The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Are we evolving(in a fast rate)? (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=193885)

♣Gawain♣ September 7th, 2009 2:20 AM

Are we evolving(in a fast rate)?
 
Since the dawn of our existence, we constantly evolve to adapt to the changes of our environment, climate and other factors. From monkey like Australopithecus to our modern **** Sapeins, our brain evolves to suit our needs, and to able to logical decisions. This is the natural state.

In our modern society, scientist are experimenting with our genes, the basis of our evolution. One base pair transferred to others can change the whole identity or chemical composition of an organism, let's say humans? Who knows? Maybe we could have something that other animals have(if it's possible). This could be the artificial evolutionary theory of humans in the future? What do you think?

Oh, if you don't believe in evolution, don't post. It'll be spam.

Alex_ September 7th, 2009 3:17 AM

Evolution is such a long term process that we most likely won't see any changes in our lifetime. It takes hundreds and thousands of years to see change.

BJ088 September 7th, 2009 3:33 AM

I agree with Alex. We may not even BE here the next time a stage of evolution passes

Captain Fabio September 7th, 2009 4:02 AM

Evolution isn't something that happens over night.
It has taken millions of years for any changes to take effect.

So, no. We are not evolving at a faster rate.

.little monster September 7th, 2009 4:31 AM

No, you cannot see evolution unless you go back in time (physically or mentally) and look at how animals looked before today. Evolution is a slow process that happens over a course of millions of years.

I don't even think humans are evolving. Devolving seems more like it. lolwut

BJ088 September 7th, 2009 4:53 AM

I'm not sure about anybody else, but I plan on evolving soon. Maybe into Charizard?

Jweeson September 7th, 2009 5:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctep (Post 5088661)
No, you cannot see evolution unless you go back in time (physically or mentally) and look at how animals looked before today. Evolution is a slow process that happens over a course of millions of years.

I don't even think humans are evolving. Devolving seems more like it. lolwut

I agree. It seems that the amount of intelligent people keeps going down. Soon the world will be like the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson.

.little monster September 7th, 2009 6:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iNarube (Post 5088875)
I agree. It seems that the amount of intelligent people keeps going down. Soon the world will be like the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson.

Certain people should not be allowed to breed, that's a quick fix.

Bianca Paragon September 7th, 2009 6:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iNarube (Post 5088875)
I agree. It seems that the amount of intelligent people keeps going down. Soon the world will be like the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson.

Because people with Low IQ's only have children with Low IQ's; amirite?! That's why some of the greatest minds of the modern world came from poverty~

Charizard★ September 7th, 2009 8:23 AM

It took millions of years to get to where are. We won't be around to see other people evolving.

lx_theo September 7th, 2009 8:36 AM

I think we've maniuplated nature with technology to hinder any real physical evolution, but instead we have more of a societal evolution

Luck September 7th, 2009 8:48 AM

No, we aren't. We are perfectly suited to our environment.
Although we still have mutations, we are not under the pressure of natural selection, because we created our own habitat. Only when there is a significant change in the habitat and population will people evolve. And not that I care much, but I think it'd be better if you said "support evolution" because belief sounds faith based, and some creationists will get that wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_ (Post 5088554)
Evolution is such a long term process that we most likely won't see any changes in our lifetime. It takes hundreds and thousands of years to see change.

Although you are correct for the most part, there are actually instances of speciation observed by a single human, so macro evolution isn't excluded to taking a time longer than the life span of a human. I'll give a link if you want, but a simple google search should suffice.

AlphaMightyena September 7th, 2009 9:06 AM

Unlike pokemon, we can't elvove in just a day.

And to me, Human's are getting dumber and dumber.

Unless you mean by techlogly i don't get how the human body is elvoveing faster...

I Even think Monkey's are smarter than us (sometimes).

doesn't matter September 7th, 2009 2:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple.SHAMPOO (Post 5088915)

Because people with Low IQ's only have children with Low IQ's; amirite?! That's why some of the greatest minds of the modern world came from poverty~

You mean poor people are always stupid? :P

But yeah, you're right - intelligence isn't inherited. Such a belief is pretty damn ancient.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctep (Post 5088661)
I don't even think humans are evolving. Devolving seems more like it. lolwut

Because "devolution" is a biological term yeah?

Evolution doesn't always require an organism to become more complex - a decrease in complexity is a form of evolution as well, since it's an adaptation to a change in environment.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BJ088 (Post 5088721)
I'm not sure about anybody else, but I plan on evolving soon. Maybe into Charizard?

I lol'd.

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~ September 7th, 2009 5:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_ (Post 5088554)
Evolution is such a long term process that we most likely won't see any changes in our lifetime. It takes hundreds and thousands of years to see change.

I agree with this 100%, nothing more to say about this


:t354:TG

Timbjerr September 7th, 2009 6:39 PM

...but the X-men movies say that we can spontaneous gain superpowarz!! :<

Bah...no amount of genetic experimentation will lead to real evolution. If scientists were to genetically enhance a person to be able to shoot lazars from his nipples, that trait is unlikely to be passed down to the subject's children. Thus, no evolution has taken place, just one man with the awesome ability to shoot lazars out of his nipples. :D

Shem September 7th, 2009 7:00 PM

To be honest I don't see humans ever evolving, our intelligence won't let us. Natural selection does not occur because we stop those unfit for survival from dying with medicine and their genes just get thrown back into the gene pool essentially halting progress. And on top of that, travel makes it impossible for isolation, which is required for evolution. We cant adapt to a different environment if genes from another environment keep getting thrown back in.

The Scientist September 7th, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viceroy Gawain (Post 5088480)
In our modern society, scientist are experimenting with our genes, the basis of our evolution. One base pair transferred to others can change the whole identity or chemical composition of an organism, let's say humans?

>Username: The Scientist

Are you talking about me? Because that sounds like me.

Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.

In other news, redheads are becoming genetically extinct and peoples' small toes are gradually shrinking.

Ultraviolence September 8th, 2009 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shem (Post 5092270)
To be honest I don't see humans ever evolving, our intelligence won't let us. Natural selection does not occur because we stop those unfit for survival from dying with medicine and their genes just get thrown back into the gene pool essentially halting progress. And on top of that, travel makes it impossible for isolation, which is required for evolution. We cant adapt to a different environment if genes from another environment keep getting thrown back in.

Lol, of course humans will one day evolve. We can have known the Whales and Dolphins evolved from mammals, like us. Whats to say that the human race will not evolve into Ocean Dwellers? We could even be evolving now to adapt to what society is doing to our Atmosphere and Ozone.

MrSasquatch September 8th, 2009 5:32 AM

I know that we are evolving, but the stupidity of people around me every day makes me think otherwise.

LEXAcide September 8th, 2009 5:45 AM

Evolution eh =)

Yea we are evolving... here is a sign of evolution... Human Life Expectancy is growing... mhm...

this can be because of different living conditions and food eating habbits, but who knows.

The reason that SO many people now are stupid is cause of the way children are raised today. After the Baby Boomers, there where more "Child Abuse Laws" which didnt let kids get punished enough. Also, After weed became huge in the 60's, we all became "Dopes". Video Games also just make kids dumber. I dont care about Statistics and tests, The young kids of the "US" will lead our country to no longer be a "World Power". Gah... China, India, Russia, and Japan will be better and stronger soon. We r Dopes. (I live in California)

Jweeson September 8th, 2009 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by apple.SHAMPOO (Post 5088915)

Because people with Low IQ's only have children with Low IQ's; amirite?! That's why some of the greatest minds of the modern world came from poverty~

Yeah, but poverty and stupidity are two different things. My family used to be considered one of poverty, and I don't mean to brag, but I don't have to study ever.

&Scientist: Wow. But if two redheaded people have kids, aren't the chances of it having red hair higher?

The Scientist September 8th, 2009 7:43 PM

No one has commented on my examples of human microevolution.

lx_theo September 8th, 2009 7:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5095696)
No one has commented on my examples of human microevolution.


Well the best example of that would probably be immunities and such, if you want to count it.

The Scientist September 8th, 2009 8:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lx_theo (Post 5095704)
Well the best example of that would probably be immunities and such, if you want to count it.

Pathogen immunities are neither passed down from parent to offspring nor a genetic variation. Therefore it is not example of microevolution.

♣Gawain♣ September 8th, 2009 11:26 PM

If we could evolve into something that an animal has, like it's strength and speed, it's almost possible today.

Guillermo September 8th, 2009 11:28 PM

Do we have floating cars that run on vegetable oil? No? Oh. I don't know.

For all I know, yeah we probably are. I mean we went from having spears to having pieces of metal that shoot spiral-shaped things fast. Go us.

Also, I think we're becoming dumber than we are smarter. We've been messing with nature far too much and now we've pretty much doomed ourselves. Another go us!

EpsilonE September 9th, 2009 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viceroy Gawain (Post 5088480)
Oh, if you don't believe in evolution, don't post. It'll be spam.

I'm sure it will.

You have no idea how many scientists are trying to get out that evolution is a load of crap.

DNA is unaltering, fact. We can't simply live somewhere and our bodies know that they have to grow smarter or warmer. Humans are curious and adaptible, but not evolving. We know more than 500 years ago because of several men who have taken their curiosity to higher levels, but it doesnt mean our brains are actually getting larger or smarter.

I hate it how this is taught in schools when some loon (Charles Darwin) had this overnight THEORY that we came from monkeys, so on so forth, when it's actually no more provable than afterlife and creationism.

People bashing and hating Christians and Catholics because they believe in something probably just as silly as evolution.
You can say this is spam, but I'm not flaming anyone and I'm staying on topic. My opinion is valued by some and despised probably by you right now reading this, thinking "What an utter dolt. Not beleiving our DNA can mutate to create us into better, more intelligent beings"

Alex_ September 9th, 2009 6:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpsilonE (Post 5098873)
I'm sure it will.

You have no idea how many scientists are trying to get out that evolution is a load of crap.

DNA is unaltering, fact. We can't simply live somewhere and our bodies know that they have to grow smarter or warmer. Humans are curious and adaptible, but not evolving. We know more than 500 years ago because of several men who have taken their curiosity to higher levels, but it doesnt mean our brains are actually getting larger or smarter.

I hate it how this is taught in schools when some loon (Charles Darwin) had this overnight THEORY that we came from monkeys, so on so forth, when it's actually no more provable than afterlife and creationism.

People bashing and hating Christians and Catholics because they believe in something probably just as silly as evolution.
You can say this is spam, but I'm not flaming anyone and I'm staying on topic. My opinion is valued by some and despised probably by you right now reading this, thinking "What an utter dolt. Not beleiving our DNA can mutate to create us into better, more intelligent beings"

And saying that we're made from dirt and ribs makes more sense to you?

EpsilonE September 9th, 2009 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_ (Post 5098900)
And saying that we're made from dirt and ribs makes more sense to you?

Did I say it did? I said both sounded silly.
You're twisting my words in your "defense" and you can't argue against any of my points because chances are, I'm right.
And if you must know, I think dirt and ribs sound HELLA alot better than a big galactic explosion and millions of years later, evolving from pond scum.

Alex_ September 9th, 2009 6:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpsilonE (Post 5098908)
Did I say it did? I said both sounded silly.
You're twisting my words in your "defense" and you can't argue against any of my points because chances are, I'm right.
And if you must know, I think dirt and ribs sound HELLA alot better than a big galactic explosion and millions of years later, evolving from pond scum.

I never said that you said that, I'm sorry if it seems like I implied that. Also, if you're going to be so arrogant and assume you're correct, you might not want to be so defensive when asked a simple question that isn't in agreement with what you said.

Luck September 9th, 2009 7:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpsilonE (Post 5098873)
I'm sure it will.

You have no idea how many scientists are trying to get out that evolution is a load of crap.

DNA is unaltering, fact. We can't simply live somewhere and our bodies know that they have to grow smarter or warmer. Humans are curious and adaptible, but not evolving. We know more than 500 years ago because of several men who have taken their curiosity to higher levels, but it doesnt mean our brains are actually getting larger or smarter.

Mutations in the body man. We may get mutations that are bad for us when living in an environment, we may get huge advantages. Natural selection weeds out the ones with bad mutations and allows the good ones to prosper.

Oh, and roughly 99.98% of scientists support evolution both as a theory and as a fact. I am a freshman and I know much more than you do. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Quote:

Originally Posted by EpsilonE (Post 5098873)
I hate it how this is taught in schools when some loon (Charles Darwin) had this overnight THEORY that we came from monkeys, so on so forth, when it's actually no more provable than afterlife and creationism.

Yeah, because his many years of research and experience on the Beagle and around the world, and the fact that people(mainly Alfred Wallace) came up with the exact same conclusion as him is so easy. We shouldn't let ourselves get fooled by this idiot who thinks that life develops and changes over time/sarcasm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EpsilonE (Post 5098873)
People bashing and hating Christians and Catholics because they believe in something probably just as silly as evolution.

Because observable evidence that explains all of biology is so stupid.
By the way, there are Christian and catholic people who support evolution. Just because they don't accept rib woman and clay man doesn't mean they think religion is stupid.

Please click this. And this is indeed evolution(which is the diversity of life, and that only. No big bang, no abiogenesis. Repeat after me. Diversity of life, not origins.) Don't get it mixed up. However, I will give you one chance to redeem yourself. Find fossil bunnies the Precambrian. Good luck, because you'll need it :3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex_ (Post 5098900)
And saying that we're made from dirt and ribs makes more sense to you?

Yeah, because its clear that our faith is being tested :/


I'm sorry, but if you want to reply to this, please send me a PM. I have a feeling I will unnecessarily curse at you for being so unknowing of the facts. I hope you can entertain me and say it's only a theory. Oh...and, you research something, THEN debate it.

The Scientist September 10th, 2009 12:07 AM

And it looks like it's time for The Scientist to swoop down and kill the troll(s) clear things up.

Firstly, always differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. One has been proven beyond all doubt, and the other is tentative.

Secondly, Darwin and Linnaeus neither proposed nor supported macroevolution (coming from monkeys, as EpsilonE so eloquently put it); "On the Origin of Species" only detailed examples of microevolutionary changes observed in the Galapagos Islands (e.g. finches' beaks changing).

Thirdly, microevolution has been observed in almost every living thing. It has also definitely been observed in humans (note the examples I gave a few posts back). The divergence of the various races is also an example of microevolution in humans.

Fourthly, the Big Bang theory is not relevant to macroevolution. I don't know why that was even brought up.

Skymin September 10th, 2009 9:23 PM

There's small cases of evolution today.

You know more and more people are being born without their appendixes? ...ithink.

Angela September 11th, 2009 5:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amachi (Post 5091148)
You mean poor people are always stupid? :P

But yeah, you're right - intelligence isn't inherited. Such a belief is pretty damn ancient.

Because "devolution" is a biological term yeah?

Evolution doesn't always require an organism to become more complex - a decrease in complexity is a form of evolution as well, since it's an adaptation to a change in environment.

I lol'd.


You do know that a child can only inherit it's intelligences from it's mother.. Even tho the father was a uber smart guy.. His children would only be as smart as the mother...

Or at least that's what I learned in advanced biology.. Aka Genetics, erfðafræði in Icelandic...



Anyway I don't think any of us will be a life for the next stages of evolution and I doubt the people that experience it will know it's happening...

♣Gawain♣ September 11th, 2009 5:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5099377)
And it looks like it's time for The Scientist to swoop down and kill the troll(s) clear things up.


Fourthly, the Big Bang theory is not relevant to macroevolution. I don't know why that was even brought up.

We'll pawn 'em though. Good job explaining!

Big Bang? Who's the nutter that thought that up? It's only the theory that brings us back to the beginning of our universe, which is not relevant to the evolution of humans.

I have come to understand that macroevo in humans is from Australopithecus africanus----- > Hom0 sapeins. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And microevo is the race differences of humans. Each race has it's own trait to adapt to different climates and land. Like Darwin's finches in Galapagos.

Åzurε September 11th, 2009 10:58 AM

Yeah... I'm a Christian and I'll tell you microevolution is a fact. I don't believe in macroevo, but I'll try not to force beliefs right here. And I'll say that Big Bang vs. Creation is irrelevant here.

Quote:

Oh, and roughly 99.98% of scientists support evolution both as a theory and as a fact. I am a freshman and I know much more than you do. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Uhm, since when is fact disprovable? Aboigenesis was a fact until Pasteur, I believe. Rule 2, don't say your smarter than other people. You will be torn of your high-horse, let me tell you.

Quote:

Yeah, because his many years of research and experience on the Beagle and around the world, and the fact that people(mainly Alfred Wallace) came up with the exact same conclusion as him is so easy. We shouldn't let ourselves get fooled by this idiot who thinks that life develops and changes over time/sarcasm
It changes, sure (micro ftw). But you're just starting to sound stupid and closed minded about this...

Quote:

Because observable evidence that explains all of biology is so stupid.
By the way, there are Christian and catholic people who support evolution.
Just because they don't accept rib woman and clay man doesn't mean they think religion is stupid.
No such thing as absolute truth in science. We could find out gravity is a particle, for all our years of study. And on differences in macro/microevolution, IMO, anyone who calls themselves a Christian and believes in macroevo is a bit misguided, as it's against a clearly defined scripture. All I'm saying is, you are coming across as science = universal law, which it isn't, though we are certainly more accurate nowadays. And your phrasing is obviously directed at degrading what you don't believe in. ;) Patience is a virtue, no matter where you come from.

I'm not trying to argue, really. I'm simply tearing apart a slightly irate opinion as most people are wont to do from time to time. Nothing personal.

Luck September 11th, 2009 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mOOG (Post 5103808)
Yeah... I'm a Christian and I'll tell you microevolution is a fact. I don't believe in macroevo, but I'll try not to force beliefs right here. And I'll say that Big Bang vs. Creation is irrelevant here.

Uhm, since when is fact disprovable? Aboigenesis was a fact until Pasteur, I believe. Rule 2, don't say your smarter than other people. You will be torn of your high-horse, let me tell you.

No, no, no. Spontaneous generation was fact until Francesco Redi, and he wasn't the only one who disproved it. And a fact is basically useless in science for explaining natural phenomena. The fact of evolution is that it happens. The theory of evolution explains how it happens. Fact; an apple drops down to the center of the earth. Theory, gravity(or general theory of relativity depending on your tastes) explains why it drops down and not up, to the side, or diagonal. You are mixing up social words with scientific words.
And since why shouldn't I say that I'm smarter? I clearly gave an obvious, credible source of speciation, which is commonly found above micro evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mOOG (Post 5103808)
It changes, sure (micro ftw). But you're just starting to sound stupid and closed minded about this...

Stupid? Sure, as long as real evidence points to the contrary. But I don't see how I am close minded when I don't agree with his point of view. He clearly wants to be spoon fed the evidence, if he wants the evidence, in order to see that literal interpretations of holy scripture aren't always the best way.
I could've sworn I gave him a chance to disprove evolution, but I must have just imagined it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mOOG (Post 5103808)
No such thing as absolute truth in science. We could find out gravity is a particle, for all our years of study. And on differences in macro/microevolution, IMO, anyone who calls themselves a Christian and believes in macroevo is a bit misguided...

How so? I know plenty of people who translate scripture into "it says the earth is round" instead of what it really says(flat, disc shaped, etc.) This is the part where interpretation comes in, and that is just too much B.S to cover up without confusing anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mOOG (Post 5103808)
... as it's against a clearly defined scripture. All I'm saying is, you are coming across as science = universal law, which it isn't, though we are certainly more accurate nowadays. And your phrasing is obviously directed at degrading what you don't believe in. ;) Patience is a virtue, no matter where you come from.

I find it annoying when people deny scientific facts because their religion doesn't agree with it. It's just my opinion, but I prefer the side with the facts and evidence, not the one that makes me feel cuddly and stupid(by stupid, I mean to not have the pursuit of truth) inside.

There isn't any truth in science alone, because science adapts to the evidence. However, science proven by math never changes because math is set in stone. I am not saying that evolution is proven by math, because I have never researched that, but when macro evolution was observed and shown to be right beyond a shadow of a doubt, you should drop your denial.

And lastly, I only degrade what I don't believe in because I haven't been shown any evidence to support to contrary, or evidence has been shown against the contrary. Try to prove how a flood happened with freshwater fish and saltwater fish both surviving, since it is clearly in the scripture :/

Corvus of the Black Night September 11th, 2009 3:35 PM

dood guys didn't u know intelegent design is totally in

[/lolsarcasm]

The human's ability to adjust to its enviornment is not one of genetic evolution (as we are rather similar in design to our ancestors thousands of years ago), however, due to this extremely successful trait of the human species, our children will certainly inherit that quality, which, even millions of years from now, when humans have changed form enough to be a seperate species, this quality will remain intact until the decendants are completely wiped off of the face of the planet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Genesis (Post 5103163)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
No.

And your justification is?...

Ageless Irony September 11th, 2009 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon the Ferryman (Post 5104676)
And your justification is?...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Dunno.

Corvus of the Black Night September 11th, 2009 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Genesis (Post 5104699)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
Dunno.

Well, that's unfortunate. I was going to take you for an intelligent person who forgot to back themselves up. Now I realize you're someone who's too hasty to jump to conclusions to come up with reasonable evidence.

I apologize. I shouldn't have stereotyped you.

Ageless Irony September 11th, 2009 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon the Ferryman (Post 5104719)
Well, that's unfortunate. I was going to take you for an intelligent person who forgot to back themselves up. Now I realize you're someone who's too hasty to jump to conclusions to come up with reasonable evidence.

I apologize. I shouldn't have stereotyped you.

Quit taking me so seriously. I'm just messing with you.

Corvus of the Black Night September 11th, 2009 4:01 PM

I know, but in a serious debate, it's not exactly a good idea to be "messing around" :p

Ageless Irony September 11th, 2009 4:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon the Ferryman (Post 5104779)
I know, but in a serious debate, it's not exactly a good idea to be "messing around" :p

Oh right I forgotten
http://drunkenachura.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/internet-serious-business.jpg
My bad.

Corvus of the Black Night September 11th, 2009 4:10 PM

LET'S RETURN THIS TOPIC TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENTION SIR SPAMALOT

Human evolution, on a genological level, is not progressing at an abnormal rate... at the moment. =_=

But our ability to make new tools certainly is :DDDDDDDD

Ageless Irony September 11th, 2009 4:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon the Ferryman (Post 5104818)
LET'S RETURN THIS TOPIC TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENTION SIR SPAMALOT

Human evolution, on a genological level, is not progressing at an abnormal rate... at the moment. =_=

But our ability to make new tools certainly is :DDDDDDDD

k.

I really don't think we're going to do much more evolving at all. We've created ways do most things we need to do. (E.g. Fly, get around quickly, kill eachother) I doubt theres any more major evolution coming our way. The only evolution I could see is natural selection and becoming immune to certain diseases.

Luck September 11th, 2009 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Genesis (Post 5104838)
k.

I really don't think we're going to do much more evolving at all. We've created ways do most things we need to do. (E.g. Fly, get around quickly, kill eachother) I doubt theres any more major evolution coming our way. The only evolution I could see is natural selection and becoming immune to certain diseases.

Certain families have great features. There was this one family in Kentucky(or something like that) with nearly indestructible bones, but it will be hundreds of generations before most or all of the human race gets it, considering they reproduce before they die out.

Corvus of the Black Night September 11th, 2009 4:27 PM

AND WE WILL CERTAINLY GROW WINGS

Ageless Irony September 11th, 2009 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charon the Ferryman (Post 5104899)
AND WE WILL CERTAINLY GROW WINGS

SUCH A CLAIM NEEDS EVIDENCE!!!
I THOUGHTED YOU WERE SMARTS!!!

I Laugh at your Misfortune! September 11th, 2009 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luck (Post 5104896)


Certain families have great features. There was this one family in Kentucky(or something like that) with nearly indestructible bones, but it will be hundreds of generations before most or all of the human race gets it, considering they reproduce before they die out.

I think I heard about this. Didn't they have other problems, though? Like, most of them couldn't swim because their bones were too dense and heavy.

Ageless Irony September 11th, 2009 4:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screw the rules, I have green hair! (Post 5104980)
I think I heard about this. Didn't they have other problems, though? Like, most of them couldn't swim because their bones were too dense and heavy.

OH GOD WE'RE EVOLVING INTO ROCKS D:

Luck September 11th, 2009 4:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screw the rules, I have green hair! (Post 5104980)
I think I heard about this. Didn't they have other problems, though? Like, most of them couldn't swim because their bones were too dense and heavy.

I think that can also be used as an advantage to become better swimmers, but this does show that one size doesn't fit all. These are the actions of the blind watchmaker.
There was also this dog who...never mind, just see the non photo-shopped image.

Åzurε September 11th, 2009 5:13 PM

Wasn't that dog just born with faulty muscle mass genes? I can't remember the name of them...

The Scientist September 11th, 2009 6:55 PM

ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...

So is anyone going to discuss the examples of human evolution I brought up?

Luck September 11th, 2009 7:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5105530)
ITT: trolls trolling trolls trolling trolls...

So is anyone going to discuss the examples of human evolution I brought up?

Probably not, because not much people care about redheads or their near vestigial small toes. But does that mean we have the capability of our feet being altered to be more fit for explosive leaps of speed instead of long, continuous distances, if natural selection allows it of course. An example(in case my wording was even worse than I thought) is our dear friend the cheetah, which really fails since the humans will be running after it long after the cheetah is tired.

Idiomorph September 15th, 2009 8:52 PM

Oh boy is this thread full of misconceptions. I don't really have the energy to deal with most of them right now.. let alone the trolls (learn some science if you want to challenge scientific consensus, kiddies).

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5099377)
Firstly, always differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. One has been proven beyond all doubt, and the other is tentative.



Incorrect. Both have been directly observed and 'proven beyond all doubt', as you say-- though of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific proof'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5099377)
Secondly, Darwin and Linnaeus neither proposed nor supported macroevolution (coming from monkeys, as EpsilonE so eloquently put it); "On the Origin of Species" only detailed examples of microevolutionary changes observed in the Galapagos Islands (e.g. finches' beaks changing).



Incorrect. While Darwin's seminal title indeed contained little discussion of large-scale evolutionary changes (likely due to the social tension and lack of a good fossil record at the time), he certainly did address macroevolution in other works.
Additionally, Darwin and Linnaeus have about as much to do with modern evolutionary biology as Newton does with quantum physics.

Kisaragi September 16th, 2009 2:16 PM

If you think evolution isn't occurring you're an "idiot". Evolution doesn't have to be moving forward. It doesn't have to be growing ****ing wings out of your ass. It can be miniscule, FACT. In the past one-hundred years the functionality of the human toe in the "new world" has decreased. That's evolution.

Derp.

inb4mybigtoeisamazing

BenRK September 16th, 2009 2:26 PM

We're also slowly losing our sense of smell and wisdom teeth.

The Scientist September 16th, 2009 8:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idiomorph (Post 5122056)
[SIZE=3] Incorrect. Both have been directly observed and 'proven beyond all doubt', as you say-- though of course there is no such thing as a 'scientific proof'.



Firstly that page discusses speciation, which can fall under macro- or microevolution. Regardless, most of the examples discuss human-induced hybrids and their genetic differences/inability to breed with the parents. Some interesting exceptions to this include the Drosophila melanogaster experiment, where a light being on or off during mating affected the stability of... a hybrid.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idiomorph;5122056[/SIZE
Incorrect. While Darwin's seminal title indeed contained little discussion of large-scale evolutionary changes (likely due to the social tension and lack of a good fossil record at the time), he certainly did address macroevolution in other works. Additionally, Darwin and Linnaeus have about as much to do with modern evolutionary biology as Newton does with quantum physics.

I'll have to go through more of their books to decide for myself, but again, speciation can apply to microevolution (I think Darwin referred to the finch beaks as speciation) or macroevolution.

Luck September 16th, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5124788)
Firstly that page discusses speciation, which can fall under macro- or microevolution. Regardless, most of the examples discuss human-induced hybrids and their genetic differences/inability to breed with the parents. Some interesting exceptions to this include the Drosophila melanogaster experiment, where a light being on or off during mating affected the stability of... a hybrid.



I'll have to go through more of their books to decide for myself, but again, speciation can apply to microevolution (I think Darwin referred th the finch beaks as speciation) or macroevolution.

Although speciation can fall into either category, more often than not, it is above the micro evolution level. That just seems like too much instances for all of them to be just micro evolutionary.
*click*

The Scientist September 16th, 2009 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luck (Post 5124797)


Although speciation can fall into either category, more often than not, it is above the micro evolution level. That just seems like too much instances for all of them to be just micro evolutionary.
*click*

Would you say that the induced hybrids Idiomorph cited count as examples of macroevolution?

None of them were observed in nature: they were all in a laboratory settting, and the crossing of the different species was done by humans. While the hybrids were not able to breed with the parents' species, the fact that a hybrid was made undermines the "natural genetic change" clause.

tl;dr: do human-induced genetic changes still count as speciation/macroevolution?

Luck September 16th, 2009 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5124849)
Would you say that the induced hybrids Idiomorph cited count as examples of macroevolution?

None of them were observed in nature: they were all in a laboratory settting, and they crossing of the different species was done by humans. While the hybrids were not able to breed with the parents' species, the fact that a hybrid was made undermines the "natural genetic change" clause.

tl;dr: do human-induced genetic changes still count as speciation/macroevolution?

The fact that they were observed and taken in labs doesn't change that it happened. Animals speciate whether or not humans have a role in it, unless you would consider chickens having [deactivated]genes for making teeth as something that could only be possible through human intervention. I think you know as well as I do that evolution can only build up from what it has already. And the definition for speciation never mentions anything about it being taken in labs or otherwise, so the default position [for me] is to believe(which is a word I don't like to use, but I'll use for a lack of a better one) that it can happen both through natural selection and artificial selection.

Although we haven't seen speciation through natural causes(since it takes much more time), the assertion is that animals like chickens weren't created with useless genes*cough* dinosaur genes*cough* and vestigial body parts(like the vermiform appendix in most humans today.) Or maybe the ostrich wings for a better example.

Edit: Lol, you used incorrect grammar.
To be honest, I didn't check through the whole list, but I'll tell you if I saw one instance where it was actually taken in a natural setting.

twocows September 16th, 2009 8:50 PM

The way I see it, we're devolving. I try not to judge people as better or worse than anyone else, but the sorts of people who are most likely to breed these days are the kind of people who would set the human race back by doing so. Musicians and actors who haven't done a hard day's labor ("work" would be deceiving here; labor is more accurate) in their entire life get their choice of the litter while brilliant and/or hard-working people end up dying alone. Not only is that screwed up, it's slowly eliminating intelligence and determination from our genetics. Eventually, we'll end up a breed of apathetic fools who feel they deserve to have everything handed to them. This is already happening to a degree today. Of course, evolution is a slow process, and it tends to balance itself out. The more apathetic fools we have, the more those with intelligence and determination will be able to shine through.

This is all assuming we don't blow ourselves to hell first.

Ageless Irony September 16th, 2009 9:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5124891)
The way I see it, we're devolving. I try not to judge people as better or worse than anyone else, but the sorts of people who are most likely to breed these days are the kind of people who would set the human race back by doing so. Musicians and actors who haven't done a hard day's labor ("work" would be deceiving here; labor is more accurate) in their entire life get their choice of the litter while brilliant and/or hard-working people end up dying alone. Not only is that screwed up, it's slowly eliminating intelligence and determination from our genetics. Eventually, we'll end up a breed of apathetic fools who feel they deserve to have everything handed to them. This is already happening to a degree today. Of course, evolution is a slow process, and it tends to balance itself out. The more apathetic fools we have, the more those with intelligence and determination will be able to shine through.

This is all assuming we don't blow ourselves to hell first.

...Someones a bit pessimistic...

And that is not going to be the downfall of the human race, I'm sorry, but your righteous post isn't as applicable as you probably wanted it to be.

GG tho brah.


Wait so are we evolving into rocks or what...?

twocows September 16th, 2009 9:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Genesis (Post 5124921)
...Someones a bit realistic...

Fixed.

Quote:

And that is not going to be the downfall of the human race, I'm sorry, but your righteous post isn't as applicable as you probably wanted it to be.
All those fancy words. I have a feeling you don't understand what they mean. If you had read the entire post, I included that evolution balances things out. When we get too many fools, they start dying off and the non-fools take their place. As for it not being "applicable," I'm almost certain that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Applicable to what? Reality? Because realism tends to apply to reality pretty much by definition.

Quote:

GG tho brah.
Oh, now I see. Cool troll.

Quote:

Wait so are we evolving into rocks or what...?
Lolwut.

Ageless Irony September 16th, 2009 9:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5124936)
Fixed.

All those fancy words. I have a feeling you don't understand what they mean. If you had read the entire post, I included that evolution balances things out. When we get too many fools, they start dying off and the non-fools take their place. As for it not being "applicable," I'm almost certain that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Applicable to what? Reality? Because realism tends to apply to reality pretty much by definition.

Oh, now I see. Cool troll.

Lolwut.

That isn't realistic at all, bro. As long as someone is a healthy human being, they pass down the same traits that their bloodline has always had, it's not like two people who work on a farm and are in turn, very fit, give birth to children who are automatically vert fit. That's just not how it works. That kind of stuff isn't predetermined by genes. The stuff that is is all health and personality related, which, I'm sorry to break it to you, has nothing to do with their lifestyle. We're not going to suddenly devolve into stupid people, as long as people want to learn, which I'm sure plenty of the morons' children will do. And become scientists, and discover if we are evolving (in a fast rate) [Plus if we all evolve into stupid people we can't invent things to make life easier so we can be lazier]

I'm not a troll. I'm a human rogue on thrall. look me up, my guild is on TOC 25 hardmodes :D

twocows September 16th, 2009 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royal Genesis (Post 5124949)
That isn't realistic at all, bro. As long as someone is a healthy human being, they pass down the same traits that their bloodline has always had, it's not like two people who work on a farm and are in turn, very fit, give birth to children who are automatically vert fit. That's just not how it works. That kind of stuff isn't predetermined by genes. The stuff that is is all health and personality related, which, I'm sorry to break it to you, has nothing to do with their lifestyle. We're not going to suddenly devolve into stupid people, as long as people want to learn, which I'm sure plenty of the morons' children will do. And become scientists, and discover if we are evolving (in a fast rate) [Plus if we all evolve into stupid people we can't invent things to make life easier so we can be lazier]

I'm not a troll. I'm a human rogue on thrall. look me up, my guild is on TOC 25 hardmodes :D

Most things are determined by a combination of genetics and environment. Sure, those aforementioned actors probably didn't have the best parents, but you can't become that big of a fool without there being some underlying genetic faults. I hate to break it to you, but some people are just born stupid or born lazy. That's not to say they can't be brought up to overcome such traits, but that is the default position that they tend to take. Personality, which you mentioned, is one of those things determined by both genetics and environment. However, the basic position I laid out is still true. When two idiots breed, the result is an idiot. When a lot of idiots breed, the result is a lot of idiots.

Ageless Irony September 16th, 2009 9:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5124982)
Most things are determined by a combination of genetics and environment. Sure, those aforementioned actors probably didn't have the best parents, but you can't become that big of a fool without there being some underlying genetic faults. I hate to break it to you, but some people are just born stupid or born lazy. That's not to say they can't be brought up to overcome such traits, but that is the default position that they tend to take. Personality, which you mentioned, is one of those things determined by both genetics and environment. However, the basic position I laid out is still true. When two idiots breed, the result is an idiot. When a lot of idiots breed, the result is a lot of idiots.

I guess I'll level with you somewhat and say it's all about how you're raised, really.

Idiomorph September 17th, 2009 5:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5124788)
Firstly that page discusses speciation, which can fall under macro- or microevolution. Regardless, most of the examples discuss human-induced hybrids and their genetic differences/inability to breed with the parents. Some interesting exceptions to this include the Drosophila melanogaster experiment, where a light being on or off during mating affected the stability of... a hybrid.

The plant examples are all about hybridisation mainly because it has been shown to be a major force of change throughout that kingdom's evolutionary history. Plants are much more tolerant of large-scale genomic changes than other organisms, but said changes frequently lead to mating incompatibility with the parent strain due to meiotic disjunctions-- i.e speciation.

As for the other examples, of course they are all going to discuss hybrids-- the criteria for species separation according to the biological species concept is the inability to generate fertile hybrid offspring from a cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Scientist (Post 5124788)
I'll have to go through more of their books to decide for myself, but again, speciation can apply to microevolution (I think Darwin referred to the finch beaks as speciation) or macroevolution.

I'm going by talkorigins' definitions, which appear to represent the accepted modern usages of the terms in scientific discourse:

"Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population."

"Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth."

I think the fact that we're disagreeing about the definitions of micro- and macro- evolution here is really pretty representative of the false dichotomy between the two. Evolution is for the most part a contiguous process and not so easily subdivided-- 'macroevolution' is essentially just 'microevolution' writ large. The distinction is there primarily to aid human thought. The situation with taxonomic classification is much the same once you move away from the hard rule of the BSC-- and even that has issues, as illustrated by situations where gene flow occurs between 'species' despite a lack of any direct mating (i.e through an intermediate).

I spent a fair bit of time in a phylogenetics lab last year, and I can assure you that our tidy classifications really start to break down when you look at the sequence level. We ran into a number of problems with incomplete lineage sorting-- basically some parts of species A's genome were more closely related to species B than C, while others were closer to C than B. It's a complete nightmare if you want everything to fit into neat little divergence trees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iNarube (Post 5088875)
I agree. It seems that the amount of intelligent people keeps going down. Soon the world will be like the movie Idiocracy with Luke Wilson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5124891)
The way I see it, we're devolving. I try not to judge people as better or worse than anyone else, but the sorts of people who are most likely to breed these days are the kind of people who would set the human race back by doing so. Musicians and actors who haven't done a hard day's labor ("work" would be deceiving here; labor is more accurate) in their entire life get their choice of the litter while brilliant and/or hard-working people end up dying alone. Not only is that screwed up, it's slowly eliminating intelligence and determination from our genetics. Eventually, we'll end up a breed of apathetic fools who feel they deserve to have everything handed to them. This is already happening to a degree today. Of course, evolution is a slow process, and it tends to balance itself out. The more apathetic fools we have, the more those with intelligence and determination will be able to shine through..

Sorry guys, but this is a really common and very wrong misconception. Average IQ (that is, the value to which IQ scores are normalised each year) tends to increase every generation. See the Flynn effect. Whether or not the cause of this phenomenon is biological remains debatable, but you can't just make blanket statements about the population getting less intelligent.

I'm not sure why people get this impression of decreasing intelligence. I suspect the idiots are just getting a lot louder-- courtesy of wealthy economies, widespread communications technology and increasing literacy rates. There's also been the rise of hardcore religious fundamentalism in the US (note however that it has been coupled with decreasing numbers of religious people in general).

Another misconception I should address here is the idea of 'devolving'. Evolution is not teleocentric-- it is far from linear, and does not progress 'up' or 'down' or 'towards' something. Natural selection acts to generate organisms which are good at reproducing in the environment they find themselves in, and nothing else. If they happen to be better-adapted to a greater range of environments in general, or are what we subjectively see as 'better', it is purely an accessory effect.

♣Gawain♣ September 17th, 2009 7:06 AM

The advent of technology really affects our lives doesn't it? 15 yeas ago, when computer games are not so addictive as today, children usually do other things much more worthwhile. Like playing outside, reading a good book, etc. Now we see children(not to mention teenagers), sitting in front of the computer/TV/etc. . Not just sitting, but making it as if they can't live without it. The more a child watches TV, the more his/her brain became degenerate. Even educational TV won't help. Yes, we're devolving into couch potatoes, but not all.

Although they'll have their own "modern" intelligence, which means they can easily make a "battle strategy" in his game, while he'll have some difficulty in solving a simple math equation.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Idiomorph (Post 5125666)
Sorry guys, but this is a really common and very wrong misconception. Average IQ (that is, the value to which IQ scores are normalised each year) tends to increase every generation. See the Flynn effect. Whether or not the cause of this phenomenon is biological remains debatable, but you can't just make blanket statements about the population getting less intelligent.

I'm not sure why people get this impression of decreasing intelligence. I suspect the idiots are just getting a lot louder-- courtesy of wealthy economies, widespread communications technology and increasing literacy rates. There's also been the rise of hardcore religious fundamentalism in the US (note however that it has been coupled with decreasing numbers of religious people in general).

Another misconception I should address here is the idea of 'devolving'. Evolution is not teleocentric-- it is far from linear, and does not progress 'up' or 'down' or 'towards' something. Natural selection acts to generate organisms which are good at reproducing in the environment they find themselves in, and nothing else. If they happen to be better-adapted to a greater range of environments in general, or are what we subjectively see as 'better', it is purely an accessory effect.

IQ increases every year because people usually are more "intelligent" or shall we say crafty in handling out IQ tests. And IQ's don't mark a human's true intelligence. Sorry, that's my own idea. Don't argue. Pls

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idiomorph (Post 5125666)

"Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population."

"Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth."

Microevo example: Hom0 sapiens----> Africans
-----> Caucasians
------> Polynesians(and much more races)

Right?

Macro evolution example: Australopithecus africanus---->blah(too long)---->blah---->*Missing Link or what*----> Hom0 sapiens

Right.

The Darkest Gale September 17th, 2009 7:22 AM

evolution happens over a long period of time e.g people don't have beards as much as they used too and we are getting fatter because in WWII rations made people fitter
just my opinion

Ageless Irony September 17th, 2009 7:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Darkest Gale (Post 5125809)
evolution happens over a long period of time e.g people don't have beards as much as they used too and we are getting fatter because in WWII rations made people fitter
just my opinion

Neither of those have anything to do with evolution.

The Darkest Gale September 17th, 2009 7:48 AM

umnm they kinda do in a way but you have a point
I'm saying lots of little things are changing basically =P but then again I'm not smart
*slowly walks away* I'll stop talking now

Ageless Irony September 17th, 2009 7:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Darkest Gale (Post 5125855)
umnm they kinda do in a way but you have a point
I'm saying lots of little things are changing basically =P but then again I'm not smart
*slowly walks away* I'll stop talking now

Those are just tiny, tiny cultural changes if anything. Definatley not any form of physical evolution.
*patpat* It's okay.

The Darkest Gale September 17th, 2009 8:00 AM

roght I get it XD it lol
have a cookie!

twocows September 17th, 2009 9:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idiomorph (Post 5125666)
Sorry guys, but this is a really common and very wrong misconception. Average IQ (that is, the value to which IQ scores are normalised each year) tends to increase every generation. See the Flynn effect. Whether or not the cause of this phenomenon is biological remains debatable, but you can't just make blanket statements about the population getting less intelligent.

I'm not sure why people get this impression of decreasing intelligence. I suspect the idiots are just getting a lot louder-- courtesy of wealthy economies, widespread communications technology and increasing literacy rates. There's also been the rise of hardcore religious fundamentalism in the US (note however that it has been coupled with decreasing numbers of religious people in general).

Another misconception I should address here is the idea of 'devolving'. Evolution is not teleocentric-- it is far from linear, and does not progress 'up' or 'down' or 'towards' something. Natural selection acts to generate organisms which are good at reproducing in the environment they find themselves in, and nothing else. If they happen to be better-adapted to a greater range of environments in general, or are what we subjectively see as 'better', it is purely an accessory effect.

I didn't say it was linear. In the very post you quoted, I mentioned that it balances itself out, which is more like sinusoidal.

As for the Flynn Effect, I suspect there is a fair amount of lying with statistics involved. I'm no professional, but I can think of a number of things that make me doubt it. Most importantly, we have IQ being used as a measure of intelligence. Higher IQ scores don't mean people are getting smarter, they mean people are getting better at IQ tests. I still maintain that we're getting stupider overall, and that genetics plays an important role in this.

And as you said, natural selection does encourage adaptation. Our current society promotes stupidity and laziness (and, in fact, idolizes those who have both), and those people tend to breed more and pass those traits along. It seems pretty simple to me.

Shem September 17th, 2009 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neku. (Post 5092891)


Lol, of course humans will one day evolve. We can have known the Whales and Dolphins evolved from mammals, like us. Whats to say that the human race will not evolve into Ocean Dwellers? We could even be evolving now to adapt to what society is doing to our Atmosphere and Ozone.


We won't have to adapt because we will come up with new technology so that most people would survive instead of just those fit for the new conditions surviving.

Idiomorph September 18th, 2009 1:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5126055)
Most importantly, we have IQ being used as a measure of intelligence. Higher IQ scores don't mean people are getting smarter, they mean people are getting better at IQ tests

I'll readily admit that IQ isn't exactly an ideal representation of intelligence, but it is one of the best we have. What alternative quantitative system are you proposing? The same effect is observed with other means of measurement-- and not just from crappy governmental surveys or whatever, these are real papers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5126055)
I still maintain that we're getting stupider overall, and that genetics plays an important role in this.

You have not provided evidence for either claim. Given the timescales involved and the speed of human cultural evolution it is very unlikely that genetics plays a significant role in these changes, whether they be positive or negative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5126055)
I didn't say it was linear. In the very post you quoted, I mentioned that it balances itself out, which is more like sinusoidal.

Sorry-- by 'linear' I meant 'one-dimensional'. 'Devolving' is a ridiculous term because there is no objective measurement by which something can be said to be 'more' or 'less' evolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by twocows (Post 5126055)
Our current society promotes stupidity and laziness (and, in fact, idolizes those who have both), and those people tend to breed more and pass those traits along. It seems pretty simple to me

There is an inverse correlation between IQ and fertility, but the effects of upbringing and culture on measurements of intelligence are so massive that it isn't at all clear whether there is any sort of causation involved, let alone a genetic basis. It is more likely that both have independent correlations with some other explanatory variable, such as wealth-- see the demographic-economic paradox.

beauty. proletariat September 18th, 2009 3:45 AM

I'm going to add something here.

Us as humans are much too developed to develop / evolve any further. Evolution comes through natural selection and also pressure in the environment. Large amounts of a given species die off before they start adapting and evolving, humans are at a stage where we shape the environment to suit us. We're putting pressure on the environment, but we feel no pressure (except stress which isnt that big imo). An excellent example of this are insecticides and how we have to make them stronger every few years after insects get used to them.

When we evolve, one main thing that evolves with us is our brain, and the human brain is already at the epitome of development. The only thing that can occur now, is an increase in the thinking power / amount of brain we use as humans only use 2% of their brainpower.

IQ is not something that is human made and is flawed. Apart from the genes that you gain through natural selection (your parents), you are on your own. IQ plays a very little part. You will find that children that have a very educated, diverse life up until they are approximately 5-6 years old, will generally be smarter as this is the "development" phase of the brain. Why do you think exchange students from asia are so smart? They start school when they're 3.

And talk about people not having beards anymore due to evolution.... :/ Its actually due to changes in trends. Its like asking why blazers / suits arent compulsory in high school, or uniform in america. Its due to changing trends.

Evolution in humans.... Will not happen.

The spine, the brain, the shape of the jaw! It is all linked to our evolution. We have evolved way too much. In the middle ages, the human brain had a capacity of 1500 CCs, this has been developed this to 1700 CCs. It is estimated that this is the maximum thinking capacity we are able to contain. Sadly, there is no place for evolution.

@ twocows.

We are not getting dumber, its just that education is given less and less importance. Look at my asian countries reference.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:24 PM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.