|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: future evolution of humanity | |||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
DC85 writes: since we pretty much have our needs Covered. It Apears we have no reason to Evolve Very much........ I mean life finds a way around problems but we have most of our Problems covered. I mean we are so well off we don't worry about living from day to day so well we have time to worry about this and other topics on this board. we are so well off we shouldn't change much....... I think It might be useful to remember that evolution happens because of differential reproductive success. Therefore if one segment of the population, for whatever reason, produces more ofspring than another segment, then their genes will come to dominate. It is quite obvious that the less a family earns the more children they have (on average), the question then is if there is any gene that they (on average) posses that rich people don't. Those genes, if they exist, are in effect being selected for. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Have you ever read the sci-fi short story 'The Marching Morons'
.. can't remember the author unfortunately but it puts forward an opinion that people of higher intelligence (NOT MY VIEW ITS JUST A STORY) decided to have only one or two children quite late in life, while less intelligent people had many children and started early in life. The result was that the average intelligence level of thepopulation dropped off sharply. Factors along those lines (if linked to heritable features)could conceivably lead to a change in the allelic frequencies within human populations ... maybe weaker muscles because we have machines to do stuff for us ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Peter writes: Have you ever read the sci-fi short story 'The Marching Morons' Never heard of it.
Peter writes: can't remember the author unfortunately but it puts forwardan opinion that people of higher intelligence (NOT MY VIEW ITS JUST A STORY) decided to have only one or two children quite late in life, while less intelligent people had many children and started early in life. I'm not sure I would agree with this. There are some fairly intelligent poor people who have many children, while there are some fairly unintelligent rick people who only have a few children.
Peter writes: Factors along those lines (if linked to heritable features)could conceivably lead to a change in the allelic frequencies within human populations ... maybe weaker muscles because we have machines to do stuff for us ... I agree, although I don't know if there are any specific gene that is more prevalent among poor people, except possible skin colour, Africa being poorer than the rest of the world, and mostly, well African. This is countered somewhat by the fact that the infant death rate in Africa is pretty high. How this compares to India and China I don't know. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Autocatalysis Inactive Member |
Generally speaking the larger the population the harder/longer it takes to drive genes to fixation. Additionally selection pressure has been lifted off many traits in some parts of the human population. Thus reducing the drive to fixation. On top of this people still live under a huge variety of conditions yet freely interbreed. Speciation is generally accepted to occur in geographic isolated populations. Which is why the whole space thing is interesting! I am sure that new alleles are spreading through the population, but slowly. So there is change, but I am sure that under the current set of conditions humanity won’t change much genetically in the next hundred thousand to a million years, or longer! Just my personal take.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
certain populations could become different.(thats why there are different races evolution was taking place) but I don't think in the Moderen world it will happen as much we are so connected its unthinkable for one Population to Evolve on way and another population to Evolve another if you get what I am saying.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
DC- why didnt you think of solar system exploration as de facto creating restricted human gene flow? I have never seen a calculation on the cost of biomass movement vs migration under reproduction but such approximations to more than 100yrs in the future would not be out of leisure time at some time in this life time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
interesting...... but Unlees they are completly cut off from other genes I still say the answer is the same. I mean more race Differences may Occur but not where the species changes I don't think.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok but now we would be discussing population genetics on a level that even the historians of the subject doubt is possible. Will Provine IS mistaken in this regard I know from LOOKING (not interpreting data) d if ferently at fish than I did at herps even though I tried for over a month to attempt the same perspective. (also- Gould's refusal to accredit Croizat is part of this paceled parsed use of language that Gould attempted to triangulate).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
even if People are across a great distance .... if they got there they are not completly cut off from other populations.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Reproduction however requires proximity as even artifical insemination would be thusly affected. I have not made the computation/calculation I indicated. Back to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
I still say if the Modern world keeps up its impossible for some people to Evolve one way and others another.......one group is connected to the other. and the same would go no matter where we are.... it will be hard to cut people off from each other. and with modern Medicine Mutations don't really matter all have and equal chance to survive. so no one Mutation will be favored so. Evolution will go VERY slow if it happens at all. Get what I am saying?
(also I will be away for a few days answer I will try to catch up when I get back I will be on for a couple more hours though) [This message has been edited by DC85, 07-06-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
... but I didn't mention poor people at all!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1506 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Hard to say without detailed future knowledge of the
earth's environment. More UV could drive noticeable change, similarly anyglobal climatic change could provide a selective pressure amongst the developing world which doesn't exist in the developed world (a brave new world of isolation).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Autocatalysis Inactive Member |
I am confident to say that the general consensus in this thread concludes that there is insufficient reproductive isolation in the human population to drive speciation, now and in the foreseeable future. The question remains what selection pressure is there? And what direction are we being driven in. I think it might be advantageous here to make a distinction between artificial selection and natural selection, if at all possible. Specifically, humans have had their evolution shaped by cultural adaptations (artificial selection?). Our ability to speak is an example of a learnt behaviour effecting selection. There are examples of cultural evolution in other animals, mostly primates, but others as well. And what could be more cultural than religion? It was my hope to encourage some YEC into this discussion. But after 29 posts it seems there is no interest from such quarters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5180 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Peter writes: ... but I didn't mention poor people at all!!!! I did mention that I had never heard of it. I was taking what you had written in context with what we were speaking about...that being that poor people tend to reporduce more. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024