Hawking Says Humans Have Entered a New Stage of Evolution 398
movesguy sends us to The Daily Galaxy for comments by Stephen Hawking about how humans are evolving in a different way than any species before us. Quoting:
"'At first, evolution proceeded by natural selection, from random mutations. This Darwinian phase, lasted about three and a half billion years, and produced us, beings who developed language, to exchange information. I think it is legitimate to take a broader view, and include externally transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human race,' Hawking said. In the last ten thousand years the human species has been in what Hawking calls, 'an external transmission phase,' where the internal record of information, handed down to succeeding generations in DNA, has not changed significantly. 'But the external record, in books, and other long lasting forms of storage,' Hawking says, 'has grown enormously. Some people would use the term evolution only for the internally transmitted genetic material, and would object to it being applied to information handed down externally. But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.'"
What's his point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's his point? (Score:2)
Re:What's his point? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, first of all, humans are still evolving. I understand Hawking's point, but he's understating one aspect of our species to overstate the other.
I'll take his point, but I'll say none of this just began with literacy. The change in our evolution, if you can call it that, started with culture, and culture started a lot earlier than books, a lot earlier, in fact, than humans. Our closest relatives, the higher primates, show, to one degree or another, those abilities too.
Re:What's his point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your consciousness depends on your collection of cells to work together as a _group_ (with the individual cells regularly making sacrifices for the benefit of the whole).
But independent cells have done pretty fine for billions of years, without this newfangled "working together for the better of the whole" idea
Can Culture and Religion benefit the hosts? Or only some cultures and religions?
Re:What's his point? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Apparently something that is very, very old news in social science circles [wikipedia.org] has just occurred to Hawking, so naturally, it must be a new idea, right?
Miranda: How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!
Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. (The Tempest, Act V:Sc. 1, line 183-184)
Re:What's his point? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What's his point? (Score:4, Funny)
i didnt put my hand through my buddys guts at Normandy to hear you spew...
ohhhhh...it means what????
sorry....carry on...
Re:What's his point? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're trying to make a useful argument here, and on the surface you're trying to challenge the idea of racial intelligence. But your post is horribly misguided. I can't decide if you're flaming on purpose, or just plain ignorant, so I'll bite.
You're assuming that everything that has value is somehow linked to science and technology. You completely dismiss differences in cultural values as being somehow 'less' than the output of the Europeans. The IQ test has, built into it, the cultural bias of the white, european, while completely disregarding other values. You can bet that if the IQ test included intelligence and observations on how nature behaves outside of the constraints of 'the scientific method' the Europeans would have their asses handed to them by the native americans, the australian aboriginals, or any other culture that couldn't give two pig shits about European science or technology.
Walk, don't run, to your nearest library and check out "Guns, Germs and Steel". The author successfully challenges and completely and systematically demolishes the idea of some sort of inherent racial intelligence difference.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're saying that the Scientific Method is bunk? Sorry, but you just lost me with your argument there. The Scientific Method is the reason we have advanced technology now, and aren't just sitting around in grass huts or caves and suffering with a life expectancy of 30. The "all cultures are equal" line is bunch of liberal B.S. Some cultures are absolutley superior to others. Cultures which treat women as property, for instance, are inferior cultures.
Of course, this has nothing to do with race, but as a typical liberal, you had to inject race into it. Cultures developed differently, in different places, because of external factors as noted in Guns, Germs and Steel: geography, suitability for agriculture, etc. The people from these cultures are interchangeable: take some African-born infant and raise him in Western Europe with advanced medicine and European parents and he's going to turn out basically a dark-skinned European, with European culture and probably just as smart as an average European. The IQ test isn't biased; it's just showing that people raised in poor conditions, with poor nutrition (especially in childhood), possibly in war-torn countries, tend to not grow up to be as smart as children that grew up in better conditions, where were able to spend their childhood exercising their brains learning math, science, language, etc. instead of dodging bullets or swatting flies.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:3, Informative)
So you're saying that the Scientific Method is bunk?
No, that's not what he said at all.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone, please try to understand the context of a post before replying to it. It will make the conversation go so much nicer.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I am a scientist, so this isn't anecdotal)
Mod my parent up. This is -precisely- true. The idea that we test a hypothesis and refine it based on experimental outcomes is utter BS. In all but the most -basic- of processes, there simply is no way to account for all possible results of testing a system; this is further compounded in my field, where an 'in vitro' experiment may yield different results than one 'in vivo'. To make matters worse, those 'in vitro' experiments may in fact yield different results in /different cell types/, given all other conditions being precisely the same.
Without going into too much detail, the real nature of science is that we already have a fairly good idea of what we -want- to happen before we begin testing. I may have a vague theory about the experiments will come out, but more often than not we end up writing the theory to fit the facts around the time the data is published, in such a way that it fits the data we've collected, even though that final theory may not have any relation to the initial expectations.
Some of this is also attributable to the funding system (at least in the US). Submission of a grant (money to do experiments) requires that you already have (preliminary) information, and a fairly tight and detailed set of theories to explain how what you propose to do will result in a conclusion, as well as what those conclusions will be. Essentially, you need to present some data in order to get funding to obtain data. Give too much preliminary research, and you won't have enough theory and interesting suggestions to get funding, but if you don't have enough research done (how you do this without money is a nice conundrum), you won't get funding.
In practice, this often means researchers with no active funding will dust off old unpublished work, and write theories around it, in order to talk the NIH into paying out money so real work can get done (since once you're funded, you can really do whatever research you want -- especially if we're not talking about a renewable grant).
So it's really a messed up system all around, but the scientific method as you know it has virtually no role in it either way.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2)
Culturally, Europeans, Asians, Indians (and to some degree, Persians/Arabs) have provided humanity with many cultural advancements/improvements in art, philosophy, the 'humanities', and so on - arguably up to and largely inclusive of the earlier disciplines which led to current science and mathematic disciplines. Africa, on the other hand, has provided us with endemic disease, lecherous political problems, and pretty much nothing of positive consequence (other than solutions forged elsewhere for their problems).
"Guns, Germs, and Steel" is just one theory. It does not accurately (or even try to ) account for modern conditions, where the diseases are of domestic origin and non-trivial amounts of assistance have been given to make the endemic population successful.
IQ tests are designed to test reasoning and problem solving ability, first and foremost. Simple mathematical x + y = z type stuff, as well as other differentiation scenarios. It doesn't factor in "cultural values" or any such bullshit which has no sway on intelligence. They don't test "what does this person know?" they test "how well does this person figure?"
Asians have shown to have an intelligence as much over Europeans as Europeans have over Africans. I believe the "20 point" figure of the GP is mostly true. This does not, however, indicate a lack of humanity on the part of the Africans, though it might suggest a threshold for societal acceptance for more advanced social principles and behavior (as indicated by the historical record and status quo).
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2)
Now there are some funny words, written in an alphabet which like almost all other alphabets in the world, are derived from one used in North Africa. We can trace western science and math to a point outside of the west, that North African civilization. They electroplated jewelry, made a steam engine, made our basic measurements of time, did quartic equations and decimal arithmetic. And at the other end of Africa, in the far south, there was another advanced civilization far older than any greek one, even though the europeans that discovered it thought it was some long forgotten european colony, since those Africans couldn't have made it.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2)
And all this despite the huge amounts payed back as a compensation for slavery and exploitation [countercurrents.org].
Sheesh.
CC.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no idea where morons like you come from. Sub-saharan Africa has the highest genetic diversity on the planet. Ponder that for a moment. It means that your notion of some sort of genetic "dumbness" is bunk.
But maybe that explains your own stupidity, fear and ignorance. I'd feel sorry for you, if you weren't such a loathesome pile of garbage. Now go find a rock, you useless piece of shit.
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:2)
Evolution created a situation in which the Germans, the French, and the English have an IQ that is signficantly greater than the IQ of the typical African
I can't tell if you are supporting the idea of racial intelligence or not, but if you are you should have a look at Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" which makes a pretty convincing case that different races succeeded more than others due to their geographical positioning, instead of due to their inherent abilities as many people assume.
Re:What's his point? (Score:2)
Re:What's his point? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, our species is more than DNA. That is obvious. What is not obvious is that we should confuse the process of Darwinian evolution with cultural evolution. They are both fascinating and worthy of discussion and study. It is even worth thinking about ways in which they are similar. But I think it is also worthwhile to understand the distinctions and that models of one need not apply to the other.
Re:What's his point? (Score:3, Interesting)
...someone page kurzweil... (Score:2, Insightful)
...the singularity is already here [wikipedia.org]...
Re:...someone page kurzweil... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is one flaw of this projection. It is the same problem that has inflicted mankind as long as there has been human consciousness.... the power of human denial.
It is the one thing you can bet on and always win.
Re:...someone page kurzweil... (Score:2, Funny)
No it isn't.
Memes (Score:5, Insightful)
So he's talking about memes [wikipedia.org].
Re:Memes (Score:5, Interesting)
A fun question to ask people is: "if you could only have one, which would you rather do: author a successful book or be parent to a successful child (raised by others)". The answers tell you whether the person sees themselves as a bundle of genes or as a bundle of memes.
The overgrown human brain is just a big appendix the body provides as a home for symbiotic memes :)
(obviously, it's not Hawkings' area of expertise so we expect to find people who have already had the idea)
Re:Memes (Score:3, Funny)
That depends ... is the mom hot?
Consequence-free sex wins every time.
Re:Memes (Score:3, Insightful)
The answers tell you whether the person sees themselves as a bundle of genes or as a bundle of memes.
You're making an assumption about their reasons for wanting to procreate. Given that the child would be successful, its possible that they could do far more than a single book could. For example, they could write many successful books, or be another Hawking, Einstein or Tesla.
Re:Memes (Score:4, Insightful)
Or you could do both - John Stuart Mill [wikipedia.org] is the perfect example.
James Mill wanted his son to carry on the mantle of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian philosophy, and John is probably one of the greatest philosophers of our times.
So, there is no reason you cannot do both - James Mill was a great thinker in his own right (as was Jeremy Bentham); and them raising John the way they did created a true genius.
If only everyone raised their kids thus... imagine how far humanity would go.
Re:Memes (Score:2)
Re:Memes (Score:3, Insightful)
A fun question to ask people is: "if you could only have one, which would you rather do: author a successful book or be parent to a successful child (raised by others)". The answers tell you whether the person sees themselves as a bundle of genes or as a bundle of memes.
Only if you assume that people's main goal in life is to reproduce themselves or achieve immortality in some regard.
Me, I'd rather be a parent to a child, because I've had more fun playing with kids and doing family activities than I've ever had writing, or talking to a group of people. I've heard a few writers talk about going on book tours and it sounds like hell. Also, fame seems to be universally hellish, unless the person is emotionally sick enough that they can't feel good from normal situations, but need the adoration of nameless strangers.
So my main thrust in life is to enjoy myself. At some point all of my progeny will die out ( if I ever have any ) and certainly all my writings and recorded thoughts will be obliterated. I don't worry too much about the future.
Re:Memes (Score:2)
I can point to dozens of trees around the Portland metro area that I've helped plant, including one in my front yard which is doing great. My son is fourteen weeks old, so that one's in progress.
Now if I just had something interesting to say, I'd get started on that book. Of course, I'm in no hurry to finish *all* my tasks...
Re:Memes (Score:2)
Of course it is "fun" because it is a false dichotomy. It is a rare exception to not have both when you want to. (What do you mean "raised by others"? That makes no sense! Then you would not be the parent. You would only be the genitor.)
Re:Memes (Score:2)
let's speculate wildly in all directions [blogspot.com]
Re:Memes (Score:2)
Oh you mean that other kind, that has nothing to do with that car analogy of a beowulf cluser of soviet russian goatse clods, dawg?
I believe what he might be referring to is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Memes. [wikipedia.org]
Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist of some note, coined the term to describe the ideas that people create, that reproduce in much the same way genes do.
This came from his earlier ideas of a "selfish gene [slashdot.org]" to postulate that genes existed to propagate themselves, which helped to describe a lot of aspects of evolutionary development, from altruism to various kinds of suicidal behavior. In other words, it isn't the lifeform itself that is important in the reproductive cycle, so much as the information they pass along.
Ryan Fenton
Re:I believe what he might be referring to is... (Score:2)
Daniel Dennett, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, has already essentially fleshed out the idea that Hawkings is getting at. Influenced, of course, by Dawkins.
Re:I believe what he might be referring to is... (Score:2)
Exactly what I was going to say. However, I think Hawkins is wrong to assume Humans were the first species with memes. I would argue that memes have been important ever sense "families" (packs, tribes, ect.) became important, which was well before Homo sapiens.
Re:I believe what he might be referring to is... (Score:2)
Dawkins came up with his brilliant meme idea as merely a way to express that evolution by means of natural selection can occur outside of biology. He wanted to show that evolution was a powerful way of understanding the world in all aspects, not just biology. He was a big promoter of genetic algorithms (computers using evolution to compute stuff) and has even entertained that idea that universes could be evolving in the multiverse, where maybe (in a purely thought-experiment type way) the universes that are best able to produce complexity (including life) reproduce, which could explain why complexity exists at all and why our physical laws are the way they are.
Anthropologists have been saying this for a while (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Anthropologists have been saying this for a whi (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at the operating systems:
Unix is pretty old. When you strip away the "transparent windows" and flashy glitz, the popular desktop computer O/Ses (Linux/OSX/Windows) are just as primitive as stuff 30 years ago.
And look up the "Mother of all Demos" - they had real time video conferencing, working together with a remote user over a WAN on the same document. So many innovative concepts, 40+ years ago.
The hardware available then naturally limited these pioneers, I'm sure they had plenty more they could think of but could not implement.
Linux - just Unix revisited.
Mac - The WIMP from PARC finally makes its way to the public (note the scrollbar was invented in 1977).
Windows 95/2K- ok the taskbar was nice (I think the Acorn had it first).
Windows XP - whoopee a new colour scheme, and some rearrangements, no big improvements
Windows Vista - I can't say this is a big improvement, in many ways the user experience is worse.
KDE/GNOME - basically the same old thing as "X" years ago, now with Wobbly Windows and stuff copied from Windows 95.
As for apps, the spreadsheet was a decent leap 30+ years ago. The browser? Go look at the Demo again and look up the history of hypertext. DTP? I dunno...
The Lisp fanatics will say stuff is just as primitive as it was 50 years ago, if not more primitive
Re:Anthropologists have been saying this for a whi (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this highly oversimplifies things.
Yes, many "mechanical" things about computer software hasn't changed that much in 30-40 years. The C language is 40 years old and still is the language of choice for many things. Most other languages are similarly imperative, if not downright derived from C (functional languages, while at least as old, never really caught on much). Operating systems still basically work the same way: they allow separate processes with isolated memory, separate users, restricted access to hardware by programs, preemptive multitasking, etc. Even GUIs aren't that new, since the WIMP interface was invented by PARC in the 70s.
What's new is all the high-level stuff done with it: having an internet that not only connects universities, but is accessible by everyone from their home or their mobile phone. Buying stuff on the internet, communicating with each other on Facebook, etc. The thing that's changed is who uses this technology, and what they use it for.
When I was in high school in 1989, the only people that had computers at home were either adults who needed them for work, or geeks like me. Most people didn't have computers, and thought anyone that spent their spare time on a computer instead of watching some crap on TV were crazy. Now, every knucklehead has a computer and knows how to use the internet. People spend all kinds of time screwing around on sites like MySpace and Facebook. So many people read the news online that newspapers are going out of business left and right. All kinds of people are using Craigslist to buy and sell stuff locally, or to meet each other.
As for apps, the spreadsheet was a decent leap 30+ years ago. The browser? Go look at the Demo again and look up the history of hypertext. DTP? I dunno...
Actually, browsers have evolved a lot in the last 15 years. They started out as just a way to display marked-up text, and now they're a way to not only show all kinds of data (text and video), but a way to interact with other systems. For instance, look at Google Maps, or other AJAX apps. That's not static data, it's basically a way of running an application remotely. IMO, the whole HTTP legacy of web browsers is holding them back. The entire way interactive web pages are written now seems like a giant kludge, when for many things it seems like it'd be simpler to just write an app in C++ or Java or whatever, run it on the remote server, and display it remotely on the user's computer.
Re:Anthropologists have been saying this for a whi (Score:3, Interesting)
This is already being crudely done with mobile phones (communications and buying of stuff via vending machines).
And the tech is already there for:
1) humans (and other creatures) to control stuff just by thinking.
2) adding extra senses (google for "seeing tongue")
3) Small cams, microphones etc
Once you can do it safely and reliably, add some clever software and you can use "thought macros"[1] to control stuff and communicate.
You could then take a picture/video of something, tell your e-brain to save it and associate it with a particular thought pattern so that when you rethink that particular pattern the object is retrieved, and you can also send it to someone else[2].
Then humans, computing and culture would enter a new stage of evolution...
As it is, you can show me all that fancy AJAX and I'll just go "meh". Yes all that is very nice and useful, but looking at what's possible with the current state of the art I'd call that "underperforming"
Then again maybe it was a waste of resources and we would still have what we have today even if he and his bunch didn't do all that? Oh well, I'm just getting rather impatient though
[1] I bet nobody's thought patterns are the same - so you'd have to "train" the program to recognize thought macros.
[2] Trouble of course is the **AA might have something to say about that and want to collect toll on each retrieval and share. I wouldn't like that particular evolutionary path.
Re:Anthropologists have been saying this for a whi (Score:2)
The Lisp fanatics will say stuff is just as primitive as it was 50 years ago, if not more primitive ;).
One good CDADDDR deserves another!
ten thousand years (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course having said that, he's a father, grandfather, world famous author, and Nobel prize winning genius, despite being a wheelchair bound victim of neuromuscular dystrophy who can barely speak, whereas I am single, childless, and broke, despite being relatively healthy.
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
Re:ten thousand years (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly you need to impair yourself physically to allow your brain to develop. See, blindness develops your ears, deafnes develops your eyes, and physical disability develops your brain.
Training to develop under-used muscles/skills is what I hope you meant. Disability by itself doesn't provide any such strengths.
No, but, the human condition seems to provide us with incredible potential in a diverse set of skills, but only enough capacity to develop a subset of that potential - if you become handicapped in one area, and you don't get despondent / depressed / suicidal, your drive to excel gets channeled into other areas, developing them beyond normal levels, and the fact that you are handicapped seems to "free up additional capacity" for the non-handicapped skills.
Not just good hearing for the blind, also savant skills, etc. TMI experiments seem to promise the ability to induce temporary handicaps that temporarily enable some savant skills - very very sketchy at present, but that's what the experimenters want to see, and they have some data to back up their dreams already.
Hawking himself may be an example of this - no ability to waste time on sports, etc., but plenty of time to think about theoretical physics, and potentially lots of spare brain capacity that would otherwise have been learning how to hit a ball with a stick, etc.
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
the human condition seems to provide us with incredible potential in a diverse set of skills
I, for instance, am able to produce incredible sounds with my armpits.
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
Re:ten thousand years (Score:5, Interesting)
Not true, at all. I recall reading about a study (in Russia, iirc) where scientists attempted to breed a specific trait into wild foxes. They went through a program of selective breeding and in _seven_ generations, they successfully altered the genetic traits of the animal. Seven. So, 400 generations is _PLENTY_ of time for evolution to alter our species in meaningful ways given that it can be accomplished (admittedly, in a controlled environment) in just 7.
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
Re:ten thousand years (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, within the next 25 year generation, that external store will likely become powerful enough to enable us to rewrite our DNA in meaningful ways, potentially bypassing millions of years of Darwinian evolution... unless SkyNet takes over.
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
That's one of the key points of cultural evolutionary theories: culture evolves MUCH faster than genes. Even if we allowed the full force of natural selection to determine our physical evolution, our culture changes so much faster that our physical evolution is essentially static in comparison. A cultural "generation" isn't anything like 25 years.
Re:ten thousand years (Score:3, Insightful)
Most plant and animal species evolve by natural selection (or mutation, or whatever the current fad alternative theory is) over generations and hundreds of years. If local climate becomes colder, mammals with favorable cold adaptations such as thicker coats gain a selective advantage. Over time, the gene for thick coats becomes fixed in the population. For humans, if it starts to get cold out, we put on a coat. Or we build insulated enclosures that feature heated swimming pools.
Because of our ability to alter the environment, communicate abstract ideas, and store information outside our genetic code, humanity is able to adapt to environmental changes in real time, rather than geologic time. Its still evolution - change over time, adapting to new environmental factors - but much faster.
And, more often than not, the environmental changes are of our own making. We adapt to new technologies, new life styles, and new information as society progresses. Those adaptations spread quickly through the social environment via education and mass communication. You need to use a blackberry to be successful in your new job, but you're not sure if you inherited the texting gene from your parents? No need to mate with a slashdotter and pass the job off to your kids, just read the instruction manual!
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
Re:ten thousand years (Score:2)
Ahhh, but through careful selective breeding. Breeding can increase evolutionary speed by about 1000 fold. It's not fair to compare the selective breeding of a species to natural selection.
You can make a wolf into a chihuahua in probably less than 20 generations (20-40 years), if you have a big enough starting pool and know what to look for.
As long as we are not our own worst enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but we must be willing to use that knowledge to improve human chances for long-term survival, not to counteract the evolution just to feel good. If we take the latter course of action, as it is trendy to do, we are in effect using our evolutionary advantage against ourselves.
Re:As long as we are not our own worst enemies (Score:2)
Ensuring the long-term survival of the species usually means some cost to the individual. I can understand why less evolved organisms appear to be working towards species survival: because they are just following their programming. However, humans are self-aware, and so as individuals we are not brainlessly forced into accepting this cost. We should simply do whatever suits us best as individuals. Our species may ultimately fail, but whose idea was it that it should go on forever?
Evolution does not work solely through mutation (Score:5, Insightful)
Errrgghh.... Stephen Hawking said something that bothered me. I feel weird.....
Now, I am not a biologist, or even in the field. I have read The Selfish Gene, and consider myself up on evolutionary theory....
OK. There are several misconceptions about evolution that drive me nuts. Why? Because it's incredibly important to understand, as it helps explain so much about life on this planet. It hurts me that people accept the Law of Gravity, but poke at the evolutionary process....
Ok... Misconceptions.
1. Evolution has a goal.
It doesn't. We are not going to transcend or become ultimate beings. No. It just adapts critters to their environment. What's neat is that critters adapt to each other, together. Think about that, and ecosystems, and all that web of life stuff for a while and it's pretty neat.
2. Evolution is critter-centric.
We are simply carriers for genese. Evolution is gene centric. Most of your genes are useless to you. Stuff that is stupid at a critter level can make perfect sense at a gene level. Those little bastards are using us, and don't care about us at all, as long as we breed.
3. Survival of the fittest.
It's survival of the breediest, not necessarily of the fittest.
4. Evolution works through mutation.
Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking. Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.
I feel weird....
-Tony
Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation (Score:3, Informative)
Don't anthropomorphize genes; they don't like it.
Evolution also needs variation. Mutation is one mechanism which provides that (though not the only one).
Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation (Score:5, Funny)
Evolution also needs variation. Mutation is one mechanism which provides that (though not the only one).
Monsanto is another one.
Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation (Score:5, Insightful)
Evo: Cultural v. Mutation v. Bring What You Gots (Score:5, Interesting)
Hawking is talking about cultural adaptation, which isn't a new concept. What's (relatively) new is the realization that human evolution has continued into historic times [nationalgeographic.com]. So, Homo gets three bites at the apple: a chance to adapt via culture, enabling it to survive in environments that would otherwise select against it; adapt via thus far dormant or undesirable existing genetic characteristics; and adapt via continuing random mutation (most of which will continue to be undesirable for a given situation).
Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation (Score:2)
4. Evolution works through mutation.
Errrrgghh... I disagree with Stephen Hawking. Ok, mutation helps, but you know what? Evolution doesn't need it. Most mutations result in a f*kup, not something useful. Evolution just needs seperate populations and/or environments. Eventually populations diverge and become more suited to their environments.
I feel weird....
-Tony
Not only are you weird you are wrong on this point, though you were more or less right
on your first three. Evolution operates on variation. The ultimate source of variation is mutation. The fundamental source of mutation is radiation and other events at a quantum mechanical level. Therefore evolution is stochastic. Without mutation while their could be some limited evolution by genetic rearrangements, however there could no longer be any evolution of proteins which is the real driver of evolutionary change.
Does that explain it simply enough.
Re:Evolution does not work solely through mutation (Score:2)
No, evolution needs mutation. From dictionary.com:
mutation: a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.
Mutation isn't simply a random base pair getting smacked by a gamma ray, it's all the processes that randomly change our DNA, from those gamma rays to copying errors. Yes, mutation by itself makes for crappy, slow, probably unworkable evolution. But without mutation there is no way to introduce novelty into the genome - you end up just shuffling the same genes over and over. Except that without mutation you wouldn't even have genes.
Re:mutant post (Score:2)
Ok, this is reaaaaaally oversimplified, and pulled out of my bum, but....
All populations have variance. Lets take height. If we lined everyone up and measured their heights and took frequency counts, we'd get a nice bell curve.
Lets take those folks and divide them evenly. We separate them in two environments. One favors tall folk. The other favors short folk... for some weird reason, i don't know, it's just an example.
Over time, just a little bit of favoring one way or the other will give some genes a competitive advantage. It doesn't have to be much... In Tall Land, if tall folk have 1% more kids than average folk.... give it a few hundred generations and voila! After a while the short and tall populations diverge by quite a bit.
My girlfriend is arguing the point with me. I love her very much. :D She says you need mutation to create the variance in the first place. I say it just happens through random noise. :D
-T
Take it Further: Transhumanism (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think that is too narrow a view. We are more than just our genes.
Take that line a step further and you get transhumanism. We are no longer an isolated life form, but are inherently coupled with our tools. Tools that extend our minds around the planet. The Internet.
Books are cool, but they're pretty uni-directional. Wikipedia is cooler, updating our knowledge base in real time. Twitter is even faster; a brain extension so fast and light that it recently fomented revolution.
Yeah, we're past genes. What's more, we're rapidly passing static tools like rocks, newspapers, and books. Our minds are connected to each other in real-time, planet-wide. Our individual minds are gaining connectivity to the hive mind and extending our capabilities, much as our giant neocortex lifted us above the other animals.
See: Transhumanism [wikipedia.org]
Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism (Score:2)
Are you just saying that, or are we in a matrix-like computer program while externalities we are not aware of are enhancing our genetics to produce ever increasing amounts of voltage?
Re:Take it Further: Transhumanism (Score:5, Insightful)
Public Service Announcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Life isn't just about passing on your genes. ...anger, joy and sorrow...
We can leave behind much more than just DNA.
Through speech, music, literature and movies...
what we've seen, heard, felt
these are the things I will pass on.
That's what I live for.
We need to pass the torch,
and let our children read our messy and sad history by its light.
We have all the magic of the digital age to do that with.
The human race will probably come to an end some time,
and new species may rule over this planet.
Earth may not be forever,
but we still have the responsibility to leave what traces of life we can.
Building the future and keeping the past alive are one and the same thing.
Re:Public Service Announcement (Score:2)
I can totally picture Hannah Montana singing that! Awesome! :P
Re:Public Service Announcement (Score:2)
RIP Roy Batty.
What he is refering to is our ability to create .. (Score:3, Insightful)
... and use higher and higher levels of abstraction [abstractionphysics.net] so to communicate and develope more and more refined technology that will someday allow us to advance beyond where we can see ourselves going today. To the point of enabling us to create a black hole for the purpose of its rebound effect of creating a galaxy so as to continue on the expansion of the universe for the insurance of the continuation of conscious life.... to repeat the process.
One of the things I have noticed about our evolution is that it seems to be related to population growth. As our population grows we face new problems that we must adapt to and this generally leads to advancements in social development. One recorded event is the story of the tower of Babylon and how the population growth and specialization grew to the point of a bicameral mind break down [julianjaynes.org] that lead to expansion and now so long after, we have come back together in population growth with further advancements.
Another interesting analogy or extension of this process is that of open source software where branching projects off to eventually bring the best of the branches back together.... and its all based on, in essence, Abstraction Physics [abstractionphysics.net] of code development. Where the difference between human to human language and human to machine to human, is automation of human created abstractions...
Specialization / Speciation (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution. On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies. Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field. It says more about physicists than about evolution that he would deem himself qualified to wade into the fray with such minimal preparation.
It is not surprising that Stephen Hawking, another great physicist, similarly feels empowered to speculate about evolution without apparently having read Richard Dawkin's popular works. Others have mentioned memes, but Dawkin's notion of the extended phenotype might be even more pertinent. Hawkings appears to be taking the notion of the meme to the extreme of thinking that species evolution is now relying on actual gene analogues outside our physical corpus. Rather, our genes remain internal, but their somatic expression is external to ourselves.
Re:Specialization / Speciation (Score:2, Insightful)
"Stephen Jay Gould told an anecdote about Richard Feynman excitedly announcing that he had discovered new principles of evolution. On inspection they turned out to be either well known findings or well known fallacies. Basically he was largely ignorant of the literature in the field."
If you know anything at all about the incredibly high level of intellectual honesty Feynman held himself to, this statement would sound absurdly out of character for him. In the absence of a citation, I call bullshit on your specious anecdote.
Re:Specialization / Speciation (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd approach it from the other angle: Knowing the subterranean levels of intellectual honesty exhibited by SJ Gould, I'd stop parsing anything after "Stephen Jay Gould told".
Re:Specialization / Speciation (Score:2)
We're doomed... (Score:5, Funny)
If Hawking is saying our evolution is now dependent on our (for most people) public education system... we're fucked.
Pack your bags, it's Idiocracy time.
Write about what you know (Score:2, Insightful)
Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and I have the utmost respect for him.
However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise.
I wouldn't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive, and this is no different.
Re:Write about what you know (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Write about what you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Write about what you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes one wonder about folks that take Dr. Richard Dawkin's thoughts on theology as definitive, doesn't it?
Re:Write about what you know (Score:2)
Re:Write about what you know (Score:4, Insightful)
Hawking is more or less repeating ideas that others have come up with, as others have pointed out, but your post is pointless. If you disagree with someone, Hawking or otherwise, make a cogent argument refuting theirs. "He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
Ironically, Hawking is saying many of the same things that Dawkins has said.
Re:Write about what you know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Write about what you know (Score:3, Insightful)
"He's a physicist and this is biology" is just a slightly mangled appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
Why do you think anybody listens to Hawking in the first place? Because he is famous. If he weren't, nobody would give a damn what he had to say about biology. Refuting him on biology is no more worthwhile than refuting the guys at the Creation Science institute on biology.
Re:Write about what you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but you're so wrong.
1) Hawking is very very smart and it is likely that he has very good ideas about many branches of science beyond his own. It's not beyond possibility that he has more knowledge than most about more than one field is it?
2) There is a clear connection between what Hawking has to say about some part of human evolution occurring externally to the human form (in information stored externally) and the idea that information crossing the event horizon of black hole is preserved and emitted back out (IANAP so forgive any error I may have made here).
Re:Write about what you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Sir Stephen Hawking is a very smart man, and I have the utmost respect for him.
However, he should stick to the areas of his expertise and let biologists talk about evolution, because that's their area of expertise.
I wouldn't expect anyone to take Dr. Richard Dawkins' thoughts on quantum mechanics as definitive, and this is no different.
This is a pure ad-hominem attack. You show absolutely no understanding of the message, you don't even mention it with one single word, but you feel you can bash the messenger.
The interesting fact is, Hawkings has not even taken on genetics itself (of which he is no expert), he states taht human evolution is determined by more than just genes, as we are a species that leaves behind us more information than just what is stored in our genes. So he wasn't even talking from the podium of a geneticist; his was a larger-picture stance looking at humankind as more than just an animal species.
comparing natural and intellectual evolution (Score:2)
So, he is comparing the natural (genetic) evolution with our intellectual (externally carried information) evolution.
Then, we could compare the stages:
speech <==> multi-cellular organisms
writing <==> central nervous system
printing <==> dry-land vertebrades
internet <==> ???
What's next?
It's called "Niche Construction" (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean de-evolution, don't you? (Score:2)
Because the more we are, the less does any single person need to know, to survive and successfully reproduce.
Also we have two types of reproduction now: The genetic one. And the reproduction of thoughts and ideas.
So you can leave children in this world. But you can also leave a philosophy/mindset that changed people. (Or both.)
Meme-A-Holic (Score:3, Funny)
what about healthcare? (Score:3, Interesting)
the modern ability to manage and/or cure a number of life-threatening conditions is greatly impacting the evolution of our species as well. people who would never have made it to adulthood a century ago are now passing on their crappy genes to their kids.
Re:Professor Hawking got there first! COOL! (Score:2)
We are either the sum of our genes True False or Indeterminate. And the ideterminacy of Heisenberg is obvious in our DNA if you look at it a certain way.
Also, my slashdot ID is Phrackwulf
And that was supposed to be the symbol for "infinity" in the above equation but slashdot couldn't handle it!
ARRRGGGH!
[-)
Re:Has he lost it? (Score:2)
Re:Devolution? (Score:2)
I guess if you consider producing and keeping alive someone like Hawking "devolving" then you have a point.
Re:Devolution? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stopped Evolving (Score:2)
The definition of "fittest" from an evolutionary point of view is "best able to propagate genes." Evolution doesn't care at all about your particular judgement regarding who is fit.
The only way we could come close to stopping evolution is if we were somehow able to make a rule that everyone must have X number of kids, and then enforce it so that everyone had exactly X kids, no more, no less, no cheating, at all.