Humans killed Darwin (prepare for a long read).

These are just ramblings, the type where you've got loads of stuff in your head and can't type quick enough to get them all out, so apologies for the non-coherency.

Saw a programme last week about whether Darwin was wrong, pretty good, I thought it would be biased towards creationism but it went the other way and gave evidence to support Darwin, which is nice.

I can't believe anyone would think he was wrong, there's no way it CAN'T be right! I mean there's genetic difference in everything we see, no 2 animals on the planet are the same; 2 ants might look the same to us but they aren't identical, and that genetic difference means one gazelle might be 1/2mph faster than another and therefore live over it's counterpart, and that 1/2mph faster gene would be passed on. And let's not start saying genes don't get passed on and each offspring has it's own variables because that's just silly!!

So evolution must occur to some extent, and natural selection must exist to some extent, the question then is whether or not we can 'evolve' from single cells to what we know today. The programme said the biggest test is how an eye can evolve, because it's too complex to just appear on the next species. Some scientist dude showed a few animals with different levels of eye; mostly fish to start with, they basically had a dimple in their head with some photo-sensitive cells in the back of it. Next was a shutter that could open and close, and he again showed some animals that have a very basic retina, then there was a liquid filled lens in the back of the eye, which grew out and filled the eye cavity over time, etc etc. He went through the whole thing showing how each level was a small improvement over the last.

The other thing creationists seem to come up with is wings, how can a wing evolve? Well it could start as webbed hands and feet, the more webbing the more likely you are to evade prey. Maybe it was a creature that was already on land and sea, and the ones with bigger webbing on hands and feet started to jump and could 'glide' away from prey, then from there it's easy to see how it grows into a wing over time (just an example of how it could happen).

So, in my head Darwin is correct, I can see how it all could happen the way he thought, and it seems the most plausible explanation, but this got me thinking about humans. We are the only species (I think) who don't choose a mate by their strengths, ie: using instinct. In other species it's always the strongest or fastest or best looking partner that gets chosen, so the genes are always getting better and evolving, but humans don't choose a (long term) mate for their natural strengths, we go on personality and 'love', so essentially the human species is getting weaker all the time because the weak genes are being passed on as well as the strong. We also have offspring with people who aren't our long term mate, which is even worse, because at some levels in society there is pretty much NO selection process at all!! That's pretty scary.

So is it intelligence that causes this? Mother Nature has tried all kinds of things as weapons for her children; most notably large claws and sharp teeth are still the winners 'out in the wild', her next attempt was intelligence. Dolphins, apes, humans, etc. We obviously use intelligence to make us the strongest species, we make tools and weapons of our own (so does that mean shooting a Tiger is natural selection?), and we rely more and more on our inventions to keep us above the other things in nature.

There could be trouble ahead, if we're becoming weaker in terms of survival in the wild, we'll eventually rely completely on technology, what happens if it goes away? On the other side it could mean that technological advancement IS the next evolutionary step, and we are becoming stronger and evolving by adding technology to ourselves. What if that was the only way nature could get to the next level; by using humans as a stepping stone to technology and robots!!

All you need is love; the lower species have a higher ratio of instinct:intelligence, and they don't love. The more intelligent species such as apes, chimps, certain large pets etc do show love but still have strong instincts, then there's humans who have a high ratio of intelligence:instinct, and we are controlled by love, so what is love? Again, maybe nature knows that love is an unfortunate bi-product of intelligence, so robots are the way to go; loveless machines with ultimate intelligence to rule the world.

Also, does that blow creationism out of the water? Have a look at this story. What would a dog say if we showed him our CAD file of the complete designs for a car? Suppose there is a higher power with a better computer who input all the variables for the laws of physics and then 'designed' the big bang, he hits RUN and everything we know is created, including the ability to evolve.

Anyway, I'm running out of ramblings now, so there you go.

The film Wall-E has a lot to answer for, hasn't it!

A very interesting read. I will look further

Haven't seen it. What's it about?

Quite an interesting read there.

I think you may only be looking at evolution one sided though.... Take the word "Evolution"....

any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

Now, in my opinion we have grown past the need to depend on the strongest or the fastest to evolve. That in itself is evolution. The ever evolving intelligence that you describe is, in my opinion, now the greatest evolution of mankind. Take man, before setting something on fire and wondering what a sabre tooth would taste like bbq'd, we were basically advanced apes; now our brains grow larger everyday as does the % of the brain we use.

I think i read somewhere that over the next century most of us will be using around 10% of our brain. Thats a big jump as i think its regarded as 7% just now. The big issue with measuring evolution over the past centuries is that it was always physical attributes that were measured. It has always been difficult to measure mental attributes as we didn't, and still don't, understand most of them. New theory's are coming out all the time, take autism for example.

To summarise I don't think our evolution has anything to do with the evolution of technology. However, the evolution of technology has everything to do with our evolution of intelligence. Evolution, for mankind, for the next while will be devolution of the physical aspects and growth of the mind/spirit/soul.

I enjoyed that, very interesting. Humans are evolving, whether they are weaker because they use technology more i couldn't say. Surely as human intelligence evolves then so too does our understanding of the world and how to best harness what it offers to meet our needs. 100% reliance on technology is a bad thing though and im sure it will bite us in the ass one day.

This is the intro to Idiocracy which hints on what you are talking about some NWS language.

C1sE1E3z7jU

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins does a pretty good job of explaining how evolution works. A long read, but interesting.

I still think theres a lot of instint going on in humans though; why do you fancy someone, you may think you know, but there are a lot of physical aspects that you're not concious of, yet play a big part in your decision making.

Modern medicine however, now that is weakening the species....How many diseases wouldn't exist, or we would be immune to if we didn't make cures? Granted, thousands would die to wean out the weak genes, but the theory's sound

I think we're too clean though. Too much sterilisation, we're not building up the immunities that we used to. Kids should eat more mud.

Modern medicine however, now that is weakening the species....How many diseases wouldn't exist, or we would be immune to if we didn't make cures? Granted, thousands would die to wean out the weak genes, but the theorys sound

 

I think we're too clean though. Too much sterilisation, we're not building up the immunities that we used to. Kids should eat more mud.

I agree with that!!

I'm also against a lot of medicinal cures, except the nasty illnesses like cancer cos noone should have to go through that!! My reasons are for overpopulation control though.

My reasons are for overpopulation control though

Legalise Chav hunting

Haven't seen it. What's it about?

An entertaining story of describing devolution in a way really. Relying on technology for virtually everything, plus a lot of other cute and funny stuff IMO. Highly recommended

Sorry for simplifying your interesting thread, but my friend and I used to have the most heated 'debates' about this. I was on the side of evolution (common sense), and he was on the side of creationism (!). Luckily for him, he split up with the JW girlfriend before it was too late

Is the human race as a whole getting weaker? I don't know... but it does seem that those at the lower end of the evolutionary scale breed more...

Is the human race as a whole getting weaker? I don't know... but it does seem that those at the lower end of the evolutionary scale breed more...

As above....Legalise Chav hunting...

Is the human race as a whole getting weaker? I don't know...

Like Scott said, probably not, but in terms of "If we had all our technology taken away and were thrown naken into the wilderness, would we survive?", then I think we are getting weaker.

I'm not sure if that was what I was thinking when writing it or not.

"If we had all our technology taken away and were thrown naken into the wilderness, would we survive?"

But you would also have to take away our intelligence, or we'd simply re-invent again.

But you would also have to take away our intelligence, or we'd simply re-invent again.

Aah, but would we? Or more to the point, would we in the future?

Our technology, from making a fire to creating computers and buildings, has evolved with us. Will we get to a point where; if we were to be 'thrown out into the cold', we would not have enough physical ability to hunt and survive because we've been relying on technology to do it for us? We might be wiped out by bears and lions within a week!!

We started off as cavemen, still able to hunt and with primitive weapons and tools. In the future we might have primitive ability to hunt with clever weapons and tools.

Interesting point.

Aah, but would we? Or more to the point, would we in the future?

Our technology, from making a fire to creating computers and buildings, has evolved with us. Will we get to a point where; if we were to be 'thrown out into the cold', we would not have enough physical ability to hunt and survive because we've been relying on technology to do it for us? We might be wiped out by bears and lions within a week!!

We started off as cavemen, still able to hunt and with primitive weapons and tools. In the future we might have primitive ability to hunt with clever weapons and tools.

Bear Grylls would survive, he's awesome.

Bear Grylls? Are they like Ostrich burgers?

We started off as cavemen, still able to hunt and with primitive weapons and tools. In the future we might have primitive ability to hunt with clever weapons and tools.

The lower end of evolution still think they can hunt, which is half the problem:rolleyes:

The problem is we're far too sympathetic to other humans.

We should leave anyone with disabilities, mutations, mental problems out in the woods to their own devices. Anyone that can't understand Parametric differentiation ought to be sterilised along with anyone without a symmetrical face.

Gattica anyone?

The problem is we're far too sympathetic to other humans.

 

We should leave anyone with disabilities, mutations, mental problems out in the woods to their own devices. Anyone that can't understand Parametric differentiation ought to be sterilised along with anyone without a symmetrical face.

 

Gattica anyone?

Well, here is the thing, I'm assuming that was in jest....

BUT, it is true, humans are living longer, and in some cases people are out living their intended lifespan due to medical advances and the like.

In the normal balance of nature, the weak perish and the strong survive, that is how a species evolves. Something changes well those that can survive do and go on to breed, the weakness gets flushed out...

I realize fully that I probably should have been dead years ago following that theory but there is some sense in it I feel.

I think that there is a trade off here.

The more intelligent we become, the weaker physically we'll be IMO. How many people here are as physically fit as they would like to be?

If the world's 'lights went out', then I think as a species we would survive, but as its been previously pointed out, it would be the 'fittest', or the most resourceful, that survive not necessarily the most intelligent. Maybe

I think that there is a trade off here.

 

The more intelligent we become, the weaker physically we'll be IMO. How many people here are as physically fit as they would like to be?

 

If the world's 'lights went out', then I think as a species we would survive, but as its been previously pointed out, it would be the 'fittest', or the most resourceful, that survive not necessarily the most intelligent. Maybe

Intelligence doesn't equal survival... If you look at so called lower life forms, they reproduce in high numbers to ensure the survival of a few... Our intelligence has resulted in a specialization where we are reliant on others to survive, also our bodies have adjusted to our technology dependance. How many people go on holiday and end up with the dia^H^H^Hshits purely because their body can't handle foreign food which isn't posionous either.

As you say it would be the 'fittest' that made it, ie those who can adapt quickly to the change.

I for one would welcome our alien overseers

Well even in more recent history (And i use the term very loosely as i'm talking in the last thousand plus years here) mankind has evolved physically, case in point, Medieval Britain, the avaerage height of an adult male was around the 5ft-5ft.4" hence why if you ever visit medieval castles/ruins etc the doorways always seem a little low for a 6 footer like me as they weren't designed for someone as tall as me to walk around comortably. We were also becoming more slender as a species with a larger cranium in comparison to the shorter stockier human figure of yesteryear although this is no-longer as apparent due to the issues we have with processing cr@p and eating it thus causing our little obesity problem these days.

Nature must have decided we needed these traits or why else would we have evolved that way but it does make you wonder where natures going with it, i imagine the larger head is simply to house our growing intellect (Although the charva's ability to constantly keep spawning may begin to combat this and devolution could be iminent unless we get them under control and neuter the lot of them). But why were/are we getting taller and slimmer?

 

In the normal balance of nature, the weak perish and the strong survive, that is how a species evolves. Something changes well those that can survive do and go on to breed, the weakness gets flushed out...

This is only our understanding/interpretation of how a species evolves. In actual fact evolution isn't getting stronger or faster, its getting better and more suited to life and your surroundings.

If we were dropped in the woods, yes many would perish and the fastest runners would survive. We would then need to evolve to adapt to that situation. We would call that devolution but its all evolution in reality.

Apologies for all the commas in my previous statement. I'm trying to adapt to the change already