad-core, feeding him junk food and sweeties and letting him watch Cartoon Network 24/7 to his inability to count to five without getting bored.
Agreed! The ease of information acquisition these days leads to kids lacking the raw gumption born of earlier ages. When you can play a gripping video game that shocks and amazes you every 5 seconds, there is no real motivation to read. As a consequence, kids cannot learn from traditional text books, and need more interactive texts with lots of pictures and commentary. The capacity for thought itself is decaying in these individuals.
Potentially, you may see a class system emerge of people willing to educate themselves, and individuals of diminished ability (not diminished potential like the mentally handicapped). If that trend continues for several centuries, we may begin to see individuals who are genetically unable to concentrate or conceptualize. At that point, we have the sort of humans that planet of the apes was made from.
On a more physical note, America is breeding fatties. Increasing obesity levels and childhood obesity rates rising may lead to huge humans incapable of motion. I can only hope that the internet is able to harness their ideas for some beneficial purpose- because there are many already that simply cannot leave their beds. I've always wondered how such individuals can afford to feed themselves- a 4,000 calory a day diet can't be cheap!
Our evolution is at an extremely slow pace now because of medical advancements, because most steps in evolution come from mutations, and modern medicine tries to kill anything like that.
Modern medicine simply means that evolution will proceed in a different direction to where it would have gone. It doesn't change the speed or stop evolution from happening. Mutations still happen with the same frequency, roughly.
Da Boss wrote:Modern medicine simply means that evolution will proceed in a different direction to where it would have gone. It doesn't change the speed or stop evolution from happening. Mutations still happen with the same frequency, roughly.
Only now more mutations survive, and are reproduced as, in the western world and other civilised 1st and 2nd world countries, the standard of living is quite good. Thus rather than good mutations being selected, and bad ones dying off, we are now getting everything mixed in - the good and the bad are spreading without real check. We also have a lot of mingling of different races, which is producing some interesting results genetically, both in terms of positive and negative mutations, and in terms of the general genetic makeup of the population.
I wouldn't mind 1 extra arm. Usually when I'm trying to glue a metal model together I find I have 2 parts that I need to hold together while I squirt the super glue onto it and then I gotta hold em steady for a while.
I think something more realistic is extra joints in our thumbs for improved flexability, thanks to all the texting and video games kids are glued to.
Humans are no longer evolving as natural selection is no longer taking place. We may be mutating, but evolution has a set of requirements that we do not fulfill. What we are likely doing is breeding a prevalence of exaggerated sexual features and breeding out certain hereditary genetic illness'. But thats not evolution.
True true, if this continues in 100 years all the women will have huge boobs and look incredible, while doing nothing than spend the money that us men work so hard to earn...
However, natural selection still takes place, just it isn't as it used to be. Different factors are taken into account. A man's ability to catch prey, and thus be able to feed his wife and offspring is translated into the size of his bank account, while with the women, well i don't know with the women, cause definitely their beauty has nothing to do with their ability to grow a child
Given how fast the welfare class is growing in comparison to the well off, it seems that a man's wallet is not as attractive as you might think.
I seem to remember reading a few years ago that one of the Scandinavian nations was thinking about giving tax incentives for smart, hard working people to get them to have children, as so many of them either put off having children (thus decreasing the number of generations), have less children (usually 1 or 2, rather than 1903422341 welfare babies per family), or just don't have children.
SilverMK2 wrote:Given how fast the welfare class is growing in comparison to the well off, it seems that a man's wallet is not as attractive as you might think.
I seem to remember reading a few years ago that one of the Scandinavian nations was thinking about giving tax incentives for smart, hard working people to get them to have children, as so many of them either put off having children (thus decreasing the number of generations), have less children (usually 1 or 2, rather than 1903422341 welfare babies per family), or just don't have children.
"The wellfare class" is a derogatory and inaccurate term. That said, it's quite true that the poor and uneducated have more children than the well off. In rural and farming areas there is natural incentive to breed large families, and in lower class areas of more modernized economies there is societal pressures to have more sex and less personal responsibility. That said, there is very little genetic difference between the haves and have nots, and on a macro level there is virtually no distinction what so ever. Also, as an aside, most modern and well off first world nations are in demographic crisis, and a great many of them only continue to grow in population due to the influx of foreign immigrants (such as scandinavia, japan, england, and very nearly america).
However, natural selection still takes place, just it isn't as it used to be. Different factors are taken into account. A man's ability to catch prey, and thus be able to feed his wife and offspring is translated into the size of his bank account, while with the women, well i don't know with the women, cause definitely their beauty has nothing to do with their ability to grow a child
That sounds more like unnatural selection or artificial societal selection. Neither of which serve to support evolution.
Flashman wrote:I have no wisdom teeth which is supposed to be an evolutionary step forward. As a mutant power though, it's a bit rubbish.
Wisdom teeth
Robert Corruccini of Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, says the problem of overcrowding has been exacerbated in humans in the past four centuries as our diet has become softer and more processed. With less wear on molars, jaw space is at an even higher premium, "so the third molars, the last teeth to erupt, run out of space to erupt", he says. Not only are impacted wisdom teeth becoming more common, perhaps as many as 35% of people have no wisdom teeth at all, suggesting that we may be on an evolutionary trajectory to losing them altogether.
I dont think I have any wisdom teeth either or they are hiding in fear.
I always figured humans were evolving to become softer weaker creatures, instead of chopping wood, hunting, getting water from a river, we flip a switch, open the fridge and turn on the tap.. which leaves us ample time to bitch about GW..
ShumaGorath wrote:"The wellfare class" is a derogatory and inaccurate term.
That is true. I used it more for effect than any other reason.
That said, it's quite true that the poor and uneducated have more children than the well off. In rural and farming areas there is natural incentive to breed large families, and in lower class areas of more modernized economies there is societal pressures to have more sex and less personal responsibility. That said, there is very little genetic difference between the haves and have nots, and on a macro level there is virtually no distinction what so ever. Also, as an aside, most modern and well off first world nations are in demographic crisis, and a great many of them only continue to grow in population due to the influx of foreign immigrants (such as scandinavia, japan, england, and very nearly america).
The genetic difference is very small (if there is any real difference, which I do not believe there is to any significant degree), however, as you said, the ethos and so on can be very different. Sorry, I did not mean to sound like I was saying that the poor are genetically different to "people with money"
And it is also true that the population only grows in some nations due to immigration. Although that is not always a good thing
Agreed, the natural evolution of man is altered by society, and even more that last 20-30 years, think about it, time before a man was finded by women by is healthiness and strenght rather than good appearance, or a big pocket (well, that happened too), and women was finded for men used to be... yes, healthy... but now, you can see how things like "fashion" (just to say an example) has changed it, now you mainly must go "on the fashion" just to have a chance!.... even, as told before, tecnological and medical advances are altering people's evolution, is the same people who has the maximum responsability....
Where before you saw big-healthy kids you now see skinny, ill-looking child.... and, that's just in a couple of generations...
aka_tizz wrote:@ ShumaGorath: Hm, not necessarily. It's just that in our times the alpha male is not the strongest toughest biggest one, it's the richest
Only in higher up classes where people tend to be more shallow.
In lower classes, it's less about money. If you honestly believe that all Alpha males in a group today are about being the richest, I have some American Ghettos I'd like to walk you through.
Where before you saw big-healthy kids you now see skinny, ill-looking child.... and, that's just in a couple of generations...
No, thats not actually what has occurred in the last few generations. Humans are getting larger, more immune to disease, and less prone to genetic maladies. Unless you want to tell me your 300 years old and kids are whinier than they were when you were a sprout I think you should probably look at actual trends.
I just tell what i see! its true that we're getting stronger agans illness and toxins than before, but what about the rest? yes, kids today they're taller, but...they are not hardened at all... just against diseases! what about the rest? they're growin stronger just in few things, so.... what happens?
Evolution occurs when an animal mutates to gain an advantage in its habitat. So for example, a fox with longer fur than average, will cope better in colder enviroments than say, one with shorter fur. This gives it a greater chance to reproduce, and pass on its mutation. Now, this also prevents mutations with undersirable concequences to take route, as 'defects' will not cope to pass on their genes. Now, because we do not have problems with a variation in natural enviroment, or food, we arent going to adapt drastically any time soon, or, if at all. Also, because we arent a heartlessspecies, our genetic defects (not trying to offend) are given the chance of life, they wont die out due to survival of the fittest. Therefore, our gene pool is getting more defects, such as down syndrome for example (not trying to offend) So in theory, we arent going to evolve as such, due to our superiority over the natural world. But as a cause of this, we will have no real evolution, due to random mutations not getting preferance over others.
Some scientist beleive that evolution can only happen without genetic barriers which only happens when inbreeding. But that is just a theory. but god i hope it is wrong.
Albatross wrote:There is evidence that successive generations are becoming more intelligent - there are also increasing numbers of kids with ADD/ADHD/Autism.
And, if we listen to Maurice Dantec, that is a good thing.
Blasted French.
Side question: Is it cannibalism if a Frenchman eats frog legs?
Da Boss wrote:That "intelligence" is probably due to successive generations being better educated- after all, the IQ tests can be improved upon with practice and they are culturally biased.
Really, thinking of things as "a step forward" or a "regression" is wrong headed. Evolution is a process involving the interaction of certain genes with the environment. If the environment changes dramatically, what was previously useful could now be a liability.
The social aspect of human evolution makes it difficult to determine what genes are most beneficial for reproduction and survival. It could be that incurious and lazy people who are highly fertile are the best in evolutionary terms. We've also got to consider the idea that the world's environments are not homogenous. So some speciation may be occurring. Of course, this is massively diluted by the freedom of movement of populations these days. In short, I've no idea!
I would be interested to see if people start developing resistance to contraceptive drugs. Not likely in our lifetimes, but possible sometime.
Quiet you. No one needs to hear the thoughts of a biology PhD candidate when discussing evolution.
Has anyone ever seen idiocracy. it shows how human not being part of natual selection shows how the stupid breed as rabbits while the elite are not. then the elite children are drowned out by the dumb ones.
garret wrote:Has anyone ever seen idiocracy. it shows how human not being part of natual selection shows how the stupid breed as rabbits while the elite are not. then the elite children are drowned out by the dumb ones.
Funny ass film. Prolly one of my all time favs. And I get the point in this post as well.
All I need to do is look at the people in my high school.
garret wrote:Has anyone ever seen idiocracy. it shows how human not being part of natual selection shows how the stupid breed as rabbits while the elite are not. then the elite children are drowned out by the dumb ones.
Golden Eyed Scout wrote:I like to believe humans are devolving into monkeys.
Ask any scientist: there's no such thing as devolution. If we change to a form resembling our ape cousins, it's because we evolved from the need to change that way.
Evolution basically includes any concepts of devolution, simply because traits are gained and lost, in a pretty random way. The environment that forces evolution, does not automatically provide the tools to change in step with those forces (refer to symbiotic relationships for various examples, as means for positive change in species). You can find reasons that one trait may dominate a species, such as of specific forms of vegetation being present(etc...), but the presence of those forces does not necessitate a positive reaction.
I am of the opinion that there is both evolution AND devolution, but you can just as easily say that evolution precludes devolution as a process. I think of it along the same lines of having both species and subspecies, as specific terms, but I think it comes down to an opinion of scientific jargon.
dogma wrote:Evolution ranks pretty high on the list of concepts which are frequently misunderstood.
Case in point:
I religiously followed the news on the development of Spore when I heard about the evolutionary trends your creatures could take, and then was slightly depressed as the more kid and casual gamer friendly system of intelligent designing the creatures came about instead of watching an actual evolutionary tree.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I am of the opinion that there is both evolution AND devolution, but you can just as easily say that evolution precludes devolution as a process. I think of it along the same lines of having both species and subspecies, as specific terms, but I think it comes down to an opinion of scientific jargon.
Sort of. The notion that evolution and devolution can coexist implies that there is a sort of qualitative 'direction' to the process, which science should not be concerned with.
Wouldn't devolution imply a linear digression along a previously evolved path? Something that random mutation and hereditary selection can't actually do?
A species dies, which would be indicative that genes were not present which could have been beneficial. I think that on the macro-level, information like this could be useful. Studying samples that are large enough, could provide a deeper understanding of the forces that promote evolution.
What is the ratio of 'fail', to 'win'? I have seen some truly astonishing examples of evolutionary success, and heard of many terrible failures. Knowing which direction evolution works (at least abstractly), seems significant enough to investigate. Evolution is random, but the succession of microbes to advanced life-forms, indicates a pattern of some kind.
Species dies, which would be indicative that genes were not present which could have been beneficial. I think that on the macro-level, information like this could be useful. Studying samples that are large enough, could provide a deeper understanding of the forces that promote evolution.
It's rare for a species to die due to an inability to adapt. Usually it occurs due to an inability to adapt within the timeframe seemingly required. In a totally natural environment extinctions are exceedingly rare and typically the result of disease or massive natural disaster.
What is the ratio of 'fail', to 'win'? I have seen some truly astonishing examples of evolutionary success, and heard of many terrible failures. Knowing which direction evolution works (at least abstractly), seems significant enough to investigate. Evolution is random, but the succession of microbes to advanced life-forms, indicates a pattern of some kind.
I don't think I've ever actually heard of a failure outside of species whose failure is intrinsically linked to a human influenced environment.
Wrexasaur wrote:A species dies, which would be indicative that genes were not present which could have been beneficial. I think that on the macro-level, information like this could be useful. Studying samples that are large enough, could provide a deeper understanding of the forces that promote evolution.
You can't promote evolution. Even the speed of adaptation is factored into the nominal process.
Wrexasaur wrote:
What is the ratio of 'fail', to 'win'? I have seen some truly astonishing examples of evolutionary success, and heard of many terrible failures. Knowing which direction evolution works (at least abstractly), seems significant enough to investigate. Evolution is random, but the succession of microbes to advanced life-forms, indicates a pattern of some kind.
Not necessarily. It indicates only that life, on this particular rock, has evolved in accordance with the conditions on this particular rock.
I think that devolution and evolution are kind of like acceleration and deceleration. They are both changes in velocity, but seen from different points of view.
Devolution, in my view, would occur when some throw back in our genes suddenly came to the fore (for example, excessive body hair, larger teeth, over developed instinctive centres of the brain, a sudden increase in the size of the appendix, the ability to vote Labour despite over 10 years of terrible government, etc ).
So, while it could still be considered evolution, as it is a change from the current form, it is actually using something ancient in our genetic ancestry, either through freak mutation (some normal dominant "non hairy" gene gets switched off, allowing the "hairy ape" gene to go about its business), or through a change in environment (nuclear winter for example), which favours those people who are hairy, thus those with a stronger expression of the "hairy ape" gene become dominant.
I'm aware that the above is very simplified and reality is far more complex, however, I wanted something that was fairly easy to grasp to express my thoughts.
@ Wrexasaur - I have that shirt, signed by the artists
@ WarOne - I too wanted Spore to be as great a game as the concept seemed to be. I had it on pre-order for almost 2 years and was bitterly disappointed when I found out what it had turned into. There should at least have been an "evolutionary progression mode" where you could not change your creature too much between generations, and any abilities it had, had to follow on from previous generations, or be explainably acquired (such as absorbing R/DNA from another bacteria in the cellular stage, development of fur due to change in climate, etc).
Perhaps Spore 2 will be better, if they ever make it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:You can't promote evolution. Even the speed of adaptation is factored into the nominal process.
After each mass extinction is an explosion of new life as the survivors rush to fill all the space and niches left open. It could be imagined that in order to "promote evolution", you could drop of a handful of species on a new planet and wait a few million years for them to evolve to fill all the roles that are traditionally seen on Earth (though perhaps with a few mission, or a few extra, after all, who knows what nature will come up with?)
@ Wrexasaur - I have that shirt, signed by the artists
Awesome .
I need to add that to this series... hmm, maybe they are even by the same team?
dogma wrote:You can't promote evolution. Even the speed of adaptation is factored into the nominal process.
The presence of certain food-stocks can accelerate the rate of evolution. Humans have evolved to be lactose tolerant (at least in part, varying by the presence of milk as a food-stock) throughout civilization.
Promotion simply indicates contribution.
Not necessarily. It indicates only that life, on this particular rock, has evolved in accordance with the conditions on this particular rock.
It doesn't automatically assume it, but it can definitely be seen to suggest it.
Shuma wrote:It's rare for a species to die due to an inability to adapt. Usually it occurs due to an inability to adapt within the timeframe seemingly required. In a totally natural environment extinctions are exceedingly rare and typically the result of disease or massive natural disaster.
Extinctions of entire species are rare (but not non-existent), loss of mutation is very high. Not to suggest that all mutation is beneficial, but the loss is there.
I don't think I've ever actually heard of a failure outside of species whose failure is intrinsically linked to a human influenced environment.
Life can't always evolve, and environments change enough for extinctions to be noticeable. I would assume that extinction via the dominance of other species, is an action of evolution.
SilverMK2 wrote:
After each mass extinction is an explosion of new life as the survivors rush to fill all the space and niches left open. It could be imagined that in order to "promote evolution", you could drop of a handful of species on a new planet and wait a few million years for them to evolve to fill all the roles that are traditionally seen on Earth (though perhaps with a few mission, or a few extra, after all, who knows what nature will come up with?)
I hadn't imagined that thought experiment, thanks for that. Its oddly similar to economic theory, or maybe not so odd. Damn it, you've got me thinking now.
MORE VODKA!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:
The presence of certain food-stocks can accelerate the rate of evolution. Humans have evolved to be lactose tolerant (at least in part, varying by the presence of milk as a food-stock) throughout civilization.
Promotion simply indicates contribution.
Contribution and promotion mean very different things. I agree that food stocks contribute to evolution, but I would not say that they promote it.
I'm not even sure that evolution can be promoted. It could, theoretically, be directed, but promoting it doesn't seem possible.
dogma wrote:Contribution and promotion mean very different things. I agree that food stocks contribute to evolution, but I would not say that they promote it.
I'm not even sure that evolution can be promoted. It could, theoretically, be directed, but promoting it doesn't seem possible.
They can mean very different things, but it depends on how you define those terms.
I will concede to your point though, and suggest a different term.
How about niche, simply because it fits. (to provide a niche, add a better term if you have one... drinking beer )
Note: I consider a flower, to be the core form (concept, whatever) of advertising, and through this I consider promotion to be a large part of evolution.
Wrexasaur wrote:
How about niche, simply because it fits.
Note: I consider a flower, to be the core form (concept, whatever) of advertising, and through this I consider promotion to be a large part of evolution.
In a sense that's true, but we must be careful to recall that in those instances promotion is a constituent of evolution, and so cannot be used to dictate the process in the sense that it seems you're refering to.
dogma wrote:In a sense that's true, but we must be careful to recall that in those instances promotion is a constituent of evolution, and so cannot be used to dictate the process in the sense that it seems you're refering to.
You can promote evolution by selective breeding, or by shortening life spans and increasing reproductive speed.
They use a certain species of flies to test genetic modification, resistances, etc because they have a rapid generational turn over. What would take many thousands of years in people (because we take ~30 years to make a new generation), takes only a few weeks or months in these flies, as they have a much faster generational turn over, thus you can almost litereally watch them "evolve" in response to changing the environment, changing their genes, or any number of other things.
The faster things reproduce, the faster they are able to adapt genetically to changed conditions.
I understand devolution as a philosophical concept, where it is thought that God created all the animals in their perfect forms, and all the mutation since has taken them away from that perfection, devolution. It's where the band Devo got their name.
It's a cool idea, but it doesn't have much to do with science. In science evolution has no concept of progress, there is simply the current environment and adaptation to it. If if gets colder in time a species might evolve a thicker coat of fur, if it got warmer again it might evolve back to to a thinner coat of fur. While in one sense it would be going backwards, the truth is there's no better or worse level of development, there's just being suited to the present environment.
garret wrote:Has anyone ever seen idiocracy. it shows how human not being part of natual selection shows how the stupid breed as rabbits while the elite are not. then the elite children are drowned out by the dumb ones.
It is a really funny movie. It should be noted, though, that while the film throws the idiocracy line out there early on, the film isn't about that, and the final realisation of Don't Know as a character is based on an underlying assumption that rejects the idea entirely.
The film, like all satire, is a complaint on modern culture, on the anti-intellectualism and pandering to the lowest common denominator present in modern culture.
When Don't Know realises he was to blame for what happened because he was lazy and didn't read or bother learning, that's a resolution of the real point the film is making - that we as a society are much dumber than we should be.
Really good film, but commonly misunderstood.
SilverMK2 wrote:@ WarOne - I too wanted Spore to be as great a game as the concept seemed to be. I had it on pre-order for almost 2 years and was bitterly disappointed when I found out what it had turned into. There should at least have been an "evolutionary progression mode" where you could not change your creature too much between generations, and any abilities it had, had to follow on from previous generations, or be explainably acquired (such as absorbing R/DNA from another bacteria in the cellular stage, development of fur due to change in climate, etc).
Perhaps Spore 2 will be better, if they ever make it.
The Spore game I want wouldn't have player picking and choosing abilities for their creature on a whim. I'd like to see the dominant genes in your creature evolve through natural forces. Possibly the player might pick the mutations, but whether or not they spread and become dominant traits of the species would be decided by how well they help individuals in the species survive and reproduce.
That'd be a hard game to get right, but it'd be awesome. Instead we got a creature creator attached to a boring collection of min-games.
SilverMK2 wrote:You can promote evolution by selective breeding, or by shortening life spans and increasing reproductive speed.
They use a certain species of flies to test genetic modification, resistances, etc because they have a rapid generational turn over. What would take many thousands of years in people (because we take ~30 years to make a new generation), takes only a few weeks or months in these flies, as they have a much faster generational turn over, thus you can almost litereally watch them "evolve" in response to changing the environment, changing their genes, or any number of other things.
The faster things reproduce, the faster they are able to adapt genetically to changed conditions.
True. They've managed to speciate fruit flies by seperating two populations and exposing each population to extreme weather, each population changing its genetic make up to match the changes in their environment. Given how quickly fruit flies breed, this was done over a very short period of time.
SilverMK2 wrote:@ WarOne - I too wanted Spore to be as great a game as the concept seemed to be. I had it on pre-order for almost 2 years and was bitterly disappointed when I found out what it had turned into. There should at least have been an "evolutionary progression mode" where you could not change your creature too much between generations, and any abilities it had, had to follow on from previous generations, or be explainably acquired (such as absorbing R/DNA from another bacteria in the cellular stage, development of fur due to change in climate, etc).
Perhaps Spore 2 will be better, if they ever make it.
The Spore game I want wouldn't have player picking and choosing abilities for their creature on a whim. I'd like to see the dominant genes in your creature evolve through natural forces. Possibly the player might pick the mutations, but whether or not they spread and become dominant traits of the species would be decided by how well they help individuals in the species survive and reproduce.
That'd be a hard game to get right, but it'd be awesome. Instead we got a creature creator attached to a boring collection of min-games.
I think that game would be close to what I was suggesting. I don't mind there being a lot more picking and choosing at the early single/multicellular stage, as such life is more adaptable, and can take on new R/DNA more easily. Not to mention simply absorbing other single and multicellular creatures (see the mitochondria in our own cells) to give new abilities etc.
But as you said, new abilities/gowth of features/etc should be more determined through how the creature acts and reacts to the environment/etc. The look and so on should be more customisable than the mutations, but should follow on from the previous generations (a higher generation count would certainly help in this game so you don't leap from cell - land in one go ).
It illustrates quite nicely how much imagination goes into the "science" of macro evolution.
There is a lot speculation in this thread about the future state of humanity, I'll play...from a microevolutionary standpoint it looks like we are getting fatter, and barring any huge worldwide calamity or a change towards eating healthy and exersizing we will all end up like the people in WALL-E.
It illustrates quite nicely how much imagination goes into the "science" of macro evolution.
It's a good thing we're not having that argument again.
There is a lot speculation in this thread about the future state of humanity, I'll play...from a microevolutionary standpoint it looks like we are getting fatter, and barring any huge worldwide calamity or a change towards eating healthy and exersizing we will all end up like the people in WALL-E.
GG
That's not evolution though, if I eat too much and get fat it isn't a characteristic that gets passed down to my kids. But it is a trend we're probably only going to see more of, high fat food is becoming cheaper, easier and more convenient with each year.
I'm currently almost finished reading Last and First Man, which is quite an interesting (if somewhat tedious) read. A look into the future of humanity as seen in the 1930's - before atomic power, genetic engineering, computers etc.
I have his other book, Star Maker, which I will read at some point in the future when I have recovered from last and first
sebster wrote:
That's not evolution though, if I eat too much and get fat it isn't a characteristic that gets passed down to my kids. But it is a trend we're probably only going to see more of, high fat food is becoming cheaper, easier and more convenient with each year.
Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.
generalgrog wrote:Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.
GG
Because it is very unlikely to kill you until your 40s at the earliest, by which point you've almost certainly had all the kids you're going to have.
sebster wrote:
That's not evolution though, if I eat too much and get fat it isn't a characteristic that gets passed down to my kids. But it is a trend we're probably only going to see more of, high fat food is becoming cheaper, easier and more convenient with each year.
Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.
GG
The majority of the planets population is not living in conditions where its natural or easy to get fat. America isn't evolving alone and evolution takes thousands of years, this is an problem of the last 40. If we haven't solved the health issues after hundreds of generations and if the rest of the world mimics american (and now chinese and european) affluent eating habits than we may well evolve a digestive system that better handles trans fats.
generalgrog wrote:Why wouldn't our genes evolve to adapt to the higher fat/sedentary lifestyle? If multiple generations are eating high fat and living sedentary lifestyles it seems that the genes would adapt. Much like Africans adapting with more melanin in their skin to protect them from UV rays and scandinavians adapting with blue eyes to shield them from the glare of the ice/snow.
GG
Because it is very unlikely to kill you until your 40s at the earliest, by which point you've almost certainly had all the kids you're going to have.
But your forgetting that it's the kids that also partake in the high fat/sedentary lifestyle...plenty of time for children to grow up and have more kids that do the same...etc.....etc.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote: The majority of the planets population is not living in conditions where its natural or easy to get fat. America isn't evolving alone and evolution takes thousands of years, this is an problem of the last 40. If we haven't solved the health issues after hundreds of generations and if the rest of the world mimics american (and now chinese and european) affluent eating habits than we may well evolve a digestive system that better handles trans fats.
or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.
or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.
Unlikely, the reaction to a fat filled food supply wouldn't to evolutionarily become fat. It would more likely be a series of alterations to our digestive system allowing us to better utilize strange and exotic foodstuffs, thus preventing us from getting fat.
sebster wrote:I understand devolution as a philosophical concept, where it is thought that God created all the animals in their perfect forms, and all the mutation since has taken them away from that perfection, devolution. It's where the band Devo got their name.
From Wiki.
Streamlining evolution
"Devolution", the verb "devolve" and the past participle "devolved" are all common terms in science fiction for changes over time in populations of living things that make them less complex and remove some of their former adaptations. The terminology used herein is nontechnical, but the phenomenon is a real but counter-intuitive one, more accurately known as streamlining evolution. Since the development and maintenance of a feature such as an organ or a metabolite has an opportunity cost, changes in the environment that reduce the utility of an adaptation may mean that a higher evolutionary fitness is achieved by no longer using the adaptation, thus better using resources. This requires a mutation that inactivates one or more genes, perhaps by a change to DNA methylation or a methionine codon. Streamlining evolution allows evolution to remove features no longer of much/any use, like scaffolding on a completed bridge.
However, "devolution" in practice typically refers to changes that occur from a problem no longer existing rather than superior solutions existing. For instance, of the several hundred known species of animal that live their entire lives in total darkness, most have non-functional eyes rather than no eyes. This is due, for instance, to deterioration of the optic nerve. It occurs because mutations that prevent eye formation have low probability. However, several eyeless animal species, such as the Kauai cave wolf spider, who live in total darkness, and whose ancestry mostly had eyes, do exist. Together with gene duplication, streamlining evolution makes evolution surprisingly able to produce radical changes, despite being limited to successive, slight modifications.
It seems to be no more than a matter of jargon, and not one associated with philosophy. I would argue that there is a generally 'positive' movement to evolution, where species adapt to their surroundings according to the factors that comprise a specific environment. (positive= adaption, negative= lack of)
Catastrophic events that do not allow adaptation, indicate a lack of evolution in some species. My main point is that I would not be surprised if animals could simply lose certain adaptations, they could also lose the capability to have those adaptations, far in the future where they may be necessary to survival. I wouldn't consider humans losing brain-power (for instance, and if at all possible), and becoming more 'primitive', to be a 'negative' adaptation. I do think that patterns of that nature, are very interesting though, and I really don't know enough to confirm anything I am saying.
It's a cool idea, but it doesn't have much to do with science. In science evolution has no concept of progress, there is simply the current environment and adaptation to it. If if gets colder in time a species might evolve a thicker coat of fur, if it got warmer again it might evolve back to to a thinner coat of fur. While in one sense it would be going backwards, the truth is there's no better or worse level of development, there's just being suited to the present environment.
Survival is beneficial to individuals of any species, and within that framework, I would consider 'progress' to simply indicate survival.
I am not a Bio major, so... take what I say with a grain of salt.
or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.
Unlikely, the reaction to a fat filled food supply wouldn't to evolutionarily become fat. It would more likely be a series of alterations to our digestive system allowing us to better utilize strange and exotic foodstuffs, thus preventing us from getting fat.
Yeah...that's worked out real well for spam eating samoans and hawaaiins.
SilverMK2 wrote:You can promote evolution by selective breeding, or by shortening life spans and increasing reproductive speed.
That's still not the promotion of evolution. It is evolution. Even our observation of the flies is evolution. Its an all-consuming thing.
I think that we have some mis-communication occurring. Evolution as a process can be sped up (or promoted) by using short lived, or reproductively speedy species. This ensures that there is more chance for genetic change to occur in response of external conditions in a given length of time.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to distinguish here. Evolution is the change and adaption of living things to external change. The process of evolution can be promoted using the methods above. That and certain controlled alteration of external conditions, selective breeding, etc.
or we become like walrusses....sans flippers and tusks.
Unlikely, the reaction to a fat filled food supply wouldn't to evolutionarily become fat. It would more likely be a series of alterations to our digestive system allowing us to better utilize strange and exotic foodstuffs, thus preventing us from getting fat.
Yeah...that's worked out real well for spam eating samoans and hawaaiins.
GG
Samoans were large long before we got there. It's not like they've evolved in the 60 years since spam came out.
SilverMK2 wrote:
I think that we have some mis-communication occurring. Evolution as a process can be sped up (or promoted) by using short lived, or reproductively speedy species. This ensures that there is more chance for genetic change to occur in response of external conditions in a given length of time.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to distinguish here. Evolution is the change and adaption of living things to external change. The process of evolution can be promoted using the methods above. That and certain controlled alteration of external conditions, selective breeding, etc.
My definition would amount to this: Evolution - the generational, adaptive response of living organisms to any change in either their environment, or selves.
This process cannot be promoted, by definition, as it necessarily factors in all possible stimuli; even the attempt to promote.
In essence, we do not promote the evolution of the flies, we simply alter their evolution. Its a minor difference, but I think its critical. But then, I'm a logic nerd.
So then i cant pic it? darn..... And here is was thinking that because medicine and health allow some harmful and inferior conditions (like certain cancers and such) to continue and be passes on, rather than dying out . That, that would also count as devolution, as it makes the species weaker in some regards...... oh well silly me.
Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because Mother Nature deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.
Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till some asteroid decided to pop up and spoil the party.
Are you trying to take a picture of it, or pick it?
Hawkins wrote:
And here is was thinking that because medicine and health allow some harmful and inferior conditions (like certain cancers and such) to continue and be passes on, rather than dying out . That, that would also count as devolution, as it makes the species weaker in some regards...... oh well silly me.
No, that's not even consistent with what devolution is supposed to be.
Well thinking about it, your right dogma, evey example ive tried to come up with points towards evolution (even negitive traits that are harmful and self destructive fit as evolution), even the stuff that will eventully kill off our species, physically, and metally. But what about socially? would it be fair to say that we are as a society devolving? Or are we Evolving? i guess thats altimately what i was trying to say to begin with.
aka_tizz wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because GOD deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.
Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till GOD SENT A WORLD WIDE FLOOD to pop up and spoil the party.
aka_tizz wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because Mother Nature deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.
Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till some asteroid decided to pop up and spoil the party.
The brontosaurus doesn't and never existed. It was a mistake of paleontology that got picked up in the media and still somehow exists to this day in the collective consciousness, but it was never real. Not sure where you were getting the information on the brain, that was likely a myth as well. If I remember right it had a diplodocus' head.
the internet wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because GOD deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.
Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till GOD SENT A WORLD WIDE FLOOD to pop up and spoil the party.
aka_tizz wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because Mother Nature deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.
Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till some asteroid decided to pop up and spoil the party.
The brontosaurus doesn't and never existed. It was a mistake of paleontology that got picked up in the media and still somehow exists to this day in the collective consciousness, but it was never real. Not sure where you were getting the information on the brain, that was likely a myth as well. If I remember right it had a diplodocus' head.
Yeah, i forgot, it's actually the apatosaurus now. My bad
Yes, but then creationism or intelligent design is a load of crap. Before you get all offended, let's look at the two theories:
Evolution: Gradual changes made by living things to better thrive in their environment.
Creationism/Intelligent Design: God made everything.
There is evidence for evolution. Is it true? Meh, probably not. But it's the best theory we have so far. The problem with the whole BELIEF=TROOF idea is that with the scientific method, you basically throw the hypothesis at a wall (of evidence) and see if it breaks. Evolution's held up so far; creationism not so much.
Mortified Penguin wrote:Yes, but then creationism or intelligent design is a load of crap. Before you get all offended, let's look at the two theories:
Evolution: Gradual changes made by living things to better thrive in their environment.
Creationism/Intelligent Design: God made everything.
There is evidence for evolution. Is it true? Meh, probably not. But it's the best theory we have so far. The problem with the whole BELIEF=TROOF idea is that with the scientific method, you basically throw the hypothesis at a wall (of evidence) and see if it breaks. Evolution's held up so far; creationism not so much.
EDIT: Directed at GG.
Mortified Penguin...why would I be offended? Your post includes such an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution...exampleA:"but then creationism or intelligent design is a load of crap".....I may as well just give up the whole search for truth gig, because you obvously have all the answers allready.... surely I have no reason to be offended.
Admittedly I acted like a troll there, but then you pony up some evidence. Seriously, I'm all ears. I just set forth the logic behind why the scientific community supports evolution (although I'm no biologist; this is from what I've read in New Scientist every now and then).
Mortified Penguin wrote:
Admittedly I acted like a troll there, but then you pony up some evidence. Seriously, I'm all ears. I just set forth the logic behind why the scientific community supports evolution (although I'm no biologist; this is from what I've read in New Scientist every now and then).
Bear in mind that there are versions of creationism and ID that are consistent with evolution; essentially evolution with an old bearded dude watching over it all. They are indistinguishable on a scientific level, and so are largely irrelevant. They only receive advocacy because certain individuals cannot stand the idea that a deity is not made mention of.
generalgrog wrote:But your forgetting that it's the kids that also partake in the high fat/sedentary lifestyle...plenty of time for children to grow up and have more kids that do the same...etc.....etc.
GG
No, I'm not forgetting it. The only time mortality has an impact on genes is when it stops individuals from breeding. Obesity doesn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrexasaur wrote:It seems to be no more than a matter of jargon, and not one associated with philosophy. I would argue that there is a generally 'positive' movement to evolution, where species adapt to their surroundings according to the factors that comprise a specific environment. (positive= adaption, negative= lack of)
Catastrophic events that do not allow adaptation, indicate a lack of evolution in some species. My main point is that I would not be surprised if animals could simply lose certain adaptations, they could also lose the capability to have those adaptations, far in the future where they may be necessary to survival. I wouldn't consider humans losing brain-power (for instance, and if at all possible), and becoming more 'primitive', to be a 'negative' adaptation. I do think that patterns of that nature, are very interesting though, and I really don't know enough to confirm anything I am saying.
I just looked up Devo's wiki page to see if I was mistaken.
"The name "Devo" comes "from their concept of 'de-evolution' - the idea that instead of evolving, mankind has actually regressed, as evidenced by the dysfunction and herd mentality of American society."[2] This idea was developed as a joke by Kent State University art students Gerald Casale and Bob Lewis as early as the late 1960s. Casale and Lewis created a number of art pieces in a vein of devolution satirically."
So yeah, nothing to do with God, just a fun idea that people were getting less evolved. It links to the devolution page, but it slightly different to that. Anyway, my bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hawkins wrote:
Well thinking about it, your right dogma, evey example ive tried to come up with points towards evolution (even negitive traits that are harmful and self destructive fit as evolution), even the stuff that will eventully kill off our species, physically, and metally. But what about socially? would it be fair to say that we are as a society devolving? Or are we Evolving? i guess thats altimately what i was trying to say to begin with.
No, because devolution assumes that evolution is a march towards a greater species (and therefore devolution is going backwards into less evolved states). The problem is that no such march exists, creatures don't become 'better', they just become adapted to their environment. A population of spiders move underground and over generations they lose their eyesight, they haven't become better or worse, just adapted to the environment they're now in.
Society is kind of similar, kind of. It's different because the design of society is affected by conscious choices, whereas evolution is entirely based on mutation. Either way, there's no higher or lower society, just the society that suits the conditions.
Dogma: I can talk about evolution all I want thanks, otherwise we're gonna ban you from international politics threads.
Shuma and Silver: So you say natural selection isn't occuring because of societal interferance which is unatural, or human activities such as genetic engineering or selective breeding?
I don't see it that way. For one, I don't see human activities as "unatural", they're part of the world like everything else. As natural as ants building anthills or chimps forming gangs. The social aspect does accelerate things massively and make it seem like something completely distinct, but I think that the idea that because more mutants survive evolution has stopped or slowed is erronous. For it to have stopped or slowed it'd have to be going in one direction. It isn't. It's going in all directions at once depending on environment.
Putting human value judgements into evolution is easy to do, but it generally leads to a skewed view.
Now, I do have to say that I'm not a specialist in evolution, so I'd love to know any books or other sources that refute what I'm saying.
Da Boss wrote:As natural as ants building anthills or chimps forming gangs.
Or that natural soda... the one with just as much sugar as any other soda.
The social aspect does accelerate things massively and make it seem like something completely distinct, but I think that the idea that because more mutants survive evolution has stopped or slowed is erronous. For it to have stopped or slowed it'd have to be going in one direction. It isn't. It's going in all directions at once depending on environment.
There are some decent theories that humans are evolving into multiple species, through forces that were present, before we introduced technology as a means to evolve.
Putting human value judgements into evolution is easy to do, but it generally leads to a skewed view.
Now, I do have to say that I'm not a specialist in evolution, so I'd love to know any books or other sources that refute what I'm saying.
It is my favorite subject (Like I said though, not a Bio major), and what little I have read, indicates an extremely diverse set of opinions. Evolution is evolution, awesome.
I hope that, if reincarnation is possible, I don't come back until some people (my next life included) have wings. Wings like a bird of prey, making me an angel. That would be kickass.
Which is what I would like to ask: What with everyone getting into genetic manipulation, and even then some scientists are looking at "reanimation", how long do you guys think we have until real X-men?
Slarg232 wrote:I hope that, if reincarnation is possible, I don't come back until some people (my next life included) have wings. Wings like a bird of prey, making me an angel. That would be kickass.
You Blood Angels fan? That should explain it And it would be kickass if you had them and the rest didn't, cause if they did, you'd be no more special than anyone
Da Boss wrote:Shuma and Silver: So you say natural selection isn't occuring because of societal interferance which is unatural, or human activities such as genetic engineering or selective breeding?
Natural selection is the predeliction for the weaker (less suited to their environment) to not survive and propogate, while the strongest members (most suited for their environment) go on to create the next generation(s). However, humanity is now at a point that in many 1st and 2nd world nations, we are able to sufficiently control the environment in such a way that we are able to ensure that most people, despite how "strong" they might otherwise be to survive and procreate.
Thus to a certain degree, we have stopped or at least limited one of the main drives behind evolution in the so called civilised world. By controling our environment, we control how we change, however, because we have made our environment so comfortable and the dangers and challanges so minimal, as well as allowing anyone to breed and survive, we are not strengthening our species but rather stagnating.
It is only through radical environment change (either natural or enforced by humanity - such as bringing in trial by combat for everyone who is of breeding age, etc, or indeed deliberate man made climate change) that humanity will be able to strengthen itself.
Alternately, we can either selectively breed or genetically modify the population to give it more "desirable" (in our eyes at least) traits - good health, stronger, faster, more dextrous, greater intelect, etc, or indeed change it altogether - giving it the ability to live underwater, or in space, etc.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Natural selection is the predeliction for the weaker (less suited to their environment) to not survive and propogate, while the strongest members (most suited for their environment) go on to create the next generation(s).
Only propagation affects natural selection, a creature can both survive and not propagate; thereby failing to contribute to the next generation. Death is not necessary for the occurrence of natural selection, though obviously it would affect the process.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Thus to a certain degree, we have stopped or at least limited one of the main drives behind evolution in the so called civilised world. By controling our environment, we control how we change, however, because we have made our environment so comfortable and the dangers and challanges so minimal, as well as allowing anyone to breed and survive, we are not strengthening our species but rather stagnating.
All individuals in any environment are allowed to breed or survive, the relevant question is whether or not they do either. Additionally, you must remember that having a broadly varied gene stock is an asset, not a hindrance. Evolution is driven by necessity, and having more options due to broad genetic variation insulates a species against extinction due to catastrophic events. I suppose you could consider this to be stagnation, but that only really makes sense if you're looking at evolution as a march towards perfection; something which borders on religiosity.
SilverMK2 wrote:
It is only through radical environment change (either natural or enforced by humanity - such as bringing in trial by combat for everyone who is of breeding age, etc, or indeed deliberate man made climate change) that humanity will be able to strengthen itself.
You're still looking at this in qualitative terms, which is wrongheaded. A creature is 'strong' if it is able to thrive in the environments which it inhabits; adaptation is the only reasonably objective standard of 'strength' which we possess. Humanity can survive in more environments than most of the creatures on Earth, and is the only species able to survive in space. You cannot discount the ability to create technology when considering the adaptability of a species.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Alternately, we can either selectively breed or genetically modify the population to give it more "desirable" (in our eyes at least) traits - good health, stronger, faster, more dextrous, greater intelect, etc, or indeed change it altogether - giving it the ability to live underwater, or in space, etc.
Now you're talking about creating meta-humans, which isn't really about pushing the abilities of the human species, but engineering a completely new one.
Slarg232 wrote:I hope that, if reincarnation is possible, I don't come back until some people (my next life included) have wings. Wings like a bird of prey, making me an angel. That would be kickass.
You Blood Angels fan? That should explain it And it would be kickass if you had them and the rest didn't, cause if they did, you'd be no more special than anyone
Nah, Chaos fan actually (wouldn't say no to bat/daemon/dragon wings, either)
Nah, you wouldn't want to be the only one, because then you would be a freak. You would want to be part of a group of people, like something like Final Fantasy or something, so that you have the people with wings, the normal people, the people who have 20 limbs, you know that sort of thing.
.
I can talk about evolution all I want thanks, otherwise we're gonna ban you from international politics threads.
