XD he's our resident demon butcher, Robin Obsessed, Dr Who Lover. ask him about Cyber-Robin. :3
No, Mister, definitely not.
Evolution?
-
-
I think that raj is correct.
-
I think that raj is correct.
But cars are the origin of evil. Or, maybe they are not.
-
Wow.
Um… Wow.
There are so many misconceptions about evolution here I don't even know where to begin.
The question itself confuses me, though, because evolution can be seen as a relative thing. Could I trouble the people debating to give me their definitions of evolution? I ask just because I think people are imagining much closer to the exaggerated Pokemon version instead of what is real.
-
**When an animal gives birth all their genetic information gets passed on to the offspring. This creates extremely small changes. Overtime, these changes gather up and eventually the species is changed.
At least, that's how I see it. am I wrong?**
-
Actually, I meant the human race evolving a bit sooner.
You know, in a decade or so.
That's going to require so many Rare Candies, it's not even funny.
Seriously, though, human evolution may occur sometime. But not in the range of decades. However; if I wake up with wings tomorrow, I'll accept your theory.
-
When an animal gives birth all their genetic information gets passed on to the offspring. This creates extremely small changes. Overtime, these changes gather up and eventually the species is changed.
At least, that's how I see it. am I wrong?
What you're describing is a bit like genetic variation and accumulation of genetic mutation, with a couple mistakes that you may actually realize are there and are not even bothering to put up due to their obviousness and/or simplicity. My point is that our species is constantly changing bit by bit, with frequencies of different traits fluctuating in very small levels over the course of time. My question to you is how much would you suggest there must be of change within the genetics of a species before it has officially evolved into another species? The definition of a species is, after all, any group of organisms that can breed and produce healthy and fertile offspring with each other. In this day and age, humans are always so close to each other all over the world that our genes will not likely be seperated long enough for us to part enough so that we can not breed with one another, so that rules out us testing this that way. Therefore, I repeat my question: how different must we be from "regular" humans before we have "evolved"?
-
Therefore, I repeat my question: how different must we be from "regular" humans before we have "evolved"?
What´s it mean to be human, anyway? yadda, yadda
-
We have already evolved quite a bit even during the last 50 years. People these days are much taller than they used to be back then for example. Because of our environment people are also getting fattier. I read from somewhere that the future human is predicted be much taller, slimmer and have a longer/bigger head, (for bigger brain) since thats the evolution our way of life supports. On the other hand, we could all develop into Jabba The Hutt… but gills? No.
-
That's using a really broad definition of evolved I think. That's not humankind genetically changing, but more us changing due to gross lifestyle changes
This is just my view on human adaptation and the like, but it seems to me that humans minds are developing to quickly for our bodies to catch up. I.e, we create new medicines that can keep people alive longer, but our bodies haven't "evolved" to the point of being able to live for 90+ years (at least in decent health anyway), hence Alzheimer's and the like.
-
Why…why did I even click on this thread?
Wow.
Um… Wow.
There are so many misconceptions about evolution [edit] and basic chemistry/astronomy/geology [/edit] here I don't even know where to begin.
What they said.
-
@Le:
if someone were to say they didn't know everything about evolution, they should try not to make outrageous claims that we evolve in a decade just because we don't grow fur in the winter.
You really need to read the whole thread. So go do that now.
The reason I said that was because the human race has already been around for a long time, and evolution takes a long time, doesn't it?
-
so evolution, is when a pokemon needs to get to level 200 to change, cause that takes a long time, and then poof, they magicly change? so; if we haven't changed for a really long time, I'm gonna wake up some day with…oh, lets say a tail. i've always wanted a tail.
dude, le lawleit does not need to read the whole thread to point out your misconseptions about evolution. change is always occuring, but very very minutely. so by the time we can be considdered evolved, no one will notice, becasue it will be so gradual. The only way we will be able to tell is by looking at the past.
in fact, didn't we already evolve or something. i thought i read somewhere, that we are no longer homo erectus, but homo homo erectus, or something like that. (i could be wrong though)
-
Currently we are Homo Sapiens, though some people once argued we were "sapiens sapiens", because we are now T3H uber smart, instead of just regular smart.
I don't think were there yet, but I bet sapiens sapiens as more likely than gills or wings…simply because they fall outside or conception of beauty. I sure wouldn't be turned on if my girlfriend was scaly and had webs in odd places.
Honestly, with our sexual preferences these days, "evoution" will be taller, more intelligent and overall "beautiful" people. -
Honestly, with our sexual preferences these days, "evoution" will be taller, more intelligent and overall "beautiful" people.
Also, we could try to speed up the evolution by killing all small, unintelligent and overall ugly people.
-
@The:
Honestly, with our sexual preferences these days, "evoution" will be taller, more intelligent and overall "beautiful" people.
Seriously, there was a newspaper article I read last year (and lost it…:/) that says exactly the same thing. Apparently someone has recently developed this theory that in about a thousand year or less, mankind would have reached its peak, with all the physical attributes that we commonly think to be "the best". That means tall, muscular, well-defined jawline and what not. Also, our skin will be collectively brown/beige because of inter-racial mixing (I think that's the term). But after that, it's hypothesized that because of our extreme dependency on technology in the future, our physique will start to decline. Basically, our posture will be a permanent slouch, with weaker muscles. Alongside that, our capacity for human contact and emotions, such as empathy and compassion, will lessen.
-
Technology > Evolution
Soulless Machines > Living beingsBring on the Cyborgification!
-
Humans with friggin' laser beams attached to their heads!
-
Who doesn´t like laser beams?
-
Humans with friggin' laser beams attached to their heads!
Cybermen….
Personally I do believe that we will end up becoming more machine than human at some point, well, the people who can afford it can, people who cannot will end up prejudiced against by the new Cyber race, while the Cybers forcefully convert their offspring into baby Cybers, improving their eyesight and such through spare part surgery.
-
Ancient Egyptians already had laser beams, sheesh.
-
I have nothing better to do right now, so I'm just going to destroy this notion and go do something else. kthxbbai
I'll assume that something is considered "evolved" by the people here when macroevolution has occured, which is the evolution of important or significant traits (such as the long neck of a giraffe, opposable thumbs, etc.).
First off, the idea that just because we haven't evolved in the past millions of years means we're "bound to any day now" doesn't work. Gambler's logic does not apply to evolution, sorry. If we were suddenly flooded higher than our skyscrapers, we would drown. We would not miraculously grow gills, and our children would not be born with gills and fins. The only way anything even close to this coudl happen would be if all society crumbled and everyone was fighting for food above-ground. Then, any humans that could swim particularly well would be able to use the food underwater, as there would be no competition. If they then seperated genetically from the land-eaters completely, it is conceivable that over MILLIONS OF YEARS the very best of the swimmers and breath-holders would become a marine or amphibious race, but it would be most likely that we would just be like dolphins and whales and keep our lungs. The odds of evolution recreating the gill are astranomical and not even worth considering. Evolution works under the premise "whatever works, works" - if there is another alternative to gills accidentally acheived through millions of years of evolution, there's no reason not to use it. Evolution is NOT, I repeat, NOT goal-oriented! It did not start out seeking to create specifically the gill, the lung, the human, the sea lamprey, or the mudshark! It just so happened over millions of years that these models just so happened to work, no more, no less.
Another thing to consider is society's place in evolution. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which states that organisms possessing genes that help its chances on surviving long enough to reproduce and pass those genes onto the next generation. This means that competition is necessary for it to happen, as there must be a reason that those with genes that are not as effective do not live long enough to reproduce (competition for food, to not be eaten, for shelter, for nutrients, for a mate, etc.). In our society, you do not need to be a good hunter to get food, or a good builder to have shelter. Hell, thanks to things like welfare and homeless shelters, you don't need to be good at anything or even need to be lucky to be able to survive. Because of this, our gene pool stays pretty open, without any particular genes being weeded out. Even deadly genetic diseases such as Alzheimer's won't be weeded out, as they usually only appear after the victim has reproduced. This would certainly hinder evolution from happening within us. It does not destroy the chance, of course; such a thought is pretty pompous and self-serving. The future could bring anything.
Finally, just a little thing: sexual preferences actually have a huge amount to do with evolution. One with genes that tell him or her to find certain traits in the other sex sexy is more likely to produce healthy offspring that will themselves reproduce. For example, most men like an hourglass shape of woman. Large breasts are good for breastfeeding many children, and wide hips are good for childbearing. Women like broad-shouldered men with other "manly" traits. Such traits require large amounts of testosterone to be formed, and testosterone comprimises the immune system, so anything that can afford to expend so much of their immune system on testosterone must have an incredible immune system. Even these basic preferences are changing now, however, because with such incredible medicine even the least-suitable couples for reproduction can most likely produce a healthy child.
-
applauds loudly
You win this thread. And my geeky heart
-
Another thing to consider is society's place in evolution. The mechanism of evolution is natural selection, which states that organisms possessing genes that help its chances on surviving long enough to reproduce and pass those genes onto the next generation. This means that competition is necessary for it to happen, as there must be a reason that those with genes that are not as effective do not live long enough to reproduce (competition for food, to not be eaten, for shelter, for nutrients, for a mate, etc.). In our society, you do not need to be a good hunter to get food, or a good builder to have shelter. Hell, thanks to things like welfare and homeless shelters, you don't need to be good at anything or even need to be lucky to be able to survive. Because of this, our gene pool stays pretty open, without any particular genes being weeded out.
ok, wow, i never even thought of this before. Sounds like if anything, we're gonna "de-evolve" into crappy humans or something. that is kind of scary to think of.
-
God created man and he created apes not man-apes
the bigot who thinks being an asshole is actually worth shit
-
@Cap'n:
God created man and he created apes not man-apes
Science says no.
-
Cowmakaze – Thank you. While I ended up dropping my minor in biology, I definitely took enough classes in it over the past few years to know the basics of evolution. And as someone who has some comprehension of the way it (and biology in general) works, wow, does this thread ever make me want to die.
-
I am homo superior
the bigot who thinks being an asshole is actually worth shit
-
"lol homo? r u some kind of fag?"
-
The theory that Global Warming would kill us is impossible.
Global Warming has always been there, but Humans sped it up with pollution. Thus we'd enter an Ice Age before we'd fry.
And humans aren't removed from anything. We are still evolving.
