# Evolutionary Theory



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

i have a friend, who is relatively well educated, and
definitely takes science and mathematics seriously.

we were talking awhile ago, and he made the
statement that:

"given enough time, and the fact that people are becoming
increasingly inactive, leading sedentary lives - eventually
humans will evolve to have no legs".  as though, our lifestyle 
affects our DNA with such magnitude, as to rewrite our 
physical form.

i took the opportunity to explain that evolution is nothing
without evolutionary pressure.  that some outside force that 
makes one mutation advantageous specifically to the point
that it allows it's holder to spread it's DNA more abundantly,
is necessary.

a few days ago someone posited that a civilization billions
of years older than us would necessarily be billions of years 
"more" evolved.

now maybe someone with a better understanding can correct 
me ( i hope not  )  but that's simply not true, is it?

from my understanding, that pressure is 100% necessary,
without it evolution grinds to a halt.  we are already evolved 
enough that we have almost no evolutionary pressure. And
therefore, short of an extinction event, are unlikely to evolve
biologically, naturally.

sorry so long, what's the consensus?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (May 6, 2011)

Every generation, on average, is getting taller.  That's evolutionary but the question is: why?  Instead of losing our legs, maybe they are getting longer and weaker which allows to cover distance at about the same speed but spend less energy in the process.

Future babies won't be legless because the legs are biologically important (major calorie burners and a main source of blood cells).

Moreover, if we had MRI scanners a 1000 years ago, I think we could see a growth in brain use/function between then and now albeit a minor one.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

i think that's more because of advances in medicine.  being able to grow tall
requires eating healthy, recovering from sickness, keeping clean and safe from
disease.

where would the evolutionary pressure be, causing us to get longer and weaker legs?  
again, from my understanding - for evolution to occur, the pressure is necessary.

there are always mutations, of course.  but evolution occurs when a mutation makes you
more likely to be able to spread your DNA than anyone without the mutation.  more now
than ever in our history - and only increasing - is there a lack of evolutionary pressure
being placed on humans.


----------



## Techtu (May 6, 2011)

IMO we're always evolving, but just at such a slow rate we don't see it, nor will we ever see it until there is some true physical change to/in our bodies.

As for civilizations being smarter than us... well yeah, that is pretty much everything that lives out your window and beyond, alot of creatures (some well before the time of humans) have become smart enough to get on with their lives without getting in the way of ours, and yet sustainable yet us humans are destroying everything around us...

There's different takes on what people will class as smarter than us, that's just a little insight of mine before I heard to bed


----------



## crazyeyesreaper (May 6, 2011)

your correct we need pressure to evolve even then its not always about pressure it could a random fluke that proves advantagous

example the Delta 32 gene otherwise known as CCR5 was a mutation that occured during the bubonic plague, back then are bodies evolution didnt know it at the time but it turns out those who have Delta 32 on both sides of there family aka mother and father carry the genetic mutation are immune to HIV / AIDS and many other diseases,

so in effect a civilization thats billions of years older then are own wont always be more evolved then us simple because if pressure didnt exist to cause evolution via beneficial traits the extra time there civilization has been moving forward could result in nothing more then a technological difference. and not a physical one.

and no there is NOT a lack of pressure

every disease we encounter that could be an epidemic causes are body to fight back, you could say the massive numbers of diseases and possible infections and are enviroment around us will cause us to constantly evolve, it might not be visible changes but there will be genetic changes,


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

Regarding your friend's claim. NO that won't happen.

Like you said, evolution is mostly based on having descent, the individuals of a species with the highest surviving rate have more descent, pure statistics at work. Usually this higher surviving rate comes from an unprecedented advantage that either makes these individuals more likely to survive an external pressure or that regardless of their habilty to survive, makes them more appealing to the opposite sex, none of which a sedentary live represents. A sedentary live does not make you more successful nor does it increase your life quality and health (it's the opposite in fact), so a sedentary individual is more likely to fail in successfull yspreading he's DNA. Also for evolution to happen in that direction, there should be a direct relation between leg length and sedentarism rate for that to happen, and there's no relation as far as I can tell between how long your legs are and how prone to being sat you are. However long legs tend to be more attractive to the opposite sex that short legs and that may actually have a significant statistical weight.

Now regarding your argument about a pressure being needed, I don't think that it's needed. Usually it is needed for what we perceive as positive evolution, but evolution itself always happens even if it's actually an involution. For instance our better health care will innevitably make humans weaker, because now we can live despite weaknesses that would have meant death in the past, and of course those natural weaknesses are inherited to our descent, a clear example is diabetes or myopia.

Our friendlier political climate (compared to previous ages) will also make us weaker physically (because only the strongest survived wars), although strangely enough it could also make us braver and belligerent at the same time, because in the past those traits usually led people to direct death and it was actually the cowards and less belligerent who could return alive from war (same for the bravest women in the losing side who would prefer to die than being raped, just as an example). Now those same traits can be attractive to the opposite sex and do not pose a (evolutionary) disadvantage at war, beause the percentage of population that is affected and killed by war is ridiculously small to make a difference (despite how horrific war is).



> a few days ago someone posited that a civilization billions
> of years older than us would necessarily be billions of years
> "more" evolved.



Now that's something hard to say. Given the exact same circunstances, that is almost guaranteed, but the exact same circunstances never happen. For instance dinosaurs had much more time to evolve than us on the same planet and they never came close to what mammals have achieved in a far shorter time. Life is limited enough in the universe that it would be imposible to tell if any life other than in Earth could ever evolve to the point of achieving civilization, let alone predict at which rate that civilization would evolve, both culturally and genetically, which at some point are inherently related, like in the examples I mentioned above, but that could happen at any level. Who says that our level of intelligence is required in order to create a civilization? IMO our presence completely ruins the posibilities of other animals to reach a point where they can create their own civilization, but civilizations came (or allowed the evolutive path that led to) mostly from our outstanding hability to communicate, who can assure that if we never existed, wouldn't be the parrots, bees or dolphins the ones to first create a civilization? That civ would most definately be different and because they completely lack hands and have much smaller brains their science and technology would never attain our level (primates) or it would take longer, but according to modern studies their social intelligence doesn't seem to be much worse than that of some primates.


----------



## D4S4 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> where would the evolutionary pressure be, causing us to get longer and weaker legs?



women find taller men more attractive, taller men get more pu... uh, chances to procreate.

i think that today, evolution favors how sexy you are (from a purely genetic standpoint) and how smart you are, smarter ppl will make themselves appear sexier and otherwise more attractive than others.

and i found something very interesting going out to a club - there was a techno party (dave clarke ) and almost EVERYONE were of a smaller, more slender build (about 65kg) compared to other clubs/events where there is a wide variety of body types


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

bene & cray, great posts   I am loving this forum.
and great point too D4.

there is still pressure for sure, but no where near 
on the scale it has been historically, simply because
of our technology.  but what i was missing was that
evolution->forward is not the only way.

it won't be so much evolution, as pollution.


----------



## scaminatrix (May 6, 2011)

I believe evolution is still changing us slowly - I've got double-jointed thumbs and shoulders and there was some guy born without an appendix...

Pressure probably isn't going to come from our environment, but probably more from our thinking/actions, or illnesses (like the guy born without an appendix - that one amazes me)


----------



## the54thvoid (May 6, 2011)

There as an article somewhere recently about evolution and the notion it has stopped for humans.

As i'm sure Ben alluded to, evolution works like this:

You have a genetic difference from the normal population.  That difference does nothing for you.  But one day the physical environment changes and that difference gives you an edge in survival.  This increase in you survival chance, played over thousands of generations leads to the prevalence of your genetic difference being the norm.

The problem is today, the environment is controlled by our technology and our ability to manipulate our surroundings (heat, power, shelter, agriculture) means any genetic difference that might lead to change isn't required.

Conversely, maladaptive genetic differences that would have led to our demise before technology aided us are allowed to carry on, weaknesses become inherited and the species itself grows weaker as medicine and science allows the frail to survive.

Evolution by necessity requires adaptation to a stressful environment to lead to positive change.  Without both of these in action, evolution is rendered ineffectual and devolution is allowed to arise.


----------



## Jetster (May 6, 2011)

This question is too much presure. I think we have not been around that long and dont have much time left.


----------



## Bundy (May 6, 2011)

IMO it requires pressure to maintain distinction between species. Driven far enough, this pushes species further apart and is seen as evolution.

Remove pressure and the requirement for distinction of traits is also removed, so this will allow the borders of species to become 'blurred'. Left long enough, this might be seen as evolution as well because the nature of a unique species will certainly change.


----------



## Techtu (May 6, 2011)

It appears we as a simple life form may of started without the need of natural selection. Have a little read of this 



> Daisyworld is a model dynamical system in which very simple mechanisms interact to produce complex
> behaviour. It was devised to show how regulation can arise without natural selection. Here we investigate
> the model in greater detail. We analyze the possible steady states and study the response of the system
> under diﬀerent conditions, we consider the implications of the hysteresis which is found in this and many
> ...


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

We're not climbing trees anymore, but we still have finger prints. It's rare to "unevolve" a feature gained, like legs, unless placed in a situation where we don't need them and they present a waste of nutrients to grow and maintain. How could that happen when the reason we wouldn't need them in his scenario is due to absurd prosperity?

Height is an interesting one. While women prefer taller men, men prefer shorter women. I swear women have either stayed short or gotten shorter. I'd wager a large part of the upward trend in average height isn't selective breeding as much as it's all the vitamins and hormones we pack into our food and that seeps into our drinking water.

In general it feels like for every evolutionary pressure we're placed under there's some relief to it. Dumb people still breed, if anything they breed more. So I think the brain size increase is probably from stimuli being greater than in the past, as we've seen the brains of people that are under-stimulated, like they were trapped in a basement or something, are greatly undersized. So it's not that people are evolving to better live in the tech world. Despite the horror movies our care and prevention measures greatly limit disease outbreaks so we're unlikely to ever have that sort of natural selection again. 

All in all it's an incredibly silly discussion, our future evolution. I mean short of an apocalyptic society reset event, we're on the verge of total control of our form and function. Evolution in the animalistic, biological sense will cease before the end of this century.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> The problem is today, the environment is controlled by our technology and our ability to manipulate our surroundings (heat, power, shelter, agriculture) means any genetic difference that might lead to change isn't required.





LAN_deRf_HA said:


> We're not climbing trees anymore, but we still have finger prints. It's rare to "unevolve" a feature gained, like legs, unless placed in a situation where we don't need them and they present a waste of nutrients to grow and maintain.
> 
> ...short of an apocalyptic society reset event, we're on the verge of total control of our form and function. Evolution in the animalistic, biological sense will cease before the end of this century.



yes, that's how i see it too.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Dumb people still breed, if anything they breed more.



I swear that the opening scene of the movie "Idiocracy" scared the shit out of me, because as exagerated as it is in the film, it may actually be happening already.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Evolution in the animalistic, biological sense will cease before the end of this century.



I don't agree (with the timeline basically). I don't think we are advanced enough to completely negate/substitute biological evolution. Before the end of the century we may be able to make some minor tweaks to our DNA, one amino acid here or there. Change the color of hair or the eyes of our children and so on.

In reality I don't doubt that we would be able to change everything in the DNA, upside down, make some mayor changes, what I really doubt and I'm 100% sure of, is that we will not be able to know what those changes would really make in a near future. Despite our advancements in many areas, we are nowhere near close enough to understanding complex systems. It's like with biospheres or the atmosphere itself, we know pretty much everthing about them and compared to DNA, they are stupidly simple, and although we can predict their behaviour, more or less, we constantly fail in predicting them with 100% accuracy. On biospheres, far too often, we create more trouble than good when we are trying to help. I HOPE that in 50 years time, we are wise enough to not mess around with our DNA in the same way we mess aroud with our environment or we are doomed.

Another thing about auto-evolving ourselves is something that was brilliantly presented in Stargate SG1 with the demise of the Asgard race. The demise basically happened because they had auto-replicated themselves so many times that their code was broken and because they had been genetically altered in the past to be "perfect", there was no enough diversity on their DNA to find a solution. Now it would be very presumptous of us humans to think that we can create 100% accurate copies of our DNA (or make 100% accurate changes for that matter) when we are not even able to create an storage medium for our computers that is 100% copy-error free. 

And that's also how natural evolution would still happen, if we are not able to make 100% accurate changes, although we would be making huge changes to our evolutive pattern, we would only control 99% of it and at least 1% would be in the hands of natural selection, potentially changing us with unforeseen consecuences, despite our 99% control over our DNA.


----------



## Techtu (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I don't think we are advanced enough to completely negate/substitute biological evolution. Before the end of the century we may be able to make some minor tweaks to our DNA, one amino acid here or there. Change the color of hair or the eyes of our children and so on.



Oh really? 

Designer Babies: A Right to Choose?

Bare in mind the thread date... 2009.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I don't agree (with the timeline basically). I don't think we are advanced enough to completely negate/substitute biological evolution. Before the end of the century we may be able to make some minor tweaks to our DNA, one amino acid here or there. Change the color of hair or the eyes of our children and so on.
> 
> In reality I don't doubt that we would be able to change everything in the DNA, upside down, make some mayor changes, what I really doubt and I'm 100% sure of, is that we will not be able to know what those changes would really make in a near future.


valid points in their own right, and great sg1 ref  but missing the point i think...

we don't have to be able to modify anything about ourselves to say biological evolution has halted,not a single thing.

the only thing necessary to stop evolution in the darwin, biological, natural selection sense, is to have enough technology 
that removes that evolutionary pressure.

again, it can always come back.  an extinction event or even much less, could tilt the balance so far as to make it active 
again.  but when the majority of people have a pretty even chance to breed, there is no selective advantage anymore.  
no selective advantage, no pressure, means no biological evolution.

and again, i see it as pollution.  look at octomom or one of the many others.  10+ children.  you can barely care for a single 
one, but because of medicine, technology, and prosperity, they will live and spread.  strictly evolutionarily speaking, that 
should not be the case.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> valid points in their own right, and great sg1 ref  but missing the point i think...
> 
> we don't have to be able to modify anything about ourselves to say biological evolution has halted,not a single thing.
> 
> ...



But that's because you are still seeing evolution only as pressure > change and that is not correct. Evolution happens everyday everywhere, in the exact same moment a mutation happens evolution happens a bit. I already exposed the case of advanced medicine making our species weaker because there's no pressure forcing us to be stronger. In fact it was quite the opposite what happened, pressure from diseases forced the evolution towards the stronger line. Deviation will always happen but it happens both ways, so under the pressure of disease we get stronger, because only the strongest ones survives. Without the pressure of disease *both lines* survive and in the end we get weaker. Well here I have to explain that when I mean "we become weaker" it means according to evolution we are biologically weaker, why? Well because our evolution might stagnate, but viruses and bacteria will not be so kind to stay with us, all the contrary medicines make them stronger and it amplifies their evolution.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> But that's because you are still seeing evolution only as pressure > change and that is not correct. Evolution happens everyday everywhere, in the exact same moment a mutation happens evolution happens a bit.



but no, it doesn't. that's point i'm trying to make.  yes it may be change, it may be
mutation, but it is NOT evolution by natural selection any longer.  i am talking about
a very specific scientific theory, and random mutation alone is not enough to say
we are still evolving.  

for it to be evolution, natural selection is necessary. our society has largely negated 
natural selection - at least to the point that no random mutation is more likely than 
any other or existing ones, to spread dna.  we live in an age of equalization, where 
things that would have stopped you even 150 years ago, no longer do.

artificial insemination, genetic engineering, advanced medicine.  good technologies to
understand, for sure - but they effectively stop evolution by natural selection.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

Well if evolution was real and it really did take place then why is it that so many forms of life on this rock go extinct ? I mean if pressure and environment is responsible for evolution then they would just evolve into some thing that could adapt rather than die off completely . Evolution is just not a concept that I agree with at all . We are what we are and that is that .


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well if evolution was real and it really did take place then why is it that so many forms of life on this rock go extinct ? I mean if pressure and environment is responsible for evolution then they would just evolve into some thing that could adapt rather than die off completely . Evolution is just not a concept that I agree with at all . We are what we are and that is that .



evolution is based on random mutation. if you are lucky enough to have one that is
advantageous, you evolve and get a chance to spread your DNA.  that in no way
guarantees you will have successive advantageous mutations, simply that you had
one.

the random mutations happen anyway. the pressure is what decides whether a mutation
is advantageous or not.  it doesn't CAUSE advantageous mutations, and i think that's where
you are misunderstanding the theory.

how anyone could not believe in evolution with the evidence available today, short of
voluntarily not caring enough to learn, i can not understand.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> evolution is based on random mutation. if you are lucky enough to have one that is
> advantageous, you evolve and get a chance to spread your DNA.  that in no way
> guarantees you will have successive advantageous mutations, simply that you had
> one.
> ...



I have not seen one thing on this planet that has evolved ! Your theory maybe sound but it is not practical . One mutation will not spread one mutation will not cause a species to evolve , If this were the case like I said why are there so many species dieing off rather than just mutating ? No my friend the fact that a genetic mutation could take too long to even be effective would rule out evolution .  We are not monkeys as they are STILL on this planet ! We are not descendants of them as there still among us . Theory's are fine but proof is all around you .


----------



## Techtu (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> We are not monkeys as they are STILL on this planet ! We are not descendants of them as there still among us . Theory's are fine but proof is all around you .



That alone is not strictly true, try looking at it this way...

We are not descendants from any monkey infact we are just another species of monkey that led it's own path & evolution into what we are today. Look at the fish for example, there are many kinds of species yet they are all fish.


----------



## Sasqui (May 6, 2011)

Basic premise of evolution is: Beings with successful traits survive to produce offspring that have those same traits that continue survival.  Looking at the other side of the coin, it means the beings that lack the specific traits to survive either die, or don't produce offspring.

Basically, there is more likelihood of offspring from a group with more successful traits, or those that simply produce more offspring.  Production of more offspring in humans is driven by many factors, including socioeconomic ones.

Looking at the state of welfare and child support in this country, more kids mean more money.  So people on welfare reproduce faster than those that aren't, and will become the larger population of the gene pool.

So... in 1000 years, just about everyone will be on welfare and enjoy the fact that computers can do everything for them.  Perhaps people who are accidentally born without legs may indeed find it helpful in those circumstances... hell, legs might be in the way by then, and mates will be attracted to others without legs, so the population of legless people will increase.  I've never slept with any woman without legs, so I can't tell you if it's attractive or not.  I do know that legs get in the way (sometimes) 

Bottom line, we'll be a bunch of legless welfare recipients in the year 3000.  Computers will be self replicating and do just about everything for us.  That's my evolutionary prediction.

Caveat: most of the above is *completely* tongue in cheek


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

Techtu said:


> That alone is not strictly true, try looking at it this way...
> 
> We are not descendants from any monkey infact we are just another species of monkey that led it's own path & evolution into what we are today. Look at the fish for example, there are many kinds of species yet they are all fish.



Ok I get that . But from what I have seen in the last 10,000 years humans are still human nothing new in any evolution there . The human body in fact has not changed for what 14 million years or so ? ( I do not know how long man has been on this planet ) What I mean to say is yes we are getting smarter ( If you can call it that ) with technology and the such , But this doesn't mean that the HUMAN head has gotten any larger . I just can not subscribe to all this evolution theory stuff . We are what we are and no amount of out side forces can change this be it through DNA mutations or the such . Even genetic manipulation will not do this as the Original DNA splice will trump any mutated one . Can a dog mate with a cat ? Can a horse mate with a cow ? The life forms that are established now can no more change themselves from what they are . Can the hand tell the foot I no longer need you and cast it off ? NO ! Can the head tell the spleen I no longer need you and cast it out ? NO . If you look at it this way I guess you can say that evolution is full of holes .


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> I have not seen one thing on this planet that has evolved ! Your theory maybe sound but it is not practical . One mutation will not spread one mutation will not cause a species to evolve , If this were the case like I said why are there so many species dieing off rather than just mutating ? No my friend the fact that a genetic mutation could take too long to even be effective would rule out evolution .  We are not monkeys as they are STILL on this planet ! We are not descendants of them as there still among us . Theory's are fine but proof is all around you .



i haven't seen molecules of oxygen, does that mean it does not exist?  if you can test and
verify it's existence through other means, sight is unnecessary.

you are completely misunderstanding the theory, and acting smug about it.

one species does not evolve into another, it's not a ladder,it's more like a tree. 
even after i stated, that pressure does not CAUSE mutation but SELECTS advantage
you still neglect to recognize that point, as your entire argument lies on it.


----------



## HossHuge (May 6, 2011)

We are the only species that will be able to change our evolutionary path through plastic surgery and medicine. And also the first to even think about it....

In honour, of our new Science & Technology section of TPU.  I've changed my avatar to Clyde Tombaugh (the discoverer of Pluto)


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> Ok I get that . But from what I have seen in the last 10,000 years humans are still human nothing new in any evolution there . The human body in fact has not changed for what 14 million years or so ?



we have been at the top of our game for thousands of years, with no real predators and few
natural pressures.  

and homo sapiens have only existed for 2.5 million years.  you should read up a bit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> Ok I get that . But from what I have seen in the last 10,000 years humans are still human nothing new in any evolution there . The human body in fact has not changed for what 14 million years or so ? ( I do not know how long man has been on this planet ) What I mean to say is yes we are getting smarter ( If you can call it that ) with technology and the such , But this doesn't mean that the HUMAN head has gotten any larger . I just can not subscribe to all this evolution theory stuff . We are what we are and no amount of out side forces can change this be it through DNA mutations or the such . Even genetic manipulation will not do this as the Original DNA splice will trump any mutated one . Can a dog mate with a cat ? Can a horse mate with a cow ? The life forms that are established now can no more change themselves from what they are . Can the hand tell the foot I no longer need you and cast it off ? NO ! Can the head tell the spleen I no longer need you and cast it out ? NO . If you look at it this way I guess you can say that evolution is full of holes .



We have only been here 6 million years total in ALL forms and yeah man has changed DRAMATICALLY since day one. And you are wrong about outside forces. Do you know the origin of Sickle cell anemia? That is an evolutionary step against malaria. People with sickle cell cannot contract malaria. Of course the cure is worse then the disease but its still proof outside forces influencing modern evolution. Thats the whole point of evolution! Survival.


----------



## Sasqui (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> People with sickle cell cannot contract malaria.



Wow, is that really true?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Wow, is that really true?



100%. The shape of the cell (sickle) does not allow the malaria virus to attach. It can only attach to normal cells (round). Feel free to look it up.


----------



## HossHuge (May 6, 2011)

Watch this series.   It's quite interesting.  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/tv_radio/wwcavemen/


----------



## Sasqui (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 100%. The shape of the cell (Sickle) does not allow the malaria virus to attach. It can only attach to normal cells (round). Feel free to look it up.



Without straying too much OT, it probably has more to do with mutated protien binders than the shape of the cell itself, but that's only speculation.  Very interesting point none the less!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

Sasqui said:


> Without straying too much OT, it probably has more to do with mutated protien binders than the shape of the cell itself, but that's only speculation.  Very interesting point none the less!



Well thats not what I was taught. But that was over 15 years ago. Alot can change in that amount of time. Anyway heres a good breakdown.

http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

Welcome to evolution.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

This is all speculation and theory . I am merely stating that I do not believe in it . If it is true and it may very well be , Then we could see this happening every day . As I have no proof of this I can not subscribe to it . Does this mean I am wrong ? Sure maybe I am . But I believe what I believe . 
Now if you are right then we would still need hands , legs and a torso . Unless the earth becomes a water planet then I could see us evolving into some form of fish with gills and web feet and hands . If we really think this through I say that it would take millions of years more before we will "Evolve" into some thing other than what we are now and by that time it maybe too late . I just think evolution takes too long to be viable for any living thing to survive any drastic changes in the environment around them . Every single dinosaur died off millions of years ago . along with the cro-magnon . I still think that if evolution was a viable concept it would need to be faster to keep the species alive and millions or even thousands of years is far too long to keep them ahead of the game .


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

I mean you even said Cecil celled anemia is evolution well if this is the case then why wouldn't it be a better for of evolution ? In other words why would the thing KILL instead of cure ? Doesn't make sense to me is all . That is like shooting your self in the foot because it itched .


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> I just think evolution takes too long to be viable for any living thing to survive any drastic changes in the environment around them.



that  is an ENTIRELY different argument, and i agree.

for the most part, evolution happens at huge time scales. not always, but mostly.

but what you are STILL neglecting, is that the change DECIDES which mutations
are advantageous, meaning you already had to have them.  they don't occur
WHEN something drastic happens, it takes something drastic to weed out the
ones who are not strong enough, from those with advantages by mutation.

birds living on an island, can't get out.  some have huge beaks, some small. the smaller 
ones are able to get into the nooks and get food, and live longer and stronger, and reproduce.
 those with big beaks can't, they go extinct.  that' evolution. the mutation 
was already there, the pressure selected it.

of course there are disaster we can not evolve past. none of us have a mutation that
protects us completely from nuclear radiation... therefore if the entire planet was 
irradiated,we would die off.

BUT if some of us had a mutation that allowed us to filter the radiation , they could
possibly live through it.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> What ? I happen to not believe in this and you ask me this ? I mean come on man . I believe GOD mad every thing . I am not a subscriber to the evolution theory . Is that bad ?
> I mean you even said Cecil celled anemia is evolution well if this is the case then why wouldn't it be a better for of evolution ? In other words why would the thing KILL instead of cure ? Doesn't make sense to me is all . That is like shooting your self in the foot because it itched .



you seem to think evolution has a plan, or a goal it is reaching toward. something
for us to evolve TO, that is not the case.

most of the mutations are benign or negative.  positive mutations are rare. and even
then they need to offer the selective reproduction advantage.

sickle cell can be seen as a precursor, where eventually, given enough time and chance,
it may evolve one step further and not harm.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> you seem to think evolution has a plan, or a goal it is reaching toward. something
> for us to evolve TO, that is not the case.
> 
> most of the mutations are benign or negative.  positive mutations are rare. and even
> ...



Well if most of evolution is negative and benign then evolution is some thing we have to stay away from as it will cause the inevitable demise of it's victim then right ?


----------



## Peter1986C (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> We are not descendants of them as there still among us



No scientist has ever stated that we are descendants of currently existing species of monkeys or currently existing apes. The only thing ever stated as such, is that humans and apes (and then I mean specifically apes, not monkeys in general) are expected to have had the same ancestor, a creature of the group of Primates that doesn't exist any more. Some humans had a better brain, and because they could thus survive more easily (due to development of early speech, improvements in tool making, etc.), they had an advantage over tribes without the better brain. That made early mankind evolve, because the new "feature" matured into a standard. The other branch in the V-shaped evolutionary route (which the apes took), has either been a matter of different circumstances or simply coincidence.

@HossHuge: that is no evolution, or genetics related change at all. That is like having fake teeth (just an example, don't take it personal  ), while of course in the same time, your body still contains "construction info" about your real teeth (even though those are gone, when having fake teeth).


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> What ? I happen to not believe in this and you ask me this ? I mean come on man . I believe GOD mad every thing . I am not a subscriber to the evolution theory . Is that bad ?
> I mean you even said Cecil celled anemia is evolution well if this is the case then why wouldn't it be a better for of evolution ? In other words why would the thing KILL instead of cure ? Doesn't make sense to me is all . That is like shooting your self in the foot because it itched .



Same reason why saber tooth tigers are extinct.

I also believe in G-d but you really should look up divine evolution. They are one in the same. If you know science and proven facts and see the amazing things they bring it will solidify your belief in the lord and that none of this is coincidence.

Now if you follow mans interpretation of the lords word you can end up like Osama. The path is narrow to heaven. Open your mind.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> Well if most of evolution is negative and benign then evolution is some thing we have to stay away from as it will cause the inevitable demise of it's victim then right ?



no. benign means it has mostly no effect, and that is the majority of it.

and negative mutations occur all the time, and can surely cause the death of
their holder. disease, deformity, mental illness, etc.

but those negative mutations also make them less likely to procreate,
and therefore less likely to spread those negative mutations to the 
next generation. 

remember, for it to spread, it has to offer reproductive advantage.
negative mutations don't do that.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Same reason why saber tooth tigers are extinct.
> 
> I also believe in G-d but you really should look up divine evolution. They are one in the same. If you know science and proven facts and see the amazing things they bring it will solidify your belief in the lord and that none of this is coincidence.
> 
> Now if you follow mans interpretation of the lords word you can end up like Osama. The path is narrow to heaven. Open your mind.



This is why I am here listening to all of you . 



digibucc said:


> no. benign means it has mostly no effect, and that is the majority of it.
> 
> and negative mutations occur all the time, and can surely cause the death of
> their holder. disease, deformity, mental illness, etc.
> ...



Ok so things like cancer might and Alzheimer might just be evolution and the precursor to something mush better then ?  And in order for evolution to take hold it has to be past on and on and on and on for thousands of years to get the full effect from it ?


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> but no, it doesn't. that's point i'm trying to make.  yes it may be change, it may be
> mutation, but it is NOT evolution by natural selection any longer.  i am talking about
> a very specific scientific theory, and random mutation alone is not enough to say
> we are still evolving.
> ...



I don't know which evolution theory are you talking about now, but it certainly isn't darwinian evolution. Evolution is no more no less than this:



> Evolution (also known as biological or organic evolution) is the change over time in one or more inherited traits found in populations of organisms.



Change. That's all that it is. What I called earlier positive evolution, is that one that makes a species more likely to continue it's existence. I think the notion of "continued existence" is actually better than "surviving" because a trait does not necessarily have to be beneficial in any form to be successfully inherited. A clear example is hair/fur on humans. Hair was essential for living, we can see it in the fact that most hot-blooded animals have it. At some point 300-500k years ago humans started using clothes, an ice age came and our intelligence allowed us to use a faster method for protection than natural selection would have allowed growwin even more hair. Since then hair on our body is completely irrelevant, having hair has no advantage, not having it doesn't represent an advantage either. So why did we lose our hair (for the most part) if no pressure dictates that? I mean if hair was irrelevant and there was no pressure from the outsde to change the ammount of hair either ways, why did we loose it? The answer is simple, not having to grow hair is more efficient than having to grow it. You could call that a kind of "pressure" that the body is imposing to itself, but is not any external pressure of any kind. It's self contained, it's not any "adapt to your surroundings or die thing". Accordingly better and better medicines render our natural defenses pretty much useless, or at least their strenght, the need to become strnger in order to fight stronger diseases, becomes irrelevant, and hence the body, the system, will just use the path that supposes expending the less resources. Thus leading to weakness.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> This is why I am here listening to all of you .
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so things like cancer might and Alzheimer might just be evolution and the precursor to something mush better then ?  And in order for evolution to take hold it has to be past on and on and on and on for thousands of years to get the full effect from it ?



Sharks cannot contract any form of cancer. They are also one of the oldest species of animals on the planet. Coincidence?


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Sharks cannot contract any form of cancer. They are also one of the oldest species of animals on the planet. Coincidence?



sharks don't get cancer cause water acts as pretty good protection from ionizing rays, its only land creatures and things spending a lot of the time close to the surface that are of risk of cancer, as it happens humans have a very good Protection from cancer compared to most creatures as we have no hair to absorb the uv


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

no, it's not just change. natural selection is required for it to be evolution.

it's called "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" it's in the title.

the biological definition, which is what we are discussing, says:


> a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations,
> *as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals*, and
> resulting in the development of new species.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I don't know which evolution theory are you talking about now, but it certainly isn't darwinian evolution. Evolution is no more no less than this:
> 
> 
> 
> Change. That's all that it is. What I called earlier positive evolution, is that one that makes a species more likely to continue it's existence. I think the notion of "continued existence" is actually better than "surviving" because a trait does not necessarily have to be beneficial in any form to be successfully inherited. A clear example is hair/fur on humans. Hair was essential for living, we can see it in the fact that most hot-blooded animals have it. At some point 300-500k years ago humans started using clothes, an ice age came and our intelligence allowed us to use a faster method for protection than natural selection would have allowed growwin even more hair. Since then hair on our body is completely irrelevant, having hair has no advantage, not having it doesn't represent an advantage either. So why did we lose our hair (for the most part) if no pressure dictates that? I mean if hair was irrelevant and there was no pressure from the outsde to change the ammount of hair either ways, why did we loose it? The answer is simple, not having to grow hair is more efficient than having to grow it. You could call that a kind of "pressure" that the body is imposing to itself, but is not any external pressure of any kind. It's self contained, it's not any "adapt to your surroundings or die thing". Accordingly better and better medicines render our natural defenses pretty much useless, or at least their strenght, the need to become strnger in order to fight stronger diseases, becomes irrelevant, and hence the body, the system, will just use the path that supposes expending the less resources. Thus leading to weakness.


Well I wished some one would have told me this I have HAIR every were ! I hate it ! 
Evolution skipped over me on this hair thing ! 


TheMailMan78 said:


> Sharks cannot contract any form of cancer. They are also one of the oldest species of animals on the planet. Coincidence?


I do not know But I ask is this some thing that we get for a reason in the evolutionary scale of things ? Are we being prepared for not having it ?


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

You aren't even trying to understand. You're being cursory about everything, and to be honest that's most likely a result of your faith. Belief in god negates the need for a detailed understanding on a number of levels.

The only way to fathom evolution is to understand the whole picture. It's that way for a lot of things actually. You need to actually know the details, as in you'd have to want to know them. You also have to be able to comprehend a scale of time that really isn't meant for an individual. Evolution sticks pretty well to the random mutation "design". Large complex species of animals die off all the time due to the slowness of evolution, but there's redundancy with millions of species out there with preexisting adaptations that would allow them to continue to survive where others failed. Even with a mass extinction you'd most likely still have the fall back of single celled organisms to start all over. 

The other thing to note is singe mutations can and have shown up in numerous species including ourselves in relatively recent times (dairy tolerance, plague resistance, those fish mexicans are always trying to poison). Simply multiply that many times and you can see how one animal can become quite different in a million years, somewhat faster even if breeding is rapid enough. The perfect example is viruses and bacteria, but I guess it's just more convenient to say "they don't count."

And a note on shark cancer http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_bite_on_cancer.htm


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> Change. That's all that it is. What I called earlier positive evolution, is that one that makes a species more likely to continue it's existence. I think the notion of "continued existence" is actually better than "surviving" because a trait does not necessarily have to be beneficial in any form to be successfully inherited. A clear example is hair/fur on humans. Hair was essential for living, we can see it in the fact that most hot-blooded animals have it. At some point 300-500k years ago humans started using clothes, an ice age came and our intelligence allowed us to use a faster method for protection than natural selection would have allowed growwin even more hair. Since then hair on our body is completely irrelevant, having hair has no advantage, not having it doesn't represent an advantage either. So why did we lose our hair (for the most part) if no pressure dictates that? I mean if hair was irrelevant and there was no pressure from the outsde to change the ammount of hair either ways, why did we loose it? The answer is simple, not having to grow hair is more efficient than having to grow it. You could call that a kind of "pressure" that the body is imposing to itself, but is not any external pressure of any kind. It's self contained, it's not any "adapt to your surroundings or die thing". Accordingly better and better medicines render our natural defenses pretty much useless, or at least their strenght, the need to become strnger in order to fight stronger diseases, becomes irrelevant, and hence the body, the system, will just use the path that supposes expending the less resources. Thus leading to weakness.



less hair allows for better control of tempreture, dogs etc only sweat through specific areas as the fur will absorb water faster then it evaporates, humans are close to unique in sweating all over our bodies, Humans evolved in africa where losing heat was much more inportant for most of the years then gaining it was since we had cloths


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> sharks don't get cancer cause water acts as pretty good protection from ionizing rays, its only land creatures and things spending a lot of the time close to the surface that are of risk of cancer, as it happens humans have a very good Protection from cancer compared to most creatures as we have no hair to absorb the uv



Then why do "newer" fish and all ocean bearing mammals get it? I think its an evolutionary defense that sharks have.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> You aren't even trying to understand. You're being cursory about everything, and to be honest that's most likely a result of your faith. Belief in god negates the need for a detailed understanding on a number of levels.


 Thats not true at all. Thats a stereotype.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> no, it's not just change. natural selection is required for it to be evolution.
> 
> it's called "Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" it's in the title.
> 
> the biological definition, which is what we are discussing, says:



That does not go against what I'm saying at all. Read my example. There's no pressure, there's no benefit, there's only change which effectively contributed to the creation to a new species, us. The "less hair" trait was also in fact inherited "as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals". It's just that it was not beneficial, nor was it detrimental, and hence it was inherited.



trickson said:


> Well I wished some one would have told me this I have HAIR every were ! I hate it !
> Evolution skipped over me on this hair thing !



You don't look like a dog or a monkey do you? I mean you could, but that's a "disease".


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Then why do "newer" fish and all ocean bearing mammals get it? I think its an evolutionary defense.



also, that's assuming that UV rays are the only way to get cancer.



Benetanegia said:


> It's just that it was not beneficial, nor was it detrimental, and hence it was inherited.



but then it wasn't selected, it just got by.  that's not natural selection. 

heredity is heredity, not evolution.  it's not enough for it simply be a 
mutation that got passed on, it has to provide a selective advantage 
in reproduction. without that, it is not evolution by natural selection.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Then why do "newer" fish and all ocean bearing mammals get it? I think its an evolutionary defense.



statisticaly the newer fish are the ones that live closer too the top of the ocean, a large number of the fish at the bottom of the ocean have remained unchanged for 100's of millions of years, where evolution is happening in the surface fish in a human life span, since the top fish are more likely to get cancer then it seams as if the newer fish seam to get cancer, its correlation without cause


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> You aren't even trying to understand. You're being cursory about everything, and to be honest that's most likely a result of your faith. Belief in god negates the need for a detailed understanding on a number of levels.
> 
> The only way to fathom evolution is to understand the whole picture. It's that way for a lot of things actually. You need to actually know the details, as in you'd have to want to know them. You also have to be able to comprehend a scale of time that really isn't meant for an individual. Evolution sticks pretty well to the random mutation "design". Large complex species of animals die off all the time due to the slowness of evolution, but there's redundancy with millions of species out there with preexisting adaptations that would allow them to continue to survive where others failed. Even with a mass extinction you'd most likely still have the fall back of single celled organisms to start all over.
> 
> The other thing to note is singe mutations can and have shown up in numerous species including ourselves in relatively recent times (dairy tolerance, plague resistance, those fish mexicans are always trying to poison). Simply multiply that many times and you can see how one animal can become quite different in a million years, somewhat faster even if breeding is rapid enough. The perfect example is viruses and bacteria, but I guess it's just more convenient to say "they don't count."



I guess you are right . I know that viruses and bacteria mutate all the time . I do know this . I guess that they evolve . So do cockroaches every time we make a spray that kill's them off the next batch of roaches seems to be immune to it .  
Ok I can see evolution on this scale being viable and work . Just how would it be this way for large animals and humans I still have a hard time with is all .



Benetanegia said:


> You don't look like a dog or a monkey do you? I mean you could, but that's a "disease".


LOL no But I have so much hair I have to shave every day once a week on my back and head to .


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

trickson said:


> I guess you are right . I know that viruses and bacteria mutate all the time . I do know this . I guess that they evolve . So do cockroaches every time we make a spray that kill's them off the next batch of roaches seems to be immune to it .
> Ok I can see evolution on this scale being viable and work . Just how would it be this way for large animals and humans I still have a hard time with is all .



because the time scale is hard to conceive of, but that is an understandable limitation
of our evolving with limited lifespans, brains and external stimuli to react to.

but following that logically, it is no reason to not believe.  so you have to take into 
consideration our human limits,  and look at it logically and scientifically.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

Of course it is natural selection. If nature or the environment let that trait get through it's pretty much the same as saying that it selected. Think about a nightclub doorman, his job is not to select individual good (acceptable) traits, his job is prevent those that would be bad and do not let them in. He selects the bad ones, but at the same time he is selecting the "good" ones too, letting them in, and in the meantime a lot of bad traits are getting inside the club too because the doorman cannot see all of them and is only looking for those that could cause trouble to HIM or the club, etc.


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> because the time scale is hard to conceive of, but that is an understandable limitation
> of our evolving with limited lifespans, brains and external stimuli to react to.
> 
> but following that logically, it is no reason to not believe.  so you have to take into
> consideration our human limits,  and look at it logically and scientifically.



I am trying .


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> statisticaly the newer fish are the ones that live closer too the top of the ocean, a large number of the fish at the bottom of the ocean have remained unchanged for 100's of millions of years, where evolution is happening in the surface fish in a human life span, since the top fish are more likely to get cancer then it seams as if the newer fish seam to get cancer, its correlation without cause



Well if your theory of the water is correct then no fish should get cancer and ocean bearing mammals should have it less then man or land bearing mammals. Which isn't true. Its evolution man. Come on!


----------



## trickson (May 6, 2011)

My brain is hurting . Is that evolution ? I mean this is a great discussion but man my brain is on fire now !


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Of course it is natural selection. If nature or the environment let that trait get through it's pretty much the same as saying that it selected. Think about a nightclub doorman, his job is not to select individual good (acceptable) traits, his job is prevent those that would be bad and do not let them in. He selects the bad ones, but at the same time he is selecting the "good" ones too, letting them in, and in the meantime a lot of bad traits are getting inside the club too because the doorman cannot see all of them and is only looking for those that could cause trouble to HIM or the club, etc.



i get your point, but disagree.

without it providing a reproductive advantage, it is not selected.  sneaking in is not the same thing as being selected.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Well if your theory of the water is correct then no fish should get cancer and ocean bearing mammals should have it less then man or land bearing mammals. Which isn't true. Its evolution man. Come on!



its relative, the 20 miles of Atmosphere protects us from radiation a lot more then the 20cm of air between people and the outside of the spaceship (and because of that most astronauts can not have children)(Nasa requires astronauts to either of had children or have no interest in them as the radiation of space destroys your reproductive capabilities) in the same way 1000m of water protects the fish lower down a lot more effectivly then the 1m on top of the higher up ones


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats not true at all. Thats a stereotype.



Yes, it is very true. Yes, that is indeed a popular belief. Many many people use religion as the great simplifier of everything they possibly can, and tend to not look at things deeply. The frequently haphazard and rambling logic hes presented is a common trait in a religiously driven argument. A lot of people would go nuts with fear if they didn't think they had this great after life to look forward too. Why bother with learning shit, the bible teaches us the important things and what not. It's a cushion in all respects. The only flaw is the whole sin system creates artificial worry, but in keeping with the design there's simplistic fixes for that as well like "confession".

For what I said to be untrue, it would need to be the case far less often.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

@cheesy,
again though, UV rays are not the only way to get cancer, so the point is relatively moot, in regards to evolution.

@lan
belief in got doesn't negate the need or ability to understand.  if you are of the mind that "of course it may not
be true, but i believe it is" ok.  

it's blind faith that negates critical thinking.  if you are willing to believe something without any evidence, 
where does it stop?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> its relative, the 20 miles of Atmosphere protects us from radiation a lot more then the 20cm of air between people and the outside of the spaceship (and because of that most astronauts can not have children)(Nasa requires astronauts to either of had children or have no interest in them as the radiation of space destroys your reproductive capabilities) in the same way 1000m of water protects the fish lower down a lot more effectivly then the 1m on top of the higher up ones



You are not getting what I am saying. Cancer should be LESS for all ocean bearing animals. Yet its not. Sharks are immune CLOSE to the surface. The only thing the deep dwellers and sharks have in common is AGE.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Yes, it is very true. Yes, that is indeed a popular belief. Many many people use religion as the great simplifier of everything they possibly can, and tend to not look at things deeply. The frequently haphazard and rambling logic hes presented is a common trait in a religiously driven argument. A lot of people would go nuts with fear if they didn't think they had this great after life to look forward too. Why bother with learning shit, the bible teaches us the important things and what not. It's a cushion in all respects. The only flaw is the whole sin system creates artificial worry, but in keeping with the design there's simplistic fixes for that as well like "confession".
> 
> For what I said to be untrue, it would need to be the case far less often.



Then sadly I don't fit your stereotype.



digibucc said:


> belief in got doesn't negate the need or ability to understand.  if you are of the mind that "of course it may not
> be true, but i believe it is" ok.
> 
> it's blind faith that negates critical thinking.  if you are willing to believe something without any evidence,
> where does it stop?


 People do it all the time. But only with religion is it taboo.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

Yay you? Anyways, that reminds me... didn't they figure out a bunch of people have cancer immunity? Something like 15%? Explained a lot of those late stage recoveries. By immunity I just mean they got cancer but their immune system fought it. Think it was in discover.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> You are not getting what I am saying. Cancer should be LESS for all ocean bearing animals. Yet its not. Sharks are immune CLOSE to the surface. The only thing the deep dwellers and sharks have in common is AGE.



most sharks actually live close to the bottom of the water, believe it or not they have better things to do with beach attacks.

If you really want to know their is a protein attached to DNA that Allows the body to repair or deactivate cells damaged by radiation, however it also lowers the healing capabilities of the animals (restricting the ability of cells to multiply), disabling the genetic tag in a mammal means they regrow bodily parts like starfish, evolution means that different animals have a different balance of proteins depending on which traits would help them more, Wales and mammals get attacked a lot and therefore need more flexibility then sharks, which can carry injuries for many years as there lack of natural predators means there DNA is more focused on preserving what they have rather then repairing it


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> People do it all the time. But only with religion is it taboo.



because of the causes, only religion can cause otherwise normal, sane beings to fly into 
buildings and blow up abortion clinics.   the blind faith allows them to do things they 
normally would never do, because their god supposedly asks it of them.

and i am not entirely against the belief in a creator.  i don't believe in one, but that
doesn't mean much.  what i have a problem with is religion in general, with central 
power and someone telling you HOW to believe, that's where the danger lies.

ok but OT - come on bene


----------



## Peter1986C (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> also, that's assuming that UV rays are the only way to get cancer.



And of course there are several ways of getting cancer. Cervical cancer for example is caused by the HPV virus, which alters certain genes that are responsible for the cell-splicing (thus increasing the chance of getting cancer).


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i get your point, but disagree.
> 
> without it providing a reproductive advantage, it is not selected.  sneaking in is not
> the same thing as being selected.



And then how do you explain all the inherited traits that change or evolve and that do not represent any advantage/disadvantage.

An article (or was it in a book?) put it very well, but I don't know if I will be able to reproduce it. Basically it said that evolution is not about the survival of the especies, but about the demise of the species. The reasoning behind this is that for every 1 species that continues in existence 1000 other species have dissapeared. So according to this view (with which I agree since) natural selection is not about chosing the good traits, but getting rid of the bad ones. 

And it makes a lot more sense to me this way. If you cannot fight a disease you die and your DNA is lost. If your neighbour can fight it he survives and his DNA is spread. Now think about millions and it's the millions of unsuccessfull ones that will most probably die and dissapear, eventually over the millenia.

However if you can fight it, and your neighbour can fight it too, but another one couldn't, who says it's the exact same trait that made you both live? Because of this the weight in evolution of each of your traits is less pronounced. The only trait that was irrevocably selected was the one that died. Do you understand my point better now?


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> because of the causes, only religion can cause otherwise normal, sane beings to fly into
> buildings and blow up abortion clinics. the blind faith allows them to do things they
> normally would never do, because their god supposedly asks it of them.
> 
> ...



thats not religion doing that, there religion actually tells them they shouldn't, thats just normal human aggression and revenge (a lot of these guys would of done it anyway just choosing a different reason), if you got rid of religion people would just fight over different scientific theories etc, people have gone to war over much less important things then religion


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> because of the causes, only religion can cause otherwise normal, sane beings to fly into
> buildings and blow up abortion clinics.   the blind faith allows them to do things they
> normally would never do, because their god supposedly asks it of them.
> 
> ...



Thats where you are mistaken. Its a blind faith in mans interpretation of a subject. Religion is not exclusive to this. Political parties and affiliations come to mind. Even science.


*Anyway WTF does ANY of this have to do with a tech forum?!?!*


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> thats not religion doing that, there religion actually tells them they shouldn't, thats just normal human aggression and revenge (a lot of these guys would of done it anyway just choosing a different reason), if you got rid of religion people would just fight over different scientific theories etc, people have gone to war over much less important things then religion



yes, of course humanity is violent and war-like on it's own.

but again, religion is the only one that allows otherwise normal, well-balanced
and sane people to do insane things. they are not warmongers, they would
not fight over science or politics. they would fight over their god though.

and maybe their original books don't say that, but their texts have been
ignored since day one.  their leaders and the state of their religion is such
that moderates back extremists, allowing them to further press their
violent agendas, using religion as a tool.

religion is not the cause, i know.  it enables it.

@mailman - politics, sometimes . science, not - unless the conflict is over
the religious repurcussions.  religion is the only thing with that power at 
that scale.

but yes, enough religion.  im sorry for feeding in and it doesn't belong here.
let's move on 

*come on, people don't blow up buildings because of scientific theories or sports.*


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats where you are mistaken. Its a blind faith in mans interpretation of a subject. Religion is not exclusive to this. Political parties and affiliations come to mind. Even science.



And football (soccer)! The drama with Real Madrid - Barcelona F.C. is driving me nuts!!


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> yes, of course humanity is violent and war-like on it's own.
> 
> but again, religion is the only one that allows otherwise normal, well-balanced
> and sane people to do insane things. they are not warmongers, they would
> ...



still, religion is only the official cause in around 1/3 of wars and even then we know its used by leaders as an excuse to get other things (oil money etc) and for every 1 terrorist there are several 100000 perfectly reasonable people, religion is not a bad thing, its just used as an excuse by bad people when they do bad things


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> yes, of course humanity is violent and war-like on it's own.
> 
> but again, religion is the only one that allows otherwise normal, well-balanced
> and sane people to do insane things. they are not warmongers, they would
> ...



Thats simply not true. Its interpretation of religion that causes people to go nuts and you are telling me its exclusive to religion only? Really? Why did Pol Pot kill those Cambodians again?


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> The only trait that was irrevocably selected was the one that died. Do you understand my point better now?



much better.  it is contrary to my understanding, but makes sense for sure.

i will have to put some more thought into this! awesome!


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this was going to happen when you bring up evolution. It's why I felt this sub was better suited for GN. Hell this is why I why I was always so reluctant to join GN. I don't want to know what you all really think about life shit haha.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i see i said only, that was my mistake.
> 
> my point is that it holds more power than any other,
> and more often then not, it is based on religion.



i still feel that most wars are not based on religion, leaders just use it as an excuse to get people to fight

Person 1:why should we go to war again
Person 2:because God wants it
Person 1: ok
Person 2(quietly): lots of money, i like money


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Thats simply not true. Its interpretation of religion that causes people to go nuts and you are telling me its exclusive to religion only? Really? Why did Pol Pot kill those Cambodians again?



i see i said only, that was my mistake.

my point is that it holds more power than any other,
and more often then not, it is based on religion.

and i see where we are getting confused.  i see religion as the system
itself, with interpretation included.  without interpretation, they are just
pretty ideas that don't go anywhere.

*it's the human element that makes religion, and our own violence that stirs it.
we use it as a tool to suit our own ends.  i know all this.  *

my point would more accurately be stated as such:

religion is the one section of society that on large cannot be questioned.
politics, science, sports - there are numbers and ways to find proof,
religion seeks to answer such large questions with no accurate way of
confirming the answer - if you are ok with that, i believe you are more
likely to transfer that acceptence of belief without proof to other parts
of your life.

you aren't taught at birth to root for a specific team, or believe a specific
theory.  but many people are taught to believe in something they can never
know for sure, with all their hearts, or they go to hell.

how can that NOT cause conflict?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i see i said only, that was my mistake.
> 
> my point is that it holds more power than any other,
> and more often then not, it is based on religion.



No religion is the most dramatized because its the most deviated cause. People expect politics to kill people. They don't expect followers of the good book. Whatever that good book is. The Bible, Koran, ect. to do so.

Kinda like when you hear a mom killing her own kids. Its more shocking then most murders.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> No religion is the most dramatized because its the most deviated cause. People expect politics to kill people. They don't expect followers of the good book. Whatever that good book is. The Bible, Koran, ect. to do so.
> 
> Kinda like when you hear a mom killing her own kids. Its more shocking then most murders.



that is a really good point.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> you aren't taught at birth to root for a specific team, or believe a specific
> theory. but many people are taught to believe in something they can never
> know for sure, with all their hearts, or they go to hell.



how many people vote for a certain political party cause they grew up doing it?

@lan derf  i Also think we should move the discussion to a new thread cause allthough its still vaguely on topic it seams to be a bit too far out for most peoples likeing - i see no problem with the actual argument though, theres no trolling or anything, just a philosophical discussion (although one that could do with its own thread)


----------



## Mr McC (May 6, 2011)

Pick up any major newspaper and read it from start to finish: therein lies the greatest challenge to any theory involving evolution.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

agreed, it should end here.

bene had some good points, so i still have thinking to do


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> Pick up any major newspaper and read it from start to finish: therein lies the greatest challenge to any theory involving evolution.



i heard reading the daily mail lowers your IQ (and i agree)

i wonder what the newspapers think about evolution? (can't be bothered to read one)


----------



## SaiZo (May 6, 2011)

I might be very wrong, but I heard somewhere that "evolution is not about life, its about death", i.e. when one race "dies out" to make way for the new one - almost like the race before homosapiens or something like that. Think it was on National Geographic.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

SaiZo said:


> I might be very wrong, but I heard somewhere that "evolution is not about life, its about death", i.e. when one race "dies out" to make way for the new one - almost like the race before homosapiens or something like that. Think it was on National Geographic.



that goes to what bene was saying, where the real selection is weeding out the negative
mutations.

which makes a lot of sense.  i still kinda see benign as just slipping by - but every time
a negative mutation doesn't spread, it has been selected.  i like it


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> that goes to what bene was saying, where the real selection is weeding out the negative
> mutations.



agreed, you will still survive with a gene that lets you run 1mph faster, but you will die if a gene makes you lose your legs


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> agreed, you will still survive with a gene that lets you run 1mph faster, but you will die if a gene makes you lose your legs



sure - but evolution rarely makes you lose something that you have already evolved.

and the more i think, it seems both positive and negative are selected.

you can't ignore the fact that positive mutations can make it easier
to spread your DNA, therefore it was selected positively.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> sure - but evolution rarely makes you lose something that you have already evolved.
> 
> and the more i think, it seems both positive and negative are selected.
> 
> ...



Again see the saber tooth tiger. Them fangs were VERY positive until they became a negative


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 6, 2011)

What interests me is if some humans have cancer fighting immune systems then when did that first show up? Is it something you'd find in a percentage of all mammals or just people? Was it an adaptation not fully integrated into the species due to short life spans making it unneeded?


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Again see the saber tooth tiger. Them fangs were VERY positive until they became a negative



too true.  but that's more in line with our own artificial selection - the fangs
would still be a positive if we didn't choose to kill them for it.



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> So we got back on topic ourselves? I'm impressed. Too bad we couldn't do that for the piracy thread.
> 
> What interests me is if some humans have cancer fighting immune systems then when did that first show up? Is it something you'd find
> in a percentage of all mammals or just people? Was it an adaptation not fully integrated into the species due to short life spans making it unneeded?



yeah, i was worried too. i did not want my first thread to ruin the sci-tech forum.
according to what i've read, cancer is relatively new evolutionarily speaking.   and 
why did some immunity show up? same as any other mutation, no reason.  totally random
until it provided a benefit.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

digibucc said:


> too true.  but that's more in line with our own artificial selection - the fangs
> would still be a positive if we didn't choose to kill them for it.



We didn't. We killed off the use of those fangs. Taking down the mammoth. Evolution could not keep up with man in that case.


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> We didn't. We killed off the use of those fangs. Taking down the mammoth. Evolution could not keep up with man in that case.



ahhh, i see your point.  there is the natural pressure, us.  not by conscience decision
to change a lifeform, which would be artificial, but by simply living, we effect our environment, 
and therefore, other being's evolution.

*random as in it didn't happen FOR a specific reason. maybe because of one, but it is not working toward some image of "evolved"*


----------



## Mr McC (May 6, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> We didn't. We killed off the use of those fangs. Taking down the mammoth. Evolution could not keep up with man in that case.



As far as I'm aware, the most recent theories on the reason for the disappearance of the mammoth point to a second big asteroid evidenced in the amount of metal debris in tusks and the corresponding strata, which is not to say that we didn't force a large number off clifftops.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

Mr McC said:


> As far as I'm aware, the most recent theories on the reason for the disappearance of the mammoth point to a second big asteroid evidenced in the amount of metal debris in tusks and the corresponding strata, which is not to say that we didn't force a large number off clifftops.



I haven't heard that one yet. If that were the case then all elephants would be extinct I think.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 6, 2011)

Evolution is simply a change that is passed down to successive generations, over a long period of time.

These changes are random (genetically), selective (bigger males breed more with willing females), or pressure (no water, lack of water kills the ones that can not live without it).


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *LAN_deRf_HA  *
> So we got back on topic ourselves? I'm impressed. Too bad we couldn't do that for the piracy thread.
> 
> What interests me is if some humans have cancer fighting immune systems then when did that first show up? Is it something you'd find
> in a percentage of all mammals or just people? Was it an adaptation not fully integrated into the species due to short life spans making it unneeded?




Evolution of a thread, in full view, that and i'm not talking to mailman when i can see W1zzards name glowing red in 'who reading this' part of the page.

don't want two infractions for flaming in 2 days

I'd imagine the people who mutated cancer immunity lived longer and had more children then those that didn't


----------



## digibucc (May 6, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Evolution is simply a change that is passed down to successive generations, over a long period of time.
> 
> These changes are random (genetically), selective (bigger males breed more with willing females), or pressure (no water, lack of water kills the ones that can not live without it).



the mutations are random, or better- based on chance.  but selection and pressure
i see as the same thing.  what is the difference evolutionarily speaking, of you being
attractive or dying and having water or dying.  ?

you either died or not, reproduced or not. evolutionarily speaking, i'd call it
"selective pressure"   the pressure to mate or drink, either way.

and again, evolution BY natural selection.  for Evolutionary Theory, the selection is
not optional.


----------



## pantherx12 (May 6, 2011)

Hey mailman, thought I'd pop in and say sharks can get cancer.

They're much more resistance to it than us and other things mind you, but they can get it.

As cancer is essentially cells growing in a random manner, an organism even one with defence mechanism like a shark may not be able to distinguish the cancerous growth from normal growth.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 6, 2011)

> Cancer talk



Do any of you actually know how cancer is formed?

If you are just saying what your school teacher told you, then go and read this paper


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Do any of you actually know how cancer is formed?
> 
> If you are just saying what your school teacher told you, then go and read this paper



do i look like i have moths of spare time?

from my understanding ionizing radiation damages the DNA in the cell and the body fails to shut the cell down before it multiply's


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 6, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Hey mailman, thought I'd pop in and say sharks can get cancer.
> 
> They're much more resistance to it than us and other things mind you, but they can get it.
> 
> As cancer is essentially cells growing in a random manner, an organism even one with defence mechanism like a shark may not be able to distinguish the cancerous growth from normal growth.





> For the past 100 years, scientists have studied cancerous tumors in sharks. The first chondrichthyes’ (cartilaginous fishes, including sharks) tumor was found on a skate and recorded by Dislonghamcps in 1853 (3). The first shark tumor was recorded in 1908. Scientists have since discovered benign and cancerous tumors in 18 of the 1,168 species of sharks (3). Scarcity of studies on shark physiology has perhaps allowed this myth to be accepted as fact for so many years.


 I stand corrected. 

However they are FAR less prone to cancer then newer species. That was my point more then anything. Much like man. Education evolves. Let me put it to you this way. The text books I learned from still had Germany divided in two.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> do i look like i have moths of spare time?
> 
> from my understanding ionizing radiation damages the DNA in the cell and the body fails to shut the cell down before it multiply's



There is WAY more to it than that.

Reactive Oxygen Species can cause cancer, P53, angiogenesis, evasion of apoptosis, the poly A tail not being broken down, cancer going from benign to metastases actually changes the cell type (from epidermal to mesenchymal back to epidermal again), the complete lack of respiration (bar glycolysis), the continual mutations that occur...

and on and on and on.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> There is WAY more to it than that.
> 
> Reactive Oxygen Species can cause cancer, P53, angiogenesis, evasion of apoptosis, the poly A tail not being broken down, cancer going from benign to metastases actually changes the cell type (from epidermal to mesenchymal back to epidermal again), the complete lack of respiration (bar glycolysis), the continual mutations that occur...
> 
> and on and on and on.



yeah but is there really any need to get that far in depth in a thread about evolution?

The question everyone is asking is DO COMPUTERS CAUSE CANCER


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> yeah but is there really any need to get that far in depth in a thread about evolution?
> 
> The question everyone is asking is DO COMPUTERS CAUSE CANCER



Water can cause cancer... so yes. Why the fuck not.

Humans will not evolve to counter act cancer. In fact we have evolved to live longer and thus are seeing cancer. If we died at 40 like we're meant to, cancer would not even be on our minds.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> Water can cause cancer... so yes. Why the fuck not.



do you read the daily mail?


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 6, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> do you read the daily mail?



Hydrolytic DNA damage, most common is the conversion from Cytosine to Uracil. That's a base change, that's a mutation. Mutations cause cancer.

Though now I think about it, yes that does sound like something that the Daily Mail would report on.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 6, 2011)

All this derailment saddens me since I think this section is on probation time and that kind of things are not going to help keep it open or in TPU rather than on GN. I'm not seeing many mods around which I don't know if that means anything.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 6, 2011)

Ok let me simplify this for all of you. This is TPU not GN. Points and removal of posts has been accomplished up to this point. I am going against my better judgement to reopen this thread to see if TPU actually has some intelligence in masses, and to weed out the trolls with heavier infractions the next time around.

Don't make me have to eat my words for re-opening this thread after the huge amount of time I spent cleaning this to try to save some continuity!!!!


----------



## cheesy999 (May 6, 2011)

sorry sneaky - i'll try to be more scientific now (i'd hate it for you guy's too see me as a troll)

anyone actually heard about how darwin came up with the theory, turtle's on beaches etc?

pretty interesting really


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (May 7, 2011)

What did it flare up again? I thought we rerailed it ourselves. Props us.


----------



## digibucc (May 7, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> What did it flare up again? I thought we rerailed it ourselves. Props us.



yeah when i left it was re-railed and done with.  i'm not sure what happened.


----------



## pantherx12 (May 7, 2011)

Just to clarify, mailman and I made fappin based posts again. Others may of joined in. Could of been that. 

And yeah the Turtle story is brilliant. 
One of the species of turtle has an arch/groove in it's shell so it can eat things higher than usual, this trait got passed on as certain types of food became rare to they forced to take advantage of it. And thus the gene for an arch in the shell was passed on. ( simplified version)

By the by, does have to be said, I missed what else happened, but when having discussions ( even scientific ones) there's nothing wrong with throwing out a few jokes, being a bit off topic.
Sometimes I hate forums lol.


----------



## sneekypeet (May 9, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> there's nothing wrong with throwing out a few jokes, being a bit off topic.
> Sometimes I hate forums lol.



There sure is, and if you dont get that, dont post! I had to go through and remove over 30 posts from this thread that were just "a few jokes"!!!


----------



## cheesy999 (May 9, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> By the by, does have to be said, I missed what else happened, but when having discussions ( even scientific ones) there's nothing wrong with throwing out a few jokes, being a bit off topic.
> Sometimes I hate forums lol.



i don't think you realise just how off topic this got

and i think there were birds as well as turtles?


----------



## Frederik S (May 9, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i have a friend, who is relatively well educated, and
> definitely takes science and mathematics seriously.
> we were talking awhile ago, and he made the
> statement that:



The evolutionary pressure is needed, I agree. Everyone living in a country with decent health care reaches an average age above that of sexual maturity thus Darwin is put out of play, if we negate all the other factors in human reproduction. 

Keep in mind that the changes we are seeing could be totally natural. If height is a function your height potential plus food available, then it could just be that more people have access to proper nutrition.

Other types of mutations to the human genome can be caused by the way we live. We are constantly surround by chemicals where we know very little about how they affect us.

Darwin is surprisingly relevant, think of the way we try to remove all bacteria from our lives. The detergents we use only kill off the weakest bacteria leaving more food for the more hardcore ones accelerating their growth. The other scenario is that we clean less and have more of the not so harmful bacteria, and less of the hardcore ones.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 9, 2011)

Evolution doesn't stop.  It's always happening.

Didn't anyone learn from South Park? 


cheesy999 said:


> and i think there were birds as well as turtles?


The birds are nice but it's really turtles all the way down.


----------



## digibucc (May 9, 2011)

i'm changing this text as people obviously can't be bothered to read past it.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 9, 2011)

Evolution doesn't halt.  It may slow down, but it never stops, pauses or halts*.  (The term "pause" works if you mean that it "slows to a crawl".)
Sources:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_54
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_51
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat05.html

The absorption of many cultures (the melting pot) along with current medical and hygienic practices are mechanisms driving speciation in the USA.
[unreferenced/conjectural]

*For the purpose of this discussion:
stop = a process/mechanism which is no longer operating
halt = pause = a process/mechanism which has temporarily stopped

Supplementary [uncited] summary:






EDIT:
I also have a very minor personal gripe with the term "Darwin's Evolution".  Think of evolution as an art gallery.  Darwin told us where to build it and what it should look like.  During the last 100+ years scientists actually built it and furnished it with beautiful paintings, sculptures and tapestries.  Similar to other galleries, my increasingly metaphorical Darwin Gallery is never complete and some of the works exhibited may not be legitimate.
[unreferenced/conjectural]


----------



## Benetanegia (May 9, 2011)

digibucc said:


> we've already covered that, that is not true *IMO*.  without selective pressure darwin's evolution halts.  it doesn't end, or stop - but it's also not happening.  it ... pauses.



There fixed. Evolution happens all the time. You seem to think that evolution is just linked to natural selection, but it's not. Directly from wikipedia:



> There are four common mechanisms of evolution. The first mechanism is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms that differ in one or more inherited traits.[1] A second mechanism is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.[7][8] A third mechanism is mutation, which is a permanent change in a DNA sequence. Finally, the fourth mechanism is gene flow, which is the incorporation of genes from one population into another.



Wether you like it or not, evolution happens when something in the DNA of one species changes (for any reason) and thus is not the same as it was before. No more, no less.


----------



## digibucc (May 10, 2011)

i was using darwin's evolution, to refer to gross evolution, obviously not the same thing.
i was wrong.

of course the processes that lead to what we see as evolution continue to happen, but
 they cease to result in evolutionary changes.  the kind of changes that determine size, 
strength, intelligence, hair, etc, have stopped.  without selection pressure, we stop 
changing.

so yes, in a strictly technical sense you are right, and i'm an idiot. i should have disclaimed 
and prepared for that.  but my point has been since my OP that as far as we are concerned, 
evolution stopped making any changes with us.


@bene
you are absolutely right.  genetic drift (which has no effect with a population the size of 
humanity) , gene flow (which has no effect with a population that does not have super-
isolated pockets), and mutation (a change event) also exist.  the thing is, they rarely do 
much, and never effect the evolutionary change i have been talking about since the 
beginning, with the possible exception of mutation, which i already mentioned.

so again, in the most technical definition of everything evolution encompasses, you guys 
are exactly right. 

but if we are talking about evolutionary change in humans, which is what i thought we had
been talking about, it has stopped occurring. ceased. paused. however.  the one time i don't 
spend 20 minutes picking my words and i surely regret it.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 10, 2011)

Are you referring to this?
http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647 (Michio Kaku addressing the direction of contemporary human evolution)


> Originally Spoken by *Michio Kaku*
> 
> 
> _Evolution is still taking place. But gross evolution, that is, evolution that will give us big brains, big eyes, bald heads and little bodies, that kind of gross evolution is pretty much gone._


Personally I kind of disagree with Michio Kaku.  He's a physicist not a biologist after all.
A poster named, Kevin Stone, made the following comment which I think is a compelling argument:


> Originally Posted by *Kevin Stone*
> 
> 
> _I wish that Mr. Kaku would do a followup video correcting his misconceptions such as his idea that large phenotypic change can no longer take place just because geographic isolation no longer meaningfully exists. First of all despite modern transportation the world is not one unified population. But even if that changes in the future geographic barriers are not solely responsible for reproductive isolation. There are also behavioral factors to consider and they are more effective than you might think. Second, sexual selection is still very much a factor in human evolution and interpersonal pressures in socially complex species like ourselves result in unique forms of sexual selection that we’ve only recently become aware of. Finally, if you’re going to be a futurist regarding evolution you can’t look a couple of hundred years into the future. You have to look tens or even hundreds of thousands of years into the future. THAT’S the scale of evolution. By then advanced transportation systems which Mr. Kaku blames for stagnating human evolution may actually have begun to accelerate it by providing the ultimate geographic barrier possible… planetary colonization! Nothing will accelerate human speciation faster than hundreds of small isolated populations prone to allelic fixation via genetic drift. Far from stagnation, in a hundred thousand years or so human diversity may have skyrocketed, literally._





digibucc said:


> so yes, in a strictly technical sense you are right, and i'm an idiot.


You're not an idiot.

Here's an example of an idiot I met once:
I was talking to an acquaintance about why she likes to paint.  I mentioned that I'm fond of charcoal/pencil drawings because I'm colorblind.  She said, "Oh my god, I'm so sorry.  Does that mean you're retarded?"
I paused for a brief second and replied solemnly, "Yes." 





True story.


----------



## digibucc (May 10, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Are you referring to this?
> http://bigthink.com/ideas/26647 (Michio Kaku addressing the direction of contemporary human evolution)
> 
> 
> ...


wow, well thanks for that 

yes, that's where i got it all from 
i don't like michio kaku though, so i was 
hesitant to just point to him in my defense ...


----------



## wahdangun (May 10, 2011)

digibucc said:


> we've already covered that, that is not true.  without selective pressure darwin's evolution halts.  it doesn't end, or stop - but it's also not happening.  it ... pauses.



no, its not. Evolution never slow down or even halt. its just a slow process. And actually human species is still relatively young.
and btw there is no way We would lost our limb because there are no pressure, we use it everyday. Do you think snake lost its limb because it was no pressure in is? The answer is no, because actually the limb is getting away and the snake ancestor who have less limb actually have greater success and t'd trait is passed down and every generation the limb become smaller and smaller until it was gone.


----------



## digibucc (May 10, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> no, its not. Evolution never slow down or even halt. its just a slow process. And actually human species is still relatively young.
> and btw there is no way We would lost our limb because there are no pressure, we use it everyday. Do you think snake lost its limb because it was no pressure in is? The answer is no, because actually the limb is getting away and the snake ancestor who have less limb actually have greater success and t'd trait is passed down and every generation the limb become smaller and smaller until it was gone.



take second to read the posts right before yours, and then come back.
i already admitted where i was at fault, and clarified my position.

thanks for the rehash though.

@streetfighter -

i agree on the view of kaku, he gets paid to talk is all.

and i am sure there is more to it, but it does make sense (to me at least) 
that short of a worldwide event,  (including colonization of space) we are 
not likely to change much if at all.  the one thing i do disagree with is the
time.  yes, obviously most evolutionary changes take place over a long, LONG
period of time, beyond human understanding even - but that is not a necessity.

though hundreds would indeed be pushing it, and is not worth even really 
discussing, it's entirely possible that evolutionary change could happen withing
the span of a few hundred years. it would obviously depend on the species, and
the situation.


----------



## wahdangun (May 10, 2011)

digibucc said:


> take second to read the posts right before yours, and then come back.
> i already admitted where i was at fault, and clarified my position.
> 
> thanks for the rehash though.
> ...



sorry i didn't see it. 

Actually we already evolved, the thalasemia is our response to malaria out break many century ago.

or there are a village in africa that have evolved ostrich like leg.

just google it if you didn't believe me


----------



## Winston_008 (May 11, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> sorry i didn't see it.
> 
> Actually we already evolved, the thalasemia is our response to malaria out break many century ago.
> 
> ...



That example isnt real evolution, its only an example of microevolution, and also show me the site where you found this apparant ostrich like leg i googled and found nothing.


----------



## wahdangun (May 11, 2011)

Winston_008 said:


> That example isnt real evolution, its only an example of microevolution, and also show me the site where you found this apparant ostrich like leg i googled and found nothing.



its still evolution, do you think our ancestor turn from a monkey to human in one night?

Btw here the link to ostrich people :

best-ostrich-info-online.com/ostrichpeople.html


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (May 11, 2011)

I have nothing really useful to add other than to say the title is dumb...
I refuse to call evolution a theory.


----------



## wahdangun (May 11, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> I have nothing really useful to add other than to say the title is dumb...
> I refuse to call evolution a theory.



so its real right ? Or what? Please make it clear and add something so I know why its dumb.


----------



## GSquadron (May 11, 2011)

digibucc said:


> i have a friend, who is relatively well educated, and
> definitely takes science and mathematics seriously.
> 
> we were talking awhile ago, and he made the
> ...



As far as i know, everything that happens in our lifes was meant to evolve us.
But there are also things which make us go back in terms of evolution.
Don't get yourself down as all wrong things that happen where meant for good in our life.
It will come a moment when you will say thank you to all bad people.


----------



## digibucc (May 11, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> I refuse to call evolution a theory.



thanks for that.

it just goes to highlight how ignorant most people are of science, and it's
definition of the word "theory"

you can do whatever you want, including refuse to call something by
it's proper label.  have fun .


----------



## Peter1986C (May 11, 2011)

_Possibly_, jmcslob means that it's not a theory because it is proven in his/her opinion. Once proven a theory is not a theory anymore. _Correct me if I'm wrong,_but IIRC (from the methodology lectures I've had) a theory is a "framework" in which you put your hypotheses to be put to the test, and a way to describe your thoughts and expectations related to your research.


----------



## digibucc (May 11, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> _Possibly_, jmcslob means that it's not a theory because it is proven in his/her opinion. Once proven a theory is not a theory anymore. _Correct me if I'm wrong,_but IIRC (from the methodology lectures I've had) a theory is a "framework" in which you put your hypotheses to be put to the test, and a way to describe your thoughts and expectations related to your research.



a theory is a collection of facts that describes something accurately. or rather, 
a theory is the leading description for a collection of facts.

it goes hypothesis -> test -> fact -> facts -> theory

i assumed that's what he meant.  but whether you believe it to be true or not, evolution
is a theory.   i understand the weight that goes with that word, but that's not the word's
fault, that's everyone else's.


----------



## Peter1986C (May 11, 2011)

I looked it up in the literature I have about methodology* and you're right about your definition of a theory. My bad.
And in that case you're also right about evolution being a theory.


* Boeie, 't Hart, & Hox (2005). Onderzoeksmethoden, p. 77. Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs.


----------



## wahdangun (May 11, 2011)

so what do you think us human will evolve ?

My prediction is we will eventually have multiple speciese. What do you think ? 

Especially after seeing how diverse our speciese can be like ostrich people, a families in mongolia that walked on 4 their limb,  and fatty people in the usa lol


----------



## Peter1986C (May 11, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> fatty people in the usa



That's not evolution, that's US "culture" (not meant to offend anyone) related to fast food. Though I have to admit that a few Europeans perform the same at the FriesFeast benchmark .


----------



## digibucc (May 11, 2011)

wahdangun said:


> so what do you think us human will evolve ?
> 
> My prediction is we will eventually have multiple speciese. What do you think ?
> 
> Especially after seeing how diverse our speciese can be like ostrich people, a families in mongolia that walked on 4 their limb,  and fatty people in the usa lol



i don't see your examples as "Evolution" ... fattiness doesn't pass on in genes, 
it passes on in behavior.  ostrich like legs you still haven't said where that came from
and walking on four limbs is not evolved, it's again, behavioral.

i don't see us evolving any significant changes unless :
a) there is a world-wide change in the environment (human caused or otherwise.  eg: bomb, asteroid, volcano, bio-weapon, etc) 
or 
b) we begin to colonize other planets

until then there simply is nothing selecting the variations.  there are SO many humans,
always procreating, that it would either need to be a commonly occurring mutation, or 
a communicable disease that causes a mutation.

disclaimer: i am not saying the processes that lead to us evolving changes will not 
continue to occur, but i am saying without selection pressure, those changes will not
result in us significantly departing from the form we hold now. ie, no new limbs, no 
radically re-designed bone structure, no super senses.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 11, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> That's not evolution, that's US "culture" (not meant to offend anyone) related to fast food. Though I have to admit that a few Europeans perform the same at the FriesFeast benchmark .


It's not evolution but it could be a component, specifically sexual selection (not meant to offend anyone ).  If for instance, fat women aren't attractive to males then they won't breed as much.  Also IIRC, overweight men suffer from more adverse health effects than women do, which may also provide some sort of evolutionary push (though none that I can think of).



wahdangun said:


> My prediction is we will eventually have multiple speciese. What do you think ?


We already did, and we will again [source].  Evolution isn't linear, it's more like a tree branching out in different directions as it grows [source].



digibucc said:


> i don't see us evolving any significant changes unless :
> a) there is a world-wide change in the environment (human caused or otherwise.  eg: bomb, asteroid, volcano, bio-weapon, etc)
> or
> b) we begin to colonize other planets


The thing is, since evolution operates on such a large timescale it becomes absurdly likely that (A) will be true.  Dunno about (B) though, but one can hope .


----------



## wahdangun (May 11, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> That's not evolution, that's US "culture" (not meant to offend anyone) related to fast food. Though I have to admit that a few Europeans perform the same at the FriesFeast benchmark .





digibucc said:


> i don't see your examples as "Evolution" ... fattiness doesn't pass on in genes,
> it passes on in behavior.  ostrich like legs you still haven't said where that came from
> and walking on four limbs is not evolved, it's again, behavioral.
> 
> ...



what didn't you read my post(post #131) ? In there I already give you the link about ostrich people

and about monggolian family that walked with their 4 limb, its not behavior its what scientist called a reverse evolution.

Btw I'm just joking about fatty american lol


----------



## wahdangun (May 19, 2011)

*the evidance of reverse evolution*

since there are many ppl that didn't believe reverse evolution and there are a family that walked with their four limb. here i give you some example :

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/05/080520-fish-evolution.html

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060306_reversfrm.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/pdf/3317_allfours.pdf

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060221_unertanfrm.htm

so there you are, and there are more example like a toad that have teeth and many more


----------



## TheMailMan78 (May 19, 2011)

I really do not know how we are going to evolve. But I REALLY HOPE all the women evolve into big breasted Asians with a mocha complexion. With enough cow hormones and sun exposure we as a race should really strive for this goal.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I really do not know how we are going to evolve. But I REALLY HOPE all the women evolve into big breasted Asians with a mocha complexion. With enough cow hormones and sun exposure we as a race should really strive for this goal.


_Everyones saying it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty-- OK?  I think it would be great!_

--James Watson, "DNA"​
Admittedly the guy is a bit of a loon though.


----------



## wahdangun (Jun 4, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> I really do not know how we are going to evolve. But I REALLY HOPE all the women evolve into big breasted Asians with a mocha complexion. With enough cow hormones and sun exposure we as a race should really strive for this goal.



haha Its already happen in indonesia, I'm seeing more women having big breast lately than before, I even ended having big breast women. Hahaha


----------



## Thatguy (Jun 4, 2011)

crazyeyesreaper said:


> your correct we need pressure to evolve even then its not always about pressure it could a random fluke that proves advantagous
> 
> example the Delta 32 gene otherwise known as CCR5 was a mutation that occured during the bubonic plague, back then are bodies evolution didnt know it at the time but it turns out those who have Delta 32 on both sides of there family aka mother and father carry the genetic mutation are immune to HIV / AIDS and many other diseases,
> 
> ...



Makes you wonder if screwing with the biology of our planet is a smart thing in the long haul.


----------

