Metanet Forums

I can see both sides of this argument. Discuss.

How wouldn't we still be evolving? Yes, we're using technology in place of our mental and physical capabilities, but I think we're still ever adapting.

flagmyidol wrote:I can see both sides of this argument. Discuss.

No. Look at today's generation.
Even though we may seem smarter, we are evolving at a slower pace, maybe even going backwards.
Look at how much of the population of America, England, and Canada are obese.
We are growing into slower, fatter, dumber, and less skilled race.
The only thing evolving is our technology.

yungerkid wrote:How wouldn't we still be evolving? Yes, we're using technology in place of our mental and physical capabilities, but I think we're still ever adapting.

"Adapting" and "evolving" are a little different. There really is no reason for us to evolve--technology has replaced that need. We may still be evolving mentally, I suppose, but physically we've probably reached something like an apex. As for adapting, that's what we're doing with technology. This is how I see it, at least.

Rhekatou wrote: No. Look at today's generation.
Even though we may seem smarter, we are evolving at a slower pace, maybe even going backwards.
Look at how much of the population of America, England, and Canada are obese.
We are growing into slower, fatter, dumber, and less skilled race.
The only thing evolving is our technology.

Beings do not evolve backwards. Don't be dense.

Evolution is just adaptation, and technology is our adaptation. Technology is the way we change our environment so that we don't have to physically evolve. If our technology is evolving, than we our evolving, as we become better at changing our environment we become better adapted.

Our we physically evolving? Well, as stated above, no, not really. Natural selection is dead, and we killed it. If a human were born with a fully-functioning third arm, for example, in nature this would give this person advantaged - carry more food, fight better, preform sweet magic tricks, ect. This person would live longer and would be more likely to pass on this freaky third arm gene, which would very gradually produce a new species. In contemporary society, however, that third arm wouldn't do much more than let you hold some more grocery bags, our turn three tricks at once in a back alley. Odds are your lifespan wouldn't be affected at all; if anything, your horrid third limb would scare off any potential mates. Unless a gene provides some sort of advantage, it is almost impossible for it to survive and pass to the entire species.

Studebacher Hoch wrote:Our we physically evolving? Well, as stated above, no, not really. Natural selection is dead, and we killed it. If a human were born with a fully-functioning third arm, for example, in nature this would give this person advantaged - carry more food, fight better, preform sweet magic tricks, ect. This person would live longer and would be more likely to pass on this freaky third arm gene, which would very gradually produce a new species.

In nature, though, that third arm would also most likely scare away any potential mates, so it would be unlikely that such a trait would be passed on, not to mention that the chances of it actually being passed on consistently throughout the species are quite slim.

I don't think we're evolving, at least not physically, because natural selection isn't really taking place with people taking care of the weak that would have died out due to natural selection.

Studebacher Hoch wrote:

Rhekatou wrote: No. Look at today's generation.
Even though we may seem smarter, we are evolving at a slower pace, maybe even going backwards.
Look at how much of the population of America, England, and Canada are obese.
We are growing into slower, fatter, dumber, and less skilled race.
The only thing evolving is our technology.

Beings do not evolve backwards. Don't be dense.

Its not evolution backwards, people are changing as a result of their surroundings. Evolution does not have to be a positive outcome.
Think about the difference between a cheetahs' eyes and a rabbits' eyes. The cheetah has eyes that see straight ahead, so it can hunt better, but it cannot see in such a wide angle that a rabbit can. If there is evolution, then the cheetahs' lifestyle made their eyes be more forwards facing, making it less able to see what was going on around it. Thats a negative outcome of evolution.
Oh, and, why can't beings evolve backwards? It makes sense to me for them to be able to.

romaniac wrote:Oh, and, why can't beings evolve backwards? It makes sense to me for them to be able to.

That doesn't mean anything. A species can evolve negatively, maybe, but not backwards. Time is the only meaningful unit to use in this case, and we sure can't evolve backwards in time.

And, negative evolution seems counter-intuitive in and of itself. Natural selection picks the best traits and keeps them going in a species--how is it that the worst traits would get passed along, leading to "negative" evolution?

Ugh.

No evolution is negative. Evolution isn't normative, it's descriptive--it describes the process that's already occuring. If you think an evolution is negative, you're not monitoring an evolution. You're monitoring natural selection, specifically those creatures who are helping evolution by dying.

If one creature is less likely to survive, then that creature dies. Evolution reveals that some creatures (or members of a species) aren't dead and some are. So, if the surviving humans become fatter, more sedentary, and better dressed than previouis generations, then that's evolution. You may not like fat, sedentary, well-dressed folk, but they are surviving and they are procreating. Because they survive, they are more evolved than those that didn't survive.

If fat, sedentary, fashionistas do die off, then they aren't a future form of human. They are naturally selected out to help the process of evolution. Truth be told, though, these fatties are surviving and they just might be better at it. So, that's evolution. Evolution is always progress, because it reveals who is surviving and who is not.



So, to the initial question "Are we still evolving?":

As long as someone is dying somewhere for some reason, whatsoever, and someone else is surviving for a different reason, we're evolving. Whether you think that they are surviving for "bad reasons" or not isn't of consequence. If you were an ancient bird, you might be critical of all the birds who "keep using their seed beaks like fish beaks, the damn fools!" The fact that you don't like big butts (which is a bold lie, you other brothers can't deny) doesn't mean it's a "negative" evolution.

There's no such thing as negative evolution. Evolution describes progress.

romaniac wrote: Its not evolution backwards, people are changing as a result of their surroundings. Evolution does not have to be a positive outcome.
Think about the difference between a cheetahs' eyes and a rabbits' eyes. The cheetah has eyes that see straight ahead, so it can hunt better, but it cannot see in such a wide angle that a rabbit can. If there is evolution, then the cheetahs' lifestyle made their eyes be more forwards facing, making it less able to see what was going on around it. Thats a negative outcome of evolution.
Oh, and, why can't beings evolve backwards? It makes sense to me for them to be able to.

People do not change in accordance to their surroundings, they change their surroundings. This is what makes us different from animals. Anyways, I disagree that evolution does not always have to have a positive outcome, mostly because of the term positive... creatures evolve to be more adapted to their particular surrounding, not in order to achieve some standard of perfection. The cheetah cannot see around it as well a rabbit can, but that does not mean that the cheetah has inferior vision; it just means that the cheetah does not need to see around it. The outcome is not negative, just specialized.

Creatures cannot evolve 'backwards' for this reason. There is no forwards or backwards in an evolutionary sense, there's just better adapted and less adapted. If the environment of a creature changes, than it evolves to meet the standards of it's new environment, or it dies. If that requires it to evolve certain traits it may have had millions of years ago, that does not mean that it de-evolved, it just means that it's environment required it to evolve these traits once again.

PsychoSnail wrote: In nature, though, that third arm would also most likely scare away any potential mates, so it would be unlikely that such a trait would be passed on, not to mention that the chances of it actually being passed on consistently throughout the species are quite slim.

Well, animals tend to be less discriminatory than people. Anyway, that was a hypothetical example... the odds of a creature being born with a full-functioning third arm is the domain of macro-evolution. Bad example.[*]

Studebacher Hoch wrote:Our we physically evolving?

Actually, I was thinking: what if the modern generation's use of headphones will affect the shape of the ear and/or reduction in hearing to future generations.

Aren't we much taller than people a few hundred years ago, on average? Or something like that?

Due to the process of natural selection, evolution always has the ability to take place, regardless of whether it does or not, or how significant it is. So... are we still evolving? Yes. Almost surely. Whenever there is genetic change within a given species (in this case, humans), it's happening. We evolve whenever someone with a unique genetic trait is born and whenever someone with a unique genetic trait dies.

You're all retarded. The whole lot of you.
Everyone drop your retarded opinions and read Dave's post, and then shut up and leave.

Techno wrote:Actually, I was thinking: what if the modern generation's use of headphones will affect the shape of the ear and/or reduction in hearing to future generations.

Absolutely not. Physical traits that are acquired in the lifetime of an organism and do not have to do with genetics are not passed down at all. If I get very fat after living my entire life as a skinny person and then have kids, my kids will not be born fat. If put on weight very easily, though, that's most likely a genetic trait that will be passed down.

This thread spiraled out of control quickly. :)
Dave, I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, which wasn't my question, but I'm not so sure about your second.

blue_tetris wrote:So, to the initial question "Are we still evolving?":

As long as someone is dying somewhere for some reason, whatsoever, and someone else is surviving for a different reason, we're evolving. Whether you think that they are surviving for "bad reasons" or not isn't of consequence. If you were an ancient bird, you might be critical of all the birds who "keep using their seed beaks like fish beaks, the damn fools!" The fact that you don't like big butts (which is a bold lie, you other brothers can't deny) doesn't mean it's a "negative" evolution.

There's no such thing as negative evolution. Evolution describes progress.

My opinion is that technology makes this whole argument largely obsolete.

flagmyidol wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:So, to the initial question "Are we still evolving?":

As long as someone is dying somewhere for some reason, whatsoever, and someone else is surviving for a different reason, we're evolving. Whether you think that they are surviving for "bad reasons" or not isn't of consequence. If you were an ancient bird, you might be critical of all the birds who "keep using their seed beaks like fish beaks, the damn fools!" The fact that you don't like big butts (which is a bold lie, you other brothers can't deny) doesn't mean it's a "negative" evolution.

There's no such thing as negative evolution. Evolution describes progress.

My opinion is that technology makes this whole argument largely obsolete.

That makes zero difference; evolution is still happening exactly as "quickly" as it ever does, which is to say that it still happens at all, since there's no meaning in the phrase "evolution is slowing down."
Throwing technology into the equation, no matter how sophisticated, only changes the circumstances of the competition. Natural selection is still happening but with different rules. It all boils down to this: there are some people procreating more than others, and technology only changes who it is who reproduces with who and how often.
For example, some people might have genes that don't deal with smog very well. Such a person would not survive in large cities like L.A. or Hong Kong, even though a genetic clone would have been completely fine forty thousand years ago. As a result, genes without that weakness and genes that have a greater resistance will dominate.
Or another: it could become a new social trend that athleticism is undesirable, and so people who have genes that help with building muscle won't be able to reproduce as much. In such a case, that society will evolve to be more small-statured and lean.

Of course, none of this will likely be very noticeable, since meaningful evolution takes several orders of magnitude longer than humans have even been civilized.

Put much more simply: if time is moving, evolution is happening.
Well, until the heat death of the universe, anyway.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:Dave wins the thread.

Who is dave and how did he win?

Flagmyidol, and others, do have a point in that technology allows some people who may ordinarily be very disadvantaged by their genes to live and procreate as if they were not disadvantaged.

flagmyidol wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:So, to the initial question "Are we still evolving?":

As long as someone is dying somewhere for some reason, whatsoever, and someone else is surviving for a different reason, we're evolving. Whether you think that they are surviving for "bad reasons" or not isn't of consequence. If you were an ancient bird, you might be critical of all the birds who "keep using their seed beaks like fish beaks, the damn fools!" The fact that you don't like big butts (which is a bold lie, you other brothers can't deny) doesn't mean it's a "negative" evolution.

There's no such thing as negative evolution. Evolution describes progress.

My opinion is that technology makes this whole argument largely obsolete.

Why? Did they invent a cure for death while I wasn't looking?

Also, the fact is that people who don't get laid do not typically breed, therefore preventing their lame pickup lines being passed to the next generation. Unless they're sleazy douchebags who proposition everyone they meet until the .0001% chance of their line actually working crops up, perhaps.

Atilla wrote:Did they invent a cure for death while I wasn't looking?

Fun fact: Death has survival value. An overpopulated species is a dying species, unless they know what they're doing.
It should be noted that I am in no way implying that humans know what they're doing.

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:Flagmyidol, and others, do have a point in that technology allows some people who may ordinarily be very disadvantaged by their genes to live and procreate as if they were not disadvantaged.

Right, but then they get this idea that this is non-evolution, or evolution in the "wrong" direction or something of the sort. That conclusion, I think, is largely the problem with their posts.

QFE. Evolution doesn't have a "right" or "wrong" direction in my view. If nothing screws up the process, it should benefit the species, though.

PsychoSnail wrote:

DemonzLunchBreak wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:Flagmyidol, and others, do have a point in that technology allows some people who may ordinarily be very disadvantaged by their genes to live and procreate as if they were not disadvantaged.

Right, but then they get this idea that this is non-evolution, or evolution in the "wrong" direction or something of the sort. That conclusion, I think, is largely the problem with their posts.

QFE. Evolution doesn't have a "right" or "wrong" direction in my view. If nothing screws up the process, it should benefit the species, though.

You've just managed to contradict yourself in two short sentences.
If you think that evolution "should benefit the species," clearly you have a "right direction" in mind.

Pretty sure this is as Debate-worthy as "Is One a Prime Number?". Unless you're going to digress into the merits or otherwise of transhumanism, I think this is going to be locked shortly. I'll leave it open just to see if anyone actually has a reason why it needs to be kept open, or would perhaps like to digress into transhumanism, 'cause that'd be more interesting.

KinGAleX wrote:Pretty sure this is as Debate-worthy as "Is One a Prime Number?". Unless you're going to digress into the merits or otherwise of transhumanism, I think this is going to be locked shortly. I'll leave it open just to see if anyone actually has a reason why it needs to be kept open, or would perhaps like to digress into transhumanism, 'cause that'd be more interesting.

Here's your transhumanism thread. Go crazy.
And I obviously thought this topic was "debate-worthy", as I created it. So by insinuating it's not, you're backhandedly insulting me. Lock it if you want, but there's no point; it will fall of the page quickly if it's as pointless and uninteresting as you seem to think.

By the way. If Scientific American and various other publications/websites think it worth talking about, you don't need to get all high-and-mighty on me.

Thank you, I'm done now.