Will Man ever become extinct??

[Sayonara]

What?

[ugochukwu]

I like everyones opinion on this topic. By the way Sayonara³, i like that Avatar of yours, how did you get it?

 

Humans will carry on evolving as long as nothing drastic happens. In the future, with all mans achievements, i believe that we will be able to fight any extra terestrial threats with ease. We will probably have the best guns at that time, and have different ways of producing electricity. We may also end up becoming Gods of our own.

 

This may sound ludicrous, but humans may also live over 200 years.

[Sayonara]

I like everyones opinion on this topic. By the way Sayonara³, i like that Avatar of yours, how did you get it?

I think it was from Google image search...

[-Demosthenes-]

Aliens? Extraterristrals? Who has even prooved that they ever existed?

It is very possible man will become extinct. As said, natural disaster, man made... or I think once we evolve mentally beyond our limitations. Say your planet has fought its way to the top as a civilization, from the beginning. occupying multiple galaxies. Would you stop at nothing to limit others from over taking you? I would say so. Also, as said we do not live in a utopia nor would any other life form existing in with us in this age, even if it is billions of light years away. We are being watched, anybody smarter than an ape can tell that.

You see, that's not the type of guy that I would want to meet in a dark ally. We're being watched? okay...

Last thing. Our biggest jump is yet to be seen. We are on the verge of many many discoveries. 2014 will not hold deviation for us. It will hold something much larger. Take into count, the 13 yr old that has graduated college (Gregory Robert Smith) He is probably 10 yr ahead of anybody else on this planet. In 2014, he will be about 25 yrs old. In those 11 years, he is planning to study aerospace engineering, political science and biomedical engineering. Anything that happens in 2014, will stem from his findings. I know for sure, he isn't the only person. There are many great minds in this day and age, some probably roaming this forum.

One person will have such a little affect on the gene pool, it won't even make a difference. Maybe technology will be better, but that is completely different from evolving as a species.

Humans will carry on evolving as long as nothing drastic happens. In the future, with all mans achievements, i believe that we will be able to fight any extra terestrial threats with ease. We will probably have the best guns at that time, and have different ways of producing electricity. We may also end up becoming Gods of our own.

What does evolution have to do with freakin aliens!? I don't get it...

[Marz Man]

This may sound ludicrous, but humans may also live over 200 years.

 

I beleive! Scientists have already increased the lifespan of lab mice approx 30-50% by way of Caloric restriction. Far off from human testing, of course.

 

 

Demosthenes, I tend to rant alot. Especially at 5am. Also, yes I strongly beleive in aliens. If life could evolve on this little planet then it is possible elsewhere. Once we land on Mars, or maybe even before. It will be prooven. The smallest microbe that once sustained life, was at one time an alien or extraterrestrial.

[DeoxyriboNucleicAcid]

“Lets begin our study of bacteria by considering the balance of nature. If there is food, some organism will eat it. If there is a place to live, some organism will live there. Every species has a great ability to produce offspring and its population expands until it runs out of food or it is limited by competition, its own waste products, or some other factor. Changes in climate or introduction of a new species from elsewhere can greatly affect the balance of nature. These simple sentences summarize the interactions of living things on earth.”

 

-Harold Eddleman, Ph. D.

 

That Quote basiccally sums it all up ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That is how it shall end. Humans will NOT prosper for ever, it is physically impossible, even if we do not die on earth, our universe shall collapse in the big crnch,according to Stephen Hawking (if i spelled that right). So yes, we will be extinct.

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm not saying there aren't aliens, I'm just saying that they don't have ANYTHING to do with human evolution, that's all.

 

And humans will go instict eventually because all thing will eventually happen given infinite time. Yes eventually there will be a plante completely dominated my telepathic lizards, and it time extends backward forever then it alread has happened, an infinite amount of times.

you get it?

[admiral_ju00]

What?

 

Judging from your responce, it would appear that I can't speak english nor write it, although I always thought that I did.

 

So let me try again.

But please, tell me where do you see the evolution take the Homo-Sapiens (at a Macro-elolution) in say a few hundred or thousand years, assuming that things (natural\ecological environment) will remain the same as we now know.

 

Cliff-Notes Summary:

My Theory:

Homo Sapiens are at the pinnacle of General Biological Evolution and can evolve no more as we have no reason to do so. Not in a few hundred, or even a few thousand years if there is no (drastic) change in our world as we now know.

 

(General) Biologica Evolution: Evolution that have a significant effect on most or all of the members of any given species, in this case the Humans.

(Specific) Biological Evolution: Evolution that takes place in different places, affecting small or insignificant amounts of a given species, etc, in this case Humams. This usually accounts for specific, individual variation amongst the members of the species, such may be the case with the Hymalayans, Australian aboriginals, Gregory R. Smith, etc.

 

Specific Evolution will continue indefinitely or infinitely, as long as there are variations in our environment, climate, regions, etc. Also the regions where H-W equilibrium can work, there may be evolution amongst the humans(keeping in mind, the criteria for H-W equilibrium and what has to happen in order for it to work).

 

Hope this helped. What are your thoughts?

What evolutionary change do you see the Homo Sapiens undergo in a few thousand years or perhaps a few hundred thousands of years at a level of Macro-Evolution(meaning most if not all Humans), assuming that our world remains as it is now?

 

Also, for as much as I love science, I need to reiterate this, hopefully to help some out:

Science is a Tool. It was never meant or can predict or provide us with answers or concrete "Facts". Remember, in Science, there is no such thing as a "Fact". It(science) is there to provide us with an empirically-derived solid datum, which we must then combine with the other tools in our personal toolbox and make (hopefully more informed/better) decisions, then we might otherwise.

[admiral_ju00]

I'm not saying there aren't aliens' date=' I'm just saying that they don't have ANYTHING to do with human evolution, that's all.

 

And humans will go instict eventually because all thing will eventually happen given infinite time. [/quote']

 

I'm very optimistic about finding life outside of our world(Hey, it's a huge galaxy out there, and statistically, it is possible. We're just not technologically advanced enough yet to travel long distances or at the speed of light) and my theory on the matter is that it will be of a parallel evolution. Granted, their evolution may be either more advanced or retarted and there will most likely be physiological differences depending on the planet(taking things into consideration such as Atmosphere, Gravitational forces, etc,) that they'll be found on. But still, their evolution will most likely be parallel to ours.

 

Yes, at some point in time, humans will undergo an extinction, why? well, quite frankly, isn't the evolution is all about

-Inovation

-Continuity

-Extinction

?

 

 

Humans will carry on evolving as long as nothing drastic happens. In the future' date=' with all mans achievements, i believe that we will be able to fight any extra terestrial threats with ease. We will probably have the best guns at that time, and have different ways of producing electricity. We may also end up becoming Gods of our own[/quote']

 

That would be what's called a Sociocultural Evolution and has no to very little bearings on the Biological Evolution, which is what I assumed this thead was all about.

[Sayonara]

Judging from your responce, it would appear that I can't speak english nor write it, although I always thought that I did.

It's not the writing itself, it's the content.

 

In the first bit of the original post (the one I replied "what?" to) you seem to be using evidence of natural selection in humans to demonstrate there's no evolution in humans. I'm not sure yet but I get the feeling you might be assuming that evolution is a single means of functional improvement in a species, which it isn't.

 

Then in the last bit you seem to be asking me what kind of evolutionary path humans would take in the future if there were absolutely no changes to the "profile" of abiotic or interspecific pressure on humans, which would not halt any of the reasons why evolution occurs.

 

Evolution as a concept can be simply described as the sum of changes in species. These changes are mainly due to adaptation, which comes about mainly due to selective pressures.

 

Selective pressure has several root causes:

- Interspecific competition (between species);

- Intraspecific competition (within species);

- Migration;

- Changing habitats;

- Changing climate;

- Abiotic factors (everything from natural disasters to cosmic rays);

- Divergence toward speciation;

- Behavourial ecology;

- External ecology;

...and so on.

 

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is not a model of directional force in evolution, nor can it be used to properly quantify net change in a species. It describes one tiny piece of a vast mechanism. It also fails to apply fully to gene migration, genetic drift, non-random mating, assortative mating, or to mortality/fecundity selection with respect to Natural Selection.

 

In the instances you provided of what you termed "specific evolution", these are examples of adaptation to a local habitat. This Gregory R. Smith character is only an example of 'evolution in action' in the same way that you are I are products of evolutionary change - an individual can't evolve. He's certainly better adapted in some respects but this is (1) hardly an example of adaptive radiation, and (2) not really an example of imminent speciation.

 

Your question regarding the near-future of human evolution sets the stage in a useless fashion. We know perfectly well that the ecology of the planet is undergoing and beginning vast changes; some of which we are causing, others which happen anyway. We're also due for some high-influence abiotic factors during the period you've specified (for instance, we're overdue for a large meteor strike).

 

I would offer some thoughts but you have omitted assumptions I'd need in order to do so. The rate of population change will be a massively important factor, as will the rate of advancement in technology.

 

It also occurs that even if there is no major change to human physiology, ecology, behavourial biology, intellect or what have you within the next 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, this does not mean that evolution is not occuring. It simply means that the rate of evolutionary change during that period has been negligible.

 

You might take the example of sharks, which at first glance have changed little in millions of years. However the conditions when sharks first emerged are very different to what they are now, so we are clearly not going to claim that no evolution has occurred.

In some random small slice of their evolutionary history (say, 10 centuries for consistency), you'd be hard-pressed to find significant change even if you had specimens right in front of you in a big habitat simulator. Yet there would still be clear points where speciation occured, where effect A led to adaptation B, where significant pressure meant selection towards particular changes etc.

 

Evolution doesn't stop as such. It's a non-directional force with no goal; there is no plan or blueprint for any species. Likewise it's completely arbitrary to claim that one set of adaptations is superior to any other, as that can change in the blink of an eye.

[Sayonara]

That would be what's called a Sociocultural Evolution and has no to very little bearings on the Biological Evolution, which is what I assumed this thead was all about.

From man's point of view, it would still very much be a factor in his evolutionary success.

 

It doesn't matter if individuals in a species are defending themselves with immune responses or a Super Whacking Stick 3000 with gold trim and optional blood rinser - it's still going to result in natural selection if there's ever a threat to those individuals without that defence.

[albertlee]

Well, I did not read alot of previous messages........

 

Any way, of course, we, mans will extinct one day.....due to philosophy.......We are just part of balance of the universe, in fact, every thing needs to balance.....

 

It is just a matter of time...The decision is all upon the God (in general, the universe).......Even what we think, our consciousness is all arranged by the development of the universe......

 

Again, mans apear for the balance, and we extinct from outgrowing.....it is just our destination....nothing can deny the principle of balance of development of universe......

 

My personal opinion

 

 

Albert

[admiral_ju00]

It's not the writing itself' date=' it's the content.

 

Evolution as a concept can be simply described as the sum of changes in species. These changes are mainly due to adaptation, which comes about mainly due to selective pressures.

 

Selective pressure has several root causes:

- Interspecific competition (between species);

- Intraspecific competition (within species);

- Migration;

- Changing habitats;

- Changing climate;

- Abiotic factors (everything from natural disasters to cosmic rays);

- Divergence toward speciation;

- Behavourial ecology;

- External ecology;

...and so on.

[/quote']

 

Yub

 

The Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is not a model of directional force in evolution, nor can it be used to properly quantify net change in a species. It describes one tiny piece of a vast mechanism. It also fails to apply fully to gene migration, genetic drift, non-random mating, assortative mating, or to mortality/fecundity selection with respect to Natural Selection.

 

Agreed. I didn't say H-W is the answer, just an example of how based on it and that of a very small and secluded population, there may be a noticeable effect. H-W is simply a tool, and yes it has it's flaws, etc, but under 'ideal' situations it can work. And an ubran city will never confine to H-W, i know that too:D

 

In the instances you provided of what you termed "specific evolution", these are examples of adaptation to a local habitat. This Gregory R. Smith character is only an example of 'evolution in action' in the same way that you are I are products of evolutionary change - an individual can't evolve. He's certainly better adapted in some respects but this is (1) hardly an example of adaptive radiation, and (2) not really an example of imminent speciation.

Agreed.

 

Your question regarding the near-future of human evolution sets the stage in a useless fashion. We know perfectly well that the ecology of the planet is undergoing and beginning vast changes; some of which we are causing, others which happen anyway. We're also due for some high-influence abiotic factors during the period you've specified (for instance, we're overdue for a large meteor strike).

My assumption was and still is, should everything remain as is(which is near impossible due to our constant abuse of the ecology, etc) there won't be an evolution which would affect most or the entire species of humans.

 

 

I would offer some thoughts but you have omitted assumptions I'd need in order to do so. The rate of population change will be a massively important factor, as will the rate of advancement in technology.

 

It also occurs that even if there is no major change to human physiology, ecology, behavourial biology, intellect or what have you within the next 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years, this does not mean that evolution is not occuring. It simply means that the rate of evolutionary change during that period has been negligible.

 

Very true. But as the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", right?

So if there is no need for us as a species to evolve, then we can continue at the current rate either indefinently or 'till something happens.

 

 

You might take the example of sharks, which at first glance have changed little in millions of years. However the conditions when sharks first emerged are very different to what they are now, so we are clearly not going to claim that no evolution has occurred.

 

Which again could have been facilitated as a need due to their change of nutrition.

 

In some random small slice of their evolutionary history (say, 10 centuries for consistency), you'd be hard-pressed to find significant change even if you had specimens right in front of you in a big habitat simulator. Yet there would still be clear points where speciation occured, where effect A led to adaptation B, where significant pressure meant selection towards particular changes etc.

 

Evolution doesn't stop as such. It's a non-directional force with no goal; there is no plan or blueprint for any species. Likewise it's completely arbitrary to claim that one set of adaptations is superior to any other, as that can change in the blink of an eye.

 

Agreed again.

[admiral_ju00]

From man's point of view' date=' it would still very much be a factor in his evolutionary success.

 

It doesn't matter if individuals in a species are defending themselves with immune responses or a Super Whacking Stick 3000 with gold trim and optional blood rinser - it's still going to result in natural selection if there's ever a threat to those individuals without that defence.[/quote']

 

but it's still something else, other then a (true) biological evolution.

[Sayonara]

but it's still something else, other then a (true) biological evolution.

That's immaterial. Evolution is change to a species over time; its existence is not contingent on the cause of the changes.

[Sayonara]

Agreed. I didn't say H-W is the answer, just an example of how based on it and that of a very small and secluded population, there may be a noticeable effect. H-W is simply a tool, and yes it has it's flaws, etc, but under 'ideal' situations it can work. And an ubran city will never confine to H-W, i know that too:D

I'd leave HW dynamics to discussions on evolutionary genetics tbh. It's not that useful in predicting anything that involves ecology.

 

My assumption was and still is, should everything remain as is(which is near impossible due to our constant abuse of the ecology, etc) there won't be an evolution which would affect most or the entire species of humans.

Firstly you're still talking about evolution as a mechanism, which it's not.

 

Let's take a freeze frame of the world as it is now, and assume it goes on the same for the next million years. That's time enough for thousands of plagues to force selection on humans, time enough for dozens of catastophic events like comet-strike, time enough for our intensive agriculture and animal husbandry to drive some of our staple foods extinct, time enough for Western civilisation to speciate along the rich/poor or intelligent/stupid axes, time enough for global population to speciate along the resource-hoggers/nomadic hunter-scavenger axis... I could go on.

 

You can't rule out any form of selective pressure in the future even if you're setting the stage yourself; it's just not predictable.

 

Very true. But as the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", right?

So if there is no need for us as a species to evolve, then we can continue at the current rate either indefinently or 'till something happens.

That's not how it works.

 

Intraspecific competition forces ongoing selective pressure for individuals to become more efficient at (i) passing on genetic material and (ii) fixing biomass, in that order.

Even in a population with stable growth and consumption rates, intraspecific ecology means that natural selection will still continue. It doesn't stop and start when 'something happens', it's always happening. Also bear in mind that selection is not the only cause of evolutionary change.

 

Which again could have been facilitated as a need due to their change of nutrition.

Not really; sharks have been munching whatever passes in front of them for eons.

[admiral_ju00]

I'd leave HW dynamics to discussions on evolutionary genetics tbh. It's not that useful in predicting anything that involves ecology.

 

 

Firstly you're still talking about evolution as a mechanism' date=' which it's not.[/quote']

Indeed.

 

Let's take a freeze frame of the world as it is now, and assume it goes on the same for the next million years. That's time enough for thousands of plagues to force selection on humans, time enough for dozens of catastophic events like comet-strike, time enough for our intensive agriculture and animal husbandry to drive some of our staple foods extinct, time enough for Western civilisation to speciate along the rich/poor or intelligent/stupid axes, time enough for global population to speciate along the resource-hoggers/nomadic hunter-scavenger axis... I could go on.

 

You can't rule out any form of selective pressure in the future even if you're setting the stage yourself; it's just not predictable.

 

Isn't this, precisely what I was talking about? Something will facilitate our need to evolve beyound what we are today, aka: any of your above examples would suffice. Other then that, Individual variation will continue, while the overall species will remain the same. If there is no such agent which will push our need to evolve further then we may simply continue at the current rates.

[Sayonara]

So what you're saying is "if evolution happens, it'll happen. If it doesn't, then it won't."

 

?

[admiral_ju00]

So what you're saying is "if evolution happens' date=' it'll happen. If it doesn't, then it won't."

 

?[/quote']

 

edit:

partially, well not exactly.

i'm saying that in order for all of the members of an entire species(in this case the homo sapiens) to evolve to the next level, something must change in the environment, where the current (genetic)traits,habits,behavior,etc will make it detrimental to the suits of the new environment.

 

 

or taking the above said, out of scientific lingo/practices/theories,etc and puttin' it in a more archaic and perhaps even unorthodox way, i'm simply saying that there must be a justifiable reason for our evolution to the next level as an entire species.

[Sayonara]

For a species like us, that kind of evolution is merely time-dependent (mainly because of all the factors that make us such a strange species, but also because of the fact that we can migrate more readily than most species.)

 

I don't see though how you can objectify what the 'next level' is.

[admiral_ju00]

For a species like us' date=' that kind of evolution is merely time-dependent (mainly because of all the factors that make us such a strange species, but also because of the fact that we can migrate more readily than most species.)

 

[/quote']

 

migration, does not, can not produce significant contributions to the gene pool, unless ofcourse people will engage in very selective mating thereby ensuring that they are contributing their genes and carrying these selected phenological or morphological traits to the next generation to generation to generation, etc. more or less, becomming members of one, huge family where the frequency of desired traits have more or less an equal chance of being expressed or is very favorable to be expressed amongst all of the members.

[Sayonara]

Migration is key to both adaptive and population radiation. That makes it key to survival for all species.

 

I'm not saying it's more important than any other factors in particular; I just separated it out in the parenthesis above because I don't think that (as a function) it can really be grouped with the factors that make our species so unusual.

 

I think you're completely disregarding the role of divergance, which is odd because you put the words 'adaptive radiation' in bold in an earlier post so you must realise the significance.

[admiral_ju00]

I think you're completely disregarding the role of divergance' date=' which is odd because you put the words 'adaptive radiation' in bold in an earlier post so you must realise the significance.[/quote']

 

edit:

forgive me all, it's late and i'm tired, hence the many-a-typos

 

lol, i was waitin' on you to make such point.

and no, i do not leave it out of consideration, never did.

[Sayonara]

I'll assume you kept it in mind for humans as regards your "things staying the same" scenario, but did you take into account that other species will always be diverging too, which changes the pressures for everything in their ecology?

[admiral_ju00]

yes.