Humanity: The Good Ending - General

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49917598]But they do for the simple reason that people are still being born with random mutations (some of which may be beneficial). As time goes on, the genes which confer these reproductive advantages will continue to spread throughout the population. I don't see what makes us immune from this process considering it's going on literally right this second.[/QUOTE] That's not how it works, there's no reason the mutations will pass on if they aren't beneficial enough to give an edge in survival, they could just as easily phase out in 1 or 2 generations.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917601]That's not how it works, there's no reason the mutations will pass on if they aren't beneficial enough to give an edge in survival, they could just as easily phase out in 1 or 2 generations.[/QUOTE] Uh yes it does? If a gene confers some kind of advantage it's a given that it will become increasingly predominant among the population. This is like a basic fact of biology. In the past few thousand years we have already seen selection among human populations for tolerance to lactose (an adaptation to milk-drinking), a shift towards lighter skin tones due to the lack of vitamin D at high latitudes, adaptations to numerous infectious diseases, towards diets heavy in carbohydrates, etc.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917601]That's not how it works, there's no reason the mutations will pass on if they aren't beneficial enough to give an edge in survival, they could just as easily phase out in 1 or 2 generations.[/QUOTE] Not to mention that guy was talking like all we have to do is wait 10,000 years and we'll have psionic powers and super strength as if evolution is some linear scale of improvement.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49917607]Uh yes it does? If a gene confers some kind of advantage it's a given that it will become increasingly predominant among the population. This is like a basic fact of biology. In the past few thousand years we have already seen selection among human populations for tolerance to lactose (an adaptation to milk-drinking), a shift towards lighter skin tones due to the lack of vitamin D at high latitudes, adaptations to numerous infectious diseases, towards diets heavy in carbohydrates, etc.[/QUOTE] Mate that makes no sense, evolution is not sentient. Think about it for a second. How does evolution distinguish between a positive mutation and a negative mutation? It cant, unless the mutation give's an edge to survival there's noway it can become prevalent. Mutations take 10,000's of years not because they need to spread through the Human populous but because it takes that time for those without the gene to die off due to there 5% increased chance of dying without it.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917625]How does evolution distinguish between a positive mutation and a negative mutation?[/quote] Usually the beneficial mutation results (on average) on the individual having more babies that survive to reproductive age and have more babies of their own carrying that gene. [quote]Mutations take 10,000's of years not because they need to spread through the Human populous but because it takes that time for those without the gene to die off due to there 5% increased chance of dying without it.[/QUOTE] Size doesn't really slow it down because populations can renew themselves fairly rapidly. If you have a gene which confers a significant reproductive advantage it will spread. If anything, larger populations speed it up because considering that mutation is random then a larger population will simply have more beneficial mutations pop up. Also consider the fact that the vast majority of mutations (at least 90%) are either neutral or negative and impact on the person in question. Fairly hefty proportions of people are lost each generation whenever due to genetic diseases, or they are homosexual/celibate/etc and therefore don't have children, etc. Evolution only considers how many children are created in the end. Consider the fact that Otzi the Iceman was lactose intolerant and that hunter-gatherer peoples (i.e most of Europe until about 8000 years ago) are incapable of digesting dairy. The fact that evolution has selected for a population capable of consuming milk and other dairy products is strong evidence supporting the fact that evolution is constantly ongoing and still has a major impact.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49917659]Usually the beneficial mutation results (on average) on the individual having more babies that survive to reproductive age and have more babies of their own carrying that gene. Size doesn't really slow it down because populations can renew themselves fairly rapidly. If you have a gene which confers a significant reproductive advantage it will spread. If anything, larger populations speed it up because considering that mutation is random then a larger population will simply have more beneficial mutations pop up. Also consider the fact that the vast majority of mutations (at least 90%) are either neutral or negative and impact on the person in question. Fairly hefty proportions of people are lost each generation whenever due to genetic diseases, or they are homosexual/celibate/etc and therefore don't have children, etc. Evolution only considers how many children are created in the end. Consider the fact that Otzi the Iceman was lactose intolerant and that hunter-gatherer peoples (i.e most of Europe until about 8000 years ago) are incapable of digesting dairy. The fact that evolution has selected for a population capable of consuming milk and other dairy products is strong evidence supporting the fact that evolution is constantly ongoing and still has a major impact.[/QUOTE] Yes but like i said Globalization reduces the chance of death making evolution via natural selection pointless in large Human non-isolated populations. We care for the weak, and we don't give special reproductive rights to the strong, so no Natural selection thus no evolution. Pointless argument either way as by the time evolution can do anything considerable we should already be transhuman.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917677]Yes but like i said Globalization reduces the chance of death making evolution via natural selsection pointless in large Human non-isolated populations.[/quote] Uh, globalization did the exact opposite. About 90% of all of the people in the New World died from infectious diseases they had no immunity to. This happened barely a few centuries ago. People are still evolving today due to the simple fact that those who have more children that survive to adulthood will eventually have their descendants predominate throughout the population. [quote]Pointless argument either way as by the time evolution can do anything considerable we should already be transhuman.[/QUOTE] It's already having a considerable impact right now. Evolution doesn't stop.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49917454]The A.I. is so advanced in this scenario that it's a self replicating cloud of nanites, and the consciences contained within are immortal and all knowing with access to all of Earth's history (and any alien civilizations they encounter) with the ability to flawlessly recreate any moment, scene, world, or person you can possibly imagine and it would be indistinguishable from the real thing. You are pretty much a god. And the A.I. in your war scenario would be just as good if not better than human, a robotic algorithm detects missiles and launches counter-missiles even if it was false, an A.I. in charge of launching counter-missiles would go under the same ethical hardships as a person. I'm not on Team Hivemind either but that's really not as suckish as you make it out to be.[/QUOTE] Yeah but being able to recreate a situation where you know everything that's going to happen kinda takes the life part out of living, being alive is all about not knowing for sure what's going to happen in the future. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] Like I said personally I don't see the appeal.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49917691]Uh, globalization did the exact opposite. About 90% of all of the people in the New World died from infectious diseases they had no immunity to. This happened barely a few centuries ago. People are still evolving today due to the simple fact that those who have more children that survive to adulthood will eventually have their descendants predominate throughout the population. It's already having a considerable impact right now. Evolution doesn't stop.[/QUOTE] That's not really globalization and that was the result of some interesting factors id recommend reading up on it, its quite interesting but my point remains people aren't dying enough for evolution so its not happening.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917484]That's not how evolution works, in fact evolution in Humans has more than likely stopped due to globalization and such.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2011/HattonFig1.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Samiam22;49917749][img]http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2011/HattonFig1.gif[/img][/QUOTE] That's nutrition not evolution.

[QUOTE=Samiam22;49917749][img]http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/image/FromAug2011/HattonFig1.gif[/img][/QUOTE] This graph confuses me. Why does it go 1800's, to the 1900's, back to the 1800's? 1976-80 is used twice. Pretty certain they meant 1876-80. You'd think an error like that would get noticed before publication. :v:

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;49917796]This graph confuses me. Why does it go 1800's, to the 1900's, back to the 1800's? 1976-80 is used twice. Pretty certain they meant 1876-80. You'd think an error like that would get noticed before publication. :v:[/QUOTE] It might be Graph goofing, where they add in values to give a desired graph curve. It relies on people not paying attention to the actual numbers. Its illegal in Europe now i think, there was some big case with the guardian newspaper a while back i think.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917724]That's not really globalization and that was the result of some interesting factors id recommend reading up on it, its quite interesting but my point remains people aren't dying enough for evolution so its not happening.[/QUOTE] But people are dying constantly, whenever from diabetes or cancer or war. Evolution is still ongoing and humans are still subject to selection pressures, this much is a scientific fact

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49917873]But people are dying constantly, whenever from diabetes or cancer or war. Evolution is still ongoing and humans are still subject to selection pressures, this much is a scientific fact[/QUOTE] Not really no, for one we medicate those problems so there not that big a deal, infact diabetes is genetic disease that come's late in life when people have already reproduced and most people survive it anyway, cancer can happen from late life to early life so it also doesn't factor, war doesn't even factor in to evolution in a modern instance so i don't know why you brought it up. I don't think you really understand evolution.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49917887]Not really no, for one we medicate those problems so there not that big a deal, infact diabetes is genetic disease that come's late in life when people have already reproduced and most people survive it anyway, cancer can happen from late life to early life so it also doesn't factor, war doesn't even factor in to evolution in a modern instance so i don't know why you brought it up. I don't think you really understand evolution.[/QUOTE] I like to think I understand evolution because I work in a biology lab, studied biology, and read books and blogs on it, but I could be wrong there. I don't see why you can think that evolution has stopped because by all accounts it hasn't really. I listed those things as examples of illnesses and causes of death in general. People are still having children. People are still having random mutations. People still have selection pressures on them. If not, then can you explain why genes that allow people to digest lactose are still spreading? There are still beneficial mutations being generated all the time and selection pressures are still acting on us. This is an undisputed scientific fact that everyone in the field of biology accepts. Just because we have fancy tools doesn't mean we're immune from nature. [editline]12th March 2016[/editline] The big point about evolution isn't survival - it's the number of children you leave behind. If one group of people has more children than other groups it will naturally grow in size and displace other populations. If that group has a bunch of genes (like those conferring greater resistance to modern diseases or behaviours which produce more children) associated with it then they will naturally predominate. There's a reason that half of all the people in Ireland are descended from some 4th century iron age king, why 16 million today are descended from Genghis Khan, and why nearly everybody in Europe can count William the Conqueror as their ancestor - it's because they fucked a lot and their children had more children than other people did. The reason that so many people can trace their ancestry to the nobility is due to the fact that for most of recorded history the nobility simply outbred the commoners to the point that they ended up displacing them entirely. This is a process still ongoing today - just look at the Mormons in America, they're going to end up becoming the majority of the country in about two or three centuries.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49918298]I like to think I understand evolution because I work in a biology lab, studied biology, and read books and blogs on it, but I could be wrong there. I don't see why you can think that evolution has stopped because by all accounts it hasn't really. I listed those things as examples of illnesses and causes of death in general. People are still having children. People are still having random mutations. People still have selection pressures on them. If not, then can you explain why genes that allow people to digest lactose are still spreading? There are still beneficial mutations being generated all the time and selection pressures are still acting on us. This is an undisputed scientific fact that everyone in the field of biology accepts. Just because we have fancy tools doesn't mean we're immune from it[/QUOTE] What do you do in the lab out of curiosity? I wouldn't imagine a lot of modern Biology requires an in depth understanding of Evolution, at least not as far as Research into certain area's would go. Do you guys often get engineers in also? I'm surprised the fields don't seem to collaborate more. Selection pressures, can you name relevant ones that still occur today? Society looks after the Infirm, so unless someone gets a disease early in life before they reproduce, and its fatal, it cant be passed on. And as for the lactose gene, that isn't modern that came with the spread of farming through Europe like 10,000 years ago so it isn't relevant today. You don't die these days if you don't have milk, back then you could.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49918372]What do you do in the lab out of curiosity? I wouldn't imagine a lot of modern Biology requires an in depth understanding of Evolution, at least not as far as Research into certain area's would go. Do you guys often get engineers in also? I'm surprised the fields don't seem to collaborate more.[/quote] I work in agricultural science, primarily in zoology. I do a number of things ranging from checking soil samples for infestation to keeping track of insects and testing potatoes for resistance to PCN and how many cysts are produced with each generation. [quote]Selection pressures, can you name relevant ones that still occur today? Society looks after the Infirm, so unless someone gets a disease early in life before they reproduce, and its fatal, it cant be passed on.[/quote] Selection pressure: How many children you have. Certain population groups have more children than others, which leads to them becoming increasingly predominant throughout the population. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness[/url] basically, so long as some people have more children than others, and that is related in a non-random way to alleles, however slightly, then selection will happen [quote]And as for the lactose gene, that isn't modern that came with the spread of farming through Europe like 10,000 years ago so it isn't relevant today.[/QUOTE] Uh it's still going on today. Some groups in Africa developed lactose tolerance relatively recently (i.e the past thousand years) due to the advantages of being able to process dairy products.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49918401]I work in agricultural science, primarily in zoology. I do a number of things ranging from checking soil samples for infestation to keeping track of insects and testing potatoes for resistance to PCN and how many cysts are produced with each generation. Selection pressure: How many children you have. Certain population groups have more children than others, which leads to them becoming increasingly predominant throughout the population. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness[/url] basically, so long as some people have more children than others, and that is related in a non-random way to alleles, however slightly, then selection will happen Uh it's still going on today. Some groups in Africa developed lactose tolerance relatively recently (i.e the past thousand years) due to the advantages of being able to process dairy products.[/QUOTE] Aye, Africans would be unlikely to have the gene since it would have been the people leaving that had it, making it an already successful gene in most of the Human population. Would it still be evolution if the gene already survived and was merely just effecting the last hold out's? If so then i think i agree with you.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;49918433]Aye, Africans would be unlikely to have the gene since it would have been the people leaving that had it, making it an already successful gene in most of the Human population. Would it still be evolution if the gene already survived and was merely just effecting the last hold out's? If so then i think i agree with you.[/QUOTE] Evolution is basically just a change in allele frequency over time regardless of cause. It can be natural or artificial or sexual selection. Even genetic drift. It's the same regardless.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49918448]Evolution is basically just a change in allele frequency over time regardless of cause. It can be natural or artificial or sexual selection. Even genetic drift. It's the same regardless.[/QUOTE] If genetic drift count's I assume that would mean that evolution is happening now more than ever with globalization. That mean's i'm a fucking retard for saying the exact opposite. And that i essentially just argued semantic's.

If that's the good ending I'd hate to see the bad ending.

Where is the max chaos good ending?

[QUOTE=FullStreak12;49918563]If that's the good ending I'd hate to see the bad ending.[/QUOTE] The bad ending is nuclear war. [QUOTE=Swilly;49916998]Sentient life is not inherently above all other forms of nature and this folly of understanding is what lead to our planet dying over the course of less than a fucking century. Also you misread what I said, I meant a homeostasis that means if something is failing, another life form or evolutionary trait will occur to fix the problem. We've fucked the balance so hard fish currently don't know which gender they are, are genetically modified crops are being with super bugs and we've used antibiotics so much strains resistant our strongest forms are now a thing. This line of think is dangerous in every regard to our species as well as every species on the planet. Tell me that again after reading how we caused a mass extinction event with your ideal that because we can think, we are somehow above others. [/QUOTE] No other life thinks, feels, and acts the way sentient life does. Human mismanagement of the planet does not change that. GMOs are a good thing. Conservation is still important, but Earth is doomed to die, and Humanity is not.

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49918780]The bad ending is nuclear war.[/QUOTE] Nah, human civilization would eventually rebuild itself. Launching a few thousand nukes over the world would certainly reduce the human population to maybe a quarter or half a billion total, but the ones left behind would create a new civilization within the space of about a thousand years.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49918820]Nah, human civilization would eventually rebuild itself. Launching a few thousand nukes over the world would certainly reduce the human population to maybe a quarter or half a billion total, but the ones left behind would create a new civilization within the space of about a thousand years.[/QUOTE] Yea but there are just over 10,000 nuclear weapons. And the resulting ~60 years of nuclear winter would possibly kill off just about everyone. There's a chance we could survive though. Something like an asteroid strike would be more permanent.

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49918845]Yea but there are just over 10,000 nuclear weapons. And the resulting ~60 years of nuclear winter would possibly kill off just about everyone. There's a chance we could survive though. Something like an asteroid strike would be more permanent.[/QUOTE] I'd rather have a nuked planet than become part of a Cortana trying to eat the galaxy

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;49918845]Yea but there are just over 10,000 nuclear weapons. And the resulting ~60 years of nuclear winter would possibly kill off just about everyone. There's a chance we could survive though. Something like an asteroid strike would be more permanent.[/QUOTE] 10,000 nukes wouldn't be enough. You could literally kill off about 99% of humanity and still have like 70 million people left over, which was the world population at the onset of the iron age.

Evolution has changed. It's no longer about survival, strength or being the most resilient. It's an endless series of genetic drifts, established by migrants and globalization. Evolution, and its changes in allele frequency, has become a well-oiled machine. Evolution has changed. Randomly-mutated women carry randomly-mutated children, bred with randomly-mutated men. Free healthcare inside their societies enhance and ensure their ability to live. Life support. Information support. Emotion support. Social services. Everything is monitored, and kept under control. Evolution has changed. The age of evolution deterrence has become the age of evolution control. All in the name of living longer and making people happier and more equal. And he who controls evolution, controls history. Evolution has changed. When the changes in allele frequency are under total control, evolution... becomes routine.

the amount of times you say evolution has changed makes me think you're referring to something...