If I evolve, will that prove evolution exists?

Great Debates
1

This is my first post to the SDMB. I have been a fan of Cecil’s columns for a couple of years. More recently I have been reading through the posts and have quite enjoyed them (I really dug the debate on whether math is invented or discovered). It is an honor to participate. That said:

Some creationists seem to believe that evolution does not exist in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. My philosophies and long term goals can be classified as Transuman. I could be called a Transhumanist (if your into labeling people based on there world view). A transhumanist looks forward to the day when he/she can become a Post-Human. A Post-Human is the next step in human evolution (theoretically). It is the step we take for ourselves via science and technology, as opposed to the millions of years of appearingly random mutations leading to occaisional benefits. Nobody will really know what a Post-Human will look like until it happens, but here are some possible body/mind hacks that get discussed:

  • See in all wavelengths: Infra-red, Ultraviolet, Etc.
  • Faster memory/learning/thinking
  • Immortality: The halting (and reversal?) of aging.
  • Resolution of existing senses increased
  • Telepathy (internal communication organs)
  • Ability to withstand Vacuum

These are some traits the Post-Human might have, thanks to the sciences including but not limited to: Genetics, Nanotech, Electronics, and Materials. Obviously, they are not going to get here tomorrow, but things are speeding up these days. Future technology will probably be more amazing then anyone can imagine (barring destruction of the species). I happen to think these things will come about. I fully intend to participate. I may have to use cryogenics . . . only time will tell.

So my questions is this. If I make it to realize my goals and become an immortal, telepathic, genius, space faring entity, would this not be considered (and therefore prove the existence of)evolution? Does this count as evolution if we make the decisions ourslelves? If we see it happen before our own eyes. One thing change into another better thing.

Or do I just get classified as a freak and a blasphemer for messing with God’s work? What do the scriptures say about tweaking my own genetic makeup? If this is the case what would constitute proof of evolution if not seeing it for yourself?

If it would be acceptable as evidence, we may have proof sooner than some think. (Muhahahahahahahah!!!)

2

No. And you won’t, as evolution is by definition slow change [leaving out lots of other jargon and conditions here]. You may revolve, and this will certainly prove something.

3

Well . . .

Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

And while nanotech, bionic prostheses, and the like might well gradually change species, it certainly won’t be what is considered “biological” or “natural” evolution.

Unnatural selection, perhaps . . .

4

Waverly, I’ve busted out my Websters new Colleigiate Dictionary. None of the definitions list the amount of time it should take. If no changes happen for 100,000 years, and then a gamma ray causes a beneficial mutation in an organism, did it happen that day or did it take 100,000 years? The term “gradual” is relative. Evolution can often behave quickly. Some circumstances will cause quicker more frequent mutations than others. How do you decide how long it has to take before it’s called evolution?

Andros, I think the definition that I apply here is as follows (from Websters I quote):

“A process of change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state”

It seems it can be used to describe individuals as well as species as a whole. Here’s some of my favorite definitions taken from http://xi.nu/~damien/extrodict.html:

EUTHENICS: Improving the current generation, as opposed to eugenics, which seeks to improve future generations [R.C.W. Ettinger, Man Into Superman, 1972].

EVOLUTURE: An organism produced through evolution; the antonym of creature. [Mark Plus, June 1991]

5

dalovindj, the defintion you have supplied for evolution is from the common vernacular, not the technical definition used by scientists. andros is correct: indivduals do not evolve. Any change in an individual is properly termed “development.” You may well develop into some transhuman state, but that would necessarily imply that “transhumans” already exist as a species.

Evolution is all about mutation and selection, and how those mutations are passed from one generation to the next. Unless you are transhuman already, you cannot become anything more than a technologically-modified human. Your offspring on the other hand…

And, before this gets overly semantic, let me also say that individuals don’t adapt, either (again, not in the sense in which it is used within evolutionary circles) - they acclimate.

6

The process you describe could only be termed “evolution” in a semantic sense, not a theoretical sense. While you may “evolve” according to Webster’s through gene therapy or nanotech, this would not fit in with nor prove established evolutionary theory.

Just because something is “catholic” (comprehensive, universal) does not make it doctrine of the Catholic church.

7

Look, friend, you MUST get this part straight: YOU will not evolve. You were born a member of the species of homo sapiens and you will die as one.

Possible, but YOU won’t be able to without some kind of radical surgery that’s currently beyond our capabilities. And this would not be considered evolution.

Certainly possible, but you won’t benefit from it.

Not possible, The laws of Thermodynamics weould have to be defied for people to become immortal or for the aging process to reverse.

Possible, but, again, it won’t happen to you.

Telepathy is not possible.

For how long? It’s not possible to stay alive without oxygen for more than a few minutes (unless you’ve fallen into very cold water, but that’s not a vacuum, is it?)

I think you’ve been reading too many comic books.

8

dalovindj, just remember that “Evolution” as generally debated here means either Punctuated Equilibrium, or some NeoDarwinian Evolution based on Natural Selection. That is what Creationists disagree with, and what your “evidence” was supposed to prove. However, even if you become a Transcendental Being capable of telepathy, you haven’t proved natural selection, or even punctuated Equilibrium.

If a gamma ray causes a benefitial mutation, and it survives better than other organisms, and then its children become more plentiful than other children, then yes, it is Natural Selection.

So, if you have Children who have telepathy, that may be different.

Maybe an example here might help – me typing to you right now doesn’t count as human evolution, as cool as that may seem. It’s merely tool using. If my children can do it, that isn’t evolution either. But, if my children are successful CS geeks, that’s evolution.(*)

Oh, and dalovindj – a friendly warning. Be careful about dictionary definitions. My dictionary defines Evolution as “Development,progression, unfolding, growth”, but I doubt that unfolding origami would be taken by Creationists as proof of Evolution. The dictionary just records how we MIGHT be using words, not how we are.

Me’Corva
(*) I leave it as an exercise to the readers to show what assumptions I’ve made to have this be Evolution.

9

Oh, yeah? Then how come I knew you were going to say that?

10

Evolution: a cumulative change in the characteristics of organisms or populations from generation to generation.

Selection is not part of the definition, it is the most accepted theory posited to explain the mechanism that drives evolution, which is a fact.

11

How so? You already displace entropy from your body into the environment by way of digestion. I see no conflict with reversing local entropy (your body) at the expense of increasing the total entropy.

12

Punctuated Equilibirum is not evolution. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory about the pacing of evolution, and was developed as a possible explanation for the gaps in the fossil record. It adds nothing to Darwin’s original theories regarding mechanism, beyond the idea that evolution need not be gradual, in the geological-time sense.

13

Well dalovindj: I would take some helpful time in the Library before posting something about evolution, especially on this board. Also, I have to agree with MeCorva be very careful about your dictionary definitions, showing a degree of acumen in this forum is an ‘aquired trait’ (excuse the pun) one must have the facts before laying them on the table. Otherwise you may become susceptible to being laughed at or ridiculed. However, most dopers stay away from that in these forums, as I am sure you can see from reading past posts.

With that said:

You make a couple interesting points however, your little list of possible changes seems a little obtuse. Get onto google and type, ‘future evolution’ check out the first hit. then read about metasystem transition theory, granted this is only one evolutionary philosophy, but it could be a start. Then I would look up, something completely out there, something close to sci-fi. Having two polar opposite opinions on a given subject can increase ones knowledge about the subject 10 fold. So Rock on dalovindj, enjoy the board.

14

Generally:

Allright. So could someone link me to the technical definition as I don’t have any Biology textbooks handy and must rely on my trusty dictionary. Evolution (technical definition) must be through natural selection? Any change in a species that is not through natural selection (random?) is not evolution? If the change occurs to me it is not evolution, but if I give it to my offspring, it is then evolution?

Specifically:

jab1:

How do you make those quotes so nice and neat? I’ll just have to cut and paste.

“You were born a member of the species of homo sapiens and you will die as one.”

Remains to be seen wether I will die or not. I think I will become a member of the species Homo Excelcior (the next step)

"Faster memory/learning/thinking
Certainly possible, but you won’t benefit from it. "

It is not possible to predict the outcome of the future. I am a 25 year old male. Statistically I should live to be 76 or so. 50 years can bring alot of technological change. Plus with cryogenics and all. . . I just may live to see it. You cannot be certain.

“- Immortality: The halting (and reversal?) of aging.
Not possible, The laws of Thermodynamics weould have to be defied for people to become immortal or for the aging process to reverse.”

They have already increased the healthy lifespan of a fruitfly by double. How long do you have to live before you break the law of thermodynamics? You would have to be able to know the outcome of the Universe’s fate to know wether or not an entity could become immortal. You just need to be able to stop cellular aging and repair free-radical damage (Also cure every disease). Problems that are currently being worked on very hard (And with lots of Cash).

  • Telepathy (internal communication organs)
    Telepathy is not possible.

You could install advanced cullular euipment to the audio nerves and connect directly to the brain (or just monitor brainwaves). Allready it is possible to control a computer mouse with pure thought. 2 people with these improvements would be able to talk to each other without using there mouth. Futuristic, yes. Impossible, no.

“- Ability to withstand Vacuum
For how long? It’s not possible to stay alive without oxygen for more than a few minutes (unless you’ve fallen into very cold water, but that’s not a vacuum, is it?)”

Not possible with my current body makeup. This assumes a vast increase in the materials that make up me.

“I think you’ve been reading too many comic books.”

I don’t care for comic books. Lately I’ve been reading things such as are provided by sites like http://www.kurzweilai.net/.

15

Evolve!

16

To quote text, simply type [ quote ]TEXT HERE[ /quote ]

Only without the spaces inside the brackety bits… Ditching the spaces above gives us:

Now, then.

No, you will die. Eventually. It might not be until the heat-death of the universe, but you will most definitely not live forever.

And you are H. sapiens by birth. The only way you could become another species is to change your entire genetic structure and your phenotype. And if that happens, my friend, you will no longer be you.

Infinitely, provided a sufficiently unbounded system.

No, it isn’t. It’s possible to control a mouse with electrical impulses. The difference between that and telepathy is so huge as to make the two completely unrelated.

I prefer responsible science that does not prey on the susceptible. The kind of pie-in-the-sky pseusoscience espoused by KurzweilAI is no better in my mind than the Raelians or the cold fusion/alt energy folks. But that’s just me. YMMV.

17

Here is a good place to find any number of technical definitions regarding evolution. Specifically,

=====
**

You may kick me for this, dalovindj (I’m not trying to pick on you, but, as others have said, playing fast and loose with definitions doesn’t help anyone’s argument), but there are a couple of problems with your quoted statement.

First (and most important), there is no “next step” in evolution. Evolution does not occur in steps, and a ladder is a very improper analogy for evolutionary lines. Evolution occurs gradually (in the sense of a continuum) over time, and is, by the best of our knowledge (some individuals’ claimed knowledge notwithstanding), not directed. The next “phase” in evolution will depend on what the future holds, since natural selection serves to increase those genes which are most beneficial to an organism given current conditions. Natural Selection has no predictive capacity.

Second is the name “Homo Excelcior”. Taxonomists do not coin scientific names for species which do not, as yet, exist. While the requirements for identifying a “type” specimen may have been relaxed of late (I’m uncertain as to the specifics of the current code for zoological nomenclature), I’m still pretty sure one needs to present a specimen before a proper name can be assigned. Giving the proposed “transhuman species” a quasi-scientific name does not improve its validity in scientific circles.

I also think you may be a bit unclear about how speciation occurs. The link, above, can shed much light as to how such might occur. But I can tell you that with humanity as it stands now, speciation is all but impossible. Your best bet for establishing a transhuman species is to probably to colonize another planet.

18

And the waiting a loooong time. Well, at least until your descendents can no longer breed with Earth humans.

19

Thanks!

What if I escape into another universe? What if we find a way to make this one stable? Without knowing the exact nature of reality you can not be certain.

That is a different issue (but an entertaining one). What makes me me? Where is the ID located? I can lose an arm and still be me. I can lose a leg. But what is the exact minimum of Biological material I have to keep to maintain my memories and sense of self?

You cannot say for certain that existence will not continue on forever. If it does, then there is a chance that I will continue with it. The final outcome (if such a thing will ever exist) of everything is yet to be determined.

I can’t make electrical impulses without thinking. Of course this technology is in it’s infancy. But it will become much more. Many people are trying to determine the physical mechanisms of thought and conciousness. If we can understand them, we are a step closer to manipulating and/or recording them. The people in the future reading popular science’s “150 years ago” may laugh at how quaint these early devices are.

Much of what that website provides is conjecture, but it is a fun ride. The diference between this and the examples you gave is that they are not claiming to have made any of these advances, they are positing that they may someday exist once the “Responsible Science” breaks down the engineering dificulties.

Good evening. I shall retire to Brooklyn, dine on Thai food, go home, jam big beats, and ponder how wonderful the future just may be.

I’ll check back in tomorrow.

Later.

20

Because you know that I’m extremely clever, rational and skeptical.

I am also proud of my humility.

:wink: