Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fun topic.

Maybe we have already taken a step past standard evolution?

Astronauts with four arms. Awesome.

EVOLUTION IS THE DEVIL.

HERESY!

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.

I have no wisdom teeth which is supposed to be an evolutionary step forward. As a mutant power though, it's a bit rubbish.

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

There is evidence that successive generations are becoming more intelligent - there are also increasing numbers of kids with ADD/ADHD/Autism.

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.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13927-five-things-humans-no-longer-need.html?full=true

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: Hm, not necessarily. It's just that in our times the alpha male is not the strongest toughest biggest one, it's the richest

Shaman wrote: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?

Black Corsair wrote:I just tell what i see!

How old are you?

I hope we evolve into dinosaurs.

That would be... so AWESOME!!!!!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Black Corsair wrote:I just tell what i see!

How old are you?

Just 26-27... but i have seen changes... at least in my country, and older people agreed with me...

A lot of the "bigger/stronger/faster" is change in society - better food, health care, etc, rather than genetic.

The reverse is also true, people are smaller, weaker, slower because of poor food choices, pollution, lack of exercise, etc.

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.