>>2908
>Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve?

No.
Statistically, the most realistic prediction is extinction.

>It seems that we have come a long way in the past 100,000 years

While we have changed an awful lot in terms of our technology and society we have changed very little in the last 100,000 years in evolutionary terms. If you were take take a baby born that long ago and magically transport it to modern times and raise it like a normal child it would likely be indistinguishable from any other person of its age.

>>2910
This.

Our brains have allowed us to survive and thrive with barely any physical changes. I see evolution for humans now as more to do with cultural evolution than anything else. Our brains allow us to create technology that aids us in a fraction of the time evolution would take to do something similar. If we were to ask in what ways technology might evolve in the future then the emergence of computers and the internet might offer some clues. The connected nature of the internet with its global reach and instant upload and download of data is almost like a representation of the connectedness/oneness of conciousness, and technology involving our own conciousness is very likely on the horizon.

>>2911>>2910

Thanks. Really interesting.

>>2911
Do you think it's strange that the top scientists and politicians in the world are in effect the same as the prehistoric savages?

>>2913

Yeah, the brain is quite extraordinary. I wonder how long it will be until the top scientists of today will be considered as dense as we see early humans as being.

Humans aren't evolving because evolution takes place on the principle of natural selection, and in human society, especially our modern society, everyone is catered for and given the chance to survive and reproduce as a basic right. If you want to predict how humans will evolve, you have to look at the traits of the people who are having children and the traits of the people who are left to die without children.

The film Idiocracy posits one theory along these lines.

>>2914

We only see early humans as dense because people tend to look at history as The March Of Progress. William the Conqueror was just as smart as Og was just as smart as you or me.

>>2915

>Humans aren't evolving

Stopped reading there.

>>2916
Not quite as smart really - with less accumulated knowledge historical peoples have been less able to make the connections that we do. They had the same potential for learning. Their brains are wired to do other things like spotting animal tracks or whatever. You could argue that's being as smart.

>>2917

I wouldn't say that having an education is the same as being smart.

>>2908

Brain size has been measurably shrinking over the many generations of our form. I expect a future on a par with Idiocracy, but less optimistic.

>>2908

Our brains will whither and be replaced by technology.

>>2920

>whither

Well, maybe yours will. My brain will be perfectly fine thanks.

>>2920
The human body barely accepts transplants from other humans. Think of the meds needed to stop the body rejecting its own mechanical brain.

>>3085

They will be replaced by external technology.

>>2919I thought, in humans, smaller brains were linked to a higher IQ?

>>3086
They already are. Example: I've augmented my flabby memory by carrying a pencil and notepad. I've increased my problem solving capacity by carrying a smartphone with google search on it.

>>3089
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/google-memory-study-columbia-university_n_899730.html

>>3089

Exactly. What do think it will be like in a thousand years time?

>>2908
>Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve?
No more than we can predict any of the future.

>Can we predict in which ways humans will evolve if X or Y contingencies become true?
Yes, of course.

>>3092
We can certainly predict basic evolutionary trends, based on who reproduces and who doesn't. Anything further is another story though.

>>3093
Yes, but that's not really something we can predict any better than say, the economy. It's mostly speculation.
On the other hand we can say with confidence that if, for example we stop using technology and enter an ice age we'll evolve to be more hairy and have more fat reserves. The basics. We can't accurately predict the long-term effects of a complex technological civilisation as there's no precedent to go by.

It's impossible to predict evolution without knowing the future environments and conditions that humans will be in.

Evolution hated the dinosaurs... I can't imagine we'll do much better.

In a very real way, humans are a mass extiction event.

Have a browse of http://www.futuretimeline.net/index.htm

102,000AD is a ridiculously far away point. All the interesting stuff happens in the next few hundred years.

>>3109
Even if you ignore the content, you can tell this was produced by some lunatic creationist because of the bizarre writing style. Emphasis on every other word, excessive use of ellipses and exclamation marks and so forth; it just screams "I have no credibility".

>>3113

Really interesting website thanks. My favorite part:

"Beyond 10 100 AD...

The last remaining black hole has evaporated.

From this point onwards the universe is composed only of photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons - with no way of interacting with each other.

The universe continues to expand forever... but is essentially dead."

And then it all starts again? I hope so.

>>3121

>From this point onwards the universe is composed only of photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons - with no way of interacting with each other.

Wait what?

>>3122

Because space will be stretched out so much. Each particle will end up alone in its own light cone.

>>3123

I don't think so. Random movement of particles and pair production/annihilation will cause at least some things to be close enough to interact no matter how dense the universe is.

Hell, my interpretation of the big bang is actually pretty similar - the previous universe was spread out, heat death, entropy etc, then pair production creates temporary "above average" gravity pockets towards the centre of the infinite spread which pulls all the particles back towards the centre, with the central gravity pockets becoming stronger as more particles are pulled towards the centre.

Eventually, everything coalesces in to one big ball and the big bang happens, which sends everything flying out in to space again. Repeat forever.

Basically - big ball of stuff explodes, spreads out over trillions of years, random pair production will always favour more central locations for particle/anti-particle appearance, this concentrates gravity slightly towards the centre, everything starts to get pulled back in over trillions of years and joins in to big balls, once everything hits the centre another big bang happens.

>>3129

I'm probably wrong or misunderstanding you but I always thought that there was no centre of the universe/big bang. My understanding was that it's the actual space time of the universe that's expanding so there is no central point or everywhere is the central point?

>>3131

>>3132
I don't know what this means, googling alef just led me to the first letter of the hebrew alphabet and a programming language? Care to be a little less obscure and explain what you mean to an admittedly scientifically ignorant prole.

>>3131

There has to be a point in any system, infinite or not, which is equidistant from everything in the system at any given time.

All I'm saying is there is more space towards the middle than the edges, so if any pair has a chance of being produced in any given space, if it appears in the middle, its gravity will have more of an inward pull than a pair's gravitational pull near the edges does to the outside, on average.

If we think of it as a disc separated in to two like in the picture, even though the inner and outer parts have the same amount of space, so an equal chance of pair production, anything in the the inside part will pull in, while anything in the outside part will pull out in different directions.

Red indicates pair production.
Arrow indicates pull.

So the chances of a red dot appearing in the inside ring and outside ring are the same, but the net pull of the inside ring will be greater due to its concentration, while the outside ring dots will cancel eachother out because they're on the opposite sides.

>>3134
Ah okay, thanks for the reply. That makes sense.

>>3135

Just so you know, I wasn't the knob who posted >>3132 - I have no idea what he means either.

>>3136
No worries, I appreciated the simple and effective explanatory reply.

Blimey I just clicked on the gif in >>3132 it's bloody huge and animated. What on Earth?

>>3133
>>3137
It's not science, it's the aleph. Googling that is fairly explanatory
http://www.phinnweb.org/links/literature/borges/aleph.html

>>3138

Could you just explain the relevance of posting it in this thread? What meaning did you intend to convey?

>>3139
>I always thought that there was no centre of the universe/big bang. My understanding was that it's the actual space time of the universe that's expanding so there is no central point or everywhere is the central point?

>>3139
>I always thought that there was no centre of the universe/big bang.
wasn't that ur mum m8

>>2911
I agree with this chap, it's all gonna be about technology m7.

>>3140

Could you explain further please?

>>3143
Everywhere is the central point and that point is called the Aleph

I felt there was already a thread in a similar vein to what I want to bring up here, and I have to say that I broadly agree with the points made in this thread that the nature of human society and civilisation in general, that natural selection per se simply does not happen (we don't have a predator any more that I can think of, other than periodic pandemics) in the way Darwin describes.
But what I want to bring up is that oddly popular, at least in online communities and (in my experience) with poorly adjusted nerds, trops of behavioural genetics. What do other /lab/labs think of the whole idea of it?
It strikes me as being marvellously deterministic and overly complex to even prove or disprove, owing that one single genetic mutation, which is practically certain to happen in a developing foetus, can have such an impact on previously dormant genes.
Is there any truth to this, or are these people I have come across just pseudo-scientists?

>>3332
what?

Sadly I can't find read: haven't looked the original of this picture but it will have to suffice.
I like to think that the original image isn't a prediction but a reality. We were the aliens all along, etc.

The neo-hybrid genetic legacy is being bred-out and diluted rapidly. It will leave a poorer sapien creature, unable to continue the legacy built by its betters. This will lead to greater and more frequent instabilities or "inexplicable" disasters - politically and economically - and finally a massive collapse and die-back. Doesn't need to be too grand, a muddy and petty spiral is all that's needed. At the die-back point where the genetic stock is boiled down to thousands is where the real magic will happen and Darwin and co.'s concepts will have their impact (It's otherwise difficult to make significant changes to a species with a massively wide genetic base that interbreeds freely). For generations it will reshape the next cycle of Man until both Man and the environment are able and stable enough to rebuild and establish an ongoing permanent civilisation once more.

Genetic legacies seem to indicated previous bottle necks. I suspect it's happened at various points in the past and each time that cycle's Mankind has been stamped back down and remoulded. Sometimes never getting past stone age or bronze, others a bit further. The more we learn about the world and what is in it, the more we find that it is older than we had imagined and the hominid form is found to exist for longer.

When we think of all civillised history we know of can be contained in mere handful of thousand years....imagine what could be contained in a million - lost and found and lost again? I think each time evolution has its impact and this is how our type is changed over time when we stumble or hit a wall. Hard to say if we're better for it in any objective sense or just randomly different and given another roll of the die (if indeed we are still close enough a species to still be 'us' or 'we' by then). With enough shots at it and random chance eventually a hominid or hyper-intelligent animal type will come out that is capable of very long term stability and either adabtable enough and organised enough to survive the natural kill off cycles and disasters or fast enough to get all the eggs out of this one basket.

Yes, I am willing to share what I have been smoking and drinking.

Anyone interested in this thread should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3qF26MbYgOA#t=747

It is basically the Astronomer Royal talking about the evolution of humanity on Earth, summarising that if any future relatives of outs are left here when the sun finally cools down and supernovas in 7 billion years, they will be as different from present day humans as we are from bacteria.

It's pretty fascinating. In-case the YT link breaks, its 12:30 till the end.

humans are rapidly evolving every day. technology is the third leg of the human race, it is a development born out of our intelligence and time given with it. We are driving our own evolution and sooner or later it's going to reach a point where it changes our existence more dramatically than any bio-evolutionary development can. I don't believe we'll reach a markedly different point of 'natural' evolution, I think we'll destroy ourselves before that with the evolution we've pushed on ourselves.

There's this great researcher at Cornell who's done a bunch of work decoding how to talk directly to your brain, sort of bypassing the front end of your optical system. In other words, she's actually just skipping the eye and talking directly into the peoples brains. Which really introduces sort of a bizarre "Snow Crash" reality way sooner than I would have guessed. So, she's solving the coding problem, [door distraction] there's the sort of the CCD front-end problem, which is kind of hard, and she's like well, that's a bitch, why don't we just skip that, figure out what the protocol is to talk to the brain. And it turns out, one of the interesting things, it's a way more compact representation of information, so, you know, that's gonna happen, that's something you guys should be thinking about, that your subjective experience of reality is probably going to be driven directly into your brain much sooner than I think most people expect.

singularity isn't a joke or a mistake. life is going to get very strange very quickly.

I never developed wisdom teeth, apparently this is an evolutionary step forwards that affects approx 30% of people. We just don't need them.

>>3352
I for one am glad to have wisdom teeth. Otherwise I'd have twice as many gaps as I currently do.