- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is it possible humans "evolved" into monkeys thousands of yrs ago?
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:35 am to Tigerbait337
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:35 am to Tigerbait337
I ain't touching this topic. Way too many ways to get banned here
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:35 am to KG6
quote:
What would losing the intelligence that we have offer in regards to making it a more "survivable" characteristic? That and only that would provide for a reason to evolve in that direction.
Cavemen weren't very smart
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:40 am to Tigerbait337
Humans have been devolving for the past 150 years. We will eventually speciate into non crossbreedable specie.
Humans, due to technology, do not need to select for intelligence any longer and are instead selecting for high testosterone (animal instinct) which is contradictory. You could see your scenario play out in the future.
Humans, due to technology, do not need to select for intelligence any longer and are instead selecting for high testosterone (animal instinct) which is contradictory. You could see your scenario play out in the future.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:41 am to Tigerbait337
yo
no
quote:
Is it possible scientists have it backwards??
no
Posted on 1/20/17 at 9:56 am to Upperdecker
1000's of years ago? I was just saying the other day the recent Facebook live videos are proof that humans are currently devolving.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:00 am to KG6
quote:
What would losing the intelligence that we have offer in regards to making it a more "survivable" characteristic? That and only that would provide for a reason to evolve in that direction.
Maybe not a survival characteristic but from inbreeding over a long time period??
I can't quite envision any scenario where the OPs idea could have occurred, but somewhat interesting thought.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:02 am to USMCTiger03
quote:
but somewhat interesting thought.
That's the point
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:05 am to Tigerbait337
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/4/23 at 7:40 am
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:29 am to Tigerbait337
Dafuq did I just read.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 10:36 am to Tigerbait337
Brings up an interesting argument. How did we essentially "devolve" to begin with? A lot of the traits we have developed are not optimal for survival.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:27 am to Tigerbait337
I'm not sure you understand how evolution works.
And no, now that we have genetics and DNA, we know that we both evolved from a common ancestor. Genetics, fused chromosome, etc all confirm this without a doubt.
And no, now that we have genetics and DNA, we know that we both evolved from a common ancestor. Genetics, fused chromosome, etc all confirm this without a doubt.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:28 am to skirpnasty
quote:
How did we essentially "devolve" to begin with?
There's no such thing as "devolving". Evolution doesn't have to provide "positive" traits in the colloquial sense.
Once we developed a cerebral cortex and used our intellect to survive, certain other characteristics were simply not necessary.
Posted on 1/20/17 at 11:59 am to Tigerbait337
quote:
Is it possible that those humans could've "evolved" into a primative being? Adding more hair for warmth, scavenging for bugs and fruit because they were demographically cut off....
Possibly. Its not impossible but it would take so much time its really impossible to say yes or no. It'd take into account a combination of Foster's Rule of evolution (which says that members of a species get smaller or bigger depending on the resources available in the environment) and Reproductive Isolation, meaning only the genes that are present in the population on the theoretical "isolated island" will be passed down throughout the generations. Those genes that are not in any person on the island are essentially gone forever in that population.
So technically it could go the way you are thinking if survival favors selection of those traits over millions of years (assuming for sake of argument that they and the island last that long).
On the other hand, it could go the other way, with a smaller population, better genes that favor strength/intelligence could become dominant and the population could evolve much faster into the positive direction opposed tot he rest of the human population.
Either way, with the smaller population, changes in genetic phenotypes will be seen faster and more predominantly than in the rest of the human population.
EDIT: And the term is still Evolving regardless of the hypothetical direction you are referring to. Just FYI
EDIT2: I forget a HUGE factor and that is the type of environment they are in. Does it have little resources? Hot or cold? Lots/little of fresh water? Does it have plant life for food or do they have to hunt? Is there room for expansion or does the island only favor a set population? Equal woman and men? What race of people are put on the island or is it a mix? If its a mix, what are the ratios? These and more factors will play large roles over the centuries
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 1/20/17 at 12:00 pm to Tigerbait337
Possibly. I think were headed back that way
Posted on 1/20/17 at 12:07 pm to Tigerbait337
This is one of the more thought provoking OPs I have ever read on this message board.
This post was edited on 1/20/17 at 12:08 pm
Popular
Back to top



1





