weeyellowbloke Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 We had a lecture last term where we briefly discussed where the human race was going in terms of evolution. Apparently there is a theory that in the future the human race could divide in two. All the fit, clever and beautiful people go off together and have fit, clever and beautiful kids and gradually they become an advanced form of human. Meanwhile all the fat, stupid and ugly people end up with each other creating a seperate form of humanity. My lecturer used a good argument to dismiss this theory though when he said "I think this is bollocks, it doesn't take into account what happens when you're pissed". Academics truely have a way with words.
DCK Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 We had a lecture last term where we briefly discussed where the human race was going in terms of evolution. Apparently there is a theory that in the future the human race could divide in two. All the fit, clever and beautiful people go off together and have fit, clever and beautiful kids and gradually they become an advanced form of human. Meanwhile all the fat, stupid and ugly people end up with each other creating a seperate form of humanity. My lecturer used a good argument to dismiss this theory though when he said "I think this is bollocks, it doesn't take into account what happens when you're pissed". Academics truely have a way with words. I don't see how that can happen. Humanity can't go into seperate groups without mingling, can they? As if suddenly one part decides "I won't have children with that group"." How?
weeyellowbloke Posted February 28, 2007 Author Posted February 28, 2007 I don't see how that can happen. Humanity can't go into seperate groups without mingling, can they? As if suddenly one part decides "I won't have children with that group"." How? I think that was what he was getting at. The theory basically said that the ugly people will end up with ugly people because it's the best they can get and the beautiful people will go with beautiful people because they have the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately whoever came up with this theory has obviously never experienced the world and doesn't realise that this just doesn't happen in real life. Perhaps they're bitter about being unsuccessful in relationships and so came up with a theory to explain it.
Jasper Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 I think that was what he was getting at. The theory basically said that the ugly people will end up with ugly people because it's the best they can get and the beautiful people will go with beautiful people because they have the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately whoever came up with this theory has obviously never experienced the world and doesn't realise that this just doesn't happen in real life. Perhaps they're bitter about being unsuccessful in relationships and so came up with a theory to explain it. It's always theory versus practice. In most cases they're not the same. Oh, and taste is such a subjective thing. Many can find love in what generally is not the minstreaam taste. The prettiest woman on earth according to magazines is not my taste.
Mr_Odwin Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 But I can see that there is a divide in society - classes almost - that generally don't associate with each other. This could end up that way.
KingJoe Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 Maybe one day other species will catch up with us though, providing we don't eradicate their 'threat'. I can see dolphins and other primates catching up in a matter of a few million years. There is no catching up to be done. A dolphin is just as evolved as a human. More so, if you are in the sea. Evolution isn't about becoming more intelligent. It's about progressive adaptation brought about my random mutations and the survival to reproduce by the most able members of a species. Everything has been evolving for pretty much the same amount of time (how could it not be?). Humans didn't evolve from modern-day apes. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures in the past. As did modern day apes.
Jasper Posted February 28, 2007 Posted February 28, 2007 There is no catching up to be done. A dolphin is just as evolved as a human.More so, if you are in the sea. Evolution isn't about becoming more intelligent. It's about progressive adaptation brought about my random mutations and the survival to reproduce by the most able members of a species. Everything has been evolving for pretty much the same amount of time (how could it not be?). Humans didn't evolve from modern-day apes. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures in the past. As did modern day apes. Here's the catch: who defines what? Who defined intelligent? Who defined civilisation? Who defined evolution? If you know the answer to that, you know where the bar is set for all species from their point of view - no?
DCK Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 There is no catching up to be done. A dolphin is just as evolved as a human.More so, if you are in the sea. Evolution isn't about becoming more intelligent. It's about progressive adaptation brought about my random mutations and the survival to reproduce by the most able members of a species. Everything has been evolving for pretty much the same amount of time (how could it not be?). Humans didn't evolve from modern-day apes. Humans evolved from ape-like creatures in the past. As did modern day apes. Excellent point. The only way that some species will "catch up" with us is if it's environment demands for intelligence. There are signs, however, that dolphins who live in complex societies may actually be in that intelligence direction. Read up on the Minoan island of Thera and the aftermath on Crete - particularly Knossos. A flood that occurred several thousand years ago could have been warped from the events spawned by that island. Not saying they're linked, but I'm willing to bet the story of Noah's Arc is more of a fact than people let it to be.So there's only evidence for a flood? I don't see why Noah is brought into that equation... Flood stories are common in mythology, it most likely wasn't even a Christian/Jewish invention. Christianity borrowed lots of things from old pagan religions.
Jasper Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Read up on the Minoan island of Thera and the aftermath on Crete - particularly Knossos. A flood that occurred several thousand years ago could have been warped from the events spawned by that island. Not saying they're linked, but I'm willing to bet the story of Noah's Arc is more of a fact than people let it to be. So you sume that God told noah to build an Arc, collect two of all species from all over the world in an arc, make sure none of them kill each other, survive for weeks on the water wuthout enough food (I doubt it'sz actually a titanic Noah build), Let a dove fly out and get a palm from the world? But the problem I have with this is: if the entire world is flooded, it won't be refrozen and unflooded in one lifetime. There would be more evidence. Yes, there were floods all the history, but not one able to cover the entire landmass. To correct others, though, if all the ice melted (the antartics and the north pole, greenland and so on), only mountains would not be flooded>. You don't have a clue how much water the antartics hold.
Kurtle Squad Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 So you sume that God told noah to build an Arc, collect two of all species from all over the world in an arc, make sure none of them kill each other, survive for weeks on the water wuthout enough food (I doubt it'sz actually a titanic Noah build), Let a dove fly out and get a palm from the world? But the problem I have with this is: if the entire world is flooded, it won't be refrozen and unflooded in one lifetime. There would be more evidence. Yes, there were floods all the history, but not one able to cover the entire landmass. To correct others, though, if all the ice melted (the antartics and the north pole, greenland and so on), only mountains would not be flooded>. You don't have a clue how much water the antartics hold. Smalldude never said that the Noah story was true; he simply said that it's pobably not an entire lie, and the story does refer to a real flood.
Jasper Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Smalldude never said that the Noah story was true; he simply said that it's pobably not an entire lie, and the story does refer to a real flood. First paragraph: ridiculisation. Second paragraph: real arguments If it did happen, than we would know about this. It could only ahppen if all the ice melts, and since we can see that the last five billioin years the antartics were not unfrozen, I doubt it ever happened during conception of the bible.
Kurtle Squad Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 First paragraph: ridiculisation.Second paragraph: real arguments If it did happen, than we would know about this. It could only ahppen if all the ice melts, and since we can see that the last five billioin years the antartics were not unfrozen, I doubt it ever happened during conception of the bible. Uff.....Saying the Noah Story could be based on a real flood never implies the entire world floods.
The fish Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Uff.....Saying the Noah Story could be based on a real flood never implies the entire world floods. So why would he need to take on 2 of every animal on the planet?
Kurtle Squad Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 So why would he need to take on 2 of every animal on the planet? Because of exaggeration, chinese whispers and whatever; he probably took a couple of camels and other such animals. They didn't have globes and world maps back then you know!!!
Jasper Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Because of exaggeration, chinese whispers and whatever; he probably took a couple of camels and other such animals.They didn't have globes and world maps back then you know!!! Oh, come on. If they didn't have a map of the world, then how would they know it were 'chinese whispers'? Except if Noah was chineze, of course.
The Bard Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 that they are - like in the epic of gilgamesh. Yeah, there obviously was a flood...but I think religion may just have twisted historical events for it's own uses... Anyone actually read Gilgamesh?
KingJoe Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Jasper, what I understand from your post is that because human beings are the only animals which have culture, concepts like intelligence, etc, then they are the pinnacle of evolution? I see what you are getting at. They are the pinnacle of HUMAN evolution. Wolves probably think the entire point of evolution is to develop a good sense of smell and a pack mentality. Giraffes probably think the point of evolution is to develop a particularly long neck. You see where I'm coming from? If noah's boat had 2 of every species, it'd be full of beetles. Theres fucking millions of beetle species.
BlueStar Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 There's no 'pinnacle of evolution' though - Nothing is 'more evolved' than anything else they just adapt to their surroundings. If situations change cockroaches could be far more well suited to the environment than humans and have an advantage over us.
Supergrunch Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Jasper, what I understand from your post is that because human beings are the only animals which have culture, concepts like intelligence, etc, then they are the pinnacle of evolution? I see what you are getting at. They are the pinnacle of HUMAN evolution.Wolves probably think the entire point of evolution is to develop a good sense of smell and a pack mentality. Giraffes probably think the point of evolution is to develop a particularly long neck. You see where I'm coming from? Well, they don't think very much at all because they haven't evolved to do so... but you have the right idea.
Kurtle Squad Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Oh, come on. If they didn't have a map of the world, then how would they know it were 'chinese whispers'? Except if Noah was chineze, of course. Wow...Your kamakaze plane went miles off course there.
Jasper Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Jasper, what I understand from your post is that because human beings are the only animals which have culture, concepts like intelligence, etc, then they are the pinnacle of evolution? I see what you are getting at. They are the pinnacle of HUMAN evolution.Wolves probably think the entire point of evolution is to develop a good sense of smell and a pack mentality. Giraffes probably think the point of evolution is to develop a particularly long neck. You see where I'm coming from? If noah's boat had 2 of every species, it'd be full of beetles. Theres fucking millions of beetle species. No. It's what you say. Look, civilisation is defined by us. In that matter, we're the only creatures with civilisation. Because we define the word, don't we? We define the word civlisation, as wel as evolution. I'm not saying we're the best of the evolution. In a philospohical sense, we are thinking 'la deluge apres moi' (the flood comes after me), meaning that we could be the last men, so live like it. But we're not. We're just the people looking at it, so from our point of view, we're right. We're the only civilisation in the world because animals don't have civilisations like ours, so by the definition we created we are the only civilisation. That's what i'm saying. We could improve a lot. We're not ending the evolution just yet. Only, from now on evolution will be a more random thing. A thousand or a million years ago the best would survive - now, in this world, any human can survive. So it means there's noselection anymore. So we'll have fewer evolutions and slower ones from now on. Wow...Your kamakaze plane went miles off course there. It was a joke, man. Evolution granted us a sense of 'humour'. Sadly enough, not everyone understands the same thing. :wink:
Supergrunch Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 No. It's what you say. Look, civilisation is defined by us. In that matter, we're the only creatures with civilisation. Because we define the word, don't we? We define the word civlisation, as wel as evolution. I'm not saying we're the best of the evolution. In a philospohical sense, we are thinking 'la deluge apres moi' (the flood comes after me), meaning that we could be the last men, so live like it. But we're not. We're just the people looking at it, so from our point of view, we're right. We're the only civilisation in the world because animals don't have civilisations like ours, so by the definition we created we are the only civilisation. That's what i'm saying. We could improve a lot. We're not ending the evolution just yet. Only, from now on evolution will be a more random thing. A thousand or a million years ago the best would survive - now, in this world, any human can survive. So it means there's noselection anymore. So we'll have fewer evolutions and slower ones from now on. If there really was no selection anymore, then evolution would be impossible. However, there is still selection, it just takes a different form for humans today. Thus evolution is still taking place.
DCK Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 There's no 'pinnacle of evolution' though - Nothing is 'more evolved' than anything else they just adapt to their surroundings. If situations change cockroaches could be far more well suited to the environment than humans and have an advantage over us. Not too exaggerate the 'supremacy of human kind' (which I think is a dangerous thing to take for granted), but wouldn't you say that our inventivity to adapt to anything (or better yet, make things adapt to us) in a matter of months or years instead of thousands of years like other species, makes us the pinnacle of evolution so far?
Supergrunch Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Not too exaggerate the 'supremacy of human kind' (which I think is a dangerous thing to take for granted), but wouldn't you say that our inventivity to adapt to anything (or better yet, make things adapt to us) in a matter of months or years instead of thousands of years like other species, makes us the pinnacle of evolution so far? No. You are misinterpreting the aim of evolution in that you think it has one.
Kurtle Squad Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Not too exaggerate the 'supremacy of human kind' (which I think is a dangerous thing to take for granted), but wouldn't you say that our inventivity to adapt to anything (or better yet, make things adapt to us) in a matter of months or years instead of thousands of years like other species, makes us the pinnacle of evolution so far? No...Probably the opposite since we're probably gonna kill ourselves off.
Recommended Posts