[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
science

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 2908)
Message
File  []
close
how-to-draw-dinosaurs-133.jpg
290829082908
>> No. 2908 Anonymous
12th July 2012
Thursday 9:45 pm
2908 Evolution
Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve?

It seems that we have come a long way in the past 100,000 years and I wonder what we will look like and how we will think/behave in 100,000 years time.
Expand all images.
>> No. 2909 Anonymous
12th July 2012
Thursday 9:48 pm
2909 spacer
>>2908
>Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve?

No.
Statistically, the most realistic prediction is extinction.
>> No. 2910 Anonymous
12th July 2012
Thursday 9:50 pm
2910 spacer
>It seems that we have come a long way in the past 100,000 years

While we have changed an awful lot in terms of our technology and society we have changed very little in the last 100,000 years in evolutionary terms. If you were take take a baby born that long ago and magically transport it to modern times and raise it like a normal child it would likely be indistinguishable from any other person of its age.
>> No. 2911 Anonymous
12th July 2012
Thursday 10:29 pm
2911 spacer

PT-AO835_CovJum_G_20100604152914[1].jpg
291129112911
>>2910
This.

Our brains have allowed us to survive and thrive with barely any physical changes. I see evolution for humans now as more to do with cultural evolution than anything else. Our brains allow us to create technology that aids us in a fraction of the time evolution would take to do something similar. If we were to ask in what ways technology might evolve in the future then the emergence of computers and the internet might offer some clues. The connected nature of the internet with its global reach and instant upload and download of data is almost like a representation of the connectedness/oneness of conciousness, and technology involving our own conciousness is very likely on the horizon.
>> No. 2912 Anonymous
14th July 2012
Saturday 8:33 am
2912 spacer
>>2911>>2910

Thanks. Really interesting.
>> No. 2913 Anonymous
14th July 2012
Saturday 10:11 am
2913 spacer
>>2911
Do you think it's strange that the top scientists and politicians in the world are in effect the same as the prehistoric savages?
>> No. 2914 Anonymous
15th July 2012
Sunday 8:21 pm
2914 spacer
>>2913

Yeah, the brain is quite extraordinary. I wonder how long it will be until the top scientists of today will be considered as dense as we see early humans as being.
>> No. 2915 Anonymous
16th July 2012
Monday 8:38 pm
2915 spacer
Humans aren't evolving because evolution takes place on the principle of natural selection, and in human society, especially our modern society, everyone is catered for and given the chance to survive and reproduce as a basic right. If you want to predict how humans will evolve, you have to look at the traits of the people who are having children and the traits of the people who are left to die without children.

The film Idiocracy posits one theory along these lines.
>> No. 2916 Anonymous
19th July 2012
Thursday 12:09 pm
2916 spacer
>>2914

We only see early humans as dense because people tend to look at history as The March Of Progress. William the Conqueror was just as smart as Og was just as smart as you or me.

>>2915

>Humans aren't evolving

Stopped reading there.
>> No. 2917 Anonymous
19th July 2012
Thursday 12:15 pm
2917 spacer
>>2916
Not quite as smart really - with less accumulated knowledge historical peoples have been less able to make the connections that we do. They had the same potential for learning. Their brains are wired to do other things like spotting animal tracks or whatever. You could argue that's being as smart.
>> No. 2918 Anonymous
19th July 2012
Thursday 10:02 pm
2918 spacer
>>2917

I wouldn't say that having an education is the same as being smart.
>> No. 2919 Anonymous
19th July 2012
Thursday 10:08 pm
2919 spacer
>>2908

Brain size has been measurably shrinking over the many generations of our form. I expect a future on a par with Idiocracy, but less optimistic.
>> No. 2920 Anonymous
21st July 2012
Saturday 12:11 pm
2920 spacer
>>2908

Our brains will whither and be replaced by technology.
>> No. 2921 Anonymous
21st July 2012
Saturday 12:53 pm
2921 spacer
>>2920

>whither

Well, maybe yours will. My brain will be perfectly fine thanks.
>> No. 3085 Anonymous
17th December 2012
Monday 2:34 am
3085 spacer

DE-HR You monsters.jpg
308530853085
>>2920
The human body barely accepts transplants from other humans. Think of the meds needed to stop the body rejecting its own mechanical brain.
>> No. 3086 Anonymous
17th December 2012
Monday 2:46 am
3086 spacer
>>3085

They will be replaced by external technology.
>> No. 3088 Anonymous
17th December 2012
Monday 7:41 am
3088 spacer
>>2919I thought, in humans, smaller brains were linked to a higher IQ?
>> No. 3089 Anonymous
17th December 2012
Monday 8:16 am
3089 spacer
>>3086
They already are. Example: I've augmented my flabby memory by carrying a pencil and notepad. I've increased my problem solving capacity by carrying a smartphone with google search on it.
>> No. 3090 Anonymous
17th December 2012
Monday 11:12 am
3090 spacer
>>3089
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/google-memory-study-columbia-university_n_899730.html
>> No. 3091 Anonymous
17th December 2012
Monday 11:56 am
3091 spacer
>>3089

Exactly. What do think it will be like in a thousand years time?
>> No. 3092 Anonymous
21st December 2012
Friday 9:49 am
3092 spacer
>>2908
>Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve?
No more than we can predict any of the future.

>Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve if X or Y contingencies become true?
Yes, of course.
>> No. 3093 Anonymous
21st December 2012
Friday 11:34 am
3093 spacer
>>3092
We can certainly predict basic evolutionary trends, based on who reproduces and who doesn't. Anything further is another story though.
>> No. 3094 Anonymous
21st December 2012
Friday 11:40 am
3094 spacer
>>3093
Yes, but that's not really something we can predict any better than say, the economy. It's mostly speculation.
On the other hand we can say with confidence that if, for example we stop using technology and enter an ice age we'll evolve to be more hairy and have more fat reserves. The basics. We can't accurately predict the long-term effects of a complex technological civilisation as there's no precedent to go by.
>> No. 3095 Anonymous
24th December 2012
Monday 11:59 pm
3095 spacer
It's impossible to predict evolution without knowing the future environments and conditions that humans will be in.
>> No. 3109 Anonymous
22nd January 2013
Tuesday 11:24 am
3109 spacer

DINO-BIRD-FAIRY-TALE.jpg
310931093109
Evolution hated the dinosaurs... I can't imagine we'll do much better.
>> No. 3112 Anonymous
23rd January 2013
Wednesday 9:46 pm
3112 spacer
In a very real way, humans are a mass extiction event.
>> No. 3113 Anonymous
23rd January 2013
Wednesday 10:15 pm
3113 spacer
Have a browse of http://www.futuretimeline.net/index.htm

102,000AD is a ridiculously far away point. All the interesting stuff happens in the next few hundred years.
>> No. 3114 Anonymous
23rd January 2013
Wednesday 10:33 pm
3114 spacer
>>3109
Even if you ignore the content, you can tell this was produced by some lunatic creationist because of the bizarre writing style. Emphasis on every other word, excessive use of ellipses and exclamation marks and so forth; it just screams "I have no credibility".
>> No. 3121 Anonymous
27th January 2013
Sunday 9:57 pm
3121 spacer
>>3113

Really interesting website thanks. My favorite part:

"Beyond 10 100 AD...

The last remaining black hole has evaporated.

From this point onwards the universe is composed only of photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons - with no way of interacting with each other.

The universe continues to expand forever... but is essentially dead."

And then it all starts again? I hope so.
>> No. 3122 Anonymous
27th January 2013
Sunday 10:15 pm
3122 spacer
>>3121

>From this point onwards the universe is composed only of photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons - with no way of interacting with each other.

Wait what?
>> No. 3123 Anonymous
28th January 2013
Monday 11:35 am
3123 spacer
>>3122

Because space will be stretched out so much. Each particle will end up alone in its own light cone.
>> No. 3129 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 3:55 am
3129 spacer
>>3123

I don't think so. Random movement of particles and pair production/annihilation will cause at least some things to be close enough to interact no matter how dense the universe is.

Hell, my interpretation of the big bang is actually pretty similar - the previous universe was spread out, heat death, entropy etc, then pair production creates temporary "above average" gravity pockets towards the centre of the infinite spread which pulls all the particles back towards the centre, with the central gravity pockets becoming stronger as more particles are pulled towards the centre.

Eventually, everything coalesces in to one big ball and the big bang happens, which sends everything flying out in to space again. Repeat forever.

Basically - big ball of stuff explodes, spreads out over trillions of years, random pair production will always favour more central locations for particle/anti-particle appearance, this concentrates gravity slightly towards the centre, everything starts to get pulled back in over trillions of years and joins in to big balls, once everything hits the centre another big bang happens.
>> No. 3131 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 12:29 pm
3131 spacer
>>3129

I'm probably wrong or misunderstanding you but I always thought that there was no centre of the universe/big bang. My understanding was that it's the actual space time of the universe that's expanding so there is no central point or everywhere is the central point?
>> No. 3132 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 2:31 pm
3132 spacer

alef.gif
313231323132
>>3131
>> No. 3133 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:01 pm
3133 spacer
>>3132
I don't know what this means, googling alef just led me to the first letter of the hebrew alphabet and a programming language? Care to be a little less obscure and explain what you mean to an admittedly scientifically ignorant prole.
>> No. 3134 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:06 pm
3134 spacer

original content do not steal.png
313431343134
>>3131

There has to be a point in any system, infinite or not, which is equidistant from everything in the system at any given time.

All I'm saying is there is more space towards the middle than the edges, so if any pair has a chance of being produced in any given space, if it appears in the middle, its gravity will have more of an inward pull than a pair's gravitational pull near the edges does to the outside, on average.

If we think of it as a disc separated in to two like in the picture, even though the inner and outer parts have the same amount of space, so an equal chance of pair production, anything in the the inside part will pull in, while anything in the outside part will pull out in different directions.

Red indicates pair production.
Arrow indicates pull.

So the chances of a red dot appearing in the inside ring and outside ring are the same, but the net pull of the inside ring will be greater due to its concentration, while the outside ring dots will cancel eachother out because they're on the opposite sides.
>> No. 3135 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:22 pm
3135 spacer
>>3134
Ah okay, thanks for the reply. That makes sense.
>> No. 3136 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:27 pm
3136 spacer
>>3135

Just so you know, I wasn't the knob who posted >>3132 - I have no idea what he means either.
>> No. 3137 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:33 pm
3137 spacer
>>3136
No worries, I appreciated the simple and effective explanatory reply.

Blimey I just clicked on the gif in >>3132 it's bloody huge and animated. What on Earth?
>> No. 3138 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:40 pm
3138 spacer
>>3133
>>3137
It's not science, it's the aleph. Googling that is fairly explanatory
http://www.phinnweb.org/links/literature/borges/aleph.html
>> No. 3139 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 5:54 pm
3139 spacer
>>3138

Could you just explain the relevance of posting it in this thread? What meaning did you intend to convey?
>> No. 3140 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 6:02 pm
3140 spacer
>>3139
>I always thought that there was no centre of the universe/big bang. My understanding was that it's the actual space time of the universe that's expanding so there is no central point or everywhere is the central point?
>> No. 3141 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 6:02 pm
3141 spacer
>>3139
>I always thought that there was no centre of the universe/big bang.
wasn't that ur mum m8
>> No. 3142 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 7:04 pm
3142 spacer
>>2911
I agree with this chap, it's all gonna be about technology m7.
>> No. 3143 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 7:14 pm
3143 spacer
>>3140

Could you explain further please?
>> No. 3144 Anonymous
30th January 2013
Wednesday 8:02 pm
3144 spacer
>>3143
Everywhere is the central point and that point is called the Aleph
>> No. 3332 Anonymous
2nd August 2013
Friday 3:18 pm
3332 spacer
I felt there was already a thread in a similar vein to what I want to bring up here, and I have to say that I broadly agree with the points made in this thread that the nature of human society and civilisation in general, that natural selection per se simply does not happen (we don't have a predator any more that I can think of, other than periodic pandemics) in the way Darwin describes.
But what I want to bring up is that oddly popular, at least in online communities and (in my experience) with poorly adjusted nerds, trops of behavioural genetics. What do other /lab/labs think of the whole idea of it?
It strikes me as being marvellously deterministic and overly complex to even prove or disprove, owing that one single genetic mutation, which is practically certain to happen in a developing foetus, can have such an impact on previously dormant genes.
Is there any truth to this, or are these people I have come across just pseudo-scientists?
>> No. 3333 Anonymous
2nd August 2013
Friday 3:32 pm
3333 spacer
>>3332
what?
>> No. 3348 Anonymous
7th September 2013
Saturday 3:07 am
3348 spacer

1372324200684.jpg
334833483348
Sadly I can't find read: haven't looked the original of this picture but it will have to suffice.
I like to think that the original image isn't a prediction but a reality. We were the aliens all along, etc.
>> No. 3349 Anonymous
7th September 2013
Saturday 4:05 am
3349 spacer
The neo-hybrid genetic legacy is being bred-out and diluted rapidly. It will leave a poorer sapien creature, unable to continue the legacy built by its betters. This will lead to greater and more frequent instabilities or "inexplicable" disasters - politically and economically - and finally a massive collapse and die-back. Doesn't need to be too grand, a muddy and petty spiral is all that's needed. At the die-back point where the genetic stock is boiled down to thousands is where the real magic will happen and Darwin and co.'s concepts will have their impact (It's otherwise difficult to make significant changes to a species with a massively wide genetic base that interbreeds freely). For generations it will reshape the next cycle of Man until both Man and the environment are able and stable enough to rebuild and establish an ongoing permanent civilisation once more.

Genetic legacies seem to indicated previous bottle necks. I suspect it's happened at various points in the past and each time that cycle's Mankind has been stamped back down and remoulded. Sometimes never getting past stone age or bronze, others a bit further. The more we learn about the world and what is in it, the more we find that it is older than we had imagined and the hominid form is found to exist for longer.

When we think of all civillised history we know of can be contained in mere handful of thousand years....imagine what could be contained in a million - lost and found and lost again? I think each time evolution has its impact and this is how our type is changed over time when we stumble or hit a wall. Hard to say if we're better for it in any objective sense or just randomly different and given another roll of the die (if indeed we are still close enough a species to still be 'us' or 'we' by then). With enough shots at it and random chance eventually a hominid or hyper-intelligent animal type will come out that is capable of very long term stability and either adabtable enough and organised enough to survive the natural kill off cycles and disasters or fast enough to get all the eggs out of this one basket.

Yes, I am willing to share what I have been smoking and drinking.
>> No. 3350 Anonymous
7th September 2013
Saturday 12:39 pm
3350 spacer
Anyone interested in this thread should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3qF26MbYgOA#t=747

It is basically the Astronomer Royal talking about the evolution of humanity on Earth, summarising that if any future relatives of outs are left here when the sun finally cools down and supernovas in 7 billion years, they will be as different from present day humans as we are from bacteria.

It's pretty fascinating. In-case the YT link breaks, its 12:30 till the end.
>> No. 3351 Anonymous
7th September 2013
Saturday 3:41 pm
3351 spacer
humans are rapidly evolving every day. technology is the third leg of the human race, it is a development born out of our intelligence and time given with it. We are driving our own evolution and sooner or later it's going to reach a point where it changes our existence more dramatically than any bio-evolutionary development can. I don't believe we'll reach a markedly different point of 'natural' evolution, I think we'll destroy ourselves before that with the evolution we've pushed on ourselves.

There's this great researcher at Cornell who's done a bunch of work decoding how to talk directly to your brain, sort of bypassing the front end of your optical system. In other words, she's actually just skipping the eye and talking directly into the peoples brains. Which really introduces sort of a bizarre "Snow Crash" reality way sooner than I would have guessed. So, she's solving the coding problem, [door distraction] there's the sort of the CCD front-end problem, which is kind of hard, and she's like well, that's a bitch, why don't we just skip that, figure out what the protocol is to talk to the brain. And it turns out, one of the interesting things, it's a way more compact representation of information, so, you know, that's gonna happen, that's something you guys should be thinking about, that your subjective experience of reality is probably going to be driven directly into your brain much sooner than I think most people expect.

singularity isn't a joke or a mistake. life is going to get very strange very quickly.
>> No. 3352 Anonymous
7th September 2013
Saturday 4:14 pm
3352 spacer
I never developed wisdom teeth, apparently this is an evolutionary step forwards that affects approx 30% of people. We just don't need them.
>> No. 3353 Anonymous
8th September 2013
Sunday 10:20 pm
3353 spacer
>>3352
I for one am glad to have wisdom teeth. Otherwise I'd have twice as many gaps as I currently do.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password