(Lack of) Human Evolution.

duga · 05-31-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

^That (duga's post) is indeed a statement and I think you should always be a bit careful when making statements. At least ask yourself "how do I know this is true?"!

It's a widely held belief amongst anthropologists. Granted, it is the type of thing that can't be proven, but it makes a lot of sense to me as well as people who study human development and evolution.

Edit: Just to expand a little bit, this theory is supported by fossil records. Without getting too technical, archeologists have found higher frequencies of hominid fossils in areas known to have been incredibly fertile and mild in climate at certain points in history. This means for a time those hominids were able to halt their nomadic nature and live off the fruits of the land. Does this prove that the result is self awareness? No, but what advantage does self awareness provide when it comes to basic survival? Not a whole lot. One of the only ways it would have come about is with the scenario I just described.

noise · 05-31-2010, 04:41 AM

haha thanks a lot tore, you just rendered my entire discipline (anthropology) useless with one little post

The Monkey · 05-31-2010, 04:46 PM

Sexual selection has come to play a greater part, at the expense of natural selection. That's really the only difference.

Guybrush · 05-31-2010, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey

Sexual selection has come to play a greater part, at the expense of natural selection. That's really the only difference.

How do you know it plays a greater part now than it did say .. 20 000 years ago?

Burning Down · 05-31-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Monkey

Sexual selection has come to play a greater part, at the expense of natural selection. That's really the only difference.

If you mean that people can possibly select the sex of their child due to things like the "test tube" baby or artificial insemination, then sure. But in regards to natural conception, there's no such thing as selecting the gender of the child. You get what you get.

The Monkey · 06-01-2010, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

How do you know it plays a greater part now than it did say .. 20 000 years ago?

I don't "know", I'm making an educated guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

If you mean that people can possibly select the sex of their child due to things like the "test tube" baby or artificial insemination, then sure. But in regards to natural conception, there's no such thing as selecting the gender of the child. You get what you get.

Erm... Sexual selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neapolitan · 06-02-2010, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Even Coco was self-aware!

That (Tore) is indeed a statement and I think you should always be a bit careful when making such statements. At least ask yourself "how do I know this is true?"!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

You should read my post on the previous page. I wrote a set of criterias which have to be fulfilled for there to be no evolution.

A quick comment still, you think we don't have to evolve in the same "arms race" as the fish we eat and the chickens we kill. This is true, we don't. But how about the viruses, bacteria and range of parasites that still infect us on a daily basis? We're talking here about organisms and evolutionary particles which have a very short generation time which means they evolve incredibly fast in this arms race against us.

So if some humans survive some pandemic and passes that particular gene that ensured their survival, the pathogenes only up the ante and move the goal post back and the advances that are made in the humans genetic level seems all for naught.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

We don't stop evolving.

Well I didn't quite say we did or didn't, but the more pertinant question or point I was trying to make was can the human species be exempt from evolving into a new species? I'm more interested in the philosophical side of the question, is there a species that doesn't have to evolve, that it is near perfect for all conditions and that if it does have some mutations in it's genetic code at least it doesn't evolve into another species. Like hypothectically speaking maybe a million years from now, will the Human species be considered a fossil species like the Ginko biloba or the Coelacanth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

You seem to think it's something animals do because they "need" to.

I don't seem to think that, it's the impression that I get from most scientist, so if I sound that way it's only the impression I that get from those scientist, and I am only relaying what they present to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

They don't, it's a consequence.

Yes I agree, because the whole universe is mutable, only God is immutable. So yes it is a consequence of living in an ever changing world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Evolution will continue to happen as a consequence unless we can turn off the causes. If life as it is was constant and could not vary, not even mutate, from generation to generation, then there would be no evolution. However, hereditary variability is an integral capacity of life as it is and evolution comes with it. It can be slow, it can be fast, but the main point is it's happening.

Yes, because all things change. When God created the universe He left a sign on the bottom of it that said "All things are subject to change." I keep saying it is, but I'm not sure people get what it entails. Basically, it's not something we choose to do. Everything in the universe changes. It's not something we can turn off. All things change from from the tiniest sub-atomic particles to the giantest cluster galaxies, everything changes. So yes since genes are part of a mutable universe hypothetically/theoritcally they are subjuect to change too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

Nice Daft Punk reference.

From my understanding I don't think we are evolving at anywhere near the pace of other animals due to the fact that we change our surroundings to suit us, rather than changing to suit our surroundings.

thanks, I couldn't said it better.

Guybrush · 06-02-2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

That (Tore) is indeed a statement and I think you should always be a bit careful when making such statements. At least ask yourself "how do I know this is true?"!

I realize this is a parody of myself

I "know" this to be true because Koko is one of the most famous animals in the world, a gorilla which has been taught sign language and she definetly seems to turn attention on to herself and her needs. She is one of the well documented cases of gorillas who have passed the mirror test, a test specifically designed to show whether or not an animal is self-aware.

The reason I mention Koko is that it shows self-awareness should have evolved long before we got up on two legs and created nomadic (or not) cultures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

So if some humans survive some pandemic and passes that particular gene that ensured their survival, the pathogenes only up the ante and move the goal post back and the advances that are made in the humans genetic level seems all for naught.

Well, again - evolution doesn't have a purpose, it's a consequence so it may seem like it's for naught. On the other hand, if we had not evolved in this arms race, we would not have been here to talk about it.

Guybrush · 06-02-2010, 12:04 PM

^What you're doing is trying to turn this into some meta-discussion on what self-awareness is. That's all well and good, perhaps there are different ways one could define what self-awareness is.

For me in this thread, it's pretty straightforward. In biology, if we talk about self-awareness in animals, we need to make sure we're talking about the same thing and the solution is this standard mirror test. Although there are some variations of this test, it's pretty much standard in that it has the ability to recognize oneself in the mirror as the criteria for passing. Koko is one of several gorillas to pass such a test. It's also been passed by dolphins, a magpie and other apes.

When we talk about self-awareness and I mention this test, then I am using a definition of self-awareness as whatever it is that makes you pass this test. If you want to talk about self-awareness as something other than that, then chances are we're still talking, but no longer about the same thing and the discussion will suffer from misinformation and talking past eachother as a result. Saying something about when humans became self-aware becomes entirely pointless without a solid reference point as to what self-awareness means, so then we might as well kiss the discussion goodbye.

Neapolitan · 06-02-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

^What you're doing is trying to turn this into some meta-discussion on what self-awareness is. That's all well and good, perhaps there are different ways one could define what self-awareness is....so then we might as well kiss the discussion goodbye.

I think there is a big difference of me getting entangle in a discussion, I really don't want to discuss the self-awareness of Koko, it just seems quite odd you would except it so unqestionablely where other scientist don't. Quite honestly if your enamoured with the mirror test and I am skeptical of the mirror test there is no reason to say that I am turning it into a meta-discussion. We just disagree, and whether it is or not a meta-discussion I don't know, but all I know is that the consciousness of human beings is different than the consciousness of animals, and many in the scientific community will notice that as well, too. And basically I think that can be part of the discussion of whether or not humans will continue to evolve or not, because one has to look back at the past and see where humans came from and examine what seperates us from then and now to understand where the human race is headed. Will the future of the human race include a further evolution of the mind along with the possible hypothetical mutations in its genetic code in the evolutionary trajectory of the human race to the point it will turn into another species?

Well, anyway the more import question I asked but overlooked was . Like hypothectically speaking maybe a thousands of years maybe of millions years from now, will the Human species be considered a living fossil species like the Ginko biloba or the Coelacanth?

05-31-2010, 04:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
noise thirsty ears Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Boulder Posts: 742	haha thanks a lot tore, you just rendered my entire discipline (anthropology) useless with one little post __________________ my flac collection

06-02-2010, 12:04 PM	#9 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	^What you're doing is trying to turn this into some meta-discussion on what self-awareness is. That's all well and good, perhaps there are different ways one could define what self-awareness is. For me in this thread, it's pretty straightforward. In biology, if we talk about self-awareness in animals, we need to make sure we're talking about the same thing and the solution is this standard mirror test. Although there are some variations of this test, it's pretty much standard in that it has the ability to recognize oneself in the mirror as the criteria for passing. Koko is one of several gorillas to pass such a test. It's also been passed by dolphins, a magpie and other apes. When we talk about self-awareness and I mention this test, then I am using a definition of self-awareness as whatever it is that makes you pass this test. If you want to talk about self-awareness as something other than that, then chances are we're still talking, but no longer about the same thing and the discussion will suffer from misinformation and talking past eachother as a result. Saying something about when humans became self-aware becomes entirely pointless without a solid reference point as to what self-awareness means, so then we might as well kiss the discussion goodbye. __________________ Something Completely Different

05-31-2010, 04:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
The Monkey Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 803	Sexual selection has come to play a greater part, at the expense of natural selection. That's really the only difference.