Here's my opinion.
Humanity is no longer subject to natural selection and therefore species is not going to change.
Sure you might get surface variations, and cultural changes.. Muslims flood into Europe rape the shit out of everyone and the recessive gene for blonde hair disappears from the population.
But the species isn't gong to change all that much.
Consider this:
Eskimos adapted to the Artic by learning how to make Parkas and Igloos. There was no natural selection for them to grow fur because of the human ability to make tools
Take away the parkas and the igloos and the Eskimo freezes to death just the same as a Pacific islander would.
And because of sexual selection, even if a successful useful mutation happened it wouldn't get passed on.
Like:
>An Eskimo is born with blubber and fur, so he can swim in the icy ocean and walk around naked in the snow for hours.
But he is also a repugnant freak that no woman will touch and is driven away from the village. No children for the next step in Eskimo evolution so it's a genetic dead end.
Eskimos transcended environmental pressure as natural selection and they did it without a written language or metal tools.
Am I wrong here? Will we become a new species?
Evolution never ends.
We are more likely to see the evolution of our species, simply because we are more likely to live now than we were in the past.
In the past, if you had a genetic disadvantage, you were much more likely to die than others. If you had a genetic advantage, you were much more likely to survive than others.
Because of this, people with genetic disadvantages died quickly and people who were neutral died more quickly once those with genetic advantages were significant in number.
Nowadays, even if you have a fairly severe genetic disadvantage, you are still likely to survive, simply because of our medicinal system.
Because people from all spectrums are more likely to survive, then we will become aware of genetic differences between one-another more quickly, simply because only a fewer of them will be eradicated than in the past.
>>7871207
>simply because only a fewer of them will be eradicated than in the past.
Sorry, I meant "simply because fewer of them will be eradicated than in the past".
>>7871193
>Humanity is no longer subject to natural selection
Kek, we're just more subject to our own selection actually since we shape our environments so much.
>>7871193
ended? no. nature affects us less? sure...
I gotta say, though, I have no idea what evolution, as a technical concept in biology, means. I mean, I'm not sure if my notion ("randomness produced us") is what "evolution" means
>>7871211
>Kek, we're just more subject to our own selection actually since we shape our environments so much.
isn't that what the OP is saying...
We further we proceed genetic research the closer to god we become. Once we are able to augment one's DNA and select positive traits, we will have a world where humans have evolved yet again; people will strive for the best genes. So maybe a certain person decides he wants his son to become stronger than any man, the father then decides which code from certain animals builds bigger organs, or thougher skin. We will never stop evolving, just artificially.
tl;dr: we can use genes
>>7871227
http://www.wired.com/2015/07/crispr-dna-editing-2/
Forgot link
>>7871193
You are mostly right, but remember sexual selection still plays a role, a more intelligent and healthy person is still more likely to find mate then others. There is even an idea that since more and more people are relaying on dating sites, dating algorithms are starting to influence human evolution.
Also high chance of survival doesn't mean mutation will stop happening,on the contrary, it just means people with different genes will survive, so we should expect to see more genetic diversity, for example, people near the equator got stuck with black skin because they need melanin for protection from sun, but people elsewhere developed a wide range of skin color.
One more thing is, the changes you mentioned are fairly recent, it takes evolution millions of years to make significant change, we dont really know whats going to happen in the next million years but I am pretty sure we will start to have designer babies so evolution will be thrown out of the window.
Why don't you look at the replies to your thread at 8ch?
http://8ch net/sci/res/3454.html
>>7871193
Selective pressures create natural selection.
If you remove selective pressures from an R selective population, you pretty much doom it to be swamped in shit genes of the lowest common denominator, this continues until some equivalent to colony collapse occurs.
This is why globalism is completely toxic to human survival. Humans need to strive to become as K selected as possible and be mindful of all the risks they face with a boundless, non-selective population.
>>7871193
Eskimos are better adapted to their environment regardless of coats, OP.
They're also less aggressive and more communal by nature.
>>7871256
Maybe the universe selects for species that strive to work together instead of killing each other
>>7871256
Globalisation have nothing to with this, all globalisation means is larger gene pool, which is a good thing.
Development of medicine is what stopped killing off defective genes.
>>7871261
The universe seems to select mostly for death by the looks of it.
Swamping the world in low IQs and unnecessary people will lead to certain death. Whether by our own hand, or a unseen threat.
Humans need to get serious about their survival. If you want to maximize happiness, you need less people. Stable populations.
An analogy for this reasoning is that a naive altruistic man may risk their life to save a drowning man.
The drowning man, kills the altruistic man . Assuming the drowning man wasn't very bright and was unfit for his environment. You've essentially killed off a good person for the sake of a bad person.
Good altruistic people need defending, they will never defend themselves.
Low IQ brutes will always seem to scrap by without outside help.
>>7871261
what kind of fantasy fairytale world do you think this is you libtard cuck
>>7871275
It means a muddled and non-specialized genepool.
Variety without any selective pressures isn't going to do much.
Especially in wake of the fact that you already have successful isolated colonies of humans that have adapted to become more successful than others across the board.
Mixing genes for the sake of equality will only dull our time-sharpened edges. It's essentially a recipe for de-evolution. The opposite of beneficial adaptation.
>>7871293
Except the only way that inferior people can survive is by having a superior society. The universe doesn't care about the individual just the collective
>>7871294
Kek
I mean your arguments aren't exactly new.
This has been discussed to death for millennia
History is full of the sound of silk slippers coming down the stairs and wooden shoes coming up them
Who even wears wooden shoes anymore?
>>7871307
Inferior people shouldn't survive.
If you artificially ensure the ERRORS reproduce and mutiply, you're not helping the problem, you're spreading it. Worsening it. Causing more suffering.
Who wants to be born into this world only to know that they're completely inferior and exist due to pity?
It's a horrendous existence.
>>7871293
Or the bright altruistic man either remembers his swimming class mnemonic "reach or throw, don't go" or his summer training to be a life guard and uses his underwater combat skills and both survive... You know cuz society teaches us these things.
>>7871314
Have you met a person who wants to be pitied for being inferior?
Most I know either refute their handicap makes them inferior (some even say it makes them superior) or tell you to look past it
>>7871193
evolution favours those who either can come to terms with or are to dumb to realize the fact that the majority destroys the minority and causes other animals to lose habitat and go extinct. (e.g. native americans, imminent domain/expropriation of land, buffalo, passenger pigeon, polar bears, etc.)
Also, asshats and posers seem to be able to thrive in an ever more bureaucratic world.
>>7871193
people like you are even more retarded than flat worlders
Our species will branch out. Eventually, some will be unable to reproduce with the other, or only one group will survive, noticeably different i.e height, smarts, beauty from us.
Of course we are still evolving. It might only be the top percent of humans that represents this, professionals in their field, Rachel Riley etc... but one day their children will outcompete everything else around today.
>>7871293
Happiness is not required for success.
If you want to maximize survival, you need MORE people. More mutations.
FUCKING IDIOT I HATE /sci/
>>7871193
OP will never breed, nor will attract any mates.
You are the genetic dead end faggot.
>>7871319
Still the key is not to endanger yourself over naive empathy.
You assume that the person you're saving may not be a good person, so you minimize the risk to yourself.
Not everyone is worth the risk of dying. Some people are I'm sure, but everyone?
That's just misplaced sentimentality.
Altruism must be used responsibly. If you spare every serial murderer punishment, your act of "forgiveness" will result in more harm than good.
Likewise, temporarily feeding a starving population, until it grows so much you can no longer afford to feed them anymore- leads to more innocent lives perishing than there would have been hadn't you intervened.
>>7871344
I think that's only true for R selected species.
Humans workforce is becoming increasingly automated. That means more humans are literally purposeless.
>populations must grow
Is something the baby boomers came up with to ensure they'd all have long early retirements. That's the only purpose it serves.
A population at sustainable equilibria is always the most successful and happy.
>>7871193
You're right, since we can adapt our environment to suit our needs, we are no longer affected by the selective pressures of it, and therefore not subject to natural selection.
Where you're wrong is that we'll stop evolving. We are still subject to other forces of evolution such as genetic drift, gene flow and mutations.
>>7871344
Clearly you never heard of the rat universe experiment.
Spoiler, trying to maximize a danger-free population leads to collapse and extinction every time.
>>7871360
>danger free
>competitions for literally everything
>threat of extinction, asteroids, NASA planning to go into space
Yeah, sure. Humans are rats. Keep up with your education learning about thought experiments. Come join the real world when you can think for yourself.
>>7871193
>Muslims flood into Europe rape the shit out of everyone and the recessive gene for blonde hair disappears from the population.
This doesn't happen. It's a anti-muslim propaganda. The "rapefugees" didn't exist. Welcome them to your country.
>>7871193
back to /pol/ where you belong you fucking piece of ignorant shit
why does every fucking uneducated faggot thinks he understands evolution and has the right to have an opinion? FUCK YOU
>>7871233
>more intelligent and healthy person is still more likely to find mate then others.
lol
except poor people marry at 14 years old and have 8 kids by the time they are 30
dating hell is only a reality in shitstained 1st world countries among rich people.
>>7871375
do you really think nobody here watches news ?
> defends muslims
> defends evolution
pick one retard
>>7871306
>It means a muddled and non-specialized genepool.
no? other humans live in mostly similar environment, their genes also went thorough selective process, by mixing people you are mixing genes that have been developed in parallel.
>Variety without any selective pressures isn't going to do much.
the variety here comes from tried and tested genes, the loss of selective pressure have the same effect on individual strain as it has on mixed strain.
>Especially in wake of the fact that you already have successful isolated colonies of humans
yes they are successful but nothing says they are perfect. we are not cockroaches which stayed same for millions of years, humans have fairly high mutation rate.
>that have adapted to become more successful than others across the board.
who have became more successful than others?
>For the sake of equality
this is more of political question
>Humanity is no longer subject to natural selection
It is though. Diseases still kill huge numbers of people every year. Certainly, should HIV go mainstream in the West, individuals with the CCR5^32 mutation will be strongly selected for. Given how late people in the West breed and how promiscuous they are in their youth, it is highly probable that many without the mutation would die before breeding (satisfying the requirement for selection).
>>7871375
>The "rapefugees" didn't exist.
Yes, because 1000 women lied about the exact same thing. It's kind of funny how vehemently "victim shaming" is pounced on in the West when it comes to rape, until it's poor widdle military-aged men from the Middle-East and North Africa who do it. Then it must have been the victim's fault (at least according to Cologne's female mayor).
>>7871306
>colonies of humans that have adapted to become more successful than others across the board.
>whoa an isolated ethnic group in Azerbaijan has a mutation for cirrhosis resistance
>wow people in this state in russia has a family of genes that make them excel on 100 sprints
>we better not let them have sex with anyone they want because I want people to stick with the jobs their genes make them slightly better than average to perform in
truly a great visionary... for a teenager who knows jack shit about politics, ethics or population genomics
>>7871218
Evolution is change in allele frequency in a gene pool over generations
Alleles are versions of genes that result in a specific trait, like hair colour
>>7871275
>Development of medicine is what stopped killing off defective genes.
OTOH thanks to medicine we can increasingly detect and abort (and more recently fix) defective genes in foetuses.
>Muslims flood into Europe rape the shit out of everyone and the recessive gene for blonde hair disappears from the population.
Stopped reading as I assumed the rest would be a troll as well. Since when did >>>/pol/ come to /sci/?
>>7871193
>I have no idea how evolution fully works but I can't be bothered to research the topic
Fixed your post for you op
>>7871193
>the recessive gene for blonde hair disappears from the population.
do you even genetics, bruh?
>>7871648
> the only people who don't like muslims raping them are /pol/
back to REEEEEddit you dumb redditard
>>>/r/eddit
>>7871227
Changing dna is currently forbidden.
>>7871699
>do you even genetics, bruh?
are you saying that your quote is wrong ?
I imagine humans will either evolve into aquatic beings or space faring ones.
Aquatic humanoids will probably be smooth like a dolphin but retain some dexterity in their flipper arms like a seal, with the mouth becoming more shark like and eyes becoming smaller as sense of smell increases.
The ones who leave the planet will lose bone density and overall mass, probably becoming more skeletal and thin in appearance, eventually replacing what organic parts they can with materials like graphene, plastics, replacing a digestive system with a hydrogen carbon cycle, using neural jacks to plug into upgraded bodies while the brain itself remains the last biological barrier to full robotics, still highly augmented.
Gotta live in the oceans when the planet goes to shit due to pollution. Gotta live for millions of years if we plan to explore the galaxy.
This is on a 2-5 million year time scale.
My belief in the uncrackability of the human brain is more of a religious one than anything else. Seems a little too convenient if we discover how to copy our own brains digitally, there should be more of a challenge to existence than a few hundred thousand years as primitive savages, 10-15 thousand as civilized savages and 2-5 thousand years as technological savages who can copy themselves like the borg indefinitely.
It would just seem very boring if within the next few hundred or thousand years someone just figures out how to live forever as a machine, then we all do it.
>>7871193
The opposite is true: We gonna see unprecented acceleration in a matter of generation or max. two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C00oZ3f0fCg
>>7873208
>mfw buttblasted anti-eugenics cucks will fail to stifle progress
![images[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5wmu1Iy.jpg "images[1].jpg")
I can't wait for the glorious Post Human future.
Flesh is degenerate.
>>7871360
Fucking supid study. First off rats and mice do not live in that large of colonies in such small living space.
Second humans do not behave like rodents. And we wouldn't live in a 20,000 square foot area.
Third you are artistic.
>>7871306
>specialised gene pool
What? We aren't bloody finches. I can live in Africa or Antarctica or America. Humans are already one of the most robust species there is.
The meme that we need to replicate natural selection is stupid. Natural selection happens on its own. If humanity ever becomes too genetically incompetent we'd die out. Not as if we give a fuck about the environment.
>>7873496
implying Behavior Sinks are not a real thing with humans.
Just look at Japan. NEETs, men and women that aren't marrying and barely having sex.
