[Particle Person]

A non-sequitur is any statement or question that's irrelevant to its context.

[Ghost of V]

A non-sequitur is anything that's irrelevant to its context.

The predatory-prey interaction is an important part of natural selection and evolutionary theory.

[Particle Person]

A non-sequitur is anything that's irrelevant to its context.

The predatory-prey interaction is an important part of natural selection and evolutionary theory.

Yes, that is a good example.

[Ghost of V]

A non-sequitur is anything that's irrelevant to its context.

The predatory-prey interaction is an important part of natural selection and evolutionary theory.

Yes, that is a good example.

Your retarted

[Vindictus]

Fuck this question. Humanity isn't ending. We are too resilient, too smart, and too goddamn stubborn to be killed. I refuse to let it happen.

Also, beardo may be horribly racist. Possibly.

Humanity will eventually end.

"When?" and "how?" are really the only questions. Humanity could potentially survive until the end of the universe itself if we played our cards right.

Whatever is around won't be human at that stage.

Are we really going to evolve past this point? We have no predators except ourselves. According to evolutionary theory, wouldn't we be stunted?

We're a product of our environment. We need oxygen to breathe, food to eat, water to drink, gravity to maintain our strength etc. If we're to live beyond Earth, we're going to need to adapt, either biologically or through artificial means.

By the time the universe is approaching whatever 'the end' is, if anything with sentience is still around, it will not be human. Even if we somehow maintained our biological bodies, they would certainly be much more suited to whatever environment we had up until that point spent billions of years in.

[xasop]

By the time the universe is approaching whatever 'the end' is, if anything with sentience is still around, it will not be human. Even if we somehow maintained our biological bodies, they would certainly be much more suited to whatever environment we had up until that point spent billions of years in.

That's not necessarily true. If we maintained our biological bodies without genetic engineering or other artificial intervention, natural selection would require a reproductive advantage for those better suited to their environment in order to progress. If we continue seeking out ways to provide equal opportunity and quality of life to all, that won't be the case and we won't continue to evolve.

[Vindictus]

By the time the universe is approaching whatever 'the end' is, if anything with sentience is still around, it will not be human. Even if we somehow maintained our biological bodies, they would certainly be much more suited to whatever environment we had up until that point spent billions of years in.

That's not necessarily true. If we maintained our biological bodies without genetic engineering or other artificial intervention, natural selection would require a reproductive advantage for those better suited to their environment in order to progress. If we continue seeking out ways to provide equal opportunity and quality of life to all, that won't be the case and we won't continue to evolve.

I don't see how social constructs prevent evolutionary processes. At the stage I was referring to, Earth will be long gone, so we'll have had plenty of time (like, 10⁸⁵x longer than homo sapiens have been around already) to adapt to the new environment(s) we live in. After all, we're evolving right now.

The time scales are just mind boggling. I don't see how we can stay static, or even remotely human, for that amount of time.

[xasop]

I don't see how social constructs prevent evolutionary processes.

In the absence of a daily struggle for survival in this bubble of civilisation we've created, social constructs are one of the primary driving forces for evolution. For example, a society which is prejudiced against people with blue eyes would place blue-eyed people at a reproductive disadvantage by making it more difficult for them to find sexual partners.

However, social constructs aren't the only phenomenon I was referring to. There is also our rapidly advancing medical technology; once we inevitably discover methods for treating ailments associated with the change of environment, we artificially increase the lifespans of those least well suited to the environment, and with it the reproductive disadvantage required for evolution.

At the stage I was referring to, Earth will be long gone, so we'll have had plenty of time (like, 10⁸⁵x longer than homo sapiens have been around already) to adapt to the new environment(s) we live in.

Time alone doesn't produce changes. The evolutionary process requires that each generation have some selection bias in producing the next; it is the cumulative result of these biases that results in evolution. In this hypothetical future spacefaring society, with the technology to keep humans alive in an environment very different from that on Earth, what would create selection bias?

After all, we're evolving right now.

I'd be interested to see a citation for this. Modern society has been greatly reshaped in the past two generations, opening up many new opportunities for people who would previously not have reproduced; I wouldn't expect that to be a sufficient sampling period to say that we are still evolving today.

The time scales are just mind boggling. I don't see how we can stay static, or even remotely human, for that amount of time.

Argument from incredulity.

[Vindictus]

In the absence of a daily struggle for survival in this bubble of civilisation we've created, social constructs are one of the primary driving forces for evolution. For example, a society which is prejudiced against people with blue eyes would place blue-eyed people at a reproductive disadvantage by making it more difficult for them to find sexual partners.

So social constructs don't prevent us evolving? I'm confused now.

However, social constructs aren't the only phenomenon I was referring to. There is also our rapidly advancing medical technology; once we inevitably discover methods for treating ailments associated with the change of environment, we artificially increase the lifespans of those least well suited to the environment, and with it the reproductive disadvantage required for evolution.

I don't think it's entirely realistic that we can treat every new sickness as it arises. We're still having trouble understanding some of the bigger names out there.

Time alone doesn't produce changes. The evolutionary process requires that each generation have some selection bias in producing the next; it is the cumulative result of these biases that results in evolution. In this hypothetical future spacefaring society, with the technology to keep humans alive in an environment very different from that on Earth, what would create selection bias?

No, but we've come pretty far in just under 4 billion years. All it took was some simple organic molecules and enough time. There's bound to be some influences at play, especially in an environment as inhospitable as space.

I'd be interested to see a citation for this. Modern society has been greatly reshaped in the past two generations, opening up many new opportunities for people who would previously not have reproduced; I wouldn't expect that to be a sufficient sampling period to say that we are still evolving today.

While you're right about the small time period, we are still evolving as the processes that drive evolution cannot be stopped by modern society. Taken from a pop-sci article:

There are a lot of other ways that evolutionary change will march on, no matter what. Those that survive may have a higher tolerance for drinking milk. Babies in industrialized societies have access to milk like no one before us. Maybe a genetic tolerance for milk will slowly help more of those babies survive until they have kids of their own. There is evidence that people with both especially high and especially low blood sugar levels have fewer offspring. So subtle changes at least will make their way into the human population’s gene pool. It’s going on right now.

That's small speculation, sure, but what do you think will happen as we spend thousands of years in space?

[xasop]

So social constructs don't prevent us evolving? I'm confused now.

False dichotomy. The same factors that contribute to selection bias (and thus evolution) contribute to stalling evolution where there ceases to be a significant advantage for one trait over another. Put another way, changing social conditions can remove evolutionary advantages where they used to exist.

I don't think it's entirely realistic that we can treat every new sickness as it arises. We're still having trouble understanding some of the bigger names out there.

My argument doesn't rest on us being able to treat every sickness; only those created by our new environment. That is, sicknesses that put some at a disadvantage compared to others, such as weakened bone structure from prolonged low-gravity exposure (assuming we don't have artificial gravity by then).

No, but we've come pretty far in just under 4 billion years. All it took was some simple organic molecules and enough time.

It took a lot more than that. Evolution hasn't been a linear progression; notably, nothing much happened for the first 2 billion years because the blue-green algae were still busy sorting out the lack of oxygen. Generally, significant evolutionary change happens in bursts after a significant change in environment, followed by millions of years of relative stagnation.

If we put everyone on a spaceship with a regulated climate, we're going to see far fewer sudden changes in environment than on a natural planet. When we can change the environment to accommodate us, there is no longer a need to change to accommodate the environment.

There's bound to be some influences at play, especially in an environment as inhospitable as space.

Name one.

While you're right about the small time period, we are still evolving as the processes that drive evolution cannot be stopped by modern society. Taken from a pop-sci article:

There are a lot of other ways that evolutionary change will march on, no matter what. Those that survive may have a higher tolerance for drinking milk. Babies in industrialized societies have access to milk like no one before us. Maybe a genetic tolerance for milk will slowly help more of those babies survive until they have kids of their own. There is evidence that people with both especially high and especially low blood sugar levels have fewer offspring. So subtle changes at least will make their way into the human population’s gene pool. It’s going on right now.

I agree that it's probable that we are still evolving; I just don't see any direct evidence to substantiate that.

That's small speculation, sure, but what do you think will happen as we spend thousands of years in space?

Perhaps the same thing that has happened to sharks in the past 100 million years; absolutely nothing.

[Ghost Spaghetti]

Non-evolution in a population assumes several things:

1) The environment remains largely static. If we survive this current geological epoch that is unlikely. if we survive the death of this planet or star then that is impossible.

2) The population remains mixed and fluid. It's unlikely that we'll speciate if there are no pockets of humanity to divide. This is probably the biggest argument for non-speciation. The world is getting smaller, populations are mixing more easily. If we'd remained at the technology levels of two thousand years ago for a few more thousand years then it's fairly likely that some of the different races of humanity would have evolved to the point where interbreeeding became impossible.

 However, if there is some global catastrophe that splits us up into pockets of survivors, or colonies are sent to new worlds without the means to easily mix, then it's likely that we'll see speciation of some description.

3) We don't evolve deliberately. The reason that domestic animals are so radically different to their wild cousins is because of dramatic artificial selection. With the development of advanced genetics, we could start to do something similar to ourselves deliberately, or technological augmentation could drive a dependence on technology.

[xasop]

1) The environment remains largely static. If we survive this current geological epoch that is unlikely. if we survive the death of this planet or star then that is impossible.

I don't see how. Granted, if we manage to circumvent relativity with one of the various FTL drives floating around the sci-fi genre, we'll probably end up colonising many different systems and inherit their natural environments, but given that FTL travel is currently purely hypothetical, it's just as likely that we'll survive the Sun's death by building an enormous starship (or a fleet of starships) and travelling through the void of space for millenia. In that case, we would build the ships with environments that suit us, which means we'd barely need to accommodate at all.

2) The population remains mixed and fluid. It's unlikely that we'll speciate if there are no pockets of humanity to divide. This is probably the biggest argument for non-speciation. The world is getting smaller, populations are mixing more easily. If we'd remained at the technology levels of two thousand years ago for a few more thousand years then it's fairly likely that some of the different races of humanity would have evolved to the point where interbreeeding became impossible.

 However, if there is some global catastrophe that splits us up into pockets of survivors, or colonies are sent to new worlds without the means to easily mix, then it's likely that we'll see speciation of some description.

This is a somewhat different topic from the one we started on. Divided populations will not diverge if their environments remain static. However, mixed populations will evolve together with environmental change, rather than stagnating. As such, this point only factors into whether we would evolve into one future species or many, not whether we would evolve at all.

3) We don't evolve deliberately. The reason that domestic animals are so radically different to their wild cousins is because of dramatic artificial selection. With the development of advanced genetics, we could start to do something similar to ourselves deliberately, or technological augmentation could drive a dependence on technology.

Indeed. I made this conjecture at the start of my argument:

If we maintained our biological bodies without genetic engineering or other artificial intervention

[beardo]

Space travel? But guyse! The Earth is falt!