Evolution.

RobD_

Can people evolve any further ?

What would a person look like if they did evolve any further ?

Cheers people.

locum-motion

RobD_ wrote: »

Can people evolve any further ?

What would a person look like if they did evolve any further ?

Cheers people.

Well, I'm more evolved than you.

RobD_

locum-motion wrote: »

Well, I'm more evolved than you.

i have over 450 posts and 2 stars on my other account... but im not using it anymore.


but guys , please give the answer your best shot.

feel free to posts pics of what you think they might look like too.

cheers

Turtwig

I believe we can.
Doesn't neurology suggest that the ways our brain are wired nowadays was useful for the 'flight or fight' response needed thousands of years ago but today that FOF is more often than not a hindrance?
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples like this..:)

nyarlothothep

they'd look like salamanders

locum-motion

RobD_ wrote: »

i have over 450 posts and 2 stars on my other account... but im not using it anymore.


but guys , please give the answer your best shot.

feel free to posts pics of what you think they might look like too.

cheers

Sorry for the flippant tongue-in-cheek reply. I was just kidding. No offence intended.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Just remember "more evolved" is a dodgy term. Sharks are far more highly evolved for their habitat than us.

Capt'n Midnight

there isn't as much selective pressure for us to evolve anymore

people with bad eyes or teeth aren't as likely to starve to death as in the past

then again aren't scumbags more likely to have kids than people who spend their life at work

IrishKnight

I remember reading of a theory that we are becoming a new sp., Homo evolutis. Basically, it said that with all the new tech we have out there, DNA manipulation and therapy and what not, we are taking control over our own evolution. So as time goes on, we are finding more and more methods to change ourselves.

Now how true this, I don't know, but it is interesting none the less. I'll see if I can find where I read it...

EDIT:

Turns out it was a TED video by Juan Enriquez which can be found at http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_shares_mindboggling_new_science.html

dvpower

Evolution only happens when the result of a random mutation helps our genes to propagate. In western countries small genetic changes aren't likely to have an effect. But think longer term, say in a globally warmed environment all sorts of small advantages might be pivotal.

Carsinian Thau

I think that natural evolution has come to a stop now that we live in a civilisation.

There's simply not enough pressure for natural selection to do its thing.

And sure, aren't we grand the way we are? :rolleyes:

Nothingcompares

It's entirely plausible there are very complex genetic influences on very complex behaviours. For a very simplisitc illustration we can imagine that over the next 1000 years there may be a huge shortage of energy and thus a shortage of food and therefore world wide there will begin to be a lot more competition for survival between individuals. Thus, we might expect those that are best suited to this environment (etiher particularly thrifty, good at negotiating, foraging for example) to out perform those that are less fit and reproduce more. Thus natural selection is taking place and over time evolution (we might evolve from fat, lazy, wasteful people to slimmer, craftier people).

dubcitycentre

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Just remember "more evolved" is a dodgy term. Sharks are far more highly evolved for their habitat than us.

well a reason for this may be due to the fact that they have been evolving and adapting in their habitat for millions of years longer than we have been evolving in ours.

And to the original poster, absolutely, inevitably and unequivocally YES, we are all evolving and changing and we will continue to evolve. We all evolved from a common unicellular ancestor. now we are complex multi systemic organisms. However, evolution takes place over a time period incomprehensible to us. the length of our lives are but a bilink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Also, if conditions remain constant and nothing in our environment changes then evolution and natural selection probably wont happen becasue there is no need for it. However if conditions start to change slowly, our bodies will do what it does best and adapt to fit into those conditions. But this process must happen slowly becasue evolution is a slow process. So for example, if we say the earth heats up slowly over the next 1 million years to a point that our summers often reach 60 degrees celcius, i believe that we will be ableto adapt to that and survive such temperatures. However, if all of a sudden the earth heated up 20 degrees over 10 years, or more, this is too short for natural selction and evolution todo anything about it and we wouldnt survive. That example theres assumes all the water on the planet still exists...although who's to say we couldnt evolve to live without water as well. If we evolved from creatures that couldnt live outside of water to creatures that cant live in water (as we did), who is to say what is and isnt possible.

King Mob

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

I think that natural evolution has come to a stop now that we live in a civilisation.

There's simply not enough pressure for natural selection to do its thing.

And sure, aren't we grand the way we are? :rolleyes:

I disargee.

There has been a load of things that would put pressure on us.

The best example is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5-%CE%9432#CCR5-.CE.9432

A gene that may have been naturally selected during the black plaque that gives some very specific benefits.

tallaght01

King Mob wrote: »

I disargee.

There has been a load of things that would put pressure on us.

The best example is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5-%CE%9432#CCR5-.CE.9432

A gene that may have been naturally selected during the black plaque that gives some very specific benefits.

Problem is HIV doesn't stop people reproducing, and will be less likely to do so in the coming years (with more people getting access to anti retrovirals, circumcision roll out plans, plus very encouraging early results from vaginal microbicide trials).

If the political will is there, we may be able to get on top of HIV over the next 50 years. I don't think that will be enough time for selective pressure to work.

Looking at people we keep ticking over in medicine, I'm not convinced we have enough selective pressure to force significant evolution.

King Mob

tallaght01 wrote: »

Problem is HIV doesn't stop people reproducing, and will be less likely to do so in the coming years (with more people getting access to anti retrovirals, circumcision roll out plans, plus very encouraging early results from vaginal microbicide trials).

If the political will is there, we may be able to get on top of HIV over the next 50 years. I don't think that will be enough time for selective pressure to work.

Looking at people we keep ticking over in medicine, I'm not convinced we have enough selective pressure to force significant evolution.

I meant the emergence the gene in the dark ages was because of selective pressure.
And the fact that it does offer protection against AIDS shows a benefit.

And this is after what we'd call the emergence of civilisation.

Kevster

To think that we are the 'end of the line' is an arrogant thing to believe, but that's what human nature is. We are of course evolving, and will continue to do so. Evolution doesn't stop here, and there are many aspects of the human body/mind that can be 'improved-upon' / 'selected-for' through evolution.

Carsinian Thau

Kevster wrote: »

To think that we are the 'end of the line' is an arrogant thing to believe, but that's what human nature is. We are of course evolving, and will continue to do so. Evolution doesn't stop here, and there are many aspects of the human body/mind that can be 'improved-upon' / 'selected-for' through evolution.

But wouldn't human mental evolution be separate from human physical evolution?



Edit: I may be thinking of social evolution, now that I think about it.

imported_guy

Carsinian Thau wrote: »

But wouldn't human mental evolution be separate from human physical evolution?



Edit: I may be thinking of social evolution, now that I think about it.

mental evolution = nurture (usually/mostly) (AKA we have been riding bikes for a few hundred years now, but i doubt in a billion years babies will know how to ride a bike when they are born)

physical evolution = nature (our tail bone might get even smaller, our fingers/toes might be different to provide better grip etc in the next billion years)

A Neurotic

There was a great discussion on Evolution not too long ago in the Expand Your Horizons forum, stemming from this extremely interesting article.

Here's the thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055617651

It seems as though the definition of Evolution may have to be broadened to accommodate Hawking's views.

Salvelinus

Here's a bit from Richard Dawkis new book.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6808173.ece

piby

I could give a really long winded answer to this post but I'm too tired

Basically I think that any species will and does continue to evolve, it's a process that is, IMO, never complete. The problem, if you want to look at it that way, is that evolution is a slow process. It will never be able to keep up with changes in society and culture and hence the level of evolution is perhaps acting at a reduced rate?