Humans vs Evolution

[muffinbiller]

The first step was standing upright. This enabled primitive apes to move out of the forests onto the Savannas where their upright posture enabled them to see further for their own protection and the identification of potential pray.
The use of the opposable thumb is another significant factor which had already been achieved by apes enabling them to grasp things. Standing enhanced this quality as they were now able to run with their hands free to use weapons. Standing tall, in a group also makes you look stronger to predators, and rivals such as baboons. The other advantage is that you expose a smaller percentage of your body (top of head and shoulders only) to the sun, and whilst most animals are seeking shade in the hottest part of the day, humans were able to keep going for longer.
Tool making can be seen in chimps and benobos. But this again was a vital ingredient in evolution.
More brain power is an expensive commodity in evolution, but bipedalism seem to have given early man the best possible reason for this attribute to be useful.
Once growing brain power became useful with upright, tool carrying humans, this aspect of evolution has enabled the ballooning of the brain. This seemed to have stopped about 6 thousand years ago, with the invention of sedentism and agriculture. Evolution now seems to occur in the abstract realm of knowledge. Sadly many have not kept up and still want to repeat the "knowledge" of our primitive ancestors and continue to believe in Creation

[1713485413]

1713485413

[1713485413]

1713485413

[BADecker]

The first step was standing upright. This enabled primitive apes to move out of the forests onto the Savannas where their upright posture enabled them to see further for their own protection and the identification of potential pray.
The use of the opposable thumb is another significant factor which had already been achieved by apes enabling them to grasp things. Standing enhanced this quality as they were now able to run with their hands free to use weapons. Standing tall, in a group also makes you look stronger to predators, and rivals such as baboons. The other advantage is that you expose a smaller percentage of your body (top of head and shoulders only) to the sun, and whilst most animals are seeking shade in the hottest part of the day, humans were able to keep going for longer.
Tool making can be seen in chimps and benobos. But this again was a vital ingredient in evolution.
More brain power is an expensive commodity in evolution, but bipedalism seem to have given early man the best possible reason for this attribute to be useful.
Once growing brain power became useful with upright, tool carrying humans, this aspect of evolution has enabled the ballooning of the brain. This seemed to have stopped about 6 thousand years ago, with the invention of sedentism and agriculture. Evolution now seems to occur in the abstract realm of knowledge. Sadly many have not kept up and still want to repeat the "knowledge" of our primitive ancestors and continue to believe in Creation

Evolution has always been an exciting science fiction story.

[SamPo]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Human vs evolution. Evolution of what? If human vs evolution of technology, human is behimd thia texhnology. If our technology becomes powerful than human. What will happen to us. If there is robots ,upgraded machines. Our society do not need human any more to work with those jobs. Humans will be replaced by machines.

[Jerry_Hype]

Let's avoid the religious debate and assume Evolution is real

The prime drivers of evolution are
1) Random gene mutations
2) Survival of the Fittest/Natural Selection

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

If we settle such phenomena, we can get rid of diseases in the future

[ttbd]

Does it really matter what we believe about where we came from? Absolutely. Our views on morality, justice, purpose, self-worth, humanity, obligation, and destination are all closely tied to our views on human origins. For example, without affirming or denying the veracity of evolution theory, let's take a moment to consider what the theory of evolution teaches about human origins and what impact this teaching has had upon human behavioral patterns. Evolution teaches that as species evolve they eventually reach ideal population levels. As species advance, superior species eliminate inferior species -- "survival of the fittest." Weak and inferior members of a species should be eliminated for the preservation of superior bloodlines and for the conservation of essential resources. "Nature" doesn't desire "the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow." [1] "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." [2] And as humans are merely a species of animal, we have no intrinsic value and are therefore by no means exempt from "the war of nature." Thus, we have Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) asking the rhetorical question, "should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" [3] Hitler, of course, is remembered for murdering more than 6,000,000 individual human beings, all of whom he deemed to be inferior members of the species. Was Hitler wrong? Did he misinterpret and misrepresent the theory he claimed to cherish so much? Apparently not. Renowned British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Fьhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." [5] Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), another ardent evolutionist, surpassed even Hitler in zeal, murdering at least ten times as many "inferiors" (estimates range from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 people). Was Stalin wrong? What about Pol Pot? Well, not if you subscribe to the evolutionary worldview. In fact, to the philosophically consistent, uncompromised evolutionist, Hitler and Stalin ought to be considered role models.

[Sniar]

Surprisingly that thread is filled with wise and adequate answers and discussions (except that religious troll but let's forgive that man).
Have never been expecting to see such a scientific dispute on cryptocurrency forum. Wish to see more interesting answers and assumptions.

[Bitcoininspace]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

partly agree but I think that evolution is an inevitable process

[BADecker]

Just evolve yourself a car. Humans are so complex, that only after you evolve yourself a much simpler thing like a car, might you be able to even start to think about evolving a plant... much less a human.

Of course, Volvo is close to evolve. 

[bacardibacani]

Did you know that Diabetes was a genetic mutation that kept the Western ancestors alive during the ice age? There is no such thing as bad genes. Everything in the genetic pool was a result of adaptive evolution.

[gabmen]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

partly agree but I think that evolution is an inevitable process

Evolution doesn't happen in a single lifetime so it probably is still in process, we're just not noticing it. And there are evidences of evolution still in effect today. Although not in the highly observable environment

[wxxyrqa]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

partly agree but I think that evolution is an inevitable process

Evolution doesn't happen in a single lifetime so it probably is still in process, we're just not noticing it. And there are evidences of evolution still in effect today. Although not in the highly observable environment

but there is a lot of controversy about the theory of evolution from Darwin today. I understand that people did not descend from monkeys, but many animals develop with the influence of external factors, which I, too, can be called evolution.

[rhyajelle]

I'd say evolution may become redundant. The speed the world is changing currently, people might consume all available resources and be unable to survive in the remaining harsh climate. Who knows what then? Maybe only a few are adapted to survive in deep underground tunnels and even become prey?

I agree, humans are taking so much natural resources to overuse it is a waste. because there are still many things to do with it.

[WhaleHunter]

Yes, humans are clearly trying to go against nature on the evolution issue, but in the end nature will prevail. This is not necessarily a good thing for us

[S.Sandberg]

EUGENICS !!! HITLER

The future may surprise you.


i know most people here answering this topic are mostly from the americas, europe, and maybe middle east/africa.

but i would like to give some facts, some you may never have seen before.


1/ there are about 20k genes in human genome.

and changing one of them can lead deadly or ugly diseases.  exemple : Huntington's disease , cystic fibrosis, Marfan syndrome...

 2/ European people the "whites" have between 1 and 2% or Neenderthal genes. Asians mainly chinese and japanese area have between 1 to 4% to Neenderthal genes.

Neenderthal never lived in africa. so basically black african have 0.000% Neenderthal genes.

so basically we can sum up has following.

Native africans have 0 Neenderthal genes.
Native europeans have about 200 to 400 Neenderthal genes.
Native asian have about 200 to 800 Neenderthal genes.


connect this to the fact number 1/ which shows how important the change of a single gene can affect your body abilities on any organs etc.

that will give you an insight of how big interracial difference really are.

3/
Here comes 2 POLITICAL and ETHICAL approach.

WESTERN aproach :
USA, Canda, Europe and Africa and south america.

the ideology teach you that no races exists. Genes doesn't affect IQ, nor other mind and body abilities at all, only environement and education does.

i'm not gonna expand this part since i'm pretty much sure, wether you are a liberal or right-wing reader, you pretty much already know all of this.


EASTERN Approach :
China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea.

the ideology teach you that nothing is really known about genes, therefore the path to solves genetics diseases, adding modifications to human genome, and selecting, races, and lineage is not excluded at all.
progress must be made at all cost.

Exemples :

Basketball star Yao Ming has been the result of selected chinese lineage, basically marrying tall men and women to have a taller child. Since Yao  Ming became very tall and earned some respect in the basketball field, we can conclude the experiment succeded.

an other exemple : BGI Genomics, a company based in Shenzhen , China is studying genomes of thousands of chinese people who had very hgh IQ and schools results.
trying to find the genes responsible for such IQ, and then improve performances of next children if possible.

the priority of BGI Genomics though is to solves every genetical diseases.

the fact of having not enough Neenderthal genes, or having a too low IQ being considered a disease, is up to their choice, not mine.



4/ CONCLUSION

evolution is gonna take two paths simulataneous path in the 21th century :

interracial mixing between white / black africans in europe and usa; leading to a decrease of eliminiation of neenderthal genes in these area.
eugenics of eastern countries that are actually trying not only to slow down mixing, but also to select the best lineage and genes.


5/ note that eugenics in eastern countries are highly-experimental. the average asian citizen raely hear about eugenics in their countries, unless they get interested by genetic field.


6/  May the best win. the future will tell us who was right i guess.

what do you think about this ?

[spongegar]

If humans rely more on our intelligence and solely create technology to actually do the heavy lifting. Then we will evolve into those large headed lanky alien grey types. Where eyes and the head are huge because we will value these aspects and wont use our muscles to lift things rather we will just build automatons to help us out. Thinking about it, we will develop weaker genes since we prolong our health artificially

[Mobshady24]

according to my professor in college is that our species is in a continuous evolution but a lot slower than our predecessor maybe because of the technology since we have a means to fight the nature from getting disease or extreme climate. Try to observe kids today than before, they are a lot smarter and fast learner, my professor even said that in thousand of years there will be a time that human has a wings.

[zoran.drobnjak]

2) in short time-frame, 1) in long time span.
None can be deemed prevailing, they simply complement each other.

[randal9]

there is the evolution of technology...but the degradation of morality...people are less appreciating the quality of character and increasingly appreciate the external factors...

[Bumbr]

The issue I see is that humans actively fight against natural selection/survival of the fittest...

We have hospitals where we treat down's syndrome, cancer, epilepsy, and all forms of mental and physical retardation

Without intervention, these "bad genes" would die and leave the gene pool... but, we keep these people alive, to pass on "bad genes" to the next generation

I know it sounds callous, etc., but it seems like a stupid idea to fill the gene pool with "bad genes", rather than let nature take it's course and kill off the poor bastards who drew the short straw

If a dog breeder had a dog with an obvious deformity, it would not use the dog for breeding purposes... that would be stupid to contaminate the breed's gene pool

Now we solve another problems, we changed environment and it's more friendly. And nobody knows what can happen tomorrow. So, you can't call some genes "bad". Friendly environment helps to create diversity , which is opportunity for new changes and progress! 

[jeremiah_woffy]

There is only onething I Know, i am made by God on his own image and nothing can change that, i beleive in science but science is nothing if God did not made them.