"The Creation Story!"

When talking about the evolution of humanity, we need to be careful to differentiate between physiological evolution (genetic), and cultural.

While genes do change in proportion within a population even in short timeframes, they do not accumulate sufficiently to make any appreciable difference in physical characteristics within the whole population.

Cultural change is a very different thing however. Human culture and human knowledge are changing VERY rapidly, and the pace seems to be increasing exponentially.

We may be approaching an Information Singularity.

When talking about the evolution of humanity, we need to be careful to differentiate between physiological evolution (genetic), and cultural.

While genes do change in proportion within a population even in short timeframes, they do not accumulate sufficiently to make any appreciable difference in physical characteristics within the whole population.

Cultural change is a very different thing however. Human culture and human knowledge are changing VERY rapidly, and the pace seems to be increasing exponentially.

We may be approaching an Information Singularity.

fox-the usual evolutionary " guideline " is that one mutation gets accumulated in a genome per 20 generations. (These are non lethal obviously)

I hope so

And yet even Darwin lacked the science to explain sudden and dramatic changes that occur from time to time and I suspect he was ignorant of the dramatic climatic shifts that occur from time to time While the theory of evolution is plausible and generally reliable, there are nevertheless holes in the record that cannot be explained purely by mutation. (I did pay some attention in science class. )

So far as culture goes, I agree with Ros that human culture has been changing very rapidly in the last 40 or so years; however prior to that cultural changes were painfully show spanning generations. Prior to the 1960's one generation had pretty much the value system of the previous generation and only somewhat pushed the envelope to think and behave differently. As humankind--and possibly to a tiny degree other primates--are the the only species to be able to choose to operate independently from instinct, we cannot totally separate human culture from evolutionary trends any more than we can separate behavioral patterns of any other species.

I would add dolphins to that list, as they are the second most intelligent animal on the planet.

**neat idea ive heard about, i dont know if there is any merit whatsoever, but . . .

the possibility that dolphins in the next 1000 years or so, could become "sentient". Aware of their existence i suppose, neat idea. I for one welcome the intelligent dolphins.

sure, be a dolphin "suck up" when they run the show, youll have a cushy job like putting the fish in the buckets.

fox- mutations are collected and accumulated in a population. They only become effective when they are in a position to affect a triggering mechanism that turns a gene off or on. For example, human populations can show micro evolutionary tratits in their genomes without any outside manifestations. Yet, they also can have profound trait differences like increased lung capacities by populations that live in extreme elevations , statistically the lung capacity for Sherpas is much greater than flatlanders and their "blood/brain" efficiencies are reportedly higher also.Is this microevolution?

I have no quarrel with that Farmerman. But I believe Darwin wasn't interested only in genes and mutations. He also factored behavior into his mix and, as it is behavior that often resulted in the various mutations occurring--preference for a certain kind of food for instance--I don't think he would approve of dismissing behavior from the science.

I like dolphins too, but until they get smart enough to avoid the tuna nets, I will still have to place them way below the primates in intelligence.

ok, tuna nets which are 100 feet across and a 100 feet deep, coming at you at 25 knots per hour. This has nothing to do with intelligence, it is based on physical ability. I would like to see a human avoid a net when they are 50 ft. down, cant see or hear the boat coming, and all of a sudden, get caught i the net. Despite our intelligence.

and regardless of what you think, dolphins are scientifically rated as the second most intelligent. Something to do with their cortexes. I think in some cases, primates can be more intelligent and less intelligent. Depending on species of dolphin and primate.

I go to Seaworld and I see those COMPLICATED routines those dolphins have emorized at right times and synchronized and I end up agreeing those are some damn smart animals. those routines would give some humans trouble lol.

Oh shush about Darwin. The guy's been dead for centuries (well, actually only around one, but it feels like so much longer). Of course his science is out of date. Criticise MODERN evolutionary bioligists if you wish, but Darwin is the proverbial dead horse.

Firstly, Darwin didn't invent evolution. He popularised it. Anyone who's actually read origin of species would know this. Secondly, yeah he was wrong on a lot of things. That's because he was one of the earlier scientists to work on it, and that it took many years to learn what was actually occuring.



DNA wasn't discovered until half a century after his death. Again, lay off the bloke. You sound like you should know better.



Evolution also occurs through the combination of genes in sexual reproduction. Mutations can accumulate within recessive or otherwise untriggered genes thus requiring only a single mutation (of the triggering gene) to activate a far more widespread change (though I suspect the death rates of such mutations would be quite high). Also a previously mutated individual may not be noticed until he's the only one to survive a massive disaster thus highlighting his pre-existing mutation. (here's one we prepared earlier).

and I suspect he was ignorant of the dramatic climatic shifts that occur from time to time

I doubt it.

While the theory of evolution is plausible and generally reliable,

Of course it is.

there are nevertheless holes in the record that cannot be explained purely by mutation.

Source?

(I did pay some attention in science class. )

In science class. Great... your knowledge of evolution comes from the three weeks Ms Kwok covered it between recess and lunch in biology class while you were probably wondering whether Cindy would go to the prom with you.



So wrong on so many levels.



Please reread that and then answer why our ability to operate independently of our genetically created instincts makes our behaviour equally dependent upon genetic evolution as that of any other species. Your argument is intensely non-sequitor.

I wouldn't have asked Cindy to the prom.

Then your wondering would have probably been fear that she would drug you and bring you along against your will. Cindy is kind of like that. Which is probably why you wouldn't have asked her

I would not believe that we will evolve physiologically apparent over the next thousand years, because:
1) technology and science help us fight bad natural conditions
2) There would not be a group of people that is isolated and
undergo primitive evolution (at least speaking in terms of
assumptious probability)
3) mutated physiology would be viewed as 'abnormal' by society
and it would be harder for it to spread
4) it's only a thousand year
5) I think we're already well adapted and punctuated equilibrium
would hardly happen