Are human beings done evolving?

[ViewsofMars]

He said global.

Hi xxChrisxx, let's get the record straight, I'm not a "he." I was born a baby girl whose now become a woman. I've been told by plenty of men throughout my life that I'm good looking. And, I surely don't mind them looking if they are good looking, smart, and kind.

You posted your reply back in December 2009. I haven't posted a message on the Interent since, except for the two today on physicsforums. This being the the second one and the most important to me. Why? Because I'm proud to be a woman.

Please forgive me for being late. Happy New Year to you and everyone. :)

 

[magnusrobot12]

after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection. whatever trait gives folks the advantage to live in a nuclear winter or those individuals who have genes that make them more likely to survive in elevated background radiation, will have an advantage. homo-superior inspires racism so i would stay away from that term unless you are a skin-head.

 

[ViewsofMars]

after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection.

Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball.

I can answer that: a very high mortality rate due to an extremely hostile environment would drive evolutionary changes harder than they have been in the past. As to what changes might infer an advantage, well, that's anyone's guess.

Do you not think this is not straightforward?

 

[magnusrobot12]

Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball.

Thank you ViewsofMars for your sarcastic answer. But if you must know, my crystal ball says that you will NOT be one of the people who keeps the human race going after the nuclear holocaust.

I can answer that: a very high mortality rate due to an extremely hostile environment would drive evolutionary changes harder than they have been in the past. As to what changes might infer an advantage, well, that's anyone's guess.

Thank you Dave. This is exactly what i was trying to say. Perhaps i used the word "acute" loosely thereby allowing sarcastic folks (such as ViewofMars) who like to bury their sands in the hand in the face of religion, but what you wrote is precisely what i was trying to say. We are all armed with slightly different genetics (we are ~99.99% identical to each other). The 0.01% differences will come into play when the human race is faced with a drastic acute change. So, I agree with Dave and disagree with pompous ViewofMars who thinks he knows everything about natural selection.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thank you Dave. This is exactly what i was trying to say. Perhaps i used the word "acute" loosely...

No, you said it just fine. I pretty much said what you said, just more verbose for VoM's benefit.

I'm not sure what her objection is; perhaps she could elaborate.

 

[ViewsofMars]

No, you said it just fine. I pretty much said what you said, just more verbose for VoM's benefit.

I'm not sure what her objection is; perhaps she could elaborate.

Dave, magnusrobot12 said,"after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection." I surely don't consider magnusrobot12's statement to be altruistic nor informative. Maybe magnusrobot12 might like to read How Evolution Works by Douglas Futuyma. I've left a link below.


DaveC46913:2613246, speculating or predicting in advance, in light of the fact, that in the future a nuclear war will be because of religion isn't scientific. There isn't an observation of it as of yet nor does it support "humans will be tested with acute natural selection" due to the fact that it hasn't yet happened.

Hence, my (Mars) response to magnusrobot12, "Oh, I see you are fortune teller. Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what *acute* natural selection might look like in your crystal ball." David replied "I can answer that: a very high mortality rate due to an extremely hostile environment would drive evolutionary changes harder than they have been in the past. As to what changes might infer an advantage, well, that's anyone's guess."

Let's hope empathy and altruism is truly the sign of humans' evolving and there won't be another Atom bomb aka nuclear war.

Perhaps it would be best to review Natural Selection: How Evolution Works by Douglas Futuyma. I'll add this tidbit from the document but I encourage everyone to read the entire document.

Futuyma: “Survival of the fittest” is a slogan that is really very misleading. First of all, it’s not an adequate description of what really goes on in nature for two reasons:

“Survival of the fittest” is a misleading term.•Sometimes there isn’t a “fittest” type. There may be several different types that are equally fit for different reasons. Perhaps they’re adapted to different facets of the environment. One is not going to replace the other because each has its proper place in the environment.

•Moreover, it’s not just a matter of survival. Natural selection is a difference in reproductive success that involves both the ability to survive until reproductive age and then the capacity to reproduce.

The notion of the survival of the fittest is also unfortunate because it has been viewed as a kind of tautology, a kind of empty statement for those who say that the fittest are those that survive and so there’s no real predictive content to the notion of natural selection. That is simply false.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/futuyma.html

Thank you ViewsofMars for your sarcastic answer. But if you must know, my crystal ball says that you will NOT be one of the people who keeps the human race going after the nuclear holocaust.
[...]
So, I agree with Dave and disagree with pompous ViewofMars who thinks he knows everything about natural selection.

p.s. I don't consider my statements as being sarcastic or pompous! magnusrobot12, calling me a man after I stated beforehand to another member that I was a woman is plain mean and making a public statement directed at me as he wrote above is rude and honestly I can't take it too seriously because it's infantile. LOL! Ok, THANKS for CONFIRMING AND publically ADMITTING you are a fortune teller of sorts with a crystal ball. I'll be honest with you, I don't believe what your crystal ball "says" to you. What a bunch of pure poppycock!

Please remember this is a Science Forum- Biology. Women should be treated with respect and not put down by men in public forums. We have to consider there are women and future young girls who become or are scientists. This is my last comment to this topic. Thank you,
Mars

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, magnusrobot12 said,"after the nuclear war because of religion (oops, sorry), humans will be tested with acute natural selection." I surely don't consider magnusrobot12's statement to be altruistic nor informative.

DaveC46913:2613246, speculating or predicting in advance, in light of the fact, that in the future a nuclear war will be because of religion isn't scientific. There isn't an observation of it as of yet

OK, I thought your sarcastic response was addressing the "evolution" part of his post, not the "nuclear war due to religion" part. Conceded.

p.s. I don't consider my statements as being sarcastic!

The fortune teller / crystal ball comment was.

magnusrobot12, calling me a man after I stated beforehand to another member that I was a woman is plain mean.

No, it was merely inobservant. The woman comment was buried in text more relevant to the topic.