Human evolution - into the future.

[Technosoul]

Based on our present scientific knowledge and observations of trends, what effect will evolution have on human beings? What will we be like in the distant future?

Of course no one can predict any absolutes because envirnoment would have a role.

We might observe that current trends would suggest that we will become taller, and live longer. (in the short run)

But could it be possible to evolve into a new speicies? Or has human evolution come to a standstill? If evolution is still possible then what changes might we expect and why?

One area of change might involve crossbreeding between races.

If humans get really good at space exploration then that new environment might have an impact that would cause evolutionary changes in the human structure.

As land animals adopted to the ocean we might change drastically to adopt to outerspace, Mars or whatever. with evolution just about anything is possible. (I assume).

Plus, we can tamper with evolution once we know enough about our DNA, genes, and so forth.

And as we become more bionic that can have a potential effect. We are using devices for hearts and other organs, and for leg replacements and so forth. How would our genes pass on data about a fake heart to our off spring? Or is my last question too ill-logical to concider. None the less, as we become half machine and half animal I would think that such an oddity would effect long term evolution, would it not? But how?

Even scientists like to speculate, so what'cha think?

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul Based on our present scientific knowledge and observations of trends, what effect will evolution have on human beings? What will we be like in the distant future?

While you and newspaper reporters like to imagine that such predictions are possible, they aren't. Even when it comes to predicting changes in flu pathogens, evolutionary biologists miss about every 8 years (like they did this year). And that is a pretty easy prediction compared to predicting changes in the human species in the future.

Of course no one can predict any absolutes because envirnoment would have a role.

Environment will have a role? Do you actually understand any of the mechanisms of evolution? Don't you understand that natural selection, one of the major mechanisms of evolution, is the response of populations of organisms to their environment? Certain genetic characteristics lend a differential reproductive advantage in specific environments. As a result, the population evolves.

We might observe that current trends would suggest that we will become taller, and live longer. (in the short run)

Trends are meaningless. That presumes that there is some sort of target. Trends are actually an historical perspective. We see "trends" as we study changes in populations in changing environments. In stable environments, organisms tend to become quite stable and don't seem to change over long periods.
[quote]But could it be possible to evolve into a new speicies?[quote]Doubtful, in the sense that you mean. The human population is just too mobile. A "new species," in the sense that you mean would require a lengthy reproductive isolation of a segment of the population.

Or has human evolution come to a standstill?

Certainly not. We can't stop gene flow, mutation, genetic drift and other mechanisms of evolution.

If evolution is still possible then what changes might we expect and why?

We might expect that more people will never develop wisdom teeth. Because our modern diet is softer than that of our distant ancestors, jaws and the corresponding muscles are smaller. Thus, we tend to develop impacted lower wisdom teeth, and therefore, infections that prove fatal. Thus, it is an advantage if one does not develop wisdom teeth.

One area of change might involve crossbreeding between races.

How would that be a change? And what, exactly, does "crossbreeding" mean when talking about interbreeding within a single population?

If humans get really good at space exploration then that new environment might have an impact that would cause evolutionary changes in the human structure.

But not on earth.

As land animals adopted to the ocean we might change drastically to adopt to outerspace, Mars or whatever. with evolution just about anything is possible. (I assume).

You assume incorrectly. Just consider the population of the earth. Now think about how many people could possible be sent into space to establish a colony on another planet. Now please explain how a small population on another planet could possibly affect the evolution of the billions of people on earth.

Plus, we can tamper with evolution once we know enough about our DNA, genes, and so forth.

No we can't. We can only hope to treat the results of non-beneficial mutations by gene therapy. We can't control evolution.

And as we become more bionic that can have a potential effect.

Really? How many bionic parts do you have? How are they relevant to evolution?

We are using devices for hearts and other organs, and for leg replacements and so forth.

Again, how is that relevant to evolution? Do you have any idea of what evolutionary theory is?

How would our genes pass on data about a fake heart to our off spring?

It can't. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually thought about what you were saying before you said it?

Or is my last question too ill-logical to concider.

Actually, it is meaningless. It shows no thought. How on earth could an artificial leg be passed on to an offspring. Did you actually think about what you said before you said it?

None the less, as we become half machine and half animal I would think that such an oddity would effect long term evolution, would it not?

No, it wouldn't. How is it that you don't understand that prosthetic devices are not inherited by offspring? A half machine/half animal organism, if able to reproduce, could only pass on the animal part.

But how?

Right! It can't happen.

Even scientists like to speculate,

But you're not a scientist and real scientists don't speculate about such nonsensical ideas. Scientists speculate about thing that may be possible. You speculate about things that are mindless.

so what'cha think?

If I tell you what I think, I'll get more warnings. I think that you didn't think. Your idea is ridiculous.

[triad]

What are you, gallo? Why do you feel the need to take the pretentious role in many circumstances?


Why did you reply to this thread if it is "nonsense'?


Although technosoul's ideas are not very well developed, you, gallo, have completely destroyed the entire purpose of a forum. This is to discuss and help develop other’s ideas. Did you think before you said what you've said? It looks like some arrogant, angry old man wrote everything you've posted.


Care to try again? Or should we all just expect the typical "I am better than you because I can post about how much I hate your thinking - or lack of".


Get over yourself, big guy. It's just a simple, silly question.










I'll reply to you later, Techno.

[gallo]

Quote by: triad What are you, gallo?

I am an evolutionary biologist.

Why do you feel the need to take the pretentious role in many circumstances?

There was no pretension. I am discussing my field of expertise. How sad that you don't seem to understand enough to recognise that.

Why did you reply to this thread if it is "nonsense'?

Must I point out that it is nonsense? It was represented as having something to do with evolutionary biology. It isn't even close.

Although technosoul's ideas are not very well developed,

Exactly! Based on no knowledge of what he pretends to discuss. Just plain wrong more than half of the time.

you, gallo, have completely destroyed the entire purpose of a forum.

Wow! The whole forum? I thought the purpose of this forum was discussion and debate. I didn't realize that I was so powerful that I could destroy the purpose of the whole forum.

This is to discuss and help develop other’s ideas.

I see. So the purpose of this forum is to discuss and develop ignorance? I did discuss the ideas presented. The difference is that I spoke from knowledge of the topic.

However, you agree with technobobble that because I lost my left arm below the elbow in Vietnam, that the idea that my children would be born with prosthetic left arms is an idea that is worthy of discussion and development. Are you sure that you want to support that idea? Let me assure you that both of my sons have normal left hands.

Did you think before you said what you've said?

Yes, I did. You, however, seem to be among the thoughtless.

It looks like some arrogant, angry old man wrote everything you've posted.

I am neither arrogant nor angry. I am old, quite experienced and very educated. My mother used to refer to me as her perpetual student because I spent so many years in academia, learning my field.

Care to try again? Or should we all just expect the typical "I am better than you because I can post about how much I hate your thinking - or lack of".

The only hate expressed here is yours. I am more than willing to try again if you would be so kind as to post a coherent statement of your position. Why should I expect my children to be born with prosthetic limbs? Why is such an idea more than sidesplitting laughable? Come on. Put up or shut up.

Get over yourself, big guy. It's just a simple, silly question.

And that was exactly my point. The question is silly. It has no merit and is not worthy of discussion. It doesn't destroy this board or even the intent of this board. The question shows a total ignorance of evolutionary biology.

I'll reply to you later, Techno.

I'm sure we'll all be looking forward to that erudite post. The blind leading the blind I suspect.

[Matt W]

Drop the insults, people.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[gallo]

And where did I insult anyone?

I seem to continually bump against the agenda of this board.

Please, answer the question.

[Technosoul]

[quote=gallo;484854]While you and newspaper reporters like to imagine that such predictions are possible, they aren't. Even when it comes to predicting changes in flu pathogens, evolutionary biologists miss about every 8 years (like they did this year). And that is a pretty easy prediction compared to predicting changes in the human species in the future.
Environment will have a role? Do you actually understand any of the mechanisms of evolution? Don't you understand that natural selection, one of the major mechanisms of evolution, is the response of populations of organisms to their environment? Certain genetic characteristics lend a differential reproductive advantage in specific environments. As a result, the population evolves.
Trends are meaningless. That presumes that there is some sort of target. Trends are actually an historical perspective. We see "trends" as we study changes in populations in changing environments. In stable environments, organisms tend to become quite stable and don't seem to change over long periods.
[quote]But could it be possible to evolve into a new speicies?

Doubtful, in the sense that you mean. The human population is just too mobile. A "new species," in the sense that you mean would require a lengthy reproductive isolation of a segment of the population. Certainly not. We can't stop gene flow, mutation, genetic drift and other mechanisms of evolution. We might expect that more people will never develop wisdom teeth. Because our modern diet is softer than that of our distant ancestors, jaws and the corresponding muscles are smaller. Thus, we tend to develop impacted lower wisdom teeth, and therefore, infections that prove fatal. Thus, it is an advantage if one does not develop wisdom teeth. How would that be a change? And what, exactly, does "crossbreeding" mean when talking about interbreeding within a single population? But not on earth. You assume incorrectly. Just consider the population of the earth. Now think about how many people could possible be sent into space to establish a colony on another planet. Now please explain how a small population on another planet could possibly affect the evolution of the billions of people on earth. No we can't. We can only hope to treat the results of non-beneficial mutations by gene therapy. We can't control evolution. Really? How many bionic parts do you have? How are they relevant to evolution? Again, how is that relevant to evolution? Do you have any idea of what evolutionary theory is? It can't. Wouldn't it be nice if you actually thought about what you were saying before you said it? Actually, it is meaningless. It shows no thought. How on earth could an artificial leg be passed on to an offspring. Did you actually think about what you said before you said it? No, it wouldn't. How is it that you don't understand that prosthetic devices are not inherited by offspring? A half machine/half animal organism, if able to reproduce, could only pass on the animal part. Right! It can't happen. But you're not a scientist and real scientists don't speculate about such nonsensical ideas. Scientists speculate about thing that may be possible. You speculate about things that are mindless. If I tell you what I think, I'll get more warnings. I think that you didn't think. Your idea is ridiculous.

I normally think about something for a moment and post it while the idea is still fresh in my mind, least it forget it by waiting too long.

A "real" scientist? Are you suggesting that we have "junk" scientists?

My point is that if the man and wife had a non-biological heart, and they mated, and passed on a gene, how would that gene know how to construct a heart? No data from the heart can be passed down if it is a machine and not flesh. The dna of the sperm and/or egg would have no real heart to collect data from to pass down to the next generation, especially if that situation was the same for their parents and grandparents. Confused and lacking DNA data about a real heart the cell concieved would have to evolve some sort of way to pump blood and it might evolve a new kind of heart different then a the standard brand. Or else no heart would be passed on and the newborn would be dead on arrival. eh? If we had fake wisdom teeth and no real ones then in time we would evolve no wisdom teeth? If we did not use real hearts then we might loose the ability to reproduce real hearts, eh. However, this has not happened yet and so the current evidence would not favor that.

Of course I know about evolution.

I never said that an isolated group in outerspace that evolved due to a new environment would cause millions of people on earth to evolve in the same manner. Assuming we still have millions of people on earth ( a speculation on your part) at that future date. For example, we have some turtles that have evolved ways to live in the ocean and some turtles have evolved ways to life on landmasses, in different environments. What made you think that all humans must evolve together the same way if they live in different environments? That idea is not outside of what is known about as scientific data.

The way I use the term "crossbreeding" is when one race breeds with another race to produce a "in-between" race. For example, white people and black people. Perhaps the two parent races would be less presidential then the more evolved in-between race? But I do not want to get political about this. (the idea just popped in my mind due to the random thought selection process - something I am experimenting with).
But in a more serious light change could be observed and change would represent an effect of evolution taking place.

You were somewhat flip flopping in your repley. First you said that evolution cannot happen in humans because we are moble and therefore do not become isolated in groups to generate differences (anymore) and then you said we cannot stop the flow of evolution. Well that is not logical if being mobel can stop humans from evolving. You better re-word or re-explain that contradiction.

Human thought has become a new factor relative to evolution, relative to humans. For the simple reason we can set goals that the (unthinking) natural process of evolution must adopt too. I might be a few years ahead of mainstream science in making that claim.

Example. due to our fast paced (new) environment we make a goal to eat fast food because saving time is good for our econimal survival. The brain knows not the difference between what we need for survival in a physical sense as compared to what we need to survive in our money dominated environment, it will just generate a process of adopting and changing no matter what the stress factor is, or what the advantage is.

As we eat more fast food we grow taller, because of that diet. That is a trend. How do you think little dinosaurs evolved into gaint dinosaurs? Partly due to diet. And how the body adopts to that diet which in a natural world would be part of it's environment.

Reaction = change, and a lot of change = an evolved speices. So trends are one of the clues we can use as evidence when mapping out predictions (projected results). It does not take a rocket scietist to know that if you eat a lot of doughnuts you could get fatter. Of course humans have evolved a prime-time shut off system to help prevent us from getting as large as dinosaurs, that were lacking that improvement.

And although I do not claim that any of these ideas represent a scientific theory they none the less give evidence that the questions are not outside of the boundries of science - as questioning is the nature of science and it's purpose (in part).

[Technosoul]

Quote by: triad What are you, gallo? Why do you feel the need to take the pretentious role in many circumstances? Why did you reply to this thread if it is "nonsense'? Although technosoul's ideas are not very well developed, you, gallo, have completely destroyed the entire purpose of a forum. This is to discuss and help develop other’s ideas. Did you think before you said what you've said? It looks like some arrogant, angry old man wrote everything you've posted. Care to try again? Or should we all just expect the typical "I am better than you because I can post about how much I hate your thinking - or lack of". Get over yourself, big guy. It's just a simple, silly question. I'll reply to you later, Techno.

Don't worry as he and I go around and around all the time about my ideas. His opening line was acturally his punch line, it would be very difficult to predict how the human race might evolve (in the future) and the question is some what mute because we have no data about the future by which to base an opinon on, if we want that opinon to sound scientifically correct.

I forgot to agree that it would be a difficult task to answer the question with our current knowledge.

Knowing this I suggested some possible things that might generate the evolutionary changes that I was asking about. I presented some evidence to support those suggested "causes" that might trigger evolution. In my opinion.

He wanted to debate those suggestions. Then in my next post I defended my reasoning and counter-attacked his reasons.

Trouble is he is used to reading scientific materials written by people in his field of interest. And my terminology is different then theirs and that irritates him. Plus he had to deal with kids as a teacher and trying to teach kids science in like "mission impossible" a lot of times. Somehow I think I might be causing him to have a flashback to that "war zone" if you know what I mean. So.... no big deal.

Actually if we talked about birdwatching we would be good friends. But this is a place for debate is it not?

Last week we both agreed to have two of my posting in this forum moved, and they were moved. But evolution is a science topic. If we had evolution in the past then that is evidence it will continue and so it is not unreasonable to wonder "in what way"? Planning ahead might be a smart thing to do as some evolution might be preventable if we determine we do not want to go in that direction, but first we must forecast what potential directions we might be heading towards.

Hope you will add your in-put. But the thread is not about Gallo or Technosoul, but about evolution. So I hope everyone keeps that in mind.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I normally think about something for a moment and post it while the idea is still fresh in my mind, least it forget it by waiting too long.

That's what I thought. You speak without any basis of knowledge.

A "real" scientist? Are you suggesting that we have "junk" scientists?

Yes, we do. And we have some who express flaky ideas without any thought or knowledge of the subject.

My point is that if the man and wife had a non-biological heart, and they mated, and passed on a gene, how would that gene know how to construct a heart? No data from the heart can be passed down if it is a machine and not flesh. The dna of the sperm and/or egg would have no real heart to collect data from to pass down to the next generation, especially if that situation was the same for their parents and grandparents. Confused and lacking DNA data about a real heart the cell concieved would have to evolve some sort of way to pump blood and it might evolve a new kind of heart different then a the standard brand. Or else no heart would be passed on and the newborn would be dead on arrival. eh?

I know you're not being serious because no one can possibly be that dumb. "No real heart to collect data from" and "confused and lacking DNA data about a real heart"? Hopefully, no one who lacks any real knowledge (like an 8 year old child) will read that and think that you are serious.

If we had fake wisdom teeth and no real ones then in time we would evolve no wisdom teeth? If we did not use real hearts then we might loose the ability to reproduce real hearts, eh.

Eh? If we did not use real hearts for what?

However, this has not happened yet and so the current evidence would not favor that.

Really? I can't imagine why you would say that. You have never been bothered by lack of evidence before, why start now?

Of course I know about evolution.

Another joke, right? You know about evolution and yet you post such nonsense as you have in this thread?

I never said that an isolated group in outerspace that evolved due to a new environment would cause millions of people on earth to evolve in the same manner. Assuming we still have millions of people on earth ( a speculation on your part) at that future date.

Hmmm. I speak about millions of people on earth in the future and you talk about dozens in outer space and I'm speculating while you are not. However, if this isn't what you said then you need to make yourself clear. Or possibly you were just spouting thoughtless nonsense again, or possibly it was another joke.

For example, we have some turtles that have evolved ways to live in the ocean and some turtles have evolved ways to life on landmasses, in different environments. What made you think that all humans must evolve together the same way if they live in different environments? That idea is not outside of what is known about as scientific data.

Now you are trying to think about scientific data? What about your idea of "confusing the DNA" because there is no heard to "gather" information from? Did you actually ever consider learning the scientific data in that case? Oh! I forgot. You were joking. Anyway, turtles have been evolving for more than 215 million years. I think that there is only a single population of humans. No segment of the human population has been reproductively isolated for sufficient time to evolve into a new species. Even less today because of the high level of gene flow between populations. Of course, since you "know about" evolution, there isn't any need to explain what gene flow is.

The way I use the term "crossbreeding" is when one race breeds with another race to produce a "in-between" race. For example, white people and black people.

How is that relevant? I guess you are a bit of a racist.

Perhaps the two parent races would be less presidential then the more evolved in-between race? But I do not want to get political about this. (the idea just popped in my mind due to the random thought selection process - something I am experimenting with).

Well that explains it. Speaking without thought again.

But in a more serious light change could be observed and change would represent an effect of evolution taking place.

First, that would depend on what kind of change, and second, "crossbreeding", as you call it, is not evolutionary change.

You were somewhat flip flopping in your repley.

What's a "repley"?

First you said that evolution cannot happen in humans because we are moble and therefore do not become isolated in groups to generate differences (anymore)

Don't you even pay attention to your own posts? I was replying to what you said about new species. I most definitely did not say that evolution in humans cannot happen. I said that because human populations are so mobile, in other words because they intermingle so much, that isolated populations do not form for extended periods of time (like hundreds of thousands of years) so humans cannot separate into different species. Too much gene flow between segments of the population.

...and then you said we cannot stop the flow of evolution.

Right. How strange that you claim to "know about" evolution and yet you didn't understand what I said. Our ability to control the mechanisms of evolution is very limited.

Well that is not logical if being mobel can stop humans from evolving. You better re-word or re-explain that contradiction.

Even though there was no contradiction but rather a lack of understanding on your part, nevertheless, I explained above.

Human thought has become a new factor relative to evolution, relative to humans.

It has?

For the simple reason we can set goals that the (unthinking) natural process of evolution must adopt too.

The "process" of evolution doesn't adopt any human goals. Honest. Such a statement only reveals how little you know. Humans can control the environment to a certain extent, but natural processes don't adopt goals.

I might be a few years ahead of mainstream science in making that claim.

You aren't even close to science, much less ahead.

Example. due to our fast paced (new) environment we make a goal to eat fast food because saving time is good for our econimal survival. The brain knows not the difference between what we need for survival in a physical sense as compared to what we need to survive in our money dominated environment, it will just generate a process of adopting and changing no matter what the stress factor is, or what the advantage is.

Obviously, since you admit that you don't think about what you write, you didn't think about that. I understand why that didn't make any sense.

As we eat more fast food we grow taller, because of that diet. That is a trend.

Actually, that is nonsense.

How do you think little dinosaurs evolved into gaint dinosaurs? Partly due to diet. And how the body adopts to that diet which in a natural world would be part of it's environment.

You're trying to be funny again, aren't you?

Reaction = change,

No it doesn't.

and a lot of change = an evolved speices.

What's a "speices"?

So trends are one of the clues we can use as evidence when mapping out predictions (projected results).

But as I explained to you before, trends are just our perceptions of the past. Evolution doesn't follow trends.

It does not take a rocket scietist to know that if you eat a lot of doughnuts you could get fatter.

And that is relevant to evolution how?

Of course humans have evolved a prime-time shut off system to help prevent us from getting as large as dinosaurs, that were lacking that improvement.

Really? How does that system work? What is the evidence for it?

And although I do not claim that any of these ideas represent a scientific theory they none the less give evidence that the questions are not outside of the boundries of science - as questioning is the nature of science and it's purpose (in part).

Actually, they are outside of science. Just because you can imagine something does not make it science. Before your questions can even get close to science, you have to have some understanding of science. Clearly, you do not.

Can you explain why certain breeds of dog are always born with a tail even though the tails are always cut off. Why doesn't the "dna" become confused since the adult dogs don't have tails to get information about tails from? Do you understand why your idea is so ridiculous?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo That's what I thought. You speak without any basis of knowledge. Yes, we do. And we have some who express flaky ideas without any thought or knowledge of the subject. I know you're not being serious because no one can possibly be that dumb. "No real heart to collect data from" and "confused and lacking DNA data about a real heart"? Hopefully, no one who lacks any real knowledge (like an 8 year old child) will read that and think that you are serious. Eh? If we did not use real hearts for what? Really? I can't imagine why you would say that. You have never been bothered by lack of evidence before, why start now? Another joke, right? You know about evolution and yet you post such nonsense as you have in this thread? Hmmm. I speak about millions of people on earth in the future and you talk about dozens in outer space and I'm speculating while you are not. However, if this isn't what you said then you need to make yourself clear. Or possibly you were just spouting thoughtless nonsense again, or possibly it was another joke. Now you are trying to think about scientific data? What about your idea of "confusing the DNA" because there is no heard to "gather" information from? Did you actually ever consider learning the scientific data in that case? Oh! I forgot. You were joking. Anyway, turtles have been evolving for more than 215 million years. I think that there is only a single population of humans. No segment of the human population has been reproductively isolated for sufficient time to evolve into a new species. Even less today because of the high level of gene flow between populations. Of course, since you "know about" evolution, there isn't any need to explain what gene flow is. How is that relevant? I guess you are a bit of a racist. Well that explains it. Speaking without thought again. First, that would depend on what kind of change, and second, "crossbreeding", as you call it, is not evolutionary change. What's a "repley"? Don't you even pay attention to your own posts? I was replying to what you said about new species. I most definitely did not say that evolution in humans cannot happen. I said that because human populations are so mobile, in other words because they intermingle so much, that isolated populations do not form for extended periods of time (like hundreds of thousands of years) so humans cannot separate into different species. Too much gene flow between segments of the population. Right. How strange that you claim to "know about" evolution and yet you didn't understand what I said. Our ability to control the mechanisms of evolution is very limited. Even though there was no contradiction but rather a lack of understanding on your part, nevertheless, I explained above. It has? The "process" of evolution doesn't adopt any human goals. Honest. Such a statement only reveals how little you know. Humans can control the environment to a certain extent, but natural processes don't adopt goals. You aren't even close to science, much less ahead. Obviously, since you admit that you don't think about what you write, you didn't think about that. I understand why that didn't make any sense. Actually, that is nonsense. You're trying to be funny again, aren't you? No it doesn't. What's a "speices"? But as I explained to you before, trends are just our perceptions of the past. Evolution doesn't follow trends. And that is relevant to evolution how? Really? How does that system work? What is the evidence for it? Actually, they are outside of science. Just because you can imagine something does not make it science. Before your questions can even get close to science, you have to have some understanding of science. Clearly, you do not. Can you explain why certain breeds of dog are always born with a tail even though the tails are always cut off. Why doesn't the "dna" become confused since the adult dogs don't have tails to get information about tails from? Do you understand why your idea is so ridiculous?

Okay, you made a lot of statements that I lack knowledge about evolution or that you think I am trying to be a joker, a prankster who comes to this "sicence forum" to distrut and to turn off potential people who would otherwise post here that are interested supporting mainstream theories already established by science. Not the case at all.

Knowledge becomes a part of one's memory and is not something you need think about before speaking, it would just automatically "be there" as an influence for any idea that might ocur in your mind, a kind of automated peer review happens in a flash via that dormet knowledge stored in our memory.

Certian breeds of dogs? What about the breeds with short tails? Did the "wag it or loose it" theory apply to them? Assuming that all breeds of dogs came from the first dog then you must have a reason why some have short tails and some do not. Or why a bobcat does not have a tial as long as a mountian lion. Are you not suggesting that certian dogs do not have tails? Why did evolution chop off those tails?
(using simple terminology here). Simple answer is the word "need". A human does not need a tail and a monkey does (for example), the monkey needs or uses it to maintain balance to to hang from trees with, we are earthbound most of the time and do not need a tail as most other primates do.

But you make a good point about breeders who keep chopping tails off of show dogs, and yet the puppies grow new tails. Two reasons for that popped into my mind. 1. The hobby of show dogs is fairly new, so it would take more time for that practice to translate into an evolutionary change. How long have they been chopping tails, how long does it take for an activity to be repeated to notice a evolutionary effect of that activity? Do you have a match in those timelines? No you do not. It needs more study so go back and do a long term study to get the answer. Here are my opinons.

2. The DNA data is not just stored in the tail but might be spreadout through the whole body. Each cell, in each part of the body, might contain all the information for the formulation of the whole body, heart, body, and tail. Any sample of the DNA could be used to clone the whole body, or mixed with other DNA to create a new individual in their totality.

3. Now a germ with one or just a few cells could evolve faster then a dog that has millions of cells. So timelines could change depending on the complexity of the creature in question.

(sidenote: Notice how the stress of your question caused me to evolve more ideas in self defense).

4. Now from another perspective. Because we use prescirption drugs we do not use our immune system as much to fight off infections, etc. That subsitution means that our immune system becomes weaker while the micro-organisems continue to evolve for defense from the drugs used. (aka flu shot). We are basically making our own immune systems a nearly useless part of our body, if it was possible to continue that practice for thousands of years then it is possible for our DNA to loose any knowledge about the immune system that could be passed on to the next generation. Which would be simular to loosing a tail that is not being used. Or we would evolve another way to defend our self from germs, which is unlikely as the drugs would not make that "need" ocur. The big reason we would not have time to evolve or to loose our immune system is because the drugs would have to be so powerful that not only would they kill the germs but us as well (due to our weakening state).

The fake heart is like those designer drugs as it replaces a natural part of our body. It is unlikely you would have a family tree with a record of them all having fake hearts spanning thousands of years. Or flu shots for that matter. But in principle the theory stands. It would be possible over many years for a whale to loose all evidence of having feet, the same would be true for dogs if their DNA was not getting info that a tail is still needed. So in principle if our DNA learned that the human heart was no longer needed to pump blood then that information would become like a forgotten song within our DNA and not passed down. And our body would learn to be like a parasite (spelling check) that rides piggy back on technology for survival. If I would speculate and make up a stat (junk science) I might claim that there is a 99.99 percent chance of that not happening. Leaving open a wee window for possibilty. Although I would not expect any major changes due to the use of aritifical organs and limbs, I would expect some minor effect to appear if time allows.

By using a trend as evidence I will state that I am not kidding or cracking a joke with the above post, in advance of you asking. Also, using a trend as evidence of a future happening, and before you say it, I will state that I have no idea if what I wrote is also written about in any of your science books, or not.

I will return later to address the other remarks in your above message.

[LuDaCrIs]

Quote by: gallo I am an evolutionary biologist.

Given this, and I am not really sure about whether or not you're also a bioengineer, how is it you failed to recognize the progression of technology?

Haven't you heard, as a biologists, that genetic manipulation and genetic technology will enable us to render natural selection completely useless? The time scales we are talking about, with regards to technology, is on a much smaller scale than natural evolution. What I mean by this is that natural selection takes much longer to significantly change our species, with respect to technology that progresses exponentially. In terms of say, 1000 years from now, the effect of 'technological genetic change' will grossly outperform the natural selection process.

[Technosoul]

In response also to the remarks by Gallo I see no difference in tying to look far into the future by useing our current knowledge then looking far into the past to try to understand our orgins. We cannot time travel to do ether for absolute confirmation. Why is trying to create a theory about the human race as it would be in the future any different then a theory about Big Bang, or how life started on this planet?

[Court463]

Thats a good point, I think its because something in the future has no data to base it on so its just considered a wild guess about what is going to happen. So its going to be pretty unrelaible with no data to back it up.

I find some of the original ideas in this thread intresting, Like the heart thing. If both parents have synthetic hearts where will the offspring get the genetic coding to make an organic heart, while that depends where the parents got the synthetic hearts like if they were born with real hearts and had them replaced then their reproductive cells will still have the genes to make a heart even though the organism doesn't have one, it originally did. But if both parents were born without hearts for some reason, then it may be a recessive trait and the offspring may inherrit the domminat trait of having a heart from the grandparents, but if several generations in a row didn't have a heart it is probabal that the offspring will not have a heart, even thought that seems completly illogical because we need our hearts where as we don't need our wisdom teeth. But hypothetically if such a thing did happen we would have to rely on our technology for our survival, thus the synthetic hearts.

[Technosoul]

Now I am adding to my above postings to continue my response to the Gallo post.

Crossbreeding would fall under the science of geneology which is used in harmony with the theroy of evolution. It has nothing to do with rasism unless the data is missused for that purpose.

Evolution simply put is descent with modification. A lot is involved but I am not going to post a whole book here.

You asked "how does that system work".

There is fosil evidence to support the claim that dinosaurs would grow bigger and bigger while they were alive, they did not have what is commonly called a bio-clock that would stop them from growing bigger when they reached a point in adulthood. Whre as we can observe that humans, and most animals I know of nowadays. will grow bigger and bigger from infant and then stop growing once they reach a certain age. With exception to putting on some extra fat. But with dinosaurs getting larger did not represent a threat to their healh or ability to move aound. Even elephants will grow so big and then stop because growth harmones shut off production as they reach a certain age. It seems that dinosaur harmones did not stop and so they kept expanding their size.
(note: fat is not due to harmone activated growth as far as I know).

As far as any comments made about my knowledge of science, or that suggested that I was joking around. I have no comment and do not feel it serves the best interest of this debate to do so, beyond what I already posted above.

If I misspelled a word, don't ask just speculate on what I intended.

[Court463]

I liked your disclaimer at the bottom of your post

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Court463 Thats a good point, I think its because something in the future has no data to base it on so its just considered a wild guess about what is going to happen. So its going to be pretty unrelaible with no data to back it up. I find some of the original ideas in this thread intresting, Like the heart thing. If both parents have synthetic hearts where will the offspring get the genetic coding to make an organic heart, while that depends where the parents got the synthetic hearts like if they were born with real hearts and had them replaced then their reproductive cells will still have the genes to make a heart even though the organism doesn't have one, it originally did. But if both parents were born without hearts for some reason, then it may be a recessive trait and the offspring may inherrit the domminat trait of having a heart from the grandparents, but if several generations in a row didn't have a heart it is probabal that the offspring will not have a heart, even thought that seems completly illogical because we need our hearts where as we don't need our wisdom teeth. But hypothetically if such a thing did happen we would have to rely on our technology for our survival, thus the synthetic hearts.

Good points... well taken.

Now the whales apparently developed a new way of breathing that is somewhat different then what they used when they were still land animals. (swamp critters).

That change had to happen before they could live completely as ocean animals, and not like a seal or whatever. If environmental changes forced such a transformation then logically I would think that the changes did not take thousands of years, because from what I gather climate changes happen rather quickly.

We might have such a thing as rapid evolution as well as long-term evolution. I do not know if science has concidered that as a possible yet. (other then when it comes to micro-organizems such as those that cause flu or AIDS.)

When I said "confused" I was suggesting that perhaps the DNA would evolve another way to pump blood through the body that is of a different design then that of our current heart. Or a different kind of heart (altered design).

Hmm? We might evolve a heart that can filter out what causes heart attacks, or harmones that act like Oat Meal to thin out the blood to prevent heart attacks?
Now I will make a radical statement - evolution is all about our DNA learning new tricks to help us survive. DNA is like an Intelligent Designer with it's eye on the future. ( I am going to get into trouble for saying that - perhaps ). DNA learns from experience and feed-back from what is happening in the body.

But I just got that idea a moment ago and so it needs more time for confirmation purposes.