Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Evolutionary Prediction About Humans

arroba Email

A visual artist and a Ph.D. in computational genomics have gotten together to predict what we mere human mortals will look like in, say, 100,000 years. Given the prediction, I for one am glad I won’t be around to see it actually happen. The current design appeals to me much more. But maybe others will feel differently.

By the way. YEC like me deny brain size as anything to do with smarts. What do ID people think about brain size and smarts?? Thev whole premise behind smart/dumb animals/insects is vased on brain size. Science fiction is based on it. They used to compare brain size by sex and race! Since some ID people believe in some human evolution things then what do they think about hat size equaling good grey matter??? Should brains be measured in the origin wars!? I'm afraid to look at my own! Naw its just we got a soul like the bible says. Like Jesus. No brains are relevant to smarts. Just a middleman machine. Presumptions kill accurate investigation once again. Robert Byers
semi related: Putting flesh on the bones of ancient fish: Synchrotron X-rays reconstruct soft tissue on 380 million year old fish - May 13, 2013 Excerpt: Swedish, Australian and French researchers present for the first time miraculously preserved musculature of 380 million year old armoured fish discovered in north-west Australia.,,, "High contrast X-ray images were produced thanks to a powerful beam and a protocol developed for fossil imaging at the ESRF. This is unique in the world and has enabled us to "reconstruct" some fossilised muscles and document the muscles of neck and abdomen in these early jawed fish, without damaging or affecting the fossilised remains",,, These early vertebrates prove to have a well-developed neck musculature as well as powerful abdominal muscles – not unlike some human equivalents displayed on the beaches of the world every summer. Living fish, by contrast, usually have a rather simple body musculature without such specialisations. "This shows that vertebrates developed a sophisticated musculature much earlier than we had thought" says Per Ahlberg, co-author of the project. "It also cautions against thinking that we can interpret fossil organisms simply by metaphorically draping their skeletons in the soft tissues of living relatives." http://phys.org/news/2013-06-flesh-bones-ancient-fish-synchrotron.html bornagain77
BornAgain in #7 - Speaking of uploading yourself to a computer. I remember picking up a book back in the 90's about how researchers at Carnegie Mellon were looking into how to download the contents of the human brain into a computer. They were speculating on what might happen if you could make multiple copies of yourself, go off and have different experiences, and then merge all the memories and such later. Of course, the underlying assumption is that you literally are little more than the sum of the biochemical processes in your brain. The concept of uploading your "self" into a computer wouldn't even be remotely possible unless we really are just "computers made of meat" as Marvin Minsky once said. (I think it was Minsky...someone correct me, if that's wrong.) But it we're more than just biochemical processes, then the very concept isn't even possible. You can put an immaterial soul into a machine! Its the age old question: What does it mean to be human? DonaldM
bb you ask: "There’s a difference between science and science fiction…….right?" Apparently not with neo-Darwinism,, Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True - Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/ i.e. as long as it is a materialistic theory then it is science no matter how improbable. bornagain77
There's a difference between science and science fiction.......right? bb
Actually DonaldM, big heads and saucer eyes are small potatoes compared to some of the unbridled materialistic fantasies put forth for what humans will be like in 100,000 years,,, i.e. 6 reasons why you might upload yourself into a computer http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2010/07/6-reasons-why-you-might-upload-yourself.html Or if being a computer is not good enough for what you would prefer to envision your future materialistic self to be, then there is the old 'you will be like God' deception from Genesis you can choose from that is still being passed around,,, Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote: "So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." - Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics Myself, I prefer the future God has planned for me with Him rather than any possible materialistic future I can imagine for myself without God: 1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: "What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived" -- the things God has prepared for those who love him-- Brad Paisley - "When I Get Where I'm Going" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYHT-TF4KO4 bornagain77
Robert Byers in #1 "These people insist the brain got bigger as a sign we got smarter. Whats the evidence brain size equals intelligence?" In one of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes deduces the guy he and Watson are after must be quite intelligent because the hat...the one available piece of evidence...is quite large. Holmes muses "Its a question of cubic capacity. A head this large must have something in it!" Andre in #5 - Yeah, I forgot about her. She's been written up in the news before. Maybe the Anime creators are on to something! DonaldM
who needs evolution? There are people that look like tat already, meet the human barbie http://walyou.com/human-barbie-doll/ Andre
"What humans will look like in 100,000 years according to someone who should never be allowed to use Photoshop again". And now, for another opinion: http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/06/07/no-this-is-not-how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/ Barb
Yowza. I guess craniums don't develop to accomodate those frisbee sized eyeballs, eh? lpadron
two problems: 1. Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? - February 2011 Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years, http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-brains-smarter.html If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking and 2. John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PHsu94HQrL0#t=1040s Notes from John Sanford's preceding video: *3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body * Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations *Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,, *60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation. Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation - Michael Lynch - 2009 Excerpt: Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/3/961.full Genetic Entropy in Human Genome is found to be 'recent': Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012) Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers. The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm bornagain77
Oh brother the brain thing again. These people insist the brain got bigger as a sign we got smarter. Whats the evidence brain size equals intelligence? Dr Kwan should remember they used to say Asians had smaller brains and so why they were not as smart as Europeans back in the 1800's. If brain size is everything then why are not all brains scored on size for everyone today??? The brain is just a middleman from the soul to the body. The bible says so in effect. no differences in people in thinking ability. All problems with thinking come from memory interference. memory is of the material world and so can break down. In fact our memory's are probably not much better then creatures. Whats with the big eyes for these future humans? Evolutionary ideas just are stupid!!! Robert Byers

Leave a Reply