NationStates Jolt Archive

As I was thinking, it seems that it is much more likely that humans will even be more diverse and exciting in the future, rather than some boring "one race", "everyone brown" alternative some people think will happen. Good news...


By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Mon Dec 10, 6:02 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Science fiction writers have suggested a future Earth populated by a blend of all races into a common human form. In real life, the reverse seems to be happening. People are evolving more rapidly than in the distant past, with residents of various continents becoming increasingly different from one another, researchers say.

"I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed," explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. "The opposite seems to be true."

"Our species is not static," Harpending added in a telephone interview.

That doesn't mean we should expect major changes in a few generations, though, evolution occurs over thousands of years.

Harpending and colleagues looked at the DNA of humans and that of chimpanzees, our closest relatives, they report in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found.

That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.

"Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation," the study says. "The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease."

And they found that different changes are occurring in Africans, Asians and Europeans.

Most anthropologists agree that humans first evolved in Africa and then spread to other areas, and the lighter skin color of Europeans and Asians is generally attributed to selection to allow more absorption of vitamin D in colder climate where there is less sun.

The increase in human population from millions to billions in the last 10,000 years accelerated the rate of evolution because "we were in new environments to which we needed to adapt," Harpending adds. "And with a larger population, more mutations occurred."

In another example, the researchers noted that in China and most of Africa, few people can digest fresh milk into adulthood. Yet in Sweden and Denmark, the gene that makes the milk-digesting enzyme lactase remains active, so almost everyone can drink fresh milk, explaining why dairy farming is more common in Europe than in the Mediterranean and Africa, Harpending says.

The researchers studied 3.9 million gene snippets from 270 people in four populations: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba tribe and Utah Mormons who traced their ancestry to northern Europe.

Richard Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he thinks the researchers reasoning regarding rapid adaptive change is plausible.

The study mainly points to an overall expansion in the human population over the past 40,000 years to explain the genetic data.

"Yet the archaeological record also shows that humans increasingly divided themselves into distinct cultures and migrating groups — factors that seem to play only a small role in their analysis. Dividing the human population into finer units and their movement into new regions — the Arctic, Oceania, tropical forests, just to name some — may have also forced quicker adaptive evolution in our species," Potts said.

Potts, who was not part of the research team, added that he liked the report "because it points to how genetic data can be used to test a variety of ideas about recent human adaptation."

Two years ago Harpending and colleague Gregory M. Cochran published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews — those of northern European heritage — resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors.

Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes, they suggested. That evolution also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.

The new study was funded by the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging, the Unz Foundation, the University of Utah and the University of Wisconsin.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_sc/evolution_speedup

Well more potential mates means more potential diversity, so it sounds pretty reasonable. That and the fact that it takes a lot less for a human to be fit in the evolutionary sense. Adds up to a lot of mutations being passed on far and wide. Doesn't preclude some future homogenisation of humans, though.

Researchers: Human evolution speeding up
Y'know, I thought I looked a little balder today :p

Seriously though, I always enjoy reading news stories that detail new scientific knowledge. Nice one.

/goes off to read more about it

Well more potential mates means more potential diversity, so it sounds pretty reasonable. That and the fact that it takes a lot less for a human to be fit in the evolutionary sense. Adds up to a lot of mutations being passed on far and wide. Doesn't preclude some future homogenisation of humans, though.

The stuff utopists wet dreams are made from.

As I was thinking, it seems that it is much more likely that humans will even be more diverse and exciting in the future, rather than some boring "one race", "everyone brown" alternative some people think will happen. Good news...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_sc/evolution_speedup

Considering that neither skin colour nor particular facial features are mentioned in the article, and further considering that at the moment, the greatest genetic diversity exists among black Africans, I'd say that's not really proof that humanity won't eventually loose distinctive appearances that allows us to class them as "races" today.

Y'know, I thought I looked a little balder today :p

Seriously though, I always enjoy reading news stories that detail new scientific knowledge. Nice one.

/goes off to read more about it



I agree. I mean when you think of all the crazy stuff people post on forums. An then someone gets a real news article it kind of restores your faith in the internet for 1/10 of second before another article about cannibalism pops up. Cheers!

....
Doesn't preclude some future homogenisation of humans, though.

That sounds unlikely though.

I agree. I mean when you think of all the crazy stuff people post on forums. An then someone gets a real news article it kind of restores your faith in the internet for 1/10 of second before another article about cannibalism pops up. Cheers!

*ehem*


Did this thread remind anyone about the south park episode with people going back in time to look for work?





Faith in the internet destroyed, nuke, to transformed into a black hole?

*ehem*


Did this thread remind anyone about the south park episode with people going back in time to look for work?





Faith in the internet destroyed, nuke, to transformed into a black hole?

I was thinking about that when I read this and then I remembered the "gay orgy". LMAO.

Considering that neither skin colour nor particular facial features are mentioned in the article, and further considering that at the moment, the greatest genetic diversity exists among black Africans, I'd say that's not really proof that humanity won't eventually loose distinctive appearances that allows us to class them as "races" today.

You cant really have "proof" about future, it's all prediction. However, people loosimg distinctive appearances seems unlikely since interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority despite the fact that there is no stigma attached to it today, in most countries.

Y'know, I thought I looked a little balder today :p

Seriously though, I always enjoy reading news stories that detail new scientific knowledge. Nice one.

/goes off to read more about it

I was thinking about that when I read this and then I remembered the "gay orgy". LMAO.

*ehem*


Did this thread remind anyone about the south park episode with people going back in time to look for work?





Faith in the internet destroyed, nuke, to transformed into a black hole?





You know I watch Southpark and I can't even think of that episode. I will have to do some more research when I am not at work. Granted I could do it at work but unimportant people need money for plastic surgery and I need to deny them.

Granted I could do it at work but unimportant people need money for plastic surgery and I need to deny them.





:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:what a wonderful job......as long as it isn't need plastic surgery (ie a burn victim wanting to look normal again or something like that)

*sprouts a second penis* Holy crap! :eek:

Well most of the time it is not because I want to but it is because bad credit history. If this one thing that I have learned at this job is your credit history can mess up the rest of your life if you are not careful with it.

*sprouts a second penis* Holy crap! :eek:

What took you so long? I got into the tentacle phase since the 4th post.

Well most of the time it is not because I want to but it is because bad credit history. If this one thing that I have learned at this job is your credit history can mess up the rest of your life if you are not careful with it.

you needed a job to tell you that? I knew that before I got out of middle school.;):p

Luckily not from my own experience.

What took you so long? I got into the tentacle phase since the 4th post.

Quoting Farside " ooo this not going to be cheap"

you needed a job to tell you that? I knew that before I got out of middle school.;):p

Luckily not from my own experience.

Yeah well at least 50% of the population as yet to comprehend the importance of credit. An then they wonder why they are turned down for most things.

Yeah well at least 50% of the population as yet to comprehend the importance of credit. An then they wonder why they are turned down for most things.

I don't think it is that they don't understand how imporant it is, but more about how it works.



for example, in some cases not having a credit history (ie no cards or previous loans) can be just as bad, if not worse, than bad credit.

That doesn't mean we should expect major changes in a few generations, though, evolution occurs over thousands of years.

[...]

Two years ago Harpending and colleague Gregory M. Cochran published a study arguing that above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews — those of northern European heritage — resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe [which is to say, in the span of a few short generations], where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors.
Does anyone else see the blatant contradiction in there?

You cant really have "proof" about future, it's all prediction. However, people loosimg distinctive appearances seems unlikely since interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority despite the fact that there is no stigma attached to it today, in most countries.

I think you'll find that, in most countries, it still is in fact stigmatised.
Just because it has become accepted in urban areas in the US and Canada doesn't mean it is in other cultures. Many of them would have a problem with marrying someone from a village over, let alone a completely different culture or race.

Does anyone else see the blatant contradiction in there?

yes

I think you'll find that, in most countries, it still is in fact stigmatised.
Just because it has become accepted in urban areas in the US and Canada doesn't mean it is in other cultures. Many of them would have a problem with marrying someone from a village over, let alone a completely different culture or race.

In Canada, it is accepted in urban AND rural areas but interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority. I dont see us becoming "one race".

In Canada, it is accepted in urban AND rural areas but interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority. I dont see us becoming "one race".

Good for you. How long has it been accepted for, would you say? In decades?

As I was thinking, it seems that it is much more likely that humans will even be more diverse and exciting in the future, rather than some boring "one race", "everyone brown" alternative some people think will happen. Good news...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071210/ap_on_sc/evolution_speedup

Actually, it pays to read the original article, instead of the fast food-esque recapitulation in the linked article.

This is a version of the original article: http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf

Human evolution has been speeding up in the last 10,000 years, compared to the periods before. However, the rate is dipping very, very fast in the last, say, 2000 years.

Actually, it pays to read the original article, instead of the fast food-esque recapitulation in the linked article.

This is a version of the original article: http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf

Human evolution has been speeding up in the last 10,000 years, compared to the periods before. However, the rate is dipping very, very fast in the last, say, 2000 years.

Didnt read the whole article, just looked over. But, I think your wrong:

"It is important to note that the peak ages
of new selected variants in our data do not reflect the highest intensity
of selection, but merely our ability to detect selection."

for those interested in the science of it, the lead author has a really excellent blog (excellent for all anthropological and genetic topics, really). looks like he's making up an faq for this paper.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/

It will be interesting how the effects of space have on the human species after we started settling it for the long term. I could imagine that humans will change so much over time in remote outposts that they will be almost unrecognizable to Earth based humans.

I have nothing to contribute to the science here, but am I the only one who laughs when he sees anti-immigration types complaining about the prospect of a monotone population?

As I was thinking, it seems that it is much more likely that humans will even be more diverse and exciting in the future, rather than some boring "one race", "everyone brown" alternative some people think will happen. Good news...

What? The last thread I saw you in, you were decrying the intermixing of race in Europe, apparently in favour of keeping it "white."

Now you're for "even more diverse and exciting?"

You really are one confused person. :rolleyes:

I have nothing to contribute to the science here, but am I the only one who laughs when he sees anti-immigration types complaining about the prospect of a monotone population?

Nope. I'm quite laughing my big arse off over here.
I think the funniest moment was when he claimed that races don't seem to mix, despite interracial marriages being "accepted worldwide"... talk about narrow cultural focus *lol

It will be interesting how the effects of space have on the human species after we started settling it for the long term. I could imagine that humans will change so much over time in remote outposts that they will be almost unrecognizable to Earth based humans.

Almost noone would want that change. Almost noone would wanna look like "freaks". Think about it. There will be sexual selection in the future too.

I'm sure we can come up with ways to prevent such radical change to human form. Since we'd have the ability to colonize space, our tech should be quite advanced.

But I also agree space travel and colonizing other planets will have SOME effects on human species. I just dont agree that it'll be so much such that they will be unrecognizable to Earthlings.

Almost noone would want that change. Almost noone would wanna look like "freaks". Think about it. There will be sexual selection in the future too.

I'm sure we can come up with ways to prevent such radical change to human form. Since we'd have the ability to colonize space, our tech should be quite advanced.

But I also agree space travel and colonizing other planets will have SOME effects on human species. I just dont agree that it'll be so much such that they will be unrecognizable to Earthlings.

50 years ago, no one would have wanted to look like Kate Moss. 50 years ago, nobody in their right minds would have wanted to look like Matt Damon.
Sexual selection is always subject to fashion trends, and these are changing rapidly and dramatically.

50 years ago, no one would have wanted to look like Kate Moss. 50 years ago, nobody in their right minds would have wanted to look like Matt Damon.


Prove it.


Sexual selection is always subject to fashion trends, and these are changing rapidly and dramatically.

I'd suggest you to keep "laughing" your "big arse off over" there to things you dont understand instead of trying to give serious answers. Sexual selection isnt about the difference between str8 and curly hair or model skinny and curvy looks, it's much more fundemental than that. Almost noone would want to mate with hunchback of notre dame in any century. And Marrakech II was talking about that kinda huge change since he said that he "could imagine that humans will change so much over time in remote outposts that they will be almost unrecognizable to Earth based humans", tho I dont think that he had mr hunchback in mind. That was an example for you.

That sounds unlikely though.
Why exactly?
In Canada, it is accepted in urban AND rural areas but interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority. I dont see us becoming "one race".
Again, why?
I have nothing to contribute to the science here, but am I the only one who laughs when he sees anti-immigration types complaining about the prospect of a monotone population?
Oh my no.
Almost noone would want that change. Almost noone would wanna look like "freaks". Think about it. There will be sexual selection in the future too.
Someone clearly has had no interaction with other humans for a very long time. We have a very VERY wide spectrum of what we want to look like. See: tattoos, piercings and other body modifications, including cosmetic surgery, also the entire fashion industry.

I'm sure we can come up with ways to prevent such radical change to human form. Since we'd have the ability to colonize space, our tech should be quite advanced.
The only way to prevent that would be to outlaw interracial mating. You just try and get that laws passed anywhere. I'll wait here and get ready to laugh at your failure.

But I also agree space travel and colonizing other planets will have SOME effects on human species. I just dont agree that it'll be so much such that they will be unrecognizable to Earthlings.

Depends how long the two remain seperate, and to what degree they remain seperate.

I'm not gonna bother w/ all of your post but:


Someone clearly has had no interaction with other humans for a very long time. We have a very VERY wide spectrum of what we want to look like. See: tattoos, piercings and other body modifications, including cosmetic surgery, also the entire fashion industry.


Read my answer to CW.


The only way to prevent that would be to outlaw interracial mating. You just try and get that laws passed anywhere. I'll wait here and get ready to laugh at your failure.


What? Who was talking about interracial mating? We were talking about how space travel may impact humans like different levels of gravity, atmospheric composition etc... :rolleyes:

Prove it.
http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Photosfam/tom600.jpg
http://www.nitrolicious.com/blog/wp-gallery/0307/kate_moss_topshop_vogue/kate_moss_topshop_003.jpg

There, that was easy.



I'd suggest you to keep "laughing" your "big arse off over" there to things you dont understand instead of trying to give serious answers. Sexual selection isnt about the difference between str8 and curly hair or model skinny and curvy looks, it's much more fundemental than that.
Prove it. Many species of animals choose their mates based on purely superficial qualities. Many humans do too.
Almost noone would want to mate with hunchback of notre dame in any century.
Prove it. You'll be needing a few thousand people from different cultural backgrounds. Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.
And Marrakech II was talking about that kinda huge change since he said that he "could imagine that humans will change so much over time in remote outposts that they will be almost unrecognizable to Earth based humans", tho I dont think that he had mr hunchback in mind. That was an example for you.

Which is entirely possible for a number of reasons.

I'm not gonna bother w/ all of your post but:
Why not? Can't explain why you think that humanity won't become one race?



Read my answer to CW.
Already did, and responded to it. Doesn't really address my point.



What? Who was talking about interracial mating? We were talking about how space travel may impact humans like different levels of gravity, atmospheric composition etc... :rolleyes:

In Canada, it is accepted in urban AND rural areas but interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority. I dont see us becoming "one race".

I think I would agree with this Nova, as I think would this guy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

There are certain fundamentals to human attraction. Fasion may change but that's not the whole of it; hence why the guy referenced in the article believes that eventually we'll get a specific "attractive" subspecies as a result of sexual selection.

The wiki article isn't great but some of its references give a good insight into how attraction is partly subjective and partly universal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

http://www.fashion-era.com/images/Photosfam/tom600.jpg
http://www.nitrolicious.com/blog/wp-gallery/0307/kate_moss_topshop_vogue/kate_moss_topshop_003.jpg

There, that was easy.


And how does that pic help your argument?



Prove it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection


Many species of animals choose their mates based on purely superficial qualities. Many humans do too.


Yes, so?


Prove it.


Now, your a parrot.


You'll be needing a few thousand people from different cultural backgrounds. Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.


Right.


Which is entirely possible for a number of reasons.

Like?

Why not? Can't explain why you think that humanity won't become one race?


I alread said what I thought about it. Go back and read previous posts. And it's also kinda the point of OP. :rolleyes:

Almost noone would want that change. Almost noone would wanna look like "freaks". Think about it. There will be sexual selection in the future too.

I'm sure we can come up with ways to prevent such radical change to human form. Since we'd have the ability to colonize space, our tech should be quite advanced.

But I also agree space travel and colonizing other planets will have SOME effects on human species. I just dont agree that it'll be so much such that they will be unrecognizable to Earthlings.

Ohh I don't know. I for one would be very interested to witness such a change. What would you imagine say 100 years of colanlisation on a planet with lower, or higher gravity would have, or a different mix of oxygen and other gases?

Prove it.

Sex symbols 50 years ago : Marilyn Monroe, Zara Leander, Clark Gable, Rock Hudson. Just as examples.
The females these days would be shunned as being obese, and the males would be regarded as too old, not "cute".
Kate Moss would have been regarded as a victim of starvation, and Matt Damon as looking too child-like to be considered sexually attractive.
How times change, eh?



I'd suggest you to keep "laughing" your "big arse off over" there to things you dont understand instead of trying to give serious answers. Sexual selection isnt about the difference between str8 and curly hair or model skinny and curvy looks, it's much more fundemental than that. Almost noone would want to mate with hunchback of notre dame in any century. And Marrakech II was talking about that kinda huge change since he said that he "could imagine that humans will change so much over time in remote outposts that they will be almost unrecognizable to Earth based humans", tho I dont think that he had mr hunchback in mind. That was an example for you.

Oh the innocence... have a look on the web, dear. There are in fact porn websites devoted to amputees, and there is a rather large scene admiring dwarves (can't think of the PC word right now, sorry). Among other things. While, yes, those groups are minorities and face stigmatisation to this day, I'm pretty sure even the Hunchback of Notre-Dame would find someone to procreate with.

I think I would agree with this Nova, as I think would this guy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm

Read the whole article:

But in the nearer future, humans will evolve in 1,000 years into giants between 6ft and 7ft tall, he predicts, while life-spans will have extended to 120 years, Dr Curry claims.

Physical appearance, driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility, will improve, he says, while men will exhibit symmetrical facial features, look athletic, and have squarer jaws, deeper voices and bigger penises.

Women, on the other hand, will develop lighter, smooth, hairless skin, large clear eyes, pert breasts, glossy hair, and even features, he adds. Racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

The rest of the article is just plain old bullshit. Some kind of 'the future is wild' thing, badly done.

Ohh I don't know. I for one would be very interested to witness such a change. What would you imagine say 100 years of colanlisation on a planet with lower, or higher gravity would have, or a different mix of oxygen and other gases?

Well, I think it would be a distinct possibility that on a planet with less gravity, people will eventually grow taller than on earth. Even the increased supply of nutrition during the 20th century has had that effect already, so who knows how tall we are capable of becoming?
More gravity might have the reverse result. In combination with a possibly denser athmosphere, people might grow stouter as well.

In an environment with less oxygen, one could speculate that the breast area might grow larger, to allow the lungs to grow larger in turn. However, I don't think that modern day inhabitants of the Andes or the Himalayan show there characteristics, so maybe my speculation is way off...

I think I would agree with this Nova, as I think would this guy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm


I dont agree with that guy tho. Sounds very stupid.

Ohh I don't know. I for one would be very interested to witness such a change. What would you imagine say 100 years of colanlisation on a planet with lower, or higher gravity would have, or a different mix of oxygen and other gases?

I dont know. If there are many Earth-like planets out there, would we colonize such a planet?

Or we may colonize it after terra-forming it somehow. Or if we just need the minerals of that planet, we may only send robots. I dont see most people commiting to such radical changes. Maybe few adventurous individuals.

Ohh and thx for finally posting, you are the kinda person I wanted to talk w/ in this thread but it got filled w/ people like Cabra West and Ifreann.

Ohh I don't know. I for one would be very interested to witness such a change. What would you imagine say 100 years of colanlisation on a planet with lower, or higher gravity would have, or a different mix of oxygen and other gases?

A 100 years is not that much. Physique would change somewhat, but those changes would be phenotypical, not genetic.

Didnt see this part:

....


What? Who was talking about interracial mating? We were talking about how space travel may impact humans like different levels of gravity, atmospheric composition etc...



In Canada, it is accepted in urban AND rural areas but interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority. I dont see us becoming "one race".




I wasnt talking about interracial mating w/ Marrakech II. That was a previous conversation w/ Cabra West. :rolleyes: Amazing that you couldnt have figured it out from the content. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Ohh and thx for finally posting, you are the kinda person I wanted to talk w/ in this thread but it got filled w/ people like Cabra West and Ifreann.

*roflmao
What, you mean with people actually discussing your statements and contradicting you?

I think I would agree with this Nova, as I think would this guy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6057734.stm
http://www.badscience.net/?p=316

There are certain fundamentals to human attraction. Fasion may change but that's not the whole of it; hence why the guy referenced in the article believes that eventually we'll get a specific "attractive" subspecies as a result of sexual selection.
Doesn't follow at all. If there are certain fundamental of human attaction then we are more likely to all eventually have those traits, as those without them will not mate, and thus not pass on their genes.

And how does that pic help your argument?
It's some girls from the 50s and Kate Moss. You can see how they look very very different.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection
That doesn't appear to address your vague statement of sexual selection being 'more fundamental' than hair style and body shape. Care to try again?


Yes, so?
So how is it 'more fundamental' than hair style and body shape and other largely superficial qualities?



Now, your a parrot.
Now you're trying to weasel out of backing up your claims.




Like?
If the remote colony and Earth were kept isolated for long enough then it would only take some fairly minor changes in appearance for the former to be unrecognisable to the latter. Of course, if Earth and the remote colony were in regular contact then any changes in the appearance of the colonists would be noted on Earth. Further, if some of the colonists moved to Earth, their mutations could spread to the humans there.
I alread said what I thought about it. Go back and read previous posts. And it's also kinda the point of OP. :rolleyes:
I pointed out the the second or third post on the first page that the article doesn't preclude humans becoming one 'race'.

I dont know. If there are many Earth-like planets out there, would we colonize such a planet?

Or we may colonize it after terra-forming it somehow. Or if we just need the minerals of that planet, we may only send robots. I dont see most people commiting to such radical changes. Maybe few adventurous individuals.

Ohh and thx for finally posting, you are the kinda person I wanted to talk w/ in this thread but it got filled w/ people like Cabra West and Ifreann.



I think the watch words here are 'ohh I don't know'. That must surly be the only true way to view it, rather than come down on one side or other. I don't know what 100 years of living in low gravity would do to the human body.

I am willing to bet that some change will occur, I mean I can't see evolution just stopping in that kind of scenario.

Also we could colanise earth like planets, or we may not. we just don't know what the future holds.

Why thanx, I'm here all week, please try the fish!

A 100 years is not that much. Physique would change somewhat, but those changes would be phenotypical, not genetic.

100 years in evolutionary terms is indeed not very long, pretend I said 1000 years then or 10000 years instead.;)

Having said that though I wonder how the butterfly has changed over the last 100 years or so.

*roflmao
What, you mean with people actually discussing your statements and contradicting you?

What some of the well known heavy weights around here engaging in discourse? Ohh my days!:D

Well, I think it would be a distinct possibility that on a planet with less gravity, people will eventually grow taller than on earth. Even the increased supply of nutrition during the 20th century has had that effect already, so who knows how tall we are capable of becoming?
More gravity might have the reverse result. In combination with a possibly denser athmosphere, people might grow stouter as well.

In an environment with less oxygen, one could speculate that the breast area might grow larger, to allow the lungs to grow larger in turn. However, I don't think that modern day inhabitants of the Andes or the Himalayan show there characteristics, so maybe my speculation is way off...
I don't think it'd happen in 100 years though.
I dont know. If there are many Earth-like planets out there, would we colonize such a planet?
If we could without huge danger to the colonists, I dare say we would.

Or we may colonize it after terra-forming it somehow. Or if we just need the minerals of that planet, we may only send robots. I dont see most people commiting to such radical changes. Maybe few adventurous individuals.
If my radical changes you mean becoming different from humans then the original colonists wouldn't be affected by that. Their distant descendents might.

Ohh and thx for finally posting, you are the kinda person I wanted to talk w/ in this thread but it got filled w/ people like Cabra West and Ifreann.
People who disagree with you? Oh how terrible :rolleyes:
Didnt see this part:



I wasnt talking about interracial mating w/ Marrakech II. That was a previous conversation w/ Cabra West. :rolleyes: Amazing that you couldnt have figured it out from the content. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Whatever.
You cant really have "proof" about future, it's all prediction. However, people loosimg distinctive appearances seems unlikely since interracial/interethnic relationships are still a slim minority despite the fact that there is no stigma attached to it today, in most countries.
This is the only instance I could find of you actually addressing why you don't think we'll become one race. Just because interracial relationships are in the minority now doesn't mean they always will be. So, do you have any other reasons for believing we'll never become one race?

What some of the well known heavy weights around here engaging in discourse? Ohh my days!:D

Heavy weights? *lol
Not sure if I should take offense or not ;) :p

Heavy weights? *lol
Not sure if I should take offense or not ;) :p

You're the Mike Tyson of NSG. You know, apart from the whole being a white, female, non-canibal who isn't a heavyweight boxer.

Heavy weights? *lol
Not sure if I should take offense or not ;) :p

Bwhahahah now you know I mean it metaphorically.

I don't think it'd happen in 100 years though.



Not so sure... people living in the developed world these days have a tendnecy ot be a good 10-20cm taller than the average population in the same areas would have been 100 years back, just due to the nutrition available. There have been studies of children second generation immigrants from poorer regions of Africa and Asia in the US, the children were outgrowing their parents rapidly.

Although that wouldn't really be evolution, now, would it? It would simply be the body developing to its full genetic potential due to favourable environmental factors.

You're the Mike Tyson of NSG. You know, apart from the whole being a white, female, non-canibal who isn't a heavyweight boxer.

*lol
I always thought Bottle was the Mike Tyson of NSG?

*lol
I always thought Bottle was the Mike Tyson of NSG?

Naa shes the Floyd Mayweather!

*lol
I always thought Bottle was the Mike Tyson of NSG?
If I'm being mistaken for an ear-biting Muslim rapist, then clearly I'm doing something very wrong...

;)

Seriously, and slightly more on topic, I really wish the MSM would just stop reporting on "evolution" at all. It appears that nobody actually wants to crack a fucking book and learn what evolution actually is, yet everybody wants to talk about "evolution" doing all sorts of kooky things. Bleh.

If I'm being mistaken for an ear-biting Muslim rapist, then clearly I'm doing something very wrong...

;)

Seriously, and slightly more on topic, I really wish the MSM would just stop reporting on "evolution" at all. It appears that nobody actually wants to crack a fucking book and learn what evolution actually is, yet everybody wants to talk about "evolution" doing all sorts of kooky things. Bleh.

Thats what it does though, kooky things!

If I'm being mistaken for an ear-biting Muslim rapist, then clearly I'm doing something very wrong...

;)

Metaphorically ;)
Biting the ear of stupidity and raping ignorance... or something like that.


Seriously, and slightly more on topic, I really wish the MSM would just stop reporting on "evolution" at all. It appears that nobody actually wants to crack a fucking book and learn what evolution actually is, yet everybody wants to talk about "evolution" doing all sorts of kooky things. Bleh.

No kooky things? Aw... I like kooky things. :(

Metaphorically ;)
Biting the ear of stupidity and raping ignorance... or something like that.



"Biting the ear of stupidity." I like that. I like that a lot.

CHOMP.

The stuff utopists wet dreams are made from.

They are? The Utopist Society didn't brief me on that. o_O

Actually, it pays to read the original article, instead of the fast food-esque recapitulation in the linked article.

This is a version of the original article: http://www.anthro.utah.edu/PDFs/accel.pnas.smallpdf.pdf

Human evolution has been speeding up in the last 10,000 years, compared to the periods before. However, the rate is dipping very, very fast in the last, say, 2000 years.


Didnt read the whole article, just looked over. But, I think your wrong:

"It is important to note that the peak ages
of new selected variants in our data do not reflect the highest intensity
of selection, but merely our ability to detect selection."

Following up this important point, I guess I was right. Here, another article about this:


Selection Spurred Recent Evolution, Researchers Say

By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: December 11, 2007

Researchers analyzing variation in the human genome have concluded that human evolution accelerated enormously in the last 40,000 years under the force of natural selection.

The finding contradicts a widely held assumption that human evolution came to a halt 10,000 years ago or even 50,000 years ago. Some evolutionary psychologists, for example, assume that the mind has not evolved since the Ice Age ended 10,000 years ago.

But other experts expressed reservations about the new report, saying it is interesting but more work needs to be done.

The new survey — led by Robert K. Moyzis of the University of California, Irvine, and Henry C. Harpending of the University of Utah — developed a method of spotting human genes that have become more common through being favored by natural selection. They say that some 7 percent of human genes bear the signature of natural selection.

By dating the time that each of the genes came under selection, they have found that the rate of human evolution was fairly steady until about 50,000 years ago and then accelerated up until 10,000 years ago, they report in the current issue of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The high rate of selection has probably continued to the present day, Dr. Moyzis said, but current data are not adequate to pick up recent selection.

The brisk rate of human selection occurred for two reasons, Dr. Moyzis’ team says. One was that the population started to grow, first in Africa and then in the rest of the world after the first modern humans left Africa. The larger size of the population meant that there were more mutations for natural selection to work on. The second reason for the accelerated evolution was that the expanding human populations in Africa and Eurasia were encountering climates and diseases to which they had to adapt genetically. The extra mutations in their growing populations allowed them to do so.

Dr. Moyzis said it was widely assumed that once people developed culture, they protected themselves from the environment and from the forces of natural selection. But people also had to adapt to the environments that their culture created, and the new analysis shows that evolution continued even faster than before.

The researchers took their data from the HapMap project, a survey designed by the National Institutes of Health to look at sites of common variation in the human genome and to help identify the genes responsible for common diseases. The HapMap data, generated by analyzing the genomes of people from Africa, East Asia and Europe, has also been a trove for people studying human evolutionary history.

David Reich, a population geneticist at the Harvard Medical School, said the new report was “a very interesting and exciting hypothesis” but that the authors had not ruled out other explanations of the data. The power of their test for selected genes falls off in looking both at more ancient and more recent events, he said, so the overall picture might not be correct.

Similar reservations were expressed by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago.

“My feeling is that they haven’t been cautious enough,” he said. “This paper will probably stimulate others to study this question.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11gene.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I think the watch words here are 'ohh I don't know'. That must surly be the only true way to view it, rather than come down on one side or other. I don't know what 100 years of living in low gravity would do to the human body.

I am willing to bet that some change will occur, I mean I can't see evolution just stopping in that kind of scenario.

Also we could colanise earth like planets, or we may not. we just don't know what the future holds.

Why thanx, I'm here all week, please try the fish!

Sure, we dont know but I think it is unlikely that we will colonize those kinda planets just like that. Since we'd have the capability to travel between stars, our tech should be so advanced by then, we should be able to terraform planets. Construct giant rockets on the surface of the planet to control its rotation and change its gravity perhaps? I just think that most humans wont commit themselves to too non-Earth like planets for prolonged periods.

But, yeah, space age will accelerate human evolution even further.

But, yeah, space age will accelerate human evolution even further.

The interesting question is what will have a bigger effect: the stuff happening now and in the near future which will enable this kind of expansion, or the expansion itself. I think the former will see far more human control over evolution and our own bodies while the latter will be more of an unguided process akin to previous eras of human expansion.

What this means, of course, is still unknown. Either way, we're going to become a whole lot different over the next few decades.

The interesting question is what will have a bigger effect: the stuff happening now and in the near future which will enable this kind of expansion, or the expansion itself. I think the former will see far more human control over evolution and our own bodies while the latter will be more of an unguided process akin to previous eras of human expansion.

What this means, of course, is still unknown. Either way, we're going to become a whole lot different over the next few decades.

I still disagree that we will become a whole lot different. What would we do if we had the "ability to control our evolution" now? Maybe make ourselves more athletic, smarter and more attractive? But very few people would go with adding wings or having elephant penises or those kinda "freaky" things. What I mean is we'd probably go with perfecting what many would consider a "natural" human form.

I still disagree that we will become a whole lot different. What would we do if we had the "ability to control our evolution" now? Maybe make ourselves more athletic, smarter and more attractive? But very few people would go with adding wings or having elephant penises or those kinda "freaky" things. What I mean is we'd probably go with perfecting what many would consider a "natural" human form.

I'd have to agree; the bulk of changes will probably be cultural rather than physical, at least externally. Inside, people might be radically different depending on their own choices (since bionic and organic internal parts each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages for different situations), but externally the overall appearance will be similar.

It will be interesting to see what happens once extraterrestrial life is found; even if it's just bacteria or algae, exposure to them may produce radical changes in people exposed to them.

Has anyone here seen Waking Life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waking_life), the movie where the guy is having a dream, and during his dream, everyone he meets has really deep philosophical conversations with him?

There is this one point in the movie where this guy is talking about how humanity has had these great leaps forward, these cultural revolutions where people are significantly different than they were before. Some examples were the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the computer age, stuff like that. Anyways, he noticed that these social evolutions are getting closer and closer together, and eventually, people will experience multiple social evolutions within their own life time.
Anyways, this thread reminded me of that, and also of posthumanism, which we have had multiple threads on. Also, all of you should watch the movie, twice while clear headed, and then high. Very high.

Good for you researcher, good for you.

What they forget is a globalized world will break down the natural barriers that would cause separation of the species. We wil become more homogenous, not less.

I would think we would evelve slower because we're allowing mutations that should kill or sterilize to live and reproduce.

There is this one point in the movie where this guy is talking about how humanity has had these great leaps forward, these cultural revolutions where people are significantly different than they were before. Some examples were the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, the computer age, stuff like that. Anyways, he noticed that these social evolutions are getting closer and closer together, and eventually, people will experience multiple social evolutions within their own life time.

Never seen it, but I understand the point well (I think a friend of mine has it on his computer...I'll have to get it when I get my external hard drive). In my own life, I can't even comprehend what it would be like to live without a cell phone, computer, the internet, all of that...

...and yet, only a few years before I was born, all of these were rarities. My family didn't get our first computer until 1992, internet access in 1996 or thereabouts, and I got my first cell phone in 1999. I didn't even have my own computer until 2005, and now I'm fully connected to technologies people only dreamed about a decade ago, let alone longer.

Forget the flying cars, the stuff we have now is beyond the wildest dreams of science fiction writers.

I would think we would evelve slower because we're allowing mutations that should kill or sterilize to live and reproduce.

They're not "mutations", they're human beings. That would be murder.

The point is that we're now capable of treating, curing and soon will be capable of outright fixing many of those problems...this is something that mankind, or any species, has never been capable to do. The tools to truly control and improve ourselves are in our grasp, and that's a kind of freedom that is simultaneously terrifying and inspiring. The coming years will be a critical period in human history, one that will pass before our very eyes.

They're not "mutations", they're human beings. That would be murder.

The point is that we're now capable of treating, curing and soon will be capable of outright fixing many of those problems...this is something that mankind, or any species, has never been capable to do. The tools to truly control and improve ourselves are in our grasp, and that's a kind of freedom that is simultaneously terrifying and inspiring. The coming years will be a critical period in human history, one that will pass before our very eyes.

I didn't say that we should kill them. I'm saying people who have genetic cancer should not be treated because they could pass on the bad gene. Medical progress is only half good. Some parts are good, but other parts could wipe out our species. If we allow mutations to live when they should naturally die, we weaken our gene pool. Enough with the emotional crap. Nature is cruel. Live with it or die trying.

I didn't say that we should kill them. I'm saying people who have genetic cancer should not be treated because they could pass on the bad gene. Medical progress is only half good. Some parts are good, but other parts could wipe out our species. If we allow mutations to live when they should naturally die, we weaken our gene pool. Enough with the emotional crap. Nature is cruel. Live with it or die trying.

Thats one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Having a strong immune system isnt everything. Stephen Hawking is probably "genetically superior" than some random healthy person.

Thats one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Having a strong immune system isnt everything. Stephen Hawking is probably "genetically superior" than some random healthy person.

I always thought mutations are how we "evolved" to this point.

I'd have to agree; the bulk of changes will probably be cultural rather than physical, at least externally. Inside, people might be radically different depending on their own choices (since bionic and organic internal parts each have their own set of advantages and disadvantages for different situations), but externally the overall appearance will be similar.


We may look much younger tho. I think it's very likely that they will be able to extend human life span in future. We may look 20 until we are 200. ;)
We'll definately be more attractive and fit tho, due to advanced medical and cosmetic industries.


It will be interesting to see what happens once extraterrestrial life is found; even if it's just bacteria or algae, exposure to them may produce radical changes in people exposed to them.

I think it'll create huge changes. May weaken religious institutions even further. I know I'd be against aliens immigrating to Earth tho. :p

I didn't say that we should kill them. I'm saying people who have genetic cancer should not be treated because they could pass on the bad gene. Medical progress is only half good. Some parts are good, but other parts could wipe out our species. If we allow mutations to live when they should naturally die, we weaken our gene pool. Enough with the emotional crap. Nature is cruel. Live with it or die trying.

If you can treat a patient and you intentionally withhold treatment, you are murdering them and would be tried accordingly. The only exception is if the person consents to this alternative; otherwise, it is no different from any other form of murder, except perhaps more sadistic than others because it represents an utter abuse of the values medical professionals espouse as part of their practice.

Nature is cruel, but that doesn't mean mankind has to be...we all have flaws, and all of us can fall victim to diseases like cancer. If man allows himself to be ruled by the same laws that govern nature, without any kind of higher morality or ethics, we will go extinct. That is the one thing we can be sure of; nothing else in the world threatens our species more than the death of empathy and compassion.

Everything can and should be cured, and we should work to not only cure the diseases but also repair or remove their causes. Otherwise, there is no option but suffering and death for millions of people who don't deserve it.

Never seen it, but I understand the point well (I think a friend of mine has it on his computer...I'll have to get it when I get my external hard drive). In my own life, I can't even comprehend what it would be like to live without a cell phone, computer, the internet, all of that...

...and yet, only a few years before I was born, all of these were rarities. My family didn't get our first computer until 1992, internet access in 1996 or thereabouts, and I got my first cell phone in 1999. I didn't even have my own computer until 2005, and now I'm fully connected to technologies people only dreamed about a decade ago, let alone longer.

Forget the flying cars, the stuff we have now is beyond the wildest dreams of science fiction writers.

Mmm, indeed. The one thing I disagreed with was his prediction that this is decades away. I rather think we are on the brink of having cultural evolutions in our lifetimes.

Of course, it was made in 2000, 2001. It certainly seemed to be going a lot slower then.

I know I'd be against aliens immigrating to Earth tho. :p

Get that Galactic fence up!

We may look much younger tho. I think it's very likely that they will be able to extend human life span in future. We may look 20 until we are 200. ;)

We'll definately be more attractive and fit tho, due to advanced medical and cosmetic industries.

Oh, yeah. Age will gradually fade to irrelevance, just like race, sexuality, gender, or religion (although all of these have a long, long ways to go and ageism will be no different). If anything, this will mean greater cultural diversity as people have the freedom to pursue more and varied things than ever before; just like the rise of education and literacy stimulated the cultural explosions of ages past.

I think it'll create huge changes. May weaken religious institutions even further. I know I'd be against aliens immigrating to Earth tho. :p

I'd be too, at least initially. We can't risk inadvertently killing them or killing ourselves due to plagues; initial contact will have to be pretty careful for both sides to avert disaster.