Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Getting Evolution Up To Speed


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:45 PM

Posted 12 April 2006 - 06:03 PM

http://jwbats.blogspot.com/2006/04/getting...p-to-speed.html

What do you think?

Should we speed up our evolutionary process?

If so, how do we really know what nature intends for us, or even (insert religion's god name here) has in store for us.




"Biological evolution is too slow for the human species," said Ray Kurzweil, futurist and author of The Singularity Is Near. "Over the next few decades, it's going to be left in the dust."

This comment is complete and utterly stupid. We have only been studying the biology evolution of ourself for less than 150 years.
(more info here: http://www.microscope-microscope.org/basic...pe-history.htm)

Little was done to improve the microscope until the middle of the 19th century when great strides were made and quality instruments like today’s microscope emerged. Companies in Germany like Zeiss and an American company founded by Charles Spencer began producing fine optical instruments.


Less than 150 years is less than enough time to even tell if we have evolved since then.


It is a fact that we do evolve (not from monkeys) but from one form of ourself to another. Look at ourself over time, our intelligence has greatly evolved! Our mechnical, skills has evolved! Our reason to logic and problem solving has evolved! Our immune systems have evolved!

So please don't start this off by saying "oh we never evovled!" (monkeys/apes theory aside)


Look at our long we have come from learning how to make fire, to building computers, and solving complex theoretical math problem with computers, being able to construct buildings higher than 1000 feet.



New evidence suggests humans are evolving more rapidly -- and more recently -- than most people thought possible. But for some radical evolutionists, Homo sapiens isn't morphing quickly enough.


Ever since the 40s I don't really think our immune systems have been evolving. We have become too dependant on drugs. I wouldn't be surprised if someday we might become unimmune to the simplest bacteria on Earth, and we'll be forced to give babies a shot immediately at birth!
And I don't think humans are getting much smarter since 1998/2000 to present. We have become to dependant on the computer. Most pre-teens don't have an immagination! We just google our immagination. Where are we headed?

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:06:45 PM

Posted 13 April 2006 - 10:08 AM

I think one has to be careful to make a distinction between evolution in the biological sense, and "evolution" in for example, an intellectual sense (what used to be called "social evolution" before we knew better). In addition, one must consider the extent to which man "interferes" with natural evolution, and thus changes not the theory but the practical outcome.

From an historical perspective, the increase in technology, science, medicine and the apparatus of production, certainly has been very impressive (or perhaps rapid) since, for example, the industrial revolution. But this kind of progress should not be confused with "evolution" as such, and human progress is only tangenital to the evolutionary process.

Evolution is not change, and mixing the scientific theory with a dubious historical construction can only lead to confusion.

Regards,
John

Edited by jgweed, 13 April 2006 - 10:48 AM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#3 Jan-Willem

Jan-Willem

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:45 AM

Posted 13 April 2006 - 01:35 PM

It's not a stupid remark.

150 years is more than enough to figure out quite a bit about any logical system.

Fact is, when things move from chaos to order, the process speeds up exponentially because of the positive feedback loop.

Evolution is one of those systems where one generation of tools is used to build the next generation of better tools. In other words: evolutions speeds itself up.

We will upgrade and rebuild our bodies in the biotech era (2010-2020) and nanotech era (2020-2030) respectively, thereby indeed leaving the preceding rate of our evolution in the dust.

It is explained in more detail in The Law Of Accelerating Returns.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

#4 BanditFlyer

BanditFlyer

  • Members
  • 283 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:03:45 PM

Posted 15 April 2006 - 01:09 AM

Without more 'evolutionary bottlenecks', why would evolution speed up? Human manipulation of the capabilities of the body wouldn't be evolutionary unless it was passed on to the next generation by wasy of the genes.

#5 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!

  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:06:45 PM

Posted 18 April 2006 - 08:52 PM

I think one has to be careful to make a distinction between evolution in the biological sense, and "evolution" in for example, an intellectual sense (what used to be called "social evolution" before we knew better). In addition, one must consider the extent to which man "interferes" with natural evolution, and thus changes not the theory but the practical outcome.


Ok. But what about the physical changes in humans? Would this be considered evolution or just "change." Because the average height, age, and weight have increased over the last 100 years.

#6 Heretic Monkey

Heretic Monkey

  • Members
  • 1,122 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NCSU
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 18 April 2006 - 09:26 PM

Well, the average age and weight have pretty much NOTHING to do with natural processes, so i really don't think that can be considered "natural selection". Medicine and the easy availibility of food has aided those 2 traits.

I really don't think humans are on a natural path of evolution anymore, since there are so many things that we've done with medicine and technology, we've actually become a much weaker species. If you take away civilization, humans are pretty much at the mercy of the other creatures in nature. We are physically inferior to most other organisms on earth. The only thing that seperates us is our knowledge of the world around us.

However, the argument can be made that, since we were able to figure out how to make life better on our own, one can argue that it is still natural evolution for humans to continue to grow and change. We made our lives better, so we should deserve to be able to let OURSELVES change us, instead of nature..... if that makes any sense...

#7 Jan-Willem

Jan-Willem

  • Members
  • 4 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:01:45 AM

Posted 20 April 2006 - 04:13 AM

Yano,

You've got the wrong idea.

What the article is referring to is that we're about to hit a golden era of biotechnology, where we'll modify our genes to enhance the functionality of our bodies.

For millions of years, mother nature has dealt with our evolution. Now, mankind is taking over the torch.

Evolution has always been about producing the next generation of tools, which are then used to produce yet another generation of tools that are superior with regards to the former generation.

A serious assessment of this planet's history shows that things-in-general have been speeding up exponentially from the very beginning.

When Kurzweil says that evolution is going to be left in the dust, he means to say that our own man-guided evolution will go much quicker than nature-guided evolution.

And he is right about that. Man-guided evolution through genetic modification is so quick, that individuals will even see the effects of it. No so for nature-guided evolution.


If you are interested in reading up, I suggest beginning with:

http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

#8 need TOS

need TOS

  • Members
  • 888 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Akron,OH
  • Local time:07:45 PM

Posted 26 April 2006 - 04:52 PM

There is MACRO and MICRO evolution which one are you talking about? I personaly am a christian and dont belive in MACRO but MICRO is happening at this moment to millions of creatures and humans.
Forgiveness is forgetting about a past that could have been




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users