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)

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!


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.