Would it be possible for mankind to de-evolve?

[Hayabusa Rider]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Evolution is indeed one way in that you could have primates become human, but humans will not turn into exactly what they evolved from. Changes in environment can cause changes in a species. If it turned out that intelligence were a liability, then less smarts is a survival plus. From OUR point of view, we would be de evolving, because succeding generations would be more... stupid..., however it is still evolution. HP was referring to someting not truly related to evolution, and that is a weakening if the gene pool which would happen NOT do to environmental pressures, but we know what he meant. Just semantics.

 

[Novgrod]

mankind has certainly stagnated, because everybody is breeding.

if you wanted to make the case that mankind is getting worse at surviving in any sort of harsh conditions you'll probably claim that smarter people have fewer kids, and so stupid people are having more kids.

but really that's a pretty wretched argument because birthrates are a function of per capita wealth and education, and it's unlikely you can draw a link between those and intelligence without being hung out to dry.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Novgrod
mankind has certainly stagnated, because everybody is breeding.

if you wanted to make the case that mankind is getting worse at surviving in any sort of harsh conditions you'll probably claim that smarter people have fewer kids, and so stupid people are having more kids.

but really that's a pretty wretched argument because birthrates are a function of per capita wealth and education, and it's unlikely you can draw a link between those and intelligence without being hung out to dry.

King Fahd, probably the richest man on the planet when he died had over 180 kids. Not saying anything you said was wrong But lets not forget religion or culture either.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Evolution is indeed one way in that you could have primates become human, but humans will not turn into exactly what they evolved from. Changes in environment can cause changes in a species. If it turned out that intelligence were a liability, then less smarts is a survival plus. From OUR point of view, we would be de evolving, because succeding generations would be more... stupid..., however it is still evolution. HP was referring to someting not truly related to evolution, and that is a weakening if the gene pool which would happen NOT do to environmental pressures, but we know what he meant. Just semantics.

It is a common misconception that evolution means a "better" creature. Nature is in no way cognizant of human value judgements. additianlly evolution and the ability to survive within an environment is only tied to the Darwinian theory of natural selection insomuch as it relates to survival up to procreation. If stupid people procreate more efficiently they are really the "better" creature, in the end.

 

[Novgrod]

If stupid people procreate more efficiently they are really the "better" creature, in the end.


unless they procreate themselves out of an environment, and everybody dies!

edit: it's really hard to make a case for stupid = breeds more; it's easier to make the case for economically disadvantaged = breeds more.

 

[NokiaDude]

Yeah, man could "de-evolve" although you would need a devo-gun from the movie "SuperMArioBrothers".

 

[GasX]

Forget for a moment that I have a degree in evolutionary biology. Please explain to me this "Darwin Effect".

I have never heard of it.

 

[exp]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

A failure to communicate?

On ATOT??

In a thread about evolution??

Never!!!