thisismyusername Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 Hey guys, new here and just had I thought I've been curious about. Does anyone believe that our brains can one day evolve to pick up electronic signals. To the point where we could possibly communicate by radio essentially. Pretty random I know, I just like to always think about crazy things. Thanks for any thoughts or comments!
Kysa Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 The goverment would sue such people before such trait could evolve.
CarbonCopy Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I think tech would get there way before biology and nature could get us there. But, in the future we will be a really weird species ( i.e., if we didn't kill ourselves ).
Ringer Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 In the broadest sense we already do that with our eyes, radio waves are just lower energy. But in he way you are describing it, that type of adaptation is very unlikely. There is no selection pressure pushing towards that type of communication, and if the trait was developed people would probably believe the individual is severely mentally ill and lower that individual's odds of passing on the trait.
Phi for All Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I think tech would get there way before biology and nature could get us there.I agree. For a trait to be passed along, it has to give evolutionary advantage that allows for better survival to reproduction. I'm not sure what would happen to a person who started picking up radio signals via their brain, but if the government found out about it I think reproduction would be the last thing on that person's mind. Much more likely that we develop an implant. This would happen much more quickly than the generational time scale evolution uses.
Moontanman Posted January 3, 2013 Posted January 3, 2013 I agree, i think this is more likely to happen in our future than biological evolution of such traits... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZvfW4sFp3M
iNow Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Lol, moontanman... Much more likely, IMO we will use the tech currently being developed in support of prosthetic limbs to enable communication... A bit like a smartphone without the device, just a chip interfacing with the nervous system. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50137987n
too-open-minded Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Our brains being able to perceive radiowaves? that would be cool. I think that certain parts of the limbic system, the amygdala in particular will change. The limbic system is basically where our emotions come from, I think the parts of our limbic system that produce the chemical endorphins which make us angry and scared will shrink or be less concentrated. Before we see our brains picking up radio waves atleast.
Arete Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 At least according to long term results from the Framingham heart study: Humans are evolving to be shorter Humans are evolving to be stouter Humans are evolving to have lower systolic blood pressure Humans are evolving to have lower HDL cholestorol Humans are evolving to have their first child younger Humans are evolving to start menopause later. http://www.pnas.org/...pl.1/1787.short
jp255 Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) At least according to long term results from the Framingham heart study: Humans are evolving to be shorter Humans are evolving to be stouter Humans are evolving to have lower systolic blood pressure Humans are evolving to have lower HDL cholestorol Humans are evolving to have their first child younger Humans are evolving to start menopause later. http://www.pnas.org/...pl.1/1787.short Thanks for that link. I wasn't aware of studies reporting evolutionary changes. It wasn't surprising that many of those traits had significant linear selection, since survival to reproductive age is likely. That individuals with lower total cholesterol, for example, had higher long term reproductive sucess, on average. So reproductive sucess is an extremely important factor when considering future human evolution. Edited January 16, 2013 by jp255
JohnCli Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 We evolve because we need to and not because we want to... Say...why did a certain species of cave lizards lose skin pigment? they didn't need it anymore cause they see,feel, experience light anymore...oh and they lost there eyes.Giant Salamanders have Electrical Receptors on there skin cause they needed it to survive (they also live in caves)And now our species are evolving Ecuadorian Genetic Mutants are immune to cancer...why? cause cancer is disease that we humans need to adapt toso why do we need radio waves to communicate?our bodies take out unnecessary abilities that we don't need ex: If we don't intake Lactose (dairy products) then we will develop lactose intolerance cause our body said "we don't need this anymore" so it forgets how to process it. getehpicture? I agree, i think this is more likely to happen in our future than biological evolution of such traits... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZvfW4sFp3M EPICNESS Agreed...Technology is faster but nature has more quality...Father Tech is AWESOME but Mother Nature's better Cancer...never found a cure so Motha nature gave us immunity xD -1
Arete Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) and now our species are evolving Ecuadorian Genetic Mutants are immune to cancer...why? cause cancer is disease that we humans need to adapt to... Err citation please... First: most cancers do not cause mortaility in humans until after their reproductive potential has been met (e.g. average first-time mother age in the US is 25 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf). As a result, evolutionary pressures will not select for "immunity". Only cancers which cause significant mortality BEFORE reproductive potential has been met have the possibility to be exposed to selection pressure. Second, tumor supression (the most commonly cited form of cancer "immunity") comes with several, significant trade offs, such as early aging, lower fecundity and reduced tissue repair capacity: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534705002284 as such, cancers with a low rate of pre-reproductive mortality in a population will not be selected against heavily enough to cause allele frequency changes, if their negative consequences are an equal or greater limit to fecundity as that mortaility rate. Third, a cursory literature search doesn't support your claim. Edited January 16, 2013 by Arete
JohnCli Posted January 16, 2013 Posted January 16, 2013 Err citation please... First: most cancers do not cause mortaility in humans until after their reproductive potential has been met (e.g. average first-time mother age in the US is 25 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db21.pdf). As a result, evolutionary pressures will not select for "immunity". Only cancers which cause significant mortality BEFORE reproductive potential has been met have the possibility to be exposed to selection pressure. Second, tumor supression (the most commonly cited form of cancer "immunity") comes with several, significant trade offs, such as early aging, lower fecundity and reduced tissue repair capacity: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534705002284 as such, cancers with a low rate of pre-reproductive mortality in a population will not be selected against heavily enough to cause allele frequency changes, if their negative consequences are an equal or greater limit to fecundity as that mortaility rate. Third, a cursory literature search doesn't support your claim. thanks for the citation. Guess am just good at Physics and tech thanks man
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now