• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Will humans become an evolutionary dead-end?

AOA

♣️♦️♠️♥️
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
4,821
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
8
Instinctual Variant
sx
Species don't change. They give rise to other species until they are extinct. If a new species rose out of humanity, humanity wouldn't necessarily be gone. I believe that all species on earth, now and later, will eventually be extinct. Yet, believing this only gives one reason to be grateful for the time we are granted here, and to treat others humanely.

This.. +1
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
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."

What does physics say about something from nothing? Or was there always something? Afterall you did say different forms....I suppose this could just be another one from something which was always there.

That's about as far as my plebian mind has gone with consideration on the stereotypical, pseudo-intellectual nature of why. But I have no knowledge of physics and was never taught it. Perhaps I ought to pursue it?
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
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.

Do these theories assume the universe to be limited? Doesn't a collapsing system require something around it to provide the force to collapse it? Wouldn't an expanding system require something around it to limit its rate of expansion from going to infinity? Or do scientists only like to back up their pet theories, while ignoring everything else?

This whole Big Bang thing seems like the Hyperfocus of rationality, rather than seeking what might happen to be more true.
 

Avik

New member
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
48
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
LII
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Do these theories assume the universe to be limited? Doesn't a collapsing system require something around it to provide the force to collapse it? Wouldn't an expanding system require something around it to limit its rate of expansion from going to infinity? Or do scientists only like to back up their pet theories, while ignoring everything else?

This whole Big Bang thing seems like the Hyperfocus of rationality, rather than seeking what might happen to be more true.
Take the example of certain stars, they collapse on themselves without any force outside. Gravity brings this about.
Now take the example of helium balloon, when it pops. the gas expands rapidly, and the atmosphere outside it actually aids this via diffusion of the gas.
Since we can see that we don't need anything to aid collapse and expansion, we can also safely assume that the lack of anything outside, or inside, doesn't hamper the object in question.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
Take the example of certain stars, they collapse on themselves without any force outside. Gravity brings this about.
Now take the example of helium balloon, when it pops. the gas expands rapidly, and the atmosphere outside it actually aids this via diffusion of the gas.
Since we can see that we don't need anything to aid collapse and expansion, we can also safely assume that the lack of anything outside, or inside, doesn't hamper the object in question.

It still can be questionable.
There are instances of stars falling into large black holes, traveling quickly around each other and with very fast rotations, wherein as they approach the black hole, the closer star will negate the gravity of the black hole, sling-shotting the other star far away from the gravitational field of the black hole.
Many modern physicists can provide reason and evidence that all objects in the cosmos are thought to exert a gravity on all other objects, it's just that gravity becomes negligible once you break away from it to a certain point, as far as we are concerned (in fact it is their continual accumulation of facts that has grown this completely dynamic hypothesis about reality). But that doesn't mean we can safely assume anything, necessarily unless one is fine with what seems good enough. Because of this, it's even becoming prominent to think of the rotations of planets and their orbits as being a defining aspect of gravity, one where the dimensions of speed, mass, direction, acceleration, and distance traveled over time of each one needs to be considered relative to one another in order to understand, rather absolutely, what is going to take place.
This even starts to beg the question of whether these things can exist absolutely, since as the definition or order of one dimension changes or is rearranged, the others have to follow suit with that perspective, changing themselves, hence one reason why relativity is studied and thought to be real.

But in your example of the helium balloon popping, you say nothing hampers the object in question. One could say that the helium atoms inside the balloon act as particles (if we accept the notion of particles as spherical-like things) all moving about, compressed (however we want to understand what that compression would mean); it is then the balloon particles which makes this so, acting as a barrier between the helium inside the balloon and the particles outside the balloon. But we could say that the balloon particles also have their own movement of particles, but perhaps not nearly as much as the helium particles, from which they move around each other to some extent, but from our five sense we see and feel no movement. One would then have to conjure the idea of movement by finding evidence to support it, independently of what our common senses might say. In a way it is self-fulfilling, however, sometimes all it takes to disprove common sense is to use common sense and find the absurd. One could argue that as the balloon pops, its rubber tears over time. If the balloon exists strictly as a concrete entity (evenly distributed as a definite thing) and not an abstract one (one of parts that are connected in some way to the matter around it and then are malleable into any part we can conjure), then all it takes to disprove this is to consider taking the rubber and halving it continuously for a very long time; eventually, our senses will be no longer able to find evidence of the balloon existing anymore. But common sense also dictates that it would. In this sense, one might accept and invoke Newton's Third Law and suggest that as the balloon pops, a complex and dynamic process of movement involving particles is taking place, wherein, each dimension of movement I mentioned above is going to have an affect, but also an affect that is not immediate or absolute to all things (not just a movement of immediate reactions like a system of gears, but a unique perhaps non-absolute delay of simultaneous actions and reactions), because if it were immediate, what meaning would time have for us? And really, what use would reality have for us if it was already absolute and determined? It would be somewhat silly for us to even exist at all.

Of course, this leads back to accepting that reality might also be infinite. Some people aren't okay with this, but if they study Modern Physics, it becomes hard to deny such ideas, given the insurmountable evidence in support of it, even if some of it may be based on philosophical notions to disprove what is thought to be common sense.

Don't you find it interesting that as we exist and thrive on this planet, our doing so has almost no affect on the planets around us. And yet, on this planet there are many smaller things that we can discern. Who is to say that an electron can't contain a planet or that a neutron doesn't contain a galaxy? There seems to be two kinds of scientists, one that asks "Where is the beginning and where is the end to some knowledge and why should this be so?" and the other that decides "Here is the beginning and here is the end to some knowledge and this is why it should be so." It's rather funny, I guess, because they both are right in what their objectives aim, but yet are at odds with one another, regardless.
 

zelo1954

ISFJophile
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
218
MBTI Type
INfp
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp
For me the answer to the thread title is YES. The answer to the OP's three options is 2)

Briefly:

Firstly. Our cooperative society has developed to such an extent that virtually everyone can reproduce. So-called survival of the fittest genes doesn't really apply anymore. There is no mechanism whereby unfavoured genetic combinations cannot reproduce.

Secondly. We know enough about our solar system environment to know that it is only a matter of time before the world suffers another K/T or Permian disaster.

Firstly ensures we stay the same. Secondly gives us an inevitability of being wiped out.
 

Tantive

New member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
453
MBTI Type
INFP
We're still being naturally selected against, the parameters for survival have just changed, mainly because of our own doing.
 

Ricin

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
221
MBTI Type
SEXY
Enneagram
hot
Well, I've taken a few things in to consideration. There's the sun. It's the ultimate doomsday device. We've got 1 billion years to find somewhere else to go or to find a way around the sun expanding and getting hotter and hotter. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_will_our_sun_explode

Then there's the part where we don't fucking get along with each other very well. The rich are screwing over the poor and the poor are getting pissed off. Countries are fighting other countries and we haven't really sat down and figured some way to work shit out with each other.

Then we keep fucking our environment over. People with mindsets that scream "Screw the future I want to have shit for ME in MY lifetime cause I'm a selfish whore. Who cares if I create oil spills, I'll be fucking rich."

Currently we're at a point where the race has quite a bit to work on for it's survival. And most of those with the means to help care more about getting money and more money.


There's the evolution and technology thing to. Our technology seems to "evolve" at an exponential rate while we evolve at the regular rate most critters evolve. And Are tech is getting ahead of us.

Right now I don't feel like factoring all of in [since I've just been asked to the movies and I like movies]. So maybe I'll wrap these thoughts up later.

But overall I think the sun will kill us a billion years from now.
 
S

Society

Guest
on this topic of humanity's speculative future evolution, i've found some stuff by artist and Nemo Ramjet you might all enjoy:

S9200211-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg



S9200212-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200219-Future_humans,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200220-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200221-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200222-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200216-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200224-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200225-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg


S9200223-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg




 

Attachments

  • S9200211-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg
    S9200211-Future_human,_artwork-SPL.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 82

Snuggletron

Reptilian
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
2,224
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
10
Why does it seem that Kaku isn't as respected in the general scientific celebrity community?
 

Savitri

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
88
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Was watching this yesterday to knock out, thought it was interesting .

Considering that mutations happen all the time and at 'random' then who knows what'll happen. I believe our species is resilient to most of the environment but I do not believe it will be resilient to harsh environments brought about by the products of humans or anything else outside of earth.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Natural Selection, or Evolution, does not have an end, dead or not.

Natural Selection does not have a teleology, it does not have a direction or an aim or an end.

Some of us out of vanity think we are the height of evolution, and some of us think there is an end to evolution because books have a beginning, a middle and an end.

But evolution is not a book, and we are nothing special.

And large multi-celled animals like us have a short life span in the sweep of natural selection of DNA.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
Was watching this yesterday to knock out, thought it was interesting .

Considering that mutations happen all the time and at 'random' then who knows what'll happen. I believe our species is resilient to most of the environment but I do not believe it will be resilient to harsh environments brought about by the products of humans or anything else outside of earth.

Mutations don't usually result in evolution, though.

The mutation must be heritable, non-detrimental, non-lethal, and somehow result in speciation. That rules out the vast, vast majority of random mutations.

Most (all?) human mutations currently are either benign, result in infertility or reproductive problems, disability, or just plain death. We are not going to grow wings or gills or turn into bugs.
 

Savitri

New member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
88
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Mutations don't usually result in evolution, though.

The mutation must be heritable, non-detrimental, non-lethal, and somehow result in speciation. That rules out the vast, vast majority of random mutations.

Most (all?) human mutations currently are either benign, result in infertility or reproductive problems, disability, or just plain death. We are not going to grow wings or gills or turn into bugs.

Sure. But it is the vehicle (?) Addmittedly, I don't have a solid understanding of biology, genetics, or evolution but I've always thought mutations contributed to evolution. Of course, this doesn't mean that all mutations would result into something well suited for adaptation and that mutation could also very well be the end of the species.

I didn't think it was possible to grow wings or gills and even though it's random it must still follow a system. Even if it were possible, I'd imagine it would take multiple mutations for that chance result to occur. If it did happen the result would no longer be human.

Also, the vid was using 'random' to explain that there's no way one can tell the probability of mutation happening when, where or which type of mutation (there are several types right?). Mutations also occur just by exposure or dna sequence(s) not copying correctly(somethin' like that). Sometimes it is able to rebuild correctly, sometimes not. If my memory serves me right, mutations aren't random when we take into consideration how some mutations occur more frequently than others. (?) Hence, I don't really think anyone can predict what will happen to the human species down the evolutionary line. Thus my original "who know's what'll happen" comment. Too many variables.

Anyways, I think the topic is interesting overall especially when I come across articles claiming some high-performing athletes have an advantage over others because of some sort of adaptation that has become apparent in their physiology. How much mutation is part of that, I'm not sure.

Edit:

LMAO, didn't read OP just the title. Doesn't really matter anyway.
 

sprinkles

Mojibake
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
2,959
MBTI Type
INFJ
[MENTION=16374]Savitri[/MENTION]

Yeah.

Based on current trends an actual new species is a huge shot in the dark. It's not impossible but some crazy stuff would have to happen, which can't be predicted, and we'd have to be extremely lucky that it just doesn't kill us entirely.

Being killed entirely is by far the more likely scenario as happens to most species. There's the concept of extinction debt where things are set into motion quite far in advance, some times by millions of years. A species will often end up on a cusp where it has little genetic diversity left and there can begin a chain reaction where it still lingers for a long time but is ultimately doomed.

Extinction debt isn't a foregone conclusion, and in some cases it is reversible so that the species doesn't completely die, but getting something entirely new out of it - not just smarter humans for example because a smarter human is still a human - is something akin to a miracle.

Edit:
Or put it this way. How often do you see a new species of any other kind? Not very often. When we find something new, it's a pretty huge deal. There's no reason that humans should stand out and get a new species where most other species fail to do so, statistically speaking.
 
Top