Evolution within humanity.

Post Reply New Topic

Hermits get even less done.

Mankind's success lies in the specialization of labor and the collectivization of defense. We prosper because we produce, trade what we produce and co-operate in useful ventures. We survive because we come together to fight a common enemy or overcome a natural disaster.

ruveyn

^Actually, yes, that's true. Specializing was what turned society from a bunch of farmers working to feed their own families to a society in which people could specialize because the farmers sold them food. So if we lack socialization but excel at specialization, then that would mean we're permanently cursed to depend on others to put our specialization to good use.
Or I'm just overthinking.


But:

"...the really social people did not invent the first stone spear. It was probably invented by an Aspie who chipped away at rocks while the other people socialized around the campfire. Without autism traits we might still be living in caves."
— Temple Grandin

You are underthinking. It is specialization of labor, collectivization of defense, the perfection of comparative advantage that has made the human race the successful primate species that it is. We are the smartest, baddest and most productive apes on the planet.

ruveyn

If that is your point then you didnt state your point very well.

Are we aspies, not a new 'species' , but harbingers of humans to come?

Hypothetically -yes- if society continues progressing along the same trajectory that it has for the last couple decades then hypothetically the ability to bond with technology could become a selecive force. And the ability to bond with other humans might become less vital than it has for most of history.

The affable salesmen who have dominated the world for centuries might start to starve, and the introverted geeks who know how to make computers dance might start to get all the resources - and thus be able to feed larger families- thus leave more progeny. So as a species humans might become more geeky and aspie-like in future centuries.Not just as a cultural value but genetically more disposed to geekiness- and aspiness. Dont really believe its gonna happen. But theoretically its not impossible.

Aspies are not a new species, but humanity as a whole is far more neurodiverse than was once believed.

So are we the pinnacle of evolution? Would a species that has enough knowledge of evolution to control it be the "end of the line"? Just a thought.

^ This sentence could only be uttered by someone with no understanding of evolution. Evolution is directionless and purposeless. It does not go towards any goal; there is no "pinnacle." Quit anthropomorphizing a basic fact of nature.


No. There is no "end of the line."

No. We are just excellent at Monkey Business.

ruveyn

I've been referred to as an X-Men more than once. I can occasionally mess with electrical devices. Some devices have metal switches that relay on the galvanization created when you put your finger on the sensor, if I have enough static charge I can activate them from over a foot away. I finally told a some friends what I thought it was that was happening. After shuffling around on the carpet in their socks for a while they could only get the switch to activate from less than an inch away.

I can also stand a much greater electrical shock that others. I felt an odd tickle when I touched a certain appliance in the kitchen, my then wife touched it and fell to the floor! She was OK and got up right away, but when the technician came, he said a badly installed wire's insulation had worn away and 220 volts were traveling directly through the metal and into whomever touched it.

Any other aspies have similar carnival sideshow skills?

If there are no environmental changes then there will be an end point. Organisms will still change, but they will not get much better at surviving. I was thinking that maybe if a species could control evolution, and change themselves intelligently, they would "outrun" evolution. They would be able to control it. They could stop themselves from evolving. For example, medicine can often stop people from dying. But by saving someone with, maybe, a high chance of getting cancer at a young age, medicine will allow that person's genes to pass into the next generation; his or her children may have that high chance of cancer. I'm not saying we're the best evolution can produce. Just the last. Because we have slowed down our evolution. We have more control over ourselves. (and maybe one day we'll be able to control other species' evolutionary paths)

No there won't. Organisms will still change. And in the process of becoming better adapted to their environment, they will change the environment.


Evolution stops when reproduction ceases entirely. Typically this means the species is extinct.


That's not stopping evolution. In fact, that is a form of evolution- genes for cancer susceptibility would increase.


Evidence? The overall human gene pool is relatively stable only because of its sheer size.


Except we don't directly control our evolution. There are no eugenics laws.

Yes:



But what if the species is able to intelligently control its reproduction? What if a species could manually change the DNA of its offspring? Then evolution would stop.


We are stopping our "progress".


No, we don't consciously control our evolution. But we affect it in such a way that goes against how it would normally work (it now goes against us). And one day we might be able to consciously control it.


It's like a robot apocalypse. If robots can modify and replicate themselves, they would not need their creators anymore. If we could modify and replicate ourselves at will, we would have no need for evolution to work on us.


(interesting debate; no hard feelings? :D?)

Some posters have spoken about evolutionary changes to modern humans, what changes would you make? Other than illness free and better self repair, what in the physical layout would you want to change? With the exception of flight capable wings, I don't see that much the human body needs to change. We've shed body hair and claws, walk upright and have opposable thumbs, binocular color vision, and speech.

No. Open an introductory biology textbook and look up the definition of evolution. As long as the gene pool is changing, evolution is still happening. The only way to "stop" evolution while preserving the species would be to reproduce exclusively by cloning. And even that wouldn't manage to stop evolution entirely.


As stated earlier, evolution has no direction or goal. The notion of "progress" is meaningless here.


Not really. We have just eliminated certain selective pressures. This does not mean that evolution is now working "against us," nor does it necessarily mean evolution was ever working "for us" in the past.


We can consciously control it now, but we as a society have decided that such efforts would be misguided at best and so refrain from doing so.


This isn't a debate. This is you not knowing how evolutionary biology works, and me attempting to explain it.

1. "Any genetically-based phenotypic change in a population of organisms over successive generations. Evolution can also be thought of as the process by which species of living things can undergo modification over successive generations, with such modification sometimes resulting in the formation of new species." -Biology: A Guide to the Natural World by David Krogh (my intro to bio book)
Say you have an all-powerful species. One that can perfectly change the DNA of its members and control how it reproduces. Then what? Evolution created the species, but the species doesn't need evolution anymore.

2. Then I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking about "progress". I'm talking about how natural evolution tends to make organisms have higher chances or survival and reproduction.

3. Evolution is just a concept that usually generally makes stuff have a higher chance of surviving. I shouldn't have to explain it here. (and I don't have time)

4. Not completely.

5. I know how evolutionary biology works. I don't have a degree or anything, but I've programmed five simulations, tried out tons more on the internet (Sugarscape, DarwinBots, Framsticks, etc.), made my own evolution "simulation" on paper (manually doing everything and spinning an eraser as a random-number-generator :P), and chose evolutionary computation as the subject of an extra credit biology paper. (introductory to biology) I know that the little bots in the simulations will never stop evolving. They will always find some way to get ahead of the other species.


Anyways, I think we're arguing about the wrong thing. It's not about how much I know about evolution. Or if humans are affecting their genes. It's about whether or not it's possible for evolution to create a species that can completely control itself. Maybe humans can't do it yet, but maybe in some distant star system somewhere (if you believe in that stuff), there's a species that can control every aspect -of itself, to the point that evolution is no longer needed to help it survive?


(also, I may not be able to reply for a while; I have marching band camp starting tomorrow; I will try to read your response sometime)

Ugh. This definition is too imprecise. The change need not be phenotypic.


Even by the definition from your book, this still qualifies as evolution. As long as it is still changing-even slightly- evolution is happening.


OK... the development and use of transmitted culture, including technology and medicine, is an evolutionary adaptation on the part of humans. Cancer treatments, to return to your example, gives those humans a higher chance for survival and reproduction. Ergo still "progress" as you are defining it, although I deeply disapprove of attempting to put such a definition in.

And natural evolution does not tend to make organisms have higher chances of survival/reproduction. It merely favors those organisms that do reproduce successfully. It does not make organisms do anything- they either live or die, reproduce or don't. Those that managed to reproduce will have more copies of themselves in future generations.


That's not what evolution is. That's not even really what natural selection is. No, you do not have to explain it to me. I'm a biologist.


Those toy simulations are barely even a caricature of what's happening.

You are simply misunderstanding definitions. It's easy to do in a subject like evolution, where there is a lot of inaccurate information and misconceptions out there. Just read Campbell's Biology (the best intro book) and you'll get there.


No. Everything still interacts with its environment, and those interactions are sufficiently complex that they cannot be completely controlled.


You still seem to be misunderstanding what evolution is. You speak of evolution as though it were some kind of tool that species use to stay alive. That's not the case. Evolution is simply change over time. A species that never changed at all would no longer be evolving. However, it is unlikely that such a species could survive for long. Certainly not indefinitely.


Ah, band camp. I remember those days. What instrument do you play?