Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

A particular conversation I am having with another Gaffer has encouraged me to add some more to the OP - I just need to figure out a way to put it in.

What I will touch upon are mostly misplaced criticisms of the ToE (quick summary, I'll do something more cohesive when I have the time/patience).

- Carbon dating can't accurately place the date of dinosaur fossils - what gives?

Radio carbon dating isn't used to date dinosaur fossils, it's only used to date things from the last... 20,000 years I believe. There are other radiometric dating methods used to date the ages of fossils. I'll add links/mini explanations later, needless to say - this argument is a bit weak - dating of fossils isn't disputed by anyone who knows how it works, it isn't accurate to the year or anything, but it doesn't need to be to substantiate Evolution.

To further the point, even if dating of fossils were completely off, it wouldn't change the validity of Evolution, only change the time scale.

- Something about observable evidence?

Observation is misunderstood in this context, you can observe something without seeing it with your own two eyes - an example that was given to me by the Gaffer who was arguing his point against me actually highlights it perfectly. CSI - Crime Scene Investigation. A lot of the time we don't see crimes actually being committed, but we work with the evidence found at the crime scene - forensic and otherwise to build an accurate picture of what happened.

I'm not saying thats a 1:1 example as to what happens with the ToE, but it's similar. Also consider that it has all been duplicated in labs - speciation, phenotypical evolution, 'new' genetic information - all of it. We've seen it happen with our own two eyes.

Lastly, the speed of light hasn't changed in the last 50,000 years, it won't change in the next 50,000 years - it stays constant. No one would argue with me if I made this claim, yet people are basically arguing against a similar constant (evolution) because we physically cannot go back in time and observe it - that even if we see it happening now, who knows if it happened in the past - that the evidence at our disposal is circumstantial or shaky.

This isn't the case, I have yet to be presented with a single argument that in anyway desubstansiates the ToE. Every argument presented I have clearly rebutted, if someone feels I haven't please bring it up, and we will find someone who is reasonably objective to point it out.

I am just a little bit tired of people saying that they are open to the Evidence when they are clearly not. If you don't want to believe that Evolution (or certain parts of Evolution) occur, either come up with the data substantiating your belief or come to terms with the fact that you are deluding yourself. I apparently don't have the patience to explain things to people with no desire to learn.

 

[DragonGirl]

A particular conversation I am having with another Gaffer has encouraged me to add some more to the OP - I just need to figure out a way to put it in.

What I will touch upon are mostly misplaced criticisms of the ToE (quick summary, I'll do something more cohesive when I have the time/patience).

- Carbon dating can't accurately place the date of dinosaur fossils - what gives?

Radio carbon dating isn't used to date dinosaur fossils, it's only used to date things from the last... 20,000 years I believe. There are other radiometric dating methods used to date the ages of fossils. I'll add links/mini explanations later, needless to say - this argument is a bit weak - dating of fossils isn't disputed by anyone who knows how it works, it isn't accurate to the year or anything, but it doesn't need to be to substantiate Evolution.

To further the point, even if dating of fossils were completely off, it wouldn't change the validity of Evolution, only change the time scale.

Carbon dating isn't used to date any fossil, because fossils are mineralized bone. That is, the original organic material has been replaced by rock, so there's no carbon in it. Allow me to refer you to a favorite video of mine covering this subject

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbvMB57evy4

 

[mckmas8808]

Religious rite gives evolution a helping hand

Each year, members of the Zoque people of southern Mexico gather in the Cueva del Azufre – a dark, sulphurous cave, home to the cave molly fish. They bring with them the mashed root of the Barbasco plant, a powerful anaesthetic they use to stun the fish as part of a ritual to ask their gods for rain.

Now it turns out that this centuries-old religious ritual has given evolution a helping hand. Michi Tobler of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater and his colleagues had been studying the cave molly for many years, when they became interested in how the toxin might affect the fish.

They collected fish from water where the Barbasco toxin was added every year, and others from water upstream, then mimicked the ritual by adding Barbasco paste to both tanks. They were surprised to a find differences between the two populations. Fish from the sulphur cave resisted the anaesthetic for longer, suggesting that over time, evolution has selected for fish that can cope with the toxin.

"The study indicates that the fish have adapted to the local Zoque traditions," says Tobler, who describes the effect as "an intimate bond between nature and local culture." It is yet more evidence showing how human activities can affect the evolutionary trajectory of species, he says.
​

################

I like the play on words they gave the title.

 

[chicko1983]

Sorry for the bump but my post didn't deserve a new thread.

I was at a party last night when we were having a discussion about the Commonwealth Games.

One person was saying how bad Aussie athletics is and other guy said it was because mainly only caucasian Australians did it. If more indigenous Australians participated in it, we would be much more competitive internationally.

He used Cathy Freeman (an olympic 400m gold medalist) and Patrick Johnson (the fastest non-African descent man over 100m ever, 9.93s) as examples of great indigenous athletes who, with proper training, showed how athletic they can be. There were also some indigenous footballers (Cyril Rioli etc) names thrown up and if you have seen them in action, you know how magical they can be with their pace and agility.

Then some dude, who I don't know, said "I don't think they (indigenous Australians) are physically superior to caucasians in anyway. In fact, they have less evolved immune systems".

Now, he is entitled to an opinion and I am mine (I am saying they are better athletes but he is saying they have worse immune systems) but I corrected him on his term "less evolved" because we have all been on earth the same amount of time and evolved from the same first multi-cellular organism, hence we are all just as "evolved" as each other. He then asked me how I should describe it and I didn't know how to.

Am I correct in saying that every creature on earth which is living at this moment is just as "evolved" as each other?

Is a worm "as evolved" as a man?

Can one adaptation of an animal be more evolved than another adaptation in the same species? I mean, we are all homo sapiens so shouldn't we have all evolved from the same ancestor hence be as "evolved" as each other?

I know my ignorance is mainly because of my understanding of the term "evolved" and evolution.

I am not a biologist so please dumb down your answers for me.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Sorry for the bump but my post didn't deserve a new thread.

I was at a party last night when we were having a discussion about the Commonwealth Games.

One person was saying how bad Aussie athletics is and other guy said it was because mainly only caucasian Australians did it. If more indigenous Australians participated in it, we would be much more competitive internationally.

He used Cathy Freeman (an olympic 400m gold medalist) and Patrick Johnson (the fastest non-African descent man over 100m ever, 9.93s) as examples of great indigenous athletes who, with proper training, showed how athletic they can be. There were also some indigenous footballers (Cyril Rioli etc) names thrown up and if you have seen them in action, you know how magical they can be with their pace and agility.

Then some dude, who I don't know, said "I don't think they (indigenous Australians) are physically superior to caucasians in anyway. In fact, they have less evolved immune systems".

Now, he is entitled to an opinion and I am mine (I am saying they are better athletes but he is saying they have worse immune systems) but I corrected him on his term "less evolved" because we have all been on earth the same amount of time and evolved from the same first multi-cellular organism, hence we are all just as "evolved" as each other. He then asked me how I should describe it and I didn't know how to.

Am I correct in saying that every creature on earth which is living at this moment is just as "evolved" as each other?

Is a worm "as evolved" as a man?

Can one adaptation of an animal be more evolved than another adaptation in the same species? I mean, we are all homo sapiens so shouldn't we have all evolved from the same ancestor hence be as "evolved" as each other?

I know my ignorance is mainly because of my understanding of the term "evolved" and evolution.

I am not a biologist so please dumb down your answers for me.

You're right. Everything is as evolved as each other. I forgot what the terminology is, but I think more or less complex might suffice.

 

[Shanadeus]

You're right. Everything is as evolved as each other. I forgot what the terminology is, but I think more or less complex might suffice.

Is that really the case?
I thought that something that had evolved for a longer time could be considered more evolved than another, younger species - regardless of whether or not the younger species is more complex.

 

[Kano on the Phone]

Is that really the case?
I thought that something that had evolved for a longer time could be considered more evolved than another, younger species - regardless of whether or not the younger species is more complex.

It doesn't work that way. No two species evolve at the same pace and we all have a common ancestor. You can't measure which species has been evolving longer because if a certain species evolves enough, it's not that same species anymore. A "young species" is just a species that has recently evolved from another and an "old species" is one that has evolved very little.

 

[Shanadeus]

It doesn't work that way. No two species evolve at the same pace and we all have a common ancestor. You can't measure which species has been evolving longer because if a certain species evolves enough, it's not that same species anymore. A "young species" is just a species that has recently evolved from another and an "old species" is one that has evolved very little.

How can something evolve at a different pace
Does more evolutionary pressure result in a different evolutionarily pace or something?

I always thought that it a species was evolving regardless of whether or not it changed, and thus you can't really evolve at different paces but would rather just evolve with time.

Looked up a definition of "evolve" and found:

2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.

So species that don't develop characteristics by evolutionary processes.
aren't evolving?
That doesn't sound quite right to me, but maybe I got it wrong.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Species do evolve at different speeds

Look no further than this odd collection of creatures that have essentially never evolved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

 

[Shanadeus]

Species do evolve at different speeds

Look no further than this odd collection of creatures that have essentially never evolved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil

Yeah I guess I got my terms mixed up.
So to evolve is to gain characteristics through evolutionary processes?
If so, then yeah I species do evolve at different speeds.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

How can something evolve at a different pace
Does more evolutionary pressure result in a different evolutionarily pace or something?

I always thought that it a species was evolving regardless of whether or not it changed, and thus you can't really evolve at different paces but would rather just evolve with time.

Looked up a definition of "evolve" and found:

2. Biology To develop (a characteristic) by evolutionary processes.

So species that don't develop characteristics by evolutionary processes.
aren't evolving?
That doesn't sound quite right to me, but maybe I got it wrong.

It's a combination of different things. The simplest aspect is reproduction speed. Humans reproduce roughly every 20 years or so. Bacteria are more likely to evolve at much faster speeds than humans just because they go through hundreds, thousands, or millions of life cycles before humans reproduce.

 

[Kimosabae]

The OP is incredible.


Someone should do a thread like this for every field of science.


Someone do a Math and a Physics thread.

 

[Naked Snake]

The OP is incredible.


Someone should do a thread like this for every field of science.


Someone do a Math and a Physics thread.

Requesting "Math" and "Physics" threads is too broad. Evolution != Biology... the former is a subset of the latter.

 

[Kimosabae]

Fine, an Algebra/Calculus/Geometry/Trigonometry thread and/or Fundamentals of Physics thread.

 

[Kinitari]

This thread is the only good thing I've ever done in my life.

Sucks that I reached the post size limit, I don't know to shrink it to make more info fit .

 

[Shanadeus]

This thread deserves to be bumped so that our new fellow GAFFErs can read it - perhaps a couple of evolution-deniers will be showed the truth.

 

[Korey]

Maybe add the link and/or an excerpt from http://www.notjustatheory.com in the section about the word "theory"

 

[Atramental]

Tried to convince my dad and mom that speciation is evidence for macro-evolution but it didn't sink in...

UGH. It's not hard to understand. But no. They have to believe that Jebus did everything...

 

[RevDM]

there isn't any point in trying to prove it to someone who is older, it's something that younger children should be exposed to.

 

[Shanadeus]

Tried to convince my dad and mom that speciation is evidence for macro-evolution but it didn't sink in...

UGH. It's not hard to understand. But no. They have to believe that Jebus did everything...

Tell them that God guided evolution and that he managed to create us humans from that tiny microbe (which lived in mud) is a testament to his greatness.

It's a bullshit rationalization but at least it's better than them completely denying it.

 

[Korey]

Tell them that God guided evolution and that he managed to create us humans from that tiny microbe (which lived in mud) is a testament to his greatness.

It's a bullshit rationalization but at least it's better than them completely denying it.

No, it's not.

 

[Zzoram]

No, it's not.

We live in a world of compromises.

 

[innervision961]

This is an idea I have been tossing around recently... We are aware of evolution in the physical sense, just about everything that we have observed in reality seems to be evolving, usually towards greater complexity. Some romantic ideas are that eventually evolution will hit it's peak, a perfection, perhaps a creature evolved from modern humans a few thousand (hundred thousand?) years from now may resemble to us, a being no different from one we'd label as a god.

Per chance, what if thought was evolving as well? It's noticeable to me in our trends, our rituals and our opinions. It seems that as we progress and share stories and teach each other, the global conscious changes to reflect the things we know and learn. We teach elementary math to our children earlier and earlier all the time, we trend things that we like and we seemingly assimilate these things into the group. So is it really that far fetched to speculate that thought evolves with us?

Obviously as we grow in complexity so does our thought processes, and no doubt over time do our cognitive functions advance to keep pace, but could there be more to it than that?

My idea goes like this, we adapt and evolve in a physical manner to reproduce and keep our species thriving so that the evolution of out thought is kept current, for if we were to die off (not entirely extinct) that the leaps and bounds in cognition that we've made would sort of be "reset". Maybe this is why reproduction is imperative, because in this big universe of ours, our brains tend to be one of the rarest off all things.

I dunno' just food for thought but does anyone else tend to picture people on television (especially fox new lol) as apes talking to other apes. Especially when they are talking about how much better the apes from their tribe are compared to the apes of another, usually separated only by imaginary territorial divides?

 

[FunkyMunkey]

Tell them that God guided evolution and that he managed to create us humans from that tiny microbe (which lived in mud) is a testament to his greatness.

It's a bullshit rationalization but at least it's better than them completely denying it.

No, it's not. Believing in evolution and a God aren't mutually exclusive by any means.

 

[Shanadeus]

This is an idea I have been tossing around recently... We are aware of evolution in the physical sense, just about everything that we have observed in reality seems to be evolving, usually towards greater complexity. Some romantic ideas are that eventually evolution will hit it's peak, a perfection, perhaps a creature evolved from modern humans a few thousand (hundred thousand?) years from now may resemble to us, a being no different from one we'd label as a god.

Per chance, what if thought was evolving as well? It's noticeable to me in our trends, our rituals and our opinions. It seems that as we progress and share stories and teach each other, the global conscious changes to reflect the things we know and learn. We teach elementary math to our children earlier and earlier all the time, we trend things that we like and we seemingly assimilate these things into the group. So is it really that far fetched to speculate that thought evolves with us?

Obviously as we grow in complexity so does our thought processes, and no doubt over time do our cognitive functions advance to keep pace, but could there be more to it than that?

My idea goes like this, we adapt and evolve in a physical manner to reproduce and keep our species thriving so that the evolution of out thought is kept current, for if we were to die off (not entirely extinct) that the leaps and bounds in cognition that we've made would sort of be "reset". Maybe this is why reproduction is imperative, because in this big universe of ours, our brains tend to be one of the rarest off all things.

I dunno' just food for thought but does anyone else tend to picture people on television (especially fox new lol) as apes talking to other apes. Especially when they are talking about how much better the apes from their tribe are compared to the apes of another, usually separated only by imaginary territorial divides?

Memes:

A meme (play /ˈmiːm/[1]), a relatively newly coined term, identifies ideas or beliefs that are transmitted from one person or group of people to another. The concept comes from an analogy: as genes transmit biological information, memes can be said to transmit idea and belief information.

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures.[2]

And as with genes, the most successful memes are the ones that are the ones that transmit themselves the most.

I have grown quite distance from other humans so I definitely recognize what you say about people in general just being great apes in clothes doing apey things in a hidden way.

That's why I self-identify more with cephalopods.

 

[Zzoram]

This is an idea I have been tossing around recently... We are aware of evolution in the physical sense, just about everything that we have observed in reality seems to be evolving, usually towards greater complexity. Some romantic ideas are that eventually evolution will hit it's peak, a perfection, perhaps a creature evolved from modern humans a few thousand (hundred thousand?) years from now may resemble to us, a being no different from one we'd label as a god.

Per chance, what if thought was evolving as well? It's noticeable to me in our trends, our rituals and our opinions. It seems that as we progress and share stories and teach each other, the global conscious changes to reflect the things we know and learn. We teach elementary math to our children earlier and earlier all the time, we trend things that we like and we seemingly assimilate these things into the group. So is it really that far fetched to speculate that thought evolves with us?

Obviously as we grow in complexity so does our thought processes, and no doubt over time do our cognitive functions advance to keep pace, but could there be more to it than that?

My idea goes like this, we adapt and evolve in a physical manner to reproduce and keep our species thriving so that the evolution of out thought is kept current, for if we were to die off (not entirely extinct) that the leaps and bounds in cognition that we've made would sort of be "reset". Maybe this is why reproduction is imperative, because in this big universe of ours, our brains tend to be one of the rarest off all things.

I dunno' just food for thought but does anyone else tend to picture people on television (especially fox new lol) as apes talking to other apes. Especially when they are talking about how much better the apes from their tribe are compared to the apes of another, usually separated only by imaginary territorial divides?

That's not how evolution works. Whatever survives and reproduces best is the direction evolution moves towards. There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "peak evolved", species evolve to suit their environments, then evolve as the environment changes. Complexity is not always better either. It's only better if it provides a reproductive advantage in the current environment, and that may not always be the case.

 

[Korey]

We live in a world of compromises.

What's the point of compromising with your parents about evolution anyway? If they're going to believe in intelligent-guided evolution then you might as well not bother and save your breath and energy.

No, it's not. Believing in evolution and a God aren't mutually exclusive by any means.

Yes they are and it's been gone over quite a bit. People who want it both ways and sit on the fence aren't being honest with themselves or don't fully understand the implications of what that belief entails. They just want the easy way out on both ends.

 

[Shanadeus]

No, it's not. Believing in evolution and a God aren't mutually exclusive by any means.

God taking dirt and creating Adam from it being a metaphor for the mud that life might have originally sprung forth from through natural, evolutionary processes is a bullshit rationalization for someone that is a literal believer.

It's a pretty neat compromise but it just adds an extra element to a process that needn't one. At this point you'd be better off saying that your God is a deistic one and is the creator of all things by causing big bang in a way that'd down the line lead to us humans.

 

[Trent Strong]

This is an idea I have been tossing around recently... We are aware of evolution in the physical sense, just about everything that we have observed in reality seems to be evolving, usually towards greater complexity. Some romantic ideas are that eventually evolution will hit it's peak, a perfection, perhaps a creature evolved from modern humans a few thousand (hundred thousand?) years from now may resemble to us, a being no different from one we'd label as a god.

Per chance, what if thought was evolving as well? It's noticeable to me in our trends, our rituals and our opinions. It seems that as we progress and share stories and teach each other, the global conscious changes to reflect the things we know and learn. We teach elementary math to our children earlier and earlier all the time, we trend things that we like and we seemingly assimilate these things into the group. So is it really that far fetched to speculate that thought evolves with us?

Obviously as we grow in complexity so does our thought processes, and no doubt over time do our cognitive functions advance to keep pace, but could there be more to it than that?

My idea goes like this, we adapt and evolve in a physical manner to reproduce and keep our species thriving so that the evolution of out thought is kept current, for if we were to die off (not entirely extinct) that the leaps and bounds in cognition that we've made would sort of be "reset". Maybe this is why reproduction is imperative, because in this big universe of ours, our brains tend to be one of the rarest off all things.

I dunno' just food for thought but does anyone else tend to picture people on television (especially fox new lol) as apes talking to other apes. Especially when they are talking about how much better the apes from their tribe are compared to the apes of another, usually separated only by imaginary territorial divides?

Humans won't be any different in thousands of years than they are now. Maybe not even in hundred of thousands of years. Species with big stable populations don't tend to change much. And, thanks to medical science and an abundance of food, pretty much everyone survives and pretty much everyone can reproduce if they want to. There is no selective pressure except for sexual selection. Our brains have remained the same for tens of thousands or more years and they probably won't change much in a huge, stable population like ours. And what do you mean that some species evolved from humans would be God-like? Some sort of X-men style people? Evolution could never produce a person who could break the laws of physics. (I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean though.)

 

[Zzoram]

God taking dirt and creating Adam from it being a metaphor for the mud that life might have originally sprung forth from through natural, evolutionary processes is a bullshit rationalization for someone that is a literal believer.

It's a pretty neat compromise but it just adds an extra element to a process that needn't one. At this point you'd be better off saying that your God is a deistic one and is the creator of all things by causing big bang in a way that'd down the line lead to us humans.

That's the compromise I was thinking of. Stick God as far back as possible, as the spark of the big bang and the calibrator of the laws of physics.

 

[Lesath]

Can one adaptation of an animal be more evolved than another adaptation in the same species? I mean, we are all homo sapiens so shouldn't we have all evolved from the same ancestor hence be as "evolved" as each other?

I know my ignorance is mainly because of my understanding of the term "evolved" and evolution.

I am not a biologist so please dumb down your answers for me.

I know this is a relatively old post, but I just thought I should clear it up.

Take for example, the camera eye. In comparison to a bundle of light-sensitive cells, the camera eye trait can be seen as a more "derived" characteristic. Similarly, the trait of having light-sensitive cells can be considered a more "primitive" characteristic.

This terminology, of course, is used to temporally compare traits of a certain "group" of life, and likely not proper to compare similar traits that have arisen independently. If you had wanted to compare, say, the cephalopod eye to the tetrapod eye, you are better off listing their various quirks rather than compare when they first appeared.

 

[Korey]

Humans won't be any different in thousands of years than they are now. Maybe not even in hundred of thousands of years. Species with big stable populations don't tend to change much. And, thanks to medical science and an abundance of food, pretty much everyone survives and pretty much everyone can reproduce if they want to. There is no selective pressure except for sexual selection. Our brains have remained the same for tens of thousands or more years and they probably won't change much in a huge, stable population like ours. And what do you mean that some species evolved from humans would be God-like? Some sort of X-men style people? Evolution could never produce a person who could break the laws of physics. (I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean though.)

Even if everyone can reproduce (including stupid people), collectively as a species we're getting smarter to the point where stupid people are smarter than smart people thousands of years ago. I've read that we use more of our brains now than before, if that's true I don't see why our brains can't continue to evolve. (Although I have no idea if it's true).

We have kids that can type and are online at the age of four. They're surrounded by and bombarded by entertainment and mental stimulation.

 

[Shanadeus]

Humans won't be any different in thousands of years than they are now. Maybe not even in hundred of thousands of years. Species with big stable populations don't tend to change much. And, thanks to medical science and an abundance of food, pretty much everyone survives and pretty much everyone can reproduce if they want to. There is no selective pressure except for sexual selection. Our brains have remained the same for tens of thousands or more years and they probably won't change much in a huge, stable population like ours. And what do you mean that some species evolved from humans would be God-like? Some sort of X-men style people? Evolution could never produce a person who could break the laws of physics. (I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean though.)

With that said, some humans will begin to become a lot more different in just a couple of decades within the century thanks to genetic modification and cybernetics I predict.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.

 

[AwesomeSauce]

I saw the movie Paul yesterday and man do they talk trash about people who don't believe in evolution and people who are religious in general lol.

 

[jaxword]

Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.

Think of evolution as "whatever works."

For a trait to dominate the human species, the ones without the trait would have to not have offspring.

Our technology has made it possible so people of all walks of life survive until adulthood.

We don't run around naked in the fields anymore. The ones who survive aren't the fastest runners or toughest. Everyone survives, so there's no more survival of the fittest.

 

[teh_pwn]

How can something evolve at a different pace
Does more evolutionary pressure result in a different evolutionarily pace or something?

Depends on environmental variables.

Mutations happen all of the time, but it takes natural selection to pick mutations that are favorable to get evolution going.

For example:
A. Humans are nearly not evolving because no matter the mutation, generally modern medicine can compensate. Mutations drift in the gene pool without selection.
B. Bacteria and insects exposed with antibiotics and pesticides evolve at a tremendous rate because only the ones with a favorable mutation survive the antibiotics or pesticides.

Also consider difference in lifespans. Each generation is another role of the dice.

 

[danwarb]

Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.

We didn't. Modern humans (anatomically) have only been around for about 200,000 years. That there are so many of us now might slow things down though.

 

[Trent Strong]

Even if everyone can reproduce (including stupid people), collectively as a species we're getting smarter to the point where stupid people are smarter than smart people thousands of years ago. I've read that we use more of our brains now than before, if that's true I don't see why our brains can't continue to evolve. (Although I have no idea if it's true).

We have kids that can type and are online at the age of four. They're surrounded by and bombarded by entertainment and mental stimulation.

I think we're a lot more educated than we were thousands of years ago, of course. But I don't think we're really smarter. (I guess it depends on how you define "smart".) There were probably very smart dudes who knew all kinds of stuff about medicinal plants and the intricacies of hunting that depend on migration and tracking and stuff like that thousands of years ago. The idea that we only use a small percentage of our brains is just a myth.

 

[Zzoram]

Even if everyone can reproduce (including stupid people), collectively as a species we're getting smarter to the point where stupid people are smarter than smart people thousands of years ago. I've read that we use more of our brains now than before, if that's true I don't see why our brains can't continue to evolve. (Although I have no idea if it's true).

We have kids that can type and are online at the age of four. They're surrounded by and bombarded by entertainment and mental stimulation.

That isn't an evolution of the brain. Our brains haven't really changed in thousands of years. It's just how we use them that's changed. The development of language and writing allowed for vertical transfer of knowledge across generations, as well as horizontal transfer of knowledge between people. Over time that knowledge pool keeps growing, and affects what we do and when we do it. People now know a lot of stuff because people who came before them figured it out and wrote it down for us to read.

Also, better nutrition accounts for a lot of the increase in intelligence. The rest is stimulation through education (learning from the collective knowledge amassed by humanity). Since we no longer have to spend all of our time securing food, water, and evading deadly animals, we have the time to think about other stuff.

Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.

Evolution isn't a start-stop process. Humanity is always evolving (as gene frequencies shift around) it's just that no major changes seem to have occurred in the past few thousand years. Actually that's not true, modern humans are probably more genetically resistant to certain diseases like bubonic plague, influenza, and smallpox due to the mass deaths from the epidemics of the past.

That said, it takes tens of thousands of years for significant change due to how long our generation time is compared to other species.

 

[Korey]

Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.

Think of evolution as "whatever works."

For a trait to dominate the human species, the ones without the trait would have to not have offspring.

Our technology has made it possible so people of all walks of life survive until adulthood.

We don't run around naked in the fields anymore. The ones who survive aren't the fastest runners or toughest. Everyone survives, so there's no more survival of the fittest.

I don't think humans have stopped evolving. Natural selection, as a mechanism for evolution, is probably not as big of a factor anymore but that doesn't mean it's the only mechanism for evolution. And plus, it takes place over millions of years (and we've only studied it for like a hundred years) so who knows.

 

[Shanadeus]

Depends on environmental variables.

Mutations happen all of the time, but it takes natural selection to pick mutations that are favorable to get evolution going.

For example:
A. Humans are nearly not evolving because no matter the mutation, generally modern medicine can compensate. Mutations drift in the gene pool without selection.
B. Bacteria and insects exposed with antibiotics and pesticides evolve at a tremendous rate because only the ones with a favorable mutation survive the antibiotics or pesticides.

Also consider difference in lifespans. Each generation is another role of the dice.

Never quite got this.

"Pace" of evolution equals generational change/generational length?

 

[Big-E]

I don't think humans have stopped evolving. Natural selection, as a mechanism for evolution, is probably not as big of a factor anymore but that doesn't mean it's the only mechanism for evolution. And plus, it takes place over millions of years (and we've only studied it for like a hundred years) so who knows.

Natural selection is a big reason. Without all our technology, people with poor eye sight would have a huge disadvantage at surviving but now they have no disadvantage whatsoever in surviving.

 

[teh_pwn]

Human evolution hasn't stopped entirely. A good example is skin pigmentation. It's strongly selected for to get a balance of vitamin D and other corticosteroids, and minimization of skin burning. If your skin burns, you're likely to get skin cancer (selection for darker skin). If you live in a low UVB area, you're likely to die of other cancers due to vitamin D deficiency (selection for light skin). Just look at a map of the world UV index and skin pigmentation. It's extremely correlated.

 

[jaxword]

I don't think humans have stopped evolving. Natural selection, as a mechanism for evolution, is probably not as big of a factor anymore but that doesn't mean it's the only mechanism for evolution. And plus, it takes place over millions of years (and we've only studied it for like a hundred years) so who knows.

I don't think it stopped. I was explaining how it would not seem to be happening, though, since what's worked for millions of years isn't the biggest factor anymore.

The example of, say, a plague hitting the planet and only people with a certain gene surviving and passing on that trait would be an example of the species still moving forward.

But since our environment is really, really friendly to us now, it can seem like we're stalled.

 

[Trent Strong]

With that said, some humans will begin to become a lot more different in just a couple of decades within the century thanks to genetic modification and cybernetics I predict.

That would be great if that happened. I'm all for genetic engineering and cybernetics. Seems kind of science fictiony at this point though.

 

[Shanadeus]

Human evolution hasn't stopped entirely. A good example is skin pigmentation. It's strongly selected for to get a balance of vitamin D and other corticosteroids, and minimization of skin burning. If your skin burns, you're likely to get skin cancer (selection for darker skin). If you live in a low UVB area, you're likely to die of other cancers due to vitamin D deficiency.

But when has cancer ever affected someone's ability to procreate?
Even if you argue that the offspring of a cancer patient are favoured against for lacking the support of two parents it probably doesn't affect the genetic lineage.

 

[teh_pwn]

But when has cancer ever affected someone's ability to procreate?
Even if you argue that the offspring of a cancer patient are favoured against for lacking the support of two parents it probably doesn't affect the genetic lineage.

In a tribe of humans, the kid with 4 grandparents is slightly better off than one with 0. Even if it's a 1% increase, over successive generations it is natural selection.

 

[Zzoram]

I don't think humans have stopped evolving. Natural selection, as a mechanism for evolution, is probably not as big of a factor anymore but that doesn't mean it's the only mechanism for evolution. And plus, it takes place over millions of years (and we've only studied it for like a hundred years) so who knows.

Sexual selection is mostly what we have now. Natural selection is only working gently in the form of people who die young due to being more succepitible to disease or dangerous behaviour.

Sexual selection is the main factor in determining who produces offspring now. Certain traits are more desirable by human males and females and so there may still be a slow but real shift towards those traits as there are some men/women each generation that don't reproduce.

Also, people rarely marry outside of socio-economic class anymore. This means that we could eventually have an upper class that is genetically different to the lower class in certain traits that were sexually selected for, given enough thousands of years, and assuming that these class structures are maintained for thousands of years.

 

[Shanadeus]

In a tribe of humans, the kid with 4 grandparents is slightly better off than one with 0. Even if it's a 1% increase, over successive generations it is natural selection.

But that's the thing, we don't live in tribes.