Sayonara Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 It can depend on the context, but it's usually taken to mean Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Charz i just wondered because in order to answer the top question, IF we were to evolve into say Homo Technologicus or something, and Homo sapiens were all "gone" so to speak, could it be considered as "mankind" destroying itself by changing his evolutionary proccess. but I don`t think it`s a very good answer really, still to many definitions outstanding I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 "Out with the old, in with the new" is a constant theme in evolution wherever true divergence doesn't occur - doesn't matter what the method is, just the result. If that helps...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 yeah, I guess by then, Homo Technologicus (best I could think of for a name LOL) would then become the new "mankind" and so it continues I still recon our ability to consume vast amounts of pollution will become "as standard" for the New Mankind, it`s an interesting thought, sort of a pity at the same time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 it would probably be homo sapiens technologicus or something (since there would still be homo sapiens around). nested hierarchies and all that. actually there is already at least one human group on the verge of speciation (the !kung tribe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 If you sit in a confortable chair or wear shoes it and you never reproduce you had NO affect of the evolution of the species no matter how many confortable chairs you sit on or new shoes you wear, like suggested in the first post. What I think is that we are not evolving at all. Thanks to medical science mostly everyone lives. Maybe not all of them reproduce, but not much changes. The only possible evolution process that could happen would be: Only the most attractive people reproduce, so our species turns into a race of beautiful people! But thats about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 If that were the case we'd have seen the results a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Demosthenes- Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 It was a joke. Besides how do we know that we don't look better than people did 500 years ago. If we did, it would be very small. Because it only happened in 500 years. People have evolved smaller jaws exclusively because people find it more attractive. That is a fact, not mumbo-jumbo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 People have smaller jaws because of selective pressure due to significant changes in our diet and the way we prepare food. What you want is some evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadote Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 EinsteinTheory said in post #31 :Only the most attractive people reproduce, so our species turns into a race of beautiful people! This is news to me. If you were correct in this statement, the future of mankind would be very bleak indeed, as many times beauty and intelligence are in inverse proportion (at least in today's standard of beauty). No two same people hold the same concept of beauty, so calculating a person's chance of reproduction by physical appearance would be very difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Well said. Ever heard of "dumb blondes"? They may look good, but they may not be intelligent. If that was true, we surely wouldn't have 6 billion people on this planet. There aren't very many good looking people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 If all blondes looked good, everybody would have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 They don't? Poor bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I'm assuming you have one, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockstarjaiden Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 i'm not blonde and im darn good lookin...black hair kicks blond hairs tail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 the only reason Blondes have more fun (allegedly) is `cause ya can see em in the dark anyway, where`s this thread going? "If you sit in a confortable chair or wear shoes it and you never reproduce you had NO affect of the evolution of the species no matter how many confortable chairs you sit on or new shoes you wear" I disagree somewhat with that, surely each and everyone of us has some influence on future events, no matter how small or if we reproduce or not, evolution althought taken largely to mean Physical advancment or change, may also include Educational or mental advancement, I`m sure if Einstein had never reproduced (did he or not? I dunno?) we wouldn`t be any further backwards than we are now, or maybe bill gates *spit* even. and so it`s not ALL about having offspring as I see it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 We all have an effect, even if it is not genetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Not reproducing can have as much effect on a species as reproducing can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 YT2095 rests his case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 That could have consequences for the evolution of this debate, YT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 I think the more concerning thing is how society helps the weakest to survive (well this is the definition of society), and allows them to breed. Technology has changed the selection pressures humans face. Not many humans have to deal with deadly heat or cold, naked. We can use antibiotics to fight dangerous bacterias. We use guns to shoot dangerous wild animals etc. etc. etc. But there is no such thing as a better way to evolve. The "best" way to evolve is to survive. If it means that we lost our intelligence but gain super immune systems to combat high levels of bacteria in the atmosphere, then this is what is the best way, for that time of course. The poorer classes outbreed the richer classes. If it is true that the majority of the poor are of less intelligence, then our species is also getting less intelligent. We do look a lot better than our far ancestors. Believe me. Think of the humans who were around when the neanderthals were around. I doubt they could be made to look attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 4, 2004 Share Posted May 4, 2004 The poorer classes outbreed the richer classes. If it is true that the majority of the poor are of less intelligence' date=' then our species is also getting less intelligent. [/quote'] this is a fallacious argument, especially given that in the 19th century and earlier, everyone pretty much was poor. We do look a lot better than our far ancestors. Believe me. Think of the humans who were around when the neanderthals were around. I doubt they could be made to look attractive. they would probably think we are ugly - remember evolution has shaped you to think that humans are pretty. It'S about the same reason that chimps don't lust after Nicole Kidman - evolution has shaped their brains to think that other chimps are desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted May 4, 2004 Author Share Posted May 4, 2004 I didn't mean our appearances though, I meant our destruction-behaviour. The fact we're creating polution --> creates holes in the ozon layer --> changes atmosphere and radiation --> changes our evolutionary system The fact we're eating junk --> our stomache might adapt to such foods --> changes our evolutionary system The fact we're barely WALKING anywhere -- we're using transportation, and sit near a computer and tv without moving much --> our legs might get "shorter" / hands longer / fingers changed... --> changes our evolutionary system My question is -- do you think it's WISE of us? and do you htink this would come to "bite us in the ass" in the future? It *is* said that nature creates balance, whether we want it or not... What do you think? ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. DNA Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 I think our behavior and enviroment change faster than evolution can keep up. For instance, we developed a taste for sweet foods when they were relatively rare in the enviromnet, but we sought them out because they were a good source of energy. Today sugary foods are all over the place, to the point where it's easy to become overweight or develop other health issues. It would actually be better for us if we didn't crave sweets so much, but humanity's sweet tooth hasn't gone away. And unless poor eating habits suddenly create such big health problems that we die young or have trouble reproducing, I doubt we'll evolve a genetic solution. So we'll have to rely on behavioral solutions for the problems our behavior gets us into. I didn't mean our appearances though' date=' I meant our destruction-behaviour. The fact we're creating polution --> creates holes in the ozon layer --> changes atmosphere and radiation --> changes our evolutionary system The fact we're eating junk --> our stomache might adapt to such foods --> changes our evolutionary system The fact we're barely WALKING anywhere -- we're using transportation, and sit near a computer and tv without moving much --> our legs might get "shorter" / hands longer / fingers changed... --> changes our evolutionary system My question is -- do you think it's WISE of us? and do you htink this would come to "bite us in the ass" in the future? It *is* said that nature creates balance, whether we want it or not... What do you think? ~moo[/quote'] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 5, 2004 Share Posted May 5, 2004 "this is a fallacious argument, especially given that in the 19th century and earlier, everyone pretty much was poor." Not necessarily. The poor back then were poor because of other circumstances. The poor today have more self determination. The general trend remains though, that poorer people usually have more kids. Then again, it could be a chicken and egg argument. Are they poor because they have more kids, or do they have more kids because they are poor ? Same goes with the intelligence issue. Are they poor because they lack intelligence, or do they lack intelligence because they are poor ? However smart people don't always have smart kids, and vice versa. Speaking of which, have they even determined the relationship between intelligence and genes ? "they would probably think we are ugly - remember evolution has shaped you to think that humans are pretty. It'S about the same reason that chimps don't lust after Nicole Kidman - evolution has shaped their brains to think that other chimps are desirable." Hmm, I don't know if we can speculate on that. If they were choosing features which were attractive to them, they it could be argued that the average human today has a lot of the attractive features the people back then were looking for. But this is all speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now