Oh, transhumanism sounds exciting. If I'm following right it could be suggested transgender is a result of transhumanism and just a natural part of our evolution?

(June 30, 2016 at 5:01 am)Ayen Wrote: Oh, transhumanism sounds exciting. If I'm following right it could be suggested transgender is a result of transhumanism and just a natural part of our evolution?

I know this is beyond speculative of me but... If culture is our extended phenotype and cultural memes are subject to random mutation/ natural selection then perhaps our next evolutionary step is outside of our genome and in the realm of information / technology/science etc. I know I am playing fast and loose with the extended phenotype thing .. but I am only an amateur geneticist!

I could be grossly oversimplifying transhumanism by just factoring transgender into the conversation and need to take some time to read up on it more myself, but just the possibility that transgender people are members of our species evolving before our eyes within our lifetime makes me all giddy.

(June 29, 2016 at 5:26 am)chimp3 Wrote: What do you think of the idea that we are evolving into a new species named Homo evolutis ? The first species to take command of it's own evolutionary future? I can think of one simple proof this may be happening. Vaccination against disease. Is modern medicine our extended phenotype?

Vaccination against disease definitely have an impact on the human genome.   It allows those who are genetically more vulnerable to fatal or sterilizing diseases to compete on an equal footing as those are more genetically more resistant or immune to these.  So in the long run it prevent certain genes from dying out, and other genes from gaining dominance in the gene pool.

However, this does not lead to a new species.   It simply shapes the overall composition of the entire human gene pool.

The fact the people of different social economic and ethnic background may reproduce at different rates, also only has potential to change the composition of the overall gene pool, and do not lead to speciation.

To create a new species, one would require some parts of the population to undergo long period of reproductive isolation, so that the any change in the isolated gene pool can not propagate back to other parts of the population.  Only this way can genetic different between different part of the population accumulate, until eventually the total amount exceeds some threshold and speciation occurs.

Earlier someone mentioned a new species might occur after 10000 years of separation via interstellar travel.   It would appear that is not nearly enough.  Native American population had been genetically almost completely separated from the rest of Homo sapiens for at least 12000 years, and they started with a very small and particular gene pool.   But they have not come anywhere remotely approaching to speciating after 12,000 years

Genetic changes occurs not only as function of selective pressure, but also as function of generations.  But humans are a comparatively long lived and slow breeding specie.  So each generation takes longer and speciation also correspondingly likely take longer in humans than in squirrels or finches.   Evidence suggest fertile interbreeding had remained possible between members of the homo genus after many hundreds of thousands of years of separation.  So For natural speciation to happen from within the homosapien population, due to such things as geographic separation, or separation via interstellar travel, one probably needs to think in terms hundred of thousands of years, not thousands or tens of thousands.

(June 29, 2016 at 10:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: Homo evolutis, though..probably not.....more like Homo-rich, and Homo-poor.

One thing's for certain though. To borrow the phrase, "When shit is worth money, the poor will be born without arseholes."

I don't think we have to worry about bland sameness. Different people have different tastes, and sooner or later, genetic editing will be used to express aesthetic preferences. Expect novel skin, hair, and eye coloration at the very least. Probably feathers, pointy ears, cute fangs, and size changes. Maybe even centauroids or seal-like people. In a century we'll likely be speciating like nobody's business.

-but it won't matter, because any potential genetic incompatibility between novel humans can be edited for purposes of procreation. Kitty Cat Lady and Puppyman can have a Bird Baby, if they like.

Since we're talking what if in the realm of sci-fi..maybe we'll go for something entirely more useful? An edited metabolism? Bye Bye world hunger (aaaaaand I'm jobless, again, lol).

(June 29, 2016 at 6:53 pm)RozKek Wrote: What I'm afraid of is when we accomplish genome editing; eradicating diseases, making all babies, stronger, smarter and more intelligent by removing bad genes and only leaving good genes, diversity will decrease and people will become way too alike. If that happens and continues at the end we'll all be very similiar and we'll essentially become robots with our only purpose being self replication and thriving on. It feels as if life would become bland, but of course I'm all up for editing ones genetics to avoid down syndrome, cancer, diseases etc but in a complicated way I'd like it if we didn't allow adding good genes or at least not too much to keep diversity alive i.e removing the bad genes and leave the rest remaining without adding any superior genes. I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

People will only become more alike under sustained genetic editing if we are always right in predicting which genes are good and which are bad, and furthermore what is good for one is good for all, and what is bad for one is also bad for all.  

Since which genes are good and which are bad often depends on the environement to which the carrier of the gene is exposed, what is good for one is not always good for another.   Since genes are often very complicated in their expressions, we probably won't be always right in predicting which genes are good for whom in what circumstances.

Therefore I think gene editing won't be a clean, homogenizing thing.

Potentially customized gene editing could even lead to much faster accumulation of genetic differences and rapid speciation.

(June 29, 2016 at 5:26 am)chimp3 Wrote: What do you think of the idea that we are evolving into a new species named Homo evolutis ? The first species to take command of it's own evolutionary future? I can think of one simple proof this may be happening. Vaccination against disease. Is modern medicine our extended phenotype?

If things continue as they are I think we are slowly learning to become dependent on technology.

What about Homo Techno Dependicus Dependicus?

(June 30, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 5:26 am)chimp3 Wrote: What do you think of the idea that we are evolving into a new species named Homo evolutis ? The first species to take command of it's own evolutionary future? I can think of one simple proof this may be happening. Vaccination against disease. Is modern medicine our extended phenotype?

If things continue as they are I think we are slowly learning to become dependent on  technology.

What about Homo Techno Dependicus Dependicus?

We've been dependent on technology since at least when we first adopted a lifestyle that relied on man made stone tools.