Are Humans Still Evolving?

[timwakefield 68]

And when will computers learn to love, Tim? When will they learn to love? <---say that in a Jerry Seinfeld type voice

Probably right around when the singularity happens. Calling them "computers" though is probably a bit of a misnomer, since they will be about as similar to today's computers as an abacus is similar to a Mac. Of course nobody really knows what they will look or act like, but it's safe to say that they will make today's top-of-the-line models look about as silly as this:The shit does look easy to use though. Just check your valves, monitor your levels, crank the wheel and you're ready to go!Brace yourselves gentlemen. According to the gas chromatograph, the secret ingredient is....Love!? Who's been screwing with this thing? [said in Professor Frink/LLY voice]

[Randy Reed 0]

That's my hometown, bitches! Front lines of scientific discovery, motherfuckers! Balls!I'm surprised they'd make that statement without mentioning that our size change since the Industrial Revolution has nothing to do with evolution, per say.You know luck had nothing to do with it.Not really. Those can be parts of evolution...learning to farm is not "evolving", per say.Per say!

One evolutionary thing that has happened since the production of mass foods is that our heads have shrunk. If you only went back to our forefatherslike Ben Franklin they all had bigger heads. This was due to chewing raw foods, like root vegetables that made better use of jaw muscles. Now we stuff ourfaces on cheeseburgers and pizza. I assume eventually we'll all look like Pee Wee Herman.

[timwakefield 68]

One evolutionary thing that has happened since the production of mass foods is that our heads have shrunk. If you only went back to our forefatherslike Ben Franklin they all had bigger heads. This was due to chewing raw foods, like root vegetables that made better use of jaw muscles. Now we stuff ourfaces on cheeseburgers and pizza. I assume eventually we'll all look like Pee Wee Herman.

That isn't an evolutionary change though, that's a lifestyle change. People's jaws are smaller because they don't use them as often as they used to. It's not a genetic change.

[crowTrobot 2]

That isn't an evolutionary change though, that's a lifestyle change. People's jaws are smaller because they don't use them as often as they used to. It's not a genetic change.

you could say it's still evolution, just with a different mechanism than selection of random genetic mutations.this is the type of thing that may be epigenetic - that is even though there is no change in DNA sequence there may be environmentally driven changein how genes work together.

[crowTrobot 2]

And when will computers learn to love, Tim? When will they learn to love?

[Randy Reed 0]

That isn't an evolutionary change though, that's a lifestyle change. People's jaws are smaller because they don't use them as often as they used to. It's not a genetic change.

you could say it's still evolution, just with a different mechanism than selection of random genetic mutations.this is the type of thing that may be epigenetic - that is even though there is no change in DNA sequence there may be environmentally driven changein how genes work together.

In any case people are being born now with smaller heads.A friend and I get into the Neanderthal vs Homo arguement alot for fun. He doesn't get how homos could kick there ass. I explained they were meat eaters and homos liked fruits and veggies and occasionaly a nice antelope steak. Homos could run all day and are the worlds greatest marathoners while Neanders were mostly meat eaters which made them huge and full of muscles but ultimately slow. They would trap their prey while homos would run them death.So you can imagine a horde of Neanderthals closing in with clubs on a homo and him just running about 50 feet away and saying "nah nah, nah nah nah!" and doing it repeatedly until the Neanders got tired and gave up. When the ice age receded about 40,000 years ago it ultimately did them in since on the vast plains of dry area they couldn't trap prey and starved to death. It must of been a sad sight to see all those fat guys running and screaming "Fuck fuck fuck" through the desert in frustration trying to catch a some prey for a meal.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

In any case people are being born now with smaller heads.

piss off

[vbnautilus 48]

piss off

The real limiting factor on head size is the birth canal. That's why our cerebral cortex folded up to get more surface area instead of the head just growing indefinitely. In other words, your mom must have a really large vagina.

[speedz99 145]

[brvheart 1,752]

In other words, your mom must have a really large vagina.

She does.

[hank213 1,823]

In any case people are being born now with smaller heads.A friend and I get into the Neanderthal vs Homo arguement alot for fun. He doesn't get how homos could kick there ass. I explained they were meat eaters and homos liked fruits and veggies and occasionaly a nice antelope steak. Homos could run all day and are the worlds greatest marathoners while Neanders were mostly meat eaters which made them huge and full of muscles but ultimately slow. They would trap their prey while homos would run them death.So you can imagine a horde of Neanderthals closing in with clubs on a homo and him just running about 50 feet away and saying "nah nah, nah nah nah!" and doing it repeatedly until the Neanders got tired and gave up. When the ice age receded about 40,000 years ago it ultimately did them in since on the vast plains of dry area they couldn't trap prey and starved to death. It must of been a sad sight to see all those fat guys running and screaming "Fuck fuck fuck" through the desert in frustration trying to catch a some prey for a meal.

I read an article in Scientific American recently that suggests that a large factor in the demise of the neanderthals and success of homo sapiens was due to the neanderthals being food specialists whereas the homo sapiens were food generalists. Neanderthals had adapted to hunting large game like the mammoth as practically their only food source. But homo sapiens ate pretty much whatever they could get their hands on: small game; tubers; veggies; as well as the large game the neanderthals were dependant upon. Furthermore, other studies of the historical climate of the European continent (the last refuge of neanderthals) have indicated that the climate was not as constant as originally thought. That the climate was fluctuating relatively rapidly and the food specialists were less able to adapt to rapidly changing game availabilities which is what actually led to their disappearance.

[Sal Paradise 57]

I read an article in Scientific American recently

hahaha, no you didn't.

[hank213 1,823]

hahaha, no you didn't.

admittedly, I was dropping a deuce at the time.

[Randy Reed 0]

I read an article in Scientific American recently that suggests that a large factor in the demise of the neanderthals and success of homo sapiens was due to the neanderthals being food specialists whereas the homo sapiens were food generalists. Neanderthals had adapted to hunting large game like the mammoth as practically their only food source. But homo sapiens ate pretty much whatever they could get their hands on: small game; tubers; veggies; as well as the large game the neanderthals were dependant upon. Furthermore, other studies of the historical climate of the European continent (the last refuge of neanderthals) have indicated that the climate was not as constant as originally thought. That the climate was fluctuating relatively rapidly and the food specialists were less able to adapt to rapidly changing game availabilities which is what actually led to their disappearance.

That's pretty much what I was saying. It seems to have really hit them about 40000 years ago when the ice age receded and left alot of dry plains. Since they ate alot of Mammoth (protiens and fats) they were considerably larger than homo sapien. They were more adept at trapping animals and using weapons and strength in numbers to overcome prey as evidenced by the vast amount of pits and valleys littered withweapon remains and bone fragments. The bone fragments included alot of Neander bones as well since jumping on wild animals could be a little dangerous. You know, kinda like Sal jumping a fat chick and bucked around.HS was alot less hairy and had adapted to running long distances better. Alot of animals were faster short distances but HS was the king of the marathon run. We evolved naturally to it having a great arch under our feet,achilles that acted as a spring, a good but to control motion and weight distribution (didn't need a tail for long slow runs) and I think it's called a nucal ligament at the base of the brain to help with head control. We also sweat.We share 95% of our DNA with monkeys but the major thing we have that they don't isn't a thumb, it's the achilles.Dogs and horses also have this ability to go longer distances having similar breathing and sweating systems, but we can still kick their ass in the long run. A Cheetah is way faster in the short run but after an initial burst they have to stop to breath as with other animals. A group of HS would isolate an animal from a pack, like an antelope and start the chase. We became adept trackersfollowing foot prints, waste, terrain and even developed anticipation all in an effort to run them down. The antelope would run, rest, run, try to get mixed back in the pack and eventually tire and need to restmaking them very easy prey. So anyway, this ability to chase down animals and basically run them death kept us alive and actually had alot to do with how we evolved as a species.

[navybuttons 15]

We share 95% of our DNA with monkeys but the major thing we have that they don't isn't a thumb, it's the achilles.

are you suggesting that our opposable thumb isn't major, that we don't have one, that monkey's do, or that it's not our greatest asset?imo trying to assign importance of assets is silly. humans have disproportionally large male genetalia, how you gonna rate an opposable thumb or an achilles against that?i like to think our capability of complex language was the greatest contributor to neanderthal's demise. he prolly stepped to us and the trut is yall don't wanna step to dis. of course humans are still evolving, shit, we're evolving so fast we'll prolly be extinct in 75 years. fucking sweet!!!edit: my bad for stipulating and using the word "extinct." i don't know what the human species will look like in 75 years.

[Randy Reed 0]

are you suggesting that our opposable thumb isn't major, that we don't have one, that monkey's do, or that it's not our greatest asset?imo trying to assign importance of assets is silly. humans have disproportionally large male genetalia, how you gonna rate an opposable thumb or an achilles against that?i like to think our capability of complex language was the greatest contributor to neanderthal's demise. he prolly stepped to us and the trut is yall don't wanna step to dis. of course humans are still evolving, shit, we're evolving so fast we'll prolly be extinct in 75 years. fucking sweet!!!

Well, i'm not sure if the above was written in navy code but i'll try to answer. I think the achilles and the human traits that enabled us to run long distances were ultimatelymore important than the thumb in comparison. Had we not been able to run we wouldn't be here. It enabled us access to huge protien source which not only helped us survivebeen was extremely beneficial to brain developement.By developing tracking and running together helped homo sapiens to develope not only language, but imagination and complex thinking like foresight and planning which is whatreally differentiates humans from the rest of the animal population. For a couple million years we traveled as groups, men, women, children, grandparents (like nomads) following food sources. The group would set out on a "hunt" or run but couldn't simply out run faster animals, they had to track them. To track the animals they had to "think" like them. Theywould have to put themselves in the animal's place or "imagine" what their next move might be. They had to think outside the box, so to say. We also had to work in tandem and communicateas such during these hunts. Many think that we evolved the ability to aniticipate, plan and communicate, etc., was a direct result of hunting food during these runs. (Tools and weapons are onlyabout 100,000 years old as far as we can tell.) So if you think our superiority was due to complex language you might be right, but that was only a part of it and likely it was due to the fact we could run like the dickens which gave us that edge in thefirst place. As an example, let's go back to the monkey. Like I said we share 95% of the same dna. Why did we advance intellectually and they didn't? Why did our brains developed more advanced and their's didn't?Most believe it was the access to protien by eating animals where monkeys didn't. Ever see a monkey run? Know way he's a chasing a deer down with those flat feet.

[Randy Reed 0]

I might as well add at this point that this also likely wiped out the whole "hunter/gatherer" theory that is a prevelent theory.Woman, kids and old people can run and likely did during these hunts and participated. It was unlikely they had a townor village as a base and moved along with the food source. It likely went something like the dominant men, like dear old dads starting the hunt. They were the more experience trackers. As they tired they rotated and as the group got tired the young guns would take over and renew the chase. As the chase ended the woman and older people would end it and go for the kill.It was also likely that women carried the smaller children. Ever seen a marathon where some girl has the baby in a backpack?Ever wonder why women suck in sprints compared to men but are almost equals in longer distances like ultra-marathons?

[navybuttons 15]

(Tools and weapons are onlyabout 100,000 years old as far as we can tell.)

over 2 million years and 6 or 7 speciations off.but your understanding of many things differs so far from mine i don't know what to say. but i'll try anyway.

Why did we advance intellectually and they didn't? Why did our brains developed more advanced and their's didn't?

if i'm not mistaken it was when our ancestors began to become primarily bi-pedal that our brains began to develop higher and more complicated levels of pattern recognition.

Most believe it was the access to protien by eating animals where monkeys didn't.

meat consumption is relatively new in our evolution. i've never heard from a single source (let alone "most believe") that it was protein that allowed or triggered our brains to evolve advanced pattern recognitions.my understanding was that our ancestors first taste of meat was from the sea which, again, requires tools, and it would serve as an evolutionary trigger for more advanced ones.edit: at the time i wrote this i misunderstood "pattern recognition" to be synonymous with "intelligence."

[JoeyJoJo 18]

but your understanding of many things differs so far from mine i don't know what to say.

Welcome to the religion forum.You know what I was thinking about the other day? Geese. I read somewhere that when geese are migrating and one of them gets hurt and has to stop, another goose will also stop with him. I thought that was nice.(I either read that or I came up with it in my head when I saw two geese on the side of the road hanging out. I can't remember. Maybe the AFLAC advertising is infiltrating my imagination.)Anyway, I don't know what that has to do with this. Is it an evolution question? Or maybe a God gave us morality question?

[speedz99 145]

Anyway, I don't know what that has to do with this. Is it an evolution question? Or maybe a God gave us morality question?

Or many not even a question at all? More of a story?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Or maybe not even a question at all? More of a story?

A valid point.Apparently geese are "permanently monogamous" (for a year; weird place to use permanent), so it's certainly possible that if one goose goes down, his or her goose spouse will stay with the fallen goose.No Goose Left Behind

[El Guapo 8]

How do you not like Ghost in the Darkness?

[hank213 1,823]

I might as well add at this point that this also likely wiped out the whole "hunter/gatherer" theory that is a prevelent theory.Woman, kids and old people can run and likely did during these hunts and participated. It was unlikely they had a townor village as a base and moved along with the food source. It likely went something like the dominant men, like dear old dads starting the hunt. They were the more experience trackers. As they tired they rotated and as the group got tired the young guns would take over and renew the chase. As the chase ended the woman and older people would end it and go for the kill.It was also likely that women carried the smaller children. Ever seen a marathon where some girl has the baby in a backpack?Ever wonder why women suck in sprints compared to men but are almost equals in longer distances like ultra-marathons?

Getting fixated on the running aspect of early homo sapiens as "the key" adaptation in human evolution is rather myopic and is one of the problems with evolutionary study. Scientific study, by it's very nature, seeks to explain phenomena through a one-source approach. However, evolution does not happen in a vacuum and it is most likely a confluence of adaptions with evolutionary pressures that led to homo sapiens expansive growth.

if i'm not mistaken it was when our ancestors began to become primarily bi-pedal that our brains began to develop higher and more complicated levels of pattern recognition.

It's called encephalization and it is extremely important in the evolution of homo sapiens. Studying bipedalism and it's effects on the development of the brain in homo erectus and homo sapiens again falls short in its methodolgy of seeking "the silver bullet."

[El Guapo 8]

It's called encephalization and it is extremely important in the evolution of homo sapiens. Studying bipedalism and it's effects on the development of the brain in homo erectus and homo sapiens again falls short in its methodolgy of seeking "the silver bullet."

[Randy Reed 0]

Getting fixated on the running aspect of early homo sapiens as "the key" adaptation in human evolution is rather myopic and is one of the problems with evolutionary study. Scientific study, by it's very nature, seeks to explain phenomena through a one-source approach. However, evolution does not happen in a vacuum and it is most likely a confluence of adaptions with evolutionary pressures that led to homo sapiens expansive growth. It's called encephalization and it is extremely important in the evolution of homo sapiens. Studying bipedalism and it's effects on the development of the brain in homo erectus and homo sapiens again falls short in its methodolgy of seeking "the silver bullet."

I agree and given that it's a poker forum and I was bored at work, not a paleantologist I wasn't fully specific. There were obviously many factors other than running that went intoour evolution but I was just pointing out what I thought might be a little less known aspect of it that was still important.