Well, evolution generally works out so the weak die out, and the superior stay around, because they are superior. But I'm starting to see a few problems.

By the old standards, a retarded person would die. They wouldn't be able to survive, and wouldn't be able to pass on their genes. But now (I'm not saying it's a bad thing) we keep them alive, and sometimes they even have children.

Here's the big one I realized: Let's say someone was born with 8 fully functional fingers on each hand, or 4 fully functional arms. They clearly are superior. But...no one would want to fuck this freak! Hence, his genes would never be passed on.

In our society today, the stupid have nearly if not the same chance of having children as the super smart. We support the weak, because of our human compassion, but at the same time undermine our species.

Tell me where I'm wrong? It's cold here, I could use some flames.

evolution as far as humans go doesnt take into account technology we've invented. humans were never meant to live past 40, and now we have people living over 100. it's been theorized that women who bear children in later life, around 30-40, are increasing the total natural life span of our species.

also, retardation and other genetic diseases might be an attempt at evolution, the body trying to figure out what works and what doesnt.

and dont forget that most mentally retarded people's kids are normal. i know a girl who has several brothers and sisters, most of which are relatively healthy. one was diagnosed as schizo, so you cant beat the odds all the time.

we probably wont know what evolution has in store for us until thousands of years from now. hell, in 500 years maybe we'll consider 100 to be middle-aged.

Human evolution is certianly not dead, it's just that the definition o� "fittest" has changed a bit.

With most animals, what makes an animal "�it" to survive, is it's ability to function well within it's natural environment, so it can have more babies and pass on it's genes, ect.

With human beings on the other hand, what seems to make us "�it" to survive is our ability to function within our own society instead o� within nature.

What NeoIceshroom said, basically.

Evolution has not stopped, it's that the environment has change, and with it, what constitutes a benefit ( and by extension a harm) in the chances of humans to reproduce. Natural selection and genetic change still occur.

From a recent thread in 'My God...':
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8812&print=true

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-09-2006).]

The measure of intellect is now what acts as a measure for fitness. For political and social reasons, there is no way to be consciously deprived of life on the grounds of incapacity short of murder.

In our comfort, modern humanitarians allow consumptives to thrive off of the able, in the hope that some small personal, evolution will take place in those
mentally unfit individuals during the course of their lifetime, aka: "overcoming the odds", so that they may advance their "soul". Its a strange blend of hope, guilt, metaphysics, and biological advancement.

This topic often leads to the philosophical question "at what capacity is one unfit for life?" Observed from a realist's perspective, as a current (incapacitated) citizen of the United States, under the care of another, it is almost impossible to be "unfit for life" as there is no true eminent danger in one's everyday life that the basest of reason cannot overcome. In order to begin sterilization of the less-advanced individuals society would have to adapt a hint of Darwinism en masse.

Altogether, these individuals are no severe detriment to the advancement of the human species...and, on the other hand, play a role in our advancement in the sense that so much research no goes into overcoming physical impairment and special needs learning that a once fully-functional individual who becomes impaired may one day be returned to his previous state due to the technology developed at the current naturally incapacitated generation's expense.

And then, with such technology, you will see a debate of naturalism/fundementalism versus modern liberal pity and scientific development. The question raised will be: "Should those born deficient be improved through artificial means?"


[This message has been edited by Crippled Lucifer (edited 03-08-2006).]

I love totse, i was thinking about the same question a few monthes ago before i found totse, but i dont want to be seen with the people smart enough to talk about all my crazy questions.

Anyway i came to the conclusion that human evolution stopped a long long time ago as soon as class became a factor of who married who ( not always the strongest/ smartest). and the only reason we are so advanced today is that we can pass on information from one generation to the next, i mean are today's geniouses/scientists realy smarter than the geniouses from the ancient world, they just have the benifit of knowing right off the bat what the old people spent their whole lives figuring out (ie: the world is not flat), because they wrote books and thus passed on their knowledge. So i think collective human knowledge has a snowball effect.

Got a bit off topic there didnt I? anyway hiuman evolution has only taken on a different path than survival of the fittest, and eventualy we will decode the human brain and make machines that operate off it (robot body parts). and then you will live as long as you can afford the updates required for what job you do or whatever.

[This message has been edited by littlebluedunebuggy (edited 03-09-2006).]

the only real reason human evolution is less noticeable/non existant is that we now alter out enviroment instead of the other way around.

Future humans will be hairless, shorter, have a reduced mouth (less/no teeth), and will be psychic and telepathic. If we make it without killing ourselves first.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noholdsbard:
Future humans will be hairless, shorter, have a reduced mouth (less/no teeth), and will be psychic and telepathic. If we make it without killing ourselves first.

---

Hasn't there been evidence that people are getting taller, not shorter?

And I agree with your philosophy, and have something to add, too. In our society, unlike how it would be if we live as we did thousands of years ago, we can actually benefit from those who aren't as 'fit.' Although someone who has a low IQ/fewer skills may not contribute in any major way, they can still be of benefit to our species advancement in tha thtey can work in some form of unskilled labor such as in a factory/assembly line deal... just a thought.

I agree with littlebluedunebuggy, perhaps people getting taller/ going through puberty sooner, is because of the growth horimones we are giving our food animals so they grow faster and with more meat....think about it we are evolving ourselves unnaturaly and perhaps soon directly with robotic attatchments.

Shorter, as that will give the brain a prefered proportional allocation in terms of intellectual specialization. We've gone up (and down). We are now up to the maximum height without it being detrimental to our survival. Hormonal additives to animal feed may be our downfall. Like I say, if we don't kill ourselves first.

in turkey they have found children who walk on their palms..scientist believe it to be a case of reverse evolution..quadripods?

quote:

---

Originally posted by delusional_reality:
in turkey they have found children who walk on their palms..scientist believe it to be a case of reverse evolution..quadripods?

---

thats just fucked up

If I may be so intrusive as to point you out to an on going arguement in humanities.
http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum31/HTML/003960.html

Gods said that humans will become more intellegent. Remember back in cave men times. From then to now. We especially grown a lot since the wright brothers. If you meaning evolution that we came from monkeys I do disagree. But there had to be someone to fuck some ape. Thats were black people come from. What human looks more like a ape. A white guy a mexican a asian just the blacks. There this girl on my bus looks like tarzans mom.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sweet:
I agree with littlebluedunebuggy, perhaps people getting taller/ going through puberty sooner, is because of the growth horimones we are giving our food animals so they grow faster and with more meat....think about it we are evolving ourselves unnaturaly and perhaps soon directly with robotic attatchments.

---

Actually, the earlier onset of puberty is much more likely linked to weight gain, and since kids are getting fatter, kids are entering puberty earlier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anon99989:
Actually, the earlier onset of puberty is much more likely linked to weight gain, and since kids are getting fatter, kids are entering puberty earlier.

---

that makes sence, exept in third world countries. im not insulting you just looking for answers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by noholdsbard:
Future humans will be hairless, shorter, have a reduced mouth (less/no teeth), and will be psychic and telepathic. If we make it without killing ourselves first.

---

Let's see, baldness isn't considered a very attractive trait. Tall people are generally considered more attractive than short people. Toothless? Would you want to have sex with someone with no teeth? I really don't see why you think these traits would be passed on.

Evolution isn't really about who has sex and who doesn't. Everyone can get laid, but the traits of people who get laid MORE will be passed on to future generations and become more prevalent throughout the species. Unless everyone on the planet has the exact same physical and mental attributes, evolution won't stop.

HARDMAN, in China and Japan baldness is considered attractive (sign of intelligence). In the West many females who shave their heads are considered sexy. Tall works for now but things change and don't forget, it's all subjective. As for toothless, you may be right, but whoever suspected that tongue studs would ever be desirable? Some teeth would probably remain, but we are losing some. You did not address the psychic/telepathic prediction so I'm guessing these are traits you find acceptable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sweet:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anon99989:
[b] Actually, the earlier onset of puberty is much more likely linked to weight gain, and since kids are getting fatter, kids are entering puberty earlier.

---

that makes sence, exept in third world countries. im not insulting you just looking for answers.[/B][/QUOTE]

I have never heard of third world children entering puberty earlier, mostly just first world. Can you give me a source?

well, you got me, i heard that on some tv show on discovery( it also said that mexican prostitutes are becoming immune but still carriers of AIDS). but oin google all i could find was evidence supporting you.
well played.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sweet:
well, you got me, i heard that on some tv show on discovery( it also said that mexican prostitutes are becoming immune but still carriers of AIDS). but oin google all i could find was evidence supporting you.
well played.

---

what about that guy in britan who had aids, and then his body fought it off? now he is free of aids. i wonder if his children will be immune or able to fight the virus of as well. if so, then that could be considered a minor evolution of that mans particular immune system, or if his children are immune too, then it would be a genetic adaption.

There is HIV resistance but you have to be bor with it. AFAIK no one has "fought it off."

Are humans today stronger than humans of 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 10 years ago?

Evolution hasnt stopped, its fucking sped up a shitload.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garrett:
Are humans today stronger than humans of 50 years ago? 30 years ago? 10 years ago?

Evolution hasnt stopped, its fucking sped up a shitload.

---

swears make your argument so strong, you dont even need evidence.

What I love about evolution is that it is SO vague as that it can be interpreted as you like it.

Well, I suppose evolution is somewhat vague in that it can be analyzed on a number of hierarchical levels (i.e. nucleotide, gene, morpholigical feature, gene pool composition...). But I think when you define the parameters correctly, it's actually quite precise.

So in terms of whether or not humans are still evolving, I think the general consensus is that we definitely are. In fact, it would essentially be impossible for any species to stop evolving - as that would require the gene pool to remain identical from generation to generation.

Something that certainly has changed in human evolution, however, is the activity of natural selection. That is, the selective forces that drive the direction of human evolution are becoming increasingly non-natural - i.e. dependent on socioeconomic, political, religious factors. It's definitely interesting though, because when it comes to natural selection and survival of the fittest there are only two things that matter: survival AND reproduction. At this point, we generally see weathly, well-educated people as being pretty 'fit'. However, people in this demographic tend to only have one or two children, who then go on to an ivy league school, get rich, and themselves have one or two children. In the long run this is a pretty paltry contribution to the gene pool, when you consider the much higher numbers of children borne by poorer, less-educated people. (I hope I'm not appearing to be classist or anything here. I'm speaking on really, really broad terms. And besides, I'm only moderately educated, and certainly not wealthy, so I couldn't be elitist even if I tried). Anyways, my point is that when you consider that the evolutionary game is won by those who contribute the most genes to the next generation, then it looks like there's irony in that fact that the people who appear the most fit are actually treading in the shallow end of the gene pool.

Well, assuming we all agree on the theory of evolution, all life started as simple quasi-cellular replicators. They floated through the primordial sludge and voraciously created copies. Eventually the sequence of nitrogen bases in the nucleic acids was altered (whether by radiation or a simple maltranscription) either way, this change somehow made that particular replicator more efficient, and thus its copies were spread more rapidly. This process continued for billions of years, and eventually resulted in mammals including humans.
Now with that background established, one can attempt to apply it to modern human evolution. Any such attempt reveals an interesting dilemma, the insurrection of a new replicator. This new entity is not however an extension of DNA, but a new function entirely. It is in fact the meme, or thought. In human society, ones survival is increasingly dependent on the culture in which he takes part. (this culture can be a group of friends or an entire religion. All in all, this mental replicator has taken the role of dictating human survival. The Roman culture was ill-adapted, so they were obliterated, as with the Samurai.
How will this factor affect evolution in the next million years, we can only guess.