Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I want children, but I don't have any.-Male

64 (41%)

I want children, but I don't have any.-Female

2 (1.3%)

I don't want children and I don't have any.-Male

72 (46.2%)

I don't want children and I don't have any.-Female

6 (3.8%)

I have children and am happy I had them.-Male

9 (5.8%)

I have children and am happy I had them.-Female

3 (1.9%)

I have children and I regret it.-Male

0 (0%)

I have children and I regret it.-Female

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 154

[Loud Whispers]

Evolution is also extremely slow by human standards.

That said, forced evolution through technological breakthroughs in genetics will likely come far sooner.

Eh what? We've evolved quite quickly actually... Did you know only a few hundred years ago mankind was not able to drink cows milk?

[Siquo]

Evolution can be quick, and don't forget that devolution is VERY quick.

[Leafsnail]

Eh what? We've evolved quite quickly actually... Did you know only a few hundred years ago mankind was not able to drink cows milk?

...And that most of mankind today is unable to drink cows milk in adulthood.

And what exactly does "devolution" even mean in this context?  People who survive and reproduce best in the current environment will always do better, because... y'know, they survive and reproduce.

[Loud Whispers]

Eh what? We've evolved quite quickly actually... Did you know only a few hundred years ago mankind was not able to drink cows milk?

...And that most of mankind today is unable to drink cows milk in adulthood.

Not if you compare Europe to Asia

[Reudh]

With the milk- that's an adaptation, not an evolution. it's not considered an evolution until it's propagated to all members of the species. Just as white skin is an adaptation to higher climates (less sunlight = paler skin = more vitamin D exposure) but not an evolution. Red hair is a further adaptation from white skin; allowing humans to survive in even higher climates that get less sun.

[Loud Whispers]

And guess what onsets evolution? Adaptation :3

[Leafsnail]

Not if you compare Europe to Asia

Huh?  What do you mean?  The majority of humanity doesn't have the ability to drink milk in adulthood because they never needed it.  "Comparing Europe to Asia" doesn't change this.

[Reudh]

Asia has a higher incidence of lactose intolerance due to their not drinking cow/goat milk as much.
Africa, Europe, the Americas and Australia have lower due to a long history of processing cow/goat milk from early childhood.

But that's enough of a derail imo. Let's rerail the thread.

[Loud Whispers]

Not if you compare Europe to Asia

Huh?  What do you mean?  The majority of humanity doesn't have the ability to drink milk in adulthood because they never needed it.  "Comparing Europe to Asia" doesn't change this.

Europe has a much higher percentage of people who are capable of utilizing cows milk than asia. My point is it's only been a few hundred-few thousand years, and we can notice significant changes cropping up due to environmental changes £:

Asia has a higher incidence of lactose intolerance due to their not drinking cow/goat milk as much.
Africa, Europe, the Americas and Australia have lower due to a long history of processing cow/goat milk from early childhood.

Yup, to take advantage of a new food source.

>Rerail time:
Not so sure about kids. Sure I want kids, but not that much. Not even sure why. Perhaps it's because I'm so unsure :d

[Siquo]

And what exactly does "devolution" even mean in this context?  People who survive and reproduce best in the current environment will always do better, because... y'know, they survive and reproduce.

Devolution happens when traits are no longer necessary, and you will lose them. Cave adaptation is one, another is our ability to produce vitamin C, and right now it's stuff like diabetes, myopia, etc that continue to be in the gene-pool where they used to be removed naturally. It's about faulty DNA (loss of functionality) no longer being culled, and it's a part of evolution (not the opposite). It's not necessarily bad, either, and "stupidity" being hereditary is also debatable (as in, not final yet).

[G-Flex]

With the milk- that's an adaptation, not an evolution. it's not considered an evolution until it's propagated to all members of the species. Just as white skin is an adaptation to higher climates (less sunlight = paler skin = more vitamin D exposure) but not an evolution. Red hair is a further adaptation from white skin; allowing humans to survive in even higher climates that get less sun.

This is a distinction I'm pretty sure you just made up. Evolution is a process, and that process is still ongoing even if a given adaptation doesn't exist in the entire species. Seriously, now.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And what exactly does "devolution" even mean in this context?  People who survive and reproduce best in the current environment will always do better, because... y'know, they survive and reproduce.

Devolution happens when traits are no longer necessary, and you will lose them. Cave adaptation is one, another is our ability to produce vitamin C, and right now it's stuff like diabetes, myopia, etc that continue to be in the gene-pool where they used to be removed naturally. It's about faulty DNA (loss of functionality) no longer being culled, and it's a part of evolution (not the opposite). It's not necessarily bad, either, and "stupidity" being hereditary is also debatable (as in, not final yet).

There is absolutely nothing called "devolution" in modern evolutionary theory. Traits do not just vanish when they are no longer necessary. That's why we have all of these useless things. A trait is only due to vanish when it's presence inhibits adaptation to the organism's environment.

[Siquo]

There is absolutely nothing called "devolution" in modern evolutionary theory. Traits do not just vanish when they are no longer necessary. That's why we have all of these useless things. A trait is only due to vanish when it's presence inhibits adaptation to the organism's environment.

Untrue: traits that are no longer necessary may disappear, or not, but usually will. The term I used is wrong, but the effect is still there. I refuse to call it adaptation, though. To keep troglobites as an example, there's no "adaptation" about losing your eyesight and pigment, losing is not "useful", other than that it might cost less energy to not have it.

Then let me put it this way: Evolution in the direction of less complexity can be really fast.

[G-Flex]

I refuse to call it adaptation, though. To keep troglobites as an example, there's no "adaptation" about losing your eyesight and pigment, losing is not "useful", other than that it might cost less energy to not have it.

How is that not useful? Saving energy is useful. That is adaptation, whether you want to call it or not. Losing a function because it's beneficial not to have it is as much an "adaptation" as gaining a function because it is more beneficial to have it. You're making up distinctions again that don't exist. If a population of organisms evolves to a state better suited to its environment, that is an adaptation. That is the organism adapting to its environment. Period.

[Siquo]

That is the organism adapting to its environment.

I disagree. When I move to another country, and learn another language, that's adaptation. If I, in the process, forget my mothertongue, that isn't. The "might cost less energy" is just that, a "might", but if that was so important, there's a lot of vestigial stuff still around in our bodies that should've been gone for a long time.

Evolution is about statistics, and which genes are weeded out. If blindness is no longer an impediment, blind creatures will procreate as well as the non-blinds. Statistically this will eventually lead to blindness of the population. Really. Simulate it, sometime. The blind but useless eyes are vestigial, and they can continue to exist uselessly for a long time, maybe just because they share a gene with something that is still needed. It's statistics, and ending your point with a "period" doesn't make you any more right. Genetics like Murphy: there's so much that can go wrong, that if you let it, it will.