What is the goal of human evolution

In summary: For the original question:In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of engineering the evolutionary process to develop new abilities and features, such as the ability to control other life forms through a neural connection. The concept of directed evolution is mentioned as a potential method for achieving these goals.
  • #36
Note: also Darwin's criticism of punctuated theory... that these abrupt morphological changes could be a result of migratory patterns. That is, we're only looking at one spatial slice over a long time, so we're limiting our perspective.

Regardless, we're still only talking about bone morphology here... which is a drop in the ocean compared to all evolutionary changes that can occur in an organism. What about when a receptor drops/adds a subunit, or some other signalling pathway changes in a way that is subtle morphologically, but significant systematically? Morphology is just something humans can see, and I think we place too much emphasis on it as a result...
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #37
I don't have any agenda, really. I do not believe that 'there is a purpose for humans' or any thing of that sort. The question is a purely scientific one for me.
Someone said that evolution is a process governed by a blind random emergent process of natural selection and I just argued that this is not the case anymore. As simple as that. Of course you can make a regression and say that human-directed evolution is also an ultimately random process, but I think that would not be very helpful in this context.
For sure I would be interested in discussing what are the implications of the fact that humans have developed this ability to consciously alter the evolutionary path of themselves and of other species for the future evolution of our biosphere, but nobody seems interested in that, as if that was not a respectable scientific topic but some esoteric theism, some ethical taboo or whatever. No problem, peace to the world.
 
  • #38
Pythagorean said:
Morphology is just something humans can see, and I think we place too much emphasis on it as a result...
I certainly agree it happened so, but modern evolutionary science is more and more based on analyzing the genetic similarities and divergences so that emphasis on morphological aspects has been overcome.
 
  • #39
Gerinski said:
Someone said that evolution is a process governed by a blind random emergent process of natural selection and I just argued that this is not the case anymore.

Which is incorrect :)

At least... you haven't sufficiently proven your case. Intelligent human contribution to evolutionary forces are largely insignificant. If you want to show they're significant, that's on you.
 
  • #40
Pythagorean said:
Which is incorrect :)

At least... you haven't sufficiently proven your case. Intelligent human contribution to evolutionary forces are largely insignificant. If you want to show they're significant, that's on you.
Really?
Does the animal world, the plant world, the microbial world you see around yourself right now look as what you may guess it might look like had humans not evolved? do they really look the same to you? if that's not a significant difference I don't know what 'significant' means for you.
And don't say again that also other species would have affected the course of evolution in any other ways. Intelligent contribution is qualitatively different.
 
  • #41
Do you not recognize your reliance on anecdote? Specifically on what I "see" when I "look around myself"? This is an appeal to my own anecdotal biases!

Do you also not recognize that "had humans not evolved" is not the same as "intelligent contribution"?
 
  • #42
There are plenty of examples of natural selection having an effect on humans. Short on time but see the evolution FAQ in this forum for examples.
 
  • #43
Pythagorean said:
Do you not recognize your reliance on anecdote? Specifically on what I "see" when I "look around myself"? This is an appeal to my own anecdotal biases!

Do you also not recognize that "had humans not evolved" is not the same as "intelligent contribution"?
Sorry but with all my respect that sounds as trying to escape my argument. That humans have acted "intelligently" (i'd prefer to say "consciously") is a given. If humans had evolved but remained as intelligent as chimps they would not count as "humans" for the current purpose of the discussion.

And I don't need to appeal to any of your biases, I can ask the question to myself or to any other of the humans in the planet, I bet few of them will say that the world they may imagine had humans not developed intelligence looks the same as the world they see around them today.

Btw, I'm genuinely surprised at seeing so much reluctance to my statements in a scientific forum, I thought that the statement that Darwinian natural selection is not the only force governing evolution since humans developed was an undisputed assertion. Really surprised...
 
  • #44
jim mcnamara said:
"Speed" is also a vector. Vectors have direction. Evolution does not have a direction.

This doesn't even make sense, "speed" isn't inherently a vector. Speed of motion is a vector, because motion is a vector. The speed of a temperature drop is a scalar because temperature is a scalar. The speed of an object deforming is a 2nd order tensor because deformation is a 2nd order tensor.

Whether or not evolution has a definable/meaningful "speed" has nothing to do with it not "having a direction."
 
  • #45
I never meant that evolution has any "direction", only that humans have a special (qualitatively different from what other organisms have) influence on whatever direction the evolution of species is taking and will continue taking.
 
  • #46
Gerinski said:
I never meant that evolution has any "direction", only that humans have a special (qualitatively different from what other organisms have) influence on whatever direction the evolution of species is taking and will continue taking.

That really doesn't have anything to do with what I said or what the quote I was responding to said. The term "direction" being used by Jim and I is the mathematical "direction" of a vector, in other words, requiring multiple numbers to describe. It has nothing to do with a literal "direction" that you are talking about.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
This discussion has come to an end.
 
<h2>What is the goal of human evolution?</h2><p>The goal of human evolution is a complex and debated topic among scientists. While there is no definitive answer, many scientists believe that the ultimate goal of human evolution is to increase the adaptability and survival of our species.</p><h2>How does natural selection play a role in the goal of human evolution?</h2><p>Natural selection is a key mechanism in the process of human evolution. It allows for the survival of individuals with advantageous traits, leading to the passing on of these traits to future generations. Over time, this can lead to the development of new and more advanced characteristics that aid in the survival and success of our species.</p><h2>What factors contribute to the goal of human evolution?</h2><p>There are many factors that contribute to the goal of human evolution, including environmental pressures, genetic mutations, and social interactions. These factors all play a role in shaping the development and adaptation of our species over time.</p><h2>Is the goal of human evolution the same for all individuals?</h2><p>No, the goal of human evolution may differ for individuals depending on their specific genetic makeup and environmental factors. However, the overarching goal of increasing adaptability and survival remains the same for the entire human species.</p><h2>What evidence supports the idea of a goal in human evolution?</h2><p>While there is no concrete evidence to support a specific goal in human evolution, scientists have observed patterns and trends in the development of our species that suggest a common goal of adaptability and survival. Additionally, the success and dominance of the human species compared to other species can be seen as evidence of a goal in human evolution.</p>

What is the goal of human evolution?

The goal of human evolution is a complex and debated topic among scientists. While there is no definitive answer, many scientists believe that the ultimate goal of human evolution is to increase the adaptability and survival of our species.

How does natural selection play a role in the goal of human evolution?

Natural selection is a key mechanism in the process of human evolution. It allows for the survival of individuals with advantageous traits, leading to the passing on of these traits to future generations. Over time, this can lead to the development of new and more advanced characteristics that aid in the survival and success of our species.

What factors contribute to the goal of human evolution?

There are many factors that contribute to the goal of human evolution, including environmental pressures, genetic mutations, and social interactions. These factors all play a role in shaping the development and adaptation of our species over time.

Is the goal of human evolution the same for all individuals?

No, the goal of human evolution may differ for individuals depending on their specific genetic makeup and environmental factors. However, the overarching goal of increasing adaptability and survival remains the same for the entire human species.

What evidence supports the idea of a goal in human evolution?

While there is no concrete evidence to support a specific goal in human evolution, scientists have observed patterns and trends in the development of our species that suggest a common goal of adaptability and survival. Additionally, the success and dominance of the human species compared to other species can be seen as evidence of a goal in human evolution.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
955
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
4
Replies
138
Views
14K
Replies
11
Views
708
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
3
Views
871
Replies
14
Views
6K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top