Are us humans the end stage in our species lifespan? Or are we just another transition species to is destined to go extinct to then be replaced?

[Founders]

On 11/15/2019 at 11:02 AM, redbread123 said:

America will evolve ( if they don't all die) will evolve into boneless, gelatinous masses, where their mating grounds are fast food restaurants and the nyse. Most of eastern asia will ascend into a final stage of math, and will be able to solve everything with math, europe? eh they'll invent rain proof everything. africa will learn to digest dirt and sand instead of water, south america will evolve to digest oil and natural resources, australians will evolve into giant spider crabs and fight back the emus and kangaroos

America:

 

The rest...

[hsdjfh]

Of course we're not the end of evolution. Humans have a tendency to think we are somehow special or important. We aren't, homo sapiens are just another dumb animal like any other. We have evolved in the past few thousand years(most adults can ingest lactose, only happened since we started farming cows) and all things going well we will continue to evolve. The more important question right now is whether we will last to see any of that, climate change, nuclear war, AI ect all have the potential to wipe us out if we can't stop being so stupid.

[amdorintel]

3 minutes ago, hsdjfh said:

nuclear war

be interesting to see what happens with north korea

[redbread123]

On 11/16/2019 at 6:41 PM, Ehmc130 said:

America:

 

The rest...

lmao the wall e people got me lmao

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, redbread123 said:

lmao the wall e people got me lmao

Read a thing on the creation of the movie wall-e once.  The actual original view of the writer was even worse.  He just couldn’t make it work in the movie.  His view of zero gee humanity was that they had no bones at all and were merely floating globs of flesh.

[Magnetar_Byte]

On 11/15/2019 at 2:16 AM, floofer said:

No definitely not. Anyone who thinks that Homo sapiens sapiens is the end of our evolution is a hick. 

Evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years, we are a relatively new species on this planet.

U missed my point bud. I said are we the end to a piece of our evolution. I know its hard to grasp but the best way I can describe it is if the dinosaurs were the peak for there species. Then it kinda platued for the next hundred million years. Where all that happened was that the species filled more niches but the core of who they are NEVER changed. 

 

With humans it feels like we have done the same, sure looking back 40k years for humans isn't the same as 40 million for dinosaurs. But I don't know it feels pretty similiar as to the fact not much as changed drasticly. 

[Magnetar_Byte]

On 11/16/2019 at 9:06 PM, hsdjfh said:

Of course we're not the end of evolution. Humans have a tendency to think we are somehow special or important. We aren't, homo sapiens are just another dumb animal like any other. We have evolved in the past few thousand years(most adults can ingest lactose, only happened since we started farming cows) and all things going well we will continue to evolve. The more important question right now is whether we will last to see any of that, climate change, nuclear war, AI ect all have the potential to wipe us out if we can't stop being so stupid.

No one said we're special like the way your thinking of it. What we are saying is that sapiens are the first to develop Sentience as far as we know looking back through the fossil record. 

 

Lactose isn't something I'm talking about those traits are next to nothing. What I'm saying is that Ever since our species was created aka the modern human about 40k years ago not much has changed. Where as with dinos they not only changed but they diversed from one organism into multiple niches that covered the air, ground, and water. Where as we had a few species that did the same thing with slight alterations to our design and look thats it. 

 

Then they started dying out and now were stuck here with humans that still haven't changed much and I honestly don't see any reason for us to change. We stopped evolving as we know the process to go ever since we created Agriculture is that perhaps why our species has plateaued because instead of survival of the fittest deciding our fate instead EVERY human has the chance to reproduce whether your diseased, disabled, old, whatever u can reproduce even if in the past u would have died 50 times over in that same instance.  

[Magnetar_Byte]

On 11/16/2019 at 7:38 PM, GGhi_REAL said:

Not sure what we're taking about, but its about humans, so here is something i wanna say. PEOPLE ARE GETTING SHORTER. At my sisters middle school, my sister is in 8th grade, she said that the 6th graders only reach her waist. My sister is only 5 ft, so that concludes that people are getting SHORTER. 

PS(Plz come to my post, i need help with my pc)

Getting shorter is not the change we are talking about here. Your just like the lactose guy. 

 

What is a dinosaur getting 4 inches shorter in becoming a new species filling niche. NO its not its the process of slow evolution nothing more 

[Magnetar_Byte]

On 11/14/2019 at 4:40 PM, Caroline said:

Oh, this post is like something a kid, probably a 7 yr old would ask, don't you think?

or u got offended u couldn't think of it first ya boomer....

[Magnetar_Byte]

On 11/14/2019 at 4:46 PM, captain_to_fire said:

This reminds me of physicist Dr. Michio Kaku 

 

In a nutshell, 21st century Homo sapiens has taken evolution to their own hands. 

Ya ever since we created Agriculture we honestly stopped evolving. All because of the simple reason that instead of evolution deciding what humans survive by if they could find enough food for there children. Now its decided by if u can survive by working a SAFE job with no tigers, cougars, or predators trying to eat u as u scavenge for food. 

 

This makes it so EVERY human can survive which slows evolution to a halt and lets us control it now. That is partially what I'm getting at, thanks for being a bit more open minded unlike some people here....

[SpaceGhostC2C]

5 minutes ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

U missed my point bud. I said are we the end to a piece of our evolution. I know its hard to grasp but the best way I can describe it is if the dinosaurs were the peak for there species.

That doesn't make any sense. "Dinosaurs" is a geenric name we give to many, many reptile species, some of which didn't co-exist, not a single species. And they weren't "the peak" of anything in any meaningful way. While the species we call "dinosaurs" are extinct, some species from the same branch, and some species evolved from dinosaurs, remain.

A species can only be "the peak", if you want to define "peak" as "last in its chain", if it goes extinct without any derivative of it surviving. A non-extinct species can't ever be the last link with certainty, as it can always generate a new species through mutations, even if it hasn't yet.

 

5 minutes ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

Then it kinda platued for the next hundred million years. Where all that happened was that the species filled more niches but the core of who they are NEVER changed. 

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

 

5 minutes ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

But I don't know it feels pretty similiar as to the fact not much as changed drasticly. 

That's not how evolution works...

[Flying Sausages]

Humans will be replace by robots and anime people.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

7 minutes ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

No one said we're special like the way your thinking of it. What we are saying is that sapiens are the first to develop Sentience as far as we know looking back through the fossil record. 

I don't think you find "sentience" by looking at fossils... and I don't think there's lack of sentience in non-human species...

 

7 minutes ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

 

What I'm saying is that Ever since our species was created aka the modern human about 40k years ago not much has changed.

40K years is 2 minutes in evolutionary terms, and we have already changed and interbreed with other species.

 

7 minutes ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

Where as with dinos they not only changed but they diversed from one organism into multiple niches that covered the air, ground, and water.

Like, no?

"Dinos" is more akin to "mammals" than to homo sapiens. And we do have flying, swimming, and walking mammals...

 

 

Look, I do commend your interest in evolution, it is an interesting topic, but I think you need to solidify your understanding of it in order to better frame your question - possibly even come up with a different one.

[Magnetar_Byte]

On 11/15/2019 at 4:52 PM, harryk said:

I think you'll be very interested in reading about the mildly misnamed Doomsday argument.

 

Essentially the conjecture is that based on some fundamental statistical distribution arguments we can estimate the total number of humans who will ever live to be about 1.2 trillion. Based on current population statistics this puts the end of the human race around the year 11000. Obviously this is a bold claim but it's wrapped up in some very interesting statistics. 

There's a book about this I've been wanting to read from Isaac Asimov can't remember the name of it. But what it was about is that in the future humans manage to colonize the galaxy but as they come to the end of it one royal family comes to control most of sectors. Which then start to fight because theres so to much area for that one monarch to govern. So his book goes on about this group of people that come to the king to ask for his help, what they wanted was to have him gather up as many scientists of all types from around the galaxy to start to collect and write down all the knowledge that they've learned up until this point as a species and as a civilization. 

 

They get the approval and they start the process, forget the name but I've been wanting to read it never get the time tho.... ://

[Magnetar_Byte]

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

I don't think you find "sentience" by looking at fossils... and I don't think there's lack of sentience in non-human species...

 Yes we actually can find signs of sentience in fossils simply put evidence of intellegence let it be mass burials grave yards, etc etc basic things like this show signs that these past organisms cared for there dead and each other. Hence intelligence thats how we judge our ancestors and the way they interacted so thats how we will judge if other species are intellegent from the past as well. 

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

40K years is 2 minutes in evolutionary terms, and we have already changed and interbreed with other species.

Yes I know that, what I 'm saying is that in the same time frame (OF VERY little time) many other species have filled multiple niches where as we have done nothing. Hence my idea that we are hitting a plateau as a species. 

 

This is backed up because about 40k years ago we invented agriculture and as far as we can tell once that occured humans were able to live safer, and much more cussier lives compared to what there ancestors lived like, they didnt' have to hunt and gather. All they would have to do is get a safe easy job to make money to which they would use to get food from a farmer for cheap. 

 

Thats my point is that we are plateauing as a species because in essence we have stopped the natural processes of evolution by simplifying advancing tech wise.

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Like, no?

"Dinos" is more akin to "mammals" than to homo sapiens. And we do have flying, swimming, and walking mammals...

 

Ok I suppose thats an argument to be made. I guess what I'm saying is that if u take just one species from both time periods and u look at how much they have evolved or changed in a meaningful manner that can be traced back. Then u can easily see humans haven't while all others have. 

1 minute ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Look, I do commend your interest in evolution, it is an interesting topic, but I think you need to solidify your understanding of it in order to better frame your question - possibly even come up with a different one.

I feel I have quite a good grasp of how it works, I'm simply trying to elaborate on the fact humans have stopped evolving where as if u look in the past others in this same time frame haven't. 

 

I'd like to see where my idea of evolution there is wrong please do point it out if possible.

[Magnetar_Byte]

14 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That doesn't make any sense. "Dinosaurs" is a geenric name we give to many, many reptile species, some of which didn't co-exist, not a single species. And they weren't "the peak" of anything in any meaningful way. While the species we call "dinosaurs" are extinct, some species from the same branch, and some species evolved from dinosaurs, remain.

A species can only be "the peak", if you want to define "peak" as "last in its chain", if it goes extinct without any derivative of it surviving. A non-extinct species can't ever be the last link with certainty, as it can always generate a new species through mutations, even if it hasn't yet.

I'd define a Spinosaurus as peaking of the dinosaur species compared to a chicken wouldnt u?

14 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's not how evolution works...

Please go on and explain it then ohh wise one.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

There's a book about this I've been wanting to read from Isaac Asimov can't remember the name of it. But what it was about is that in the future humans manage to colonize the galaxy but as they come to the end of it one royal family comes to control most of sectors. Which then start to fight because theres so to much area for that one monarch to govern. So his book goes on about this group of people that come to the king to ask for his help, what they wanted was to have him gather up as many scientists of all types from around the galaxy to start to collect and write down all the knowledge that they've learned up until this point as a species and as a civilization. 

 

They get the approval and they start the process, forget the name but I've been wanting to read it never get the time tho.... ://

You're talking about the Foundation Series by Isaac Asimov. It was original a trilogy (Foundation, Second Foundation, and Foundation and Empire, I believe) - it was later expanded into a larger series.

 

Hypothetically, the Foundation Series exists in the same in-universe canon as the iRobot series.

[mr moose]

On 11/15/2019 at 8:00 AM, Volbet said:

 

There is an interesting discussion to have about whether or not human are a post-evolution beast,

I definitely think we are.  I think we have moved into a state of development that we are now labeling our evolved vestigial instincts as disorders and problems.  Sometimes they are problems, but I refuse to accept them as disorders.    Fear of the unknown, fear of difference, Fright/flight adrenal anxiety in modern society are all survival instincts that we don't need but can't turn off. 

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I definitely think we are.  I think we have moved into a state of development that we are now labeling our evolved vestigial instincts as disorders and problems.  Sometimes they are problems, but I refuse to accept them as disorders.    Fear of the unknown, fear of difference, Fright/flight adrenal anxiety in modern society are all survival instincts that we don't need but can't turn off. 

I agree conceptually.  I was taught perhaps a different definition of the word disorder though.

The opposite of a psychological disorder isn’t healthy, it was well adjusted.  This may have changed.  Psych is science and science is constantly mutating as more is learned.

At the time though “a disorder” was something that messed with your life.

according to the first chapter of my intro psych book at high school, a disorder was anything psychological that causes a problem.  The example they used was a person with a common minor issue that was wrecking their happiness vs a full on schizophrenic with visual and auditory hallucinations.   The schizophrenic didn’t have a disorder though because he was an evangelical minister in backwoods Appalachia and he saw and talked to angels.  The local population simply thought he was more holy. (It was a Lutheran high school.  They weren’t too hot on evangelicals there)

[wasab]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That doesn't make any sense. "Dinosaurs" is a geenric name we give to many, many reptile species, some of which didn't co-exist, not a single species. And they weren't "the peak" of anything in any meaningful way. While the species we call "dinosaurs" are extinct, some species from the same branch, and some species evolved from dinosaurs, remain.

A species can only be "the peak", if you want to define "peak" as "last in its chain", if it goes extinct without any derivative of it surviving. A non-extinct species can't ever be the last link with certainty, as it can always generate a new species through mutations, even if it hasn't yet.

 

I don't even know what you are talking about here.

 

That's not how evolution works...

Funny fact, Cretaceous dinosaurs are closer to modern day human in the time line than their ancestors in the Triassic(hundreds of millions of years vs 65 million years). Incredible to see they dominate the Earth for so long. 

[wasab]

1 hour ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

Thats my point is that we are plateauing as a species because in essence we have stopped the natural processes of evolution by simplifying advancing tech wise.

Ok I suppose thats an argument to be made. I guess what I'm saying is that if u take just one species from both time periods and u look at how much they have evolved or changed in a meaningful manner that can be traced back. Then u can easily see humans haven't while all others have. 

I feel I have quite a good grasp of how it works, I'm simply trying to elaborate on the fact humans have stopped evolving where as if u look in the past others in this same time frame haven't. 

Humans have escaped natural selection. Those of us who are weak physically or have genetic deformities no longer gets weeded out by the principle of the survival of the fittest because they are now actually being taken care of and have life span and chances to produce offspring equal to any other humans(generally speaking). 

 

if you are talking in this respect, then yes, we likely are not going to change much in the near future because older genes that does not adapt biologically will still survive and newer beneficial mutations will not out compete the rest of the populations(unless you are into nazi Eugenics and support sterilizing the handicapped). However evolution does not just need to be biological. Humans are experiencing rapid rate of cultural and technological evolution. It has been proven IQs and intelligence of each generations of humans have been rapidly climbing. This is due to increasing competition both intellectually and socially in the human civilization. In this regard, we are evolving at a rapid and accelerating rate. 

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, wasab said:

Humans have escaped natural selection. Those of us who are weak physically or have genetic deformities no longer gets weeded out by the principle of the survival of the fittest because they are now actually being taken care of and have life span and chances to produce offspring equal to any other humans(generally speaking). 

 

if you are talking in this respect, then yes, we likely are not going to change much in the near future because older genes that does not adapt biologically will still survive and newer beneficial mutations will not out compete the rest of the populations(unless you dig into nazi Eugenics and support sterilizing the handicapped). However evolution does not just need to be biological. Humans are experiencing rapid rate of cultural and technological evolution. It has been proven IQs and intelligence of each generations of humans have been rapidly climbing. This is due to increasing competition both intellectually and socially in the human civilization. In this regard, we are evolving at a rapid and accelerating rate. 

I believed this too, until I was told otherwise. Apparently tho one is hard checkable with dna testing, and there are people who’s bodies have been tested throughout history.  Apparently The rate of DNA variance is going up not down.  I have no source.  It’s possible I was lied to.

Edited November 19, 2019 by Bombastinator
Corrected for accuracy

[wasab]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I believed this too, until I was told otherwise. Apparently tho one is hard checkable with dna testing, and there are people who’s bodies have been tested throughout history.  Apparently The rate of DNA variance is going up not down.  I have no source.  It’s possible I was lied to.

Perhaps it's simply because of different humans from different regions interbreeding so a more diverse gene pool. We are living in an increasingly globalized world after all.

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I agree conceptually.  I was taught perhaps a different definition of the word disorder though.

The opposite of a psychological disorder isn’t healthy, it was well adjusted.  This may have changed.  Psych is science and science is constantly mutating as more is learned.

At the time though “a disorder” was something that messed with your life.

according to the first chapter of my intro psych book at high school, a disorder was anything psychological that causes a problem.  The example they used was a person with a common minor issue that was wrecking their happiness vs a full on schizophrenic with visual and auditory hallucinations.   The schizophrenic didn’t have a disorder though because he was an evangelical minister in backwoods Appalachia and he saw and talked to angels.  The local population simply thought he was more holy. (It was a Lutheran high school.  They weren’t too hot on evangelicals there)

I would call anxiety that interferes with normal day to day function as a disorder.  But at the same time,  if it is the result of normal evolutionary traits then I wouldn't call it abnormal.    Disorder in many colloquial contexts is just used to describe anything not within the realms of normal. Mind you,  I detest the general population blurring the lines and trying to make out everyone is on the same scale.   I.E depression and sadness are not different ends of the same problem,  and not everyone is on the spectrum,  they just don't understand why ASD is a spectrum and what being on it means. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Magnetar_Byte said:

U missed my point bud. I said are we the end to a piece of our evolution. I know its hard to grasp but the best way I can describe it is if the dinosaurs were the peak for there species. Then it kinda platued for the next hundred million years. Where all that happened was that the species filled more niches but the core of who they are NEVER changed. 

 

With humans it feels like we have done the same, sure looking back 40k years for humans isn't the same as 40 million for dinosaurs. But I don't know it feels pretty similiar as to the fact not much as changed drasticly. 

Evolution is on the molecular level, not gross. You are mistaken that they did not change drastically. 
 

To note:

Humans over the last 40,000 years have:

- grown taller

- have more arched feet

However on a more prominent genetic scale:

- introns have substainlly increased

- transposins have increased remarkably

- complexity of regulation of gene specificity has increased