What 'transitional species' are we. . . eventually?

[Magnetic]

Of what future lifeform are we a 'transitional species' of?

I came across a forum discussion of transitional fossils and how someone wanted to see the transition between "single cell to monkey and from monkey to man". I realize that such a concept is one of total ignorance, but as I was reading that thread, I started wondering what WE (the human race) will be a transitional species of, the next step in the evolutionary process?

I also wonder if, because of our "intelligence" that we've reached our apex (follow me here) and because of our new technologies we may have begun the process of becoming less "survival of the fittest", thus eventually ushering in our own demise. . . . . far future tense.

[Zac Naloen]

err.. how are we to know what species we'll become? we aren't it yet.

[Magnetic]

hehehehe Yeah, this thread is obviously hugely congecture, and also a "tongue in cheek" statement about 'transitional species'.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Of what future lifeform are we a 'transitional species' of?

I came across a forum discussion of transitional fossils and how someone wanted to see the transition between "single cell to monkey and from monkey to man". I realize that such a concept is one of total ignorance, but as I was reading that thread, I started wondering what WE (the human race) will be a transitional species of, the next step in the evolutionary process?

I also wonder if, because of our "intelligence" that we've reached our apex (follow me here) and because of our new technologies we may have begun the process of becoming less "survival of the fittest", thus eventually ushering in our own demise. . . . . far future tense.

Wrong: We're not at our "apex." Just because we've removed some of the usual sources of selection pressure doesn't mean that we've removed them all.

Because of our enormous population density, natural selection will probably select for more sociable and cooperative brains (this requires selecting for more complex brains, or brains that are laid out a little differently than they are now. Human brains cannot get much bigger than they already are, without a protracted childhood. They're as large as they can be while still allowing a woman to give birth while standing a reasonable chance of surviving to do it all over again.) Given that we're removing most of the ways that we, as animals, can die, we're introducing selection pressure that will lengthen our lifespans a bit more, lengthen adolescence, and reduce our fertility rates (all of which would combine to slow our growth rate. It's partly the same evolutionary strategy that turtles use. They don't breed often, but they live a very, very long time, so it all balances out.)

So really, the human species is transitioning towards a long-lived, slow-breeding species which will have a slowed rate of physical maturation. With the advent of medicine and processed food, our teeth may become smaller, and our immune systems may become weaker.

[wolveraptor]

Our appendex should dissappear at some point, but huge physical changes would be avoided, because such people don't really look sexy. Our societal pressures are basically going to keep our outsides at the status quo.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Apart from a more refined version of what we are now (we do, afterall, have the power to tinker with our very genes now through means other than selective breeding), there is nothing else to it. There is no higher being or goal to attain, evolution doesn't work like that, though it is a common belief amongst Laymen given the trees used to show the paths of evolution for creatures that give the impression there is some supreme form. If it works in the here and now, the shell we inhabit is as good as anything else.

[FedRebel]

So really, the human species is transitioning towards a long-lived, slow-breeding species which will have a slowed rate of physical maturation. With the advent of medicine and processed food, our teeth may become smaller, and our immune systems may become weaker.

Don't forget that Homo Americanis will be mostly covered in thick blubber.

[Magnetic]

Don't forget that Homo Americanis will be mostly covered in thick blubber.

That's awesome!

Anyway, what I am talking about is us becoming intelligent enough to invent/create something that pretty much turns out to eventually be a negative influence on us.

Such as asbestos that was used, testing of countless number of hydrogen bombs (the radiation had to go somewhere when it got up into the jet stream), number of chemicals in our foods (partially hydrogenated ____oils), burning of fossil fuels, etc. .. . .

[Eleas]

Such as asbestos that was used, testing of countless number of hydrogen bombs (the radiation had to go somewhere when it got up into the jet stream), number of chemicals in our foods (partially hydrogenated ____oils), burning of fossil fuels, etc. .. . .

Now I'm hardly an expert, but as far as I know it would be hellishly tricky to noticeably irradiate the jet stream using hydrogen bombs -- unless you wanted to test dirty bombs, of course. It's not like said bombs leave vast amounts of nuclear waste lying around, anyway.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Anyway, what I am talking about is us becoming intelligent enough to invent/create something that pretty much turns out to eventually be a negative influence on us.

Uhh, if you're looking for that, then we've already just about come that far. We've developed just about enough science and technology to wipe out the entire human species every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. All we're lacking is maybe a few of the details (easily achievable on our brains,) and someone who would want to destroy the human race wholesale.

[FOG3]

Anyway, what I am talking about is us becoming intelligent enough to invent/create something that pretty much turns out to eventually be a negative influence on us.

Uhh, if you're looking for that, then we've already just about come that far. We've developed just about enough science and technology to wipe out the entire human species every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. All we're lacking is maybe a few of the details (easily achievable on our brains,) and someone who would want to destroy the human race wholesale.

With what?

[Nephtys]

Right now with humanity, biological evolution in the same sense that it applies to all other species on Earth has stopped. Instead, it has combined with behavioral evolution in a manner better modeled on sociology than biology. Take these examples.

In nature, or a feral human society, weak physical capabilities would most certainly lead to death. Competition is brutal. Now however, weak physical properties are no longer a handicap in society and reproducing. We don't have to hunt for our own food, nor avoid pumas while walking to the river. Even developmentally disabled individuals have chances to reproduce in our western societies. Thus, the previously considered biologically unfit are now just fine to survive.

Social behavior has become a bigger factor. Individuals with better societal skills rise higher in chains of command, and have greater chances of reproducing.

For us now, survival against disease is greatly enhanced by modern medicines, giving individuals of different immune system strengths more equal chances of survival. Even starvation no longer kills individuals in the western world in any notable number, thanks to modern agriculture and the division of labor.

So really. It's impossible to tell. Our evolution isn't going in the old pattern of 'Smarter, better manual dexterity' from apes and the like. Who knows what it'll lead to? It all depends on how all relevant societies develop. We may even biologically diverge between haves and have nots. Sound familiar?

[defanatic]

I don't know how little counts as 'spam' but...

What about sexual selection?

[WyrdNyrd]

Social behavior has become a bigger factor. Individuals with better societal skills rise higher in chains of command, and have greater chances of reproducing.

But then we have the phenomenon whereby powerful, intelligent individuals tend to breed less often than uneducated or stupid individuals.

This is, in fact, evolution in reverse - survival of the least fit!

Presuemeably it will even out in the end, when the environment chews up and spits out the excess of humanity (starvation, pollution, climate change, etc) but it will be ugly...

[Luzifer's right hand]

But then we have the phenomenon whereby powerful, intelligent individuals tend to breed less often than uneducated or stupid individuals.

This is, in fact, evolution in reverse - survival of the least fit!

Presuemeably it will even out in the end, when the environment chews up and spits out the excess of humanity (starvation, pollution, climate change, etc) but it will be ugly...

I think you understand survival of the fittest wrong.
Anything that helps a lifeform to survive and breed is "fitness" in the sense of evolution.

More educated people have often less children than people which are less educated, that does not mean that these people are less intelligent.

Presuemeably it will even out in the end, when the environment chews up and spits out the excess of humanity (starvation, pollution, climate change, etc) but it will be ugly...

What makes you think that a scientist or a lawyer has a better chance to survive such a catastrophe than for example a farmer who is maybe less educated? Most geeks are also not high on the survival list.

[WyrdNyrd]

Less intelligent or less educated, it doesn't matter - the result is the same (barring the few who work their way up out of the poverty trap).

And true, evolution favours simple numbers over more complex criteria such as intelligence - you're fit if there're lots of you, and if you're unfit, you're all dead. But given the knowledge that humankind is rapidly outstripping the resources available to it (arable land, fresh water, oil, etc) it's easy to see that the current overpopulation is a bad thing, and cannot last.

And sorry, I didn't mean to imply that "old the dummies will die off, and we nerds will rule, hurr, hurr", I realise that we'll all die off if things don't improve soon. But that's just evolution in action - if a species is stupid/foolhardy enough to outstrip its resources, it dies off, and is thus by definition no longer "fit".

[WyrdNyrd]

Did I just type "old" instead of "all"? How'd I manage that?

"all the dummies will die off, and we nerds will rule, hurr, hurr"

[Tsyroc]

Don't forget that Homo Americanis will be mostly covered in thick blubber.

Wow! I might already be one of the evolved transitional forms.

[Enforcer Talen]

I think also to note is that we're going to start genemoding ourselves, and that will cause some tweaks. Obvious cosmetic things include horns, wings, tails, and vibrant colours, while various personality changes might be caused, as well as intelligence or social potential or whatever.

So you may get the fashionable gene of the week, with interesting results.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I don't really give a shit so long as catgirls exist. No, not furries, I mean animé ones. Hell, that's probably the only real reason I originally took biology to become a genetic engineer.

[Darth Servo]

this was answered years ago. Don't any of you people watch South Park?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Heh, reminds me that there are new episodes on Paramount this week. Bah, hate getting them months after the US.

[Darth Wong]

Someone earlier mentioned "transitional species" between monkeys and man, which (even if we assume he means "primitive primates" rather than modern monkeys, which would be outrageously stupid) is just plain ignorant. Who can name even one organ the human body has which the rest of the primate family doesn't? And if we can't name any such organs, why does there need to be a transitional species between ancient primates and us?

One thing people often forget about creationist arguments is that none of the "intelligent design" arguments speak to the man-monkey connection at all. "Irreducible complexity?" Nope, the monkeys have all the organs we have. "Genetic information?" Nope, the monkeys actually have one more chromosome pair than we do. "Gaps in the fossil record?" Not for this particular sequence.

[Admiral Valdemar]

They think humans descended from monkeys in the first place, at least, those without any real experience debating. That alone sums up the ignorance of the movement on the whole. Basic facts distorted to give them merit for their cause.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Anyway, what I am talking about is us becoming intelligent enough to invent/create something that pretty much turns out to eventually be a negative influence on us.

Uhh, if you're looking for that, then we've already just about come that far. We've developed just about enough science and technology to wipe out the entire human species every day of the week, and twice on Sundays. All we're lacking is maybe a few of the details (easily achievable on our brains,) and someone who would want to destroy the human race wholesale.

With what?

Well, there's the basic smashing of the Earth with a big enough rock to create a devastating mass-extinction event. Wouldn't take a rock much larger than Manhattan to do it either, so there are a fair number out that. All it would take is bolting some sort of solar-powered ion engines onto the asteroid, and gradually shaping its orbit so it smacks into the Earth. This is fairly time-intensive, and may only send civilization back into the paleolithic.

There is also work going on with researchers recreating deadly viruses, or building them from scratch. Work is also being done with the aim of creating a whole microbe from scratch. Work on decoding and understanding the human genome is progressing very nicely. Marry the two together, and you find that, in the right hands, we're developing the capability to develop and deploy an organism that never existed in nature before that can afflict humans, or their food sources, with devastating lethality, as its designers will know what bits to break to bring about death as swiftly as possible. An extension of this sort of engineering is the "gray goo" scenario, but an all-consuming nanotechnology plague will always be in the realm of fiction (since, in reality, gray goo won't move any faster than naturally evolved microorganisms do now, due to their incredibly small size and ultimate fragility.)

And if you extrapolate that sort of wholesale engineering and manipulation and apply it to humans (in a positive light) you could have wholesale destruction of humanity through obsolescence. Eventually, it will be possible for us bog-standard humans to come up with safe genetic modifications of people that will be transmissible to future generations. Soon, bog-standard humans won't be able to keep up with their enhanced descendants. Some Luddites might wish to continue doing things the old-fashioned way, but eventually they will be squeezed out and die off. The end result is a species (or a collection thereof) that looks human (and even this might be purely optional,) but is no longer quite Homo sapiens. Extinction through obsolescence.

Just a couple of thoughts.