|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
I have always wondered what would be the ultimate point in the evolution continuum? Will that ultimate species be eating foods just like us? or will it be absorbing energy directly from an energy source like Sun Or will it be able to create self sustaining energy for itself? Will it find a way to expand its life span for extremely long period of time like the immortals (either through evolution or genetical engineering) or will it live a normal life like us? Will it be able to create artificial advanced life forms by means of science or ultimate knowledge? Will it be able to acquire the qualities & ethics that we mark today as perfect state or the qualities of God?
As per my view, I think the ultimate species will take a sit much closer to what we call God today. What are ur views? Dont forget that it may take unlimited time to reach this ultimate point...
I think we are already godlike. we are just don't know it yet.
Since evolution is outward versus revolution -cyclical or circular, measured by spans of time/place, then the ultimate would be simplicity. The finest point A, expanding to capacity, then deflating to finest point B.
if we ever reach that point, given our colective self distructive bent, i believe we would probably recognize what we found, as surely we are now, as a species very close to perfection in that our faults are surely our own reasons for being. by that i mean for instance; without the need to find sustinance etc what would we do with our time? i believe we already have within all of us the potential for whatever definition of perfection one might imagine. to live, to learn, to enjoy.
there is no continuum. There is no point.
we're just things that are following the laws of physics.
I've written an entire "hub" on the subject of your question.
if you'd like to read it, here it is:
Existence ... Is ... Being !
There is no Evolution Preceding any Evolution ... just the "sense" of a past.
Humans are the Zenith of Creation ... in every sense of the term.
The only way for their to be an 'ultimate point' to evolution would be if all change in the Universe ceased and nothing ever happened again. Even small environmental changes will have an evolutionary effect. Every organism must ultimately evolve or die. The existence of any specific organism is, over time, ultimately futile
The whole idea of an ultimate point in evolution can only refer to some pseudo-religions idea of a purposeful evolution in which things keep improving until they reach some perfect state. If you are talking about actual evolution, as described by science, then all existence is ultimately futile.
Can u explain in which pseudo-religion we have the idea of an ultimate point in evolution?
Also, what do u mean by actual evolution?
I meant pseudo-religious, sorry, and by definition the pseudo bit means 'not an actual' religion. What I meant was that Darwinian evolution as it is described in science (the 'actual evolution') is not moving towards an end point. Various philsophers have put forwards alternative ideas of evolution, inspired by their religious beliefs, in which the world has some kind of purpose and evolution always leads to things getting objectively 'better', but there is no evidence of that.
I was being tongue in cheek with the whole 'existence is futile' bit, but no organism can remain static in a changing environment, so there can be no ultimate end point.
Well someones being quite the negative nancy!
I'm most inclined to believe in the Einsteinian belief of pure energy becoming the most highest form of life. Who knows, maybe those plasma clouds really do have feelings?
Or perhaps it would be like the "Q Continuum" type of deal.
In the near future, though, expect to see medical research continue to flourish as well as the study and applications of cybernetics and nanotechnology.
Soon enough, given 25 to 50 years time the consumer demand for these products will have hit such a fast track that cybernetic enhancements and retrovirus-based bodymods will be so common I suspect it may spark some weird racial tension.
According to the scholar Fukuyama, mankind's history ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall in the 80's. I think that as humans, are evolution is static. the next evolution will be manmade, through either genetic manipulation or technology based implants. Bluetooth headsets now sit in the ear like hearing aids. how long before both of these devices are inserted into the head. how long until mankind is capable of accessing the internet using only their minds. The other option I foresee for evolution would be extended space travel. Time in space and breeding off planet would force human beings to evolve.
hmm...what about autism and its sudden rise. Don't you think that is transition to something else. we are evolving at the same rate, even faster. actual studies, published in discover magazine.
Who's that scholar Fukuyama ? Very short minded ! I think History is a continuum. 300 years from know, what we're living today will be in history books. History will cease the day we cease to exist.
Ok, so u mean its cyclical, ryt? After certain stage, we again turn into monkeys?
Plausible but dissapointing I mean, Who wants to turn into a monkey?
No one will turn into a monkey. Evolution goes forward. Always.
Not necessarily. Aren't whale flippers devolved hands? Seems like I heard they were once land animals that returned to the sea.
That doesn't mean they didn't evolve. Or do you think that sea animals are less intelligent ?
You are correct, just as ants are land dwelling wasps.
If ants didn't improve from being wasps , then they involved instead of evolving.
In few words
Evolution: a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) :
Well, I think they were a reaction to circumstances. Ants have evolved a number of species, and generally the queen retains wings. Although they're often later removed by the queen or her worker drones.
It's also interesting to note some ants reproduce asexually or through cloning...which brings up the question, why did sexual evolution take over anyway?
Of course, if we didn't have it I suppose our mating rituals would be either much more messy or nonexistent. And that would just be boring.
Many animals are asexual - an amoeba for instance is, and very successfully, too. Is it possible that sexual reporduction resulted in quicker evolution and the ability to rapidly fill more ecological niches? Amoeba's have filled the same niche for generations while the descendents of early sexual mammals have diversified, to say the least.
No - they just picked a different environment to live in. Animals evolve to survive in their environment, not to be "improved" in some undefined way.
Surviving in their environment is improving LOL
I think we're all just splitting hairs, then. And if we're going to do that, it may as well be for a rabbit stew.
People that survive to this environment are the ones who will be apt to procreate other humans, who will live without problems in it. That's evolution. And it stops when we are no more able to cope with the environment.
we are no more...
we evolved from reptiles...so you can say we are still those snakes but we evolved which makes us something else. Something is evolving from us that's for sure. but will it still be us or will we die out?
But we're still evolving. Compare someone from the 19 century, with anybody now. Physically and mentally we have evolved to survive in this environment. Even food habits have changed.
yeah, but when we evolve so much would that still be us?
Why not ? If we still have a human body and mind, it still be us.
so, we are neanderthals, birds, snakes, fish and zygotes?
Like I suggested earlier, I think we'll find the human species successfully diverge in numerous ways through self driven means such as genetics.
We are what we are now. And what you state are only theories.
have you studied the human brain, i have. it's a zoo in there.
I agree, there's little doubt we can easily see the reptilian brain we evolved from. Not to mention we have lungs INSIDE the body, or have lungs at all. And eyes. And, you know, limbs and stuff.
we evolved from self-organizing PUFA chains...is that still us? all life gathers and organizes first as communities and they become one organism.
protein organizing into complex functions...yes
That human brains don't differ much with animal brains doesn't mean we come from there. Animal and human brain tissue are similar, but what it achieves is totally different.
that my dear is a fallacy.
altruism has been observed in bonobos. the only difference is speech...broca's brain and wernick's area. recent additions to the monkey machine.
Are you suggesting parallel evolution is a dominant strategy in nature? That when the first eye was created, it was amongst other species that gave birth to a similar evolution at the same time?
i think she is not suggesting that but snakes are still there and we have a snake inside our heads.
I understand your conclusions, but the empirical evidence that you suggest that it's only because the "tissue" is similar in other animals it doesn't mean they come from the same place. Unfortunately, there's really no evidence that supports this that I can come to mind with.
However, when you remember the concept of "stem cells" and how everything is generally just a bunch of DNA until conception/reproduction, then the idea of slowly evolving over time is much more logical than the latter.
You're mysterious. If you would like to spell out your own theories, I would be much obliged. I'm sure no one will attack.
I find balancing skepticism with an open mind to be most fun. I do believe in evidence I see myself, but I won't deny having a spiritual streak.
But that makes me sound like a hokey new ager.
I can't disagree, though am also aware of the scientific possibility it's baked into our brains. Either way, I've experienced enough interesting times to be curious.
Proteins, atoms, molecules, minerals, micro-organisms...the dance of life is complex, vast, and eloquent. But I can understand others questioning evolution, and it's for sure a fun little imagination exercise. The very fact all of the information kept in two intertwined crystaline structures that is not noticeable to the naked eye is plain fascinating. Knowing that they only good for so many proteins, gives us the ability to know just how simple yet complex things can be.
I'm not worried about the attacks. But it's too long to explain in a post. And besides I really don't have the time. I'm late already, engaged in this very interesting debate. I'm sorry but I must leave. Maybe another time.
and what would that be ?
Maybe you're so evolved that you can read my thoughts ?
other than explaining your theory, is that wrong to ask him not to pressure you?
It was a joke. Maybe you evolved to a plane without sense of humour ! LOL
humour is about the unexpected. i find most things predictable.
I've no problem understanding evolution, I know it quite well, thank you.
Again, not necessarily. Both of the examples of whales and ants "chose" to survive in a different environment from what they had in the past. Wasps are still there, flying around - to say ants are "improved" because they moved into the ground is comparing apples and oranges. Different, yes. Improved, no.
chose another environment to improve. If not, it's called involution.
yes, "improve" in terms of survival but not necessarily in terms of complexity.
well, thanks at least for not comparring me to an amoeba
Just look at that hair style and clothing, not to mention the slightly off technicolor.
It happened before. The Boskops had a very large brain, they had a religion they buried this very important member of the tribe facing the sun. They looked like children with larger heads. But evolution didn't favor them. They died out.
sorry imlate, however i must say, here,here! lol
We must remember that evolution is the process of adaption to the environment, like a long term survival strategy for a species.
Unless of course no one blood line figures out how to avoid certain problems, then the strategies just weren't long term enough. Or too much happened at once.
We may be close already. How long will it be until we are willing and able to modify our genetics to fit into nearly any environment we want to? Survive on Mars, or underwater, or as arboreal creatures.
Should that happen, natural evolution will stop and what remains will be controlled by ourselves, resulting in a new species of man any time a new environment is acquired. Around Betelgeuse, maybe. Or perhaps a space-dwelling creature living off sunlight or gravity waves or the free hydrogen atoms out there (fusion reactor in our belly?).
Natural evolution will never stop. Even if you elimate all deaths from disease entirely, which is unlikely as virus and bacteria themselves also evolve, you would still have sexual selection, you would still have people who are attracted to risky pursuits dying off more quickly and having fewer children than people who aren't, you would still have some types of people simply wanting more children than other types of people, all of which would cause further evolution.
The closer a species will move to perfection the lesser will be the difference among its members in terms of choice, taste & knowledge. The sexual selection u r pointing at works for homo sapience well but may not work for a highly advanced species
Good point - seems like have read theories that Japanese people are breeding a smaller race as a result of population density while Americans are doing the opposite. Changing environment results in a different sexual attraction.
Makes sense - the tall, dark and handsome American is replaced by the small, dark and handsome Japanese - he doesn't take up as much room in the smaller apartment dictated by large numbers of people.
late again, sorry, but is that histoty repeating agin or what? surely if time were relative, couldnt that just br the definition of infinity?
Given the number who do not believe in evolution... we probably won't mutate much at all.. if we wait for them to understand what the ultimate outcomes could be evolution-wise
we are made of cells that look like eukaryotes. our fetuses have gills, our limbic system is like that of a snake, and then a bird, then a mammal/dog then there's the new cortex which we share with chimpanzees. then it's growing on the frontal region ours is more advanced than all animals. it may be a theory but its true. we evolved from these animals because their mechanisms are within us.
so when we do evolve, that would not be us anymore. unless you agree we are still the same community of eukaryotes that continuously evolved.
Well, I don't buy your teory, but if you're happy with it, it's OK.
Imagination is a very powerful tool.
its not my theory, it is THE EVOLUTION THEORY.
Sorry. The theory you believe in.
that's what I meant by 'your'
do you have another theory other than the mythical one?
don't have any mythical theory. I don't believe in anything. In this evolution theory either. Yes, I have a theory, but as it is a theory and nothing else, I'm not going to discuss it in this forum.
Which is a belief in itself.
Active Consciousness mandates belief, pro, neutral or con.
Good Day Rishy Rich
I think a good way to approach your question is to combine the insights given already by ademaree, who talked about the possible man-made factor that might drive evolution; and that raised by Ixxy, who talked about the environmental imperative.
It seems to me that in trying to begin to imagine where a far distant point of evolution might take us, is to think about what environmental pressures are acting on us, that would seem to call for some kind of response.
For example, it is my understanding that ten million years ago, in Africa, the creatures that would give rise to both apes and us humans, lived in a very dense forest belt that stretched across the middle of the continent (horizontally on the map). The trees were very closely bunched together.
And so, the creatures living there relied on the sense of smell to navigate the area. Smell was most called for and dominant. The forest had a lot to do with how the creatures got around - hunched over on all fours (and swinging from vines?). Anyway their environment had everything to do with how they got around and which senses were most called for.
Later, for some reason, the forest belt thinned out considerably. The trees got further (or is it farther?) apart, more wide open spaces became visible. It would seem that this state of affairs called for an emphasis on the sense of sight over smell. Those creatures, under those circumstances, felt the desirability to walk more upright.
This had to do with certain changes in the spine and all the rest of it, the development of stamina to be able to travel longer distances at a clip, and so forth. So, if we want to imagine where a distant point in evolution might take us, we might begin by asking the question: What environmental pressures, if any, are acting upon us, and what specific organismic (I just invented the word 'organismic') responses seem to be called for.
I just close with this, in reference to the point made by ademaree, about technology. I think an interesting point of imaginative departure to take that is to think about the 'mentat' characters of the Dune novels of Frank Herbert and his son Brian Herbert and his co-author.
Have you read any of the Dune novels? "The spice must flow."
Actually I think humans right now are in a backward evolution. Normally the strongest and fittest survive; therefor only the best and fittest lived.
However in countries like the USA humans now have it too easy. Also with all this artificial help from medicine weak ones are breeding.
So, we now have humans with many hereditary diseases and aliments breeding even more weaker and diseased kids. Look at how many more diseases and so on we now have.
We are breeding a weaker and inferior race, not better. Each generation is getting more sick and weaker. So as to the original question, whatever species evolves forward, it's not going to be humans!
You are very correct, survival of the fittest is no longer relevant to the human race.. However as we progress in our scientific discoveries we are fast coming across ways to not just overcome some of these hereditary diseases but to reverse them.. It will not be long and it will not matter how you are born as you will be re-engineered to fitness.. I don't think as a race we will allow pre-birth genetic engineering for fear of what we are doing etc.. but I can see many genetic diseases being eliminated in the very near future.
Our brains and our ability to overcome problems within our environment are what will help us to continue to survive..
Well, there is a new theory that Autism is how we are evolving. And it gives a good insight on how evolution may have happened. It's called the Intense World Syndrome. The Autistic brain is hyper-plastic and hyper reactive. I have three autistic nephews and they hear EVERYTHING and feel EVERYTHING.
Some who do come out being verbal become highly specialized brainiacs. so it could be a stage in evolution where the genepool is generating a wide variety of "models" and those that have the capacity to reproduce will be creating the next breed of human race.
It is chaos now, but it is a stage. Next stage it will start to be the norm more than the exception. It is highly possible we are evolving into better species and we are medicating it away.
Existence ... Is a "Stasis" ... wrongly Perceived as Evolution.
It's a bit too convenient to assume all these "points" in a process which by definition is continuous and contains the potential for variation and digression by nature. All life on Earth includes speciation and development in various forms. Things like termites, cockroaches and Hymenoptera have a range of ancient common forms which have expanded widely from a basic lineage.
Any ultimate point in Evolution would be stagnation by definition.To date, evolution has produced types of life which have existed for hundreds of millions of years, yet gone extinct. The inability to evolve means the end. Situations change, and life is obliged to change with them to survive. Viability involves evolution.
Look for a point or goal in evolutuion is, IMHO, missing the basic idea of what evolution is.
There is no "ultimate point" in evolution.
It is eternal and limitless.
by Jay Fiske16 months ago
Is time real or its just manmade thing?
by jacobkuttyta5 years ago
No. Many people, from evolutionary biologists to important religious figures like Pope John Paul II, contend that the time-tested theory of evolution does not refute the presence of God. They acknowledge that evolution...
by Yoleen Lucas3 years ago
You guys - Darwin could have a point! Check this out!!!I have never believed in Evolution. I still don't, but a couple days ago, I was at the local zoo, and saw this animal. I couldn't believe it - it...
by Rhys Baker6 years ago
Here is my point. All of the heads of the major branches of Christianity, as well as the heads of the other major religions all accept Evolution as the process by which the biodiversity we see before us came to be....
by Taurus25 years ago
Prove that this is how all life on earth, and man especially, came into existence in this planet. You got no evidence, come on samurais, you got no chop!!
by Claire Evans3 years ago
I've heard that atheists claim that the point of their existence is to leave the world in a better place. As we know, the world is never a better place. Why struggle through life, learn to love and then die?...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.