# Horizon - Have Humans Stopped Evolving?



## mosaix

Quite an interesting program this week. 

The presenter interviewed a series of professors with varying opinions. Two gave me food for thought.

One said the moment we started to insulate ourselves from the environment: tools, fire, clothing, shelter, medicine etc., then we were bound to slow the process of evolving as humans who would normally have died before child bearing age lived on and were able to pass on their genes to the next generation.

The second gave a more practical example of this. He took the presenter though a graveyard to look at grave stones. A high proportion of gravestones from the 18th and 19th century were for children who died before the age of three. His words:

_"These children were the raw material that fed human evolution. Such gravestones today are rare. In Shakespeare's time only one in three births made it to the age of 21. In Darwin's time that was up to two in three,  now 99% of children live to 21 years of age."_

I can't help thinking that both these people were viewing the situation that pertains in developed countries and that the infant mortality rate is still high in some parts of the world.


----------



## chrispenycate

Infant mortality can only select for factors that cause infants to die. If an immunity to AIDS sprang up somewhere in Africa it would pretty soon be widespread, just as very few European kids died of measles, while it hit the unprepared Amerinds hard. That's evolution; the selection from a wide and diverse gene pool of a characteristic that tends to increase survival chances, not telekinetic powers or X-ray eyes.

So, what characteristic should we be trying to encourage, or even better eliminate? Something complex, like stupidity? Tooth decay? A tendency towards cancer? A particularly eugenic and - um, practical? society could use statistical analysis to sterilise high risk groups, arguing that morally, in the long run, they were preventing quantities of pain that was otherwise inevitable (no, I wouldn't like to live in such a society).

Despite the bipedal stance being a relatively recent and unsatisfactory adaptation, most of the knee/back problems develop after breeding age, so there is no biological reason for an improved hip joint. Furthermore, medical science has rendered it ever less survival critical that people be in top physical condition; is an Olympic athlete likely to have more children than a couch potato?

So, apart from at a biochemical level – being able to metabolise pollution and recover from infections – natural selection has ground to a halt planetwise. If we want it back it's either toughen up the environment and vastly increase mortality, or go onto artificial selection, weeding out gene groups that are known to give unpleasant results, and do this with massive populations, not just the very rich.

But keep a control group of unmodded (as in Heinlein's ¬ Beyond this horizon, was it?) in case lack of diversity leaves you vulnerable to some unforseen stimulus.


----------



## J Riff

I think rap music proves humans stopped evolving.


----------



## ZombiezuRFER

Humans have not stopped evolving, and will not stop until the species is ENTIRELY dead.  Evolution is the introduction of genetic mutations, which by natural selection weed out bad mutations, to adapt a species to an environment.  Desensitizing yourself to the environment is false, you are creating a new environment.  Infant mortality rates don't impact evolution, but rather encourage it, to get whatever is causing the deaths to stop, but encouraging evolution only means changing the environment something was adapted to.  It will never stop.


----------



## Dave

I didn't see the program, but I have read some reviews of it and I think there is a problem with the definitions of "evolution". Surely, evolution acts over a much longer period of time than the time frames being discussed? And also everyone seemed to be making different arguments.

I'd agree that "natural selection" among humans has paused. Not only are humans surviving who would have died before, but also there has been a huge 'melting pot' mixing of humans from all corners of the Earth. So, the genetic variation within our global population is now greater than it has ever been. Natural Selection needs genetic variation to work, but it also needs some limiting effects upon the survival or reproduction of the population. Those have largely been eliminated, despite a wide disparity between the developed and developing world.

However, artificial selection of the characteristics of children, medical intervention to allow older women to get pregnant, these may or may not increase genetic variety, I think you could argue both ways. 

As for not evolving since we began to wear cloths and make fire, that is just wrong - we evolved and lost our body hair. Children who didn't die from the cold, were instead selected for some other characteristic such as disease resistance. 

And natural selection has not gone away, we only need some global disaster for natural selection to act on the population again.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Dave said:


> I didn't see the program, but I have read some reviews of it and I think there is a problem with the definitions of "evolution". Surely, evolution acts over a much longer period of time than the time frames being discussed? And also everyone seemed to be making different arguments.
> 
> I'd agree that "natural selection" among humans has paused. Not only are humans surviving who would have died before, but also there has been a huge 'melting pot' mixing of humans from all corners of the Earth. So, the genetic variation within our global population is now greater than it has ever been. Natural Selection needs genetic variation to work, but it also needs some limiting effects upon the survival or reproduction of the population. Those have largely been eliminated, despite a wide disparity between the developed and developing world.
> 
> However, artificial selection of the characteristics of children, medical intervention to allow older women to get pregnant, these may or may not increase genetic variety, I think you could argue both ways.
> 
> As for not evolving since we began to wear cloths and make fire, that is just wrong - we evolved and lost our body hair. Children who didn't die from the cold, were instead selected for some other characteristic such as disease resistance.
> 
> And natural selection has not gone away, we only need some global disaster for natural selection to act on the population again.


 
Not sure that is the case Dave.

As Chris pointed out if an AIDS immunity gene did develop in Africa it would quickly spread throughout the world. Using the grains of rice on a chess board argument it wouldn't take many generations.

There's also This :-

Truth In Science - The Peppered Moth


----------



## J Riff

The experiments must continue until we have the perfect template- a nine-foot basketball player weighing 400 lbs.
 I don't see ants or moths getting any bigger. Let them change color all they like- they can't hide from the ultimate predator. Us. Muah. 
Try and stop mammals from evolving, not even Dolphins are up to the challenge.
What else is evolving anyway? Anything besides bugs fighting for their lives? 
Are Giraffes getting taller? 
The virii are probably the ones to watch out for- they evolve _fast._


----------



## soulsinging

J Riff said:


> I think rap music proves humans stopped evolving.



I'd say country music is the better example.

I actually think we're devolving in a lot of ways. The most intelligent,  successful people have essentially stopped breeding, while the dregs of  society have a half dozen kids each. The movie Idiocracy touches on  this a bit. Here in America, smart people don't reproduce while the  guests of Jerry Spring have tons of kids. Not only that, but there's an increasing worship of ignorance, against science or self awareness and reflection. We glorify imagined pasts. It's quite depressing.


----------



## Vertigo

I think the interesting thing about your comment, Soulsinging and indeed some of the stuff in the program is that I think we have largely stopped evloving by natural selection. Arguably it is still continuing in some of the developing world but even there society dictates we do as much as possible to protect our own, rather than just letting nature (in the form of some illness for example) take its course. And that by definition is actively working against the forces of natural selection. 

However I would argue that we are still evolving and, indeed, that evolution is probably accelerating. Instead of natural selection, however, it is now a conscious activity which tends to work a little bit more efficiently. For example, as Soulsinging points out, successful career minded people typically decide to have fewer or no children, almost exactly the opposite of normal natural selection. In the future (irregardless of whether we think it ethical) we will do ever more genetic manipulation of our own genes and thus directly control our own evolution; possibly in more than one direction - some social groups may choose to evolve ever more athletic bodies, others ever more powerful brains etc. Maybe we might even get Neal Asher's type of thing with genetic adaptations giving us qualities taken from other animals. 

Of course natural selection will step in big time in the event of a major pandemic or anything of that nature, but historically there have always been spurts of evolution after major catastrophes have left evolutionary vacuums.


----------



## Dave

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Not sure that is the case Dave.
> 
> As Chris pointed out if an AIDS immunity gene did develop in Africa it would quickly spread throughout the world. Using the grains of rice on a chess board argument it wouldn't take many generations.
> 
> There's also This :-
> 
> Truth In Science - The Peppered Moth


I'm not exactly sure which part of what I said you thought wasn't the case, but I know about the Peppered Moth - any that were not camouflaged were eaten by birds. Since the Clean Air Acts of the 1950's the selection has worked in reverse.

I'm also not sure how an AIDS immunity gene would "spread around the world" unless the people who had it replaced people dying of AIDS around the world. 

So, if you mean the part where I said it also needs some limiting effect on the population or on reproduction, then you need to have the "eaten by birds" or " dying of AIDS" part of the equation.

But did you know that ancestors of survivors of the Plague (as opposed to those who were just lucky not to catch it) have a natural immunity to AIDS. There was a another Horizon programme on this a few years ago. So, an AIDS immune gene does already exist and has not "spread around the world". Well it has, but it hasn't had any great impact. Without any kind of homophobic comment intended, the immunity has been isolated in American gays with British ancestry, and since they are less likely to have children it is less likely to be passed on from them to the next generation.


----------



## J Riff

_I'd say country music is better. - Soulsinging 2011_
_It is , far, far better, as are all trad forms, thank you for noticing. ) Vastly, geometrically many times over... how much better? Abjectly. Course if you have a modern station tuned in it can be bad, like all pablum pop of today._
_Signs o' musical devolution- rap, autotune, american idol._


----------



## Parson

soulsinging said:


> I'd say country music is the better example.
> 
> I actually think we're devolving in a lot of ways. The most intelligent,  successful people have essentially stopped breeding, while the dregs of  society have a half dozen kids each. The movie Idiocracy touches on  this a bit. Here in America, smart people don't reproduce while the  guests of Jerry Spring have tons of kids. Not only that, but there's an increasing worship of ignorance, against science or self awareness and reflection. We glorify imagined pasts. It's quite depressing.



I will not grace that first comment with a remark, as I love Country Music. May I suggest W4 in Detroit?

*I don't believe that there is any short range thing that proves that we are no longer evolving or not.* But a lot of traits in animals are passed on because the female of the species prefers something. (Big Bull Seals, Peacocks with great plumage etc.) I would propose that if one group is growing you should look at the females. (the Parson is treading on dangerous water here.)

Seriously, the best short range thing to point at in humans which *MIGHT *look to be evolving is the increasing height. Here in the States where widespread malnutrition has never been too great a thing, people are continually getting taller. I am an avid follower of high school girls basketball here in Iowa. And I can say with absolute certainty that the girls playing basketball on the average are 2 inches taller than 30 years ago. (Note: girls basketball has been a major sport in Iowa since the 1920's)


----------



## skeptical

Evolution never stops.  It can change direction, but not stop.   And there is no such thing as devolution.   It is just evolution in a different direction.

Humans, of course, are a special case, since our technology and our social systems permit individuals who would otherwise be selected out of the gene pool to live long and reproduce like crazy.  This may increase the frequency of 'undesirable' genes, like those for stupidity, in the human gene pool.

We cannot see these evolutionary changes, since it takes many generations, and we are simply not around that long.

Personally, I think that this is a temporary situation.   Within 100 years (plus or minus a decade or ten), humans will take control of our own evolution through the use of genetic engineering.   Given the choice, what would-be parent would refuse to take the action that would ensure their offspring were intelligent, good looking, athletic, healthy and long lived?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Dave:

It was the :-



> Surely, evolution acts over a much longer period of time than the time frames being discussed?


 
aspect that I was querying. 

Your info on the plague vs AIDS is fascinating and something I was unaware of. You would have thought it would have been publicised more. 

Americans should be forming queues at the ports to get their daughters inseminated by red bloodied Englishmen to ensure the American way of life and moms apple pie.


Skeptical: There are a few. 

Deaf demand right to designer deaf children - Times Online


----------



## skeptical

End.

That is weird!
The minority of deaf parents who want to choose deaf children just shows how damn irrational people can be at times.


----------



## K. Riehl

I like the idea the Greg Bear proposed in _Darwins Radio_. That humans would start to develop the ability to sense and use chemical communication and become stable groups which maximize cooperation and minimize conflict. 

Or we could see the rise of the _Slan_. ;-)


----------



## Vertigo

Parson said:


> Seriously, the best short range thing to point at in humans which *MIGHT *look to be evolving is the increasing height. Here in the States where widespread malnutrition has never been too great a thing, people are continually getting taller. I am an avid follower of high school girls basketball here in Iowa. And I can say with absolute certainty that the girls playing basketball on the average are 2 inches taller than 30 years ago. (Note: girls basketball has been a major sport in Iowa since the 1920's)


 
Unforunately I didn't catch the whole of this program but I'm pretty sure there was one bit that surprised both me and the presenter when she was told that actually our evolutionary trend now appears to be towards shorter and fatter rahter than taller!


----------



## thaddeus6th

That's correct, Vertigo, but I think it's a dubious conclusion to draw.

The data for that was all from one town in America. I don't think you can use information from one settlement in the richest, fattest and arguably most individualistic and capitalist country in the world and then generalise to the entire species.


----------



## Vertigo

No I agree Thad which is why I was a bit hesitant but it certainly suggests it would be unwise to jump to any obvious conculsions. The whole evolutionary process is so complex and dependent upon so many apparently insignificant factors that I suspect it is almost impossible to predict!


----------



## chrispenycate

I was quite amazed at the speed with which evolution can advance, given a sufficiently high birth/death rate, and a major change in environment. Ten or twelve generations after moving from a silvatic to a domestic habitat, with an increased food supply (in this case mammalian blood, largely from the constructors of the huts and their children) bilateral symmetry became less important ( nowhere to fly, anyway) and the capability of producing more offspring became the leading measure for success. Thus it became energy efficient to reduce the DNA load, and with it adaptability and diversity. Within twenty generations they could no longer mate with their open-air ancestors, nor generally with groups from more distant huts, and could, by older definitions for which reproduction is considered to be the be-all and end-all of species limitations, be considered to cave speciated.

That would be five hundred years for humans; and yet Australian aborigines were isolated from contact with external human groups a lot longer than this, with no loss of reproductive compatibility, so it has to be a special case. Still, evolution of small populations is something that can be observed, not merely postulated.


----------



## skeptical

Chris

What species are you talking about?


----------



## thaddeus6th

I think I remember hearing about (on a different programme, ages ago) a branch of hominids that almost evolved away from mainstream mankind. They were in an isolated area of South Africa, I think, and began to communicate in a language consisting of bird-like whistles and tweets. 

It's weird to think of another type of human, like neanderthals, living alongside us.


----------



## chrispenycate

skeptical said:


> Chris
> 
> What species are you talking about?



They are triatomine bugs, immigrating into "domestic and peridomestic environments" ( the huts and goat pens of the poor) in South America. I can't tell you which particular species this was observed in, but if it is important I have one of the world's experts available within a few days, and he'll talk your ear off for hours – days – weeks on his favourite subject (he's been doing it to me for several decades, and still not run dry.


----------



## J Riff

Baseball players use whistling to pass signs back n forth, and generally earn a lot more than highly intellectual writers. )


----------



## skeptical

Chris

Not important, but I have been involved on occasion with arguing with creationists.  One of their arguments is that no-one has ever seen evolution operating.  They are wrong, and I have one or two references to show that, but it is always nice to have more.  Is that study available on line?


----------



## Starbeast

Humans are still evolving, we haven't been around that long. Even the dinosaurs would have continued to evolve had they they not suddenly ceased to be, some of the species were growing larger brains. Anyone see the model of the dinosaur humanoid.


----------



## J Riff

That's-s-ss-s  S-s-sssCary


----------



## Dave

Okay I see the problem now:





Dave said:


> Surely, evolution acts over a much longer period of time than the time frames being discussed?


I'm still sticking to this because unless things have changed, my definition of evolution is "the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms."

You are all discussing natural selection. Changes in height are largely a result of better diet and vitamins, especially during childhood. But certainly there must be slight changes in human populations over time.

This is why I think that program must have been confused. People are discussing different things. If the question is just 'has natural selection on the human population stopped' then I agree with all the comments made. In the developed world, then probably yes; in the developing world, then certainly not. Just look at sickle cell anaemia as an example if you want one.

Chris, were these triatomine bugs a new species? Could they no longer reproduce with the original population of bugs? Because if not, they have not 'evolved'. If so, then I will unreservedly withdraw my quote, but until then the Creationists have one thing right "that no-one has ever seen evolution operating." Though that is a quite nonsensical argument given that our life-span is only 60-100 years long.

Look at how many breeds of domestic dogs there are. Thousands if not tens of thousands. Some breeds are centuries old. However, breed some mongrels together over several generations and you still get something close to an original dog. It is getting close though, when a Pekinese can no longer mate with a Great Dane then you would have a reproductive barrier.

Evolution needs two things:
1) Environmental stress that favours survival of the fittest by natural selection.
2) A isolating mechanism between populations, either ecological, reproductive or genetic.

Since we are essentially one single population there is no isolating barrier. QED Evolution has stopped.

If we ever colonised space and other planets then an ecological barrier would be the physical barrier of travel between worlds. A reproductive barrier would be a 'Larry Niven' Jinxian human trying to mate with a Crashlander human. A Genetic barrier would be the impossibility (despite Star Trek) of a human mating with a Klingon.


----------



## skeptical

To Dave

A new species has evolved when a new population no longer interbreeds with the old one in the wild.   Note :  this does not have to be an absolute bar to interbreeding.  Sometimes a new species, if placed into captivity, can be essentially 'forced' through lack of choice into interbreeding, and the offspring may be fertile also.  It is still a new species because under wild condirtions interbreeding has stopped.

By this definition, evolution into a new species has, indeed, been observed.   My favourite example is African cichlid fishes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18912-fat-lips-evolve-at-record-speed.html
Over 100 years, a sub population of these fishes evolved visibly different lips - thick lips, and stopped interbreeding with the parent species.   By definition this was a new species, and it occurred while naturalists were watching and studying them.

With humans, due to slow generations, it will take many thousands of years.   What we can observe over a shorter period, though, is changes in gene frequency within the population.  This is a new science, and I am sure we will see some interesting data over the next decade or three.


----------



## Dave

Okay then, I withdraw; that is an example of evolution almost within the time frame of a human lifespan. You won't win your arguments with creationists so easily though.


----------



## skeptical

Dave

You could not possibly be a creationist.  You are far too gracious in accepting a debate point.  A creationist could never possibly admit being wrong, in the slightest detail.  It takes moral strength to do that!


----------



## chrispenycate

> Chris, were these triatomine bugs a new species? Could they no longer reproduce with the original population of bugs? Because if not, they have not 'evolved'. If so, then I will unreservedly withdraw my quote, but until then the Creationists have one thing right "that no-one has ever seen evolution operating." Though that is a quite nonsensical argument given that our life-span is only 60-100 years long.



Although they cannot, phisiologically reproduce with their wild ( you're trying to tell me those things are tame?) relatives, there might well be intermediate forms that could reproduce with either of them. I do not believe they have yet been declared distinct species, despite entomologists swarming round and trying to lay new names (getting to name a new species is serious kudos).
http://www.scielo.br/pdf/mioc/v94s1/7700.pdf
I will ask Dr Schofield for references; unfortunately I was too ill to go round his place this weekend.
However, he does have another example which is almost certainly speciation, over a slightly longer period. In the Dutch East Indies there is a species of Triatomine which is obviously recently related to the South American ones. ScienceDirect - Acta Tropica : Biosystematics of Old World Triatominae

The most likely explanation is of Dutch sailing boats having carried a small population (possibly just one gravid female) across the Atlantic, and the present species having developed since commerce with the New World. 

It's not scientific proof, unfortunately, and a dedicated creationist could say the bugs were part of a species that has since died out in its original habitat, or something. But the suggestions are quite convincing.


----------



## Dave

I've seen this now, and it was a very balanced programme covering some of the points I made. The 'evolution'/ 'natural selection' thing is just semantics, but I can't see that you can state that 'humans have evolved from cavemen' as someone did. The part about selection of the characteristics of embryos being the future was very interesting. The fact that the presenter misses in her summation at the end is that the 'variation' within our population is probably greater than it has ever been before. If there was some horrible global catastrophe along the lines of the antibiotic-resistant disease, as they were proposing, then millions and millions would no doubt die, but the chances of a few individuals surviving would also be greater than ever before.


----------



## gihe

skeptical said:


> Dave
> 
> You could not possibly be a creationist.  You are far too gracious in accepting a debate point.  A creationist could never possibly admit being wrong, in the slightest detail.  It takes moral strength to do that!



I just watched the Horizon programme and, after Googling around for opinions, I came across this site. Some interesting views here, well thought out and eloquently put. Then, there is this quote. Clearly the OP has not thought this through. Perhaps they are unaware that strong morals are the basis of most religions in the world. Or perhaps they simply hate creationists. Whatever the reason, it's a shame that their prejudices have tainted the flavour of this (so far) fascinating discussion. I, as a creationist AND an open-minded science graduate, am perfectly capable of admitting I'm wrong - I'd just like some convincing (as would anyone). 

Anyway, back to the intelligent discussion. There seems to be a fair amount evidence pointing to micro-adaptation and pretty much zero pointing to macro-evolution, i.e. the presentation of modern humans millions of years after their aquatic ancestors (as you admit @chrispenycate, convincing suggestions are not scientific laws - ask anyone working on string theory). This lack of scientific proof bothers me and, as such, I can only assume that individual species have remained pretty much as they were created. Science has proved over and over that the simplest and most elegant answer is the correct one, so I live in hope! 
Macro-evolution is neither simple nor elegant. It is riddled with inconsistency. There is no definitive law that proves it. Sure, minor adaptation (or extinction) has been observed as a result of environmental conditions, and while this is tempting to extrapolate, it does not prove the theory of macro-evolution. There is nothing inconsistent about creationism. Yes, it sounds daft and it has not been proven; in that regard, it is no different from the theory of evolution. But it's pretty straightforward. So why is it less valid right now?  

You may argue that it is naive to believe in a supernatural power. After all, history is replete with tales of the Church being made to look stupid in the face of advancing scientific discovery. I agree with this. The various religions have, at one time or another, been quite short-sighted about aspects of the Universe and its mechanisms.
You may argue that I expect scientific proof, yet I believe in something that is not proven. Again, I agree. Religion and science operate in very different domains. Science depends upon proof. Religion depends upon faith. If your 'thing' is science, then you should be eager to supply your evidence from a scientific standpoint. I will position my faith from a religious standpoint. Neither of us should be offended if we are questioned on our lack of scientific evidence or religious ethics. We may never agree, but we might come to a more tolerant appreciation of our opinions and the fact that we are both trying to understand why the heck we are here.
To me, creationism remains the most convincing argument for the existence of life. Of course, I could be wildly wrong but I'm open to suggestion.


----------



## skeptical

to gihe

My comment to Dave about creationists being too fixed in their views to accept a contrary point is based on personal experience.   Of course, you may be the exception.  I have no way of knowing.

Perhaps you might look at the reference I posted, showing a fish evolving within 100 years to the point where it no longer interbred with the parent stock, and showed clear cut physical differences.   Is this not an example of evolution?


----------



## Heck Tate

Gihe, are you suggesting that some sort of god creating all life exactly as it is now is the simplest and therefore most likely solution?  Consider, for a moment, the vast complexity of such a being.  Now how did that being come to be?  If you actually think about it, _any_ explanation that doesn't involve a creator is simpler by default.  

The argument that religion operates outside the boundaries of science is the most naive one you could possibly make, especially after saying that you are open to scientific evidence.  It essentially says that your viewpoint is fixed no matter what proof is offered against it, as your god can't ever be touched by science.

As a side note, there are so many inconsistencies with Creationism that it is generally considered a joke by anyone who has cracked open a science textbook.  For instance, Young Earth Creationism says the Earth is only around 6,000 years old because the first people were Adam and Eve and only so many generations have come from them.  ALL scientific evidence says otherwise.  You may want to look up Lucy, the Australopithecus skeleton discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia.  The skeleton is over 3 million years old, and is not even the oldest known hominid.

Of course YEC differs greatly from Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Gap Creationism, and Day Age Creationism.  These are all based on the Bible, but there are also countless forms of creationism based on other religions and not a single one has any shred of evidence backing it.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

gihe:

Unfortunately, I disagree with your assertion that scientists need any level of proof scientific or otherwise to disagree with the creationist's standpoint.

I only need something that creationists seem happy to accept.

It is enough just to assert that I *believe* they are wrong.

However, I 'm guilty of approaching (if not actually sticking a size ten boot across) a line that this site has on religious argument.

All is not lost though, as there is a sister site :-

Interfaith forums - Powered by vBulletin

Where stronger opinions are allowed.

To the Moderators (well Dave and Chris really) if you think this *is* too much please delete this post, rather than lock the thread.


----------



## Dave

gihe - you should take the advice of TheEndIsNigh. These kinds of discussions have a habit of turning nasty and the Interfaith forum is more suitable for them. This was a discussion of the Horizon programme.

Skeptical gave an example of evolution occurring with the lifetime of a human. If you don't accept that you are demonstrating exactly what he said.


----------



## cornelius

I've tried to make a mental note of all the points being made, and as a "fan" of the evolutionary psychology- theory, I'm going to try and add my two cents to this thread. First of all- my field of study is communication. Not a "hardcore" science, but more of a science than most people seem to think. I did see the theories that I'll list below in "consumer behavior", but with some personal research and reasoning I'm trying to take it out of the "advertising-game" to apply it on "Everyday life". Some branches of EP try to make a "ground theory" to explain why the human species does what it does, but it's not easy to merge "soft science" and "hard science" without missing some steps and kicking some shins.

Now EP states that we have a "caveman brain" in a modern society. Our brain still reacts more or less the same as it did when we swarmed the African continent.  When subjected to tests, people still  react to "trees" different then when they see "sand", most people like sweet and fatty food because out in the wild those two meant survival, etc. The theory of neo- neo Darwinism says that there is such a thing as survival of the fittest (most fit as in most adapted to survive, not necessarily the strongest- TO fit, not BEING fit !), but also include genetics, a nature and nurture part in the brain, environment, culture in the broadest sense of the word, and personal preferences that aren’t based on “natural logic” such as survivability, but just personal will, which is a “side-effect” of having such a complex brain. This complex brain is also what makes us different, so making a theory that applies to “all humans” is nearly impossible, you’ll always have exceptions. It just comes down to trying to explain said exceptions.

Evolution within the human species is different all because of that brain. It enables us to have (more or less) a free will, personal preferences and such, changing the way evolution usually works, namely that the fittest species usually are chosen for reproduction. We also have "tricks" to overcome things that evolution would have filtered out, like how physically unfit people can use their intellect to gain influence and possession. Moreover, we do have a “social brain” as well, bringing in a type of relationship most creatures do not have, namely one based on emotions and social bonding. We do see some changes, but those are mostly based on better food, better health and a longer life. One thing that is changing: the so called sexual indicators that prove a man or a woman are “fit” to reproduce with. One example of that are, well… breasts. Most people will say that breasts are for feeding children, which they of course are, but apes have those as well, and you don’t see any of those strut around with a bust that is in a constant “swollen” state. There are some theories to this, most of which I’ll leave out because this is a family forum, but one plausible one is that the storage of fat is an important indicator for survivability for both the infant as the mother. It’s no use “investing” your genes into a pool you’re not sure will survive. But like I said before, it’s difficult to make a theory that applies to every single man or woman. In my opinion, mankind still evolves, but it’s difficult to explain it with the regular evolution theories.

Now as for creationists, I've been thinking about the following. I don't see the bible as an accurate representation of how the world worked, but it was some sort of book of conduct to allow people to make the transition from "Nomad" to "sedentary man". The creation of the earth was put down in simplistic terms, the “unknown” filled in by a force people cannot understand, named God. I transition “all the rules put up in the religious works come from God” to “we should all follow the same baselines as we all come from the same “source”. Why one God? To try and “unite” all people: we all have this “unknown force” in common, so we all have the same God. Different Gods may give people reason to fight about which one is the best God. Unfortunately/ironically this line of thought itself gives root to a lot of violence between religions, while religion was set up to stop violence from happening. Now, along the way, some influential people started to make changes to said religious works, making them into a weapon. In religious works, there’s also evolution, but that evolution is mostly just limited to one “people”. I don’t think the – we are chosen- clause was originally in those works, but that it got added to unite people under a special banner, initially to make everyone abide the laws, and later on for (military) conquest or justification of said conquest.

That’s about it for this post. I hope it’s “on topic” enough. If there are any remarks or questions, I’d be happy to give some more input. I’ve narrowed my post down a lot, as I’m not sure if there is a wordcount.


----------



## Moonbat

> There is nothing inconsistent about creationism. Yes, it sounds daft and it has not been proven; in that regard, it is no different from the theory of evolution.


 
I was under the impression that Evolution has been proven. (notice the capital E) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The evolution over many years of the reptilian to the mammalian jaw including the creation (through changing) of the middle earbones.


----------



## Parson

skeptical said:


> Dave
> 
> You could not possibly be a creationist.  You are far too gracious in accepting a debate point.  A creationist could never possibly admit being wrong, in the slightest detail.  It takes moral strength to do that!



I think that Gihe has a point. This statement is far too categorical. I might buy "most creationists could never..." and even that is likely too strong. A good number of creationists have never been exposed to well documented scientific evidence. And just because you are a person of faith does not mean that you don't have moral strength to admit being wrong. In fact a person of faith often sees him/herself as needing forgiveness and correction.  --- I might add that there are a fair number of scientists who hold on to pet theories in spite of nearly overwhelming evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Wybren

chrispenycate said:


> Infant mortality can only select for  factors that cause infants to die. If an immunity to AIDS sprang up  somewhere in Africa it would pretty soon be widespread, just as very few  European kids died of measles, while it hit the unprepared Amerinds  hard.



There is actually a gene which provides immunity to HIV, it is a mutated form of the CCR5 gene called 'delta 32' it exists in about 10-15% of the Caucasian population, it also provides protection against the bubonic plague. Scientists have been working on ways to use it in the war against HIV for about 15 years now.



cornelius said:


> One thing that is changing: the so called sexual indicators that prove a  man or a woman are “fit” to reproduce with. One example of that are,  well… breasts. Most people will say that breasts are for feeding  children, which they of course are, but apes have those as well, and you  don’t see any of those strut around with a bust that is in a constant  “swollen” state. There are some theories to this, most of which I’ll  leave out because this is a family forum, but one plausible one is that  the storage of fat is an important indicator for survivability for both  the infant as the mother.



I studied this at Uni, if haven't already read them "Whats love got to do with it" by Merideth Small and "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley are good reads.

I don't think that human evolution has ceased, I dont think that it will ever cease until the last humans have disappeared, where we are going I dont know, but I suspect any future adaptations will have to do with adapting our bodies to the changing climate and perhaps within the brain.


----------



## Dave

Wybren said:


> There is actually a gene which provides immunity to HIV, it is a mutated form of the CCR5 gene called 'delta 32'...


I mentioned that back on page 1, but I didn't have the details, only a sketchy memory from a previous Horizon programme.


Wybren said:


> I suspect any future adaptations will have to do with adapting our bodies to the changing climate and perhaps within the brain.


But our population can only adapt if the 'unfit' individuals die before they are able to reproduce. The visit to the graveyard in the programme is only a part of it. We spend £Millions keeping premature babies alive in the developed world that the developing world leaves to die.


----------



## Wybren

Dave said:


> But our population can only adapt if the 'unfit' individuals die before they are able to reproduce.


Or if people become even more selective in their breeding partners, but then we get a world like in the movie GATTACA where embryos are selected before implantation, which kind of takes the fun out of the whole thing.



Dave said:


> The visit to the graveyard in the programme is only a part of it. We spend £Millions keeping premature babies alive in the developed world that the developing world leaves to die.



Well that I am thankful for, otherwise I wouldn't have my beautiful son, who was born at 33 weeks.


----------



## Moonbat

> We spend £Millions keeping premature babies alive in the developed world that the developing world leaves to die.


 
We also have couples that can't reproduce naturally having a helping hand from science, and therefore passing on their genes which may (or may not) include an inability to concieve. 
And by deduction, those that do have IVF (not a cheap procedure) have more money and so can give their children a better start in life and so (on average) the children grow up to be succesful adults and have families of their own (possibly using IVF) and eventually we get a whole class of people that can't reproduce without the help of science.

what about birth rate, it isn't uncommon here in the UK (and I have read that it is evolutionary sound) for lower income people to have more children (and sooner) than their age equivalent middle income earners. Personally I know a guy from my primary school who had his first kid at about 17, and has 3 boys now, and is in jail and I am yet to have any children, and will probably only have 1 or 2. this equates to 3 generations of his family for 2 of mine, will that mean his decendants evolve quicker than mine (I mean in terms of mutations per generation). Will that end up that those who are pumping out babies in their 20s compared to those that have a couple of (or just 1) children in their 30s will (over a long time period) have a better chance to adapt to the selective pressures of society/nature?


----------



## Parson

Moonbat said:


> We also have couples that can't reproduce naturally having a helping hand from science, and therefore passing on their genes which may (or may not) include an inability to concieve.
> And by deduction, those that do have IVF (not a cheap procedure) have more money and so can give their children a better start in life and so (on average) the children grow up to be succesful adults and have families of their own (possibly using IVF) and eventually we get a whole class of people that can't reproduce without the help of science.
> 
> what about birth rate, it isn't uncommon here in the UK (and I have read that it is evolutionary sound) for lower income people to have more children (and sooner) than their age equivalent middle income earners. Personally I know a guy from my primary school who had his first kid at about 17, and has 3 boys now, and is in jail and I am yet to have any children, and will probably only have 1 or 2. this equates to 3 generations of his family for 2 of mine, will that mean his decendants evolve quicker than mine (I mean in terms of mutations per generation). Will that end up that those who are pumping out babies in their 20s compared to those that have a couple of (or just 1) children in their 30s will (over a long time period) have a better chance to adapt to the selective pressures of society/nature?



If evolution is completely random, the long range answer (100 generations?) to your question is "yes." In the short term it's hard to say.


----------



## Moonbat

I don't _think_ Evolution is completely random. 
Genetic mutation is random, but selective pressures that act upon the usefullness of mutations the 'survival of the fittest' probably negate the randomness of mutation. 
I am completely making this up and have little-to-no idea if this is accurate.

Going back to an earlier post, if Female basketball players are getting taller is that really evolution in action or just a temporary trend, time spans for evolution are enormous and so anything we see in our short lives isn't really evolution, is it?


----------



## Parson

Moonbat said:


> I don't _think_ Evolution is completely random.
> Genetic mutation is random, but selective pressures that act upon the usefulness of mutations the 'survival of the fittest' probably negate the randomness of mutation.
> I am completely making this up and have little-to-no idea if this is accurate.
> 
> Going back to an earlier post, if Female basketball players are getting taller is that really evolution in action or just a temporary trend, time spans for evolution are enormous and so anything we see in our short lives isn't really evolution, is it?



I posted about Female basketball players and I don't think it is proof of evolution either. What I said was if you were looking for a short term proof in humans that this was one place where it could be seen. I used Iowa because that's where I've lived and have followed girls basketball on the high school level (as a coach and as a fan) for nearly 40 years now, and probably more significantly large numbers of girls have played basketball here for approaching 90 years so it is unlikely that the answer to the question of taller girls is not likely to be a larger involvement by the girls. When I was coaching 40 years ago had at most 1 or 2 girls 6 ft. or better. It is now unusual for a similar sized school not to have 1 or 2 6 ft girls on the team. There are even some small (less than a 100 per class) schools to have a team that averages 6 ft. tall. All of this might point to some short term evolution toward taller people.


----------



## Vertigo

Moonbat - I do think you are right on the nail saying the genetic mutation is random but Evolution is absolutely not. It specifically favours the mutations that are useful.

As for Evolution I am fully convinced that _at present_ it is effectively not happening. We have too much influence over the evolutionary controls. In other words we do our best to ensure the survival of humans that would otherwise not survive to pass on their genes. And Wybren I think you have also hit the nail on the head when you say that is no bad thing. Part of our evolution has been to favour social behaviour and therefore it is inevitable (and morally right of course) that we do everything we can do preserve the life of other humans, even if that means we are effectively stopping evolution.

Notice that I said _"at present"_ up above. There are many factors that would start us on the road to evolving again. The most obvious would be a cataclysm (eg meteoroid impact) that effectively takes out all our technology and more importantly medicine and the luxury of spare resources that can be used to help others that can't help themselves. Another would be a pandemic; any highly infectious illness for which we have no cure has the potential to thrust us right back into rapid evolution.

However the most likely route back into evolution, as has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, is that we take control of our own evolution through genetics. Under these circumstances I could easily see the human race diverging into different sub-species that eventually might not even be able to interbreed.


----------



## Wybren

Moonbat said:


> Going back to an earlier post, if Female basketball players are getting taller is that really evolution in action or just a temporary trend, time spans for evolution are enormous and so anything we see in our short lives isn't really evolution, is it?



I raised this question once with my Palaeoanthropology professors -not of basketball players, my question was about height in impoverished nations v height in wealthier nations, small height is more energy conservative so they can survive with less nutrients than a very tall person -  I was told that the increase in height is not due to any evolutionary practices, because for that to happen you need to restrict gene flow. The reason people are getting taller is because of better health and nutrition. When you take a child who was living in an impoverished nation and improve their conditions they will most likely reach their ultimate potential height, likewise if you take a child who has the potential to be very tall in later life.


----------



## gihe

Heck Tate said:


> Gihe, are you suggesting that some sort of god creating all life exactly as it is now is the simplest and therefore most likely solution?  Consider, for a moment, the vast complexity of such a being.  Now how did that being come to be?  If you actually think about it, _any_ explanation that doesn't involve a creator is simpler by default.
> 
> The argument that religion operates outside the boundaries of science is the most naive one you could possibly make, especially after saying that you are open to scientific evidence.  It essentially says that your viewpoint is fixed no matter what proof is offered against it, as your god can't ever be touched by science.
> 
> As a side note, there are so many inconsistencies with Creationism that it is generally considered a joke by anyone who has cracked open a science textbook.  For instance, Young Earth Creationism says the Earth is only around 6,000 years old because the first people were Adam and Eve and only so many generations have come from them.  ALL scientific evidence says otherwise.  You may want to look up Lucy, the Australopithecus skeleton discovered in 1974 in Ethiopia.  The skeleton is over 3 million years old, and is not even the oldest known hominid.
> 
> Of course YEC differs greatly from Old Earth Creationism, Progressive Creationism, Gap Creationism, and Day Age Creationism.  These are all based on the Bible, but there are also countless forms of creationism based on other religions and not a single one has any shred of evidence backing it.



I'm guessing your second question is rhetorical, because I have no way of answering it. Perhaps a good starting point would be to postulate that a Creator would be a good deal more complex than a single nucleotide on a strand of DNA. Maybe science can attempt to prove it....

Anyway, I hadn't intended to veer into religious posturing to deliberately stir things up (although, in retrospect, I should have realised ). I was genuinely interested in the Horizon programme because it raised some interesting questions about why I believe what I do. Had I been created to be religious or had I evolved into it?  Are we now evolving into an inherently atheist species? There are still many millions like myself, so I don't consider myself unusual.

I also hadn't realised there were so many forms of Creationism! How ridiculous...and, sadly, how predictable. "Religionists" just love to categorise themselves: 7th Day Adventists, Catholics, Pentecostal, Zionists etc etc etc. I have no interest in that. I don't subscribe to clubs or sects or denominations.
I have no problem accepting that scientific evidence has carbon-dated a skeleton to over 3 million years. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the observed age of the Universe. And I agree that no creationist stance has a shred of evidence - how could it? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a Creator. Any evidence would support both constructs. You could never categorically say that something was not created. You cannot deny that the possibility exists. So no, I don't think I'm being naive when I say that religion operates outside the sphere of science. It clearly does.
Anyway, this is quite enough philosophy for this forum and I will shut up now. Thanks all for your (mainly) interesting and well-informed comments.

P.S. I have now read about the mammalian jawbone/ossicles theory (thanks Moonbat (with a capital M)) and it looks plausible. I shall not use the macro-evolution argument again without considering this example as a potential counter-argument. However, it still does not convince me that an evolutionary process is responsible for the vast and complex biodiversity of life - and all the information within it - originating from a single cell. And, even I was ultimately convinced, I would still posit that that single cell did not arise from non-living matter but was created.


----------



## Heck Tate

I recently researched this topic a bit and found a variety of results ranging from "human evolution has stopped" to "human evolution is speeding up."  I was looking for a story I know I heard a few years back about some islanders who had very little contact with the rest of the world and had a diet of fish and not much else.  The people had webbed hands and feet, some film in their eyes which allowed them to see better underwater, and could hold their breaths longer than the average person.  Unfortunately I couldn't find it, so maybe the whole thing was just wishful thinking on my part.  I did find a couple of interesting articles relating to the subject, however.  One about a remote cannibal tribe in New Guinea with a gene that protects against kuru, the human equivalent of mad cow disease Gene change in cannibals reveals evolution in action - life - 19 November 2009 - New Scientist.
The other is a lengthy NOVA article entitled "Are We Still Evolving?"  After reading the whole thing, the answer is the equivalent of a shrug, but it was interesting nonetheless.
NOVA | Are We Still Evolving?


----------



## Vertigo

Heh heh I think you got it in one there with the shrug. I suspect the only answer is: "I dunno, I'll tell you in a couple of thousand years if I'm still around!"


----------



## Dave

gihe said:


> I would still posit that that single cell did not arise from non-living matter but was created.


How are you defining your "non-living matter" exactly? 

There are things like rusting iron, oil bubbles and crystals, that will grow, multiply and divide; even move; form membranes, and use chemical reactions, but do not have DNA.  However, there are things like viruses that have DNA, but nothing else.

And in any case, Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

But here we are again straying away from 'Horizon: Have Humans Stopped Evolving?" Evolution itself is not in doubt in this thread because it was not in doubt in the programme. If you want to hijack this thread and promote Creationism then I will close it down.


----------



## gihe

Dave said:


> How are you defining your "non-living matter" exactly?
> 
> There are things like rusting iron, oil bubbles and crystals, that will grow, multiply and divide; even move; form membranes, and use chemical reactions, but do not have DNA.  However, there are things like viruses that have DNA, but nothing else.
> 
> And in any case, Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life
> 
> But here we are again straying away from 'Horizon: Have Humans Stopped Evolving?" Evolution itself is not in doubt in this thread because it was not in doubt in the programme. If you want to hijack this thread and promote Creationism then I will close it down.



I'm not "promoting" anything. I had merely stated my thoughts which arose from watching the Horizon programme in the hope that they would provide a point of debate. Isn't that what a forum is for? Admittedly, I was circling around the edge of the topic but it was nonetheless interesting to read the responses and links that people supplied.

Intriguing use of the word "hijack". I can assure you I'm not some kind of mad-bomber-religious-extremist but perhaps you should close this thread anyway - just in case. You simply can't trust these religious types, can you?


----------



## gihe

Oh, and while you're at it - you may as well deactivate my account. I won't be crying into my pillow, in case you were wondering.


----------



## Heck Tate

Dave said:


> And in any case, Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life



Wow, I hadn't seen anything about that before but it's really cool.  I notice that that article is a couple of years old, not to bring us any more off track but has there been any progress on that recently?


----------



## Dave

Just to clarify, in case you get the wrong idea, gihe has been banned from the forum by another moderator, not for what he said here, but because he was a spammer, posting multiple nonsense posts on the forum to reach a level where he would be able to post links. I strongly suspect now that he was also a troll and didn't really actually believe what he said but was trying to stir up an argument here.

That is one reason why we have a policy of not discussing these issues here any more because they always result in over-heated arguments and lead to problems that the moderators here really don't need. In addition, if you want to see such views expressed search for old threads where the arguments, usually cyclical in nature, are fully developed already, and I seriously doubt anything new can be added. Thirdly, Brian has a very good sister website, already pointed out in this thread, which deals with these religious arguments. We are a science fiction forum primarily dedicated to discussing all things science fiction.

Now normal service is resumed...


----------



## The Procrastinator

Personally, I've given up evolving for Lent.


----------



## Vertigo

heh heh! I think I stopped when I was sixteen!


----------



## cornelius

Wybren said:


> I studied this at Uni, if haven't already read them "Whats love got to do with it" by Merideth Small and "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley are good reads.


 
Red a synopsis of the first and extracts from the second. Thanks for the suggestion, might go look up the full versions when I've ran out of things to read.


----------



## Moonbat

Another well timed thread on Chronicles. This week's (Thursday the 17th's) New Scientist has a feature on the evolution of modern humans (Homo Civicus), I think it would count as Microevolution, things like thinner bones, smaller muscles and even some gene changes.


----------



## Heck Tate

Does anyone know about the evolution of consciousness and thought?  One of my friends keeps trying to shove Mayan 2012 stuff down my throat and he says they predicted when certain stages of thought evolved and 2012 is supposed to be the dawn of a new type of consciousness which we can't understand with what we have now.  I've tried finding real scientific information on how thought processes developed, but most of what I found was super complex brain chemical stuff, and I don't have much of a background with biology or chemistry.  I've exhausted every source of information I have on this subject, and our debate has been going on for about a week now, and I'm getting to the point where I just want to beat reason into his face with a bat.  I don't know if this warrants an entirely new thread, I figured it kind of ties in here because it's about how our thought processes developed differently (as far as we know) from those of other life forms.


----------



## mosaix

Heck Tate said:


> One of my friends keeps trying to shove Mayan 2012 stuff down my throat and he says they predicted when certain stages of thought evolved and 2012 is supposed to be the dawn of a new type of consciousness which we can't understand with what we have now.



I'm sure you'll have the last laugh, Heck. And you don't have long to wait. 

The problem is, _something_ is bound to happen in 2012 - volcano, earthquake, tsunami, super-nova, Manchester City win the Premiership - and the _Mayan 2012_ nutters are going to say 'told you so'.


----------



## Heck Tate

Ya I know.  With hindsight and enough vagueness, all events were predicted.  I know it's not that long to wait but it seems like forever with his incessant praise of the Mayans and how they were so much smarter than our societies today.  The worst thing is that my friend is actually pretty smart and rational in just about every other issue, and I don't want to stop hanging out with him because of this one thing.  I've told him to stop bringing it up near me because I don't want to argue about it, but he always takes this as me admitting defeat and continues to tell me every time he get new "proof."  It almost makes me wish for the apocalypse just so he'll shut up.


----------



## mosaix

Get him to make some concrete predictions - in writing.


----------



## Wybren

Heck Tate said:


> Does anyone know about the evolution of consciousness and thought?  One of my friends keeps trying to shove Mayan 2012 stuff down my throat and he says they predicted when certain stages of thought evolved and 2012 is supposed to be the dawn of a new type of consciousness which we can't understand with what we have now.



From what I remember it has something to do with the frequencies we vibrate at, my mum used to be right into this stuff till she regained her senses and divorced the idiot she was married to at the time.


----------



## Moonbat

If there is an evolution of consciousness, and I'm not agreeing that there is, then wouldn't it be impossible to predict. That's as likely as predicting when a certain species is born with a mutation that is beneficial.
I can't imagine that people thousands of years ago were capable of predicting that Joe Bloggs Jnr is going to be born with a specific mutation to his brain that allows a new level of conscious thought in the next 9 months!

The whole idea that the Mayans were some sort of super advanced civilisation doesn't hold up under investigation. Yes they were advanced for their time relative to Europeans in terms of Astronomy and Mathematics (possibly) but it hardly gives them devine powers of prediction over a thousand years into the future.

Its another example of people fitting lose facts to the fit the knowledge we now have, for instance I have read that the Mayans had a base 26 counting system, and lo and behold some versions of String theory suggest that there might be 26 dimensions, so the mayans must have had some great prior knowledge of the working of the multiverse. Nonsense, they just had an odd counting system that we today would struggle with and probably wasn't as useful or easy-to-use as our base 10 system.


----------



## Heck Tate

Ya my friend credits them with be border line super powers because they were seemingly good at astronomy.  The only point in the consciousness debate that I'm actually wearing him down on is that this is supposed to be the age of ethics.  He claims this means that before the next step, next year , we will have completely mastered ethics.  He's also trying to shove government conspiracy theories down my throat, so I've kind of got him pinned on the ethics thing.  Mosaix, I wish he was making predictions, this would be way easier, but it's just that 1 vague prediction of next year.  Other than that he just points to past events and says crap like "The Mayans saw that one coming."

Edit: Oh, ya, he throws the word fractals out like it's some kind of magic spell: The Mayans used fractals to calculate such and such and the whole Universe is fractals... I swear some people wouldn't know what skeptical means if I bludgeoned them with it.


----------



## mosaix

You have my deepest sympathies, Heck Tate.


----------



## Parson

I'm unsure what "word fractals" are. I know the phrase as a way to describe writing words as pictures, and I know fractals are a way of talking about the chemical composition of things. But neither of those definitions seem to suit what you are talking about. Would it be like working with fractions, or some sort of mathematics?


----------



## Dave

The Mayans used vigesimal base 20. We use decimal base 10 because we count on ten fingers, the Mayans no doubt also counted on their toes as well as their fingers. I don't think there is anything incredible about them using a different base. 3-fingered green aliens would presumably use base 6, unless they had 3 arms, then it would be base 9. Probably, more useful if we used hexadecimal base 16. 

A fractal is a geometric shaped pattern that on closer examination is made up of smaller parts that are reduced-size copies of the whole. A mathematical fractal is based on an equation that undergoes iteration, a form of feedback based on recursion. Computers can be used to produce geometric fractals based upon mathematical equations that are mathematical fractals, but geometric fractals occur frequently in nature - in plant leaves and tree branches, in coastlines, snowflakes, crystals, blood vessels, river networks, mountain ranges, ocean waves, and lightening. So again, I see nothing incredible about the Mayans recognising this.


----------



## Heck Tate

Parson said:


> I'm unsure what "word fractals" are.



Haha, sorry if I was unclear.  He keeps throwing around the word "fractals," not "word fractals."


----------



## Parson

Heck Tate said:


> Haha, sorry if I was unclear.  He keeps throwing around the word "fractals," not "word fractals."



Thanks Dave and Heck, I will go put on my dunce cap and sit in the corner for awhile.


----------



## Vertigo

Numbering systems have always fascinated me and the best and easiest one to use would have been base 12. Now everyone always says that would be really difficult (just look at the hassles when we in the uk and 12 pennies in a shilling). However they are missing the point; it is only difficult when doing base 12 maths in a base 10 numbering system. To switch over you would have to also adopt a base 12 numbering system, then it would be just as easy as base 10; multiply by twelve and just move the decimal point to the right or add a zero, divide by twelve and just move the decimal point to the left. Simple! What makes it difficult is mixing the systems; your maths and your numbering system both need to match.

Why would base 12 be better? It is the most divisible number available for the base, being divisible by 2,3,4 and 6, base ten is only divisible by 2 and 5. This is why our day is split into two lots of twelve hours because we can easily halve and quarter it - if it was ten hours you could not do this easily.

whoops sorry drifting off topic there!


----------



## Moonbat

I wonder what the outcome of using a prime numbered base maths & numbering system, being that they would only be divisible by themselves and 1.
Although I suppose binary counts as a prime number base system.


----------



## Dave

Well off-topic now, but pre-decimalisation in the UK, people using Imperial measurements had no difficulty dealing with all kinds of base maths within a decimal numbering system. Not only were there 12 shillings to a pound, but 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone.... They were just not told it was meant to be hard.

I can't think of a link that takes us back to Evolution, but glad we've stopped discussing Creationism. So, what did the New Scientist article say?


----------



## mosaix

Dave said:


> Well off-topic now, but pre-decimalisation in the UK, people using Imperial measurements had no difficulty dealing with all kinds of base maths within a decimal numbering system. Not only were there 12 shillings to a pound, but 16 ounces in a pound, 14 pounds in a stone.... They were just not told it was meant to be hard.
> 
> I can't think of a link that takes us back to Evolution, but glad we've stopped discussing Creationism. So, what did the New Scientist article say?



Err, Dave that should be 12 pence in the shilling and 20 shillings in the pound.


----------



## chrispenycate

And eight stone in a cwt (which is so close to fifty kilos it only matters to scientists.

And five and a half yards was a "rod, pole or perch" (ruddy big perch, if you ask me), a fortieth of a furlong.

And if you could handle those, and guineas, you might not be much of a mathematician, but could certainly be factored in as an arithmetician, with or without your abacus.


----------



## Dave

mosaix said:


> Err, Dave that should be 12 pence in the shilling and 20 shillings in the pound.


Sorry, that was what I meant to say. I'm allowed one mistake every 1000 posts.

Also, I said base 16 would be a good base to use for a numbering system because I was thinking it is divisible by 2, 4 and 8. But Vertigo is correct with 12 being better as it is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6. It is the reason that things are still made and sold by the dozen, even today in our pre-packaged, automated world.


----------



## cornelius

Dave said:


> Sorry, that was what I meant to say. I'm allowed one mistake every 1000 posts.
> 
> Also, I said base 16 would be a good base to use for a numbering system because I was thinking it is divisible by 2, 4 and 8. But Vertigo is correct with 12 being better as it is divisible by 2,3,4 and 6. It is the reason that things are still made and sold by the dozen, even today in our pre-packaged, automated world.


 
My favourite number is 36. 1,2,3,4,6,9,12,18,36... See what I mean?

Isn't that just wonderful?

No?

It boggles my mind how people can throw the Mayans around like they were masters of the universe. Or how the Egyptians used alien technology to make the pyramids. The thing about evolution is that it usually goes "slow"- I don't think our cognitive abilities have grown that much in the past 5000 years, we simply learned how to use it better by sharing technology as a group. We learned how to "tame" fire because now we didn't have to chew on the same chunck of meat for 10 hrs in order to digest it. That suddenly moved "eating" from fulltime to part-time, leaving us more time to "think", make tools, clothes, art...
When some tribes ventured away from the african homeland, they needed to invent things to increase survivability. In the "dry" regions of mesopotamia, they needed a better way to acquire food, which led to farming and sedentarisation. Up in the north (Europe/Asia) they needed to be inventive because there was little food and constant cold. This was a little set-back, but it made sure that only the "smartest" would survive. As soon as they figured out a way to survive, they can think of ways to make life easier. It kind of went on from there.

Better food - more time - more thinking- more ways to improve life- bigger tribes- more people to think + combined forces -ways needed to store information to store and share,...- even more people +combined forces - cities- unique jobs, some people become thinkers as a full time job while others farm, make clothes,...- more time to invent, more needs to invent stuff for- need for regulations such as economics, politics, mass communication, warfare -

(very crude timeline, but I hope you get the idea)

Mayans/Egyptians put there focus on one main idea and managed to profoundly explore it. They weren't that much smarter than the rest of us. Every now and then you have a genius that throws in a unique perspective, so we can be pretty sure there was a Mayan "Da Vinci" who had an idea no other man/woman had thought of before, and managed to implement it as a way of life. 

The "on topic" bit about numbers and the mayans is that both pretty much are part of the human evolution. If we can focus on stuff like astronomy together, we're bound to come up with things that may seem super-advanced for the time, but are in fact a product of the same mind-typologie we have today.


----------



## skeptical

The Mayans were advanced paleolithic.   They lacked most of the technology even the Hittites had.  They did not have bronze, or iron, or even the wheel.

Face it.  they were backward barbarians with nothing to offer modern day civilisation.  When the Spanish arrived, they had no answers.


----------



## Dave

It was lack of resistance to our diseases that wiped them out though, not superior weapons or fighting ability. Diseases that had passed to humans from the animals they kept indoors with them in our festering European/Asian cities, because the climate made it too cold to leave them outdoors over Winter. The Europeans/Asians obviously did develop a resistance to these diseases over the much longer period of exposure. But the question is can you call that Evolution? I'd say it was still just natural selection. 

Intelligence - no, I agree, we are no more intelligent. Not so that it could be measured anyway.


----------



## chrispenycate

But one population developing resistance to what later becomes a major cause of death is almost the epitome of evolutionary selection. Admittedly disease survival doesn't often go far enough to lead to speciation (largely, I suspect, because the immunity genes are not linked to anything that effects reproduction, so the constant stirring of the genetic cauldron keeps us reproductively compatible) but physical conditions, such as the lack of sunlight in the far north demanding more transparent, paler skin, have caused the racial (yes, I know, politically incorrect, but how else would you define a largish population of humans with common recognisable physical features?) which could, with lots more time, more isolation and less navigation, have caused cross fertility to become physiologically unlikely; perhaps like losing the other hominids.

But human evolution could continue without further mutation, were the death rate high enough and sufficiently selective; genetic diversity within the present population already offers far more opportunities than are generally expressed. You only need a tight enough selection factor, and a very fast population increase among the survivors…


----------



## Vertigo

That's an interesting point Chrispy, I'm no expert but as I understand it evolution works much faster in isolated populations, where I guess the gene mix is more limited. So I suppose the growing global nature of modern day society and the resulting huge gene pool could present another block to evolution.

And Moonbat, I suspect that if we had developed a numbering system based on a prime number we would have figured out fractions much sooner than we did and maybe Archimedes might have figured out relativity . It is an interesting thought!


----------



## Dave

Yes Chris, I agree with everything in your post. Through Family History research I have become quite interested in y Chromosomal studies and what it can tell us about the movement and spread of ancient peoples. It is only one single Chromosome (though in 15-20 years they could probably be doing it for every human gene) but even so, it very clearly maps the movement of humans out of Africa and into Europe and Asia, across to America and down to Australia, and several different waves from Asia to Europe. Each Haplotype must relate to a population that at some point was isolated and was then subjected to some kind of stress - food shortages, climate change and loss of habitats - they can actually date these genetic events and match them to palaeoclimatological events. It is fascinating. Of course, none of these Haplotypes are directly related to a visible genotype - the pale skin, blue eyes, ginger hair kind of thing you mentioned - but that will probably come once they have decoded the whole human genome.

One other thing I thought of though, if the Mayans could predict the future, how come they never saw their demise?


----------



## Moonbat

Hmmm, Clouded the future is.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
That means its going to rain!


----------



## Heck Tate

Dave said:


> One other thing I thought of though, if the Mayans could predict the future, how come they never saw their demise?



I use that one all the time, to varying effect.  I also recently found this The Fall of the Maya: 'They Did it to Themselves' - NASA Science which basically says that deforestation caused all their fertile soil to run-off into the ocean.  Apparently it took a lot of fire to make the bricks for their massive architectural wonders.  Ironic, isn't it?  There are actually several theories on what caused the death of Mayan civilization, but most of their society collapsed suddenly in the 8th-9th centuries, long before any documented Spanish invasion.


----------



## Liz Bent

skeptical said:


> The Mayans were advanced paleolithic.   They lacked most of the technology even the Hittites had.  They did not have bronze, or iron, or even the wheel.
> 
> Face it.  they were backward barbarians with nothing to offer modern day civilisation.  When the Spanish arrived, they had no answers.



If the Mayans were advanced enough to predict the future apocalypse in 2012, why didn't they do something about the Spanish? A more likely explanation is that 2012 was far enough in the future that they didn't bother designing a calendar system that would last longer than that.

As for the evolution of humans, someone I spoke to a long time ago argued that the evolutionary rules are changing for humans- people are reproducing now that wouldn't have survived childhood 100 years ago. Instead, perhaps we are experiencing more of a "social evolution", in the sense that your ability to exist and procreate is less dependent on genes and more dependent on the social status of your family, and/or the ideas you have.


----------



## Parson

Elizabeth Bent said:


> As for the evolution of humans, someone I spoke to a long time ago argued that the evolutionary rules are changing for humans- people are reproducing now that wouldn't have survived childhood 100 years ago. Instead, perhaps we are experiencing more of a "social evolution", in the sense that your ability to exist and procreate is less dependent on genes and more dependent on the social status of your family, and/or the ideas you have.



The idea that we are changing the rules of evolution has some logic going for it. But your last sentence I find unlikely. If my personal experience has any basis in a larger reality, I would say that number of offspring a person has tends to be inversely proportional to their educational and financial achievement.


----------



## skeptical

On human evolution.
I repeat my earlier (much earlier - this is a long thread!) statement.
Natural evolution really is not an issue with human genetic change, any more.   The future lies with deliberate and carefully planned genetic change.   Very like the movie, Gattaca.

In 100 years, plus or minus a bit, we can expect 'designer babies' to be the norm.   This will initially be expensive, but as with all things, the price will drop.   I expect advanced robotics by then, to handle the tedious and physically microscopic details.

Parents in that time will choose micro-changes to their baby's genome, to ensure it is healthy, grows tall, athletic, intelligent, good looking, and long lived.   That is the future of human evolution over the next few centuries.

Long term, who knows?
I could imagine gene changes to (for example) make humans who can tolerate massive doses of radiation, so that they can live and work in space vessels.  Perhaps tolerate microgravity.  The changes that will occur, especially away from Earth, are probably beyond our current imaginations.  I suspect that, if we were to live a million years, we would struggle to recognise our descendents.


----------



## Liz Bent

Heck Tate said:


> I use that one all the time, to varying effect.  I also recently found this The Fall of the Maya: 'They Did it to Themselves' - NASA Science which basically says that deforestation caused all their fertile soil to run-off into the ocean.  Apparently it took a lot of fire to make the bricks for their massive architectural wonders.  Ironic, isn't it?  There are actually several theories on what caused the death of Mayan civilization, but most of their society collapsed suddenly in the 8th-9th centuries, long before any documented Spanish invasion.



There's actually a book- I apologize, I read parts of it when I was doing my Ph.D., so that's more than a decade ago, so I've forgotten the book title and author- that was essentially written as a treatise on how many societies collapsed as a result of ecological damage done via deforestation. The book  started with ancient examples and worked its way up to modern times. Fascinating stuff. I wish I could recall more about it.


----------



## Liz Bent

Parson said:


> The idea that we are changing the rules of evolution has some logic going for it. But your last sentence I find unlikely. If my personal experience has any basis in a larger reality, I would say that number of offspring a person has tends to be inversely proportional to their educational and financial achievement.



Well, yes, certain groups of people may breed more- but how long do their offspring live? Depending on where they live, and whether their parents have access to good health care, not necessarily long enough to procreate. Witness the high infant mortality rate in Mississippi, for example.


----------



## Parson

Elizabeth Bent said:


> Well, yes, certain groups of people may breed more- but how long do their offspring live? Depending on where they live, and whether their parents have access to good health care, not necessarily long enough to procreate. Witness the high infant mortality rate in Mississippi, for example.



I'm not sure that's relevant. Infant mortality is a null. What counts is the amount of those infants who themselves mature and produce offspring.


----------



## Liz Bent

skeptical said:


> On human evolution.
> I repeat my earlier (much earlier - this is a long thread!) statement.
> Natural evolution really is not an issue with human genetic change, any more.   The future lies with deliberate and carefully planned genetic change.   Very like the movie, Gattaca.
> 
> In 100 years, plus or minus a bit, we can expect 'designer babies' to be the norm.   This will initially be expensive, but as with all things, the price will drop.   I expect advanced robotics by then, to handle the tedious and physically microscopic details.
> 
> Parents in that time will choose micro-changes to their baby's genome, to ensure it is healthy, grows tall, athletic, intelligent, good looking, and long lived.   That is the future of human evolution over the next few centuries.
> 
> Long term, who knows?
> I could imagine gene changes to (for example) make humans who can tolerate massive doses of radiation, so that they can live and work in space vessels.  Perhaps tolerate microgravity.  The changes that will occur, especially away from Earth, are probably beyond our current imaginations.  I suspect that, if we were to live a million years, we would struggle to recognise our descendents.



I'm torn about this scenario. On the one hand, I can see a demand for "designer babies". On the other hand, the technology will at first be unproven and there will be mistakes- "designer babies" that do not turn out as planned. A child intended to be super intelligent instead has severe autism, for example. Also, there are a lot of epigenetic factors in the expression of genomes that may influence the phenotype of the offspring, so the conditions under which the fetus is incubated (either in some kind of vat, or in a mother's womb) will be as important as the actual genes when it comes to "designing" a baby. 

I can see an outcry against this kind of technology simply on the basis of a few "designer babies" that wind up with some sort of strange disease or unwanted, possibly monstrous, phenotype (and possibly also on the basis of this technology being "unnatural" and "playing God"). It is possible that, just as cloning of humans is illegal, the manufacture of designer babies, while possible, would also be considered illegal in much of the world because of public outcry.


----------



## skeptical

Elizabeth

Was your book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond?

On designer babies and errors.

Yes, you are right.   In the short term, there will be errors, followed by an outcry.   Any new reproductive technology always stimulates an outcry of opposition.  Longer term, as more and more babies are born consequent to the new technology, and people see that they are just babies, the outcry fades.


----------



## Liz Bent

skeptical said:


> Elizabeth
> 
> Was your book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond?



It wasn't, actually, but that looks like a good book as well. The one I am thinking of was written specifically about forestry, and was in the forestry section of my university's library. It might be cited in "Collapse".



skeptical said:


> Elizabeth
> 
> On designer babies and errors.
> 
> Yes, you are right.   In the short term, there will be errors, followed by an outcry.   Any new reproductive technology always stimulates an outcry of opposition.  Longer term, as more and more babies are born consequent to the new technology, and people see that they are just babies, the outcry fades.



I think my point was that the short-term failures will result in legislation that makes it difficult for additional "designer" babies to be born, or for research to be conducted in this area to move the technology forward. Isn't it currently illegal in Europe to allow in vitro fertilization labs to choose the sex of the fetus, for example, while it is legal in other parts of the world? If UK parents want to choose the sex of their offspring, they have to travel to the United States.

If most of the world decides that "designer" babies are philosophically unjustifiable, the babies won't be born. Human reproductive clones won't be made any time in Europe, Australia, the US or countries that follow the UN declaration on human cloning due to philosophical objections, even though the technology exists to accomplish this right now.


----------



## K. Riehl

One successful genius developed this way would tempt a government to decide to quietly try for a few genius children to help with actual and perceived problems. 

In _Cyteen_ by C J Cherryh the "specials" were considered the greatest resource on their respective planets.


----------



## skeptical

I look at the old attitudes toward artificial insemination of humans.  Back in the 1960's, it was considered an abomination.   However, over time, society has changed its views, and this practise is now common.

Designer babies will probably begin in some country where the laws permit it, and the government sees the 'tourism' from would-be parents of designer babies as an economic asset.   In due course, enough such babies will be born, and be seen to be just babies, albeit healthier, better looking, more athletic, and more intelligent.  Then, the demand will pick up in countries with designer baby bans, and the laws will change.

Society is not static, and what appears terrible today will be normal tomorrow.


----------



## Dave

But International laws have been made for a reason. Maybe you are right, I certainly hope so, rather than have some _Boys From Brazil_ scenario.

However, I don't share the view that designer babies would be necessarily "healthier, better looking, more athletic, and more intelligent." Some of those measurements are surely in the eye of the beholder. We have discussed this before in another thread, but I see the fashion in children's names and the whole classes of a certain age of Jasons and Kylies (and Chardonnays - I mean who names their kid after a bottle of wine?) (Not to mention Princess, Apple, etc.)

If we leave these things to what is popular at the moment we would now have whole classes of David Beckham and Posh Spice look-a-likes. What hope for the Human race then? Under those circumstances, what appears normal today, would certainly appear terrible tomorrow!


----------



## skeptical

To Dave.

Hmmmmm!

Sorry, cannot agree.   Beauty is highly variable.  Look at Angelina Jolie, the young Elisabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Raquel Welch, Cameron Diaz,  Aishwarya Rai, Waris Dirie, Lucy Liu   .................................

Sometimes I can't *stop* looking.

To create a world in which half the human species looks that good?    Lead me to it!


----------



## Dave

It just won't work the way you think it will. People will go to their personal Geneticist and ask him for "a child like that!" in the same way they visit their Cosmetic Surgeon or their Hairdresser. Everything will be determined by fashion. Do you really want a future population to be the equivalent of a 'Beehive' or a 'Mohican'? You are thinking of some kind of benevolent council of elders deciding these things for the betterment of the human race, but think instead of the "Jeremy Kyle Show" audiences!


----------



## skeptical

Dave

There has been a lot of scientific research into physical beauty.  Some things appear to be long term, not items of fashion.   For example :  bilateral symmetry is *always *desirable, in males and females.   

A waist to hip ratio of about 0.7 for women is a mark of a good figure.  Smooth skin and firm, high breasts also for women.  Ditto a heart shaped face and large eyes.   

A man with a firm jaw is considered more attractive, in any society, regardless of fashion.  Similarly the 'carrot shaped physique', with wide shoulders and narrower hips, is a mark of male beauty in any culture.

Fashion appears to have less effect on ideas of physical beauty than you might think.  Some perceptions appear to be hard wired.


----------



## The Procrastinator

There's no question about it, humans are still evolving and we won't need genetic engineering with its pesky patents etc to continue our species' march to superiority! Lets face it there are more left handed people now than ever before! We are more intelligent, better at sport, and more creative than right handed people. Its about time the ridiculous prejudices held against us are recognised for what they always were - jealousy. We are on the rise - evolution is proceeding nicely thanks.


----------



## Vertigo

Unfortunately I don't think there are really more left-handed people but we have simply (for the most part) stopped trying to force them to be right handed. You are all so sinister...


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

The Procrastinator said:


> There's no question about it, humans are still evolving and we won't need genetic engineering with its pesky patents etc to continue our species' march to superiority! Lets face it there are more left handed people now than ever before! We are more intelligent, better at sport, and more creative than right handed people. Its about time the ridiculous prejudices held against us are recognised for what they always were - jealousy. We are on the rise - evolution is proceeding nicely thanks.





You're bringing up an interesting point here, Procrastinator. semi-unnatural evolution-and I don't mean genetic engineering.


Here, if you're confused about what I'm talking about, say there is a mutation in someone-this is where the only natural part will come in really-that allows a person a resistance or even immunity to radioactivity. Now, say that person produces some offspring with that same gene, and say an atomic war breaks out. Assuming that parent and/or is offspring survive the physical attacks, but our planet for the most part does not, they would have a much better chance of survival in such a world and as a result, any possible offspring from such people would be able to pass that radioactivity resistance onward to the human race, and in time, those without it would be eliminated.


Hence a semi-man-made state of evolution. Of course, such things without genetic engineering DO need a natural base, but mankind can certainly put a giant spring in it.


Do I think nature's done tinkering with us? Perhaps for the most part, but I think with our advancing technology and wastes I think we're forcing her to take a second look at things.


----------

