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.

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.

I like to believe humans are devolving into monkeys.

Only a matter of time till I get to throw turds at someone when I'm pissed.

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:
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 in the mirror.

Fixed.

dogma wrote:

Golden Eyed Scout wrote:
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 in the mirror.

Fixed.

Ouch.

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 ranks pretty high on the list of concepts which are frequently misunderstood.

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.



I want that as a shirt.

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?

In comic books, sure. In the real world that is not possible, at least according to the current science.

Its possible that a species could 'regress' due to natural selection, but it would still be normal evolution.

Who cares what we evolve into, I want a pizza!

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.

Interesting stuff is interesting.

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.

I don't consider it dominant, but I do consider it present. To eat corn, you need corn, not an esoteric message am I expressing.

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.

sebster wrote:

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 ).

Here an interesting book called "man after man". I especially liked the little parasite people that latch onto animals like leeches.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-After-Anthropology-Future/dp/0312035608

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.

GG

generalgrog wrote:Here an interesting book called "man after man". I especially liked the little parasite people that latch onto animals like leeches.

http://www.amazon.com/Man-After-Anthropology-Future/dp/0312035608

That book looks awesome.

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.