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: (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: (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
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: (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: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (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
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So you're saying that the Scientific Method is bunk?
No, that's not what he said at all.
Re: (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: (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
Re:Only honest discussions are useful. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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 probl
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
And all this despite the huge amounts payed back as a compensation for slavery and exploitation [countercurrents.org].
Sheesh.
CC.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
That depends ... is the mom hot?
Consequence-free sex wins every time.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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, b
Re: (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: (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: (Score:2)
let's speculate wildly in all directions [blogspot.com]
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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
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: (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 a
Re: (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 "though
Re: (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: (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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (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: (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 p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't anthropomorphize genes; they don't like it.
Evolution also needs variation. Mutation is one mecha
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: (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
Re: (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 -
Re: (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 compe
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: (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: (Score:2)
I can totally picture Hannah Montana singing that! Awesome! :P
Re: (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: (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 sp
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: (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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes one wonder about folks that take Dr. Richard Dawkin's thoughts on theology as definitive, doesn't it?
Re: (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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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: (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
Re: (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
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: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess if you consider producing and keeping alive someone like Hawking "devolving" then you have a point.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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.