Not only that it is possible, it is necessary.
Of course, humans are capable of influencing the course of their own evolution, most notably by means of technology.
This is my layman view on the subject.
Results 1 to 20 of 25
On evolution.
As we can see by past evolution of species, is it possible that we humans can still evolve in the future and have change some of our physical characteristics to adopt to other environments on earth ?
Not only that it is possible, it is necessary.
Of course, humans are capable of influencing the course of their own evolution, most notably by means of technology.
This is my layman view on the subject.
FKA LinksRadikal
“The possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties – this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here.” Friedrich Engels
"The proletariat is its struggle; and its struggles have to this day not led it beyond class society, but deeper into it." Friends of the Classless Society
"Your life is survived by your deeds" - Steve von Till
See "transhumanism"
-And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see-
- John Lennon
Some scientists are split on the notion that we have stopped developing/evolving. But to look at it from a dialectical materialist perspective, it is fact that it has occurred in the past not only to humans, so why should we accept that it may not happen in the future ? Future conditions may/will make change a reality.
I'm not talking about growing wings or fins, but being more immune to diseases, and because of climate change, would our skin be more adept to hot and cold weather ? Stronger bones is another example.
Natural selection has stopped at an individual level for human beings, as we can now support variations which would have otherwise perished, with our technology. However, a variation incompatible to present or immediate future conditions might be very advantageous on the long run. Since we are conserving all variations, in future we will be able to replicate the desirable qualities through genetic engineering and evolve consciously.
Some scientists believe one day we will become transbiological, and be fused together with our own machines and computers. Sounds kinda scary!I'm not sure that's entirely possible though, but technological advances are beginning to suggest it just may be.
The Borg. (BourgeoisieSome scientists believe one day we will become transbiological, and be fused together with our own machines and computers. Sounds kinda scary!)
The Borg. (BourgeoisieLOL!
You and I must get together, my bourgeoisie comrade! Let's build one of those "Mobile Oppression Palace" machines like on Futurama, except we will fuse our bodies/brains into them to become true super-capitalists!
LOL!
Evolution does not stop. Natural selection is a process. There is no "higher stage" of evolution. As long as children are different than parents, evolution is still going on.
That is pretty much true. It would be the height of arrogance to think that of all of creation from the beginning of life in the primordial ooze culminates with us guys posting on RevLeft.
In fact sometimes on RevLeft it would suggest the other direction towards the primordial ooze is at work. LOL!!!
On the other hand, what is interesting is that organisms evolve according to their biological niches, now humankind increasingly defines it own niche and therefore in a sense is now able to define its own evolution. The advances in genetic science certainly allow us to play around with evolution- the real question is whether we should.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
It's not pretty much true, it is absolutely true. That's how natural selection works. An organism lives long enough to produce children. Its characteristics will live on in its children. Being that we, humans, are not self-reproducing, our children are a combined makeup of two sets of characteristics. Whoever survives long enough to have more children will be seen to be the dominant traits in a population.
We're only about 200k years old guys. Humans have a loooooong way to go before we even begin to compete with some of the other species that have been around for 10's if not 100s of millions of years.
I heard a guy saying some far out stuff about a theory that the human genome is like a program or something that is running and we have yet to find out what it is running towards even though we seem to have cracked the code. I can't remember who or when but it was an interesting thought all the same.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the possibility of the human race dying out. This is part of natural selection as well. As we all know, many species that once existed have gone extinct, and not just because of what humans have done to the earth. If an organism can't adapt to changes in its environment, then natural selection could end up causing that species to disappear. Humans are no exception.
AKA El Vagoneta
[FONT=Courier New] This is a website to help you quit smoking[/FONT]
http://rananets.blogspot.com/ <---Radical News Aggregator beta
Possibly because at that point, there is no more evolution as far as humans are concerned?
The Human Progress Group
Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker - Mikhail Bakunin
Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains - Karl Marx
Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value - R. Buckminster Fuller
The important thing is not to be human but to be humane - Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Check out my speculative fiction project: NOVA MUNDI
Wehh what could happen is that another species of human could evolve as the homo sapiens did while the Neanderthals were still around and wipe us out.
I don't think that's likely unless we have some H.G. Wells type situation with the Morlocks etc... if another species threatened our own species' survival it would be wiped out pretty quickly.
Genetic obsolescence is more of a potential scenario however with the advances in genetic science that could probably be circumvented.
-www.revleft.org-
Economic Left/Right: -6.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
красные лисы
See, that's not true. It is correct to say we are far less dependant on selection for survivial than most species. Evolution does not stop. Consider the fact that 6ft tall William Wallace was considered a giant not but 5 or 6 hundred years ago. Consider also the rise in "mullatos." Just because we are not dependant upon selection, doesnt negate the fact that it is still happening.
That's not exactly proven though. We are not sure that sapiens wiped out neandertals. And any evidence to suggest we did is spurious at best. We aren't exactly finding many neanderthal skeletons with clovis points in them.
I'd like to expand upon this a little by pointing out that evolution can be defined as changes in allele (an allele being a certain version of a gene) frequency in populations over time. If the average height is increasing-- or, even, if a relatively invisible genetic trait, such as resistance to a particular disease, is increasing or decreasing in frequency-- that indicates evolution. The only way you could expect to see a complete stop in evolution would be if environmental pressures stayed exactly the same for extremely long periods of time, if sexual reproduction stopped and mutations stopped occurring, or if all life were eradicated.
He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.
-Nietzsche
There are 3 paths that a species can take evolutionarily:
1. They can continue to evolve
2. They can die out, and evolutionary dead-end
3. If they are a dominant species, and the environment and eco-system remains stable, the species can reach a point of evolutionary stagnation or singularity.
Examples include the Crocodilia, of which since the Mesozoic period has seen little change other then subtle changes to the palate to aid sub-aquatic breathing.
I've also read about the genus Panthera (big cats), and how many such species have become so specialized as to have reached a singularity.
This occurs when a species is
1. Dominate enough that the only limitation to expansion within it's habitat is food supply. The survival of the species is not threatened.
2. It's habitats remain stable for long periods of time (elevation, precipitation, vegetation, etc.)
3. It is specialized to it's particular niche.
4. The species reaches a point of an isolated gene pool. This can still be an enormous population, but different breeds do not cross paths.
If and when a threat to the species occurs; disease, predators, environmental changes, etc., this is a bad sign for singularities. Remaining the same species for so long limits the characteristic deviations available, and they are similar enough to be susceptible to the same threats. Some people think that this, combined with changing environments, will doom large cats.
Humans meet many of these requirements, but we're not isolated. There's just too many people, who are different enough from one another, to exchange different genes back and forth over generations.
As long as people inhabit the wide variety of environments that we do, we'll remain different. As long as we remain different, we will not reach singularity.
footnote: Some people referred to stature differences throughout history. Written history is much too short of a time to observe evolutionary trends in a species. The prevailing theory as to human being's increasing height is the availability of better and more diverse nutrition that in earlier history was not available.
Better nutrition means people can grow to their full potential. Poor nutrition stunts growth. Genetics of course play a role, but not as dominant a role as previously thought.
Observations of human remains, including genetic inspections support the better nutrition theory.
Height before the neolithic revolution, for example, averaged 5'10"/5'6" for men/women, when hunter-gatherer societies would eat a variety of foods found in the wild.
After the neolithic revolution, agriculture encouraged specialization of certain foods (staple crops), which limited the variety in diet, and average height decreased to 5'3"/5'1".
Not until the twentieth century, when better nutrition was available due to modern agricultural techniques, transportation, and preservative techniques, has human height caught up with pre-agricultural levels.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing?
Then He is not malevolent.
Is He both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able or willing?
Then why call Him "God"?
