Humans are Now Physically Evolving Faster and Faster than Ever Recorded.

Originally posted by cognoscente
Ok, I'd just like to point out that I've never read anything more arrogant and blatantly misguided before that sentence, regardless if that fossil is ultimately inaccurately depicted or not.

Before what sentence and what fossil are you talking about ? what quote are you talking about?

Changes in the frequency of gene expression in any population is a readily observable phenomenon. What's actually important, however, is the introduction of reproductive barriers or distractions, which prevent genes from being replicated with blueprint accuracy in the creation of similiar organisms.

What is your point

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Ok, I'd just like to point out that I've never read anything more arrogant and blatantly misguided before that sentence, regardless if that fossil is ultimately inaccurately depicted or not.

Changes in the frequency of gene expression in any population is a readily observable phenomenon. We all understand that. Most biologists have done the fruit fly experiments. What's actually important, however, is the introduction of reproductive barriers or distractions, which prevent genes from being replicated with blueprint accuracy in the creation of similiar organisms. We should also take the time to reflect on the fact that the "organism" is only one type of strategy for gene replication, probably the most stable one, but nonetheless others could have evolved.

Regarding the fruit fly experiments. What researchers have not yet done, and I'm not sure if it's technically possible, is actually alter the fruit fly's chromosomes so that they can no longer reproduce. Once that happens, you might observe, provided there are introduced adequate environmental differences between both of the distinct and sterile populations, changes in the physiological makeup of the organisms might become so apparent that they begin to look like different organisms completely. I think we've been approaching this thought experiment in the reverse this entire time.

[edit on 9-3-2009 by cognoscente]

I love it when the so called science community starts telling me how they can prove evolution by having man make genetically altered proofs.

Lemme guess is this the next vista of manufactured evidence we can expect. Don't assume I haven't read all this bunk before but you go ahead I'm sure you can wordsmith some tortureously contrived mechanism to fit the theory

Originally posted by free_spirit_earth
We all have 64 amino acid codes of dna within us, only 20 are active, made from carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen = they can be switched on or off via EMOTION. Science has bridged the gap between physical and ethereal. Our emotions directly affect the structure of our DNA, which directly shapes the physical world we experience everyday.

The rotation and orbit of all the makes up our universe serves as a clock to map changes and transitions this helped the ancients understand that the Change of the heavenly bodies were a mirror to the changes of all existence.

The Sun & earth are losing their magnetic field as earth is slowing in it’s rotation, Earths base resonant freq /shuman cavity resonance is increasing in accordance with the predicable sequence of the fibonaci theory, at a cellular level our bodies respond to a electro magnetic pulse. The ancients called this ‘the sacred circuit’, the cells receive this pulse from the brain, which receives it’s pulse from the heart, which receives it’s pulse from the earth (molten crystal @ 7.8 hz now 9hz in 1996 and moving up), this pulse comes from the solar system, which from there comes from the galaxy which ultimately comes from our entire universe. We literally share a pulse with all of existence yet another example of everything being one...

Dec 21, 2012 – is simply a natural transition from one form of energy to the next, the transcendental evolution of man, From Homo Sapien to Homo Luminous. ‘Man is in process of changing to forms of light that are not of this world’



[edit on 9/3/09 by free_spirit_earth]

Well said free spirit. There is no doubt that we as a race are becoming more complex and the data presented free spirit is dead on. When it comes down to it, its all about frequencies. What channel we are tuned into determines our realties. Everything is becoming more and more complex.

We can argue about evolution vs creationism all we want but it is a WASTE OF TIME. For all we know there is a creative force and some sort of natural evolution working together. Why fight about it when there is no real way to know for certain?

Enjoy the ride!

Originally posted by Aermacchi
That's really funny especially when you consider the FACT that it IS a hoax and unless you can prove it is unequivocally a fact, it is just what was said about it.

The boldness of your accusation, which happens to be unsubstantiated by any modicum of fact, which might contribute to the advancement of knowledge, unlike that that has been provided by the scientific community... what else?

Perhaps you're not familiar with the Philosophy of the Natural Sciences? Read up on the differences between early positivism and mainstream positive and Popperianism. I could go into at length if you would like me to. Most would take the evolutionary realist perspective (coincidentally, not related to biological evolution) when approaching modern scientific issues. Scientific knowledge is expanding at such a rate that it is no longer beneficial to accurately label something as a "fact", whatever that means, because (1) the social benefits of acquiring this new knowledge is much greater than abandoning it and (2) human systems, which include the five senses are no longer adequate in discovering new knowledge, which might aid in the advancement of even further knowledge. David Hume first contended that information was not knowledge at until unless it could be directly observed. Early positivism is outdated. How could you possibly determine the shape of an atom without advanced microscopes and quantum mathematics, aided by computer technology? How could you possibly visualize the structure of a gene, let alone a whole genome, without such "technological extensions" of the human mind? We just have to get used to the fact that we are constantly being outmoded by our technology and that being able to unequivocally prove something as "fact" is no longer absolutely necessary when applying that knowledge to something useful for society, nor do we have to positively understand something for it to be considered knowledge. Sure, that might have helped our ancient ancestors because absolute knowledge was absolutely necessary for the short-term rational decision making that was required of them for survival in a difficult and unforgiving world, but is that any longer the case? You're not going to die if you believe in evolution... I think what you're experiencing is a discrepancy between your primordial necessitation to acquire accurate knowledge on a sensual basis and a world that is growing too fast for you to keep track of.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
What's your point?

My point is that we write off mere changes in the frequencies of gene expression in an organism, such as skin color in humans, as proof that evolution does not occur, which is remarkably short-sighted. Mutation in response to changes in environmental conditions are an active phenomenon. We can see that in numerous physiological adaptations, especially to that of disease, between different human populations. It really is just "sun tanning" over long periods of time, as you say, but that doesn't disprove that species are capable of forming. Besides, it has been only than 100,000 years since anatomically modern humans migrated from Africa, so physiological changes aren't diverse enough to result in allopatric (differential) isolation. Seeing how racism is not very valuable to anyone, sympatric (preferential/distractive) speciation doesn't seem like a very stable strategy either. Skin color differences are not enough to warrant a decrease in utility from mating between these different groups of people. The utility of mating between groups has to be absolutely negative before chromosomal differences start to emerge that physically prevents members of different species from procreating. That just hasn't happened in humans yet and probably never will.

Speciation is still significant. We're looking at it backwards. Believe me, genes would find no reason to halt chromosomal conjugation between different organisms if it didn't see a disadvantage to it. If there are species living far apart and they change to such a degree that genetic recombination would result in a disaster then of course they wouldn't go through with reproduction. It's quite amazing how genes anticipate what could go wrong if such drastically different species could somehow came into contact after several generations of separation, isn't it? There's obviously some form of probabilistic certainty, which prevents reintegration. I'm sure it can be found in the mathematics of evolution itself. And no, I don't think genes actually have thoughts; however, I am being lazy with my writing and attributing abstract sentiments to unconscious entities to support the communication of my example on a conceptual basis.

The gene pool is a phase space. Any organism only represents a defined set of characteristics within the entire domain of that space. Genes can find millions of different ways of expressing themselves in forms capable of reproducing, but most of them represent non-stable strategies, in that the genes are not replicated efficiently in those scenarios. So individual organisms are their best strategy on this planet it seems.

Who knows, there might be a scenario on some planet out in the universe where some form of replicator (they probably wouldn't have genes but something else) benefits from the existence of a single organism. It just seems that once life assumes some form, which requires a lot of physical matter (the bigger they get) the harder it is to find some kind of viable strategy to remain alive (reproduce). So you end up with large populations of individual organisms, instead of just one gigantic one.

Originally posted by bringthelight
We can argue about evolution vs creationism all we want but it is a WASTE OF TIME. For all we know there is a creative force and some sort of natural evolution working together. Why fight about it when there is no real way to know for certain?

Enjoy the ride!

I agree. Life and evolution are just another thing in this universe. I bet there are phenomena, which are much more interesting than conscious life of any form. We simply have not yet discovered them.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
ALSO - I have thought that evolution was the process of genes mutating for the better? Isn't that what the OP is talking about?

Mutations are always harmful. There may be exceptions, but extremely rare if they exist. End of story on mutations being a process of evolution.

Actually, most mutations are neutral. Rare benefitial mutations stack up over time and are a perfectly valid part of evolution.

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
reply to post by syntax132

 

Sometimes I think you zealous naturalists need to comprehend hyperbole. He exaggerated some thing, and put them in a foolish light, to make a point. Most of the explanations to make things work (like punctuated equilibrium) are merely the result of intelligent, misguided people trying to intellectualize their rather inept views of reality and the absurdities that sprout from into something they can swallow, without having to challenge their beliefs or look like fools to the unwashed masses or their peers. So he did the reverse, and exaggerated them to make a point about how silly they often are.

If you're going to try to disprove evolution, it's easy to just point out, in a clear and concise manner, what you think is flawed. Believe me, if you were to find something that completely disproves evolution, you'd be a rich man/woman. I have yet to come across someone who doesn't spout non-existant flaws that a single course on evolution could answer.

reply to post by syntax132


Wow, I really hope John Matrix was being sarcastic... One famous example of a beneficial mutation is: A slight genetic mutation on the FOXP2 gene, is specifically identified with growth of tissue in the brain and lungs, which when working in conjunction, allow for the enhanced vocalization of grammatically comprehensible sounds. It's also critical for song learning in humans. These obviously found some kind of beneficial application for humans. They may or may not have aided the competitive edge of our early hunter-gather populations (Neandertals possessed the exact same allele as modern humans), however, it is rather apparent after examining what a deficiency in this gene does to modern humans that it was surely a disadvantage (see developmental dyspraxia disorder). There are even instances of seemingly neutral genes, which control for development of physiological or mental faculties that seem to have no function at all. In these cases, when the niche presents itself, those species that had at once possessed the seemingly useless gene, now put the manifest affect of that gene to useful action and quickly dominate the given environment, enhancing their reproductive fitness.

I have an analogy, which might explain the benefit of mutations. This involves one of the first instance of city-states, and the construction of walls to protect its inhabitants from potential invaders. In ancient Greece- writing, philosophy and the arts -flourished. Sure, you could argue that somehow its emergence was necessary for the functional operation of such a complex system as a caste-based democracy, however, in fact many of their greatest practitioners were persecuted by their fellow contemporaries. Socrates was sentenced to death by poison for his monotheistic beliefs. So some of these "mutations" were deleterious, while others held some form of socializing qualities, which resulted in equilibrium stable strategies in the maintenance of elements that were selected specifically for the replication and continuity of the state's political and bureaucratic systems. Another example is the emergence of cuniform writing, one of the first record-keeping devices invented. While it evolved in response to a need to record useful information regarding commercial transactions in ancient marketplaces, it had another latent function. When the need for recording more complex modes of communication arose, individuals who had access to cuniform as a basis developed grammatically more precise writing techniques from the existing structural framework. This enhanced the reproductive fitness of certain cuniform replicators, resulting in remnants of cuniform primitives reappearing in more advanced writing forms. Many biological and social functions appear to be latent mutations with little purpose or function, however, when a new environmental niche presents itself, these are often the first to acquire a suitable role in the advancement of their evolutionary position.

I was saying earlier that if such a mutation happened to fixate upon a population, which is culturally and socially exclusive, and whose members don't usually procreate with people outside their normal cliques, such as the richest 5% of the population, who happen to control 95% of the world's capital wealth, then some form of speciation could occur over some generations. Social exclusivity would act as a mechanistic barrier to reproduction and so the recently fixated beneficial mutation would remain isolated in that population. For example, a mutation might occur on a gene, responsible for development of the pre-frontal cortex, and this in turn might help children born into those rich families to be superior business executives. In turn this would allow them to acquire wealth at a greater rate than those lacking the mutation. A rise in income disparity between those who are endowed with such a gene and those who are not would further exacerbate this cycle, enhancing the inclusive-fitness of those rich families, who had access to the gene, and further polarize cultural attitudes between the two groups until the probability of reproducing between them approaches zero. Over time, the endowed group would become increasingly more adept at acquiring resources and influencing their surroundings until perhaps they become the targets of gross envy and are taken out by competition with the masses of less endowed reactionaries. But of course, the other scenario is that the endowed group exceeds the rest of the population, resulting in the eradication of the old, redundant humans, and replacing them with an entirely new, uniform breed. Then again, the chance of such a beneficial mutation emerging in a more socially inclusive population is much higher, so the former scenario could probably be safely relegated to science fiction.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by cognoscente]

Certainly the human race is evolving into two separate species. They are, respectively the rational and the irrational.

This thread is dismal proof of it. Both parties are well represented.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Oceanborn

 

I don't think that recreating dinosaurs would be such a bad idea.

What, do you think it would happen just like in the movie and the dinos would suddenly explode in population and start killing we humans, with all of our advanced weaponry, off before we just made them extinct again?

I think things like this are a good idea. We'll need this knowledge when we start colonizing space.

So,we recreate dinos and if we don't like what happens we kill'em again.I mean,am i the only one who see's the cruelty on this?
We can at least wait till we'll exterminate the rest of animals and then we can bring dinos to continue our sick experiments.

My worries weren't about us getting killed by dinosaurs but our very actions.I don't find it wrong to mess with nature just because it might kill us,it is wrong no matter what would be the outcome.

EDIT to add:My apologies for getting off-topic with this.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by Oceanborn]

reply to post by Oceanborn


Ethics are value self-relevant. At this point, society values moral absolutism, go figure, over scientific progress. There are so many elements in society today that benefit from such an attitude. In the future, however, we can expect advances in genetic technology to reduce the social costs associated with experimentation. Hopefully we don't fall into the trap of forsaking progress in those areas altogether, lest we lose out on the long-term benefits of pursuing them at all. Of course, ethics will shape the way we proceed with this. For example, bans on fetal stem cell research is a way to benefit society positively, and at the same time has acted as a selective pressure on scientists to find new, more intricate ways of accomplishing the same task without harming human life. We can't give up altogether.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Oceanborn


I guess to phrase it in a manner that is consistent with the topic, I would have to ask, to what ends does this evolutionary progress take us?

I mean, what if it becomes necessary for us to create life on other planets, in order to ensure our own survival?
How would we go about that?

But yeah, it is a LITTLE off topic.

Or even better yet, would our creations consider us God?





[edit on 10-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

I don't know about evolving, but we are getting fatter, that's for sure...at least in America...

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I tend to perceive the quality of life as trivial. Of course, most people would brandish me as deluded and uncaring. They defend themselves by saying "Oh, but life is so beautiful that it must have a purpose, and you're discourteous and self-centered!". But think about it. We're the only thing in the known universe, at least of what we're aware of, that is non-constant and self-replicating.

We're essentially a pathogen. But doesn't that technically mean we could fill up every last space within the universe described by Newton and Einstein, that is within the thermodynamic and relativistic boundaries of existence, if there are such things?

Personally, I don't think the universe goes on like this forever. You aren't going to see more and more matter, and more and more stars arranged in such familiar fashion as we see through our telescopes. It doesn't necessarily have to end, but something else could take its place. Perhaps there are other universes that have different fundamental physical forces, and so the planets are set out in a different arrangement-or there could be no planets at all. If that were at all true, then it would be impossible for beings, subject to the fundamental physical forces of which we are so familiar, such as gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak, in all their familiar proportions to which the stars and planets are attributed in their shape-then at last there must come a point where such beings can not transcend the boundaries between these two universes (because the relative difference in physical forces would presumably tear them apart), so thereupon we have a limit of the expanse of life.

Perhaps some form of pure consciousness could travel between the two? Anyway, what's the point of life in the first place? Ethics are value self-relevant, in that they only serve the ends of the systems, which benefit from them. If happiness is a worthwhile goal, one which inherently maximizes the utility of actions upon our genes or cultures, then ethics will be promoted in such a way to foster the healthy, progressive development of natural systems. Of course, taking an observer's position makes all my points irrelevant, and any intrusion on my part would be unintelligible, so don't listen to me. It doesn't matter what I think in this instance.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by cognoscente]

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by syntax132

 

I was saying earlier that if such a mutation happened to fixate upon a population, which is culturally and socially exclusive, and whose members don't usually procreate with people outside their normal cliques, such as the richest 5% of the population, who happen to control 95% of the world's capital wealth, then some form of speciation could occur over some generations. Social exclusivity would act as a mechanistic barrier to reproduction and so the recently fixated beneficial mutation would remain isolated in that population. For example, a mutation might occur on a gene, responsible for development of the pre-frontal cortex, and this in turn might help children born into those rich families to be superior business executives. In turn this would allow them to acquire wealth at a greater rate than those lacking the mutation. A rise in income disparity between those who are endowed with such a gene and those who are not would further exacerbate this cycle, enhancing the inclusive-fitness of those rich families, who had access to the gene, and further polarize cultural attitudes between the two groups until the probability of reproducing between them approaches zero. Over time, the endowed group would become increasingly more adept at acquiring resources and influencing their surroundings until perhaps they become the targets of gross envy and are taken out by competition with the masses of less endowed reactionaries. But of course, the other scenario is that the endowed group exceeds the rest of the population, resulting in the eradication of the old, redundant humans, and replacing them with an entirely new, uniform breed. Then again, the chance of such a beneficial mutation emerging in a more socially inclusive population is much higher, so the former scenario could probably be safely relegated to science fiction.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by cognoscente]

As long as a group of people with a mutation is not GEOGRAPHICALLY isolated, there is always "genetic transfer" into other peoples.

So, to use your example of the "top 5%" interbreeding only with each other....No, they only have MORE children with each other. The fact remains that many of these people (and all other people) have sex with others. Mistresses. A woman with a lover, or decides to have a lover's baby because her regular partner is sterile. Prostitutes. One night stands. People who like to have sex with someone "lesser" or "dirty" because it turns their crank.

Unless you have literal geographic isolation, any singular class in society will not completely diverge because they will alway have genetic transfer with other groups.

[edit on 2009/3/11 by Aeons]

To further that -

Ideas, and genes sometimes show up in geograhpically isolated areas at around the same time.

Darwinism would have come about even if it had another name because at the same time several other people were about to discover and publish the same thing. Calculus, same scenario.

In mtDNA and Y-DNA, some of the same mutations have occured in the same haplogroups but in populations that had diverged thousands of years previous. The same mutation occuring in about the same time in completely geographically isolated popuations.

There appears to be a mechanism of readiness at work. That humanity, or groups of people become primed for certain ideas or mutations at around the same basic time. That when these mutations or ideas occur before this point of readiness, they don't take.

So, while a population might hothouse themselves to create people who are more likely to succeed, be rich (or paranoid), it in no way means that those exact same qualities occur ONLY in that group. It is quite likely that those meme/gene/ideas are actually popping up in other populations at around the same time without the constraints.

(Like that Saint who was killed for talking about little demons that people can spread to each other and make each other sick, and was promoting hygiene. An idea out of time with the population around it, and standing alone without anything to support it even if it was true. And idea out of sync with the readiness around it to support or accept it.)

[edit on 2009/3/11 by Aeons]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


If we could create life that,like us,would wonder about things like God etc then,yeah,i do believe that they'd think of us as God.

Well,even if it was necessary for us i'd still find it wrong.
I could elaborate about that but i think i'm getting tiring with my sensitivity on this matter. (not that i believe that i'm wrong being sensitive about it offcourse)
Plus,this is still off topic and i swear i can hear the OP sharpening his axe.

I dont think our creations would consider us God unless we actually put the life into them. We can manipulate DNA and maybe even grow a test tube baby, but we dont provide them with their life force or soul or conscious or whatever you want to call it.

I wouldnt consider the Annunaki God if they really did create us.

No one really knows for sure why these particular mutations are showing up or where they are headed or what they even do. They are just seemingly happening and being past on at random.

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Wisen Heimer]

Originally posted by syntax132

Actually, most mutations are neutral. Rare benefitial mutations stack up over time and are a perfectly valid part of evolution.

If most mutations are either neutral or beneficial, we should all get ourselves an x-ray machine and sit under it or go enlist in the military hoping to get to breathe in some DU? Heck, why not just unleash some nukes and get us all going in our giant punctuated equilibrium leap into the New Age so we can all become X-men? What's the hold-up?

At the least, they can be shooting some animal and plant genes into our DNA they way Montsanto does with their Frankenfoods we all appreciate so much. Why wait for chance when we can do it in the lab? (or as the Nazi scientists are already doing in their breeding experiments underground, producing their chimeras.)

If it worked for Spiderman, it would work for us too, hey? Wouldn't we all love to be able to crawl up the sides of buildings and spin out webs to fly through the air and catch crooks?