Is human evolution over?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, CalintzJerevinan said:

Forgive me I still got a hangover from New Years Eve/Day so I'm not thinking straight at the moment.

Evidently

 

Assuming humans were still inhabiting the Earth during the Andromeda collision (assuming the Earth hasn't been swallowed by the sun during it's Red Giant phase), aside from the constellations and the night sky changing, there might not even be any noticeable changes/effects to the local system.

[The Torrent]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's quite simply not true. While we are scheduled for a collision, you've got an order of magnitude wrong in your dates. Estimates are 4.5 billion years from now:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda–Milky_Way_collision

Half a billion off woah sorry

Quote

That's... not true. While there will be major disruptions, and some stars will likely be tossed into intergalactic space, most will stay within one galaxy or the other. Galaxies collide all the time. It's disruptive and certainly some parts of the galaxies will experience catastrophic destruction, but most likely the two galaxies will just merge, or just pass through.

No.... No nononon no no i disagree no .... no.

Quote

Keep in mind that despite the number of stars in each galaxy, the odds of even a single star colliding with another are essentially negligible - most of space is empty. This is true on a solar scale as well as on a galactic scale.

Gravity is a thing.

Middle of the galaxy has a lot i believe considering that supermassive black hole chilling there

 

Quote

It would be like hitting a bullet with another bullet, blindfolded, while pulling the trigger with your toe.

I have no idea what you're saying here.

i believe __boom__.

[Mark Kaine]

@The Torrent  I didn't put that reaction because I agree or disagree,  I just found the end really funny...   and confusing...

[dalekphalm]

Just now, The Torrent said:

Half a billion off woah sorry

4.5 billion years. Not 10 million. Not 4 million. Not 500 million.

Just now, The Torrent said:

No.... No nononon no no i disagree no .... no.

Disagree all you want, but space is mostly empty, so at worst, gravitational effects are likely the only concern. 

Just now, The Torrent said:

Gravity is a thing.

Yep, sure is. But consider that gravity is the weakest of all the fundamental forces of the universe.

Just now, The Torrent said:

Middle of the galaxy has a lot i believe considering that supermassive black hole chilling there

There's a supermassive blackhole there (and among most/all galaxies) - or perhaps multiple blackholes, yes.

Just now, The Torrent said:

i believe boom.

Sure thing

[The Torrent]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

@The Torrent  I didn't put that reaction because I agree or disagree,  I just found the end really funny...   and confusing...

its 1am in the uk what do u expect im confused myself goodnight lol 

 

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

4.5 billion years. Not 10 million. Not 4 million. Not 500 million.

Disagree all you want, but space is mostly empty, so at worst, gravitational effects are likely the only concern. 

Yep, sure is. But consider that gravity is the weakest of all the fundamental forces of the universe.

There's a supermassive blackhole there (and among most/all galaxies) - or perhaps multiple blackholes, yes.

Sure thing

weakest dont mean weak.

 

and mostly empty now but it'll have muskrat's teslas floating around soon.

 

speak soon night night

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

Half a billion off woah sorry

Know why I knew that was wrong?   Because that would be way too fast our solar system is maybe fast,  but not *that* fast.

 

And yes,  solar systems, spiral arms,  galaxies,  etc are crashing all the time. 

 

 

The funny part is the distances are often so huge there isn't necessarily a collision,  hence I rather think of it as mating than crashing.  

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

Know why I knew that was wrong?   Because that would be way too fast our solar system is maybe fast,  but not *that* fast.

 

And yes,  solar systems, spiral arms,  galaxies,  etc are crashing all the time. 

 

 

The funny part is the distances are often so huge there isn't necessarily a collision,  hence I rather think of it as mating than crashing.  

Indeed, typically a colliding galaxy creates a newer super galaxy - some systems get flung off to oblivion - but frankly a star doesn't need to exist in a galaxy to be totally fine. The only thing different if our solar system got flung into deep space would be that the sky would be significantly darker and less dense (not completely black though - we can already see other galaxies in the sky - the difference would be we'd only see galaxies, for the most part).

[Mark Kaine]

3 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

1am in the uk what do u expect im confused myself goodnight lol 

Good night!  

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

4.5 billion years.

Wait is that about the Andromeda "collision"?   Isn't that also about when our sun is going to pull a super nova? 

 

That would be a sight to see I guess! 

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Good night!  

 

 

 

Wait is that about the Andromeda "collision"?   Isn't that also about when our sun is going to pull a super nova? 

Yes the Andromeda collision - and yes, that's about the same time our star will "start" to die, entering the Red Giant phase as it starts to burn up the heavier elements.

 

However, our sun is too small to create a supernova.

4 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

That would be a sight to see I guess! 

I mean, even seeing it transition into a Red Giant will look awesome - seeing an actual supernova would be something else entirely.

[Mark Kaine]

22 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes the Andromeda collision - and yes, that's about the same time our star will "start" to die, entering the Red Giant phase as it starts to burn up the heavier elements.

 

However, our sun is too small to create a supernova.

I mean, even seeing it transition into a Red Giant will look awesome - seeing an actual supernova would be something else entirely.

Oh I see,  I wasn't sure or the last info I remembered was scientists weren't sure, aka "it could go both ways"  lol... 

 

Well yeah,  it would be but the time this will happen is so far away ... humans indeed would have evolved a whole lot until then and it's highly unlikely we'd make it until there anyway... Even just millions of years can change so many things... 

 

 

This is certainly interesting though,  we as a species haven't really evolved much, we aren't really suited for our current living standards,  we are still made to fight with wild animals and stuff  

Hence we have a lot of issues with health, etc, yes people live longer now but that's really more the circumstances than an evolutionary thing, it doesn't go that fast, we will evolve,  probably,  but it will take a very long time in all likelihood. 

 

 

Lol I think that whole space talk is fascinating but kinda off topic (although not entirely)  someone should make a "space exploration"  thread or something  

[dual290x]

If you are talking about technology then I believe we are reaching a slow down. There was an article written (I can't remember who wrote it and where), but it mentioned that there will be point in time where technology will be  at a stand-still that could last decades. We have not reached it yet. However we are slowing down and unless something big is discovered we will see this slow down continue.

 

We still have a great deal to learn and evolve as roles and identities are shifting constantly. Less and less women are becoming home-makers/house wives while more are becoming part of the economical ecosystem (right, wrong, or indifferent). However, the psychological and microbiological advancements are slow only because technology is not advanced enough (though we will probably never understand certain aspects of the human mind).

 

The human body is good at evolving to it's environment (given the changes to the environment are gradual).

 

Human evolution depends greatly on how you define it and how you determine it.

[wasab]

2 hours ago, dual290x said:

If you are talking about technology then I believe we are reaching a slow down. There was an article written (I can't remember who wrote it and where), but it mentioned that there will be point in time where technology will be  at a stand-still that could last decades. We have not reached it yet. However we are slowing down and unless something big is discovered we will see this slow down continue.

Nonsense. The progress of technology is only accelerating if anything. Scientific progress is ultimately tie to a country's economy and development. Nations with bigger economy and better public education system tend to have technology. Either technology lead to prosperity and higher development or a nation had better prosperity and development due to technology. The two leads to a feedback loop, one feeding the success of the other. It is a very much a chicken and egg scenario.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, dual290x said:

If you are talking about technology then I believe we are reaching a slow down. There was an article written (I can't remember who wrote it and where), but it mentioned that there will be point in time where technology will be  at a stand-still that could last decades. We have not reached it yet. However we are slowing down and unless something big is discovered we will see this slow down continue.

 

We still have a great deal to learn and evolve as roles and identities are shifting constantly. Less and less women are becoming home-makers/house wives while more are becoming part of the economical ecosystem (right, wrong, or indifferent). However, the psychological and microbiological advancements are slow only because technology is not advanced enough (though we will probably never understand certain aspects of the human mind).

 

The human body is good at evolving to it's environment (given the changes to the environment are gradual).

 

Human evolution depends greatly on how you define it and how you determine it.

It would be a much more fine grained graph than the one I saw.  Historically it a logarithmic curve and it’s practically standing on its head now.  The biggest problem is technology is advancing so fast we can’t keep up with even noticing the problems it creates let alone actually deal with them.  We’re only just noticing now problems we created in the 60’s and 70’s. If we’d dealt with them IN even the 80’s we’d be in much better shape but we didn’t so they’re much bigger and harder to deal with now.  It could kill all of us.

[dual290x]

44 minutes ago, wasab said:

Nonsense. The progress of technology is only accelerating if anything. Scientific progress is ultimately tie to a country's economy and development. Nations with bigger economy and better public education system tend to have technology. Either technology lead to prosperity and higher development or a nation had better prosperity and development due to technology. The two leads to a feedback loop, one feeding the success of the other. It is a very much a chicken and egg scenario.

 

31 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It would be a much more fine grained graph than the one I saw.  Historically it a logarithmic curve and it’s practically standing on its head now.  The biggest problem is technology is advancing so fast we can’t keep up with even noticing the problems it creates let alone actually deal with them.  We’re only just noticing now problems we created in the 60’s and 70’s. If we’d dealt with them IN even the 80’s we’d be in much better shape but we didn’t so they’re much bigger and harder to deal with now.  It could kill all of us.

Again, how do you define it? Also, what part are you talking about? Are we talking overall or are we talking about specifics.

 

Also, to correct myself, I remembered that it wasn't technology that would come to a stand-still. It was die size of processing units. I still believe we are not speeding up, technological innovations and its progression is not advancing like it was. At least that is what we are being told/seeing (or what they want us to see/know). Yeah we come up with something new here and there but compared to past decades, we are slowing down or at least keeping a steady pace (keeping a steady pace can feel as if we are slowing down).

 

A lot of what we believe and feel is based on perspective. We all suffer from it.

[Otto_iii]

On 1/2/2020 at 7:05 PM, Mark Kaine said:

We are?  What's getting revolutionaried exactly?  I think technical advances are extremely stagnant since 50 years or so and most "new inventions"  are gimmicks at best. 

magnets in ur brain bro

[Anomnomnomaly]

On 12/22/2019 at 11:48 AM, Otto_iii said:

Simple question, just asking 

Haven't read every post, but I do follow a lot of science stuff and read articles and watch docs and so forth... so basically no expert, more enthusiastic observer.

 

I've read and heard many times that evolution is just as unpredictable as anything else... It can take a slow, long meandering path as things adapt to surroundings and can certainly be a survival of the fittest type of thing.

 

But there's also evidence to suggest that there can be sudden evolutionary leaps that can happen within a few generations and that give that subset of a species a massive advantage over others.

 

 

As for us humans... chances are very high that we'll simply wipe ourselves out through abusing the natural world and causing our extinction... and that's before we even consider wars, weapons of mass destruction, bio weapons and mutations of diseases we can't cure.

 

We're not going to be around to see what happens either way... unless it's a world war or something... we'll all be long gone before there's a proper self sustainable colony on Mars and I can't see humans leaving our solar system without a massive leap in technology to allow much faster travel as well as some kind of suspended animation. the nearest star is Alpha Centauri which is about 4.6 light years... and would take hundreds of years to reach even if we could increase travel speeds 100 fold... So either some form of suspended animation, or generation ships where your great, great, great, great, grandkid's reach the destination... then you've gotta hope there's a habitable place there.

 

The problem with sending out probes on those kinds of distances isn't the time it takes to get there... but that technology increases in a way that means the probe is defunct as soon as it leaves. If you sent a probe to AC now and for arguments sake it arrives in 250 yrs.... technology increases in such a way that 50yrs from now, you'd be able to send a probe that arrives at AC in 150yrs... 50yrs before the previous one, with better tech onboard.

 

Of course.. that's assuming that they can figure out a way to actually traverse the space between solar systems... we barely know what's outside our own... and there's still debate over where exactly the helisphere ends and there's disagreement over where and when the Voyager probe actually passed through it.

 

I wish I could be around to see things like that... the only thing I really have left on my bucket list from my childhood is to go into space.... well, actually it's to become Han Solo and go on adventures in space... but ya know... close enough.  :)