| From: Des | 3/02/99
22:57:48 |
| Subject: Evolution | post id:
181 |
| If my understanding of natural
selection is correct: Over the passage of time slight mutations pop up amongst a species, these mutants are gifted with traits better suited to handling their current environment, as a result they survive in greater numbers and the gene pool is eventually overun with their trait. Could we assume humans, in the main part, will no longer evolve in this way? People seem to make mating decisions these days based on looks, wealth, charm etc. Are we going to evolve into a species of hunks with BMWs able to do standup at the drop of a hat? | |
| From: Gary Annat | 4/02/99
0:29:46 |
| Subject: re: Evolution | post id:
186 |
| I would tend to suggest, though
I'm not an expert, that it would probably not be best to assume that we as
a race are headed for an evolution that leads to us relying on our own
machines. Why I think this, is because though we can to some extent
control our environment, we can't play God, so to speak. There are still
diseases, as well as various other factors that we can't control. The
weather may be a good example. Take for instance El Nino (sorry, I
couldn't get the proper grammar). Farmers in Queensland have to deal with
extreme weather conditions as well as various other places. Polution as
well. Who is to say that there won't be, over time, some development
through evolution that could help us deal with conditions such as these.
Wouldn't you say that if someone evoloved bacteria in their body that
could fight the AIDS virus, that they would be at an advantage? In all, I
just think that we aren't destined to a computer reliant future just
yet. | |
| From: Martin Smith | 4/02/99
11:52:08 |
| Subject: re: Evolution | post id:
259 |
| Evolution is not necessarily to
do with getting 'better'. It does not always involve 'survival of the
fittest'. Evolution is more to do with survival of those most likely to
breed. It does seem as if our mating patterns depend on more cultural things. But maybe our culture has been influenced by evolution. Some of our social habits seem to have a basis in surviving to breeding age. Some human breeding behaviour does seem to involve females being attracted to males with wealth and position, and dominant males being attracted to younger females. The theory being that these males can best provide, and that such females are most likely to survive childbirth, and have many children. Obviously many other factors are also involved. | |
| From: Asger | 4/02/99
14:24:14 |
| Subject: re: Evolution | post id:
322 |
| As far as you can believe an
acheaology lecturer, mine says that humans are still evolving. In particular Autralians, Americans, and most Europeans are (generally) slightly taller now then we were 100 years ago. We are noticably taller now then we were 500-1000 years ago. An example of physical evolution in the present, possibly caused by having a better diet. | |
| From: Horace | 4/02/99
14:30:37 |
| Subject: re: Evolution | post id:
329 |
| Asger said: "...An example of
physical evolution in the present, possibly caused by having a better
diet." If it's caused by having a better diet then this is not evidence of evolution. | |
| From: David Rokerfeller | 8/07/99
10:14:17 |
| Subject: re: Evolution | post id:
22423 |
| We are Still evolving because we
are still alive evolution is not about a choice. (I believe) weather we survive or not, is I think based on weather our Technology can keep up with our Culture. oh and weather the world government becomes representive and not Bank controled. so therefore do not race mix, my friends. | |