Evolution drives intelligence!!!????

[Boerseun]

I've already shared two such links on recent human evolution. Seems your abit lacking in how evolution works as well, so here is a link that explains what we currently know on how evolution works.

 

Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

Phoenixbyrd, I suggest you go and visit that site again. It clearly states how evolution works through natural selection. If my explanation of how medical science have effectively removed humans from the set of animals subject to natural selection, where death is the agent of evolution, is too complicated, then maybe this site that you referred, might illustrate this very basic and simple fact to you.

Personally, I'm more curious as to what formed your opinion on human evolution. Surely you must have some links that have shown you some evidence/proof that human evolution has stopped that would lead you to form such an opinion.

What formed my opinion regarding this matter is cold logic. Animals are shaped by their environment. Humans have mastered their environment. End of story. Darwinian evolution doesn't apply any more. QED.

 

Let me illustrate this by using an example used by the website you referred to, under "mechanisms of change". Suppose you have a bunch of beetles, split 50/50 brown and green beetles. Say the green beetles are more visible to birds. So the green ones are more likely to be eaten by birds. Few generations down the line and you'll only have brown beetles left. But, let's say that the beetles have mastered their environment, human-style. So the birds come to graze on the green beetles. The beatles haul out a few guns and blow the birds away. Now the birds aren't agents of evolutionary pressure, and a few generations down the line, you'll still have brown and green beetles.

 

That's pretty simple, but kinda cuts to the chase. Surely you can understand that? After all, it's a website you referred...:)

[phoenixbyrd]

I don't think we've quiet exactly mastered our enviroment lol. We're not the only species that builds shelter for ourselve's and I wouldn't so readily say that natural selection has ended for our species either.

 

Honestly, do a search on human evolution, it won't hurt will it?

 

I did a search on natural selection in humans on google. You'd be amazed at the amount of sites that discuss the topic with evidence that natural selection still plays an important role in human evolution.

 

The reason I linked you to that site was to show you exactly what you said. Natural selection, not death, is whats important in evolution. Once an organism dies it is effectively removed from the gene pool, no longer part of the evolutionary process. Thats just cold logic on my part.

 

Death is the agent of evolution.

[Boerseun]

Natural selection, not death, is whats important in evolution. Once an organism dies it is effectively removed from the gene pool, no longer part of the evolutionary process. Thats just cold logic on my part.

How is it determined who gets to procreate or not? The green beetles who have died before they get to lay eggs kinda shuts down this argument of yours.

 

Death and sex - yeah, sounds like some Leonard Cohen song.

 

Do a search for 'evolution have stopped for humans' on Yahoo!. You'll hit more than 2,580,000 pages. If sheer weight of search hits means anything, then we'll just have to agree to disagree, won't we?

 

Personally, I think evolution have stopped dead in its tracks. You, however, are free to believe what you wish.

[phoenixbyrd]

procreation is not determined by anything lol. You make it sound almost as if it's intelligent when put like that. Again, once something is dead it's effectively removed from the genetic pool and thus plays no role in any evolutionary process. That's not even cold logic, that's just common sense. Although it'd probably make a cool horror book ... night of the evolving dead zombies lol!

 

--

 

Ok, did as you asked, search on yahoo with those exact terms. So far, out of the first few pages I looked at on the first page, all say no. Evolution hasn't stopped in humans. So are we going by results or just the sheer number of pages compared to google as our 'proof' that evolution has ended for our species?

[Michaelangelica]

 

Personally, I think evolution have stopped dead in its tracks. You, however, are free to believe what you wish.

There are a number of evolutionary changes that have happened to man in the last 10,000 years

• the ability to digest lactose
  
• the Tibetan ability to oxygenate blood at high altitudes.
  
• The ability to digest gluten
  

many others at "Darwin re-visited" thread

[paigetheoracle]

Firstly, the way I define intelligence is pro-life and living (survival at all costs), therefore the creation of WMD is not the point totally but the use or failure to use them is (Intelligence = life/ stupidity = death(suicide - of mind or body,which means sabotaging not only physical existence but your ability to think i.e. be response-able).

 

Life, aka intelligence, is continual progression as death is regression into something simpler: Everything starts off simple and progresses to more complex forms as the paleontological evidence shows (The new runs from the old because that is survival: The old is master of the past but the future belongs to the young because they create it).

 

Intelligence is independent of form. Think of car design. It has progressed from outside but been based on insider reports - what works and what doesn't. In a simple analogy you could say it is 'prayer' or telling the creator what you as a user think of his invention and ways it needs to be improved (sorry if I'm getting a little religious here but it could help explain why religion arose and what is really going on with it in a very simplified manner). An intelligent external force, therefore is something working towards a goal in the physical through a series of stages, until the proposed end product is reached e.g's cells in a body, bricks in a wall, until the house is completed.

[Michaelangelica]

Firstly, the way I define intelligence is pro-life and living (survival at all costs), .

Well if you define it that way there is no argument.

It is circular

 

What about other definitions of intelligence?

[ErlyRisa]

Heck, only 3,000 years ago?!?!?

 

That's mighty strange, seeing as the ability to digest milk is one of the hallmarks of mammals!

 

In my opinion, evolution for humans have stopped because humans are masters of their environment. Instead of adapting to a changing environment, we change the environment to suit our purposes. No other animal can do this on the scale humans do. Instead of evolving thick pelts, we have evolved the ability to fashion thick coats, from other animals' skins. When it became unfashionable to club baby seals to death for their skins or kill bears 4-5 times our size for their pelts, we invented nylon, etc.

 

But evolution in the classical sense have come to a screeching, grinding halt for us hairless, naked, helpless, flightless but intelligent bipeds. In my opinion, at least.

 

Also, our gene pool is waaaaay too big for any beneficial mutation to spread effectively. Within a few generations, any new mutation will have become so diluted in this vast gene pool that any effect it would have had would soon be nullified.

 

(But I think the ability to digest milk was invented around 130 million years ago, with the appearance of the first mammal! :))

 

I feed my cat outdoors.... the Pigeons are usally found brooding around the milk (am I changing thier evolutionary societal structure?) - whether my Cat and the birds digest milk is not of concern - it's not like we disgest cigarettes - yet it has an impact on our societal structure.

 

-Large populations

--maybe the dinosuars were 'killed in one foul swoop' by GOD because he saw that his creation was no good - the evoltuinary lagortihm spawned a stale mate species, which given anymor time would have ruined the solution to the equation... US or the next guys or our computer?

---so yeah, our population may just be too big to have any affect on visible genetic change... eg. Down Syndrome - could be veiwed as a new species, and would have a 'bigger' effect if the overall population of humans was lower.

 

//- axtually if you take a look at Down Synrome traits, it could be theorised that in a smaller and less 'moralistic ethical / intellgent structured' society, than DS people would actually pro-create quite avidly (women DS are easier mating prey) , maybe us humans are just DS sufferer's vs. the Neanderthals.

 

(maybe if givven the chance, a society of DS would kill the rest of us)

 

Down syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Single transverse palmar crease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

odds == 1/1000 of 1/30 --pretty good odds if you ask me, especially for a population of 30.

 

imagine a tribe that gives birth to a DS sufferer, the sufferer if not outcast would spawn alot more becuase of apparent naiviety, bring the odds up with every generation.

 

eg. if pop of 30, with 1 DS, where DS spawns 2wiceaverge.pop children(2norm) then in one generation where birth rate equals death rate, DS probabilty is now 1/15 of 1/1000.

[HappytheStripper]

I would like to begin this post.. with a few definitions..

 

Evolution may be described as a gradual process in which something changes into a different.. and usually more complex form.. so therefore.. it is the process of gradual development..

 

Intelligence may be described as the capacity to acquire information and knowledge.. and through the faculty of thought and reason.. intelligence is therefore the ability of processing this information in regards to knowledge..

 

Part of the problem regarding intelligence stems from the fact that nobody has adequately defined what intelligence really means.. and evolution is still in the developmental stage.. so where exactly does evolution drive intelligence..

 

Now I wonder :phones: does evolution drive intelligence.. or does intelligence drive evolution..?? What do you think..??

 

Regards Ashley

[Buffy]

As you hint, Evolution isn't *always* about increasing complexity. When whales went back to the ocean, they *simplified* their body structure by shedding more complex limbs that had been developed.

 

It is important to realize that Evolution itself has no *intent* and its "criteria for success" are only relevant to single points in time: what was advantageous in the past may no longer be.

 

Intelligence is *not* inevitable. Sharks do quite well with almost no ability to reason, thank you very much. In fact its arguable that at certain times it can be a *detriment*: curiosity killed the cat as you know.

 

So in my book, intelligence is an evolutionary option that may be useful. Insects may prove that not having much is irrelevant to becoming the dominant Phylum on the planet sometime in the future. Its not necessary at all. There may be advantages for being smarter, and thus it may increase over time.

 

I also think its useful to realize that the "newest organism" on the planet is "human society": a notion that is somewhat controversial, but when you think of us all as "cells" in the "social organism/s" that is/are humanity, then intelligence is a critical evolutionary trait! (We've got a thread about this somewhere that I'm too lazy to look up right now...).

 

A side note: Both anti-evolutionists and advocates of Punctuated Equilibrium will jump all over you for the use of the term "gradual" since the record at *small scales* shows that Evolution is not "gradual". This is a stupid argument--usually brought up to show that "Evolution is controversial even among scientists"--because at *large* scales, yes, it is "gradual", so don't let anyone beat you up for this usage.

 

Random advantage,

Buffy

[HappytheStripper]

It is important to realize that Evolution itself has no *intent* and its "criteria for success" are only relevant to single points in time: what was advantageous in the past may no longer be.

 

..intelligence is an evolutionary option that may be useful.

 

I also think its useful to realize that the "newest organism" on the planet is "human society": a notion that is somewhat controversial, but when you think of us all as "cells" in the "social organism/s" that is/are humanity, then intelligence is a critical evolutionary trait! (We've got a thread about this somewhere that I'm too lazy to look up right now...)

 

Thaks Buffy.. your reply is well written and Ive taken note of the above.. thans for your input..

 

Ashley