Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Catalysts for Human Evolution

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Teikeon
 

Evolution is ever happening. Natural selection forces are dying down incredibly. 100 years ago genes that would ensure certain death or reduced lifespans are a non-factor for a lot of humans. These people are procreating. With such a huge number of people alive and mutations happening at a much larger scale there is probably a higher probability of faster evolution. I think this catalyst has already happened in the form of modern medicine and genetic manipulation.




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
One of the biggest catalysts to lead to intelligence in humans and language is the development of the jaw bone. I believe it moved slightly over time and opened up additional cranial capacity which led to higher critical thinking skills.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





One of the biggest catalysts to lead to intelligence in humans and language is the development of the jaw bone. I believe it moved slightly over time and opened up additional cranial capacity which led to higher critical thinking skills.
Your comment is just added proof that people that believe in evolution have wild imaginations, and there is no proof of your comment having any truth behind it.

It just goes to prove that evolution is all about imagination.



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
One of the biggest catalysts to lead to intelligence in humans and language is the development of the jaw bone. I believe it moved slightly over time and opened up additional cranial capacity which led to higher critical thinking skills.


Neanderthals had a larger brain case than we did.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teikeon

Originally posted by Barcs
One of the biggest catalysts to lead to intelligence in humans and language is the development of the jaw bone. I believe it moved slightly over time and opened up additional cranial capacity which led to higher critical thinking skills.


Neanderthals had a larger brain case than we did.


Yes, and they were also homo sapiens, just a sub species. They also had the same brain to body ratio as humans, despite the larger cranial capacity.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Previous stuff:

*Mastery of fire (made new places habitable)
*Abstract language (communication of ideas)
*Agriculture (enabled larger communities and increased 'thinking time')
*Written language (ideas didn't get forgotten as easily)
*Printing (wider spread of knowledge)
*Transistors (computers)
*Internet (final leg in the efficient spread of knowledge)

IMO, spread of ideas has been by far the strongest catalyst of our cultural evolution. As to how the world will be 100 years from now.. probably more different than it was 100 years ago. Over half the scientists that ever lived are alive right now. It might be that the world will become much more polarized with some regions (Christian fundamentalist America and Kalifat of Europe) sinking to dark ages of strong religiosity and all the s*it that follows and other regions (Asia) embracing new technologies and ways of thinking. Fear the day that religious nutjobs gain control of huge nuclear weapon arsenals..
edit on 22-3-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teikeon

Originally posted by Barcs
One of the biggest catalysts to lead to intelligence in humans and language is the development of the jaw bone. I believe it moved slightly over time and opened up additional cranial capacity which led to higher critical thinking skills.


Neanderthals had a larger brain case than we did.


Intelligence is estimated based on the proportion of the brain to the body. Elephants have brains much larger than ours, but their brains are at a smaller proportion to their body. Similarly, with Neanderthals, their brains were very slightly smaller in proportion, but not overall size.

Still, the Neanderthals were quite recent in terms of human evolution. 28,000 years ago was the last known time period that they were still alive in a solid genetic group. Now, it is known that there is no mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA in humans, but there is 2-4% Neanderthal DNA in European descendants. Theories are that the cold-adapted Neanderthal women could not bear Homo Sapien children, but the cold-adapted males could procreate with Homo Sapien women successfully.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Well I've brought this up elsewhere on these forums and nobody seems to find it interesting, but I continue to feel it is.

If we're looking at only 100 years, then phyletic gradualism (slow constant evolutionary change) would mean not much change at all in such a short period.


Slow, constant gradual change was Darwin's theory, and yet the fossil records don't support it- they show us phases of stasis and punctuated equlibriuum. -Periods of relative little to no change, with phases of quick and drastic change.

Big changes in the environment is what is usually the catalyst.


-Though I should make it clear I am not talking about evolution of a society, but of the biological organism.
It seems that it has become common for people to assume that we are now no longer subject to natural selection and evolutionary biological change influenced by the environment, because our technology has separated us from that influence.



Our ozone is depleteing, at an amazing rate. Everyone seems to be more interested in arguing about whether it is man made or a natural cyclical process, but I am going to leave that aside for the moment as not relevant to my subject.

The fact is, as that ozone layer fades, more radiation comes in, not from any distant star, but from our own- our own sun. This causes mutations in DNA. The more radiation, the more mutations.

So change is literally speeding up for our bodies right now. It may be chaotic. But add to that some other changes in environment due to the increased radiation on the planet (does it actually effect seismic and volcanic activity? With the ice on the caps melting, oceans rising, what other types of environment changes are in store for us?).
Some mutations will turn out to be better adapted than others, nature will sort them out.

We have everything needed going on right now for another evolutionary leap in our biology. Catalyst- UV radiation.

Even cladogenesis, the process by which a species splits into two distinct species is a possibility on the menu.


So while some are laughing at the New Age channelers going on about DNA changes bringing about a new type of humanoid, because they're talking about 12 strand DNA, or strange energies from other universes and such, they are pointing in te direction of something that is really possibly happening right now, and is totally within the limits of our current scientific knowledge.

Based upon what happens to our environment between now and then, we could possibly have a new species of human living alongside the old one, the way Cro-magnon and Neanderthal did for a while.
[
edit on 27-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Part of the reason why evolution takes a long time, is indeed because major environmental changes cause mass extinctions. The major changes, don't just suddenly change the DNA, when the it changes, however. The DNA is in constant change and these changes can be measured from one generation to the next by mapping genomes today. The major change in environment might be the catalyst that forces the change to an entire species or population, but the small changes have already been adding up over time, leading up to the change that forces many species to go extinct. Some survive because of the mutations they have endured and shared with the population over the years benefits them. Slow constant change is the main theme of the fossil record, even if you look at human evolution. It takes millions of years.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Apparently I didn't express myself clearly, or you didn't read carefully- I didn't claim that environmental changes cause DNA mutations.

I claimed that they would be (are/have been) the determining factor in which mutations survive and reproduce and which ones die out.

I also am refering to punctuated equilibriuum, which contrasts with phyletic gradualism. Notice there is a link there, and a quick search can give you more. This is mostly attributed to paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould. It describes periods of stasis and cladogenesis.

The periods of cladogenesis still are rather long- it is not to be confused with theories like Saltationism which propose a jump happening within one generation. But it puts emphasis on periods of no change because the varied mutations are simply diluted within the large population.

This is different than Darwins very constant progressive view of evolution.

To try to sum it up, I propose that, we are in a time both of increased variation in mutation because of radiation (add to that, by the way, the radiation of Fukushima...), so if we next experience big environmental change (as is expected) we will find a possible cladogenesis happening, as competition for survival happens.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


That may be all true, but I'm talking about the events that force the change themselves. They do not actually force the change, they merely weed out the ones that can't survive it. The ones that survive attained their attributes slowly over time. Sudden change does not add up to me, because you would need an explanation for this sudden change. I see what you are saying with radiation, but if it's true I'd think we'd see much greater variety in species and accelerated evolution today, as opposed to millions of years ago. We'd see creatures evolving in front of our eyes, but we don't.

In your opinion, how long has this period of high radiation been going on? What caused it? Genetic mutations do have many causes, including radiation. Homo sapiens took 300,000 years or so to get from where they were to where they are now. You can look at older fossils of humans and even looking back just 30,000 years you see slight change. Going back 300,000 you see more. Go back a million and it is more apparent, although they are still very similar. The one thing that really goes against your idea of accelerated evolution due to radiation is the dark skinned Eskimos. How do you explain that? They have been living there almost 10,000 years, but their evolution has been negligible. They still have dark skin, from when they lived in the hot african climate. If we were in an accelerated period of evolution, we'd except them to change faster, but as the evidence shows, that type of change takes at least 100,000 years, probably longer. All of the lighter skinned races of humans developed over hundreds of thousands of years living in Europe and Asia, which are cooler environments where melanin isn't as crucial to your survival.

I see slow change over time, not sudden spurts of big changes. It doesn't seem possible to integrate a sudden big change into a population, so they can survive an event as a species. It's never about one individual's mutations, it's about the traits spreading to the entire population, which takes generations upon generations. Sudden change doesn't seem to add up due to this factor. The radiation theory seems to only consider individual mutations instead of an entire population changing, which is impossible to happen over night. You need thousands of generations before a change would become dominant in the gene pool.
edit on 28-3-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
I see what you are saying with radiation, but if it's true I'd think we'd see much greater variety in species and accelerated evolution today, as opposed to millions of years ago. We'd see creatures evolving in front of our eyes, but we don't.


I do not follow your logic. There must be something we are not understanding each other on here.




In your opinion, how long has this period of high radiation been going on?



It was first noticed in the late 1970's and has been in steady decline of 4% per decade.




What caused it?

This is the controversial question, which is not completely settled yet- but I fail to see the relevance here, on this topic..?




The one thing that really goes against your idea of accelerated evolution due to radiation is the dark skinned Eskimos. How do you explain that? They have been living there almost 10,000 years, but their evolution has been negligible.


No, that is called stasis. It is one of the distinguishing points of the theory.

Your eskimos having dark skin has already been explained as being adaptive to their particular environment and diet- which is rich in vitamin D from fatty fish.

However, in the case of our entering a period of accelerated evolution such as I describe, then during the next few generations, we might start to see the signs of evolution (if the environment causes the bottlenecking as expected).




The radiation theory seems to only consider individual mutations instead of an entire population changing, which is impossible to happen over night. You need thousands of generations before a change would become dominant in the gene pool.]


Radiation causes mutation in individuals, yes, but we're talking the first ingredient- variation. It causes lots of mutations, in lots of individuals. Like the sea life we are picking out the Pacific now, with all kinds of mutations.
That is not the evolutionary change we are talking about- that is the precursor. That is chaotic rapid mutation.

Next step is radical changes in environment, which will sort out the mutations and put them in competition with each other. It may take as much 100,000 years, or, according to this theory, it could take less.

Look to the research put forward on this as it compares to the fossil record- the evidence supports it rather well.

(it just hit me- maybe our misunderstanding is that you think I am saying all of these periods of rapid change in the past, and in the fossil record, were caused by radiation?? That is not what I am saying.)
edit on 28-3-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


And 300,000 years from now, when evolutionists have suddenly realized that there still are no evolutionary changes with humans that can be identified, they will simply change the goal post to 500,000 years.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   


In your opinion, how long has this period of high radiation been going on?



It was first noticed in the late 1970's and has been in steady decline of 4% per decade.


I made a mistake here and my answer was confusing- the deterioration of the Ozone layer is what was first noticed in the 70's, and has been in steady decline ever since (meaning increased radiation).



posted on Apr, 1 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by Barcs
 


And 300,000 years from now, when evolutionists have suddenly realized that there still are no evolutionary changes with humans that can be identified, they will simply change the goal post to 500,000 years.


But we CAN measure, study and observe the changes in homo sapiens and their ancestors from 300,000 years ago to today. You don't need to move a goalpost when speciation takes place in a lab and you can look at a human fossil from 40,000 years ago and still notice a slight difference. The further back you go, the bigger the change appears. This is textbook evolution.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





But we CAN measure, study and observe the changes in homo sapiens and their ancestors from 300,000 years ago to today. You don't need to move a goalpost when speciation takes place in a lab and you can look at a human fossil from 40,000 years ago and still notice a slight difference. The further back you go, the bigger the change appears. This is textbook evolution.
So then let me ask the same old question that I have asked over a dozen times.

If people that are smoking introduces lead into ones system, and scientists have found that lead is the reason why people have ADHD. This ADHD change is found in most of the victims DNA as a change. So what you are saying is taht people that smoke cause evolution.



It's just a matter of time before we identify all changes and where they come from which will wipe out the existence of evolution.



posted on Apr, 8 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





But we CAN measure, study and observe the changes in homo sapiens and their ancestors from 300,000 years ago to today. You don't need to move a goalpost when speciation takes place in a lab and you can look at a human fossil from 40,000 years ago and still notice a slight difference. The further back you go, the bigger the change appears. This is textbook evolution.
One thing I failed to mention is that there is no proof that all of these found changes are all part of this larger organized process called evolution, it's only in the authors mind. Maybe if you smoke a cigerrette, you will evolve LOL.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by itsthetooth
So then let me ask the same old question that I have asked over a dozen times.

If people that are smoking introduces lead into ones system, and scientists have found that lead is the reason why people have ADHD. This ADHD change is found in most of the victims DNA as a change. So what you are saying is taht people that smoke cause evolution.



It's just a matter of time before we identify all changes and where they come from which will wipe out the existence of evolution.


Evolution is about passing your genes to offspring, so your example could be completely irrelevant if the person smokes later in life. IF somebody smokes, and IF it causes a change in their DNA, AND then IF that change is passed down to their children, you could argue that it causes PART of evolution, yes. Just like solar radiation and other factors. The problem is that evolution is about advantageous mutations that spread to the entire population and help them survive major environmental changes, so a few people with ADHD won't effect it much in the long run, unless it gives them some kind of advantage. I don't see any advantage gained by ADHD that could propel humans to survive a cataclysm, but who knows. You can't keep ignoring natural selection when talking about evolution.

Now that I have thoroughly answered your question, I expect a response that has nothing to do with my answer, which is the usual case with you.
edit on 9-4-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
www.sciencedaily.com...

Timing of your thread matched a release.



posted on Apr, 11 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 





Evolution is about passing your genes to offspring, so your example could be completely irrelevant if the person smokes later in life. IF somebody smokes, and IF it causes a change in their DNA, AND then IF that change is passed down to their children, you could argue that it causes PART of evolution, yes. Just like solar radiation and other factors. The problem is that evolution is about advantageous mutations that spread to the entire population and help them survive major environmental changes, so a few people with ADHD won't effect it much in the long run, unless it gives them some kind of advantage. I don't see any advantage gained by ADHD that could propel humans to survive a cataclysm, but who knows. You can't keep ignoring natural selection when talking about evolution.

Now that I have thoroughly answered your question, I expect a response that has nothing to do with my answer, which is the usual case with you
So now your admitting that people can alter evolution through smoking, obviously if the situation is right. Well it must be a pretty important evolutionary move because a good percentage of people have ADHD. Nine percent in children and teens which doesn't include adults and probably doesn't also include those that ADD, which was recently added to being the same as ADHD.

People making changes to their genes, or the genes of their offspring, IMO is NOT evolution. However from an identification point of view, evolutionists would certainly look at this as though ADHD is part of evoltion. BTW, they figured out that this ADHD is brought on by being exposed to lead, and what it does is delete some segments of genes, and multiplys others. Now I honeslty see no benefit in any of this from an evoluton point of view.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join