Is this really how evolution works? I thought it was mostly random mutation and then if that mutation was a stronger trait, that line would keep producing, via survival of the fittest.
If this is true, do you think humans in the far future will evolve to have more dexterous fingers and larger eyes due to our constant interaction with digital technology?
as the title says, this is Lamarckism, which was an early contender hypothesis and was discarded long ago
>>8085141
Oh, that makes sense. I should have googled that first. My bad
>>8085139
Mostly no, but sometimes yes. As pointed out above, this describes Lamarckian inheritance, which is not the mechanism for the origin / development of adaptations or traits in the majority of cases.
I just wanted to add some nuance here and point out that, in fact, this mechanism sometimes does apply. For instance, certain bacteria can acquire a trait (e.g. antibiotic resistance) and then pass it on to their offspring. Also, under certain conditions the environment can lead to the epigenetic silencing or expression of genes, even in mammals. This doesn't affect the actual genome, but this process can lead to inheritance of acquired traits, which is partially qualifies as Lamarckian inheritance.
The example of the giraffe is wrong, but Lamarck wasn't fully wrong.
>>8085160
Bacteria only acquire traits through mutation or horizontal gene transfer, not by trying ready hard to be immune
>>8085139
Kinda, look into epigenitics
>>8085186
I know, but the important point is that the can acquire traits and pass them on.
>evolve to have more dexterous fingers and larger eyes due to our constant interaction with digital technology?
None of these things affect our survival or reproduction. Humans may very well be undergoing evolution, but its impossible to predict what changes have happened and which ones will. Mutations are completely random and most are silent so there's no way to track it.
>>8085220
It's commonly accepted that humans are becoming more attractive, from what I've heard.
>>8085141
>discarding Lamarckism straight away just because Papa Darwin's dogmatic cult doesn't approve of the self-controlling/self-influencing evolution
lel
>>8085220
Given the fact that subhumans reproduce more i would say humanity is currently ongoing a de evolution.
Why do people have so much fucking trouble understanding evolution. Just look at fucking bacteria. You can literally watch evolution happen!
>>8085258
Lamarck pls go
>>8085139
Hmmm, interesting idea. If this is true, then it must be because our Deoxyribonucleic gland is interacting with the Nitrogen in the air to reinforce our cognitive structures which are passed on through DNA. The funny thing is, since human brains are larger than giraffe brains, wouldn't you expect evolution to happen FASTER in us humans than in the giraffe? Yet evolutionists claim the opposite!
>>8085260
>believing the Idiocracy meme
Come on, even if that was true I am pretty sure some virus or bacteria will always pop out and cut the human population in half like it always had in the past.
A Zika-HIV viral hybrid would probably be the best for the role.
>>8085248
Attractiveness is subjective. What was attractive a hundred years ago is not attractive today. There's no objective pattern of attractiveness that would lead to any evolutionary significant changes. Whether you're a buff 6'2 white male or an indigenous manlet, you get to propagate your genes.
Is there any case where genetic strength/diversity was selected for to the detriment of the individual organism's ability to reproduce?
Does the math ever work out that partial infertility is a net-positive?
>>8085260
The only requirement for evolution is survival and propagation of genes. It doesn't select for intelligence. For you, they may seem uncivilized idiots, but if they can survive and reproduce, they're fulfilling their biological imperative and will continue persisting in the population.
>>8085220
Actually it depends on what traits one looks for when choosing a mate. If dexterous fingers and anime eyes make one successful in life then it'll be a desirable trait as people want successful offspring.
>>8085265
Humanity doesn't have mass extinctions like this though (yet). There is no natural selection in a globalist society.
>>8085279
All the time probably.
>>8085281
>will continue persisting in the population.
Until viruses, bacteria and an assortment of protozans won't sort it all out. :^)
>>8085287
Can't wait until all people look like this.
>>8085139
Behavior can change your own body, but it won't change your genes. That pic is bullshit.
For example people who have to do hard labor from a young age as coal miners with bad nutrition supply will grow shorter than someone who grows up with proper nutrition and a relatively easy live, but this has no influence on your children.
>>8085354
>Behavior can change your own body, but it won't change your genes
but muh epigenetics
>>8085139
Maybe we can use giraffes as space elevators
>>8085844
Epigenetics describes how environmental factors can affect gene expression, and I think as far as evolution goes, epigenetics have a milder effect on how something will evolve.
epigenetics is only one product of genetics
It's how Lamarckism works. Which is to say it doesn't.
>>8085139
>I thought it was mostly random mutation
it is entirely random mutation
responsible for "variety"
Lrn2natural-selection
>>8085629
Lamarckism is how most people think how most people think (Darwinian) evolution is.
Idiots who just parrot what others say without giving it any thought.
>>8085160
>Lamarck wasn't fully wrong.
AFAIK, epigenetics is safely ignorable when talking about evolution of species and the high level picture.
Epigenetics is fun and definitely important at some level, but in the context of the origin of species, Lamarck is simply wholly wrong.
