Im going to have to ask for input from athistic/evolutionary minds only. Its just a can of confusion I dont want to open…
To think that the human species is an extreem evoltionary accomplishment or height even, is a bit premature isn’t it? After all, isnt our species only present for what 7 seconds/7 minutes on the 24-hour evolutinary time scale anyway?
Assuming that any evolutionary trait that is detremential to a species’ survival will be erased with time, how can we deem intellagence to be on either side of that fence? Sure its different and quite remarkable to any other evolutionary step, but so was the Dinosaurs size wasnt it? Sure size and intellagence are apples and oranges but in the whole irrevelence of life how different is it really? Im sure the Dino’s thought there were top-dog too and were leaders of the new world as well.
But regarless of how much weight you put on a species’ strengths or evolutionary feats, does any of that really matter to Darwin’s theory? Last I checked “survival of the fittest” placed no conditions on what a surviving trait is. Sure, was cant comprehend a more powerful trait than human intellegence, but Im sure size and power was once an unconceivable breaking point at one era as well. So whats next? Who’s to say a continuing species will even be of human evolutionary branch? Maybe we hold too much stock in our gift of thought… Hell, and maybe our brain-power is far superior to any evolutionary direction, but who’s to say it makes us fit? Insects or reptiles could reign the Earth without intelegence once again, couldn’t they?
Bugs do rule the earth. They’re everywhere. We try our damndest to get rid of them, but they just keep coming back for more.
I think there are more spiders on earth than humans. It wouldn’t suprise me, anyway. So far we’ve been lucky enough to get along with them
I guess it depends on whether or not you mean survival of the fittest in respect to one species beating out another. In that case, we do rule the world and we are our own greaetst threat.
This of course brings the germ warfare issue in…to diseases and virus count evolution-wise? If we create a super-germ, have we beaten ourselves or not?
To apply a “better or worse” to evolution is a entirely human standard.
Of course if we all died no one species would rule like we did. They would all balance each other out which is what makes us unique. Dinosaurs were a myrad of species. Comparing them directly to humans doesent really compare.
It depends on what standards you’re using. If you want to talk about survivability then most insects are superior to human beings.
**
So far as our species goes intelligence was/is our most vital asset. It was our ability to build new tools that has spread humanity to the four corners of the globe. Now as to whether or not that means anything in the long run is up for debate. Roaches aren’t all that intelligent but I don’t see them going anywhere for the next few million years.
Marc
Personally, I have huge reservations about religion. I, personally, believe that the millions who cling to religiously influenced ideals cripple any possibilities of future human evolution.
Quite honestly, the mentally retarded, the crippled, the lazy, etc… to be blunt: the weak, should not be allowed to procreate. They should be either abandoned or slain upon discovery
It is somewhat apparent that humans are in some controll of our own evolution, but to an evolutionary reign or evolutionary failure? Positive or negative it is still evolution, right? Maybe intelagence isnt our flaw, but compasion…
Just curious Asmodean, but on what basis do you assume that if that humans were wiped out (or in theory even if we weren’t) that a similarly “dominating” species could not evolve?
Well a similary dominating species could evolve as we did. However say mosquitos wouldent suddenly rule the earth.
As for Metropochris being a troll(or at least bigoted) I think that would be obvious from the OP.
Metropo your idea is good like communisum is good. How exactly do you discover the weak from the strong? Because evolutionary wise there are no weak or strong, simply people that fit better or worse into our current ecosystem. Trying to force along evolution is almost exactly the same as communism in ideal because you have no idea where you are blindly pushing it.
**Well a similary dominating species could evolve as we did. However say mosquitos wouldent suddenly rule the earth. **
Well of course Lemurs didn’t suddenly rule the Earth either, neither did lizards. It all takes time. What makes you believe that the next dominant species couldn’t be a mosquito descendant?
I’m not a big fan of religion myself. But we’ve had it since time was recorded so I don’t really see it going away any time soon. At any rate it doesn’t appear to have stopped us from figuring out how to make fire, smelt metal, or create the Spice Girls.
**
That’s quite an interesting idea Dr. Mengela…uh, I mean MetropoChris. I’m wouldn’t be to worried about the mentally retarded or crippled folks breeding. It is my understanding that most people with severe handicaps do not end up having children. I can’t understand why someone would advocate exposure or murder though. Remind me not to put you in charge of teaching ethics.
Evolution is neither positive nor negative it is simply change.
The problem with a term like “rule the earth” is that it’s sort of meaningless. When you talk about evolutionary success and failure, those aren’t normative values. A trait is successful if it allows an individual to pass on his or her genes. To look at evolution as approaching a goal, however, isn’t really a good understanding of the theory. Our species will die out eventually.
Well, dang, I came in here after parsing the thread title as, “Are humans who are full of themselves being selected against?” and ready to post a hearty “Golly, I hope so!”
I don’t think H. sapiens sapiens is being selected against, for the simple reason that our population keeps going up. To be selected against, by definition, means that your population is going down, if not absolutely, at least relative to some competitor species. And there really isn’t any competitor species of large agricultural omnivores beating us out at the moment.
As for intelligence, I think it is an evolutionary survival trait at least in our species. Without our intelligence, we’d be an evolutionary nonstarter. We’re not very strong for animals of our size, there are lots of predators that can kill us and we’re worth a lot of calories to them, we’re slow because of our bipedalism, our lack of body hair restricts us to warm climates if we lack the intelligence to fashion clothing, and our young are born only one at a time with horrible infant (and maternal) mortality. We’d be extinct faster than you can say “dinosaur.”
One thing that really bugs me (no pun intended) is when people compare human evolutionary success to insects’. I mean, we’re just one species, no fair matching us up against a whole freakin’ class. Without a doubt, class Insecta is beating the pants off of class Mammalia in terms of numbers, but if you match H. sapiens sapiens up against individual species of insects, I think our numbers would exceed many of them.
As regards Mr. MetropoChris, there is no need to murder or abandon the crippled or mentally infirm when most of them will not reproduce anyway. And if they do succeed in reproducing, then by Darwinistic standards, they’re as fit as you or me (more so in my case, since I haven’t reproduced yet :D). I might also point out that a physical cripple who is also a genius can be a survival advantage to our whole species, if he/she invents something like penicillin or the Bessemer converter, so murdering him/her may be contra-survival behavior.
what is being overlooked is that the dominance of humanity is attributable to not just intelligence, but also to very strong social instincts and cooperation. Inasmuch as innate feelings of compassion and empathy contribute directly to fostering such social instincts they have played a major role in humanity’s success.
Therefore, it should be obvious that …to be blunt, those lacking compassion or empathy should not be allowed to procreate. They should be either abandoned or slain upon discovery [closed captioning available for the sarcasm impaired- provided we’re not also abandoning or slaying them]
I was going to say that, Nebuli, but I wasn’t sure it was true. It seems to me that our species has in fact spent most of its history abandoning or murdering crippled children, or even (shudder!) female children. The socially condoned practice of abandoning or killing “undesirable” babies didn’t stop in Europe until the Middle Ages, and continued in other societies well past that point. So as much as I hate the idea MetropoChris was talking about, I’m not sure that it’s incompatible with the social instincts we humans come evolutionarily packaged with.
Ummm… evolitionarily packaged with?? I didn’t know we came packaged with social instincts. Is that something that’s now accepted, or still something hotly debated in nature/nurture discussions?
Ahem. Lemurs do TOO rule the earth! I hereby proclaim Lemurs earth’s dominant life form! All must bow before the furry, ring-tailed power of the Prosimiadae!
Is that something that’s now accepted, or still something hotly debated in nature/nurture discussions?