Evolution? Or De-evolution?!?

I believe we evolved from one celled organisms, then fish, reptiles, mammals, then monkeys, and finally humans. We evolve to fit our needs. For example: over a very long time, monkey developed feet shaped like hands so they can both walk and pick things up with their feet. They didn't start off like this, it happened over the coarse of thousands of years. The same thing is with humans and our intelligence, we needed knowledge to survive the ice age, and to hunt with weapons sense we are not big enough to kill buffalos with our hands. And then we evolved.
Today, with computers and fast food and more government control, I think we will de-evolutionize, or become less advanced. Alot of people are all about immediate gratification. We have everything made out and ready. God forbid we would not have wal-mart or supermarkets and would have to make things from scratch, like our primitive ancestors. We won't need our intelligence, so we would adapt to our easy lives, and de-evolutionize.
Tell me what you guys think.

 

I think the movie Idiocracy makes a great point. Its a silly movie, but the overall message is kind of profound. At the beginning of the movie it talks about how educated people are more likely to wait until later in life to have babies, if they have them at all. Whereas the more ignorant section of the population keeps poppin' out babies like it ain't no thang. So instead of the human race advancing, it gets overpopulated by idiots.

theres a lot of truth to that.

de-evolution technically can't occur. The human race can't go backwards, only forwards, but I do think we've evolved to the point where any further evolution is not going to be beneficial to the earth or mankind.

 

Balderdash. That's not how evolution works. Furthermore, there's no such thing as "devolution."

The stupid majority has always outbred the upper-crust intellectual minority of the populace. Always.

The ones considered below-average today would be considered intellectuals a few hundred years ago. We are not advancing at a slower pace then we were before, never mind moving backwards.

 

this is true of industrialized nations. There are still many cultures in the world where the "peasants" remain largely uneducated and probably don't know much more than the peasants from 500 years ago.

I'm going to use Reader's Digest to illustrate my point. My great aunt passed away not too long ago and while I was helping my mom clean up her house and go through her stuff, I found some old Reader's Digests from the 1950s. The articles were lengthy and in depth. They covered social, economic, and political issues. I compared them to a Reader's Digest from this year, and the differences are startling. The articles consist of "Man mauled by polar bear!" Most articles are less than a page in length. There are more pictures than words.

Cartoons are another example. I was just discussing this with a friend last night. Cartoons now are made for children with ADD in mind. There is no need to focus on a story line because it jumps from one thing to another so fast. Whereas cartoons when I was a child had one story line per episode and it was drawn out the entire episode.

I would be interested in seeing statistics on how many people regularly read now vs 60 years ago.

You are correct that the human race cannot devolve. However, I do think certain elements in society are coming into play to dumb people down instead of making them smarter.

Its not really an issue of evolution or devolution. The OP was incorrect in the language he chose, but I do understand his sentiment.

 

People read much more then than they do now because their generation was raised before the time of TV, so literature was the main form of entertainment.

Reading more or less does not equate to intelligence.

 

I've heard this argument a lot. It can't really be proved right or wrong. Sure, people may have shorter attention spans, that doesn't mean we're getting less intelligent.

Some studies have shown that youth today are mentally capable of taking in more information at a faster rate than those of generations before them. Sure they have shorter attention spans though. Doesn't sound like de-evolution to me.

We're not less advanced either. We simply rely on technology to do a lot of the things we used to do, mostly in the name of increased productivity. More productivity can mean more money, both for us and employers (if you're into that sort of thing).

To me this argument boils down to nothing more than people looking back on the way things used to be and muttering, "kids today! Back in my day we..."

 

like mellai said, de-evolution cannot occur. it's technically physically impossible considering DNA accumulates characteristics and mutations and never gets rid of any. everything is simply a change.

when considering "laziness" and the lack of the ability to primitively survive, one factor that plays into it is how largely society affects an individual. stigmas, judgements, and expectations really shape a person. humans may evolve past that, but we dont know and the one thing we can be certain with is that right now is only a stepping stone.
and with the laziness and such, thats also because of technology; the club of the caveman. its not necessarily bad, but now humans can create complex systems of operations for things. the need for the ability of primitive survival is shrinking because of the environment we're continually evolving into.
and the evolution process is making humans as a collective species into one organism that will be like the single cell we originated from.

 

no, but reading counts as an activity that challenges and engages the brain. Activities that have replaced reading, such as watching tv, do not generally engage the brain.

 

I think that's at the root of things. Media.

It can seem like people are devolving and getting less intelligent. But I don't think this is quite the case.

With the way our media is delivered to us today, it's fast and quick, so a lot of people don't get the full story, but go by the reactionary titles and quick details added to the story to make it an interesting read.

So, when it seems like someone has a short attention span or is illinformed, it's not necessarily that they're less intelligent. It's just a result of the way media is introduced to people these days.

 

There would still be the intelligence of those making it easier for others either way

 

Thats true. Intelligience is generally defined as a person's capacity to learn. So I guess my point is that although the intelligience may still be there, it seems like the majority aren't using their intelligience to its total capacity.

 

maybe, if all that stuff lasts for the next couple thousand years.

 

In my option the theory of evolution is crap. I was raised to believe that god created us that we did not evolve from monkeys. It makes no since to me that schools are allowed to teach the theory of evolution but not about god. That does not seem fair to me. If they are going to teach one, why not teach the other? Though that is just my option. Of course de-evolution can't occur its not possible but at the same time we have evolved all that we can for the time being. Again just my option.

 

I hope that you're trolling.

I really, really do.

 

I'd say with the advent of the internet, people read now more than ever. Certainly more than in the days of TV, and before that, I assume reading was *generally* a pursuit of intellectuals, and not your average blue collar worker.

He worked 12 hours a day and went to bed after eating with his wife and 10 + kids.

And people certainly aren't more easily manipulated the media than in the past. Per example: Hearst and Spanish American War.

 

I don't troll. As I said in my statement its JUST MY OPTION. Everyone is in tilled to their own.

 

It is your option? Like option A, B, and C? in tilled? Like, you tilled the land? and you were in? Is english your first language?

 

I learned many of the same things when I was a kid in school. Over the years since then, I've learned much more. I'm afraid that we, as a general population, do not know GOD nearly as well as we would like to think we do. For one thing, there have been many errors introduced in the Bible through translation from one language to another. I've also found that there are quite a number of texts and passages that have been left out. (Apocrypha, for example, but certainly not limited to that.) Even Gospels of the New Testament have been withheld from the Bible for some reason or other. As a result, there are many things we do not know.

Also, evolution is not a bunch of crap. It's real. However, in our time, evolution has stagnated because of the laws of society. The conditions that were common in our pre-history are not present in modern day society. So, for the time being, evolution has come to a halt. That does not mean it's bunch of crap. And, in the final accounting, science and religion will have to coincide.