Homo Sapiens Sapiens

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dissident
I would like to clarify a bit.

I was a bit harsh when I said stupid.

Another poster probably had it right when they said the peopel who are best adapt to survive in our present society are apt to reproduce.

In short the people who have the best social skills tend to reproduce.

So it really is independant of intelligence. Whether this is good or bad remains to be seen.

But I think there are enough good genes to produce a decent amount of smart people. If they don't reproduce who cares .

So you were an elitist, but now you're not?
Or you just never were an elitist in the first place??

CONFESS, CONFESS!!

[Ramo]

Speaking of selecting HIV resistance, it turns out that if one of your direct ancestors survived the Bubonic plague, you have HIV immunity. I believe ~15% of the European population have this resistance.

[Dis]

I never was an elitist. Although sometimes I can sound like I am. I come off that way sometimes.

But considering I'm not elite, how can I be an elitist? I'm just an average american with a huge penis.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by MrFun


Yes, perhaps that is what I mean.

There were some interesting comments from other people here on this thread. But I'm still not sure if Homo Sapiens Sapiens are still naturally evolving, or if we have begun the process of moving out of the bounds of natural evolution and into accelerated artificial evolution.

That's my initial statement, Provost.

I expect you'd love to post a thread titled Homo superior

[Adalbertus]

The average lifespan for a species is 3 million years.

Careful. Average is statistics. It results when you take into account all species that have lived 100 000 years and 100 million years and everything between and beyond. Without at least some sort of error we can deduce only little, and even less "if our time is up". Species disappear usually after a big natural catastrophy or if there are too many too effective competitors so that there is no more food.
Given that second most of animal mass is in humans (cattle, who have tamed us to feed them and to kill them before they get too old, have more. Cow's Brave New World!), we can count as a highly successful species alone by our number (rats and some insects are probably more numerous but smaller). Which makes it probable that there will be some catastrophy (meteorite strike, nuclear war, very drastic climatic changes) which kills human life completely.
I wouldn't think that diseases or a complete breakdown of society would kill all human life. It will throw humans back to stone age (or something like) and a population of some 100 000 people, which is enough to grant further survival.
Btw. Humans are by no means at a physical disadvantage in nature. Our eyes and ears are among the best in nature, just not on the very top, but I would guess at the top 5% of all mammals. Similarly it is with endurance (if you are used to a life in the wild and not to your office). Our hands are tools without equal. Alone this would grant survival in nature.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Ramo
Speaking of selecting HIV resistance, it turns out that if one of your direct ancestors survived the Bubonic plague, you have HIV immunity. I believe ~15% of the European population have this resistance.

I saw that on a documentary too. It requires both parents to have the gene (and pass it on). Generally, a single gene carrier can survive about twice as long as non-gene carrier. A double gene carrier will never suffer from the disease and not be a carrier. Good news on both fronts.

[DanS]

Perhaps I'm being misunderstood. My thesis is that no matter what we do, we will cease to be homo sapiens sapiens in a relatively short period of time due to radiation mutation.

Whether it's in 1 year or 20 million years doesn't really concern me--it's still a relatively short period. The inviability or viability of man also doesn't really concern me, since that would likely just subtract from the time that man is on this or any planet.

What I am arguing against is the thought that in 100 million years or whatever, homo sapiens sapiens will still be around. Despite our intelligence, the odds are heavily stacked against us!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
My thesis is that no matter what we do, we will cease to be homo sapiens sapiens in a relatively short period of time due to radiation mutation.

When you say "relatively short period of time" are we talking geologic time here or normal time?

[DanS]

20 million years at the outside? Compared against the sweep of time (i.e., ~10-12 billion years).

As stated above, I don't know how the distribution falls, so it's a guess.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


I expect you'd love to post a thread titled Homo superior

Whatever -- they all start with the word Homo.

And Ramo, that was interesting information you posted about how some people attain resistance to the HIV virus. I never knew that before.

I think we're also the only species of animal or plant that has the power to choose to accelerate our own extinction if we maintain the same pace that we have today of destroying the Earth's ecosystem.

We might be the first animal to commit mass suicide on a species level in the next hundreds of thousands of years. I hope not.

[ranskaldan]

We might end up as those aliens in Independence Day.

Conquer a planet, eat everything, and move on.

As far as I can see, humanity seems to be betting that we will be able to make Mars and the Jovian moons habitable before Earth totally "crashes".

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
We might end up as those aliens in Independence Day.

Conquer a planet, eat everything, and move on.

As far as I can see, humanity seems to be betting that we will be able to make Mars and the Jovian moons habitable before Earth totally "crashes".

I agree, and I think that's our destiny. We are the virus that will eventually eats up the Universe.

[Adalbertus]

we will cease to be homo sapiens sapiens in a relatively short period of time due to radiation mutation.

No. At least not that simple. Mutations alone don't do it. They produce some variation, but the average of what is a homo sapiens sapiens will stay the same, because mutations by themselves are not directed. A development to something else can only happen if there is a pressure through selection. There are really two mechanisms involved in evolution.

For the less mathematical the following picture:
Imagine you have a packet of rice and you pour it out on the floor. There will be a heap of rice grains with a high centre and lots of grains around. The position of each grain represent the properties of individual humans, the position of the centre of the heap is the "average human". Evolution means to move the postition of the centre.
Now assume you have a death rate, removing a (for now) arbitrary position a grain, and then let it drop on the centre of the heap. When the grain finds its final position, it is certainly not directly on the center but somewhere else. This is a mutation (e. g. by radiation). Ok, the other grains will move, too, which usually doesn't happen with the genetic properties of people when someone is born, but no picture is perfect. The point here is, that, even if there are different individuals, the position of the centre of the heap doesn't change.
For moving the centre, you need also selection. This is done by taking away preferably grains on the left side, and let them drop, again, on the centre of the heap. This will slowly move the heap and this is how evolution works.

The question in this thread is not about the existence of mutations about which I think anyone here can agree. The question is if selection still plays its part.

[Ramo]

I expect you'd love to post a thread titled Homo superior

I believe he'd prefer Homo Erectus.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ramo


I believe he'd prefer Homo Erectus.

Ok enough dirty jokes -- back to the topic of human evolution.