I have taken Antrhopology and I am currently taking a human genetics course. Real interesting stuff, I love it. But we don't need to look at genetics or homo australopithicus to know that humans were shorter. Just go to a museum and look at a suit of armor or a display of uniforms. Also a very recent change in humans is the age of which we hit puberty. When I talk to a lot of older ladies they tell me that they didn't get boobs until they were 13 and there period until the ages of 14 to 16. Everyone I know in my age group had boobs by the age of 10 and their period by the age of 12. of course there are some exceptions.But why such a drastic change?
Some teories state that the change is to the shift in societies view of sexuality. Bigger is better, so we become bigger. Being sexy is a survival tool, se we become sexier younger. There are many theories, but no one knows why for sure.

Suvival of the "fittest"?

Napoléon was very short with one testicule...

I agree with you, Humans change to fit the environment/needs they are in, and I do not beleive that it takes thousands of years for minor changes to happen.

Is Steven Hawking a "fuckup"?
Indeed, he is impaired, but he is several more times
productive to his race and it's evolution then any blonde
bimbo aka "beautiful people".

Good looks may mean good genes, but not all genes
make you smart!

Anyway, I was refering to intellectual evolution.

Where as I agree with you on some things, I cannot agree with you that human beings have reached the pinnacle of evoltion. The reason for this is that evolution is not moving toward any direction, toward some grand design. Evolution is a process of adaptation, period. Anyone that speaks of pinnacles (pinnacle of what?), or regression (regressing from what?), or progress (progressing toward what?), is merely selling another version of intelligent design, in other words creationism. The only intellegent design that there will ever be in evolution is the intellegent design that we, as human beings, put into it.

The emoticon refered to what you stated below.
Since there is no "higher" or "lower" form of evolution
(If you judge evolution on the survival scale, I think E-Coli are
way ahead of us...)

Secondly, I was refering to the intelectual evolution as far
as perception and religion comes to mind.
example:
First there were tribes.
Then came countries, and their tyrants.
Then came kings.
Then came Theocracy.
Then came the republic.
Then (After quite some time) came Democracy.

Thirdly, I was feeling happy and sarcastic while writing this post,
so I posted it with a happy emoticon while stressing that
sarcastic/funny notes will be welcome.

Needless to say, most people took it literally, and only
refered to the biological process.

Maybe I'm being a little too fantacious... But I think Evolution some times goes in circles. (Or in ascending spirals)

So, in the same way humans evolved from apes and several "trial and error" sub species branched and later died in the way, humans will continue to chenge and diversify and at some point there would be more than one intelligent race on out planet. Some of those would be natural and others will be the product of technology or accidental mutations.

At some point in the future humans will be capable of creating self-replicating robots or cyborgs. Since not even two bolts cut by the same machine are exactly the same, there will be differences between robots created by robots. Accidental glitches in software will produce the equivalent to mutations. Inperfect mutations will "die" and be recycled and advanced ones will survive to build others in their own image.

So who knows? Maybe History will repeat again and machines will have their ancient, medieval and modern periods. They will create mechanical gods and worship the figments of their fragmented hard drives. A few of them will come out of the assambly line with a little difference in some obscure circuit that will make them doubt everything. They will not trust standard programming, they will not follow the mecha-herd, they will be rebels. And who knows, one day a robot will compile a serie of simple but effective rules that codify that rebel spirit and create a new religion for a selected few. He may even name his new religion after the "evil" being that the oficial religions fear and hate.

Maybe is won't happen with robots or solid machines, but with sentient programs that inhabit a future network of interacting artificial intelligences. Or perhaps the biological and mechanic will mix to give birth to a new kind of life.

Where will be our descendants in this future? Will "old fashioned humans" share the world with the new mutations and biomechanoids. Will they evolve into different forms? Will they become extinct under the wave of new creatures more apt to rule the planet? Who knows?

The point is evolution will always happen and as long as there are different levels of intelligence there will be some form of stratification. And with that, there will always be an elite that rules and a herd that follows.

I must hold my hands up - it was a bad post. Had to rush.


The reference to human evolution having reached a pinnacle was, as I stated - tongue in cheek.

Though it does give some pause for thought when you observe the bog-trotting variety of the human species to which the reference was made.

I do think the gulf may widen. And it stands to reason, that if you take a section of the population that are thick as two short planks, the genes and the parenting skills that they pass on will result in yet more low-life**.

Now if it is probable that these low-life will be highly unlikely to breed with anything other than those of their own standing.

Several generations later, one could be looking upon them as a whole different species of human...with tiny little heads.






**I have now read a few other posts in this thread & although perhaps it cannot be (yet) proven that a persons intelligence is always effected by that of his family - I do believe that certain genes are thought to affect the potential for certain personality traits (such as alcoholism etc). It therefore most likely follows that two lazy, idle bastards will probably beget another lazy idle bastard with no drive to improve. The parenting skills will also have some effect




PS. You may find this interesting:
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638
(There is a link to a PDF draft of the study on the right)

Oh man, you REALLY should read "The Cyberiad" By Stanislaw Lem. It'll keep you laughing and pondering
for at least a week, if not more so!

That article was interesting, and certainly a better arguement for evolution within the 15 to 30 thousand range than false_messiah78 has made, thanks, you given me something to ponder.

I'd look for it. I loved "The Invincible".