Evolution stops here: Future Man will look the same, says scientist

Yeah in truth it could put a whole new spin on "eye and hair color". Assuming the future is not some uniform utopia, it could come down to the rich having the money to choose recessive or even extinct traits for their offspring, and the poor being noticeably "the same" because they breed the natural way.

reply to post by Sonya610

---

Yeah who knows, I think we can guess what the future is like, but it's probably still very unpredictable. There is a unlimited amount of possibilities. I hope to see a lot of technology changes in my lifetime, I actually think it would be very exiting, especially entertainment wise, I mean life should be more about fun!

[edit on 7-10-2008 by _Phoenix_]

The truth is that evolution of any species, but especially modern day humans, acts just like any complex dynamical system. There are so many variables involved that tracing an accurate path of progression is impossible, no matter how clever you are, its just like forecasting the weather.

Variables of mate preference in humans can include; pheromone compatibility, sexual organ size, skin colour, intelligence, facial composition, hair colour, body shape, muscle composition, lifestyle, salary, choice in material taste, location of habitation, personality, confidence, empathy, apathy, sound of voice, ad infinitum...

Any one claiming to have any unprovable theory about the direction we're going are likely just looking for a good news story to generate a large research grant.

reply to post by Man_Versus_AntiMan

---

I agree, however, I have a viable theory and I'm not looking for a grant. (Take it lightly if you will).

That in the future Humans will be more connected with the objective reality and not the subjective reality. In fact I can see how and why this will happen. I've already proven it, but I'll be quiet about that for a while until the time calls for it.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

---

Well i hope so But isnt that more of a cultural change or do our brains need to develop to do it? I suspect we could get there now, just not enough people want to.

Future Man is a cyborg. This is the direction we are heading. What we look like and how we function will be 'customizable'

We already have replacement limbs, and the ones on the drawing board are remarkable. One of the better out is called iLimb and it's really amazing. I imagine as technology progresses, these things will get lighter, and we can hook sensors from them up to the brain to get real feeling back.

It will be interesting when they invent an arm "better than" our current biological model..

That is truly the dumbest @%^@%!! I have read in a long time. Exactly what online "school" did Professor Steve Jones earn his degrees? Is he a jailed prisoner without access to any reference materials.? Fact, as we speak humans are currently evolving solutions to relatively modern diseases. A small population in African are "evolving an immunity to Aids. Some of us have even evolved a new blood type "The Duffy blood type", a direct response to Malaria. As far as I am aware a huge percentage of us are still passing the lactase gene to our offspring (meaning we are still evolving). Lactase is an adaptation allowing adults to digest milk. This trait was previously reserved for juveniles before we developed a taste for butter and cheese...Has this idiot even heard of the "smart gene". Yes folks you can even be tested to see if you are one of the lucky ones.

The fact is we will never stop evolving as it is part of our design. We may hit an evolution lull as we could be perfectly attuned to our current cesspool. However, long after that dolt Professor Steve Jones has died and a meteor hits the cesspool Im pretty sure we gonna start changing.

Lets entertain this "ding dong". We are no longer evolving. Currently we can inject a jelly fish gene into a genome of fish or mammals causing said creatures to glow. Though we currently sterilize these animals for "ethical" reasons, these animals do pass the gene to their offspring. Though, sparked by an outside or artificial influence the offspring are naturally passing the gene and "evolving". What do we humans do folks? We covet, desire and dwell on our inadequacies. Our very own distant offspring will be injecting larger breast, chiseled bone structure, huge penile and anti balding genes into their new bouncing baby petri dishes. Heck, a thousand years from now a ding dong on the forehead and wings on our arse may be "en vogue". The article's statement that we will relatively be unchanged in future is a pretty ignorant statement. Lets throw him back or give him to the few Christians that still believe the world is 6000,00 years old....

I feel better now, thanx for the post

~Hyp

True, but if not enough want to then we will not survive. There can't be evolution without survival, right? And when it actually comes down to it and we're living real life hell, and it's at almost every single one of our doorsteps then I'm sure we'll all want to survive. So the stress for survival causes us to evolve, soon we'll evolve even out of that stress and experience a stressless evolution and existence, a peaceful harmony, that is if we choose to not have hell at our doorsteps and heaven saved for the afterlife.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

The author is talking about selective breeding and survival of the fittest. He makes some darn good points actually. Modern breeding practices and modern medicine are having a huge effect on natural selection. Sure we will continue to evolve but not like we used too.

I have always thought we had finished our 'physical' evolution, it is my belief that we have mastered our environment, through the evolution of our body, we can utilize our environment to suit our needs, from farming, to making shelter, to climbing. Our bi-pedal form is the most efficient at trapping heat, to allow us to live in cold environments, we sweat, to allow us to live in hot environment, this has allowed us to thrive on our world.

I personally feel that evolution is not finished, but will continue within our mind/consciousness, the computer is built, but the software needs to be upgraded, IMO.

EMM

Edit to add:

That is a good point, currently, we are stable, but if our environment shifts, we will have to seek that stability again.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

"But according to a leading geneticist, both visions are wrong because human evolution has ground to a halt" --------> Nope,please see my prev post.

"Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, says the forces driving evolution - such as natural selection and genetic mutation - no longer play an important role in our lives."

------>Nope, as per my previous post, a male in a malaria infested population chooses to breed with a female that appears healthy (caring the new blood type gene) thus passing on the trait....... This is Natural selection as are my other examples.

"Natural selection has lost nine-tenths of its power among the Indian middle classes, compared to their tribal ancestors. The same is true when we compare modern Britain with our predecessors in Darwin's day."

---> The world is not populated by Indians who abide by arranged marriages. Given the progression of globalization these poor young women and men will soon be liberated into "natural selection". The good looking Americans with in vogue traits still currently have a higher chance of breeding as do the maidens with the biggest lip chip in various tribes around the globe. Its important here to not think in traditional families. In the Americas the "beautiful" sexually active have more one night stands resulting in offspring. The family unit does not really count here.


"The people living one million years from now, should Man survive, will resemble modern-day humans"

--->As per my prev post, nope. Also, please refer to your own post in which you cited "fashion"


I'm sorry the guy is just an idiot and even contradicts himself in the very same article. I'm not trying to scrap and I enjoy many of your posts. However, I will continue to strike my "Mr. Peanut" pose on my soap box regarding this one


Thanx for the response

~Hyp

What? I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however with the advent of BIRTH CONTROL the rate of offspring depends more on iq/education/socio-economic background than it does on the number of partners one has.

In fact the best, brightest, and most beautiful have far fewer offspring than their less advantaged counterparts.

The future will involve cloning and preselecting traits within children. Providing we can step out of slave monetary system of our evil handlers, this would mean that all children will be geniuses. Red and blond hair, will be preserved. Our livespans will increase enormously, and we will eventually join the cosmos. We will probably be selecting telepathic genes as well.

reply to post by Sonya610

---

Which is why I think there will be a divergence between an upper and lower class of human being.

While the lower class propagate incessantly, they do not inbue their young with knowledge. In modern times, knowledge is power. Brain is the new brawn.
We may have evolved to our physically supreme state (or rather physical evolution may have been halted by modern medicine), but mental evolution continues.

reply to HypnoAsp

Your examples are very limited. In your haste to discredit Prof Jones, you didnt even mention that the adaptation against malaria is not an entirely desired genotype... it is a disease. Literally.

Sickle cell anaemia offers protection against malaria, at the cost of impeding the person's physical capabilities by 15% or more. Additionally, if there is a recombination of two sickle cell positive people, their child's blood will be 50% oxygen deficient.

Additionally there aren't any people immune to AIDS in Africa. The only people on earth immune to AIDS are 10% of Scandinavians and Iranians, who have residual immunity from a resistant CD4 adaptation which was originally to combat the Plague. AIDS uses the CD4 pathway and so cannot harm these individuals.

You also state that it is the (to put it mildly) more promiscous who affect the future of evolution by increasing the frequency of their genome in the gene pool. Yes, this is true, but quantity does not equate to quality. A promiscous woman is hardly likely to be intelligent, and neither are her offspring.

The forward vanguard of evolution will not be those that developing passing resistance to malaria or other nominal physical threats. The most evolved will be those who are the offspring of intelligent, successful people, who in turn marry people of the same disposition.

LOL...believe me there are plenty of promiscuous intelligent women in the world, it is just not obvious because while smart women may have quite a few sex partners they do NOT pop out offspring left and right as a result of their casual encounters.

[edit on 7-10-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610

---

Rather regrettably I have yet to meet one! Maybe I just havent been looking hard enough

btw I meant that a promiscous woman is unlikely to be intelligent. An intelligent woman may or may not be promiscous!

[edit on 7-10-2008 by 44soulslayer]

reply to post by HypnoAsp

---

You have some good points, and I agree, 'Steve' may have jumped the gun slightly. People here are using the 'designer' babies argument, and thats fair, but surely, this is not evolution?!!? evolution is to allow us to adapt to our environment, this, IMO, is genetic manipulation and not evolution.

Your argument about Malaria and AIDS, is, IMO, fascinating and I did not know that people have been developing immunties to it, especially AIDS, but IMO, this is merely a 'fine tune', evolution won't completely stop We will always 'evolve' to protect ourselves, from disease and virus etc, but in our current form, we are 'perfect' (to a degree) for our environment, our current form is 'evolved', IMO, shame about our minds,

EMM

Edit to add:

Just thought of that, a good point IMO.





[edit on 7-10-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Ya, you got me. Alone and out of context that statement could very well be false. In looking at my post I don't even think I wrote it in correct context. I'm tired resulting in typos and this.

I did not intend to convey that prettier people have more children then plainer ones. I simply meant to contradict his idea that natural selection is dead by using the teen/young adult obsession with what is pushed as beautiful in the mainstream media as blatant natural selection. (Paris Hilton, Lindsay, Brittany, Vogue, Elle, Abercrombie).

Middle school through my college years I was , well one hot dude (not so much now in my 30's, sigh). We all know how that goes, sex was earlier more frequent and only with individuals that were high on the hot scale to(natural selection), a very ignorant perception of the world. A few of my better looking superficial buddies have no idea how many children they may have sired while buddies of mine that were plainer in the day have all of their ducks in a row and accounted for.

Anyway the later part had nothing to do with the post. The subject matter of this thread had me recalling the glory of my past( on some strange tangent) and somehow ended up in my post as the blunder you called me out on.

Thanx for playing

~Hyp (Forgot qoute, thus edited)

[edit on 7-10-2008 by HypnoAsp]