What is Digg?326 Comments
- radicaldementia, on 10/07/2008, -2/+101This article seems very narrow-minded about what it means to evolve. True, things like climate and food availability may play a far lesser role in our ability to pass on our genes, but other things like sexual selection are increasing in significance. Somebody who is physically, mentally, or emotionally "unattractive" has a lesser chance of producing offspring than someone who is considered attractive. It doesn't even really matter what specifically we attribute to attractiveness, as long as some sort of scale exists, there will be those who fit it better than others. Thus, evolution can continue without direct human intervention (Gattaca), although that will probably happen too.
So I think people a million years from now (if we last that long) will be immensely different from ourselves. - tekproxy, on 10/07/2008, -6/+83Somewhere, a baby was born, just now.
So this article is wrong. - Guyoni, on 10/07/2008, -5/+67I hate it when I click on a DailyMail link, at least the Onion's fake news articles are funny
- c0mputar, on 10/07/2008, -3/+63Very interesting. However, it doesn't matter because of genetic engineering. Our descendants will change based on the parent's desires.
- BigCheezy, on 10/07/2008, -19/+71This has been pretty obvious for a while now. It really annoys me how I still hear people "looking forward to the day humans evolve six fingers." What a horrible understanding of the theory.
- kellfinder, on 10/07/2008, -2/+38Soooo, we are as good as we are going to get??
- thebaron2, on 10/07/2008, -0/+32This doesn't take the evolution of bio-technology nor the evolution of microbiology (our immune systems, super-bugs, etc...) into account.
Anyone remember this article from last year?
Humans Evolving More Rapidly Than Ever, Say Scientists
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans- ... - Adamande, on 10/07/2008, -2/+31There is another very interesting factor not taken into account called the technological singularity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singula ...
To quote the essence of it: "Statistician I. J. Good first wrote of an "intelligence explosion", suggesting that if machines could even slightly surpass human intellect, they could improve their own designs in ways unforeseen by their designers, and thus recursively augment themselves into far greater intelligences."
In a million years, there might not be people at all. - Wade, on 10/07/2008, -0/+23A horrible understanding of the theory would be to suggest that it's obvious that human evolution has come to an end. It's not always about the highly visible mutations, the only surefire way to stop evolution is to repeatedly hit the 'B' button.
- PoopOnPaul, on 10/07/2008, -1/+23Evolution doesn't necessarily mean improvement, it just means change. The idea that a species always gets "better" as it evolves suggests that nature or evolution has some kind of consciousness that's making the decisions for how to improve us. Or to put it in nerd terms:
The idea that a species always gets "better" as it evolves treats species like software. It's initially released with its bugs and lack of features. Over time, it may die out, or it may continue to be improved with bug fixes, new features, etc. It gets better with each version (in general).
But software requires a developer to make it. If every change to something is a conscious effort to make it better, that conscious effort had to be made by something.
Evolution (as most people see it) is a natural process, not involving any kind of God or programmer. Likewise, it doesn't always deal with improvement, just change. Yeah, I know, natural selection helps bring out the traits advantageous in whatever environment, but natural selection is not the only thing that drives evolution (for example, the Founder Effect)
Basically, what I'm getting at is that evolution ≠ improvement. Evolution = change - inactive, on 10/07/2008, -4/+25Why would that be? Attractiveness does not impact our desire to *****. Yes, unattractive people will be less likely to ***** attractive people, but what would prevent them from settling and ***** each other?
- inactive, on 10/07/2008, -3/+20Makes sense to me - after all, when we developed the capacity for language and technology, we reached a point at which our brains could adapt and find solutions to problems faster than genetics ever could.
- StultusJuventus, on 10/07/2008, -1/+17"They used to say that a child conceived in love has a greater chance of happiness. They don't say that anymore. I'll never understand what possessed my mother to put her faith in God's hands, rather than her local geneticist. "
- awesometastic1, on 10/07/2008, -0/+15and on that note unattractive dumb poor people breed waaaaaay more than attractive smart (and often relatively rich) people.
so we are being genetically "injure"-neer'd to have a few smart and attractive people and with the majority of people being stupid, poor, and ugly. Take THAT natural selection ;-)
Don't believe me? go visit southern california or heck just go down to the DMV *shudders* - gnotDigger, on 10/07/2008, -0/+14This sensationalist headline+article completely overlooks the implications neutral mutation and an eon (very long time) can have on a species. This is not taking into account: memetic influences, GRB, magnetic pole reversals, wars, solar flares, pollution, sudden unexpected catastrophes... BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH (insert countless ignored reasons here). Besides, we're going to start engineering ourselves soon. Think on that mr. grant hungry geneticist. What a worthless paper. Buried for complete misunderstanding of evolution+history,an incredibly narrow world view enhanced by a massively inflated ego, and worst of all propagation of misinformation while claiming a scientific basis.
Summary: You ***** suck. - Encablossa, on 10/07/2008, -1/+14Pasty CRT tan.
- Mihey, on 10/07/2008, -3/+16Bull. Just because we haven't changed must the past few thousand years doesn't mean we aren't going to evolve anymore. Evolution takes place over MILLIONS of years. Hey, just a million year ago we were still primal humanoids trudging around in Africa. A million before then we were apes.
In million years, we will be physically weak space-faring race with heightened vital senses such as sight and bigger brains. Yup, just like aliens with huge heads and eyes, but tiny everything else. Even reproduction organs. - LordPhoenyx, on 10/07/2008, -0/+12Time to reboot the planet and start over all again
- rockforever, on 10/07/2008, -1/+13This is complete bull though, as we can see within the past 1000 years how much taller people have gotten. Our diet is as big a factor as anything in our "evolution". The tallest people in the world are the dutch. They recently edged out American's as being tallest because for a long time only American's would eat as much protein due to hunting.
Hell, have you even been to an old village in like France or England? Look at those shanties and tell me people were standing upright in them. - rustyrobot, on 10/07/2008, -0/+12rockforever, you have to realize that proper nutrition and modern medicine is not genetic evolution. Evolution is defined as the change in allelic frequencies. If you had twin brothers and one grew up in Africa and one grew up in the US, there is no evolutionary difference between them despite the fact that their adult bodies will be very different. Their genomes are exact copies of each other.
- kurejibitch, on 10/07/2008, -1/+11This articles proves exactly what's wrong with most people's very rudimentary knowledge of the way evolution works. Buried. :/
- stoanhart, on 10/07/2008, -1/+11Not even close. Biological evolution hasn't stopped, it's just painfully slow compared to what we can do with technology. Technological evolution is still evolution: biology created a conscious mind, and that mind can understand, reverse engineer, and improve itself and its vessel. We live to be almost 100 years old on average, when a couple of centuries ago we died at the age of 30. Biological evolution just can't match that.
- cloudberries, on 10/07/2008, -1/+10I think the main argument here though, is how evolution will now no longer take the path of "Survival of the Fittest", since we're now capable of proloning the lives of pretty much anyone who, before, would have succumbed to whatever illness or misfortune befell them (thusly ridding the genepool of dangerous genes in the case of illness). People will still adapt to their environments, but not always in a way beneficial to the health and well-being of the race as a whole.
Natural selection via stupidity a.k.a. the Darwin Awards is still going strong though... - Shiftgood, on 10/07/2008, -4/+13Anyone else think that these "gray" aliens are future humans? I dont believe it 100% but i like to kick the idea around.
Think about technology and information. Massive brains, massive receptors (eyes). skinny and small due to efficiency in nutrition and lack of necessity of movement as technology handles all that stuff for us. Skin that doesn't block UV rays for vitamin D even in cases of small amounts of exposure. Small mouths as face to face communication is not a necessity.
yah yah yah... crazy talk. but its fun to think about. - EtherGnat, on 10/07/2008, -0/+9Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
- bratterscain, on 10/07/2008, -0/+9Attractiveness is subjective and if enough ugly people bred, the scale of attractive would lower. But really, physical appearance is not a big hindrance to some people. I would take an intelligent, less attractive girl over a dumb, more attractive girl.
I think modern society tends to go overboard with treating and looking at everyone equal and as such, traits that are not really in demand for advancement of the human being are almost forced to be looked upon as equal.
I know that may make me seem cruel and cold hearted but hey, there's nobody I know that treats every person and every animal as an equal no matter what. Sure, some say you're equal and acceptable if you do this or that or conform to their way, but you narrow that down more, and you still won't be good enough.
You wonder why you're treated different, could it be because you're different? Even if you're just like me even in experience, you would just be a bore because there would be nothing new I could get from you. Different can be good and exciting and I don't know why there's such a big deal about seeing everyone as equals and treating them as such. I like being treated as different as I am different. - LukeUlrich, on 10/07/2008, -7/+16Buried for a lack of understanding about evolution.
It has nothing to do with being smarter or dumber, but survival. Saying evolution has stopped is saying we will all die. - sadisticmind, on 10/07/2008, -0/+8but that would mean no star craft 2!!!!
- d0nkeym0nkey, on 10/07/2008, -0/+8Quick, someone initiate the Third Impact!
- grantmoore3d, on 10/07/2008, -0/+8Ummmm.... no?
- copypastry, on 10/07/2008, -0/+8Exactly. Through technology we have developed adaptations to a lot of things that would have definitely counted as selection pressures 25000 years ago
- jorazzle, on 10/07/2008, -0/+7Clearly you never saw Idiocracy
- Wawin, on 10/07/2008, -1/+8I completely agree with you, the article seems to pigeonhole evolution only into observable physical traits.
- expat76, on 10/07/2008, -1/+8That's what I've always thought. The UFOs we've been seeing are actually time travelers from the future who have traveled back in time to study their distant ancestors. Perhaps they have some sort of code that dictates they not interact or in any way affect the past, lest they start disappearing from their own photographs. Surely someone has covered this topic in fiction at some point. If anyone knows of such a thing, I'd love to know.
- Dimensio, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Do you have any evidence in support of your assertions? Can you describe the physical mechanisms by which "Man" was "crated PERFECTLY"?
- stix213, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Its true that without evolutionary pleasures killing off parts of society, we won't likely be making any significant improvements. What the author doesn't mention is the fact that our society is keeping alive many people with genetic ailments, who would otherwise likely die off without modern medications or treatments. This should be increasing the prevalence of "bad" genes in the overall gene pool. Their numbers will likely continue to increase until some kind of gene therapy is developed to modify people's DNA to remove these genetic errors.
Obviously I'm not for getting rid of people, no matter what their problems, I just think its interesting how society will be effected over the long term. - unhg, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7WTF, no wings, no x-ray vision, no super-human strength for my great^100 -grand children? Well that blows.
At least a zombie apocalypse please? - Zuggy, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7I would say there is still room for mutation and natural selection in impoverished 3rd world nations where there aren't enough resources to go around.
- tiedyeman, on 10/07/2008, -1/+7No, he is right. You (sirberus) are describing natural selection. He (pooponpaul) is describing evolution. Natural selection is on mechanism which drives evolution, but not the only one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Mechanisms - doiveo, on 10/07/2008, -2/+8Agreed. Evolution requires replication, variation and competition. I don't see any of those absent from the human race.
- Vektuz, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6There is never any stop to evolution. Thinking otherwise is fundamentally not understanding evolution. Evolution is not "getting better all the time". Its simply changing due to changing environment. The human environment is radically changing, always.
We'll stop evolving the moment we start working on our own genes. As it is now, all sorts of things can have an effect on the overall gene pool. Sure it takes thousands of years but that's how long it takes. - ElectroStep, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6Surgery!
- steelersfan7roe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6"'So, if you are worried about what Utopia is going to be like, don't. At least in the developed world, and at least for the time being, you are living in it now.'"
Utopia this is not. - buddysystem, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6ascii art?
- Dimensio, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5"Amazing how this explicitly supports the theory of Intelligent Design and even Biblical Creationism, yet we still continue to talk about evolution."
Please explain how the article explicitly supports "Intelligent Design" and "Biblical Creationism". Describe the physical mechanisms of "Intelligent Design" and of "Biblical Cretaionism" that are substantiated in the article.
"Well guess what, most other things still look the same as the fossils of the same creatures from millions of years ago."
Please substantiate this assertion.
" All evolution has stopped?"
No one has made any such claim. Either you have done no research, or you are lying. - rabidbob, on 10/07/2008, -2/+7I dunno, science news from the Daily Fail is usually amusing in its stupidity.
- Tanze, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5human brain trumps natural evolution.
given enough time i think we'll trump anything in nature - auto98, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5QFT - there are even noticeable differences in height in the last 100 years, never mind the last 1000
- superflydugg, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6this article is dumb, and it is not unprovable so i guess they win. but what about sexual selection? epidemics? diseases can wipe entire chains of DNA. I don't think evolution stopped, it's just slow. really slow. likes hundreds of thousands of years slow. the life of a human is a blink of an eye in the life of this planet. *blink* *blink*. there; 2 down.
- Robobeaver, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6pictured: a monkey evolving into Chuck Norris...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 330 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is