To debate the existence of evolution in one form or another would be sheer idiocy to such a degree that it would be impossible. Namely because any person holding a belief that evolution does not occur would not have undergone the process of change which leads one from conception to birth to language acquisition. So we can safely take evolution as a fact. As to whether we come from monkeys or not, well that's immaterial to this discussion, so we'll leave that one for more daring bloggers.
What is proposed herein is that we're growing up as a species. This growing up, just like growing up as an individual, comes with certain new freedoms. We can drive, vote, drink, smoke, have wild, steamy sex, and all sorts of empowering freedoms. That's as individuals. As a species the list is a bit cooler.
Let's touch the concept of the evolution of a species. Let's suspend religious bias for a second and adopt a scientific bias: let's say that sometimes, conditions prompt the adoption of new traits and abilities in a species/population. This could be as extreme as new sensory apparatuses or as minor as height differences. Whatever the case, sometimes new 'things' are helpful to survival and existence in general.
So we're now a bit more grown up. We have technology, the sweet driver's license equivalent on the species level. This takes the form of genetic engineering, electrical engineering, and chemical engineering. Interestingly enough, these three major areas govern most of the functioning of our bodies: genes, electrical impulses, and chemical signals. Would it be possible to use this knowledge to assist in our 'evolution'? Most definitely.
This could take the form of auxiliary ways to get energy (engineer chloroplasts?) or information (new sensory apparatuses capable of thermal or infrared vision?). It could also do much more interesting things. It's something like being proficient with Linux... when you have the source code to your operating system (and you understand the pieces... so beware), you can do all kinds of neat things. How about gills along with lungs?
Personalization is the trend. It'll be interesting to see what kind of choices people opt for.
I'd go for camouflage (like some octopuses), gills, infrared, ultraviolet, and thermal vision. And it might be kind of interesting to have a tunable ability to perceive electromagnetic radiation of other wavelengths. Sounds bizarre, but there's no reason to believe that it won't be available within the next couple of decades.
i like this post. Worded excellent. Great Ideas.
Why can't we just fly now? :)
+mspin
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/weezyf
Though i like your blog i have a few questions
You know what chloroplasts, gills, and such are
but why do you not go into the real scientific makeup of the theory of evolution
(chromosomes, nitrogenous bases, and enzymes)
The blog seems to stick to the logic behind the Theory but when you are delivering a Evolutionary Speech you must "Blind them with Science" (song reference sorry i do that)
and though you speak of evolutionary development (which is an awesome what if) to be able to conceive any dramatic changes in the next couple of decades is farfetched at best. though i can see gills coming faster than wings and only because we have those already as an early embryo.
But i do enjoy how you boiled evolution down to things we do in this day and age.
Saint O Nothin' Says
Always go FORWARD, going straight will get you no where!
-Greenday "Jaded"
The actual implementation was out of the scope of the original post. It's analogous to mentioning that someone could write an object-recognition algorithm without going into the details of lisp code, machine architecture, electricity, atomic structure, and the make up of sub-atomic particles which make the flow of electricity possible which makes it possible to design circuits which make it possible to design general computing machines which (through properties of magnetism or material memory) can have physical storage devices attached to them which can execute pre-written instructions in the form of increasingly higher level programming languages. I'd also have to mention that input devices can be created to actually place the code on a storage medium (and, for good measure that display devices can be created out of an array of addressable chemical elements which can produce 'pixels' of color which serve as physical representations of an abstract 'screen' which is held in the memory of this computer).
In other words, I was dealing with the possibilities under the assumption that the machinery already existed. However, if you'd like a quick treatment of the 'science', I'll oblige:
Nitrogenous bases serve as the smallest(*) building block of DNA. They're something like the 1s and 0s of binary. Through specific combinations of binary digits (bits), we can represent other things. For the sake of this example, let's say that a basic unit of information is a grouping of 8 bits. This allows us to code for exactly 256 unique things--remember, just using a grouping of 8 yes/no values. In the case of DNA, we use these bases instead of bits. Each base has a possible value of A, T, G, or C and the basic information is a 3-base codon. This gives us the possiblity for expressing 64 unique things using 3 spaces with 4 possible values each. So yay, we've discovered that we can encode things with DNA much like sequences of binary digits.
(*)technically the 'smallest building block of DNA' would be whatever sub, sub, sub atomic particle they're currently researching, but we'll take the macroscopic systems interaction approach and say that we don't care a lot about the actual makeup of the base pairs (or the makeup of the things that make up the base pairs (or ...)).
Much like bits in a group can code for a character, an address, or even (with enough of them) a function in a program, DNA can code for little molecular analogues to programs: proteins. Much like how a virtual machine/interpreter would read byte code, Ribosomes read DNA-code and manufacture specific proteins based upon the value of the 3-base groupings. Chains of these proteins make enzymes much like how chains of statements and operations make a computer program or a function.
So there's the beginning of it... you can, in essence, write programs using genetic code and have them executed as specific functions... although protein interaction is an incredibly complicated matter, that's the theory.
Sorry but you have to cut the crap the entire 1st paragraph was you pulling the smart card and pulling shit that dosen't even have anything to do with this conversation.
"Ribosomes read DNA-code and manufacture specific proteins based upon the value of the 3-base groupings..."-tehnetdauncgkled
i must have learned this in basic terms but i did understand this and i was just inquiring why you did not want to add anything about the makeup of evolution (sorry if i some how offened you)
So Evolution can essentially be a succesful mistake where the enzymes produced/created something that was different from normal for example horse neck length that seemed to be useful to the species therefor took, and as the species mated and reproduced this genetic code the code would become inbred in the species.
Quick question couldn't it be that humans never evolve account of the shallowness ot the race itself. (no one seems to want to reproduce with the freak who evolved (just kidding)).
Saint O Nothin' Says
Always go FORWARD, going straight will get you no where!
-Greenday
Hey, sorry if it came off a little strong--it was more meant to be a playfully sarcastic example of the spiral of complexity which comes from the "why didn't you mention ". I wasn't offended at all--quite the opposite, I thought it was a good question.
Right, like you say, there can be a mistake somewhere in the process. On the DNA end it can come from either a read or write error. On the protein end, one of those little things can misbehave or act on a false -negative or -positive match. It's especially interesting when you consider that DNA holds the code for making things which are responsible for modifying, copying, and executing DNA. In this light, DNA is a self-modifying language... but that's a different topic.
And, like you hint at, a 'mistake' isn't really a negative or a positive thing (inherently)--it's just something which wasn't intended. Dropping a box is a mistake. Dropping a box with something fragile can be a 'bad' mistake (not in degree, but in effect). Dropping an empty box and discovering a 100 dollar bill when bending down to pick it up could be considered a 'good' mistake. Similar things happen in biology. A mistake could lead to better vision, a different digestive system, higher brain function, or, conversely, it could lead to things which are detrimental (faulty immune system, physical defects which are incredibly unattractive, etc).
As for the shallowness-slowing-down-evolution... well, there's a lot of merit to that. This, of course, would keep radical evolution at a decreased rate. There may, however, be another force at work... the gradual and subtle evolution of the species based upon an inherent sense of 'beauty' which isn't defined as a purely physical blue-eyes-blond-hair sort of preference, but beauty in the sense of some sort of genetic selection. Like how animals are guided by chemical signals, we may pick up cues from our partners which trigger a sense of beauty based on factors which we've evolved to notice as beneficial to survival.
What the original post was really trying to convey was the new role of intelligence in evolution. Namely, through evolution we've been given incredible creative abilities and mastery over tools. Before evolution happened through accidental mutations. We're approaching a point where evolution has evolved a a mechanism which can alter its own path. Sound familiar? Sounds a bit like the DNA example... a code which produces other things to alter itself. :-)
ohhh yeah i can follow you there and sorry for taking a bit of offense to your post (i make myself lood like an ass a lot). your 4th paragraph i found interesting.
That nature would over power the shallowness of an individual much like pleasure and pain drives. It would be interesting to see that paly out in the long run when you have sominthing natural take that much of an effect....
Saint O Nothin' Says
Always go FORWARD, going straight will get you no where!
-Greenday "Jaded"