Are we done evolving?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 31 2007, 04:44 PM) [snapback]415683[/snapback]</div>

I beg to differ. A bacteria living in super-heated water and an octopus changing its color are not supernatural. "Supernatural" is not relative. "Supernatural" means a violation of the basic laws of nature. A trait is not supernatural merely because you or I had not thought of it before we observed it in an animal. Please do not confuse the human emotion of surprise with the ability to violate the basic laws of nature.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 31 2007, 04:44 PM) [snapback]415683[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry. I respect you a lot. But that question is silly. Depending on precisely what you mean by "end" (do you mean termination or purpose?) the question is silly in two different ways. Evolution has no purpose. Evolution is a process that adapts populations to their surroundings. And evolution has no termination until each individual species goes extinct. Intelligence is nothing more or less than one more trait that has evolved because it helps its possessor to survive. Note that just about every living thing has some intelligence. Even a flatworm can learn to run a simple maze. We humans consider ourselves more intelligent than any other species, but we are pretty darn stupid in a lot of ways. So we are neither unique, nor very far along on the intelligence spectrum. There's plenty of room for improvement.

Humans are the only animal on Earth intelligent enough to build nuclear weapons, and the only animal stupid enough to use them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Mar 31 2007, 07:17 PM) [snapback]415731[/snapback]</div>

Which comes back to use breaking another of natures "laws".

"You may compete to the full extent of your capabilities, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food."

 

We're cracking at how evolution works faster and faster. Some months ago I read an article about how scientists discovered by what mechanism cave-creatures lose their eyesight. It is a rather simple embryological gene or set of genes (I can't remember which) - but the way it works is a tradeoff based ENTIRELY on embryology (which is based on genetics, of course) - in essence this gene/set of genes controls the olfactory sense (or I suppose you'd call it the 'water' sense) and visual... I can't explain as well since it's been some time since I read the article - but essentially by having the olfactory sense developed, the visual department is embryologically underdeveloped... this is all through evolutionary underpinning of embryological genes.

If we were to get a 'leap mutation' (as you hear scientists say evolution progresses slowly, then followed by the occasion relative leaps), I would bet on something like this - embryological in basis.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Mar 31 2007, 02:01 PM) [snapback]415612[/snapback]</div>

No apology required my reply was merely a <strike>knee</strike>-jerk reaction. I'll have to reply later as I have been having a ton of problems with PC saying I'm not allowed to log-on or something similar, plus just very busy right now.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Mar 31 2007, 07:36 PM) [snapback]415741[/snapback]</div>

In Kenya, I watched elephants grazing in a dry riverbed. There was water at very shallow depth. The elephants would dig a hole, drink, and then cover the hole back in, apparently to deny access to the water for other creatures who were unable to dig.

Of course, ethical rules are not natural laws.

 

The answer to your question is simple.

Our habitat is still evolving, therefore, we will continue evolving.

Just wait.. in 15 years, it's going to be so hot all of the people with genetics which predispose them to being a fat nice person will die off..

Yeeehaw!