We all belong to one biological species known as Homo sapiens sapiens. But will wealth, education and scientific and technological literacy cause a subgroup of the human race to split into a new species?
We all belong to one biological species known as Homo sapiens sapiens. But will wealth, education and scientific and technological literacy cause a subgroup of the human race to split into a new species?
We take for granted that all human beings are members of one species, despite the variety of colors and cultures. We are all capable of mating and bringing healthy offspring into the world - the pygmies in Africa, the Swedes, the Japanese, the poor and the rich. The question is: how long will this last? Will the human race continue for a long time as one biological species, or maybe, as has already happened in the past and as happens all the time to other species, we will split one day? In other words, when will a new human species arise on Earth that is unable or unwilling to mate with us, the rest of humans?
The history of living biological species is a history of bifurcations. We all have one common ancestor, and no, it's not a monkey. According to today's accepted scientific concepts, the first ancestor of all of us was something closer to a bacterium, which started our glorious lineage on Earth about four billion years ago. Since then we have gone through a large number of splits and the split into the current human race, which we call Homo Sapiens, only happened about two hundred thousand years ago. In evolutionary time terms this happened very recently. The interesting fact is that sapiens were not always the only human species on earth. Human species such as the Neanderthal man or the upright man lived at the same time as the intelligent man for the last hundreds of thousands of years, until they became extinct (and we probably helped some of them to become extinct). The familiar phenomenon of a single human species on the face of the planet is therefore not a law of nature and there is no guarantee that we will not split into two or more separate species in the future.
The thought of the split of the human race seems puzzling at first glance. The processes of globalization make us more similar, and allow more gene exchange between distant populations. It seems as if we are mixing and becoming more homogenous. So why should we split up? I want to raise the possibility that the human race will soon split not on a geographic or racial basis, but on a class basis and according to economic ability and access to technology. People with the economic and technological ability to improve themselves, fix themselves and change their own genes will diverge and eventually separate from the common ancestor - us - the intelligent man who has ruled here for the past hundreds of thousands of years.
Two processes are happening at the same time today and are rapidly changing humanity. The first process is a process of technological progress, creating abundance and extending life expectancy. Apparently we are moving towards a human utopia made possible by science and technology. But at the same time, another less positive process is taking place: the gaps between the rich and the poor, between the educated and the ignorant, between those who have access to technology and those who do not, are growing; Between those who could print a liver or a kidney if they needed it and those who would probably die if they couldn't find a donor; Between those who will be able to repair a damaged gene that causes Parkinson's disease or diabetes at an early age and those who will not be able to; And maybe even, in the more distant future, between those who can keep a backup of themselves and those who can't. The growing differences can eventually lead to a split in which a new species will be formed.
Some claim that this split has already happened and even mention the agricultural revolution that took place about 10,000 years ago, as the point in time when the seeds of the split were sown. All that remains is to imagine how the split will look in the future when it is completed. One may wonder: Will the split again this time involve a fight and the destruction of one of the parties? Until today, intelligent man has not shown much empathy, neither for species similar to him nor for species he considers inferior to him. If we have to draw conclusions from our past, the next split will not be very peaceful either.
About the author
Yankee Margalit, social entrepreneur, investor and high-tech person. Father of six. Chairman of SpaceIL, an Israeli non-profit organization working to land an Israeli spacecraft on the moon. Mostly curious.
The article was published with the permission of Scientific American Israel
96 תגובות
The splits are already happening, it's not a matter of rich and poor, even English princes marry people with no social affiliation in England.
But it's interesting, pay attention to the population of Jihad believers and the population of atheists.
If you get to know religious populations and talk to religious people, their views are closer to Iran, about 300 years ago the ultra-orthodox sect was founded, before that they did not exist.
The ultra-Orthodox are not ready to mix even with other religions, they are not even ready to marry outside the ultra-Orthodox court into which they were born,
It may be that in another thousand years of an ultra-Orthodox court that does not mix with anyone, it will already be impossible to mix.
Maximum like aborigines in Australia. Like Islamic culture. It's not just religious fundamentalism and not just a cultural matter, in my opinion it's already a split.
Hahahahahahahaha what a gift in my mother
Guys, please leave the comment area - for writing comments to the specific article that the comment area belongs to.
The responses that are suitable for a private chat - write in a private chat.
No one is interested in reading 92 comments when over half are not related to the article at all!
Most great apes are omnivores. But most of their diet is vegetarian and they eat meat once a…
There are also chimpanzees that hunt.
An interesting article in Hebrew (and amazing photos) in the link by clicking on my name
Chinchilla lives in South America. Bushbabies are a type of monkey that lives in Africa.
I didn't claim that all monkeys eat meat, please don't lie.
I argued that chimpanzees are not vegetarians.
Again, please don't lie. This is the science site, not the liar's site.
Now I also watched the link you attached.
In the clip you see exactly what you quoted: "Recently revealed aspects of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat as a political and reproductive tool,"
And if you understood what you were reading, you would understand that this has nothing to do with diet...
Well.. why am I burdening you with facts... go to the sea, drink beer and watch a star is born on iPhone 6... bye
Miracles
Do you insist that a chinchilla is a monkey?
Do you continue to insist in your stupidity that all monkeys are omnivores? (Although I showed you - in the link I attached - a study that claims otherwise).
...actually... what do I care. stay stupid
good luck in life.
I'm not the one who put the link to the youtube video so please don't use my name. Not that the video doesn't reinforce my words...
Grace
You are right that there are people here who are not ready to listen, neither to logic nor to facts that contradict their beliefs.
Regarding the matter of consciousness/intelligence, my opinion differs from yours.
The significant difference between humans and other animals is - language. that's it. If you want, I would be happy to expand on this, but as food for thought: a person with no language at all is not much smarter than a chimpanzee. This is proven in studies and also makes a lot of sense.
For anyone who understands a bit of English
When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the amount of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually. Recently revealed aspects of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat as a political and reproductive tool, have important implications for research on the origins of human behavior.
If someone has patience, let them translate to Einstein. I have no strength to discuss with him. A man trying to push an agenda explodes at any fact that contradicts his belief.
Miracles
come on…
Anyone who has at least one eye and can read English can easily see that you are the one who doesn't know English. Your "translation" is nothing less than a wishful fiction.
Second: I did not say that chimpanzees are vegetarians. I said the monkeys are vegetarians.
And the evidence that a western chimpanzee is the only one observed to "taste" chinchillas does not reflect the vegetarian diet of the monkeys.
In fact, I also attached a link for you to argue that they did serious research and showed that monkeys are vegetarians and humans are meat eaters.
I haven't seen the clip on YouTube yet.
Anyway, you haven't shown anything. Your only proof is that you are unable to think logically and you don't know the material you are talking about.
Miracles,
You once said you don't suffer fools.
I'm not like you.
I respect fools too.
But I do not respect nor can I tolerate people who insist on remaining stupid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU1zUzXkTtw
Satisfied now?
Eisteinzo
You said chimpanzees are vegetarians. I showed you wrong.
Einstein
Do you know how to read English?
Galagos, also known as bushbabies, bush babies or nagapies, are small, nocturnal native primates
Do you want me to translate for you? Not only do chimpanzees hunt other monkeys, they also create tools for this hunting.
I really have no interest in this conversation. good luck in life
Grace; Robin
Maybe it's just me, but I can't understand what you're arguing about.
Miracles
I asked you for "at least evidence that monkeys hunt other monkeys for food." – And you bring me a picture of a chinchilla.
You also ignored the sentence "A recent study".
So we closed that monkeys don't eat other monkeys as diet (as I said).
Regarding the sentence you ignored (I suspect it was on purpose): according to recent studies they found that a western chimpanzee (not all monkeys) hunted this chinchilla wanna be, and ate it.
With evidence like this you want to prove that monkeys hunt other monkeys for food?
There are opinions and evidence on this issue from here and there:
http://www.paleostyle.co.il/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%90%D7%93%D7%9D-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%95/
Robin,
You are too fussy.
I am the one who chooses what will give my life meaning, and it is not religion.
And I am the last of the racists, it is easy to see that my response was very cynical, pay attention to the language in which it was written. But there is a lot of truth in it. I think this generation has lost the most beautiful feature of man, which is curiosity and the ability to ask existential questions. And that's because society suppressed it, and it's just sad..
Because a boy who grows up what does he do? Or tries to hold anything, open anything, and crawl into every corner of the house, he is a "scientist" by nature, and as we grow older, society suppresses it.
Miracles,
I have been browsing this site for years, there have been many people like Robin who have come and gone. Quite a few people with patience, knowledge, and the ability to articulate well were here and discussions that loomed over hundreds of responses. In most cases the other party holds some opinion, and no matter what you say he will not be diverted from it, he did not really come with the goal of understanding and trying to learn.
Unfortunately, I realized that there are people who, no matter how much you explain, how careful you are with your language, how honest you are with what you say, nothing will help, they are "lost". But on the other hand, more people enter the scientist website and read these comments, so maybe I wasn't able to change Robin's opinion, or his way of seeing the world, but maybe that of other readers.
So if he's a baboon? Definitely feels like, even though he does ask questions, and that's progress, some don't even ask. I guess he received a bad education, and a lot of preaching from the environment so that his character was not strong enough to deal with them. Environment and education versus character, a great psychological test.
Robin, with your permission, I will refer to some of the things you wrote briefly:
You have registered:
"But if after I die I return to the same state before I was born, which means I am waiting to exist again..."
Let's think about this sentence for a moment, first of all what is it waiting to happen again? What are you all about? A biological machine that is made up of atoms that are put together in a certain order and has one concentration or another, which leads to a slightly different genetic coding, and a map to the brain that is generally the same but unique to each and every one of us, probably due to the infinite possibilities. So is your question what are the chances that after I die, a person will be born with the same genetic code, so that the atoms that were in my body were arranged in exactly the same way? I think science can give a good answer to that, and I guess to a good approximation you'll get to infinity. And the same is probably true of all animals in nature.
What you wrote later about consciousness sounds like intelligence to me, which is also a difficult concept to define, and this is what distinguishes us from other animals, we are more intelligent than them without a doubt. But aren't chimpanzees intelligent? Obviously, they didn't build the Hubble telescope, but when the chimpanzees go out to collect food, they take 5 different types of branches with them, and collect the food with a very impressive technique, which is much more impressive than the worm crawling here, relative to which they seem very intelligent to me. You want to define consciousness as something that asks existential questions? No problem let's flow, so yes we have consciousness and the other animals don't. But since you treat it as something more spiritual, I think that what is responsible for this is the structure of the brain that is built in such a way that it allowed us to ask ourselves existential questions. And you know what the difference is? that my prediction can be checked and verified (and they have already done it for at least the last 100 years), and with yours I will very quickly realize that I really have nothing to work with.
Robin, finally, define for me what this means to you.
What is a long life for? ....in order to reproduce as much as possible ....come on....hey if you really believed 100% in what you say with a cold and calculated heart....in an unquestionably concrete way ....then I think you would be right now at this moment opening the window in your office and you would jump down .... but no .... you have . How to say an iota of doubt, that tiny percentage that prevents you from doing so that tells you......"Maybe I was wrong....Maybe there is more mystery than I thought..." And you also hope deep down inside that there is one...but you will never admit it in your life because self-respecting scientists - it is not allowed For them to even hint at something close to the concept of "mystery"... this is also because from an evolutionary point of view we have an innate fear instinct that prevents us from harming ourselves and fearing for our lives in order to survive and reproduce... but that is another story. Good miracles, you're a good person...I'm not religious by the way...I'm a XNUMXst year criminology student...and you're welcome...I wish you all the bad in the world and I hope your sons will be the same baboons you hate. Good Day
Miracles you are right... There is no God...come on let's live without a reason like the other animals...and Chen - people like you are the scum of the human race. You want to divide us and not unite your race. One will be rejected. The Orientals, you piece of racist, do you have blue blood to talk like that? …..If I were in charge of this country I would deny you citizenship ….Ichs takes out his frustration because of the atrocities on innocent people……learn not all are smart and not all are beautiful and not all are tall…the human race is like the rainbow it has a multitude of colors face it too Hitler wanna be …..
Grace
According to Robin's reaction to you - don't you think he's an unconscious baboon?
Robin
I read your response to me and Al Chen.
You are a dark religious child who does not want to understand and is unable to understand.
You had the opportunity to learn a little about how people with different opinions than you think.
I personally have no interest in continuing to talk to closed people.
I hope you have a good life and a long life thanks to those you despise so much.
Chan again - you wrote "What is really absurd is to say the words such as meaning and reason. Who said that these words invented by man are even in the lexicon of the universe?" - Of course they exist, they are around you every second, everything is created by processes of cause and effect, the sun, the stars, evolution, the universe, the noise of typing on your keyboard, etc. etc. Relevant to them and related to them...so the universe invents different meanings. .... the same for me mathematics .. and physics are laws of meaning that man created in order to explain the universe ... if there is no meaning then I can also throw all this in the garbage …… some say that in the beginning basic laws and basic properties were assimilated into the universe and then they "released" it like Self-starting software that once you start it, it works by itself according to the same rules ……. What do you say about that?
And for miracles - you said so much nonsense that contradicts your ideologies and there is no sense in everything you said... you said that there is nothing outside the universe (according to your opinion) - and our universe is the result of a cause and the cause of an effect and so it is forever... which shows that there is a high probability that there was something outside the dimension The time and space that caused the existence of the universe (and this is according to scientific explanations) - please refer to the string theory entry....multiple universes - MULTIVERSE....and so on so you are talking nonsense...and regarding the meaning of the universe you said that the universe has no meaning so what do you even care about your sons and what Do you care at all what you do and why do you bother me about life after death - answer me simply yes or no .... according to your answer you do believe in life after death if I understood correctly ..? …. I have a hypothetical question for you - and this is true for everyone on this site - is conscience an evolutionary burden or is it necessary in a meaningless world? ….please answer me a simple question
Chen - But if after I die I return to the same state as before I was born, which means I am waiting to exist again...isn't that right?....It means you are not in a state of non-existence forever.... And as for consciousness... this is exactly the difference between us and other animals and if you don't understand what consciousness is - then in short it is what makes you know your surroundings and know who you are and why you are and where you are in this whole place.... I don't see baboons or dolphins flying to the moon or asking philosophical questions or dancing tribal dances by the light of the fire or studying the world and how it exists, this is consciousness..in essence
Grace
Sometimes you do speak logically…..
Robin
A book could be written about each of your questions, so I'll be very, very brief.
I don't think there is a meaning to the universe. "Meaning" something has for something. The level of salinity in the sea has significance for fish. The emission of PAD by man has a significance on the climate. Plants have meaning throughout the day. I do not believe that there is anything outside the universe and therefore it cannot have meaning.
Surely we humans do not have a destiny. If I thought I was here to serve someone else, then I would immediately stop it....
We do not know today the reasons for the existence of the universe. The greatest scientists in the world are studying the subject. I think this question has no meaning about the daily life of people. Anyone who says he thinks he knows the reason or that it has meaning beyond an academic matter - in my opinion, he is trying to sell something.
After I die I hope for three things. The first is that I gave my children a good education. The second is that my organs will help other people live. The third is that things I have done in life will help people live better (this also includes simple things like not dirtying or not wasting).
Regarding consciousness - I definitely believe that my consciousness will continue to exist in my children. I mean things like shared memories, similar ideals and an understanding of certain things about the world. By the way, this is even more true for my partner. In a certain sense, much of our consciousness is shared. I can look at an outfit, and know that my wife will like it or not. We have shared experiences that have influenced our personalities. We have the same desire for the welfare of our children. When one of us hurts, the other hurts too (not physical pain, but pain). I am sure that when one of us leaves - the other will feel that a part of him is missing.
Miracles,
Don't let my simple and cheap language, and my cynical and childish tone fool you. By the way, I am the one who decides who is a baboon and who is not.
Robin,
You can also direct the questions to me, I have no problem answering at length and seriously.
And in short, what is really absurd is to say the words such as meaning and reason. Who said that these words invented by man are even in the lexicon of the universe?
There is no evidence for the claims you present, so I have no reason to assume them. First define consciousness, then we'll talk if it goes and where.
And as for death, I know exactly what happens after death, the same as before you were born. simple.
Grace
An intelligent person would not write like you. You are deep in the baboon group.
Miracles ,
I definitely belong to the second group. As supporting evidence for this, those who are in the "baboons" group (the baboons because this species is already occupied, but the behavior patterns are similar) are not at all aware that there are 2 groups and would never know about the differences.
Listen to me, my fellow Homo sapiens - I have an idea, let's destroy all the chimpanzees and then tell our descendants that we came from a race of gods who landed here thousands of years ago and sowed us in the earth. Then their ego will grow and nurture and they will strive for excellence and be the most perfect race in the world! ALL IN FAVOR.?
Einstein
Because I want to help you, here is an interesting quote from Wikipedia
The species has also been found creating sharpened sticks to spear Senegal bushbabies out of small holes in trees.
Did we close the issue?
Say miracles, do you believe in anything other than an absurd and cold position without any meaning or reason?.... As if you think there is something after me that you will die or maybe your consciousness passes to your descendants or something like that... I am doing research on atheist concepts and their psychological effect on the individual (I'm not kidding... I need it for my thesis) Please answer me seriously...thank you and have a good day
Einstein
I'm sure it's on Wikipedia. Do you know what Wikipedia is?
Chen...I think Hitler thought the same....go talk with him you are compatible
Miracles
…at least you didn't say monkeys eat dinosaurs. It's already good.
Bring at least some evidence that monkeys hunt other monkeys for food.
We wait.
Einstein
Chimpanzees eat, in addition to fruits, insects, birds, eggs, small mammals and even other monkeys.
A wise person would check before talking about things that are not his area of expertise...
Miracles
Am I a troll? Why, because I disagreed with your mistakes? A bit exaggerated, aren't you?
"I have no interest in talking to arrogant fools who think they are smart." - This is something that a troll would write.
"Chimpanzees also hunt in groups." - Come explain to all of us what chimpanzees hunt. Ants? Or maybe Bach flowers?
Grace
Which group do you think you belong to?
Einstein
You start acting like a troll.
Everything I said is true to the best of my knowledge, you didn't just say I was full of errors and move on.
You even deny the facts. Hunting in groups existed long before man. Chimpanzees also hunt in groups.
Your reaction to the asteroid, and the color of the peacock emphasized to me the depth of your thought.
but leave I have no interest in talking to arrogant fools who think they are smart.
Bye
Didn't you notice that we split???
There are two main populations:
"The baboons" - whose lifestyle includes Facebook, the sea, alcohol, and parties. Usually they learn something that doesn't speak to them, and is common to all baboons in one of the colleges. In order to earn money to finance the sea, alcohol and parties.
And there is the "thinking person" - intelligent, ambitious, and curious about life, the universe, and everything else..
Miracles
I found a lot of errors in your response. But the truth is that I have no desire to fix them all. Just saying a few things:
The concept "the fittest survives" is not problematic (as you say) at all. And your definition of the concept is incorrect. Darwin's original definition is correct.
"We are here because of one asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. How lucky we were 🙂 ".
No way. No luck here. It was supposed to happen 🙂
Regarding the skull - you misunderstood what I said.
And also your words: "If you meant that we switched from vegetarianism to eating meat" - not true.
Early man was a meat eater.
The vegetarian diet, which I mentioned, is associated with monkeys - and not with humans.
I don't know if the monkeys were originally meat eaters, but today there is no doubt that the monkeys are vegetarians. According to what I remember: the scientists dealing with the subject claim that due to a vegetarian diet the molar teeth were not needed (actually according to dentists - these teeth are better to be extracted because today they are no longer of use to us). Thus the teeth became smaller and allowed the jaw to change its shape in such a way that allowed the skull to grow a little more and the brain - which is inside the skull
🙂 In case anyone forgot - grow too.
"A hunter requires teamwork," - why? You've probably never hunted. To hunt you need weapons and a smarter mind than the hunted. Teamwork is a later development of hunter strategy.
"By the way - why is the peacock blue and not yellow? A matter of luck" - well... You convinced us.
What does it matter - I'm sending again without links, hope it works out
Surely I can explain the principle of Zahavi's respect with the help of the model I described. I would love to hear another explanation (if you have one, tell Zahabi that too - I'm sure he'll be happy to learn something new).
The idea of selection by the opposite sex is not new and it exists in "the origin of the species". Ronald Fisher elaborated on the subject
Amutz Zahavi gives an explanation for the preference for burdensome traits - within the framework of Darwin's theory of evolution. By the way, not everyone thinks that Zahavi's model is general (for example - )
Let's take the classic example of the peacock. The tail weighs on the male and lowers his survival as an individual. The females prefer males with a long tail (again, Zahavi explains this desire - he does not try to contradict the explanation of evolution). Therefore - males will have more offspring - as opposed to the fact that they are less "relics"! Now - the offspring contain the 2 traits: males will have long tail genes, and females will have long tail preference genes.
The principle of preference for a burdensome trait by the opposite sex was demonstrated in a lovely experiment by Anderson that you can read about here:
By the way - why is the peacock actually blue and not yellow? A matter of luck 🙂
I did not claim that there is no influence between species - of course there is. I also gave examples of this myself. Here is another example from Australia - the sugar cane toads caused snakes with wide mouths to become extinct and today snakes have wider mouths -
But again, the toads created a reason for competition in the snakes. And again, precisely those who are "weaker" (smaller) are the ones who survived. There is no competition here between the snakes and the toads.... And that's exactly what Oded Israeli said.
What does it matter
Surely I can explain the principle of Zahavi's respect with the help of the model I described. I would love to hear another explanation (if you have one, tell Zahabi that too - I'm sure he'll be happy to learn something new).
The idea of selection by the opposite sex is not new and it exists in "the origin of the species". Ronald Fisher expanded on the subject (http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/TexteFS10/Fisher1930a.pdf)
Amutz Zahavi gives an explanation for the preference for burdensome traits - within the framework of Darwin's theory of evolution. By the way, not everyone thinks that Zahavi's model is general (for example - https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kzollman/research/Papers/AlternativesToHandicap.pdf)
Let's take the classic example of the peacock. The tail weighs on the male and lowers his survival as an individual. The females prefer males with a long tail (again, Zahavi explains this desire - he does not try to contradict the explanation of evolution). Therefore - males will have more offspring - as opposed to the fact that they are less "relics"! Now - the offspring contain the 2 traits: males will have long tail genes, and females will have long tail preference genes.
The principle of preference for a burdensome trait by the opposite sex was demonstrated in a lovely experiment by Anderson that you can read about here: https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v111n01/p0080-p0086.pdf
By the way - why is the peacock actually blue and not yellow? A matter of luck 🙂
I did not claim that there is no influence between species - of course there is. I also gave examples of this myself. Here is another example from Australia - the sugar cane toads caused snakes with wide mouths to become extinct and today snakes have wider mouths - http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/cane-toads-caused-evolution.html
But again, the toads created a reason for competition in the snakes. And again, precisely those who are "weaker" (smaller) are the ones who survived. There is no competition here between the snakes and the toads.... And that's exactly what Oded Israeli said.
Miracles, the fact that you throw out concepts like genetic drift and evolution does not make you right. Also that you wrote a thesis on the subject. Your response to me is irrelevant to the debate.
You claimed earlier that evolution takes place only within a species and only by growth rate. So the answer to these is wrong and wrong. Does it seem to you that each species lives in some bubble cut off from all other species in the world and is not affected by them?
In addition, is it possible to explain the principle of Zahavi's weighting only based on growth rate?
Oded Israeli / Einstein
Oded - you wrote beautifully. The term "survival of the fittest" is problematic and does not exist in English at all. The term "the fit survives" is also very problematic. The origin of the term is Spencer, and Darwin added the term to "the origin of species" only in later editions of the book.
The problem with the term "fit survives" is that it is a tautology - what is fit? The one that survives of course... Creationists very much enjoy brandishing this error. Again - all that matters in the end is the reproductive end.
Regarding degeneration, I think a little differently than you. Let's take a simple example - the eyes of a rat (remember - the rat is almost blind). You can say that his eyes have deteriorated and he still survives. I think it's the other way around. As you adjust to life in the dark, your eyes become a limitation. They are sensitive and easily damaged, certainly under the ground. You also need energy to develop eyes, and those who don't have eyes, have energy for other things.
It is the same with humans. Our large skull is an advantage that probably outweighs the disadvantage. The same goes for the toe - its degeneration probably gave a total of advantages at the time that were greater than the disadvantages.
Einsteinzo - you are very, very wrong about luck. There are many, many cases where luck has a great meaning. We are here because of one asteroid that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. How lucky we were 🙂
Einstein, I didn't understand what you said about the skull. If you meant we went from vegetarianism to eating meat then I agree with you. Meat gives more energy, and cooked meat gives even more energy. Additionally, a hunter requires teamwork, unlike a vegetarian diet, and this gives an advantage to a larger brain.
What does it matter
I will explain again. Evolution is exclusively within a species. The meaning of evolution is changing the distribution of alleles in the population. Again - there are 4 conditions for evolution (sometimes you will read that there are 3, but then reproduction is taken for granted.). The conditions are: reproduction, variation, competition, and inheritance. The meaning of the competition is between different individuals of the same species.
that's it.
There are of course many more details. There is allopatric evolution and there is sympatric evolution and there is genetic drift and there is ... and there is ... but this does not change the basis - the 4 conditions I mentioned are necessary and sufficient conditions for evolution.
If it's interesting, in my thesis I compared the "calculating power" of evolution as an algorithm (even though evolution is not an algorithm) to a "competing" theory - that an intelligent agent designed life. My result is unequivocally that evolution with random mutations is stronger than any pre-planned algorithm.
Robin
I wrote a thesis on evolution. I think I know a little about the subject. Not like you maybe, but a little...
Oded Israeli
bullshit.
"Like the degeneration of the jaw that made it difficult for them to eat certain foods without preliminary processing and forced them to use tools a lot;"
What caused the jaw degeneration? All of a sudden?
The jaw did not degenerate but changed its shape. Its shape changed because certain individuals, apparently, changed their dietary habits (vegetarian diet) - which allowed the jaw to change, the skull - to expand and the brain - to grow.
'Luck' Elek... there is luck in poker not in evolution.
Evolution, and the mechanism that drives it known as "natural selection", are not necessarily based on the principle of "survival of the fittest" and not even on the principle of "survival of the fittest" - although the latter is a bit more appropriate. As a matter of fact, the principle that governs the dome is "he who survives survives - and passes on his DNA and his traits, for better or for worse"... Humans, for example, are a kind of reincarnation of monkeys who managed to survive and overcome a long series of extremely severe hereditary defects that made them disabled – such as the degeneration of the big toe, which prevented them from climbing trees like their chimpanzee brothers and forced them to go out into the savannah; Like the degeneration of the jaw which made it difficult for them to eat certain foods without preliminary processing and forced them to use tools a lot; Such as a delay in the development of the shape of the skull (nautania) which made it difficult for the newborns to pass through the birth canal of the mothers - and also slowed down the development of the children and made them helpless for a much longer time than chimpanzee and gorilla infants - but allowed the growth of the brain to a much larger final volume; Like the shedding of the fur, and more... It can be assumed that throughout the tens of millions of years of development of the direct lineage of man there were also many junctions where our ancestors faced the danger of complete extinction, and what stood to their right was only pure luck, and not some supreme quality that allowed them to survive...
Miracles
What does it matter (former R.H.) understood exactly what I meant.
I can't believe you forgot the phrase: "the strong survives"... so why do you claim that the one who reproduces fast is the one who survives?
'Evolution' is a broad concept. Evolution also exists in computers.
What determines the survival of any creature is the process that causes that creature to adapt itself to the environment so that the environment is good for it. It doesn't matter at what rate the creature reproduces.
You're all scribbling, mind you! You learned everything from Wikipedia and you don't have any degree in biology....do me a favor...be quiet, you are insulting science with your speculation debate.... And you have no idea how life began and how life is created (not sentients) and what causes and mutations to develop in my body at all and how they develop....if according to environmental conditions this means that there is no randomness there is a mechanism. If just like that …..then excuse the word (**** YOU ARE FULL OF) …..have a good day
Miracles,
It is a very simplistic approach to think that evolution only works on rapid reproduction. Evolution works on adaptation. Sometimes thick fur can be more necessary and more selective than assuming a short gestation period and many offspring, for example when a new ice age comes.
Secondly, the example with the foxes is not clear to me. Suppose the foxes prey on the bird that is food for a certain species of snakes. Since the fox is a swift and more efficient predator it could eat the bird, wouldn't this cause a decrease in the number of snakes? Do you think there is no competition here between the foxes and the snakes for a limited resource (the birds)?
Now there are three possibilities - 1) that snakes will evolve that eat something other than birds. 2) That efficient snakes develop that create an equilibrium with the foxes in predating the birds 3) That the snakes become extinct
Isn't this evolution per se?
What does it matter
Note that evolution is the development of species and not the growth of a population. If there is competition between different species then the population of one species will develop at the expense of the population of the other species. For example - the introduction of foxes to Australia greatly damaged the population of endemic predators. Now, the situation of the local predators becomes difficult - let's take a certain species, and indeed it is expected to develop as a result of the competition - but this is a competition within the same species, and not a direct competition with foxes.
You have to remember - evolution occurs only when mutations are created that cause those with these mutations to reproduce faster than creatures of the same species that do not have the mutation. Competition with another species can certainly cause a decrease in an important resource, which will increase competition between members of the same species, you are right about that.
Miracles,
It is not true that "evolution does not talk about competition between species but about competition between individuals of the same species"
Evolution works on all replicating organisms competing for a limited resource. It could be members of different species, a bat and worms eating the same particular apple or members of the same species competing for a limited resource.
Einstein
You wrote "If we proceed from the assumption that every organism is composed of germs, it will be possible to understand that the germs, in their different configuration, are the ones that activate the organism."
—Why would we make such an assumption if we know it is wrong? I said that our body has many bacteria. They live with us in symbiosis. How did you conclude that every organism is made up of bacteria? And how can it be understood that they activate the organism?
You wrote "Now the question arises: Which germs have adapted to the environment better: those that make up the human body or those that make up the lion or those that make up the dinosaur, or the germ of the black plague that multiplies at a high rate?"
- Again - why do you write that bacteria make up animals? The cells of a multicellular body are not bacteria. And like I said,
Evolution is not directly related to competition between species. I don't understand why you are repeating this point.
Miracles; What does it matter
I'm glad you wrote what you wrote because that's what I was aiming for:
If we proceed from the assumption that every organism consists of germs, it will be possible to understand that the germs, in their different configuration, are the ones that activate the organism.
Now the question arises: which germs adapted to the environment better: those that make up the human body or those that make up the lion or those that make up the dinosaur, or the germ of the black plague that multiplies at a high rate?
Sounds like a prophetic ideology in a nutshell, of the intelligent and special and arrogant me and the world revolves around me. The Chosen Distinctive Self The Supreme Race. the enlightened Scary, isn't it?
Precisely in the "weak" strata or in the third world, the forces of adaptation and survival are in full swing and they have better genes against diseases and are well adapted to the natural environment. Whereas the "developed" ones are more sensitive and as soon as the electricity goes down _due to a natural disaster, for example) masses of them will disappear, and the few that survive will return to the stone age and caves. Technology has no existence without doubt energy. Just another human invention to not adapt to the environment.
Einstein
Side note - the human body has 10 times more bacteria than human cells. Part of our diet is meant to feed the bacteria in our body, even in milk if that's the case (can't remember where I learned this).
Evolution does not speak of competition between species but of competition between individuals of the same species. It is very important to understand this point. For example - there is competition between cheetahs among themselves, but there is no competition between cheetahs and the Thompson deer. Competition - in the context of evolution - is for resources. Darwin based his opinion on the work of Thomas Malthus from the late 18th century.
I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that the black plague should have destroyed humanity. I also don't understand what this has to do with evolution.
What does it matter
Why don't you agree with my words?
einsteinzo,
Although I agree with you in the debate with Nissim "knows everything" here you are wrong in my opinion.
Think again who is more adapted the human or the bacteria?
Hint: Is it possible for a scenario where man destroys all the bacteria and still survives? On the other hand, is the opposite scenario possible?
Miracles
Bacteria multiply the fastest. There are more bacteria than humans. Therefore they were supposed to exterminate humans. not like that? That is what you claim. According to you, the Black Plague was supposed to wipe out all of humanity.
Ask yourself who survives better on earth - the human or the bacterium? Who adapts better to the environment? Who has more influence - man on nature or nature on man?
Einstein
The question is what it means to survive. If you mean a certain person, who will live longer then you are right. But if you mean the population of humans, for a long period (generations) then you are wrong, in my opinion.
Evolution does not talk about the individual, and it is not interesting how long a certain individual will live. All that matters is the rate of reproduction. As long as the rate is not less than one then the population will survive.
Now - what is meant by biological compatibility? Suppose, could you survive in harsh radiation conditions? Let's take 2 groups, each group 100 pairs. Every person in the first group has a gene that helps them against radiation. These people live 80 years. In the second group there is no protection and they barely survive until the age of 40. But - each couple in the first group has 1.5 children on average and each couple in the second group has 2.5 children on average.
What will be the number of inhabitants in each group in 1000 years? Leave, don't think. I guess you now understand what I mean.
Did I say something you disagree with?
Miracles
Describe to you a hypothetical case where humans move to live on the moon.
Who is more likely to survive? Those whose biological system was adapted to the environment? Or those that multiply at a high rate?
Einstein
As long as you talk like that, I have no interest in continuing the conversation.
Miracles
It seems that in this too, as in quantum entanglement, you are not well versed.
From your words it can be concluded that the Jewish people is already extinct.
Maybe stop already?
Einstein
Unlike weaving, I do understand that. The only thing that matters in evolution is reproduction rate. the only one You can be the strongest and the most beautiful and the smartest and the healthiest - it doesn't change anything. The number of your offspring is what matters. Of course, this is a matter of expectancy, it does not mean that you have many offspring that do not reproduce...
the Canaanite to the Habsburg family
Leave... Nissim is funnier than you... and he's not funny.
Miracles
Not true.
There is no real relation to the rate of reproduction in this case. What is important is who will adapt himself to the conditions so that he can survive in them.
Einstein
Is your name a first or second derivative of Albert Einstein's name? Otherwise, you will switch to an assembly account
Einstein
This is true only when a differential reproduction rate is created, i.e. - people with a certain mutation will reproduce faster than other people. It's hard for me to see this happening on another planet, because I assume the birth would be planned under such conditions.
Benjamin
No one is saying that the human race will split (if at all) only on Earth.
If humans migrate to other planets - by definition there will be pressure on them from the environment to change (physically, biologically, chemically) in order to adapt/survive better in the environment. Which could in turn lead to a new species.
Well, I won't prolong the discussion indefinitely, so I'll just respond to what you said about "many animals with self-awareness" - self-awareness is not just a language (dolphins also have a language... and whales - even though it's more vocal codes about finding food, threat, pairing and basic things) self-awareness - consciousness - this basically means that you can differentiate yourself from the world, you think separate things "from the herd" you are independent within yourself, you can think about the future and imagine it and thus also learn about the "cause and effect" of cases Some people, you wonder what the creature standing in front of you is thinking at this moment... should I attack him or feel sorry for him or even ignore him... you don't see chimpanzees look at you in absolute depth and start muttering words to themselves or to each other and if they have no language then they don't use either In the signs...or crows (which are considered to be among the most intelligent creatures among the animals) the Ray is a creature with awareness knows what is happening around him and moreover he also knows that he is here for a limited time.... And he does think about tomorrow and the day he will die... animals don't think like that, they act according to natural instincts - it is true that humans also have such needs (food, water, sex, taking care of the offspring, etc.) but we can also decide "no no without eat today I want to stay thin" or "wow I'm so depressed today oh I don't want to get out of bed anyway we'll die in the end" or a man will kill a woman's husband and she (by nature) will be the strongest in the group - that's not the case the woman will hate that killer and want to kill him. We are slowly beginning to understand that the concept of consciousness is deep - yes it is very likely to assume a very complex neurochemical process but still incredibly unusual and not just language as you said separates us from monkeys that land on the moon or dolphins that send robots to Mars...or crows (whose only ability She is... to open a bin in order to find food - and this is based on a certain pattern that they perceived that we put discarded food in those bins, but what can a stupid crow do and you can put poison in the bin and he won't even suspect that something is wrong) Good evening... and we hope we don't find out Soon another intelligent species - because with the level of our current technology it will end in the range....
Eldad
I wrote "I think with sharks the situation is a little different. We know that with some sharks there is tough competition, they even eat each other before spawning... Apparently there is no variation among sharks, and here I think you are right, that there is no genetic change that gives an advantage over sharks without this change. In other words, the sharks are in optimal condition."
Where does it say they shouldn't have changed?
And regarding self-awareness - I disagree with you. I agree that we are an unusual species, but the reason is that we have language. Many animals have self-awareness.
And in general I think that humans will succeed in thriving and eventually become a kind of "race of gods" who will be able to create planets by manipulating the forces of gravity and seeding life in distant stars...but that's only in thousands of years....if we survive...that's a completely different story for me Also think that "intelligent" life with an emphasis on this - they are very, very rare in the universe if we go by the theory of random evolution....then it must be so because the Rays are the only race on the planet that has "common sense" and self-awareness and a vision for the future, no other creature has This, neither for the dolphin nor for the crow, and if they had then we would have had to destroy them...because they would just follow us on the way to progress
You said that the sharks didn't change for millions of years because they didn't need to....Conclusion: Evolution has a brain...and a rational mechanism that decides that if this species doesn't need to change in order to reproduce, it will remain in an "optimal" state for as long as it takes - that's what I understood from you... And I didn't say good or bad mutations - that's why the quotation marks "" meant good things for that species so that it would multiply or bad things that would exterminate it....
Eldad
I didn't change my mind - I probably didn't explain myself clearly. What is random in evolution are the mutations. Natural selection is completely non-random.
You just accuse me of things, not nice... 🙂 There is no such thing as a good or bad mutation, there is only a mutation that increases the rate of reproduction or decreases the rate of reproduction (and of course, most mutations do not affect the rate at all).
You are the one who humanizes, when you say there are good and bad mutations. I say something different. You wrote "What does the evolutionary process care about the number of descendants" - that's all Moshe is interested in. Take for example the mutation for sickle cell anemia, a mutation that causes a serious and life-threatening disease. In Africa, the disease reduces the effects of malaria and therefore actually increases the rate of reproduction. So, do you think this is a good or bad mutation? Do you understand what I'm talking about now? I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.
Not true, miracles... you and someone are starting from a point of assumption that evolution develops mutations according to the organism's need to survive and reproduce and while you are in a different form you insisted that evolution is a random and random process.... What happened that the opinion changed -" I think it is better to use the expression "change will not increase the rate of reproduction ". This is what is important - the number of offspring over time" - what does the evolutionary process care about the number of offspring .. it doesn't matter there is a random process of mutations and if it is a "good" mutation then the ray will have more offspring and if it is "bad" then the species will become extinct and the story is over - not now Try to personify nature... really beautiful...
I understood it differently
The intention is fragmentation as a result of the intervention of technology and not by isolating part of the population for hundreds of thousands of years
That is, a couple who became pregnant with a genetically modified child in such an extreme way that a new species of ape was created
Or an extremely rich person who wakes up in the morning and decides to dress up as a cyborg.
These are the predictions of the singularity
It is likely that the majority of the world's population will not have access to such technology in the next few hundred years
It may be that in the next few years we will see mutants walking around the street
someone
What you say is true, I'm just trying to be accurate. For evolution to occur, 4 conditions are needed: multiplication, variation, competition and inheritance. There is, for example, nothing to do with survival.
There is no competition between humans and that is the reason why evolution does not happen with us.
I think with sharks the situation is a little different. We know that with some sharks there is tough competition, they even eat each other before spawning... Apparently there is no variation among sharks, and here I think you are right, that there is no genetic change that gives an advantage over sharks without this change. That is, the sharks are in optimal condition.
Therefore - I say there is more than one "bottom line" in this case.
You can find many formulas for this, but the bottom line is that biological evolution does not currently have "rabbits in the hat" that can improve our ability to survive or our ability to reproduce (the same, by the way, regarding sharks and alligators, for example, which have reached a state of equilibrium with their living environment and already They do not change for tens of millions of years according to fossil evidence, they are perfectly adapted, there is not much to improve them).
someone
You are right in what you write.
Instead of "there is no need to change", I think it is better to use the phrase "change will not increase the rate of reproduction". This is what is important - the number of offspring over time.
I think it's very simple, an animal changes when the living environment "pressures" it and forces it to change, for example by new predators arriving in the area, for example by the availability of food, for example by a different temperature or a different color of the environment that requires readjustment …
Humans have developed technology that neutralizes this environmental pressure, they are inside sheltered houses, food is available in abundance in the supermarket, if it is hot there is an air conditioner, if it is cold there is an oven, if we are sick there are medicines and treatments... in short the living environment no longer has an effect on our ability to survive, the stress It exerts on us is very mild, humans can survive perfectly as they are, they don't need to change.
Benjamin
That's half true. We know animals that have become new species in periods of hundreds of years. And we even know people who are by definition a different sex (a different number of chromosomes) - but these people do not find a partner and therefore do not reproduce...
Anonymous is absolutely right and as I understand the laws of evolution
There must be a reason that causes certain details in the population
To develop diversity that will be necessary for existence in new conditions and therefore
spread throughout the population.
Since man changes nature to his needs, then as long as civilization
(and it is likely to me that the entire human race) will exist, there will be no distinct difference
necessary for existence and therefore there will be no new species.
Even tens of thousands of years of isolation between populations in America and populations in Eurasia did not create a new species
Could be an idea for a mediocre MDB movie and that's all.
unlikely
Over time, technologies spread and are discounted, therefore even if the rich
We become richer (and for that matter it is a "law of nature"..) even without being rich
There is a printer at home and a cell phone, so there is no reason why they won't be able to in the future
to acquire technologies that will prolong their lives and improve their intellectual capacity
(chips in the brain for example..) and printed body parts just like the rich.
Oh come on... on what basis do you say that the gaps between the rich and the poor are growing? Or the gaps between the ignorant and the educated? Why do you think that in the few decades it takes for technology to spread from rich to poor countries a new species will develop? After all, it is a process that takes thousands of years. In short, not only were the basic assumptions not tested (or at least we did not receive any indication of this in the article) but also that if they are true there is no indication that this will lead to separation into two varieties.
The fastest split is the resurrection of Neanderthal man, the fact that he disappeared from the world does not mean that he is extinct, his genes still exist somewhere in skeletons and laboratories, and it is only a matter of time until he returns from the back door.
Before the split, there was a spillover of transgenic and animal genes into the human race, just as today there is a spillover of human genes into living in laboratories.
For there to have been a natural split, there had to have been a complete separation for a period of tens and hundreds of thousands of years, such as settlement on another distant planet, outside the solar system, or huge plagues that would kill most of the population.
In traditional India there is no marriage between members of different castes. These are several groups that live together in a geographical area, but are separated genetically. The castes separated population groups for many years, were there several human species created there? Didn't different species form because the separation didn't happen long enough? Or was there, despite the cultural separation, a spillover of genes from group to group?
We are already divided. Arab civilization and Western civilization are almost two different species. It is enough to observe the mass demonstrations of Hamas or Hezbollah to understand this simple truth.
If there is an evolutionary split, the next generation of humans will be the people of the autistic spectrum. People with a much less wide emotional range, on the one hand it sounds terrible, but on the other hand there is much less chance of violence
Don't worry we will become extinct much sooner for such a dramatic change in our evolution to occur.... Being intelligent in an absurd world is the most terrible curse that a living orgasm has.... you actually know you're going to die..
The split has already happened, why don't you know the x man???