|
Human Evolution? or Human Regression? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Muscular adaptation is not the whole story for how successful a species is. Paleolithic humans may have been somewhat stronger and faster, but a chimpanzee at half their weight could still easily crush any of them in a barehanded fight and outrun them, too, just as it could any modern human. Does that make those humans "less successful" than chimps?
;) |
depends on your definition of successful is. Do you really think that humans are actually getting smarter? When do you think the next einstein or isaac newton will appear? We are conditioned to a sedentary lifestyle with no real aspirations to develope our thinking further. Selection (if there is any) is simply geared towards materialism for the most part. Not intellect and expansion of mind and knowledge. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
depends on your definition of successful is. Do you really think that humans are actually getting smarter? When do you think the next einstein or isaac newton will appear? We are conditioned to a sedentary lifestyle with no real aspirations to develope our thinking further. Selection (if there is any) is simply geared towards materialism for the most part. Not intellect and expansion of mind and knowledge. |
I am sick of arguing with you. You don't seem to think before you type. |
|
|
| Gen3r4l1ty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Do you really think that humans are actually getting smarter? When do you think the next einstein or isaac newton will appear? We are conditioned to a sedentary lifestyle with no real aspirations to develope our thinking further. Selection (if there is any) is simply geared towards materialism for the most part. Not intellect and expansion of mind and knowledge. |
Are you kidding? There's TONS of new research going on, and not just for the creation of marketable products. If anything, our Einsteins and Newtons are just less noticeable because of the ubiquity of human intellectual progress. Mapping the genome, photographing distant galaxies, microprocessors, nano technology, cloning, and particle physics, not to mention progress in the field of cognitive science make this as enlightening of an age as any. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
depends on your definition of successful is. Do you really think that humans are actually getting smarter? When do you think the next einstein or isaac newton will appear? We are conditioned to a sedentary lifestyle with no real aspirations to develope our thinking further. Selection (if there is any) is simply geared towards materialism for the most part. Not intellect and expansion of mind and knowledge. |
but at what period in man's history would you say that the improving of intellect or expansion of mind and knowledge took precedence over, you know, eating or shagging?
man is unquestionably smarter now because of our ability to share and test knowledge, as well as the copious amounts of free time we have to dedicate towards doing so.
people like trancer-x et al always complain about the "sheep" being led around with little or no conscious thought, but imo if you look at the history of man there is far more conscious thought going on than at any time previously. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gen3r4l1ty
This whole "primitive man" adoration that's trending up these days is really tiresome. Aside from the fact that many of McAllister's assertions are based primarily on speculation, he also takes a stance that physical prowess is the only measure of value to a human. From a biological standpoint, the success of a species is not determined by muscle mass, but by the organisms ability to adapt and thrive in its environment. In that sense, our evolutionary progress should be measured by our ingenuity, not our physicality.
|
well the definition of natural selection states that the organism most suitable to the environment will suceeed. If we are manipulating the environment to suit us doesn't that mean we are actually regressing as a species?
What will happen when the day comes and society collapses and we are left without our manufactured devices. Wouldn't it be a pathetic sight to visualize the naked human unable to sustain itself within the environmnet?
Isn't it ironic that we have become so weak that we actually need to clothe ourselves so we don't die of coldness in the night? What other animals are so physically weak lol. So in essence has our "Evolution" from caveman actually helped our harmed our species in the long run?
| quote: |
Yes, we can't run that fast because we don't need to chase our food. We don't need to be able to dead lift a half ton because we're not dragging carcasses back to our cave. Our brains have adapted to overcome these obstacles in ways that don't involve brute force. It has allowed us to focus on things other than "when will I eat next?" Humanity has since been able to pursue art, science, and philosophy in a way that no other species on earth can. We can conceptualize and express our thoughts in ways unimagined in early human history. No amount of muscle can compensate for the wonders that humanity has shown me about this world and this universe.
(Or maybe I'm just a lanky computer nerd that secretly yearns for bulging cave-man pectorals) |
This is true.. but to actually become physically weaker is a sign that mental capabilities may soon follow. Do you really think if society all of a sudden collapsed to nothing. All the books were lost and only infants existed that we would be able to develop our society as we did before. With how we are now?
I see a low probability due to our conditioning and onset vulnerability. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gen3r4l1ty
Are you kidding? There's TONS of new research going on, and not just for the creation of marketable products. If anything, our Einsteins and Newtons are just less noticeable because of the ubiquity of human intellectual progress. Mapping the genome, photographing distant galaxies, microprocessors, nano technology, cloning, and particle physics, not to mention progress in the field of cognitive science make this as enlightening of an age as any. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Thanks for typing out what I was too lazy to. :p |
Particularly the bit about the ubiquity of human progress. Guys like Newton were celebrated because they were one in a million. These days we have thousands of incredibly bright teenagers and young adults competing for prestige, glory, knowledge and scholarships. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
This is true.. but to actually become physically weaker is a sign that mental capabilities may soon follow. |
:wtf:
Why? |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Gen3r4l1ty
Are you kidding? There's TONS of new research going on, and not just for the creation of marketable products. If anything, our Einsteins and Newtons are just less noticeable because of the ubiquity of human intellectual progress. Mapping the genome, photographing distant galaxies, microprocessors, nano technology, cloning, and particle physics, not to mention progress in the field of cognitive science make this as enlightening of an age as any. |
This is simply amplification of previous theories put to the test. The idea of einsteins and newtons less noticable is laughable. If there was another einstein out there we would know about it. Trust me. |
|
|
| Domesticated |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
This is simply amplification of previous theories put to the test. The idea of einsteins and newtons less noticable is laughable. If there was another einstein out there we would know about it. Trust me. |
His point is that there are so many Einsteins that they no longer stand out from the pack. You are excruciating. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
:wtf:
Why? |
what is the need for mental advancement.
How often do you do calculus for fun?
How often do you try to derive new equations?
How often do you try to understand time dialation and set up experiements to prove it. Or ponder about quarks?
How often do you sit at home after work and watch tv?
If less then 1% of our population never to everything by the last question then i can see signs of mental degredation.
If you don't use it.. you lose it. Whats the point of developing neural connections when you just need the basic ones to watch sex in the city, heroes or family guy. |
|
|
| Gen3r4l1ty |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
well the definition of natural selection states that the organism most suitable to the environment will suceeed. If we are manipulating the environment to suit us doesn't that mean we are actually regressing as a species?
|
No, it means we are making the environment better suited to us. Therefore, we are better suited for the environment.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
What will happen when the day comes and society collapses and we are left without our manufactured devices. Wouldn't it be a pathetic sight to visualize the naked human unable to sustain itself within the environmnet?
|
Yes, if all food (all plants and animals), clothes(animal skins, foliage), and shelters (soft ground to dig in, trees, leaves, caves) suddenly disappeared instantly without warning then yes, we would be S.O.L. But I don't know if I'd want to live in a world with no trees, animals, plants, mountains, or dirt. (and I don't think primitive man would survive long in that environment either):rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
This is true.. but to actually become physically weaker is a sign that mental capabilities may soon follow. |
Um, no.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Do you really think if society all of a sudden collapsed to nothing. All the books were lost and only infants existed that we would be able to develop our society as we did before. With how we are now?
I see a low probability due to our conditioning and onset vulnerability. |
Yea, the apocalypse will suck. Until then, enjoy the ride. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
well the definition of natural selection states that the organism most suitable to the environment will suceeed. If we are manipulating the environment to suit us doesn't that mean we are actually regressing as a species? |
If beavers build dams to help themselves survive, doesn't that mean they are regressing as a species? Why can't they just stay out in the water and on the bare shore the whole time?
| quote: | | What will happen when the day comes and society collapses and we are left without our manufactured devices...Do you really think if society all of a sudden collapsed to nothing. All the books were lost and only infants existed that we would be able to develop our society as we did before. With how we are now? |
Why do you think that will happen?
| quote: | | Isn't it ironic that we have become so weak that we actually need to clothe ourselves so we don't die of coldness in the night? What other animals are so physically weak lol. |
Small mammals like mice and rats with their tiny core and high surface area to volume ratio die much more easily in the cold, even compared to a naked human. |
|
|
|
|
