Self-imposed evolution

I was learning about evolution in my biology class the other day, and how survival of the fittest is, in all truth, survival of the stable. Because the definition of stable has so much to do with a creature's surroundings, there are huge lapses of time where creatures don't undergo evolution of any sort. It occurred to me that humans probably aren't evolving in most areas right now, and some would go so far as to say we are in reverse evolution in many societies.

But could we be a whole lot more advanced if we learned how to evolve ourselves? I don't mean kill off the less stable half of the world---that is part of my question...how would we evolve ourselves without becoming heartless creatures? What are the potential risks and advantages of that idea? The human brain allows for all sorts of innovative and revolutionary forms of evolution and adaption. Why not self-imposed evolution?

i've said before and its been theorised before that humans might well be the 1st species to effect their own evolution...

my outlandish theory was that as technology advances mean that humans have a lesser need for physical strength then the body will get smaller...as we have a higher need for intelligence the brain and thus the head will get bigger...to input information to that brain our sensory input must increase so, for example, the eyes will get larger...and as we move out from living within star systems then the need for pigment in the skin to protect from UV light will get less and so we will lose that

so to summarise...small body...large head....large eyes...grey skin....sound familiar?

I was actually thinking more along the lines of evolving the way we think...because it takes a lot to start with bacteria and wind up with a brain wondering about its existence, so where will that go in the future if we continue to evolve our brains?

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was actually thinking more along the lines of evolving the way we think...because it takes a lot to start with bacteria and wind up with a brain wondering about its existence, so where will that go in the future if we continue to evolve our brains?

do you mean the way we think from a physical point of view or from a philosophical point of view?

More of a philosophical. Strange, I know, but philosophy evolved somehow. Will it continue on?

Originally posted by Quark_666
More of a philosophical. Strange, I know, but philosophy evolved somehow. Will it continue on?

you can argue that everything "evolves" and you'd be right but not in the scientific context...i prefer to look at how humans as a physical species will evolve...and the context of telescopic evolution on technology and how it will effect biological evolution

Originally posted by jaden101
i've said before and its been theorised before that humans might well be the 1st species to effect their own evolution...

my outlandish theory was that as technology advances mean that humans have a lesser need for physical strength then the body will get smaller...as we have a higher need for intelligence the brain and thus the head will get bigger...to input information to that brain our sensory input must increase so, for example, the eyes will get larger...and as we move out from living within star systems then the need for pigment in the skin to protect from UV light will get less and so we will lose that

so to summarise...small body...large head....large eyes...grey skin....sound familiar?

What's going to cause the brain size enlargement though?

Originally posted by Robtard
What's going to cause the brain size enlargement though?

tumours?

the need for a higher degree of intelligence to create our technology...the human brain is already evolutionary bigger now than our ancestoral development as seen in the fossil records...and i dont want this to turn into a "gaps in the fossil records" evolution debate cause we have enough of those as it is

MEMES

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was learning about evolution in my biology class the other day, and how survival of the fittest is, in all truth, survival of the stable. Because the definition of stable has so much to do with a creature's surroundings, there are huge lapses of time where creatures don't undergo evolution of any sort. It occurred to me that humans probably aren't evolving in most areas right now, and some would go so far as to say we are in reverse evolution in many societies.

But could we be a whole lot more advanced if we learned how to evolve ourselves? I don't mean kill off the less stable half of the world---that is part of my question...how would we evolve ourselves without becoming heartless creatures? What are the potential risks and advantages of that idea? The human brain allows for all sorts of innovative and revolutionary forms of evolution and adaption. Why not self-imposed evolution?

I think you questions are about 40 years too old

We are already exploring gene doping. We will modify our genetic structure ourselves, technically evolving ourselves hundreds of thousands of years in just mere instances. We will also genetically engineer our offspring. I have already given a name to humans who are genetically engineered beyond the natural adaptation to the environment: "hyperperfects".

"Above-perfect".

Genetic engineering coupled with cybernetics will be the future in about 20 years or less.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was actually thinking more along the lines of evolving the way we think...because it takes a lot to start with bacteria and wind up with a brain wondering about its existence, so where will that go in the future if we continue to evolve our brains?

It seems you're referring to an purely intellectual version of a technological singularity.

How do we evolve ourselves?

Biological evolution takes too much time to willfully work toward it as a species. But it would certainly be feasible to work toward genetic engineering as a way to improve the species. There's already genetic splicing that improves much of the produce we eat, and the technique for humans isn't that far removed from it.

The technology still isn't quite there (finding genes that co-operate or altering them and still having them function properly is tricky, at best) and religious groups will always stifle such experiments. So it's a very forward idea (very transhumanist, which I consider myself to be wholeheartedly) but not really feasible just yet.

The singularity SC mentioned is also a very transhumanist idea. Here's a thread I made about it a while back:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=462824&highlight=title%3A%28transhumanism%29

One thing I'll note is that our species is distinct in that we are actually attempting to make ourselves aware of our own evolution -- a process that generally happens slowly, and automatically, especially in terms of natural selection. That seems to be different from genetic engineering (although I can see the similarities). 1000 years from now maybe we'll start being born without a few useless biological aspects, like wisdom teeth (ouch).

Originally posted by deathbucket
One thing I'll note is that our species is distinct in that we are actually attempting to make ourselves aware of our own evolution -- a process that generally happens slowly, and automatically, especially in terms of natural selection. That seems to be different from genetic engineering (although I can see the similarities). 1000 years from now maybe we'll start being born without a few useless biological aspects, like wisdom teeth (ouch).

I needed my wisdom teeth. When I was eating hard food before grew my wisdom teeth, I would sometimes accidentally chew things with just the gingiva all the way at the back. It would hurt, of course. Now, I don't have that problem and all my teeth are just fine and I have no problems. My dentist said that my wisdom teeth would have to come out. He said that they would cause problems like misalignment my other teeth and that I would get infections in the gingiva. I have had none of those problems. He probably just wanted to make a few thousand extra dollars for a wasted surgery...which is why I didn't let him remove them. Do I know more about dentistry than that Dentist? HELL NO! Could I tell that there was plenty of room and that the wisdom teeth were coming in in the right spots and right directions from 3 consecutive x-rays take over 1 and a half years? HELL YES!!!

Back on topic...

I am excited about what he future brings as far as biology and technology goes.

I would love for some software to automatically punctuate as I dictate the words. I would love to "gene dope" to suppress my myostatin production....etc...etc.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you questions are about 40 years too old

Eh, well, I only missed it by a generation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We are already exploring gene doping. We will modify our genetic structure ourselves, technically evolving ourselves hundreds of thousands of years in just mere instances. We will also genetically engineer our offspring. I have already given a name to humans who are genetically engineered beyond the natural adaptation to the environment: "hyperperfects".

"Above-perfect".

Genetic engineering coupled with cybernetics will be the future in about 20 years or less.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I was actually thinking more along the lines of evolving the way we think...because it takes a lot to start with bacteria and wind up with a brain wondering about its existence, so where will that go in the future if we continue to evolve our brains?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Eh, well, I only missed it by a generation.

I was making a joke about it...I hope it didn't come off the wrong way.

Also, I was responding to your original post which focused on biology.

Originally posted by deathbucket
One thing I'll note is that our species is distinct in that we are actually attempting to make ourselves aware of our own evolution -- a process that generally happens slowly, and automatically, especially in terms of natural selection. That seems to be different from genetic engineering (although I can see the similarities). 1000 years from now maybe we'll start being born without a few useless biological aspects, like wisdom teeth (ouch).

Not necessarily. First, 1000 years is a very short time evolutionarily speaking. Second, for genes to disappear they need to work out of the gene pool via natural selection. Wisdom teeth don't do anything harmful in a survival sense, so people with the "wisdom teeth gene(s)" will continue to procreate.

Worthless, perhaps. On its way out? Doubtful, actually. It's like saying we're slowly becoming a bald species (which is at best unconfirmed and at worst false). At some point having less hair meant for an advantage in the branch of animals that diverged from apes into humans. Now there is no advantage or disadvantage for most of us, so the hair we have will remain fairly constant.

Originally posted by jaden101
tumours?

the need for a higher degree of intelligence to create our technology...the human brain is already evolutionary bigger now than our ancestoral development as seen in the fossil records...and i dont want this to turn into a "gaps in the fossil records" evolution debate cause we have enough of those as it is

Need for greater technology affecting brain size in terms of evolution, doesn't really flow with mechanics of evolution theory.

Originally posted by Robtard
Need for greater technology affecting brain size in terms of evolution, doesn't really flow with mechanics of evolution theory.

its not about need for technology...its merely about creating more complex technology and it flows perfectly with evolutionary theory...the human brain has gotten larger and technology has gotten more advanced...which is the cause and which is the effect is really irrelevant

on a related note...waking life...an excellent example of what we're discussing

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=saxX-Z6w3p4

It's a false pretense if you assign an ultimate goal to evolution.