I agree with Butler. There is too much artificial selection going on for us to know what might happen if it was all left up to evolution. “Survival of the fittest” goes against the very fabric of current societal workings.
If a random mutation happens next week which enables 5% of the population to read the minds of others, there would be a cacophonous cry for legislation from privacy advocates requiring som sort of blocking device (aluminum hats, anyone?).
How would we know about them? They’s all have enormous heads covered with throbbing veins, of course.
If biological evolution is the case, then why aren’t there any alligators directing the next Matrix.
One main problem with evolution, is that is defines US HUMANS.
If alligators, sharks and apes existed back when we were Mr. Ooga Smith why didn’t THEY evolve along side us?
What separates us from the evolution of other species of animals, Two million years ago, (that evolution defines the first appearance of humans) is the level of “thought”(reason, comunication…etc).
This is the very reason why it is completely implausible that humans evolved in such a manner. If it took TWO MILLION years for us to evolve, why is it taking so long for the apes and monkeys around us (who have shared the same ECOLOGICAL changes that we did) to evolve into free will, free thinking, creative, and reason bearing beings?
They did! - alligators and sharks are better at what they do than we are (if you don’t believe me, try swimming with them)
You appear to be assuming that ‘evolve’ means ‘become like humans’ - it simply doesn’t. Even things like bacteria are ‘as evolved’ as we are (which is why they still manage to survive and incidentally, why we they still beat us at some things)
Why didn’t everything evolve the same way? - why should it? - there is a huge diversity of ecological niches and resources to be exploited; there isn’t a one-size-fits-all best approach to exploiting them.
How you figure? There certainly seem to be a lot of human anatomical features (like the “epicanthic fold” in the eyelid, varying melanin levels, etc.) that are best explained as evolutionary responses to environmental conditions.
Also, if “evolution never applied to humans”, then where did humans come from? How did we develop into our current form from that of earlier hominid species, if not by evolution?
Who says that apes and monkeys are going in that evolutionary direction at all? Why should they? A human level of “intelligence”, permitting the development of language, reason, and other human traits, is just one of many evolutionary strategies. Apes and monkeys (along with all other known animals) have survived just fine for many hundreds of thousands of years without it.
You might as well ask why it’s taking so long for cows to develop the ability to walk on two legs. Bipedalism, like high intelligence, is just another evolutionary strategy, and if a species is surviving successfully without it, there’s no evolutionary pressure to develop it.
Sharks can swim faster, but they didn’t invent a submarine. Apes can lift more than 7 times the weight that the Human can, they have oposable thumbs but they can’t shoot gun let alone think of creating one.
No, evolve means progress, accent on the e. I find it very, very, very, difficult to believe that if we had the same cranial structure and mental capacity 2 million years ago it would have taken so long for us to progress in such a short time.
Think about it. Evolution says 2 million years ago we were as dumb as an ape. Those dumbass apes existed along side of us too you know. What seperated us? It took TWO MILLION YEARS, no… no,no, Let’s say Ten THOUSAND years for those apes to not change the way we did. There is something wrong with the timeline.
I believe it is much shorter than what evolution defines. I believe the earth is much younger than we’d LIKE to believe.
Right. But nonetheless, sharks and apes are still here, even without any submarines and guns. And that’s really the only yardstick of evolutionary “success”.
Not as it’s used in evolutionary biology, it doesn’t. There is no goal toward which we’re supposed to be “progressing”.
All that matters is that your species find a niche in which it can survive. It’s irrelevant that some of your evolutionary “cousins” may be surviving, even in the same niche, with a very different set of adaptive characteristics.
For example, certain animals evolved from a common ancestor into, say, two species inhabiting the same environment, one diurnal and the other nocturnal. That doesn’t mean that diurnalism is “better” or “more evolved” or that the nocturnal species “ought” to be evolving into a diurnal one and is “taking too long” to get there.
Similarly, there’s no reason to suppose that apes and monkeys “ought” to be changing to become more like us. They simply went down a somewhat different evolutionary path. We’ve got the higher intelligence; apes have the superior strength; monkeys have the greater agility and the prehensile tails. They’re all just different adaptive strategies that have all been adequately successful. There’s no need to rank them on any kind of scale of “progress”.
MMMkay. Here’s a scenario. You learn to understand shark or whatever. While listening in on sharks’ conversations you lean they think they are better than us because they have big sharp teeth and can stay underwater all day. They just can’t understand why we can’t evolve away from our pink, squishy, air-breathing bodies and join them in the ocean.
Then you learn to understand monkey. They’re laughing at us because we can’t swing around in trees and have to walk on the ground. Haha!
Birds can’t quite figure out why we don’t just grow wings.
Salamanders distain us for not being able to grow back our lost limbs.
See? Understand what I’m getting at? Smarts aren’t a universal “goal” in evolution. There is not universal goal. Every critter and plant and bacterium and virus is just doing its best to survive and make more of themselves. Those that are better at that have their traits passed on. If smarts will help, then the smart ones will survive. If long, swingy arms, or swimmy fins and gills, or wings, or re-growable limbs work better, then those critters will survive. MMMkay?
Bolding mine. This is the mechanisim that I belive has allowed homo sapiens to evolve and adapt to our enviroment quicker than biology alone. An example for illustration: It is difficult to biologically adapt to a sudden and dramatic change in weather. Being smart enough to adapt your survival strategy until the biology can “play catch up” would allow an organisim (in this case people) evolve more effeciently.
If, very regularly, over many thousands of years, we were harpooning the whales with the least harpoon-proof skin and leaving the whales with slightly more harpoon-proof skin to breed, then yeah, I would expect them to evolve thicker skin. But we didn’t. We just harpooned whatever ones we could get to. While being just a little bit faster may help a gazelle, and being just a little bit better at finding nuts may help a squirrel, having skin that’s just a LITTLE bit thicker is going to be absolutely no help whatsoever to a whale - it’s not going to stop the harpoon unless it’s a LOT thicker.
The only way that a species is going to evolve to deal with a threat or exploit a resource is if being just a LITTLE bit better gives it some advantage.
Let’s say that you’re breeding dogs - chihuahuas, for example. And you’ve decided that you want to create a line of really BIG chihuahuas. So you spay or neuter every dog that’s under 50 pounds at adulthood, because they’re not big enough. No matter how long you wait, you are NEVER going to get giant chihuahuas, because being bigger doesn’t help them reproduce. BUT if you find the dogs that are just a little bit larger than their littermates and breed those, then breed the largest of THOSE litters, and so on for many, many generations, then you’ll get much bigger chihuahuas.
Witness the dinosaurs. If a particular species did not have the required skills to survive, or did not develope those skills quickly enough to adapt to a changing environment, then yes, it became extinct. If the environment around us changed to quickly, then we too would become extinct and would not be around to argue about it.
No need to get all South Park on me! But your scenarios don’t make sense. There is no evidence that they think this way. They do not post Flags saying we are the independant shark nation.
What MY point about evolution is that evolution is too slow to be plausible. If it were true, no matter who’s traits get carried they would have PRO-GRESSED! The same way evolution says WE as HUMANS progressed(from monkey to Bush) Tell me this doesn’t make sense to you.
anyways, like u said, i have problems with the time-table too…
i have a tough time imagining species-jumping mutations. to think of it, i guess there are no such things. If every step is smoothly overlappin and continuos, when do we call it a new species? how much change from a “original” constitutes a “new” species? all very confusing
maybe there are bursts of species-changing mutations in an otherwise smooth and slow pace of the genetic changes?
It doesn’t make sense. There IS no “progress” in evolution, not as biologists understand it. There are simply successful adaptations (and failures to adapt) to particular environmental circumstances.
There is no “evolutionary timetable” that species are “supposed” to adhere to. Some evolve quickly, some slowly, depending on their environmental circumstances and what it takes to adapt to them successfully.
Maybe. This is what’s called the “punctuated equilibrium” model of evolution, where species stay more or less the same for long periods of time in a stable environment, and then evolve rapidly in response to rapid environmental change.
But you’re right that there is no hard and fast rule for determining what is “species-changing” and what isn’t. Conventionally, a population is said to have evolved into a new species if its members can no longer successfully interbreed with other populations. But this is generally the result of a lot of successive mutations while the different populations are isolated from each other, and doesn’t happen all at once.
But your scenarios don’t make sense. There is no evidence that they think this way. They do not post Flags saying we are the independant shark nation.