Duvenoy

But then on the other hand, the hand holding the pistol and hidden under the table, it has yet to be shown that 'intelligence' as demonstrated by H. s. sapiens has any long-term, species survival value. The crocodile, the cockroach and the horseshoe crab still regard us as newbies, raw amatures in the evolutionary game.

Intresting thought, yes?

doov

scigirl

Hey that's what I was going to post, only I was simply going to say "humans get busy with each other way too much for that to happen."

scigirl

Tara

I always find it a little strange how it's so unacceptable to say humans are "higher" than other animals... Humans are no "higher" per say than bacteria, but certainly it's acceptable to say we are more "complex" or more "advanced", no? That's generally what people mean when they say "higher"....

I understand evolution has no purpose or aim to create more complex animals. But it has in ended up that way, no? Prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic organisms and after a few billion years time finally the appearance of humans, decedents of those first cells... That seems like progression to more complex life forms to me. I suppose only because, in some instances, greater complexity equated to increased reproductive fitness.

Haven't we pretty much ruled out any chance of speciation in the future... seems like we pretty well evade natural selection. Plus doesn't evolution of a new species take a good million years? Does human population, as it is now, seem like it's possibly sustainable for that length of time?.... I tend to think not.

Deke

Originally posted by Peez
Evolution is not an advancement from "lower" to "higher" organisms. Humans are no "higher" than earthworms, yeast, grass, diatoms, or bacteria.

Tara writes: I always find it a little strange how it's so unacceptable to say humans are "higher" than other animals

Why is this strange to you? Why is “higher” a better or more appropriate word than “complex”?

Tara: ... Humans are no "higher" per say than bacteria, but certainly it's acceptable to say we are more "complex" or more "advanced", no? That's generally what people mean when they say "higher"....

I disagree. To me, what people generally mean by “higher”, is “closer to God”. This is why when discussing the science of evolution, complexity is a more descriptive (and therefore preferable) term than one implying relative proximity to the Almighty.

Tara: I understand evolution has no purpose or aim to create more complex animals. But it has in ended up that way, no? Prokaryotic cells to eukaryotic organisms and after a few billion years time finally the appearance of humans, decedents of those first cells... That seems like progression to more complex life forms to me.

Tara, you left out about 1.5 million other species currently living in, on, and around, you. And Tara, you cannot echo-locate a fish for food, dolphins can, therefore they are higher than you. Without a compass, you cannot sense the earth’s magnetic field and use it to navigate over great distances, migratory birds can, therefore they are higher than you too.

Tara writes: Haven't we pretty much ruled out any chance of speciation in the future... seems like we pretty well evade natural selection. Plus doesn't evolution of a new species take a good million years? Does human population, as it is now, seem like it's possibly sustainable for that length of time?.... I tend to think not.

Holy Misunderstandings Batman! I am shining the “Peez, There’s an Evolutionary Emergency!” searchlight to the sky…

Deke

Peez

It is not just that it is "unacceptable" to refer to evolution this way, it is misleading. The concept of "higher" and "lower" forms of life seems to be a holdover from the Scala Naturae, an idea once common in Europe that all life could be placed on an unbroken ladder from the "lowest" to the "highest" forms (with humans on top, of course). This ordering had spiritual significance, and was not merely based on complexity. I could argue that the human brain is the most complex thing known, which would make humans more complex than any other organism. So, say that humans are more complex, but don't say that we are "higher" or more "advanced" since we are not (unless you think that complexity = advancement). Note also that it is not simple to measure complexity. Is a tree more complex than a roundworm? Is a mouse more complex than a squid? Rather than try to ascribe some phantom measure of advancement where there is none, it is much less misleading to avoid these errors.Not always.Some prokaryotic cells continued to evolve as prokaryotic cells. Perhaps Neanderthals had more complex brains than we do.That seems like increasing complexity, not "higher" or more "advanced" life forms.This may sometimes have been true, but it sometimes was not (the evolution of many parasites provide good examples). However, the point is that calling an organism "higher" or more "advanced" implies something more than complexity. Many people, and not just creationists, see evolution as a long progress to better and better life forms, and see humans as some kind of pinnacle of evolution. Using terms like "higher" and more "advanced" only encourages this false perception.No, we are still subject to natural selection. The difference now is that the forces of natural selection that have shaped us in the past are less important now, but new forces are now important. As long as some people have more offspring than others, and as long as some heritable traits are associated with that difference, there will be evolution (though not necessarily speciation).It probably often does, but it can also happen virtually instantaneously. See here and here.A very good question. I expect humans to survive for a very long time (though an awful lot of us will die, of course). Give us a chance, we have only been here for a few hundred millennia.

Peez

Peez

Quick, into the Darwinmobile!


Peez

SimplyAtheistic

I believe we will have evolutions that make progress and take steps backwards. These days with medicine, people can survive many genetic defects, so they can produce offspring with the same ones. So some random mutation might be beneficial, but in our world it doesen't matter as technology can help you survive much better than your physical attributes. So evoultion in our days wont necessarily mean a "better" human.
Jake

Peez

Hi Jake,

The only meaning of "better" that matters here is "producing more offspring." If humans with certain inherited traits make more babies, then we get evolution of those traits. The only difference today is what determines which traits evolve. It is true that medical technology has removed, or at least reduced, the natural selection against certain traits, but that does not mean that other traits are not being favoured. Keep in mind that most of the world does not have access to the kind of medical technology that many of us in the "first world" take for granted. Another thing to think about is the possibility that we will be able to directly manipulate our genes, possibly removing many genetic diseases (from those who can afford it, at least), but there are many ethical issues there.

Peez

Lobstrosity

Along those lines (where here those lines are the lines of Jake), I can see at least one possible mechanism for the exinction of the human race. Our evolutionary path is bound to be non-traditional in the sense that I can almost forsee its being driven by intra-species pressures (i.e. sexual selection) more than by external environmental pressures. We have a way of eliminating external selection factors via technology. As such, biological resistances to external hardships could easily become vestigal over time. Eye sight could get progressively worse just through random genetic drift, but this wouldn't be selected against since it's corrected externally by glasses, contacts, or surgery. A potential consequence of this I see is that over time we could, in theory, become supremely dependent on technology for our mere survival (unless that technology is also used to alter our genes to prevent such gross dependence...). If society ever collapsed due to massive war (perhaps nuclear?) or some horrendous epidemic, we could find ourselves stripped of our technology simply by virtue of loss of knowledge. Coupling the fact that humans would exist in small, scattered populations with the fact that they now virtually require technology for their survival--well, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see extinction result. So in short...is technology the tool of Satan?!? Discuss amongst yourselves.

SimplyAtheistic

Well, we might just alter our genes to become super human by then, so we would have a better chance.
Jake