Mankind evolution... advancing... or declining?

Ok. Assuming that evolution theory is true, how would human beings have changed in the future? When we talk about future, we commonly talk about how advance the civilization is... how robots would do much of our chores, and how people will be come supersmart and all... but is that really our future?

Pekau though I do not believe that the theory of evolution is true,
A theory (as the pope reminded us) is never true, it is more or less supported and potentially disproved. Beside the theory of evolution has two legs: one is merely a model explaning the evolution of living creatures and the other is an actual "natural history" (the rat, then the apen, then the human, then the Pekaus Simplissimus)

Stupidity does not help one survive.
Depends. Take domesticated animals: they tend to be dubbest than the wild ones (eg more problems to remember where is the food or to find their way out).

The examples you have given such as illiteracy, low brow entertainment and MSN are all irrelevant as they are cultural factors and not genetic (unless your an adherant of Lamarkian evolution).
I fail to see the point with Lamark� That said behaviours may be inherited. Recent studies have even tended to show that genetics didn't explain it all as epygenetics and intrauterin causes may have effects on generations.

Furtheremore what you will find that for the majority of history the majority of people have been iliterate and indeed in the past hundred years or so literacy has increased dramatically.
There are several hypotheses out there trying to explain that by biological means and specially evolution.

Interesting... and the question should have been answered assuming that evolution theory is true. I personally believe in creationism, but that's off topic.

Originally posted by pinguin Evolution is standing still. For evolution to happens one need SMALL POPULATIONS and a lot of selective pressure. Evolution was relatively fast when men lived in bands of 40 individuals and all mankind were not more than a few thousands. In those conditions, the genes that had advantages spread quickly to the whole specie.   Today, with 6 billion people, evolution (or involution that for this example is the same) goes MILLIONS OF TIMES slower than usual. So, looking it in from a practical point of view, the evolution already stopped.   Pinguin

Evolution cannot stop�

Here is an example. Did you ever wandered why some animals have only one offspring every 3 years while others mate every 4 month. An female Orangutan as a baby ever 5-6 years but could have a new one after only 1-2 years, why?
Because behaviours can be inherited. Some have a tendency to keep their offspring as long as possible while other don't but one of the two strategies is more efficient and will finally prevale. The same goes for humans.
But the conditions have changed a lot and are very different from one place to the other. Having only 1 or 2 children may be optimal in places like Brazil or India where investing in your kid's education is a very sound investment. On the contrary in the West kids are cheap (in relative terms) so having as many kids as you can is an intelligent long term strategy (purely in reproductive terms). Paradoxically in Africa too as the infancy death rate is very high so you'd better have as many as possible if you want your genes to have a chance to live on�

So not only evolution is going on but it reacts differently according to the environment

Besides the speed of evolution has nothing to do with the size of a population. Sharks are not very numerous but their evolution has been relatively slow these last 300 million years (for some species). While there is an enormous number of flowers for instance but none of them existed 80 million years ago�

Originally posted by Maharbbal A theory (as the pope reminded us) is never true, it is more or less supported and potentially disproved. Beside the theory of evolution has two legs: one is merely a model explaning the evolution of living creatures and the other is an actual "natural history" (the rat, then the apen, then the human, then the Pekaus Simplissimus)

Maharbal a theory is either correct or it is incorrect, a theory is merely an idea about how something works that is not proven within reasonable doubt. Furtheremore the theory does not have two legs as if the "model" is inaccurate the entire natural history based on its concepts falls apart. Whereas some aspects of the natural history can be shown to be inaccurate without any bearing on the "model". Besides if you do not believe in evolution how could you possibly believe in apes evolving into humans?

Originally posted by Maharbbal Depends. Take domesticated animals: they tend to be dubbest than the wild ones (eg more problems to remember where is the food or to find their way out).

Domestication has far more to do with environment then inheritance. If you are refering to the domesticated species I think you will find that the reason animals like Cows and Sheep are domesticated is because they are placid herd animals that produce milk and/or posses an abundent amount of tasty flesh. However we also domesticate dogs, cats and birds which are unlike cows and sheep fully domesticated and are some of the most intelligent animals on earth. Furtheremore in comparison to all animals cows and Sheep are not that dumb. Finaly I fail to see how stupidity is an advantage (or rather intelligence a disadvantage) give me an example.

Originally posted by Maharbbal I fail to see the point with Lamark� That said behaviours may be inherited. Recent studies have even tended to show that genetics didn't explain it all as epygenetics and intrauterin causes may have effects on generations.

Lamark believed that changes taking place to an organism during its lifetime (such as stretching of limbs, neck or tongue) could be inherited by its offspring. These changes in the content of a persons brain and thier personality such as the constant watching of bad television or learning to read and wright bieng inherited would require a form of Larmarkian evolution (though I'm not sure if he ever dealt with this particular concept). Do you seriusly believe that we inherit knowledge of Shakespeare and so forth?

Originally posted by Maharbbal There are several hypotheses out there trying to explain that by biological means and specially evolution.

Is thier a point here?

Regards, Praetor.


Edited by Praetor - 26-Apr-2007 at 03:54

Hmmm, I think that one aspect that this discussion has neglected so far is whether intelligence is solely a factor of genetics. What about the environment? Surely, exterior stimuli play a critical role in the development of the brain. An adult who as a child was always challenged to learn is usually perceived as more intelligent as an adult who was not challenged as a child. It has a lot to do with the myelination of neurons, the creation of connections and the way the brain adapts to its environment. Genetics are the starting point, but even a potential genius child would be crippled by years spent in a sensory deprivation chamber, to take an extreme example. So the question here is not only whether humans evolve and if genetic predisposition for intelligence is encouraged at this present point in the evolution of the species; but also whether the human society in general and cultures in particular are evolving to favor optimal development of human children's intelligence.

At first sight, one might be tempted to say, like pekau, that society is encouraging rather plebeian forms of entertainment and stimulation for children, and thus conditions for the intellectual development are less than optimal. This should probably constitute a whole other discussion, but I believe that these cultural trends have a lot to do with the dominant class in the society (in the words of Blanche Dubois from A Streetcar Named Desire-"The brutes are winning"!). Anyway, this argument only has limited merit, because most people forget that the rates of literacy are much higher than in the past. True, most children nowadays don't get the best education and most popular culture is geared towards the average joe, that is to say towards quite basic forms of stimulation. But on the other hand, this is still quite a bit better for most children than the conditions from 100 years ago when most of them did not know how to read and write. High culture is still alive and the intellectual elite still provides what most would consider a good environment for their children to develop in. It's simply that it's more difficult to see it because the intellectual elite's culture has changed and rather than attempting to educate the masses and thus propagate high culture to them, we have a situation where the elite is generally more commercial, money-driven and thus uses culture to make money. So, nowadays we get brain-dead sitcoms rather than theatre plays that deal with existential problems, because one can make a lot more money from the former. Instead of the elite trying to make the average joe appreciate Beethoven or Bach, we get Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys: they are much more marketable. Unfortunately this also results in a situation where the average child faces an uphill battle in improving his/her brain due to the cultural environment not being conducive to optimal brain development. However, all this could change if the society's values will change. Right now, we have a situation where the Enlightenment project of educating humanity is seen as a failure, and knowledge is no longer prized for its ability to improve the human condition, but almost solely for its ability to help someone make money. This could change however in the long run. Students of history should be only too aware that cultural values always eventually change.

Decebal:

Advance and decline are purely subjective here, but assuming our comtemprary standards are universal, if declining gives one an advantage, then those individuals will be more successfull and sire the next geenration.

Being stupid is no disadvantage to suriviving, our prehistoric ancestors of 40,000 years ago would probably seem pretty thick by our standards, but without them we wouldn't exist.
Anyways, as Pratchett said, Extelligence is probably at least, if not more important than intelligence towards present human achievements. Afterall, you can't go to the moon on your own, you need help from a rather large team of mates, and the accumulated knowledge of several generations.


Edited by Cywr - 27-Apr-2007 at 03:58

Originally posted by Cywr Anyways, as Pratchett said, Extelligence is probably at least, if not more important than intelligence towards present human achievements. Afterall, you can't go to the moon on your own, you need help from a rather large team of mates, and the accumulated knowledge of several generations.

Present human *achievements*? What are they? Alienation from fellow man and nature? Destruction of the environment? Mass extinction of plants and animals? War? Genocide? Poverty? Inequality between men and women? Racism? Greed? Murder?

The more and more I look at the modern world, the more I come to despise it.

Besides, who wants to go to the moon? There's nothing there. The natural world is all mankind had ever needed. It is time people shake off the shackles of consumerism, technology, etc and realize this before there is no natural world left!


Again, mankind has been declining since the slavery of agriculture began.

Why can't I fight a system that is morally wrong and bankrupt and that if continues will ensure the destruction of the the environment, and most likely itself? This system is worthless, nothing about it should be saved. The consumerist society of today is empty and meaningless and needs to go.

Hunter-gathering societies have been around for thousands of years. They are the most stable and peaceful (there were no wars where millions upon millions died, no genocide) society, and least damaging to the environment, that man has found. I'd say its time to go back.

What scientific evidence is there that brain capacity has increased in the last 10,000 years? I would argue that people thousands of years ago were more intelligent because they weren't on a path that leads to the destruction of the entire planet!