Homo-Cyborg: Our Next Evolution

Human evolution hasn't stopped. However, the nature of our interaction with the environment has changed drastically: instead of the environment mostly shaping us to it, now we shape our environment to us. We also do a lot to keep alive what would have been genetic dead-ends even 100 years ago; infertile couples now have children, babies born with chronic problems live to reproduce, and people live far longer than when we were little more than animals, causing the non-reproducing elders to have more of an impact on society than had been the case, say, 10,000 years ago.

Our very intelligence is compensating for many brute environmental evolutionary forces. For example, take the smallpox vaccine. Hundreds of years ago, populations evolved through the ravages of smallpox -- sickly or low immune people died, while those resistant were more likely to survive, making for a more resistant to smallpox population. Those isolated from these forces were greatly susceptible -- when Europeans came to the Americas, they brought smallpox with them, and the native populations had not been winnowed out by that disease the way the Europeans had; estimates range from 60%-90% of many American populations died from these diseases in a very short time.

Instead, we force evolve other species: look at the many breeds of cats, dogs, horses, cows, etc, which were selected and bred for certain traits -- this is evolution in a microcosm, with human wishes instead of environmental factors being the guiding principles.

Homo sapiens have only existed for about 100 000 years now. Although we are far from what these original people are like, the process of evolution would take many more 100 000 of years or even millions. However, evolution only occurs when a selection pressure is applied to a population and individuals will evolve to over come this. This best present by looking at the peppered moth. It originally was white to camouflage itself against lichen on trees but pollution from factories killed off the lichen. A black variant of the moth (the melanic form) was found later which was camouflaged against the trees without lichen. This is an example of evolution but occured in a very small time period and the selection pressure is that the loss of lichen ment that they had lost their camouflage. In humans, there is no real selection pressure as we are pretty much safe above everything so we do not currently need to evolve. However, this could change, for example, global warming could eventually mean that we adapt to be more cooling efficient due to increased temperatures.

Also, the human species has evolved a few times in the past. The first time was ape to human, and then when humans migrated to colder north from Africa, they started to evolve again, because the at least one offspring had a genetic mutation that made their skin lighter(people with darker skin were reflecting too much sunlight, and hence making less Vitamin D), allowing them to survive and reproduce in places where there are little sunlight.

I hate it when people do not believe in evolution, because they were told that God created man the way we are now, and that's that. It is a more complicated process than that, it's just that some people do not want to denounce what they were taught when they were young, or they are just too lazy to discover how humans actually came to be.

There are no such things as missing links, only intermediate forms.

Let's assume we have a series of populations/species that change over time.
A to B to C to D to E to F to G.

So the population millions of years ago was "A", and over time it changed to B, C, D, E, F, and presently we see it as "G".

Let's assume we have a fossil from "A" dated millions of years ago, to compare to "G".

Some people would argue that A and G aren't related because there are no fossils that connect them....but biologists would argue that the characters of A lead to the conclusion that it is on the evolutionary pathway to G.

Now, let's say that a fossil is discovered from "D". The press, BUT NOT THE BIOLOGISTS, say it's a "missing link". Hmmmm.... because now, as you can see, we have a missing link between A and D, and also between D and G. So we started with "one" missing link, and now we have "two"... in fact the more fossils we fill in, the more missing links we will have.... an interesting paradox!!!

So it's a no win situation this idea of a "missing link" unless you had a record of EVERY single individual from A to G over time.

That's the fallacy of arguing missing links. We do have INTERMEDIATE forms that show relationships, such as Archeopteryx (the bird/reptile fossil) and now we have "Ida".... and we expect to find a lot more of them.

If you want to learn try to go to http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html . It explore evolution/creationism controversy in unbias way

True, evolution is indeed a theory. A theory describes everything in science which has been confirmed by evidence, and has become accepted. Otherwise it would be a hypothesis - just speculation.

So theories cover everything that is extremely well accepted, such as gravity (actually several theories), electromagnetism, thermodynamics, relativity, etc.

A 'law' is just a simplification or corollary of a theory. While the text of a theory may run to very many pages of description and derivation, a law is just a simple one-liner that sums up the essence (or part) of the theory. F=ma, that sort of thing. This a law is not an 'even more confirmed' theory, just a punch-line.

Scientific method demands permanent open-mindedness, as there may always be new evidence around the corner. Because of this, whatever is known just now cannot be regarded as the ultimate understanding, so is not a 'proof'. Science just doesn't do proofs, only validations or refutations.

So yes, evolution is a theory, and an extremely well validated one at that!

I think religion is a product of evolution and It's also very easy to indoctrinate children into religion because they are already predisposed to the same kind of wish-thinking and magical thinking that most religions are based upon. Religion provides easy, simplistic, and child-like answers to the questions young children ask which would otherwise be difficult to explain to them (depending on their age/maturity).

Add this to the fact that children are already evolutionarily predisposed to believe anything that their parents tell them. This last observation is generally a good thing and has served our species well in the ancient past (don't go near that lion, Og!), but religion has piggybacked on this instinct like a virus and unfortunately doesn't serve us modern humans very well.

I guess the fossils were put there by God to test your faith.

Survival isn't the goal of evolution not merely because evolution is a blind process but because evolution isn't necessary for survival. Indeed, since evolution depends upon genetic mutation, one might say that evolution is the antithesis of survival from the point of view of the gene which has changed in order to give rise to evolution on a phenotypic level.

Survival may (in most cases) be the goal of individuals, but it is not the goal of evolution. If everything survived, there'd be no natural selection - no evolution

Human observes universe
Human projects it's own ideas and motivations onto universe.
Human concludes that universe was made for it's benefit.

The only step we're missing this time is the maker part. Why do we have to repeatedly follow this nonsensical and arrogant line of thought? We expect purpose because there is purpose in our own actions. I think Dawkins used this analogy: During the questioning section at a lecture at Eden Court Theater, when asked what the purpose of life was he responded by asking "what is the purpose of a mountain", to illustrate that despite being grammatically correct, it's still a question that simply doesn't make sense and doesn't deserve a serious answer.

I like the quote they use at the beginning "A little philosophy inclines a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy brings men's minds to religion. --Francis Bacon, On Atheism" - An illustration of why using our simian brains to think too long and hard about questions that make no sense in the first place, can lead to some really silly conclusions.

as for meaning of life, such philosophical questions are better served at bvnb than here.


This post has been edited by transhumanist92: Jul 10 2009, 09:23 PM

The premise of evolution is that life happened by pure chance. If that were the case the odds of everything necessary for life falling into place again and again are slim. And that's why many evolutionists have difficulty believing that other earths have produced super intelligent beings----since it took billions of years for mankind to reach this point in the evolutionary ladder.

Evolution is complete and utter nonsense. The whole principle is ridiculous. The only reason anyone believes in evolution, is first because that is all that is taught in the schools, and second, people that have abandon the religion angle need something to fill the gap----where did we come from?

The answer and the truth as usual, are very simple----humans and all life, plant and animal, were seeded by other intelligent life from other star systems.

A large tree produces billions of seeds which are carried by the wind and digestive tracks of animals that have eaten them----to far away places.

These seeds take root and turn into trees and the process repeats forever.

The universe did not begin with a bang fourteen billion years ago, it’s been around ceaselessly, and like a tree puts forth seed in a never ending dance with eternity.

Proof is all around; however the ability to see it rest with the individual, no one can make anyone see it.

They have no beginning or ending , very strange for a dumbed down 3d brain,
now this thread is about evolution i think i have derailed this thread too much sry bout that