Stephen Hawking: "Humans Have Entered a New Stage of Evolution"

--amadeus--

An incredible man with an incredible intelligence. Very interesting article with a totally different perspective on evolution here

karlog

genius need i say more

aoibhebree

That's really interesting, it makes a lot of sense. We're the first generation whose actions will make an real impact on our evolution.

Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression."

Lots of ethical issues involved with this obviously!

article

I can in no way doubt the genius of Hawking, but I feel that the author of this article has taken some of Hawking's ideas from several of his books and just used them to selectively reinforce his own ideas.

I've a few issues with the article.

article wrote:

Although It has taken homo sapiens several million years to evolve from the apes

That's very misleading; I hope that's an error on the author of the article's part, and not on Hawking.

Homo sapiens are apes, though. Homo sapiens belong to the same family as other higher primates. We -- homosapiens, chimpanzees, bonobos etc. -- evolved from a common ancestor, we didn't evolve from apes.

article wrote:

At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years

We're still under the influence of natural selection. Simply because we've become intelligent doesn't mean that natural selection no longer takes place on our species. It may not be as dominant is it once was, but it is certainly still taking place. Random mutations are still present, thus natural selection is still present.

article wrote:

I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race

I'd be inclined to disagree. I personally take evolution to mean, basically, the none random survival of random mutations.

The above idea is tied to the concept of memes. Memes are cultural/informative etc. units that are transmitted from one person to another by none genetic means, thus influencing our evolution. They aren't predominantly scientifically accepted; they're pretty much ignored in the social sciences. I'm open to the idea, though.

article wrote:

Some people would use the term, evolution, only for the internally transmitted genetic material

Again, similar to the above, that's pretty much the current definition of evolution.

article wrote:

But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA.

That may very well be true, but that doesn't mean the natural evolutionary forces will cease to "force" themselves upon us, as the article implies.

(But, of course, I'm no biologist.:))

A Neurotic

-JammyDodger- wrote:

We're still under the influence of natural selection. Simply because we've become intelligent doesn't mean that natural selection no longer takes place on our species. It may not be as dominant is it once was, but it is certainly still taking place. Random mutations are still present, thus natural selection is still present.

Maybe Hawking is suggesting that "survival of the fittest" is negligible in modern times. In civilised society (housing, health care, purchase and consumption of food (as opposed to hunting or whathaveyou), etc), can a random mutation confer a real advantage on a human that will ever be the difference between life & death?

Or maybe I have no idea what I'm talking about and shouldn't click that "post quick reply" button :pac:

A Neurotic

A Neurotic wrote: »

Maybe Hawking is suggesting that "survival of the fittest" is negligible in modern times. In civilised society (housing, health care, purchase and consumption of food (as opposed to hunting or whathaveyou), etc), can a random mutation confer a real advantage on a human that will ever be the difference between life & death?

Yah, you're right. Natural Selection doesn't play as large a role on modern humans as it does on, say, a wild animal. But, it's still present. As long as genetic mutations are occuring, natural forces will be acting on our species. The naturally selective forces are still there, but they might just be acting from different angles (as natural selection is an adaptive force; i.e. it's different for various climates, conditions etc.).

The article, to me anyway, implies that Natural Selection is no longer acting on our species.

devereaux17

who would trust a guy in a wheelchair? not me anyway.

devereaux17

devereaux17 wrote: »

who would trust a guy in a wheelchair? not me anyway.

If you've nothing constructive to add, don't add anything at all. You've received a red card and a 2 day ban for that remark.

Anything else like that again and the ban will be a lot longer.

--amadeus--

There is evidence of adaptation in humans - many adolcents and teenagers for example will ring a doorbell with thier thumbs rather than forefinger (as older people would). The reason seems to be that texting and games consoles have left young people with stronger thumbs that they are more adept with (and therefore more likely to use). Obviously this isn't at the genetic level but it's not hard to see how - over generations - the valued traits selected for will change on a subconcious level. For example 20 years ago all the schoolgirls might have fancied the captain of teh football team or teh lad who plays guitar. Now it's just as likely to be the one who gets the best score in a computer game. If that carries through to adulthood and breeding then we will be selecting on things like hand eye corordination and ability to process complex information at speed rather than (for example) physical strength and dexterity. And - in an increasingly electronic world - physical strength and dexterity are less important than cordination and information processing. As a species we would have selected on teh basis of physical apperance in the past so plastic surgery gives genetic "losers" the chance to "win" - again a shifting of our natural breeding priorities away from the physical balances that out quite neatly.

So maybe we aren't as smart as we like to think

Also I found the concept that we are the first specis to pass on information across generations without DNA to be interesting.

hotspur

I agree that Hawking isn't discussing evolution as we ordinarily conceive of it, I think it's fine and interesting to discuss what he is discussing but I too prefer not to use the term evolution for it merely because so many people misunderstand the fundamental mechanisms of evolution.

The problem in thinking about current human evolution and natural or sexual selection is that genetic biological fitness is now very difficult to determine. Because of technological, socio-economic, and cultural factors there is now surely little correlation between genetic makeup and actual propagation of genes.

I mean what genetic traits would confer a biological fitness advantage among modern humans in, say, Western society? We are unique as a species in that our fitness in respect of surviving and thriving in terms of resources is no longer necessarily followed by an increase in the number of offspring we successfully produce. New genetic traits have no possibility of evolving in a wider sense if there is this disconnect between genes and offspring produced.

Also modern medicine and social welfare result in almost every individual having equal chance to propagate their genes. There may be an advantage in respect of where you are born relative to another part of the world, as third world rates of birth (such as in Africa) are so much higher than in the West, but this is not genetic biological fitness per se and these rates are dropping in the third world due to the increase in birth control.

There really is no current possibility of the evolution of new traits among humans as a whole or even among large geographical parts. Unless something such as a global epidemic pathogen which kills people quickly emerges and there exists or comes to exist some who have a genetic resistance to it then I really don't see how human evolution can continue in the foreseeable future.

LouOB

But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA

Quote from script above

I havent read other posters just yet
But just want to get this point in while fresh in the grey matter

In ref to above - shouldnt we recognise a stage of evolution by acknowledging that we can change our DNA? That we have reached a stage of such growth (dont have proper word for growth in our spectrum of higher learning as beings)
Hence, the production of the study or result of change i.e. a person born under this engineering - would be a different race? or another stage of evolution? as they come from a branch of homo sapiens??!

As you can tell I am not that educated in the teachings of Hawkings or evolution (or science for that matter)

LouOB

Also, re Hawking last paragraph
If at present he current thinks we as a species will travel intergalatically after the next level of evolution - why would we assume they would have same intellligence or train of though?
If they will be engineered (intelliegently speaking) hence they will not have the same taught patterns

johnnyskeleton

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

We're still under the influence of natural selection. Simply because we've become intelligent doesn't mean that natural selection no longer takes place on our species. It may not be as dominant is it once was, but it is certainly still taking place. Random mutations are still present, thus natural selection is still present.

I'd agree with that, and also the author seems not to grasp one of the more important aspects of evolution - that genetic throwbacks survive on the off chance that they are needed again. Humans will always retain the capacity for violence and dissent, if only because without these powerful and destructive tendencies we wouldn't have survived thus far. So like it or not, as much as it is academically pleasing to think that we will someday be complete pacifists living with unity of purpose, practically it will always be a case of fight or die.

johnnyskeleton

A Neurotic wrote: »

Maybe Hawking is suggesting that "survival of the fittest" is negligible in modern times. In civilised society (housing, health care, purchase and consumption of food (as opposed to hunting or whathaveyou), etc), can a random mutation confer a real advantage on a human that will ever be the difference between life & death?

But it is times of peace and prosperity that we see genetic divergence. During hard times there are only a few traits that are important to survival but during times of plenty a multitude of traits manifest themselves and develop. A cycle of good and bad times ensures that there is sufficient variety but also that only the best varieties will survive.

devereaux17 wrote: »

who would trust a guy in a wheelchair? not me anyway.

While I realise that this poster got an infracting for saying this in such a terse way, there is a kernel of truth to what he is saying, in that the likes of Stephen Hawking might not have developed such insight into their areas of expertise unless they were somehow physically or socially impaired. It could be argued that he was just a fairly medeocre student until his condition worsened and, physically unable to participate in fairly ordinary activities, his mind focussed on theoretical physics. If anything, you could say that it's pure darwinism - he was forced to adapt to his circumstances and he adapted just as well as any top athlete, celebrity or politican in that he played the hand he was dealt and won.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

For example 20 years ago all the schoolgirls might have fancied the captain of teh football team or teh lad who plays guitar. Now it's just as likely to be the one who gets the best score in a computer game. If that carries through to adulthood and breeding then we will be selecting on things like hand eye corordination and ability to process complex information at speed rather than (for example) physical strength and dexterity.

Just to be clear, whereas (in this analogy) before phsycial strength and/or dexterity were the dominant traits, now it is strength dexterity and ability to process complex information at speed. And while the latter might even have become more important than the former two, it is fundamental that the former two will still survive just in case they are needed. So what is happening is that we see a multipilicity of traits, so that as a species we will survive no matter what comes our way. If space aliens invaded earth (as an analogy for some unforseen threat) and they were stronger / more dextrous or more efficient at processing complex information we would have the advantage of the other two traits, whereas if we were only specialised in one, we would be vulnerable to anyone who could beat us on that trait alone.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Also I found the concept that we are the first specis to pass on information across generations without DNA to be interesting.

Surely that's not true in that most species are capable of learning from others of their kind? It sounds like a load of hokum.

Prof.Badass

we will probably reach out to the stars and colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life.

I dissagree with this statement. By the time we have engineered robots as intelligent as humans are now we'll have engineered humans that are vastly more intelligent than those robots. For the forseeable future enhanced human brains will always be 100 steps ahead of robotic brains.

While i agree that it is possible that conciousness may be transferred completely to machines, i do not see it as the absolute certainty hawking seems to think it is.

Rather, i think a computer-brain interface where we have the best of both worlds is much more likely.

asdasd

As long as genetic mutations are occuring, natural forces will be acting on our species

For the genetic evolution to be sucesful it has to allow the recipient to produce more children than otherwise, and so on. So it spreads ( there is another mechanism called drift, but it is way slower).

In terms of how we are evolving at the moment, I think we are clearly dysgenic.

CerebralCortex

asdasd wrote: »

For the genetic evolution to be sucesful it has to allow the recipient to produce more children than otherwise, and so on. So it spreads ( there is another mechanism called drift, but it is way slower).

In terms of how we are evolving at the moment, I think we are clearly dysgenic.

Of course thats why there is only 6.2 billion of us and growing!!