Will humans become an evolutionary dead-end?

[Lateralus]

As long as we continue to control the environment, assuming that once we have the ability to do so and replenish as we reuse, then I don't see the ability to evolve as necessary. We need something to change. Ice caps melting, rising tides, warmer climates yes changes in our ability to deal with higher temps. could occur, but if that can even be stunted, and completely stalled I see no need to evolve.

We could easily reach the point where we no longer need to change.

On the other hand: Mutations happen on whims as well, but how are we to predict random DNA strand alterations.

A subject I am also not quite so familiar on is the law of attraction. Changes in who we breed could cause an offspring that needs to adapt, but I would feel that human to human offspring will still result in something 99% human not barring the second aspect of the post.

We never stop evolving. We just have different selective pressures on us today. Given our control over the environment, natural selection isn't as much of a force as it was in the past (though a new pathogen or a meteor could change that at any moment), but sexual selection is as strong as it ever was.

 

[ReflecTcelfeR]

We never stop evolving. We just have different selective pressures on us today. Given our control over the environment, natural selection isn't as much of a force as it was in the past (though a new pathogen or a meteor could change that at any moment), but sexual selection is as strong as it ever was.

I thought mentioning a meteor crash, but I thought the outcome might be too devastating and kill the human race instead of change the environment for the human race. I suppose virus' do always develop an immunity and so we would eventually if that didn't kill us first either. I agree though.

 

[Lark]

If humankind were or became a dead end then what would take our place?

 

[Society]

If humankind were or became a dead end then what would take our place?

if we're talking about something that pretty much destroyed most of life on the surface (since, you know, we're pretty much everywhere)...

i would put my wager on some offspring of this:

the Mormyrus kannume. it has the same brain to body mass relativity of humans - to have the same overall cognitive power as us it just needs to either get as big as us or develop the social communication level to compensate for a larger division within the separated "processing units" (individual fish), and i think the later is not that unlikely considering they already communicates through electric signals, sentient level intelligence from combined school of fish might not be far fetch, if they evolve to have their external electric signals to better represent their internal electric signals. in addition it's extending elephant-like snout would be very useful for object manipulation, already having the equivalent of an apposable thumb.

unlike dolphins and whales, it is a true fish, and will be less affected by whatever destroyed life on the surface and the resulting atmospheric conditions, and unlike squids or octopuses which utilize salt in their oxygen filtering system, it is a fresh water fish, making the evolution to amphibian status a lot easier (unless the land apocalypse will somehow salt the atmosphere), while some might not consider the rise to land an important aspect of a dominant species, let's not underestimate the value of fire, or the limited scope of freshwater bodies. i think among the potentially-intelligent swimmers of earth, it is the most likely to get a foothold, or, well.. any kind of foot to began with.

 

[ygolo]

To be honest, I will be really happy if the human race lasts well past my expected life-time, let alone millions of years.

If our population and resource usages trend the way have been going, we have apocalyptic resources shortages, and out of control weather to look forward to in just 40 years.

If we can manage to dodge this problem, I would feel more secure. But right now, people as struggling on a day to day basis. I'm not sure many care about the long term picture.

 

[1487610420]

To be honest, I will be really happy if the human race lasts well past my expected life-time, let alone millions of years.

If our population and resource usages trend the way have been going, we have apocalyptic resources shortages, and out of control weather to look forward to in just 40 years.

If we can manage to dodge this problem, I would feel more secure. But right now, people as struggling on a day to day basis. I'm not sure many care about the long term picture.

This @ the bold. It is evident in everyday's business as usual and unlikely to change other than by force of circumstances.

 

[Gish]

To be honest, I will be really happy if the human race lasts well past my expected life-time, let alone millions of years.

If our population and resource usages trend the way have been going, we have apocalyptic resources shortages, and out of control weather to look forward to in just 40 years.

If we can manage to dodge this problem, I would feel more secure. But right now, people as struggling on a day to day basis. I'm not sure many care about the long term picture.

http://www.planetaryresources.com/careers/

 

[Society]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7P_PevQahI"]again, everyone worship our new leaders - Mormyrus kannume [/YOUTUBE]

 

[TheStarchDefenders]

To be honest, I will be really happy if the human race lasts well past my expected life-time, let alone millions of years.

If our population and resource usages trend the way have been going, we have apocalyptic resources shortages, and out of control weather to look forward to in just 40 years.

If we can manage to dodge this problem, I would feel more secure. But right now, people as struggling on a day to day basis. I'm not sure many care about the long term picture.

http://www.planetaryresources.com/careers/

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

http://www.futuretimeline.net/index.htm#.UA80u_VD3Tq

 

[GinKuusouka]

In all honesty, I would choose the second. Why? because, to me, it makes the most sense. From a natural/evolutionary point of view, we're pretty much destroying ourselves and everything around us. Not all of us, granted. But, humans are the only species that kill its own just because. Not necessarily for survival. We kill over disagreements over religion, among other things. We, as far as I know, are the only species who debase our young so that they grow up not feeling as a whole person. Have humans done marvelous things? Of course. But, the harm, from my standpoint, outweighs that. Maybe I'm wrong though. Only time will tell. And, by then, I'll be long gone anyway. :3 Anyway... In the end, I feel that, for nature, and perhaps this world, to survive, evolution will have to "decide" on what would be better. Allowing a species to survive that could destroy all of the rest, or "sacrifice" the one species so all of the others may thrive. Or have that much of a better chance of doing so. When will this happen? Allow me to dig out my tarot cards. >.> Honestly, I don't know. It could happen within five or ten years or a thousand to a million years from now. However, those are just my thoughts.

 

[Avik]

I have been wondering about the long-term future of the human race from an evolutionary stand-point By long-term future I'm talking about thousands or millions of years from now.

It's hard to know what the long -term future will bring but curious what you think will happen.

Do you think that:

1) The human race as we know it today will become extinct because humans will evolve into some other species that's better equipped to handle its environment. If you think this will happen, what do you imagine the new species to be like?

2) The human race will become extinct and there will be no other species to follow it. Humans will become an evolutionary dead-end. If you think this will happen, when do you think it will be? What would be the primary cause of humans demise?

3) The human race will remain and not evolve into any new species. There may be other intelligent beings out there which humans helped create but this is not evolution.

1) I posted a very similar thread, I didn't realise someone already had. To get off the tangent, I believe human beings are not at their evolutionary peak, and we have a genetic modification or two to undergo. Look up Homo evolutis or Homo sapien evolutis. There's a theory out there that suggests Homo sapien shall eventually reach a stage of mental betterment, a stage that is Einsteinian to the general H. sapien populace.
When one studies human phylogeny, we see that it is rare for just one species of the Homo Genus to exist, and oftentimes, a new, slightly better evolved one emerges from the ancestral stock. Applying the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, this new species successfully competes with the older one, and because of having adapted to the new external stimuli that may appear globally on the planet, and optimum utilisation of available resources, will drive the older species into extinction.
The new species is expected to be taller, bear less body hair than the average Homo sapien, smaller mandible and maxilla, and possibly, smaller arms.

2) The human demise theory is a possibility if current urbanisation trends continue. One might even apply the concept of insular evolution to humans. Insular evolution occurs on islands, and due to stagnation of the genetic pool, the species eventually goes extinct. If one considers the entire planet as one island, due to the accessibility of every stretch of land in existence, and due to progressive rises in interracial reproduction, the genetic pool of humans could also stagnate.

3) As for Creationism, whether by God, or extra terrestrials, I think the theory is pure bulldandruff. There is not a single nanoparticle of evidence that supports this theory, and all evidence available points to Evolutionism being correct.

So in conclusion, I believe that the Human race has two options- evolve, or die out.

 

[Avik]

random thought, what if humans evolve into seperate species? like couch-sitters and semi-active/athletic people? I mean I can see possible muscle deterioration or something similar as a result of multi-generational laziness (over the course of a few hundred years ofc).

Look at the appendix, better food---> no need for that organ---> it turns into a useless piece of flesh that gets infected occasionally

Well, if such a species DID evolve, it would go extinct at a breathtaking pace.

 

[Avik]

Hopefully humanity will just kill itself off and spare everyone else.

A tad too morbid?

 

[Mal12345]

According to H.G. Wells "The Time Machine," by the year 800,000 AD (or so) the human race will have split off into two new species: An almost hairless, childlike, unintellectual being, and a large, intelligent lemur-like creature. He said that the former is an evolutionary dead-end. His argument states that in perfecting mankind, by eliminating all crime, war and disease thereby creating a perfect utopia where even weeds are a thing of the past, the result will only be evolutionary stagnation.

Although this is of course based on a fantasy, the idea itself doesn't seem far-fetched to me, given the kind of ideal, advanced civilization that was in the past of that fictional time in history.

 

[Mal12345]

random thought, what if humans evolve into seperate species? like couch-sitters and semi-active/athletic people? I mean I can see possible muscle deterioration or something similar as a result of multi-generational laziness (over the course of a few hundred years ofc).

Look at the appendix, better food---> no need for that organ---> it turns into a useless piece of flesh that gets infected occasionally

That's one theory about the appendix's function. Another states that it serves the useful purpose of giving the good intestinal flora a place to hide out during an intestinal infection.

 

[Cellmold]

If one considers the entire planet as one island, due to the accessibility of every stretch of land in existence, and due to progressive rises in interracial reproduction, the genetic pool of humans could also stagnate.

I made a thread about this not long ago, although I phrased it less concisely and accurately. Causing much confusion...

The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will, one day, venture to the stars!
Carl Sagan
Always look up at the stars, and not down at your feet.
Stephen Hawking
Even if the human form remains the same, our knowledge will continue to rise at an exponential rate, and hence the human mind will evolve.

You should check out this site if you haven't already: http://www.futuretimeline.net/index.htm#.UAm3aLSe6So

I went through a phase where I was completely obsessed with this type of stuff - transhumanism, bio tech, nano tech, etc. It's like Ne-mental masturbation.

Is it odd that websites like that upset and worry me? I know it shouldn't, most of it will happen long after im dead and besides it assumes a lot that might not happen.

I wonder why it doesn't buzz me like I imagine it ought to? I suppose im just experiencing some pointless emotive sense of sadness that isn't necessary or significant in any way.

I know nothing of astrophysics of course, but what is the current popular opinion on the eventual fate of the universe? Is it really just an expansion of nothing and endless emptiness?

Afterall if every dog does indeed have it's day...then the only real solution would be to find out a way to create something from nothing, which is impossible....except not in the imagination. Although I have read and heard of theories to do with this very subject that claim it is possible.

 

[Avik]

I made a thread about this not long ago, although I phrased it less concisely and accurately. Causing much confusion...

Is it odd that websites like that upset and worry me? I know it shouldn't, most of it will happen long after im dead and besides it assumes a lot that might not happen.

I wonder why it doesn't buzz me like I imagine it ought to? I suppose im just experiencing some pointless emotive sense of sadness that isn't necessary or significant in any way.

I know nothing of astrophysics of course, but what is the current popular opinion on the eventual fate of the universe? Is it really just an expansion of nothing and endless emptiness?

Afterall if every dog does indeed have it's day...then the only real solution would be to find out a way to create something from nothing, which is impossible....except not in the imagination. Although I have read and heard of theories to do with this very subject that claim it is possible.

It isn't odd. Your human mind is wired to oppose change, and the destruction of the world as we know it, being the largest change imaginable, causes knots to form in your stomach.

People can get morbid on realising that things are bound to change, and not always the way we'd like.

The current theory states that after a certain point of expansion, galaxies and other systems shall remain stationary relative to other systems, or they shall get attracted by, perhaps, the gravitational force of the centre of the Universe, leading to, again, one of two possibilities. the Universe either collapses on itself, or, we have, yet another Big bang and the chain continues.

I'm unaware of said theories.

 

[Cellmold]

It isn't odd. Your human mind is wired to oppose change, and the destruction of the world as we know it, being the largest change imaginable, causes knots to form in your stomach.

I am actually aware of that, im not worried about the destruction of the human race or the world. Of course everyone has a fear of death, even if you accept it the striving nature of a living being always has that primal urge to exist. But what was always comforting in an odd way is the idea that The Universe would go on forever once my selfish ego had died and I ceased to be...at least as an individual.

 

[Avik]

Ah, but the Universe shall go on. Maybe not in the form we know, but in some form or the other. First Law of Conservation of both matter and Energy- "Neither can Matter and Energy be created, nor can they be destroyed. However they are subject to change from one form to another."

 

[WALMART]

Given that our environment is relatively stable, it is likely we will not change much in terms of intentful evolution. There may be minor preferences in society that select for more frequent traits, perhaps.