Man is Evolving into...

[timothyu]

So the question is: what do we want to evolve into next?

Whatever military finds convenient. Ironic considering it will no doubt be a physical change considering the military mentality hasn't evolved since the stone age.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Whatever military finds convenient. Ironic considering it will no doubt be a physical change considering the military mentality hasn't evolved since the stone age.

Why do you think any physical change in humanity would be military led?

 

[Shemjaza]

Humans have various tech fixes that currently enable pretty much everyone to achieve reproductive success.

So, barring catastrophe, human physical evolution will mainly be driven by genome engineering.

So the question is: what do we want to evolve into next?... and what engineered changes are biologically sustainable?

I figure the changes that first appeal to the very rich who can fund the research then become cheap enough to be a viable product for mass consumption.

So, health, longevity, particular standards of beauty.

Whatever military finds convenient. Ironic considering it will no doubt be a physical change considering the military mentality hasn't evolved since the stone age.

That's unfair! We're at least bronze age marauders.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's unfair! We're at least bronze age marauders.

... I'll be honest, I kind of want to go off on how since we're now able to fight wars outside the campaign season, supply trains are now a constant, soldiers have route marches, planned physical fitness regimes, and also the technological advancements puts us heavily above 'bronze age marauders'... but I won't.

 

[Shemjaza]

... I'll be honest, I kind of want to go off on how since we're now able to fight wars outside the campaign season, supply trains are now a constant, soldiers have route marches, planned physical fitness regimes, and also the technological advancements puts us heavily above 'bronze age marauders'... but I won't.

All extremely fair.

To be honest, I in general agree that military and defense are major drivers of technological development... but I do not think human auto-evolution and genetic engineering in general are particularly good examples.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

All extremely fair.

To be honest, I in general agree that military and defense are major drivers of technological development... but I do not think human auto-evolution and genetic engineering in general are particularly good examples.

I do think that, if anything, any advances in human driven evolution and genetic engineering, heck, even stuff like biotics, would be largely driven by socio-economic changes. Aesthetics would be more driven by stuff like the military, and then said changes would be adapted by the military to suit future battlefields (*cough*spartanprojectfromHALO*cough*), but I can't really see the military from any country being the driving force and leading the way in said advances.

 

[timothyu]

Why do you think any physical change in humanity would be military led?

For the most part, at least on this continent, anything good that comes along, someone finds a way to weaponize it

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For the most part, at least on this continent, anything good that comes along, someone finds a way to weaponize it

But being weaponized is not the same as man-forced evolution being led by the military. While there's not denying the fact that conflict and the military has helped advance science, that's not the same thing as something being weaponized.
If anything, especially in the West, I definitely see anything to do with gene-altering being lead more by socioeconomics and also what ever is considered 'the' aesthetic of the time. Like hair colour, eye colour, etc.

 

[timothyu]

If anything, especially in the West, I definitely see anything to do with gene-altering being lead more by socioeconomics and also what ever is considered 'the' aesthetic of the time. Like hair colour, eye colour, etc.

So endurance, strength, extreme capabilities etc. don't count?

 

[Shemjaza]

So endurance, strength, extreme capabilities etc. don't count?

More from billionaire who wants his son to be an ubermench not sinking billions into replicant slave soldiers.

There are cheaper more efficient ways to turn money/research into military power then genetic engineering.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So endurance, strength, extreme capabilities etc. don't count?

And athletes wouldn't want those extra capabilities?

 

[timothyu]

And athletes wouldn't want those extra capabilities?

Certainly, but who do you think will fund it first?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Certainly, but who do you think will fund it first?

Private sector most likely.

I'm sorry, but there's not a lot you can say that's gonna make me think that the very first genetic manipulation of humans is going to be done by the military or is going to be military led.

 

[timothyu]

I'm sorry, but there's not a lot you can say that's gonna make me think that the very first genetic manipulation of humans is going to be done by the military or is going to be military led.

I guess that is why some are super powers and others not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess that is why some are super powers and others not.

... what? No. Having the largest arsenals and armed forces makes a country a super power.

And that is still not something that can convince me of your claim that any alteration of human genetics will be military led.

 

[timothyu]

... what? No. Having the largest arsenals and armed forces makes a country a super power.

And that is still not something that can convince me of your claim that any alteration of human genetics will be military led.

So creating super humans would not add to that arsenal? Interesting that Olympians are not from the military but then of what use would a company of men be that could only run a 4 minute mile or create the perfect dive. They would have to have multiple capabilities and this is where genetic modification would come in handy. Besides, military usually gets the greatest funding in these super nations, whether openly or covertly. But by all means, that is my opinion with no need to convince you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So creating super humans would not add to that arsenal? Interesting that Olympians are not from the military but then of what use would a company of men be that could only run a 4 minute mile or create the perfect dive. They would have to have multiple capabilities and this is where genetic modification would come in handy. Besides, military usually gets the greatest funding in these super nations, whether openly or covertly. But by all means, that is my opinion with no need to convince you.

It probably would add to the arsenal, but the trade off is not really great. Why do you think the standard rifles for both the US and Russia have remained virtually unchanged for over half a century? While the armed forces get the most funding, they also won't waste the money on prototypes if they don't deliver want they want.
So if the genetic manipulation that's military led screws up, horribly, then the military will abandon it and forget it.
BUT if the genetic manipulation in the private sector works out, THEN the military's gonna want a taste of it.

 

[timothyu]

BUT if the genetic manipulation in the private sector works out, THEN the military's gonna want a taste of it.

Agreed. They like to take what is not theirs or at least work for those with that mentality.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Agreed. They like to take what is not theirs or at least work for those with that mentality.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[SLP]

If you believe in macroevolution, what do you think man will evolve into next?

Like this thread. Starts out with what appears to be a sincere question...

Is it that you actually want to see what people think? Or is it.... just the same old, same old?

I certainly can't answer your 'how many kinds' question... but, you know the simple answer to the rest of your question is that (no offense to anyone) it may be that most creationists haven't traditionally been into the biological pursuit of things. That doesn't make it right, but it is also argued that many of the conclusions drawn from that pursuit aren't right either.


And, what man can give a credible response for God’s work? I just 'believe everything was created' and there is 'insufficient scientific evidence for macroevolution' in the process.​

And so on. You "just believe" that creation is real and you "just believe" there is not enough evidence for macroevolution. Why? What is your argument? What is your evidence?

Because, well, you just do.

In this (or any of the other threads I perused) thread you never once offered evidence for either of those things you "just believe", you just assert it in a few different ways, often times combined with snark and condescension. At best, you link to something that you likely first read about on some creationist website, and just reiterate/rephrase in some way what was mentioned there.

Like where you write:

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

“The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.”

More rationale for the possibility that God created in quick bursts by divine intervention. Darwin (and the concept of macroevolution) led scientists, and their desire for a natural explanation for life, down a rabbit hole that they are unwilling to back out of, and only dig deeper.​

That paper was cited here:

Study: Species are “compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”

And the UD folks really liked it, so they also cited it again here:

Adam and Eve reappear in a recent study

and other creationist types cited it here:

Is It Becoming Safer to Doubt Darwin? | CEH

and here:

Most Species the “Same Age” with No “In-Between” Species

and here:

Almost all species on Earth today came into being at about the same time, scientific study declares

and here:

QCCSA - Quad City Creation Science Association - QCCSA.org

and... Well, you get the picture. Which of those did you get it from? Or some other creationist site?

Regardless, I had to laugh at how overcome with glee all of those creationist/right-wing extremists were to read the news release. Which makes me believe that they didn't read it either, just relied on that one quote, and I am sure none of them read the actual paper:

https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckle_Thaler Human Evo V33 2018 final_1.pdf

Of interest, the authors felt the need to put this disclaimer on the article:

Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or "Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events.​

Guess they had seen the wave of creationist misappropriation it had generated. The science itself was interesting, but their conclusions are specious - they drew conclusions based on a single mitochondrial gene. And apparently there were some questions about their methodology as well - this paper was discussed here on CF a little over a year ago - pitabread found this:

Did All Species Arise about 200,000 Years Ago?

One of the comments there:

"So, to be clear, this seems to be very problematic study, with results that are wildly overstated. They have a provocative title, but are no way able to justify it."​

One of the comments in the original thread in which this article was first discussed on CF:

sfs: "I considered the article. The description is a breathlessly overexcited report about a deeply flawed -- I would go so far as to say hopelessly flawed -- study. I'm not surprised that the original study appeared in a lower tier journal."​

Side note - isn't it interesting what one can find using the internet...
Do you think your creationist/conservative source read the actual paper itself? Did YOU?
Or the criticisms? Almost certainly not.

Sorry to have so belabored one seemingly minor point - but this is really a trend among creationists, this game of telephone wherein one creationist sees something in a news release, misinterprets it, or misrepresents it, or puts a crazy spin on it and writes a blog post about it, and by the end of the week, 200 creationist websites have re-posted or written their own versions of some crazed, breathless proclamation that "Darwin is dead!!!" And a month after that, 1000 creationists have paraphrased what THOSE creationists wrote on various discussion forums.

It is almost comical to witness.

And then we have you - starter of seemingly legitimate threads, but whom can only maintain the facade for so long.