I invite you to speculate on the next step in evolution

[Red Iron Crown]

Well ok, but I'm pretty sure even that word doesn't apply. You are free to reproduce now in principle, but if your government gave some money to your smarter neighbour then that still doesn't interfere with you. You have lost nothing.

Any method that encourages some people to reproduce while discouraging others is, by definition, interference. If the program is going to have any effect, it has to interfere with equality of breeding.

Pay attention.

Is that really necessary? Just a friendly discussion here, no need to be curt.

I didn't mention any penalties and in actual fact penalties would be very unethical.

How are they any more unethical than a selective reward for breeding? If there's a distinction there, it's a subtle one.

They would be no more free than rich businesspeople are right now. Think of it as an investment in the future of the species. Maybe that neighbour's child will one day cure a disease that your child is suffering from. You have nothing to lose, and quite a lot to gain.

That argument is weak. Any child may one day cure a disease. Not to mention that intelligence and success (financial, academic and otherwise) are not strongly correlated. A determined, persistent, below average intelligence person is more likely to be successful than an apathetic, lethargic genius.

[CaptainKipard]

Any method that encourages some people to reproduce while discouraging others is, by definition, interference. If the program is going to have any effect, it has to interfere with equality of breeding.

I think we're just getting hung up on semantics now.

How are they any more unethical than a selective reward for breeding? If there's a distinction there, it's a subtle one.

I'm not really sure how else to answer that. I wouldn't say that a charitable investment is subtly different from imposing a penalty on a natural function of life.

Any child may one day cure a disease.

Mmmm, I'm not sure. People tend to push for equal opportunity (and rightly so) but that definitely doesn't mean equal attainment. Your statement was a bit generous in that respect.

Not to mention that intelligence and success (financial, academic and otherwise) are not strongly correlated. A determined, persistent, below average intelligence person is more likely to be successful than an apathetic, lethargic genius.

I'm so glad you mentioned this, because you're absolutely right, although I wouldn't make the exact comparison you did.

I would compare an extrovert with average intelligence to an introverted autistic depressed savant. It's been demonstrated that autism is hereditary and very more often develops in children of parents with above average intelligence or a predisposition for science and engineering. These parents would for example get the hypothetical reproductive benefit from the government which would be legally slated for the education and therapy for the child. That child, although socially awkward and unresponsive, could be a scientific giant, instead of having to struggle through life because they haven't developed a social network.

Just to bring this back to the topic I sometimes wonder if some of the psychological conditions we call illnesses aren't evolutionary "experiments" that we don't recognise as beneficial. I have heard of stories of scientists who receive scientific prizes after devoting their life to the betterment of humanity, and yet they don't have children. That is tragic

Edited March 3, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Sillychris]

That argument is weak. Any child may one day cure a disease. Not to mention that intelligence and success (financial, academic and otherwise) are not strongly correlated. A determined, persistent, below average intelligence person is more likely to be successful than an apathetic, lethargic genius.

Come now, let's not resort to inconsistent comparisons; it is such a childish debate tool.

Or perhaps we should. A determined and persistent genius is more likely to be successful than an apathetic, lethargic below average intelligence person. (See what I did there?)

Perhaps we should try only manipulating one variable at a time when trying to prove something. SCIENCE!

[Sillychris]

Addenum: Intelligence is correlated to highest level of education completed, and highest level of education completed is correlated to happiness AND financial success.

If you don't believe me, check the stats.

[Red Iron Crown]

All things being equal, a more intelligent person will be more successful. All things being equal, a more persistent person will be more successful. If we want to compare which characteristic is more influential, we have to vary both of them. SCIENCE! My point was that, in my opinion, persistence and determination trumps intelligence. Here's one link.

A quick bit of Googling reveals studies supporting both of our positions, there doesn't seem to be a consensus even among the experts. Whose stats have you been looking at?

[CaptainKipard]

"All things being equal" is right, but as I implied, they are not, they never were and probably wont be for a very long time. In fact the odds are stacked against most people regardless of positive genetic traits.

Here is a Forbes article about psychopathy in business. It's a little depressing.

Ruthlessness seems to be an evolutionarily favoured trait, but only in environments where most people are basically good, and indifferent to being exploited. This kind of reminds me a little bit of the 2002 adaptation of "The Time Machine" with businesspeople as the Ãœber-Morlocks and maybe we're even heading for a similar future except without the cannibalism.

Here's one link

This abstract is vague, but I'm pretty sure you can't draw the conclusion that you did from it. It only seems to say that motivation is a significant factor in achievement, and not that it's the main one. LOGIC!

[nhnifong]

Genus Homo's history looks like this:

In the last four million years there have been at least 13 members of Homo, and one remains.

Going on that, combined with our relative peacefulness in recent times, I suspect that in the next four million years, Homo Sapiens will be the ancestor of around 10 to 20 different species, and that fierce competition and war will drive all but two or three to extinction. I say two or three because I think we are a bit more tolerant in this day and age, but the competition for scarce resource is no less of a concern.

Homo Sapiens will likely speciate due to sympatric speciation rather than local isolation. We will be driven to fill different niches because of competition. For example, there may be people whose digestive tract is specialized for sugars, and others for a more traditional diet. There may be people who do not sweat and can go without water for much longer than we can.

There may not be any significant change in intelligence, even with sexual selection at work. The female pelvis simply cannot accommodate a much bigger head.

However, If we breed ourselves for certain traits deliberately, and we have the full power of genetic engineering to work with, then all cards are off the table and I wouldn't be surprised to see 6-armed hyper-intelligent cat-people with a variety of weird genetailia

Edited March 4, 2014 by nhnifong

[Awaras]

I doubt there will be major diversification in humans unless it is intentional (deliberately altering humans to do certain tasks/live in certain enviroments) or unless we split the population into groups that don't interact regularly (by interplanetary/interstellar colonization).

[CaptainKipard]

... relative peacefulness in recent times,

Don't be absurd. When have people never been at war with someone? It's really difficult to respond to this without talking politics.

... sympatric speciation rather than local isolation. We will be driven to fill different niches because of competition.

I'm almost positive that globalisation neatly disposes of that argument. There are also political reasons like equal opportunities, and charity.

The female pelvis simply cannot accommodate a much bigger head.

Yep. Without childbirth deaths there's really no evolutionary pressure to enlarge it. What's likely is that people will have to start relying on C-sections more and more. Something similar has already happened to bulldogs, although that wasn't natural obviously.

However, If we breed ourselves for certain traits deliberately, and we have the full power of genetic engineering to work with, then all cards are off the table and I wouldn't be surprised to see 6-armed hyper-intelligent cat-people with a variety of weird genetailia

This is a little low brow but I don't care because it's so weird. Duck genitals are one of the most bizarre evolutionary adaptations I've ever seen.

[Sillychris]

All things being equal, a more intelligent person will be more successful. All things being equal, a more persistent person will be more successful. If we want to compare which characteristic is more influential, we have to vary both of them. SCIENCE! My point was that, in my opinion, persistence and determination trumps intelligence. Here's one link.

I never said that persistence is not an important factor. I just didn't like the way you were undermining intelligence with an inconsistent comparison.

I agree that persistence is more important to success than intelligence (quite strongly, in fact).

It's also interesting that a higher intelligence can sometimes lead to a decrease in motivation, since things come easily to a smart child and they get used to not having to try very hard. I know it's only anecdotal, but I have observed this in a lot of my friends.

To be perfectly honest, my stats have been almost strictly from introductory level psych texts.

If you want to compare multiple characteristics at the same time (like intelligence and persistence), you can't just vary them both at the same time. You have to do a meta-analysis if you want to expect any meaningful data. Basically what that means is you look at all permutations of combinations of the desired characteristics. For two characteristics, it's easy. The combinations are:

1) Smart and determined

2) Smart and lazy

3) Dumb and determined

4) Dumb and lazy

If you just cherry pick out the combinations that prove your point... well, you're cherry picking. Good strategy in hockey, bad strategy in science.

[Red Iron Crown]

Two of the cases you list are obvious, trivial, and reveal nothing about whether intelligence or determination is the more important factor, so I ignored them. It's the other two cases, the ones I used, that reveal relative influence of the factors. It's not cherry picking, it's focusing on the relevant cases.

It's also interesting that a higher intelligence can sometimes lead to a decrease in motivation, since things come easily to a smart child and they get used to not having to try very hard. I know it's only anecdotal, but I have observed this in a lot of my friends.

I've seen a good bit of this, too. I wonder if it's inherent to the person or just a failing of the education system to challenge them properly. I.e. whether lower motivation is linked to intelligence biologically or if it's a function of upbringing. I suspect the latter, but I don't know if it's even been studied.

[running]

Evolution as described here is obsolete/irrelevant for humans.

Ever since we developed "culture". It's our culture that evolves.

Having language, books and now the internet, our cultures evolve faster and faster.

Cross "breeding", assimilation etc, between the cultures is extreemly common (even though the news reports often suggests it's not.)

A better word for it than evolution might be revolution.

Any physical type of evolution is so slow in comparison that it has become completely irrelevant.

Our last significant physical change was I believe the ability to drink cow milk (and that's not entirely completed yet)

Next change will probably be more resilent to pollution either chemical or radiation.

[Red Iron Crown]

Interesting XKCD today:

Clearly, for mammals, the best evolutionary trait is to be useful to humans.

[3_bit]

Looking at the skulls, it seems a trend may be to slowly bring the mouth inward.

[Monkeh]

Cats....with thumbs. The end of humanities dominance of Earth. C-T Day is coming. Shudder in fear people, FEAR I TELLZ YER.

[Seret]

Looking at the skulls, it seems a trend may be to slowly bring the mouth inward.

Yep, bigger cranium, flatter face and a smaller mandible (why we get trouble with our wisdom teeth). We're also getting taller, and our knees and backs still aren't fully optimised for walking upright.

[Alex_Leonardo]

Postulate #2 has the following consequences:

-Cyborgs/computers as the next step is NOT a valid answer

-We are just going to blow ourselves up is NOT a valid answer

-Turning into pure energy is NOT a valid answer

It IS a valid answer, because animals/humans ARE computers in the first place. There is no logical reason why something, just made up of a different material (or metal, which somehow is a non-organic material even though we have iron in our blood.) or "non-organic" material is any different from a "organic" organism. You could have a robot with cells, tissues, organs, and organ systems just made from different materials, is not "non-organic" see, if it can exhibit the six principles of life, than it is no different from "organic" which is now a broken term.

[SSR Kermit]

By it's very nature, reproductive selection is a complete search method. Even the simplest form of evolution - that only admits random mutation in cloned individuals - has a remarkable tendency to fill up the search space quickly.

So, every characteristic that can arise, eventually will arise (given infinite time, in the mathematics of it). An army of typing monkeys will never write King Lear, but generations of evolving monkeys eventually will.

It's not so much that evolution has a course as it is "in these (changing) conditions, there are a number of possible ways to survive. Evolution makes sure all of them are tested."

Edited March 5, 2014 by SSR Kermit
did you know that 'Grimoire' and 'grammar' have the same root?

[CaptainKipard]

By it's very nature, reproductive selection is a complete search method.

Can you elaborate, or better yet, cite some sources?

[Sillychris]

I've seen a good bit of this, too. I wonder if it's inherent to the person or just a failing of the education system to challenge them properly. I.e. whether lower motivation is linked to intelligence biologically or if it's a function of upbringing. I suspect the latter, but I don't know if it's even been studied.

It was a failing of the education system, for me. Fortunately, I got my head out of my ass before it was too late.

[SSR Kermit]

Can you elaborate, or better yet, cite some sources?

Absolutely!

The easiest way to see this is to consider Brownian motion (or in 2D "random walk") in the search space. This "movement" is across a mathematical topology (landscape) where the peaks and valleys represent "high fitness" or "low fitness". This landscape changes with the physical environment, indeed it's a fitness map of the environment. Brownian motion has a remarkable ability cover the entire area it's moving in over time. If we get stuck plodding along in a valley that means we are going extinct. Characteristics in those areas are not helping. However, the evolutionary search (random walk) will still cover all of the fitness map, given enough time. Whether or not the genes persist decides if that path, or "test", "succeeds" or "fails". Note that the global operation (evolution) is not optimizing for anything (its random!).

Benoit Mandelbrot describes random walks, I think it's in "The Fractal Geometry of Nature". Feynman explains random walk in a physical context in the Feynman Lectures.

John R. Koza is one of the great pioneers of the use of evolution for automatic problem solving and the first volume in his seminal work "Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection" gives an excellent introduction of the computational aspect of evolution without going in to the confusing complexities of biological evolution (which has itself evolved). Rather than DNA the book uses a simple variant of Lisp.

The other source for these ideas is the subject bioinformatics, but that's a pretty dense and compact discipline dealing primarily with DNA itself -- that is certainly not a simple reproductive selector. DNA does so many weird things like horizontal gene transfer, crossover, then there's DNA-amylase, gene control (activation/deactivation) and so on.

[CaptainKipard]

This is really cool! Do yo know much about algorithms? Because I'm curious what you'd call a speciation event in an algorithmic context, or how you'd describe it.

[SSR Kermit]

This is really cool! Do yo know much about algorithms? Because I'm curious what you'd call a speciation event in an algorithmic context, or how you'd describe it.

I do know a bit about algorithms, it was a major part of my Computer Science master. However, genetic programming isn't usually a part of university courses on algorithms (as opposed to genetic algorithms). GP is usually taught as part of Complex Adaptive Systems studies specifically dealing with evolutionary computing.

Anyways, from a computational perspective (and to biologists taking the "gene centric" view point), the entire concept of a "species" is not well defined so there isn't a specific "event" that creates one. Populations don't interbreed strictly based on genetics, but also due to social conditioning (or more correctly its phenotype)-- there are many "species" that can have viable offspring but don't due to their mating behaviours. From the DNA perspective it becomes even more fuzzy, since the genes that make a fish blue are the same genes that make a flower blue and the boundaries between some "species" are smaller than the individual variance within the population (weird animal/plant plankton).

Then there's this: Ring species and Horizontal gene transfer.

In systematic biology, the concept is very useful, but not so much from the computational evolution perspective. See the Species Problem

However, if you're interested in computational structures that do spawn classes of other structures, check out Cellular automata

Edited March 6, 2014 by SSR Kermit
cellular automata

[lajoswinkler]

There are physiological differences between the various races, anyone with eyes can see that. There are other, less visible ones, like susceptibility to certain diseases that are physiological and real.

Plus, I hardly think socioeconomic and historical differences are "narrow niches", if anything they are more important than the minor physiological differences.

Those differences are quite small and, as Seret said, genetic differences are way too small.

Also, what we considered to be races (biologically speaking) isn't uniform at all on basically all levels. If you want to name a population, you need something which defines all members of it. That does not exist in this case. We simply don't have biological races in our species, and people should start accepting it because it will bring us nothing but good. We're bad with accepting differences and need a common thing to hold on with everything and everyone.

As I've said, it's a socioeconomic thing. It can also help in forensics in populations where diversity is highly polarized because of artificial influence (slavery in USA).

I did not say they aren't important - I'm saying they have nothing to do with our biology.

As for the future evolution of human morphology, I doubt it will be important in future modern society. Selection pressures are different nowdays. All we've experienced so far was because our population was subjected to great influences from the nature itself.

[Dispatcher]

Those differences are quite small and, as Seret said, genetic differences are way too small. ... As I've said, it's a socioeconomic thing. It can also help in forensics in populations where diversity is highly polarized because of artificial influence (slavery in USA).

...

Interesting that you wrote "slavery in the USA". I would think that this would be so regarding slavery anywhere and any time in human history. A little armchair research on the subject of slavery at a popular online encyclopedia (Wikipedia) shows us that "historically, slavery was institutionally recognized by most societies" and "slavery is officially illegal in all countries, but there are still an estimated 20 million to 30 million slaves worldwide." As for recent and indeed, ongoing abuses, "Mauritania was the last jurisdiction to officially outlaw slavery (in 1981/2007), but about 10% to 20% of its population is estimated to live in slavery." The word itself is instructive, for "the English word slave comes from ... the ethnonym Slav, because in some early mediaeval wars many Slavs were captured and enslaved."

In what might seem a surprising twist of fate, "in Algiers, ... Northern Africa, Christians and Europeans that were captured had been forced into slavery" in the early 1800's.

The entry is informative, and the feeling I get is that its not unreasonable to assume that a large part of the human population throughout historical (and prehistoric) times, subjected to slavery, resulted in genetic differentiation, in terms of humans bred and adapted to their local conditions and tasks. The sad thing is that it still occurs in various places under various guises.