Does man kind destroy himself by changing his own evolutionary process?

[Sayonara]

It can depend on the context, but it's usually taken to mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[YT2095]

Charz

 

i just wondered because in order to answer the top question, IF we were to evolve into say Homo Technologicus or something, and Homo sapiens were all "gone" so to speak, could it be considered as "mankind" destroying itself by changing his evolutionary proccess. but I don`t think it`s a very good answer really, still to many definitions outstanding I guess

[Sayonara]

"Out with the old, in with the new" is a constant theme in evolution wherever true divergence doesn't occur - doesn't matter what the method is, just the result.

 

If that helps...?

[YT2095]

yeah, I guess by then, Homo Technologicus (best I could think of for a name LOL) would then become the new "mankind" and so it continues

 

I still recon our ability to consume vast amounts of pollution will become "as standard" for the New Mankind, it`s an interesting thought, sort of a pity at the same time though.

[Radical Edward]

it would probably be homo sapiens technologicus or something (since there would still be homo sapiens around). nested hierarchies and all that. actually there is already at least one human group on the verge of speciation (the !kung tribe)

[-Demosthenes-]

If you sit in a confortable chair or wear shoes it and you never reproduce you had NO affect of the evolution of the species no matter how many confortable chairs you sit on or new shoes you wear, like suggested in the first post.

What I think is that we are not evolving at all. Thanks to medical science mostly everyone lives. Maybe not all of them reproduce, but not much changes. The only possible evolution process that could happen would be:

Only the most attractive people reproduce, so our species turns into a race of beautiful people! But thats about it.

[Sayonara]

If that were the case we'd have seen the results a long time ago.

[-Demosthenes-]

It was a joke. Besides how do we know that we don't look better than people did 500 years ago. If we did, it would be very small. Because it only happened in 500 years. People have evolved smaller jaws exclusively because people find it more attractive. That is a fact, not mumbo-jumbo!

[Sayonara]

People have smaller jaws because of selective pressure due to significant changes in our diet and the way we prepare food.

 

What you want is some evidence.

[jadote]

EinsteinTheory said in post #31 :

Only the most attractive people reproduce, so our species turns into a race of beautiful people!

 

 

 

This is news to me.

 

 

If you were correct in this statement, the future of mankind would be very bleak indeed, as many times beauty and intelligence are in inverse proportion (at least in today's standard of beauty).

 

No two same people hold the same concept of beauty, so calculating a person's chance of reproduction by physical appearance would be very difficult.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well said. Ever heard of "dumb blondes"? They may look good, but they may not be intelligent.

If that was true, we surely wouldn't have 6 billion people on this planet. There aren't very many good looking people.

[Sayonara]

If all blondes looked good, everybody would have one.

[Skye]

They don't? Poor bastards.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm assuming you have one, then.

[rockstarjaiden]

i'm not blonde and im darn good lookin...black hair kicks blond hairs tail!

[YT2095]

the only reason Blondes have more fun (allegedly) is `cause ya can see em in the dark

 

anyway, where`s this thread going?

 

"If you sit in a confortable chair or wear shoes it and you never reproduce you had NO affect of the evolution of the species no matter how many confortable chairs you sit on or new shoes you wear"

 

I disagree somewhat with that, surely each and everyone of us has some influence on future events, no matter how small or if we reproduce or not, evolution althought taken largely to mean Physical advancment or change, may also include Educational or mental advancement, I`m sure if Einstein had never reproduced (did he or not? I dunno?) we wouldn`t be any further backwards than we are now, or maybe bill gates *spit* even.

and so it`s not ALL about having offspring as I see it

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We all have an effect, even if it is not genetic.

[Sayonara]

Not reproducing can have as much effect on a species as reproducing can.

[YT2095]

YT2095 rests his case

[Sayonara]

That could have consequences for the evolution of this debate, YT

[Daniel]

I think the more concerning thing is how society helps the weakest to survive (well this is the definition of society), and allows them to breed. Technology has changed the selection pressures humans face. Not many humans have to deal with deadly heat or cold, naked. We can use antibiotics to fight dangerous bacterias. We use guns to shoot dangerous wild animals etc. etc. etc.

 

But there is no such thing as a better way to evolve. The "best" way to evolve is to survive. If it means that we lost our intelligence but gain super immune systems to combat high levels of bacteria in the atmosphere, then this is what is the best way, for that time of course.

 

The poorer classes outbreed the richer classes. If it is true that the majority of the poor are of less intelligence, then our species is also getting less intelligent.

 

We do look a lot better than our far ancestors. Believe me. Think of the humans who were around when the neanderthals were around. I doubt they could be made to look attractive.

[Radical Edward]

The poorer classes outbreed the richer classes. If it is true that the majority of the poor are of less intelligence' date=' then our species is also getting less intelligent.

[/quote']

this is a fallacious argument, especially given that in the 19th century and earlier, everyone pretty much was poor.

We do look a lot better than our far ancestors. Believe me. Think of the humans who were around when the neanderthals were around. I doubt they could be made to look attractive.

they would probably think we are ugly - remember evolution has shaped you to think that humans are pretty. It'S about the same reason that chimps don't lust after Nicole Kidman - evolution has shaped their brains to think that other chimps are desirable.

[mooeypoo]

I didn't mean our appearances though, I meant our destruction-behaviour.

 

The fact we're creating polution --> creates holes in the ozon layer --> changes atmosphere and radiation --> changes our evolutionary system

 

The fact we're eating junk --> our stomache might adapt to such foods --> changes our evolutionary system

 

The fact we're barely WALKING anywhere -- we're using transportation, and sit near a computer and tv without moving much --> our legs might get "shorter" / hands longer / fingers changed... --> changes our evolutionary system

 

 

My question is -- do you think it's WISE of us? and do you htink this would come to "bite us in the ass" in the future? It *is* said that nature creates balance, whether we want it or not...

 

What do you think?

 

~moo

[Ms. DNA]

I think our behavior and enviroment change faster than evolution can keep up. For instance, we developed a taste for sweet foods when they were relatively rare in the enviromnet, but we sought them out because they were a good source of energy. Today sugary foods are all over the place, to the point where it's easy to become overweight or develop other health issues. It would actually be better for us if we didn't crave sweets so much, but humanity's sweet tooth hasn't gone away. And unless poor eating habits suddenly create such big health problems that we die young or have trouble reproducing, I doubt we'll evolve a genetic solution. So we'll have to rely on behavioral solutions for the problems our behavior gets us into.

 

 

I didn't mean our appearances though' date=' I meant our destruction-behaviour.

 

The fact we're creating polution --> creates holes in the ozon layer --> changes atmosphere and radiation --> changes our evolutionary system

 

The fact we're eating junk --> our stomache might adapt to such foods --> changes our evolutionary system

 

The fact we're barely WALKING anywhere -- we're using transportation, and sit near a computer and tv without moving much --> our legs might get "shorter" / hands longer / fingers changed... --> changes our evolutionary system

 

 

My question is -- do you think it's WISE of us? and do you htink this would come to "bite us in the ass" in the future? It *is* said that nature creates balance, whether we want it or not...

 

What do you think?

 

~moo[/quote']

[Daniel]

"this is a fallacious argument, especially given that in the 19th century and earlier, everyone pretty much was poor."

 

Not necessarily. The poor back then were poor because of other circumstances. The poor today have more self determination. The general trend remains though, that poorer people usually have more kids.

 

Then again, it could be a chicken and egg argument. Are they poor because they have more kids, or do they have more kids because they are poor ? Same goes with the intelligence issue. Are they poor because they lack intelligence, or do they lack intelligence because they are poor ?

 

However smart people don't always have smart kids, and vice versa.

Speaking of which, have they even determined the relationship between intelligence and genes ?

 

"they would probably think we are ugly - remember evolution has shaped you to think that humans are pretty. It'S about the same reason that chimps don't lust after Nicole Kidman - evolution has shaped their brains to think that other chimps are desirable."

 

Hmm, I don't know if we can speculate on that. If they were choosing features which were attractive to them, they it could be argued that the average human today has a lot of the attractive features the people back then were looking for. But this is all speculation.