How intelligent is a somebody when they are considered a savant and something that is based off of false and inaccurate information. And how much brain cells would one waste becoming such a person and whatever they have hobbies or interests in. And why is it that these are the individuals that we wait on to validate someone else's or our own conclusion of something
@@ScienceFan1859 Tremendous respect for Michio Kaku, he is one of the greatest minds to ever live and proves HE IS WRONG. He is a result of new conditions of human evolution.
CRISPR cas9 has not brought anything resoundingly helpful to mankind, and in the next 10 years Jesus Christ could return. It is better to spend time learning about God than waiting to see what happens.
"You can pretty much go anywhere on the planet, meet people, have children..." I've been on planes. Never did it cross my mind to spread my seeds that far :D
Evolution is created by cause and effect. The strongest of the species survive, and go on to make adaptions. With the weak and ignorant having the most children, we're actually de-evolving. We need selective breeding to evolve. Duh.
Jason Moonsmith You are thinking of "survival of the fittest" It plays a part in evolution but is not evolution itself. Also the word "de-evolving" does not exist in the English language. Evolution is when a species changes. It doesn't have to be for better or for worse. You should probably see a counselor for your psychological trauma. Lastly, using the word "ignorant" when you fit the description of the insult makes you ignorant. YAY! Learning is fun. :D
Evolution is the mechanism by which we describe how life evolved. Within evolution the strong (and lucky) pass on their genes - adaptations happen over millenniums etc. Humanity for a brief period seems to have bucked the mechanism - meaning because of innovation, technology, mass farming, medicine etc. the notion of the "strong" surviving long enough to pass on their genes has went by the way side - in fact the opposite within the Homo Sapiens species appears now to be true - in order for a homo sapiens to pass on their genes they need not be strong, or healthy or intelligent or co-operative in order to increase their chances - we have a few doing much and massive numbers of people benefit from that work not because they are strong or healthy or intelligent but because they were "lucky" enough to be born in a time which has allowed them to do so. The idea of devolving (while not a word) is an understood concept for the above notion. Certainly telling someone they should see a counselor for their psychological trauma was an unnecessary insult which detracted from what would have other wise been considered a point worth sharing.
Alright, obviously none of you have opened a book and/or had an independent thought. These are the facts. Our life span has increased. We know more than we knew twenty years ago. Medication can cure illnesses that couldn't be cured previously. You all need to stop reflecting your lives on a matter that does not involve you. Just because you and everyone around are idiotic does not mean the human race is devolving. Get a better life and read some books.
Chase Boyd I am currently reading "A Brief History Of Humandkind Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari" - I just finished" Evolutionary Psychology" by Steven J.C. Gaulin and Neanderthal Man In Search of Lost Genomes by Svante Paabo . They are such fresh reads they are still sitting on my coffee table alone with Zizek, Fitzpatrick, and Foucault's work. All of which I highly recommend. Homo Sapiens are evolving within the species - we will not be as we are today even 200 years from now.
Even if there's intellectual pressure, there has to be a factor that enables intellectual people to pass on their genes by natural selection, better than less intellectual people. That intellectual-dependent mechanism isn't there, so there probably won't be selective pressure to evolve based on that.
No, there isn't much pressure. We protect our weak. That's just what we do. It's compassion and I'm not against it. But it definitely has stopped us from evolving.
Natural Selection is still happening. For example, extremely obese people are less likely to reproduce. Which means those genes are less likely to propagate.
But plenty of genetically inferior people are spreading their genes. (Not to sound rude) Im no Zach Efron. But in a species usually only the healthiest males and females will mate. their genes will get passed on to their off spring. Creating an overall stronger species. But everybody mates now a days so its not happening.
Josh Rubin Calling people genetically inferior IS rude. Anyway you went off on a tangent there. Evolution and inferior/superiority is kind of irrelevant because it's relative to the environment, and whether the individual is adapted to it or not. Humans won't evolve until the environment changes. I was simply saying that some traits are still being selected over others and some of them have nothing to do with survival.
There's a certain bittersweet guilty feeling that comes along with watching these videos in the sense that I want so much to be alive in 100 or so years to be there for these future mind-blowing discoveries. I feel guilt because it's greed on my part and I understand that progression is slow and we all work together to advance human society. I'm sure I am not the only one, I tell myself Newton, Einstein and Galileo probably felt the same way.
Also, I feel like we don't need to evolve any further because when we encounter a problem we simply use a tool or piece of technology to solve it. We can make our own lives easier with technology and without having to struggle for thousands of years until we are able to solve it because our bodies have evolved that way.
That in tern is the problem, the reliance on technology without the understand of said technology. We press a button and expect things to just fix our problems. What happens if the owner of said technology says well you can't use this anymore? If Google stopped you from using Google maps would you be able to navigate yourself the same way those who who have the knowledge of navigation? Therefore your reliance on technology is a hindrance
@@Nijichannn haha evolution happens when your survival is in danger do you think human survival is in danger i think if more than 98% humanity gets wipe away can create any danger. All those Google things you mentioned is very advance form of technology which were developed after million of years of evolution so he was right making the right tools and doing genetic engineering will certainly help us instead of relying on evolution
@@mrentp my friend I disagree with you there, as humans we no linger evolve, we adapt, there is a big difference in the two. Adaptation is using the technology available to us to live an easier life. The need to survive has changed the vast majority of the planet no longer needs to hunt for food and resource. As there is no longer a need for that, there is also no longer a need for evolution to play a hand, evolution decides what's best for the species to continue to survive, not just you but your children and their children etc etc etc. Evolution is a deeper understanding of biological, environmental, genetic etc etc variables. None of that matters when you can push a button and get what you want without the thought and understanding of how that is achieved therefore we are not learning we are purely relying on the few.
@@Nijichannn that's what I said about evolution we don't need it because we have reached at the upper end, now we need to become god and change world as per our need, do genetic engineering, make climate engineering,planet engineering and solar engineering. We just need to work on technology and our aging process and that's all.
I highly disagree with my hero Michio Kaku on this point, he is just flat out wrong. There are dozens of current modern agriculture practices that are accelerating genetic mutation and genetic drift! 1) Most farmers are using phosphates from China, that contain appreciable amounts of five different radioactive compounds and have been since 1953. 2) Farmers are over using Boron because it increases yields, even through its a mutagenic essential to life nutrient. 3) Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and antibiotics are mutating microbes, and microbes can mutate humans. 4) The hybridization of humans is altering the species for both for good and bad. By this I mean, one person may have the genetic defects of multiple races & another the genetic pluses of multiple races! Both super humans & health vegetables will result. And because of our morals, the health vegetables will remain! 5) Sever mistakes have been made altering newborn portions of mankind, who have since been breding, example DDT and Agent Orange! Example: Me, I'm a DDT baby with ultra bizarre health issues, who is Asperger Syndrome gifted, flamboyant yet shy, intelligent yet Forest Gump, extraordinary strong yet unhealthy, and aging 20% faster than most humans! I have bred with the population! I'm certain there is a hundred thousand of us out there, like me with DDT pesticide genetic drift divisions! We are breeding and humanity will forever change! Michio Kaku, my hero, you wish to debate me on this issue? Your IQ, I'm sure is 60 points above mine, yet I will win, as the evidence is on my side! Michelangelo Alexander Sir-Rhine
+Michelangelo Alexander Sir-Rhine I agree that this in the future these issues which you raise will be studied acutely and people will be forced to ask the question, what kind of human being do we want to engineer. We will have abundance in the future, so humans with strong survival mechanisms will not be desirable. Instead, peaceful, playful humans will be essential, because ego and greed will be less useful for survival.
schroeder666 Genetic Engineering will indeed change man, more than we dare to imagine. Evolutionary pressures will still be on us, but they will be very different, mostly mental in nature. Yes I agree, we will eventually come to realize that anyone who lacks Altruism threatens the survival of the species. But long before we get there, we will head in the opposite direction with a vengeance, creating genetic super soldiers. The government has the most money & the greatest control and will declare that the science is a matter of national security. And will do so to eliminate terrorism & another such problems. We will probably see a few decades of military state conditions before we see humanity developing an Altruistic World Government.
Years ago I had a lightbulb go off.... and it's exactly what Michio is talking about... we are no longer evolving forward. Think about it. There are no longer evolutionary pressures. The weak, stupid, even the "sick" no longer die off and the strong, smart and healthy only live. I'm not saying this to be mean I'm saying it as fact. As a matter of fact our society has made it even better for those who would normally fail... we give more money to those with more children regardless of their ability to care for them properly. We've made it profitable to devolve. I fear for our future children if this trend continues.
The entire point about evolution is that it is a natural selection process with the winners surviving to procreate and spread their genes and the losers dying off and their genes spreading less. Today this process has been short circuited and "everyone" survives and those who might be less successful are procreating more, not less, than what would have happened naturally. The future doesn't look very bright. Go watch the movie Idiocracy. I fear this may be a harbinger of things to come.
Well, I don't think that mechanisms of biologic evolution apply to human culture in any direct way. Those who you see failing today may still turn out to be the last chance for humanity to survive, in the long run. Our culture is an extremely dynamic environment that changes quite erratically. Social change happens far too quickly and is often too brief to constitute a meaningful environmental pressure when there is virtually no natural selection going on.
If you are referring to some kind of future apolcalypse, well, then all bets are off. Whoever is left will form the basis of the future and evolution will again apply assuming that we don't have a more prevailing force, namely modern civilization.
Santiago Draco Basically, I was trying to say that what you wrote about the welfare systems that, sadly, don't discriminate able parents from those who merely feed their children may not necessarily be an entirely bad thing. Of course, one can easily see this as a demographically risky and sociologically undesirable situation indeed. However, I was trying to point out that in terms of their genetic heritage children from those apparently disadvantaged multi-child families may not significantly differ from their peers of a more privileged background. Consequently, children of less favourable backgrounds may still be no less "desirable", evolutionary speaking. This is possible because, often, they are merely nurtured to behave less competitively by their passive parents - it's purely a sociological difference. None of this is hereditary, as far as we can tell. What I was hinting at was that a time may come, when the global society will likely benefit from less aggressive, less competitive and more co-operative patterns of behaviour going mainstream. So no, I did not try to dread any future calamities, though I can think of some, of course.
TheStyrofoamPeanut It is not random, it is specific, based on pressure to a species, a specific attribute is changed, based on the specific situation, this is why some people are in ufc, while some are in the nba. not to say you cant learn that, but genes determine how fast and on what level at what time you can.
***** We didn't lose our hair because we learned to make clothing. We lost our hair because somewhere down the line our ancestor genes mutated randomly which caused some to have less hair. The ones who had less hair fared better then the ones who had more hair. Eventually those ones died out and we remained. *remember Humans migrated out of Africa where it is very hot it was most likely in response to keeping cool.* which is also why early man also had dark skin. Losing our hair left our skin unprotected from the suns harsh rays, so hair loss and pigmentation most likely evolved around the same time.
***** Evolution is RANDOM, not based on any specific environmental pressure. This is the most common misconception about evolution. Any high school biology student can tell you that genetic differences are not caused by some sort of order. Random mutations in genetic code caused differences between species, and those that "fit in" the most survived. Hence "survival of the fittest", which doesn't actually mean fit as in strong or intelligent, but those that fit the environment best. Also, your comment about genetic code being unused or being turned back on is entirely false. Humans lost their hair for other reasons. That is not how DNA works, and you lack a basic understanding of evolution here.
***** "DUMB AS SHIT"?? I doth protest, my foul-mouthed and ignorant friend. Let me take apart your 'dumb as shit" remarks, piece-by-piece. First, cave men didn't have a written language. It is doubtful if they even had a spoken language. Science requires the ability to write and communicate with razor sharp precision, and it needs BOTH. Writing down mathematical equations if very difficult IF YOU CAN'T WRITE. Second, a caveman wouldn't know a "hypothesis" from a "horse," which apparently have far more brains than you do. Finally, modern science requires analyzing your data and passing it on, using the previous methods of which I have just provided. While it is true that "trial and error" is an integral part of science, if it was all about 'trial and error' as you contend, why would they call it "Science," Einstein?
***** Dear Shit For Brains: EQUATIONS CAME OUT OF SCIENCE. Did you go to school to get stupid, or where you born that way? "Crazy ass" mathematical equations are the building blocks of everything in the universe. Without them, there would never be atomic power and Einstein would still be a third level accountant working in a dingy basement room. If Dr. Kaku needed additional proof that man hasn't evolved much, I hope he reads your posts.
I have trouble taking anything Michio Kaku says seriously. More than anything, he seems to be someone who'll saying something about anything--doesn't matter how grounded in real thought or analysis it may or may not be--as long as it means he gets the attention he craves.
we stopped evolving, but our technology will evolve for us. the evolution is not on human anymore, it's on the technologies we create. so in the future, don't expect to see big eye human, but do expect to see robots that can take over the whole galaxy.
It is very interesting to see all the comments saying that Michio Kaku is wrong when in reality, the place we live in, all ideas about the progression of species are theories. The THEORY of evolution is a great example. This explanation given by Michio Kaku in this clip is just a theory supported with evidence and hypothesis. He is not lying, rather, he is just providing a supported theory about humanity.
Everything wrong with your statement: 1. "The place we live in, all ideas about the progression of species are theories": This statement suggests that all ideas about the progression of species are mere theories, implying that they are speculative or uncertain. However, the theory of evolution is not just any theory; it is a well-established and widely accepted scientific theory. It is supported by an extensive body of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, and it has been tested and confirmed through rigorous experimentation and observation. 2. "The THEORY of evolution is a great example": While the statement correctly identifies evolution as a theory, it implies that being a theory somehow diminishes its credibility or reliability. As explained earlier, in scientific terminology, a theory represents a comprehensive and well-substantiated explanation supported by evidence. The theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science, and it serves as the foundation for understanding the history and diversity of life on Earth. 3. "This explanation given by Michio Kaku in this clip is just a theory supported with evidence and hypothesis": It is important to note that Michio Kaku, a prominent theoretical physicist, is not primarily known as an expert in evolutionary biology. While scientists from various fields may offer insights into other scientific disciplines, it is generally advisable to refer to experts who specialize in a particular area when discussing scientific topics. Evolutionary biology is a specialized field with its own experts who have dedicated their careers to studying and understanding the processes and mechanisms of evolution. In summary, the statement downplays the significance and robustness of the theory of evolution, misinterprets the scientific meaning of "theory," and does not account for the expertise of individuals when discussing scientific topics. Evolution is a well-established scientific theory with overwhelming evidence, and it is crucial to rely on the consensus of experts in the respective field to accurately understand and communicate scientific concepts.
Which of course is why weedy guys and small-boobed women no longer exist! Or is it the other way around - girls like boobs and guys like big muscles, and each kid themselves that it is what the other wants? Why haven't ugly people been bred out of existence, the same way there are no short-tailed peacocks? I think pressure is on for the sexual selection of confident males and nurturing women, however un-PC that may sound.
Cliff Hughes Good thought but that's not how it works. Each person has their own likes and dislikes,which may or may not be influenced and which change drastically from decade to decade. You also have to consider recessive genes. While you may see a decline in certain traits breeding anything out of humanity would be damn hard.
Sorry my irony went unrecognised. Sometimes I think I'm so clever. You're right, of course. There are cultural reasons why we have preferences and, despite the fact that genetics drives everything, evolution is not a straightforward process. My own partner bears a pleasing resemblance to the Venus of Willendorf (except for the lack of a face).
i like how people are saying "he's just so wrong." i'm pretty sure as old as he is and as wise as he is, he has thought of what you just thought of. Then he figured out why it was wrong. What he's saying is that we don't have anything that will change our physical characteristics. There is no stress on the physical body that forces us to change our physical appearance. Girls looking different? they never changed. The only thing that changed is their diet and what the tastes of men during that specific time period is. So yes we are evolving like some of you pointed out but we aren't going to physically evolve. Nothing is forcing us to do so and nothing will force us to do so unless we suffer through a nuclear winter. Then we have to go back to survival of the fittest.
I think the issue is that the title is oversimplified and misleading, and he doesn't explicitly talk about cultural and economic forces, or how birth control completely throws off the relationship between general attractiveness and reproductive success
Not so long ago our head size was limited to the size of the birth canal from which we were born. If a head was too big, chances were that baby and/or mother died during childbirth and therefore limited the big head genes. Not any more in the developed world. I believe we are evolving larger heads.
Actually our brains are smaller now than they were thousands of years ago. At least that's what I saw on another Ted Talks video. Probably a lot of debate about that one.
I love Michio’s work - and I’m no physicist - however I can’t help but disagree with his thoughts on this one. We’re always evolving. Just look at the kids growing up with a smart device in their hands since they were in a crib versus those of us who had to adapt to the inventions as they first came out in our teens or adulthood. The processing speed and efficiency in adapting to the tech is different between the age gaps, not always, but usually in many regards. Just one example…
I feel like people have missed the entire point of his video. Evolution happens every time we have babies and swap genetic DNA. How ever the pressures to now weed out the bad DNA well lesson as two things come into play. 1. He uses Australia as an example because when you have separation of land, the animals evolve according to those unique environments. This is because of the technology boom of planes and boats. Isolated cultures like North Korea are on the decrease. 2. Human medical advancement has helped saved millions of people although we're no longer losing what nature may consider 'bad genes' or even our ill and sick that would fall behind. People that are born with webbed toes or six fingers may have actually proved useful in the wilderness where they could give benefits to future generations of the same trait. I think both are side effects of technologically that I'm glad exists. The evolution that we're going in right now is just 'different' then what our ancestors had. It's not better or worse, it's just a bit different.
No it does not reproduction is not an evolution. Evolution is renadom gen. mutation, natural selection and gen. drift. Not reproduction he is a physicist and knows little of biology
Amy Newman, let me ask you something. If natural selection determines weather a trait is good or bad for survival in a harsh environment, and that same natural selection decreases the frequency of bad genes, what will happen if an environment becomes very forgiving? Let's say you have genes for poor eyesight, and this forgiving environment fixes your sight with a pair of glasses, you go on and have your kids, does that mean that frequency of bad genes will start increasing, i.e the population living in this forgiving environment will become more and more sick?
Evolution is In the process of splitting the species. People have formed reproductive annexes based on social circles, character traits, job types, even wealth etc. People in the ghetto reproduce in the ghetto, people in the middleclass with middleclass aristocracy with aristocracy, athletes with athletes, people on welfare with people on welfare. Ever since we started living in civilisations and using agriculture and more modern medicine evolution drastically sped up Our brains are 10% smaller volume than they were 10,000 years ago..... that is extremely fast evolution. Our faces are getting flatter and wider to mimic a baby's face. We're definitely changing faster than ever before (at least according to comparisons of the genetic data) When bacteria are given ideal conditions of growth and reproduction they eventually become weak and reliant on the good conditions. Humans are just the same. Becoming reliant on the systems we set up. The better the systems that are set up, the faster the rate of evolution. We better hope the systems we set up can sustain themselves because if they can't human civilisation will collapse with no way to recover itself. Perpetual recirculation of the current or previous genomes or, in event of failure, a 'reboot' might be the only possible solution
There is still weeding out of 'bad' genes but the standard of good and bad is being set by human preference rather than the pressures of nature. People like to be smart so they choose a stupid person that makes them feel smart, people like 'cute' people so they choose people with faces more similar to a baby's face. The fossil record shows that our brains have shrunk by 15-20% since 20000 years ago. There's a definite direction of evolution and it's driven by single direction human preferences. There's been an increase in the rate of change in our genome by a factor of 10-100x since we started living in civilisations. We have set our own standards of good and bad for evolution to follow and it's not necessarily what we expected
We have the ability with CRISPR etc to make the old processes of evolution a fairy tale but perhaps fortunately or unfortunately, evolution has been backed up by observation more than you'd think
actually, keeping the "bad genes" around may prove beneficial to mankind in some unforeseen scenario, some defects may result in resistance or immunity to certain viral pathogens. gotta keep the gene pool as varied as possible.
This I totally agree with. Love that you said "bad genes" in qoutation because like you mentioned, I'm certain there are unforseen scenarios, and even more likely a gap in out understanding. Can we be certain beyond reasonable doubt that gene editing won't have a adverse negative effect. Evolution has done the job quite well in my opinion (because well how would I truly know what is best) when it comes to our survival thus far. But as we changed the world in drastic ways, all we are doing is editing our genes to deal with things that quite possible are our fault to begin with
+Mario Alemi Ad.1 I'm relieved to hear it. Good for us :-) Ad.2. Thanks. I always try and rely on source materials, if I can. I'll keep reading. Ad.3 First off, I never said that humans haven't evolved for the last 50 ky. In fact, I know for a fact that we did. Secondly, I'm not a big fun of comparing biologic evolution to what's recently been labeled "cultural evolution". I think that in many ways that's not a terribly fruitful analogy. Thirdly, I didn't even evoke the selfish gene hypothesis", for it is more of a philosophical concept and one that doesn't offer much new, in terms of the inner workings of evolution. I was simply pointing out that you can't get evolutionary change to last over multiple generations without embedding it into genome first. That was ALL that I was referring to as the classical take on biologic evolution. Now, if you'll take on board various possible consequences of the epigenetic imprint, then you may deem the classical approach obsolete. That's OK. All I meant was that it is still unclear, at least to some, whether epigenetic alterations actually facilitate evolution. Personally, I don't find anything preposterous about "the idea that the human being is made by its DNA", because that is NOT the idea. I don't know anyone among scientists who would think that all the functions that body performs are facilitated solely by DNA. Far from it, they'd say. But DNA is the only molecule with confirmed ability to store all the information necessary to code for both the development and operation of a biologic organism. Or so it was until very recently, as we now discuss the place of epigenetic regulation in all this. Either way, for LIFE to thrive and be reborn you also need CONTINUITY, which I always thought was so moving about living things, because it is so incredibly easy to break it. So perhaps, for some, going from genomics to proteomics and epigenetics may constitute a "paradigm shift". Decidedly, it does change the way scientists do research in life sciences nowadays. Still, for me, there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it. All that means is that we've learnt enough to undergo yet another unification of our knowledge, rather than overturn everything we thought was true about DNA. Hope that helps. TC :-)
Damn. I expected more from this guy. Evolution is an ongoing process. It doesn't stop, no matter what. Mankind will never stop evolving. It will just evolve in different, more relevant ways.
I know this is a relatively old video at the time of my comment, so I am bit late at the table. By now I think we all see that humans are evolving a lot more rapid space than it was expected / perceived 5-10 years ago, and of which we will see its effects in 10-20 years from now.
+Marcos Lopez "How can he possibly know if we are evolving or not?" Oh, I don't know … maybe because he can make logical inferences based on sound assumptions? Just a thought. "This is pure post-modern hubris thinking that we are beyond evolving at this point." I think it is downright ridiculous to pick holes in a statement as elementary as what Kaku is saying here by suggesting any connection to some nebulous, pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. Kaku is a theoretical physicist, not some Hollow Earth theorist. He says nothing about "what if …". He doesn't say that evolution actually stopped for humankind. He is not even suggesting that evolution can be stopped at all. He treats human evolution at such a basic level so as to avoid controversy. There's nothing ideological about it.
I'm not an expert on evolution but there's a lot of people here who seem to know nothing on the subject, seriously listen to him, if you know something about evolution you will realize he is making
Except he's wrong. His premise is entirely outdated or misinformed. Our modern lifestyles haven't stopped us from evolving, it has simply changed *how* we will evolve. It is a common misconception that pressures need to be extreme in order to induce evolution. Evolution will continue regardless of the environment because genes mutate randomly through every generation and natural selection nonrandomly sorts through these genes. As long as humans have generations, they will continue to evolve. In fact newer studies are finding that we may be evolving faster to this new environment we made for ourselves.
@@infini_ryu9461, In my knowledge, I think he's partially right. What I disagree with is evolution coming to a stop for a certain species. I believe that we can still evolve, even with the modern environments, but since our modern environments, technology, and medicine are built to keep us safe, I think it has made Natural Selection much more ineffective, therefore, taking a much more longer time for the human species to evolve. The environment most of us are living in (shelter with air conditioning and warm blankets, constant food and beverages) are man-made to give us a much safer and healthier environment than in a wild environment, which, again, makes Natural Selection more ineffective on us since the majority of our traits are protected and prevented from changing through generations. This doesn't mean I'm right, I'm just saying what I believe
@@numbercode2486 He's not even partially correct, though, he has a complete misunderstanding of natural selection. Natural Selection is a selection process new genes go through to determine which ones get passed on, it does not create new genes. It is merely a filter. We know of selection processes that counteract these claims, called genetic drift, mate selection and structure, culture, etc. We now know that Evolution is ongoing and unstoppable, we may only effect how we evolve. It turns out our abundance of food and living longer to reproduce has made Human Evolution speed up, contrary to popular belief. Human populations are still becoming more different and it's become even faster, particularly in the last 5000 years.
***** Just some food for thought: In the last information age revolution The Gutenberg Bible was the first major book printed. So I still stand by our brains must evolve to the point that God is a concept understood by all without outside religious dogma. Many are there now but not enough yet. IMO
***** I understand where you are coming from but information has to be processed by the mind. Think about all of the misinformation and conspiracy theories around today using the new technology's. Your last line said it all " Alas, we still have media manipulation and that has become worse or perhaps just as bad as how religion manipulated minds back then". :^)
1. Victoria Brown, CEO of Big Think, says when presenting the forum: "Human ingenuity is more important than ever before". There is pressure to be ingenious then. 2. Epigenetics ("the study of heritable changes in gene activity which are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence") indicatse that we did not become homo sapiens because of selection of genes, but a continuous modification of the gene activity, and further "freezing", in our DNA. 3. The evolution of mankind is not necessarily the evolution of human DNA. Humanity as a whole -mankind- IS evolving. A Martian visiting the earth now after 50,000 years would hardly recognise us as the same half-naked apes who uttered a few words and could not aggregate in communities bigger than 100 individuals.
Ad.1 Well, Victoria Brown sounds like a rather responsible person (and even looks attractive too) but I suspect that she didn't mean to singlehandedly and unilaterally steer the evolution of the human kind. Perhaps you've taken her message a bit too far. Unless you meant it as a joke(?) Ordinarily though, evolution does not operate that way, i.e. by taking polls, processing wishes, prayers etc. That's one popular misconception ... Ad2. I don't know who you are quoting here but the current understanding is that epigenetic changes look transient and were found to only last up to 3 generations at best; beyond that, there's no conclusive proof of any changes in gene expression pattern that could echo the initial epigenetic alterations found in grand grand grand parents. As such, epigenetic change is an unlikely driver of evolution. Nonetheless, this is potentially a new and fascinating level of control over organism's genetic material that, if proven significant, may actually add to our understanding of certain intricacies of evolution, such as why exactly an unused organ degenerates and eventually vanishes altogether, e.g. why amphibia living in dark caves lose their sight. Personally I just feel that the traditional explanation is incomplete. It simply says that body parts (organs, tissues) that do not contribute to survival are BOUND to diminish the chances of survival by causing disadvantageous drag that affects mobility, or by posing unnecessary risk of infections that might affect the unused organ (such as the appendix in humans that can lead to death when inflamed). This optimisation mechanism will do for entire organs but it doesn't necessarily explain why some sections of the human genome have gone missing, compared to, say, Chimpanzees. In a puff. Ad.3 Now, that's a pretty serious misconception around evolution. In reality though, biologic evolution of any species only takes place if there is a genetic change that precedes and underlies both observable and unobservable features alike so as to enable them to be passed on into the future. Classical theory of evolution asserts that individual organisms typically do not benefit from any genetic changes that they may carry (except perhaps for bacteria and corals). Instead, they record those key hits and misses in their diverse DNA stores for future generations to lose or benefit from inheriting later on.
***** Thanks for the long reply! 1- Yes, re Victoria Brown I was half-joking. 2- Read e.g. "How the Leopard Changed Its Spots" by Brian Goodwin, "What Darwin Got Wrong" by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, "Identically Different" by Tim Spector. You can find there a lot of references to peer-reviewed articles too. 3- I think you are right if you want to remain in the of "classical theory of evolution". If you believe "The Selfish Gene" is still to be considered up-to-date, then yes, what I wrote is wrong for you. Only be aware -it is not a "serious misconception", it is a serious change of paradigm which has been going on for 15 years now. The idea that the human being is made by its DNA is... well, a bit preposterous. The emerging property of 100,000 of proteins "collaborating" in a cell, makes the cell alive, not its DNA. And the collaboration of 1 trillion cells makes a human being. The DNA is not the "code" for the human being, no more than each person in a society makes the society itself -it is the interaction of these people, how they interact, which makes the society. You say homo sapiens has not evolved for 50 ky. Let's say I agree. Still, the meta-organism "human society" has evolved a lot. Why? Because human beings now interact differently. The change of the society is not embedded in the people, but in the network, in the way they communicate. The same -increasingly more biologists say today- for genes. It is the way the organs, the cells, the proteins, the amino acids interact which makes an organism. The essence of the organism is not in the DNA, but in the network of all this networks interacting between each other. As Tim Spector says "A single gene in an organism is no more important than a single note in a symphony".
To say that evolution is suddenly no longer happening is a convenient fact to explain the inconvenient fact that macro evolution has never been observed, and now never will be.
Well, decades from now we'll look the same, sure. We've looked relatively the same for millennia. So have many species. Sharks, various insects, lung fish, and several others, have descendants that survived that feature similar anatomical features to their distant ancestors. That doesn't mean they stopped evolving, it's just that deviant subspecies either changed too much or died out. Humans are the same. There are people all over the world who have developed genetic alterations over successive generations to help with environmental pressures. There's a group of people in the Himilayan mountains who have developed a resistance to altitude sickness so that they can live atop mountains for extended periods of time. There's a family in Italy who have developed a resistance to heart disease that counteracts their high-risk diets, and apparently a great many caucasians in Europe have a gene that makes them highly resistant, if not immune to AIDS. Over successive generations, these traits will likely spread. That's evolution. If someone's expecting us to grow additional limbs and things, they're going to have to wait a while. Certain birds still have residual claws from their time as dinosaurs. We're talking like 75 million years here.
You seem to know quite a bit about evolution and that is why I don't understand why you think that adaptive traits such as immunity against AIDS or the ability to survive unharmed above 5000m will spread? I'd argue the opposite: any traits that are not being selected at the moment and that do not prevail already are ultimately going to be lost for good, leave the human gene pool entirely through the genetic drift.
Dust Bunny Some inevitably will vanish from the gene pool, or remain in an individual pocket of humanity. Those that live in the Himilayas may never spread that resistance to altitude sickness beyond those people who live up there. The one about the immunity to AIDS was traced back to the early onset of bubonic plague in Europe. It's been around for centuries and has proliferated through a large section of the European population. It's a bit too late for that particular gene to stop being proliferated now simply by its not being actively selected for (like a man or woman looking specifically for people with that gene). It's take a rather large annihilation event to obliterate that gene. I'm not a biologist. I don't know all the intricacies. My point wasn't that all these traits WILL spread, I was using them as examples of things that COULD spread, and thus alter the entire population over the course of a few millennia. It was all to illustrate an example of what evolution is. I don't know what the future is, I don't know what genes will spread and which will disappear.
Neither do I, actually. However, my point about the likelihood of traits either disappearing or proliferating was based purely on two general features of human evolution that I find curious; one is the notion that nearly all genetic variants of a particular gene are now on equal footing with one another; another is a postulate that such a situation is bound to cleanse all "minority alleles" from our genome, solely by means of piecemeal statistical elimination (no annihilation events required). By the same logic, all "majority variants" should eventually spread across the entire human population, even without any positive selection at all. Of course, all of this may only be true under the assumption that humanity doesn't loose its "techno-bubble" or suffer significant losses in terms of its genetic heritage. So it's not guessing, it is more like extrapolating from what we have now, without trying to factor in every variable that we know about (kind of what Kaku is doing in this video). Thus, I do appreciate this is not much of a forecast, which is why I didn't mean it to seem that way in the first place - my apologies if I confused you/anyone.
Yep. A collection of anonymous RUclips commenters TOTALLY have much more experience and authority on biology than a professional and well known scientist.
Bullshit. The human environment is 180-degrees different from what it used to be just a few centuries ago. A different environment means different needs of adaptation, which means different courses of evolution. Get *this*: we can actually *choose* whether to have kids! We didn't have that luxury just 200 years ago.
+Jerrylee Stewart-Gonzalez You can tell he is by the fact that he starts his post with "bullshit". That's the sign of a highly intellectual person introducing himself into the discussion.
I absolutely love when I read dumbshits claiming shit like that. Read a fucking book. Newton was frustrated with you morons and called you bullshit. With yer bullshit book of fishes. Tesla called you bullshit, with yer bullshit fear of technology. Edison called you bullshit for yer inability to complete yer own inventions without him. Farnsworth (inventor of TV) called you bullshit brain dead retarded zombie robot mongrels for what you chose to use his machine for. If you are the reader, and you are reading the thoughts of a genius, then you have been called bullshit and that bullshitting isn't absolved by any level of authority on any subject, So clearly the idea that getting frustrated with what is wrong, or at least perceived to be wrong, is a sign of mental weakness, or a lack of intellectualism, is straight bullshit. Watch a scientific debate, read about Copenhagen. Stop being a counterfeit pretending like you know what the fuck yer talking about. Intellectuals are frustrated by morons just like everyone else. If you want stoicism look to fucking Buddha not Tesla, dumbshits.
You started off sounding standoffish, but you're absolutely correct. I believe we are on the precipice of a punctuated equilibrium in human evolution. Information consumption is at the highest level it's ever been since the beginning of mankind. We are learning at a faster and faster rate, and our "hard drives" are taking on much more information than they have ever previously been exposed to. The functional capacity of the human mind directly correlates with enlargement of the actual, physical cranial capacity. If Mr. Kaku would've simply asked a Biological Anthropologist, he would've been informed of this basic fact of human evolution. I'm sure if you Googled "cranial capacity evolution" images, yourself, you'd see the proof is in the pudding. Our frontal lobe (where most complex, "deep" and "creative" thought is processed) is enlarging due to our advancing "processing" capabilities. From being devoid of any frontal lobe above the eye brow in early man, to almost being perfectly upright at 90 degrees in modern humans. This is almost certainly set to progress even further to accommodate the complexity of modern (and especially, future) human thought and intellect as technology keeps on rapidly evolving. Just think about this for a second: We went from almost all but impossible access to a single, hard copy book 200 years ago, to a time where all the information that's ever been dissemenated by every scholar and genius throughout history is now instantly accessible to any person at their fingertips. Instantly. As for "Australia": After about 500-1000 years when we have successfully began terraforming Mars and permanently inhabiting it, we will begin to see a noticible off-shoot speciation of homo erectus begin to emerge. The "humans" on Mars will begin to look different from the humans on earth - this is a certainty. The 1/3 gravity, in itself, will have an almost immediate effect on the physiology of succeeding lineage from generation to generation. This is the "Australia" that Mr. Kaku fails to recognize in his assessment. P.s.... People will take everything as gospel if it comes from someone they deem to be an authority (whether it is in their field of expertise, or not). If Michio Kaku told people the world was flat, they'd never go outside again. Just a thought.
He is in no position to predict the next 250,000-1,000,000 years. Evolution moves very slowly and no one can tell whether or not we are still evolving, and if so, in what way. Lost a lot of respect for the man.
People evolve every time they learn something. Take electricity for example. I spent many years working hard physical jobs. My life wasn't easy. But when I was taught how to understand and use electricity my life changed forever. The way I saw the world changed as well as the amount of physical work I did on in a day plus the money I made and my quality of life for me and my family. I evolved within my own brain. I became more intelligent and my life became easier and my odds of surviving increased. Not just for me but for my friends and family. Evolution is not just controlled by DNA it is controlled by consciousness also. Because I learned something I changed the future of me and every person around me
I recommend reading "Four Dimensions of Evolution." (Written carefully by leaders in Evolutionary Biology) Epigenetics suggests that evolution might not be 100% Darwinian(driven by random genetic mutations outside human agency). In the 4 dimensional view, rapid evolution might still occur for humans in the future.
That's because when you are isolated, you learn purely by yourself, invent own things. That's because you have nobody to consult with or rely on their experience. If you are in an isolated forest you could invent your way of collecting water (evolution of knowledge), instead of going to a closest store and buy a cup (using an existing knowledge). Take a look on the old times - you had Roman civilization, Byzantine, Greek, Egyptian, etc, etc. Each with its own culture, inventions, etc. This is because they were quite isolated from each other. What you have today? Company X invent something, company Y invents something different. This is because companies tend to keep their technology in secret (call it "isolated research").
I think he's mostly speaking about Australia's animals, although the native people probably fit the bill, too. Australia being so infamous for its creatures is a result of its very harsh environment and that there's no way for those creatures to spread anywhere else. If they'd mingled with animals from Africa or Asia they wouldn't be so distinct and extreme.
That'd be a great analogy if it even closely resembled what the evolutionary model states. All species experience variety within the species and given enough time and/or with survival pressures some features will become more dominant/dormant than others. The changes in genetic structure for a single feature can be incredibly minor and become dominant quite rapidly.
Selection, educated(rich, from university), less educated(not so rich). I believe that these will be 2 paths of evolution. Or at least it would make a good science fiction story
im so happy i found this on youtube I always felt like i was weird for thinking like how these videos tell you think. I felt really lonely with my crazy mind. Always wondering about the universe about the human race and so much stuff that i think most people miss. I cant say this youtube page opened my eyes. But i can say that it showed me that im not alone out there with thoughts and ideas like this.
Back in primary school, a teacher once asked the class to draw the heads of people in the future. Everyone else drew bulbous heads similar to the gray aliens of Roswell fame, I drew a head similar to modern humans but with more of the space dedicated to the brain cavity. I argued that it doesn't take much change to increase the volume of the brain cavity as volume increases at the third power of increases in radius and there's also no correlation between brain volume and intelligence besides with society and communication, we all benefit from the intelligence of others hence there are no environmental drivers to increase average intelligence and so long as we have large populations and population growth, we will have sufficient exceptional people even though they may be a decreasing percentage of the population. The teacher didn't buy my argument but then she also thought water turning into ice was a chemical change (actually I don't remember if that was the same teacher but frankly I was not impressed by my primary school teachers).
Yea we didn't stop evolving... we're culturally evolving all the time, and our brains our changing their structure to adapt to these new cultural selective pressures, the biological pressures of gross evolution are just too long term for us to realize, but we can easily imagine how our changing environment could influence our biological species, in particular our minds and body image (sense of beauty, etc.), over huge spans of time.
Ok, neurological evolution IS physical evolution. The brain is a physical system, and any evolution of the physical brain would be constitutive of neurological evolution.
augie nelson ......................... WOW. Of course they are......... electrochemical activity, i.e., action potentials, neurotransmission, etc., (aka "neuron activity") is physical activity. This is basic science. I mean seriously? You're either trolling, or fundamentally ignorant of the most basic scientific truths. "Neuron activities aren't [physical]," unbelievable... what the hell happened to scientific literacy in this world? If neuronal activity wasn't physical, our bodies would collapse to the ground, and our brains would switch off. In fact, the mammalian brain, and arguably all brains and all of life, would have never existed. Do the slightest amount of investigation before you willingly embarrass yourself...
"As far as gross evolutionary pressure is concerned"--precisely, such pressures, in the classic sense of the term, may be no more but new, societal pressures have taken their place. And despite the fact that these constructs, norms, and expectations are man-made, they still impose evolutionary pressures on people. As random genetic mutations continue to occur and we continue to reproduce sexually: there will be some degree of evolution, and natural selection, that is still occurring. In short, so long as there is competition that involves possibly life-threatening losses to the losers--there will be evolution and natural selection. Plus there is always the unforeseeable series of disasters that may revert us to previous ways of life (but let us not look at the future in such a way). I really love talking about these types of things and I am going down a path that I will never reverse. I want to become better, smarter, and stronger with each day. If you find me to be genuine bring me your knowledge and life experience so that we may both grow. That is all, no more no less
Human are no longer evolving. Humans are devolving. Mongrelization is just speeding it up. Without advanced genetic engineering. We only have selective breeding options available and that would take generations before it will have much of a impact. You would need to start with a decent size group and weed out the undesirables generation after generation. You would use a test and slowly increase the bar over generations. Those that fail the test will be removed, you would most likely remove their children as well at some point. no marriage will be permitted outside the group. The people of this group could end up with similar brain, skull and facial characteristics.
MasterOfSparks More like applied eugenics, which at one point in time was a very popular concept which sadly lost it's popularity when it because associated with Nazism. There was actually a paper published recently about the benefits of mandatory sterilization for certain types of people. For instance, every girl going for a second abortion would have her tubes tied, every man unable to pay child support for a certain period of time would get a vasectomy, every felon convicted of a repeat offense of a violent crime would be sterilized. It sounds crazy to Americans and Europeans because we've always lived in a society where we are free to do what we like sexually, but there are some cultures where this sounds normal. And from an evolutionary and societal standpoint it's superior.
You'd have better luck claiming it as a superior system were we actually living in a society where a man's income reflected the quality of his genetics. But we live, instead, in a country where there is very little if any real upward mobility. In fact we have a collapsing middle class. You'd better not wish for such things unless your family has very deep pockets. You may well find yourself on that list through one little twist of fortune.
What the hell is a "rockstar" astrophysisist doing commenting on biology? Tell it to Hollywood. This guy is so self-important. Evolution is alive and well.
EMI94100 That's because of nuitrition. In Japan, people are taller and taller by the generation because they eat more meat and their diets are more varied and balanced.
Malin Sheffield Well to me that is an evolutionary process. It's not natural selection but it is still evolution. There seems to be a popular misconception in terminologyabout this.
Height is a criterium of attraction especially for women (obviously everyone has preferences, so please don't troll me by saying "hey I like short guys!", it's just much more common to find taller men attractive), so the fact that taller men are more likely to procreate could have something to do with this. This is natural selection at work however, which implies that we are in fact evolving, since NS is the engine through which evolution is driven.
We are close to genetic equilibrium, not a good thing for the survival of the human race, but once we start populating other planets, we will find many different species of human.
This man made 100% clear that we still evolve every generation but it's just that we don't have major evolution, but yet they still decide to put "mankind has stopped evolving" in the title.
"Many many decades away, we'll still look pretty much the same." No shit. That's less than 100 years is it not? This guy's the "You weren't there" in the scientific community.
Mr Kaku please.... We live in a society where our governments, schools, police and institutions are corrupt. Tens of millions of people dying from starvation, global poverty and war war war... The driving force of our evolution is no longer done for the best of mankind, but rather a profit and Mr Kaku wants us to believe we are at our evolutionary peak..?? Mr Kaku, You don't see the animals screwing themselves for a profit..
iLikeSushiXD If you watch it again, you will find he touches on both subjects.. Gross evolutionary pressure, or the need to evolve(social beliefs??) and genetic changes to humans..
MrWizardofozzz Actually, I would disagree, you do see animals screwing themselves for a profit. You see it all the time. One, carnivores. Two, insects that eat their mates. Three, male lions who kill opposing males' cubs. Four, birds who warn other birds when there's a predator nearby (I really like this one because it actually seems like the bird is endangering itself, but when you think about it, a bird that ends up raising the alarm first increases its chances of surviving relative to the flock's. How is this screwing someone over? The bird is more likely to survive because the flock will provide great cover, but someone else is probably going to get gobbled). Five, cuckoos infest other birds' nests with their own young. Baby cuckoos kill the host's own babies as soon as it hatches. Six, some ants go on all out war and enslave other ants to work for them. One reason why we don't see war in nature (those ants being a big exception) is because a gene that increases your chances of going to war also decrease your chances of surviving and then reproducing. So, a gene that goes to war has less chance of propagating and could be invaded by its counterpart: a gene that stays home and has sex with all the ladies. Not to mention, that to make war worth it, there has to be a lot to gain from winning. Baboons raid each other's tribes for women because they're a valuable asset for reproduction. I'd guess that species that stockpile their assets are more prone to war-like behavior. Reproductive profit is what drives evolution. There are ways to profit by cooperating and there are ways to profit by screwing someone over. We see all kinds in nature. Mr Kaku is making the point that, nowadays, we aren't under as much pressure to evolve, at least not in spectacular ways. Either way, I would argue that social pressures influence humans more than evolutionary pressures. Evolutionary pressures are too slow and indirect. And, as Mr Kaku mentions, they aren't as powerful in our modern societies as they used to be when we were more wild.
Julio Cervantes Actually all the animals you listed do what they do for others.. the lions kill for the pride, the cuckoos for their babies and so on.. Not sure what you meant by birds notifying others of predators..?? how is that gaining a self profit..?? they do it for others... as a whole.. Insects are not animals.. Show me an ANIMAL that profits from its actions.. Eating, breathing and reproducing is a natural self preserving action... eg a squirrel will steal nuts to gain an advantage through the winter, even if it from another squirrel... And not only will it steal, but it steals more than it needs...
superhund14 You are correct, nobody knows what are final destination will be like, but nobody asked that did they..?? People have much more evolving to do, some more than others(hint)..
qualified people in one field shouldn't assume they know everything in every other field this is a perfect example complete nonsense you'd get out of a 1st year undergrad bio student
Really? So, I happen to be a computer scientist myself. Why don't anyone ask me a question about quantum mechanics? Becuase you know, since I am a scientist, I can, for some reason, answer any scientific question, even though it might not relate to my own field of science.
You can have more than one interest, only because someone doesn't have a Ph.D in that subject doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about Evolutionary Biology. Turing didn't formally have an interest Biology, and he started to research into Mathematical Biology.
This is so typical of physicist thinking about biology, it seldom works. He doesn't know whether there is a gross evolutionary pressure against something, and neither does anyone else. In 100 000 years we will know however. This dude is seriously suffering from the "expert in one area (physics), must mean I understand everything just as well!", which actually makes me wonder whether he is a true expert to begin with, since normally when you learn something, you realize that you do not understand anything about it. This really provoked me.
I disagree with Michio's appraisal that natural section was responsible for a big brain. The primary factor that created a large brain in humans was energy input vs. energy output. To explain, mankind's large brain developed because he had more energy coming into his body than going out. Input was generally larger than output. That man cooked his meat (a high source of vitamin B12 energy) allowed his body to spend less time breaking down the tissue in order to metabolize it. The brain began to swell with the added energy input over the many centuries. What is causing mankind to not evolve is the fact that most of the food energy has been removed from our food, through processed methods (and vitamin B12 has been declining in our food since 1950). Also, we stay indoors often, avoiding the Sun, which is a high energy source. If you have a surplus of energy within the body that exceeds your output, the remaining energy will swell your brain, making it larger. If input exceeds output, the brain will benefit. This is somewhat painful, and causes turbulence in the emotions, but it is evolution. Picking the correct foods is key, the foods must deliver the maximum amount of energy to the cells. Raw Paleolithic foods are the best choice. Food Companies the ones responsible for mankind's recent lack of evolution. By denuding the food of its nutrients, food companies have greatly impeded the evolution of a larger human brain.....
I was wondering this, too. Kaku should have declined to talk about something he had little expertise in, didn't, and the result was this train-wreck of a video.
Dr. Kaku needs to stick to physics or go back and take General Biology 101. This is a "gross" misunderstanding of evolution. To say that there is no selective pressure on humanity is a fallacy. Sure, it doesn't involve fisticuffs with a lion, but there are still selective pressures. The important thing is how well a mutation or a shuffling of phenotype can survive. And mutations happen all the time. So we are still evolving. "Gross" evolution is just as much nonsense as the idea that "macroevolution" doesn't happen. Evolution isn't an improvement thing. It's not a progressive thing. It's nothing more than your mutation doesn't interfere with your ability to survive and reproduce. That's all it is.
Evolution is primarily due to mutation; if the mutation make an individual more adaptable to his environment, his genes will tend to "weed out" those who do not have the mutation. It's not something that happens in a few years or even a few centuries, but over tens of thousands of years.
Decades from now we'll look the same? That's obvious. This video was the least informed subject that kaku ever took on. It'll take 10s of thousands of years for humanity's appearance to significantly change.
I think he is right that selection pressure has greatly diminished, but it certainly hasn't vanished. After all, plenty of people still fail to reproduce, and sadly, still all too many children fail to live to adulthood. So genes are still being lost from the gene pool, just not as fast as before and not as ruthlessly. There is a lot of evidence that sexual selection based on appearance will continue to play a role, with selection for greater facial symmetry, greater height, and smooth / unblemished skin, being several examples of nearly-universal attractiveness signals. Of course, the question must be raised, how much taller, smoother, or more symmetrical can humans actually *get*? But he's probably right when it comes to what he calls "gross" changes (in the scientific sense, meaning "significant", not "ugly" or "hideous"). We are humans, so we are genetically programmed to find other humans attractive. Someone with a very unusual mutation, such as polydactyly (six fingers), is more likely to be seen as too "weird" to mate with, even if that adaptation is actually more useful. So to a certain extent, our sexual preferences / tastes will serve as a sort of drag or anchor on our evolutionary drift, preventing us from moving too fast in any one direction lest we become too "different" and thus fail to reproduce. And the overall, powerful selection pressure that our ancestors faced is now much diminished. I think in a few hundred years, people will look much the same - just much "prettier", by their standards. Edit: oh yeah, and international travel will, within a couple centuries, eradicate racial differences in all except a few stubborn holdout enclaves. The vast majority of the human race will be a more or less homogenous golden brown color. Sadly, it will probably not be until different "races" have ceased to exist, that racism itself will finally go away. :\
The cynic in me tells me that as long as it benefits certain groups to label other groups as "the others", racism will simply be changed to discrimination based on some other trait, language or any arbitrary quality rather than skin colour. But who knows, maybe we can ultimately reach a Star Trek Federation-esque level of unity and civilization :)
You can see evolution in rows of fosil skeletons across history, or even the dog who originally came from the wolf, you can see it in everything. One must understand that evolution does not happen in one life time, could that be why religious faction don't belive evolution exist? I don't think the bible is ment to be taken literally, but more as a book of satirical stories which are ment to show people that depending on a god/religion to much will have dire consequences.
The next step in our evolution, really, will be technological, biomedical engineering is making its debut, so we'll be playing with our genes as it advances, imagine a human being, but with 230 lbs weight and about 7 feet, we could be smarter, stronger and faster with such technology, sadly we won't be alive to see it performing at its best.
***** We'll need to colonize space, and find more resources on other planets (assuming we can achieve interstellar travel of course, i'm pretty confident). Technology will always fail, quite frightening the fact that it will be inside our body!
kre8noys i think that maybe once we colonise space, we will adapt/evolve to fit our new environment maybe not so much as a natural kind of evolution, but maybe a more synthetic like creating technology that allows us to live better in the environment of space
10.000 BC we looked pretty much the same. Except our brain potential was not active as it is today. Back then we didn't have technology, internet, complex mechanics, we only had Fire, Food,Shelter and few more other things in terms of how to survive. After the technology,mechanics, physics started evolving our brain started to download tons and tons of new information therefore we adapted to new world, so by my humble opinion we were intelligent back then as we were now, except it took us thousands of years to discover something useful, such as fire. (which was discovered by coincidence) , or (theory of gravity, apple fell down). etc etc. Michio is a great mind, one of smartest people so far.
Pretty much what i wanted to say, disregard my grammar mistakes but you're totally right. That's mainly how i feel about ''evolution' of humans, and people kinda talk bullshit when it comes to that. Sadly they forget one simple thing that our brain stopped evolving long a go and that we're getting dumber instead of smarter. Thank you for your opinion OdouDog!
Bold statements in the caption and pretentious name channel, I wont watch any of your videos. RUclips why are you shoving this channel in my face? It's starting to feel like an annoying salesman that keeps knocking on my door craving for my time and attention, if I wanna buy something I can go to the store. I know better than you what I need. So in conclusion. RUclips, please stop shoving this channel in my face.
We need to challenge ourselves in new ways: explore new planets, develop new technologies, find ways to teach those who don’t want to learn, overcome our flaws, create sustainable methods of living... not to instigate cosmetic changes like larger heads, but to prevent dysgenics, and ensure a heathy future for our species.
Man no longer adapts to his environment, he adapts to his own kind, less physical changes and more mental...have you seen all the people looking at their phones lately?
He is a good physicist, but not that much of a biologist. Of course humans are still evolving. As long as a certain type of people gets more offspring than others, and there is a pattern in this, we are talking about selection. When more and more humans are moving to urban areas, it's those who are able to adapt to these conditions best that will succeed most in the modern age. How far we are going to evolve in that direction depends of course on how long we will be living under present conditions.
Finally, someone who gets it. Just because we've become more globalized, that doesn't mean we've stopped evolving. There are millions of people who will never leave their hometowns. Those are our Australias. Unless he really believes that a jet-setting Oxford intellectual will someday cross-breed with someone from the backwoods of Tennessee whose highest intellectual pursuit is one day finishing reading the label on a can of Coors. The evolutionary lines of the future are being split today along socio-economic lines. Aside from that, we know that we're still evolving. And while he's correct that we (and not even the majority of us) are no longer under difficult survival conditions, we now have to compete against other human beings for dominance. We have social pressures and even more complex ideas to learn than ever before. And what organ do we know developed to work with social situations and houses our cognitive processes? The brain. And comparing brain sizes from just 2000 years ago to brain sizes today, we see that brains have gotten larger. So the notion that we've evolved for as long as life has existed and yet somehow stopped in the past 100 years or so is ridiculous.
OuroborosChoked A more complex society will mean that one has to be able to understand all the rules to succeed. Maybe one could say that natural selection, in the traditional sense of the word, has been replaced with cultural selection. People who would be doing great in another time and another place, will suffer in a modern large city. It's no longer just the nature, tribe and the partner that does the selection, it's the culture and society. School, job and how you interact with others. You may be a great, funny and clever guy, but if you don't have any education or a job, how will you find a woman to reproduce with. When humans lived as hunters and gatherers, there were no jobs. You just did your duty in the tribe instead of thinking about what you would become when you became an adult. There is also important differences depending on where you live. In Mecca in Saudi-Arabia certain personal traits will be less appreciated than in for instance Amsterdam. Isolate these cities for thousands of generations, and nobody will deny that humans are still evolving.
Tim Hansen I think it could be argued that cultural selection is still natural selection... as it is still a natural process... not, for example, eugenics or breeding.
OuroborosChoked It's a natural process, but I was referring to natural selection "in the traditional sense of the word". The different forms of selection have changed a lot since the stone age. When people talk about natural selection, they are normally thinking of the mechanisms humans were exposed to in the really old days when we actually lived in natural ecosystems. Many of these are gone today, and they forget about the new ones that has surfaced instead. Calling it cultural selection could serve as a reminder that even if the original or "natural" kind is gone, it does not mean we have stopped evolving.
What a moronic response. Of course in a the decades from now we will look pretty much the same. Evolution doesn't happen over such a short time frame as decades. If it did the first breed of fish would have walked on land in less than a century of time....
Michio, you forgot one thing. Who's to say the planet will not undergo extreme changes again? This being the case, man has not stopped evolving! If anything it's speeding up! The amount of time we've had this type of technology we have today is but a blink of an eye in comparison to the four point four million years we've been around.
Want to get Smarter, Faster™?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster
Big Think did you watch THIS video? Oh....the irony
How intelligent is a somebody when they are considered a savant and something that is based off of false and inaccurate information. And how much brain cells would one waste becoming such a person and whatever they have hobbies or interests in. And why is it that these are the individuals that we wait on to validate someone else's or our own conclusion of something
Plot twist: Your the idiot
@@ScienceFan1859 Tremendous respect for Michio Kaku, he is one of the greatest minds to ever live and proves HE IS WRONG. He is a result of new conditions of human evolution.
People who believe what Kaku said in this video got dumber. Your channel is about small think.
This video is almost a decade old and now we have crisper-cas9 boys. Can’t wait to see what happens in another 10years.
CRISPR cas9 has not brought anything resoundingly helpful to mankind, and in the next 10 years Jesus Christ could return. It is better to spend time learning about God than waiting to see what happens.
"You can pretty much go anywhere on the planet, meet people, have children..."
I've been on planes. Never did it cross my mind to spread my seeds that far :D
is this a joke or are you just stupid?
Evolution is created by cause and effect. The strongest of the species survive, and go on to make adaptions. With the weak and ignorant having the most children, we're actually de-evolving. We need selective breeding to evolve. Duh.
Jason Moonsmith You are thinking of "survival of the fittest" It plays a part in evolution but is not evolution itself. Also the word "de-evolving" does not exist in the English language. Evolution is when a species changes. It doesn't have to be for better or for worse. You should probably see a counselor for your psychological trauma. Lastly, using the word "ignorant" when you fit the description of the insult makes you ignorant. YAY! Learning is fun. :D
Evolution is the mechanism by which we describe how life evolved. Within evolution the strong (and lucky) pass on their genes - adaptations happen over millenniums etc. Humanity for a brief period seems to have bucked the mechanism - meaning because of innovation, technology, mass farming, medicine etc. the notion of the "strong" surviving long enough to pass on their genes has went by the way side - in fact the opposite within the Homo Sapiens species appears now to be true - in order for a homo sapiens to pass on their genes they need not be strong, or healthy or intelligent or co-operative in order to increase their chances - we have a few doing much and massive numbers of people benefit from that work not because they are strong or healthy or intelligent but because they were "lucky" enough to be born in a time which has allowed them to do so. The idea of devolving (while not a word) is an understood concept for the above notion. Certainly telling someone they should see a counselor for their psychological trauma was an unnecessary insult which detracted from what would have other wise been considered a point worth sharing.
***** Yes that is true - and with respect to the human condition it is even more prevalent than among our fellow sentient beings.
Alright, obviously none of you have opened a book and/or had an independent thought. These are the facts. Our life span has increased. We know more than we knew twenty years ago. Medication can cure illnesses that couldn't be cured previously. You all need to stop reflecting your lives on a matter that does not involve you. Just because you and everyone around are idiotic does not mean the human race is devolving. Get a better life and read some books.
Chase Boyd I am currently reading "A Brief History Of Humandkind Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari" - I just finished" Evolutionary Psychology" by Steven J.C. Gaulin and Neanderthal Man In Search of Lost Genomes by Svante Paabo . They are such fresh reads they are still sitting on my coffee table alone with Zizek, Fitzpatrick, and Foucault's work. All of which I highly recommend. Homo Sapiens are evolving within the species - we will not be as we are today even 200 years from now.
There's intellectual pressure not physical pressure.
Even if there's intellectual pressure, there has to be a factor that enables intellectual people to pass on their genes by natural selection, better than less intellectual people.
That intellectual-dependent mechanism isn't there, so there probably won't be selective pressure to evolve based on that.
Jerber SPUDDA No,in fact people of lesser intelligence tend to have more children,so it is the opposite.
Jerber SPUDDA how is it possible that so many idiots have no trouble surviving if there is intellectual pressure on us? :D
Jerber SPUDDA From examining popular culture and RUclips comments, I'd argue that that's a rather optimistic statement to make.
No, there isn't much pressure. We protect our weak. That's just what we do. It's compassion and I'm not against it. But it definitely has stopped us from evolving.
The Kardashians. Sad proof that humanity has stopped evolving ^_^
except we are still evolving, genes dont just stop mutating, and selection pressures still exist.
Natural Selection is still happening. For example, extremely obese people are less likely to reproduce. Which means those genes are less likely to propagate.
than why so many fat people in the world?
But plenty of genetically inferior people are spreading their genes. (Not to sound rude) Im no Zach Efron. But in a species usually only the healthiest males and females will mate. their genes will get passed on to their off spring. Creating an overall stronger species. But everybody mates now a days so its not happening.
+Josh Rubin its called the sexual selection.
Josh Rubin Calling people genetically inferior IS rude. Anyway you went off on a tangent there. Evolution and inferior/superiority is kind of irrelevant because it's relative to the environment, and whether the individual is adapted to it or not. Humans won't evolve until the environment changes. I was simply saying that some traits are still being selected over others and some of them have nothing to do with survival.
McDonalds has got your back in that scenario
There's a certain bittersweet guilty feeling that comes along with watching these videos in the sense that I want so much to be alive in 100 or so years to be there for these future mind-blowing discoveries. I feel guilt because it's greed on my part and I understand that progression is slow and we all work together to advance human society. I'm sure I am not the only one, I tell myself Newton, Einstein and Galileo probably felt the same way.
100% agree with your sentiments
Same
That’s fucking true!
We are of course still evolving, that's obvious, it's just a lot slower now because we no longer need to struggle to survive in most cases
+CabraLad thats why he used the term "gross evolutionary pressures".listen lol
+Ilya Seleznyov I'm addressing the title, I did listen -.-
its just a word. whatever value judgement you attach to it is just a selective bias towards one aspect of its umbrella usage.
How is it obvious? Right now our enviroment isn't putting enough pressure on us and there is no evidence showing we are evolving.
did you even watch the video?
"Chances are, decades from now, we'll look... pretty much... the same."
Bold prediction, Captain Humdrum.
anarchy
Also, I feel like we don't need to evolve any further because when we encounter a problem we simply use a tool or piece of technology to solve it. We can make our own lives easier with technology and without having to struggle for thousands of years until we are able to solve it because our bodies have evolved that way.
That in tern is the problem, the reliance on technology without the understand of said technology. We press a button and expect things to just fix our problems. What happens if the owner of said technology says well you can't use this anymore? If Google stopped you from using Google maps would you be able to navigate yourself the same way those who who have the knowledge of navigation? Therefore your reliance on technology is a hindrance
@@Nijichannn haha evolution happens when your survival is in danger do you think human survival is in danger i think if more than 98% humanity gets wipe away can create any danger. All those Google things you mentioned is very advance form of technology which were developed after million of years of evolution so he was right making the right tools and doing genetic engineering will certainly help us instead of relying on evolution
@@mrentp my friend I disagree with you there, as humans we no linger evolve, we adapt, there is a big difference in the two. Adaptation is using the technology available to us to live an easier life. The need to survive has changed the vast majority of the planet no longer needs to hunt for food and resource. As there is no longer a need for that, there is also no longer a need for evolution to play a hand, evolution decides what's best for the species to continue to survive, not just you but your children and their children etc etc etc. Evolution is a deeper understanding of biological, environmental, genetic etc etc variables. None of that matters when you can push a button and get what you want without the thought and understanding of how that is achieved therefore we are not learning we are purely relying on the few.
@@Nijichannn that's what I said about evolution we don't need it because we have reached at the upper end, now we need to become god and change world as per our need, do genetic engineering, make climate engineering,planet engineering and solar engineering. We just need to work on technology and our aging process and that's all.
Decades is a short time. Centuries from now humans will most likely look different as they incorporate non-biological additions into their body
I highly disagree with my hero Michio Kaku on this point, he is just flat out wrong. There are dozens of current modern agriculture practices that are accelerating genetic mutation and genetic drift! 1) Most farmers are using phosphates from China, that contain appreciable amounts of five different radioactive compounds and have been since 1953. 2) Farmers are over using Boron because it increases yields, even through its a mutagenic essential to life nutrient. 3) Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and antibiotics are mutating microbes, and microbes can mutate humans. 4) The hybridization of humans is altering the species for both for good and bad. By this I mean, one person may have the genetic defects of multiple races & another the genetic pluses of multiple races! Both super humans & health vegetables will result. And because of our morals, the health vegetables will remain! 5) Sever mistakes have been made altering newborn portions of mankind, who have since been breding, example DDT and Agent Orange! Example: Me, I'm a DDT baby with ultra bizarre health issues, who is Asperger Syndrome gifted, flamboyant yet shy, intelligent yet Forest Gump, extraordinary strong yet unhealthy, and aging 20% faster than most humans! I have bred with the population! I'm certain there is a hundred thousand of us out there, like me with DDT pesticide genetic drift divisions! We are breeding and humanity will forever change! Michio Kaku, my hero, you wish to debate me on this issue? Your IQ, I'm sure is 60 points above mine, yet I will win, as the evidence is on my side! Michelangelo Alexander Sir-Rhine
+Michelangelo Alexander Sir-Rhine I agree that this in the future these issues which you raise will be studied acutely and people will be forced to ask the question, what kind of human being do we want to engineer. We will have abundance in the future, so humans with strong survival mechanisms will not be desirable. Instead, peaceful, playful humans will be essential, because ego and greed will be less useful for survival.
schroeder666
Genetic Engineering will indeed change man, more than we dare to imagine. Evolutionary pressures will still be on us, but they will be very different, mostly mental in nature. Yes I agree, we will eventually come to realize that anyone who lacks Altruism threatens the survival of the species. But long before we get there, we will head in the opposite direction with a vengeance, creating genetic super soldiers. The government has the most money & the greatest control and will declare that the science is a matter of national security. And will do so to eliminate terrorism & another such problems. We will probably see a few decades of military state conditions before we see humanity developing an Altruistic World Government.
Years ago I had a lightbulb go off.... and it's exactly what Michio is talking about... we are no longer evolving forward. Think about it. There are no longer evolutionary pressures. The weak, stupid, even the "sick" no longer die off and the strong, smart and healthy only live. I'm not saying this to be mean I'm saying it as fact. As a matter of fact our society has made it even better for those who would normally fail... we give more money to those with more children regardless of their ability to care for them properly. We've made it profitable to devolve. I fear for our future children if this trend continues.
The entire point about evolution is that it is a natural selection process with the winners surviving to procreate and spread their genes and the losers dying off and their genes spreading less. Today this process has been short circuited and "everyone" survives and those who might be less successful are procreating more, not less, than what would have happened naturally. The future doesn't look very bright. Go watch the movie Idiocracy. I fear this may be a harbinger of things to come.
Well, I don't think that mechanisms of biologic evolution apply to human culture in any direct way. Those who you see failing today may still turn out to be the last chance for humanity to survive, in the long run. Our culture is an extremely dynamic environment that changes quite erratically. Social change happens far too quickly and is often too brief to constitute a meaningful environmental pressure when there is virtually no natural selection going on.
If you are referring to some kind of future apolcalypse, well, then all bets are off. Whoever is left will form the basis of the future and evolution will again apply assuming that we don't have a more prevailing force, namely modern civilization.
Santiago Draco Basically, I was trying to say that what you wrote about the welfare systems that, sadly, don't discriminate able parents from those who merely feed their children may not necessarily be an entirely bad thing. Of course, one can easily see this as a demographically risky and sociologically undesirable situation indeed. However, I was trying to point out that in terms of their genetic heritage children from those apparently disadvantaged multi-child families may not significantly differ from their peers of a more privileged background. Consequently, children of less favourable backgrounds may still be no less "desirable", evolutionary speaking. This is possible because, often, they are merely nurtured to behave less competitively by their passive parents - it's purely a sociological difference. None of this is hereditary, as far as we can tell. What I was hinting at was that a time may come, when the global society will likely benefit from less aggressive, less competitive and more co-operative patterns of behaviour going mainstream. So no, I did not try to dread any future calamities, though I can think of some, of course.
Santiago: Exactly.
Combinations with machines and computers is the next step of human evolution.
That will not be evolution, because it will be caused purposefully by humans. Evolution is random genetic change bottlenecked by natural selection.
TheStyrofoamPeanut It is not random, it is specific, based on pressure to a species, a specific attribute is changed, based on the specific situation, this is why some people are in ufc, while some are in the nba. not to say you cant learn that, but genes determine how fast and on what level at what time you can.
*****
We didn't lose our hair because we learned to make clothing. We lost our hair because somewhere down the line our ancestor genes mutated randomly which caused some to have less hair. The ones who had less hair fared better then the ones who had more hair. Eventually those ones died out and we remained. *remember Humans migrated out of Africa where it is very hot it was most likely in response to keeping cool.* which is also why early man also had dark skin. Losing our hair left our skin unprotected from the suns harsh rays, so hair loss and pigmentation most likely evolved around the same time.
i fucked a vacuum once.
***** Evolution is RANDOM, not based on any specific environmental pressure. This is the most common misconception about evolution. Any high school biology student can tell you that genetic differences are not caused by some sort of order. Random mutations in genetic code caused differences between species, and those that "fit in" the most survived. Hence "survival of the fittest", which doesn't actually mean fit as in strong or intelligent, but those that fit the environment best.
Also, your comment about genetic code being unused or being turned back on is entirely false. Humans lost their hair for other reasons. That is not how DNA works, and you lack a basic understanding of evolution here.
If you don't believe that mankind has stop evolving, simply watch an episode of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."
*****
Religion has been around a lot longer than science, my friend...
unfortunately.
tiffsaver And devolution is still a form of gross evolution
*****
In a way, yes. But of course, not in the way science if conducted today. It was more like, "trial and error," was it not?
*****
"DUMB AS SHIT"?? I doth protest, my foul-mouthed and ignorant friend. Let me take apart your 'dumb as shit" remarks, piece-by-piece. First, cave men didn't have a written language. It is doubtful if they even had a spoken language. Science requires the ability to write and communicate with razor sharp precision, and it needs BOTH. Writing down mathematical equations if very difficult IF YOU CAN'T WRITE. Second, a caveman wouldn't know a "hypothesis" from a "horse," which apparently have far more brains than you do. Finally, modern science requires analyzing your data and passing it on, using the previous methods of which I have just provided. While it is true that "trial and error" is an integral part of science, if it was all about 'trial and error' as you contend, why would they call it "Science," Einstein?
*****
Dear Shit For Brains:
EQUATIONS CAME OUT OF SCIENCE. Did you go to school to get stupid, or where you born that way? "Crazy ass" mathematical equations are the building blocks of everything in the universe. Without them, there would never be atomic power and Einstein would still be a third level accountant working in a dingy basement room. If Dr. Kaku needed additional proof that man hasn't evolved much, I hope he reads your posts.
I have trouble taking anything Michio Kaku says seriously. More than anything, he seems to be someone who'll saying something about anything--doesn't matter how grounded in real thought or analysis it may or may not be--as long as it means he gets the attention he craves.
we stopped evolving, but our technology will evolve for us. the evolution is not on human anymore, it's on the technologies we create. so in the future, don't expect to see big eye human, but do expect to see robots that can take over the whole galaxy.
no scientist or government give birth to a real A.I. it means the end of humans.
Nah I wouldn’t even say that we are even with technology this is just how dumb and stupid our species are is and has become
It is very interesting to see all the comments saying that Michio Kaku is wrong when in reality, the place we live in, all ideas about the progression of species are theories. The THEORY of evolution is a great example. This explanation given by Michio Kaku in this clip is just a theory supported with evidence and hypothesis. He is not lying, rather, he is just providing a supported theory about humanity.
Everything wrong with your statement:
1. "The place we live in, all ideas about the progression of species are theories": This statement suggests that all ideas about the progression of species are mere theories, implying that they are speculative or uncertain. However, the theory of evolution is not just any theory; it is a well-established and widely accepted scientific theory. It is supported by an extensive body of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines, and it has been tested and confirmed through rigorous experimentation and observation.
2. "The THEORY of evolution is a great example": While the statement correctly identifies evolution as a theory, it implies that being a theory somehow diminishes its credibility or reliability. As explained earlier, in scientific terminology, a theory represents a comprehensive and well-substantiated explanation supported by evidence. The theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories in science, and it serves as the foundation for understanding the history and diversity of life on Earth.
3. "This explanation given by Michio Kaku in this clip is just a theory supported with evidence and hypothesis": It is important to note that Michio Kaku, a prominent theoretical physicist, is not primarily known as an expert in evolutionary biology. While scientists from various fields may offer insights into other scientific disciplines, it is generally advisable to refer to experts who specialize in a particular area when discussing scientific topics. Evolutionary biology is a specialized field with its own experts who have dedicated their careers to studying and understanding the processes and mechanisms of evolution.
In summary, the statement downplays the significance and robustness of the theory of evolution, misinterprets the scientific meaning of "theory," and does not account for the expertise of individuals when discussing scientific topics. Evolution is a well-established scientific theory with overwhelming evidence, and it is crucial to rely on the consensus of experts in the respective field to accurately understand and communicate scientific concepts.
I've been saying this for 30 years since I was 10 years old... No one understood me. Glad my idol says it.
what about sexual selection? Guys like boobs and girls like big muscles
That's a thing. It's called "unnatural selection."
Thats called instinct big boob meant more milk and meant that the female was more fit to bear children, same for a man.
Which of course is why weedy guys and small-boobed women no longer exist! Or is it the other way around - girls like boobs and guys like big muscles, and each kid themselves that it is what the other wants? Why haven't ugly people been bred out of existence, the same way there are no short-tailed peacocks? I think pressure is on for the sexual selection of confident males and nurturing women, however un-PC that may sound.
Cliff Hughes Good thought but that's not how it works. Each person has their own likes and dislikes,which may or may not be influenced and which change drastically from decade to decade. You also have to consider recessive genes. While you may see a decline in certain traits breeding anything out of humanity would be damn hard.
Sorry my irony went unrecognised. Sometimes I think I'm so clever. You're right, of course. There are cultural reasons why we have preferences and, despite the fact that genetics drives everything, evolution is not a straightforward process. My own partner bears a pleasing resemblance to the Venus of Willendorf (except for the lack of a face).
i like how people are saying "he's just so wrong." i'm pretty sure as old as he is and as wise as he is, he has thought of what you just thought of. Then he figured out why it was wrong. What he's saying is that we don't have anything that will change our physical characteristics. There is no stress on the physical body that forces us to change our physical appearance. Girls looking different? they never changed. The only thing that changed is their diet and what the tastes of men during that specific time period is. So yes we are evolving like some of you pointed out but we aren't going to physically evolve. Nothing is forcing us to do so and nothing will force us to do so unless we suffer through a nuclear winter. Then we have to go back to survival of the fittest.
If that how you decide something is true then it explains why you an imbecile,it doesnt matter how old you are,how famous you are,noone is above error
I think the issue is that the title is oversimplified and misleading, and he doesn't explicitly talk about cultural and economic forces, or how birth control completely throws off the relationship between general attractiveness and reproductive success
Not so long ago our head size was limited to the size of the birth canal from which we were born. If a head was too big, chances were that baby and/or mother died during childbirth and therefore limited the big head genes. Not any more in the developed world. I believe we are evolving larger heads.
Actually our brains are smaller now than they were thousands of years ago. At least that's what I saw on another Ted Talks video. Probably a lot of debate about that one.
Yes Neanderthals had bigger brain than homo sapiens
Oh right what a coincidence that everything suddenly stopped evolving. How people believe in macro evolution is beyond me..
I love Michio’s work - and I’m no physicist - however I can’t help but disagree with his thoughts on this one. We’re always evolving. Just look at the kids growing up with a smart device in their hands since they were in a crib versus those of us who had to adapt to the inventions as they first came out in our teens or adulthood. The processing speed and efficiency in adapting to the tech is different between the age gaps, not always, but usually in many regards. Just one example…
A point I found somewhat confounding early in his talk was that I was unaware that the size of a "brain" is what is necessary to evolving intellect.
I feel like people have missed the entire point of his video. Evolution happens every time we have babies and swap genetic DNA. How ever the pressures to now weed out the bad DNA well lesson as two things come into play.
1. He uses Australia as an example because when you have separation of land, the animals evolve according to those unique environments. This is because of the technology boom of planes and boats. Isolated cultures like North Korea are on the decrease.
2. Human medical advancement has helped saved millions of people although we're no longer losing what nature may consider 'bad genes' or even our ill and sick that would fall behind. People that are born with webbed toes or six fingers may have actually proved useful in the wilderness where they could give benefits to future generations of the same trait.
I think both are side effects of technologically that I'm glad exists. The evolution that we're going in right now is just 'different' then what our ancestors had. It's not better or worse, it's just a bit different.
No it does not reproduction is not an evolution. Evolution is renadom gen. mutation, natural selection and gen. drift. Not reproduction he is a physicist and knows little of biology
Amy Newman, let me ask you something.
If natural selection determines weather a trait is good or bad for survival in a harsh environment, and that same natural selection decreases the frequency of bad genes, what will happen if an environment becomes very forgiving?
Let's say you have genes for poor eyesight, and this forgiving environment fixes your sight with a pair of glasses, you go on and have your kids, does that mean that frequency of bad genes will start increasing, i.e the population living in this forgiving environment will become more and more sick?
Evolution is In the process of splitting the species. People have formed reproductive annexes based on social circles, character traits, job types, even wealth etc. People in the ghetto reproduce in the ghetto, people in the middleclass with middleclass aristocracy with aristocracy, athletes with athletes, people on welfare with people on welfare.
Ever since we started living in civilisations and using agriculture and more modern medicine evolution drastically sped up
Our brains are 10% smaller volume than they were 10,000 years ago..... that is extremely fast evolution. Our faces are getting flatter and wider to mimic a baby's face. We're definitely changing faster than ever before (at least according to comparisons of the genetic data)
When bacteria are given ideal conditions of growth and reproduction they eventually become weak and reliant on the good conditions. Humans are just the same. Becoming reliant on the systems we set up. The better the systems that are set up, the faster the rate of evolution. We better hope the systems we set up can sustain themselves because if they can't human civilisation will collapse with no way to recover itself. Perpetual recirculation of the current or previous genomes or, in event of failure, a 'reboot' might be the only possible solution
There is still weeding out of 'bad' genes but the standard of good and bad is being set by human preference rather than the pressures of nature. People like to be smart so they choose a stupid person that makes them feel smart, people like 'cute' people so they choose people with faces more similar to a baby's face. The fossil record shows that our brains have shrunk by 15-20% since 20000 years ago. There's a definite direction of evolution and it's driven by single direction human preferences. There's been an increase in the rate of change in our genome by a factor of 10-100x since we started living in civilisations. We have set our own standards of good and bad for evolution to follow and it's not necessarily what we expected
We have the ability with CRISPR etc to make the old processes of evolution a fairy tale but perhaps fortunately or unfortunately, evolution has been backed up by observation more than you'd think
Whoever wrote that title is a liar. Kaku never said that we have stopped evolving.
actually, keeping the "bad genes" around may prove beneficial to mankind in some unforeseen scenario, some defects may result in resistance or immunity to certain viral pathogens. gotta keep the gene pool as varied as possible.
This I totally agree with. Love that you said "bad genes" in qoutation because like you mentioned, I'm certain there are unforseen scenarios, and even more likely a gap in out understanding. Can we be certain beyond reasonable doubt that gene editing won't have a adverse negative effect. Evolution has done the job quite well in my opinion (because well how would I truly know what is best) when it comes to our survival thus far. But as we changed the world in drastic ways, all we are doing is editing our genes to deal with things that quite possible are our fault to begin with
niggerlover cope
+Mario Alemi
Ad.1 I'm relieved to hear it. Good for us :-)
Ad.2. Thanks. I always try and rely on source materials, if I can. I'll keep reading.
Ad.3 First off, I never said that humans haven't evolved for the last 50 ky. In fact, I know for a fact that we did.
Secondly, I'm not a big fun of comparing biologic evolution to what's recently been labeled "cultural evolution". I think that in many ways that's not a terribly fruitful analogy.
Thirdly, I didn't even evoke the selfish gene hypothesis", for it is more of a philosophical concept and one that doesn't offer much new, in terms of the inner workings of evolution. I was simply pointing out that you can't get evolutionary change to last over multiple generations without embedding it into genome first. That was ALL that I was referring to as the classical take on biologic evolution. Now, if you'll take on board various possible consequences of the epigenetic imprint, then you may deem the classical approach obsolete. That's OK. All I meant was that it is still unclear, at least to some, whether epigenetic alterations actually facilitate evolution.
Personally, I don't find anything preposterous about "the idea that the human being is made by its DNA", because that is NOT the idea. I don't know anyone among scientists who would think that all the functions that body performs are facilitated solely by DNA. Far from it, they'd say. But DNA is the only molecule with confirmed ability to store all the information necessary to code for both the development and operation of a biologic organism. Or so it was until very recently, as we now discuss the place of epigenetic regulation in all this. Either way, for LIFE to thrive and be reborn you also need CONTINUITY, which I always thought was so moving about living things, because it is so incredibly easy to break it.
So perhaps, for some, going from genomics to proteomics and epigenetics may constitute a "paradigm shift". Decidedly, it does change the way scientists do research in life sciences nowadays. Still, for me, there is nothing particularly revolutionary about it. All that means is that we've learnt enough to undergo yet another unification of our knowledge, rather than overturn everything we thought was true about DNA.
Hope that helps. TC :-)
Damn. I expected more from this guy. Evolution is an ongoing process. It doesn't stop, no matter what. Mankind will never stop evolving. It will just evolve in different, more relevant ways.
I find these videos very entertaining to me and interesting.
I know this is a relatively old video at the time of my comment, so I am bit late at the table. By now I think we all see that humans are evolving a lot more rapid space than it was expected / perceived 5-10 years ago, and of which we will see its effects in 10-20 years from now.
+Marcos Lopez
"How can he possibly know if we are evolving or not?"
Oh, I don't know … maybe because he can make logical inferences based on sound assumptions? Just a thought.
"This is pure post-modern hubris thinking that we are beyond evolving at this point."
I think it is downright ridiculous to pick holes in a statement as elementary as what Kaku is saying here by suggesting any connection to some nebulous, pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. Kaku is a theoretical physicist, not some Hollow Earth theorist. He says nothing about "what if …". He doesn't say that evolution actually stopped for humankind. He is not even suggesting that evolution can be stopped at all. He treats human evolution at such a basic level so as to avoid controversy. There's nothing ideological about it.
I'm not an expert on evolution but there's a lot of people here who seem to know nothing on the subject, seriously listen to him, if you know something about evolution you will realize he is making
Except he's wrong. His premise is entirely outdated or misinformed. Our modern lifestyles haven't stopped us from evolving, it has simply changed *how* we will evolve. It is a common misconception that pressures need to be extreme in order to induce evolution.
Evolution will continue regardless of the environment because genes mutate randomly through every generation and natural selection nonrandomly sorts through these genes. As long as humans have generations, they will continue to evolve. In fact newer studies are finding that we may be evolving faster to this new environment we made for ourselves.
@@infini_ryu9461, In my knowledge, I think he's partially right. What I disagree with is evolution coming to a stop for a certain species. I believe that we can still evolve, even with the modern environments, but since our modern environments, technology, and medicine are built to keep us safe, I think it has made Natural Selection much more ineffective, therefore, taking a much more longer time for the human species to evolve. The environment most of us are living in (shelter with air conditioning and warm blankets, constant food and beverages) are man-made to give us a much safer and healthier environment than in a wild environment, which, again, makes Natural Selection more ineffective on us since the majority of our traits are protected and prevented from changing through generations.
This doesn't mean I'm right, I'm just saying what I believe
@@numbercode2486 He's not even partially correct, though, he has a complete misunderstanding of natural selection.
Natural Selection is a selection process new genes go through to determine which ones get passed on, it does not create new genes. It is merely a filter. We know of selection processes that counteract these claims, called genetic drift, mate selection and structure, culture, etc. We now know that Evolution is ongoing and unstoppable, we may only effect how we evolve.
It turns out our abundance of food and living longer to reproduce has made Human Evolution speed up, contrary to popular belief. Human populations are still becoming more different and it's become even faster, particularly in the last 5000 years.
he is making no sense is what you wanted to say
I JUST HOPE WE EVOLVE BEYOND RELIGION .
We should have, a long time ago
Vaedrix i hope so religions brought the worst out of mankind.
***** Just some food for thought: In the last information age revolution The Gutenberg Bible was the first major book printed. So I still stand by our brains must evolve to the point that God is a concept understood by all without outside religious dogma. Many are there now but not enough yet. IMO
***** I understand where you are coming from but information has to be processed by the mind. Think about all of the misinformation and conspiracy theories around today using the new technology's. Your last line said it all " Alas, we still have media manipulation and that has become worse or perhaps just as bad as how religion manipulated minds back then". :^)
IWashMyOwnBrain awww someone sounds hurt
This guy is a fu-king genius for me. Much respect for all his work.
BOUAHAHAHAHAHAHA
1. Victoria Brown, CEO of Big Think, says when presenting the forum: "Human ingenuity is more important than ever before". There is pressure to be ingenious then.
2. Epigenetics ("the study of heritable changes in gene activity which are not caused by changes in the DNA sequence") indicatse that we did not become homo sapiens because of selection of genes, but a continuous modification of the gene activity, and further "freezing", in our DNA.
3. The evolution of mankind is not necessarily the evolution of human DNA. Humanity as a whole -mankind- IS evolving. A Martian visiting the earth now after 50,000 years would hardly recognise us as the same half-naked apes who uttered a few words and could not aggregate in communities bigger than 100 individuals.
Ad.1 Well, Victoria Brown sounds like a rather responsible person (and even looks attractive too) but I suspect that she didn't mean to singlehandedly and unilaterally steer the evolution of the human kind. Perhaps you've taken her message a bit too far. Unless you meant it as a joke(?) Ordinarily though, evolution does not operate that way, i.e. by taking polls, processing wishes, prayers etc. That's one popular misconception ...
Ad2. I don't know who you are quoting here but the current understanding is that epigenetic changes look transient and were found to only last up to 3 generations at best; beyond that, there's no conclusive proof of any changes in gene expression pattern that could echo the initial epigenetic alterations found in grand grand grand parents. As such, epigenetic change is an unlikely driver of evolution. Nonetheless, this is potentially a new and fascinating level of control over organism's genetic material that, if proven significant, may actually add to our understanding of certain intricacies of evolution, such as why exactly an unused organ degenerates and eventually vanishes altogether, e.g. why amphibia living in dark caves lose their sight. Personally I just feel that the traditional explanation is incomplete. It simply says that body parts (organs, tissues) that do not contribute to survival are BOUND to diminish the chances of survival by causing disadvantageous drag that affects mobility, or by posing unnecessary risk of infections that might affect the unused organ (such as the appendix in humans that can lead to death when inflamed). This optimisation mechanism will do for entire organs but it doesn't necessarily explain why some sections of the human genome have gone missing, compared to, say, Chimpanzees. In a puff.
Ad.3 Now, that's a pretty serious misconception around evolution. In reality though, biologic evolution of any species only takes place if there is a genetic change that precedes and underlies both observable and unobservable features alike so as to enable them to be passed on into the future. Classical theory of evolution asserts that individual organisms typically do not benefit from any genetic changes that they may carry (except perhaps for bacteria and corals). Instead, they record those key hits and misses in their diverse DNA stores for future generations to lose or benefit from inheriting later on.
*****
Thanks for the long reply!
1- Yes, re Victoria Brown I was half-joking.
2- Read e.g. "How the Leopard Changed Its Spots" by Brian Goodwin, "What Darwin Got Wrong" by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, "Identically Different" by Tim Spector. You can find there a lot of references to peer-reviewed articles too.
3- I think you are right if you want to remain in the of "classical theory of evolution". If you believe "The Selfish Gene" is still to be considered up-to-date, then yes, what I wrote is wrong for you. Only be aware -it is not a "serious misconception", it is a serious change of paradigm which has been going on for 15 years now. The idea that the human being is made by its DNA is... well, a bit preposterous. The emerging property of 100,000 of proteins "collaborating" in a cell, makes the cell alive, not its DNA. And the collaboration of 1 trillion cells makes a human being. The DNA is not the "code" for the human being, no more than each person in a society makes the society itself -it is the interaction of these people, how they interact, which makes the society.
You say homo sapiens has not evolved for 50 ky. Let's say I agree. Still, the meta-organism "human society" has evolved a lot. Why? Because human beings now interact differently. The change of the society is not embedded in the people, but in the network, in the way they communicate. The same -increasingly more biologists say today- for genes. It is the way the organs, the cells, the proteins, the amino acids interact which makes an organism. The essence of the organism is not in the DNA, but in the network of all this networks interacting between each other. As Tim Spector says "A single gene in an organism is no more important than a single note in a symphony".
Ah, but the "modification of the gene" happened by mutation.
isn't "gross evolution" the result of many little changes over a large period of time?
yes
To say that evolution is suddenly no longer happening is a convenient fact to explain the inconvenient fact that macro evolution has never been observed, and now never will be.
687 people think Kirk Cameron knows more than Stephen Hawking.
Well, decades from now we'll look the same, sure. We've looked relatively the same for millennia. So have many species. Sharks, various insects, lung fish, and several others, have descendants that survived that feature similar anatomical features to their distant ancestors. That doesn't mean they stopped evolving, it's just that deviant subspecies either changed too much or died out.
Humans are the same. There are people all over the world who have developed genetic alterations over successive generations to help with environmental pressures.
There's a group of people in the Himilayan mountains who have developed a resistance to altitude sickness so that they can live atop mountains for extended periods of time. There's a family in Italy who have developed a resistance to heart disease that counteracts their high-risk diets, and apparently a great many caucasians in Europe have a gene that makes them highly resistant, if not immune to AIDS.
Over successive generations, these traits will likely spread. That's evolution.
If someone's expecting us to grow additional limbs and things, they're going to have to wait a while. Certain birds still have residual claws from their time as dinosaurs. We're talking like 75 million years here.
You seem to know quite a bit about evolution and that is why I don't understand why you think that adaptive traits such as immunity against AIDS or the ability to survive unharmed above 5000m will spread? I'd argue the opposite: any traits that are not being selected at the moment and that do not prevail already are ultimately going to be lost for good, leave the human gene pool entirely through the genetic drift.
Dust Bunny Some inevitably will vanish from the gene pool, or remain in an individual pocket of humanity. Those that live in the Himilayas may never spread that resistance to altitude sickness beyond those people who live up there.
The one about the immunity to AIDS was traced back to the early onset of bubonic plague in Europe. It's been around for centuries and has proliferated through a large section of the European population. It's a bit too late for that particular gene to stop being proliferated now simply by its not being actively selected for (like a man or woman looking specifically for people with that gene). It's take a rather large annihilation event to obliterate that gene.
I'm not a biologist. I don't know all the intricacies. My point wasn't that all these traits WILL spread, I was using them as examples of things that COULD spread, and thus alter the entire population over the course of a few millennia. It was all to illustrate an example of what evolution is.
I don't know what the future is, I don't know what genes will spread and which will disappear.
Neither do I, actually. However, my point about the likelihood of traits either disappearing or proliferating was based purely on two general features of human evolution that I find curious; one is the notion that nearly all genetic variants of a particular gene are now on equal footing with one another; another is a postulate that such a situation is bound to cleanse all "minority alleles" from our genome, solely by means of piecemeal statistical elimination (no annihilation events required). By the same logic, all "majority variants" should eventually spread across the entire human population, even without any positive selection at all. Of course, all of this may only be true under the assumption that humanity doesn't loose its "techno-bubble" or suffer significant losses in terms of its genetic heritage. So it's not guessing, it is more like extrapolating from what we have now, without trying to factor in every variable that we know about (kind of what Kaku is doing in this video). Thus, I do appreciate this is not much of a forecast, which is why I didn't mean it to seem that way in the first place - my apologies if I confused you/anyone.
Reply to biomedical engineering - our brains might come up with an answer to technology if technology is seen as a pressure.
Yep. A collection of anonymous RUclips commenters TOTALLY have much more experience and authority on biology than a professional and well known scientist.
Oh he has made comments before on other subjects with the same level of confidence and was completely wrong
Argument from Authority
We simply broke passed natural evolution, now we can create anything biologically.
Bullshit. The human environment is 180-degrees different from what it used to be just a few centuries ago. A different environment means different needs of adaptation, which means different courses of evolution.
Get *this*: we can actually *choose* whether to have kids! We didn't have that luxury just 200 years ago.
I'm glad you're smarter than a scientist!
+Jerrylee Stewart-Gonzalez You can tell he is by the fact that he starts his post with "bullshit". That's the sign of a highly intellectual person introducing himself into the discussion.
I absolutely love when I read dumbshits claiming shit like that. Read a fucking book. Newton was frustrated with you morons and called you bullshit. With yer bullshit book of fishes. Tesla called you bullshit, with yer bullshit fear of technology. Edison called you bullshit for yer inability to complete yer own inventions without him. Farnsworth (inventor of TV) called you bullshit brain dead retarded zombie robot mongrels for what you chose to use his machine for. If you are the reader, and you are reading the thoughts of a genius, then you have been called bullshit and that bullshitting isn't absolved by any level of authority on any subject, So clearly the idea that getting frustrated with what is wrong, or at least perceived to be wrong, is a sign of mental weakness, or a lack of intellectualism, is straight bullshit. Watch a scientific debate, read about Copenhagen. Stop being a counterfeit pretending like you know what the fuck yer talking about. Intellectuals are frustrated by morons just like everyone else. If you want stoicism look to fucking Buddha not Tesla, dumbshits.
You started off sounding standoffish, but you're absolutely correct. I believe we are on the precipice of a punctuated equilibrium in human evolution. Information consumption is at the highest level it's ever been since the beginning of mankind. We are learning at a faster and faster rate, and our "hard drives" are taking on much more information than they have ever previously been exposed to. The functional capacity of the human mind directly correlates with enlargement of the actual, physical cranial capacity. If Mr. Kaku would've simply asked a Biological Anthropologist, he would've been informed of this basic fact of human evolution. I'm sure if you Googled "cranial capacity evolution" images, yourself, you'd see the proof is in the pudding.
Our frontal lobe (where most complex, "deep" and "creative" thought is processed) is enlarging due to our advancing "processing" capabilities. From being devoid of any frontal lobe above the eye brow in early man, to almost being perfectly upright at 90 degrees in modern humans. This is almost certainly set to progress even further to accommodate the complexity of modern (and especially, future) human thought and intellect as technology keeps on rapidly evolving. Just think about this for a second: We went from almost all but impossible access to a single, hard copy book 200 years ago, to a time where all the information that's ever been dissemenated by every scholar and genius throughout history is now instantly accessible to any person at their fingertips. Instantly.
As for "Australia": After about 500-1000 years when we have successfully began terraforming Mars and permanently inhabiting it, we will begin to see a noticible off-shoot speciation of homo erectus begin to emerge. The "humans" on Mars will begin to look different from the humans on earth - this is a certainty. The 1/3 gravity, in itself, will have an almost immediate effect on the physiology of succeeding lineage from generation to generation. This is the "Australia" that Mr. Kaku fails to recognize in his assessment.
P.s.... People will take everything as gospel if it comes from someone they deem to be an authority (whether it is in their field of expertise, or not). If Michio Kaku told people the world was flat, they'd never go outside again. Just a thought.
"*sapiens begin to emerge..."
If we'd still be able to evolve, we'd probably turn Asian.
He is in no position to predict the next 250,000-1,000,000 years. Evolution moves very slowly and no one can tell whether or not we are still evolving, and if so, in what way. Lost a lot of respect for the man.
That's ok with me, I love Asian food...lol
@bobo bear
Someone: mentions Asians.
*ThAt'S rAcIsT!*
I spread my DNA all over when I visited Taiwan last year.
People evolve every time they learn something. Take electricity for example. I spent many years working hard physical jobs. My life wasn't easy. But when I was taught how to understand and use electricity my life changed forever. The way I saw the world changed as well as the amount of physical work I did on in a day plus the money I made and my quality of life for me and my family.
I evolved within my own brain. I became more intelligent and my life became easier and my odds of surviving increased. Not just for me but for my friends and family.
Evolution is not just controlled by DNA it is controlled by consciousness also. Because I learned something I changed the future of me and every person around me
I recommend reading "Four Dimensions of Evolution." (Written carefully by leaders in Evolutionary Biology) Epigenetics suggests that evolution might not be 100% Darwinian(driven by random genetic mutations outside human agency). In the 4 dimensional view, rapid evolution might still occur for humans in the future.
Can someone explain me the deal he mentions with Australia? Why did it push the evolution for being isolated?
That's because when you are isolated, you learn purely by yourself, invent own things. That's because you have nobody to consult with or rely on their experience. If you are in an isolated forest you could invent your way of collecting water (evolution of knowledge), instead of going to a closest store and buy a cup (using an existing knowledge). Take a look on the old times - you had Roman civilization, Byzantine, Greek, Egyptian, etc, etc. Each with its own culture, inventions, etc. This is because they were quite isolated from each other. What you have today? Company X invent something, company Y invents something different. This is because companies tend to keep their technology in secret (call it "isolated research").
I think he's mostly speaking about Australia's animals, although the native people probably fit the bill, too. Australia being so infamous for its creatures is a result of its very harsh environment and that there's no way for those creatures to spread anywhere else. If they'd mingled with animals from Africa or Asia they wouldn't be so distinct and extreme.
That'd be a great analogy if it even closely resembled what the evolutionary model states. All species experience variety within the species and given enough time and/or with survival pressures some features will become more dominant/dormant than others. The changes in genetic structure for a single feature can be incredibly minor and become dominant quite rapidly.
Selection, educated(rich, from university), less educated(not so rich). I believe that these will be 2 paths of evolution. Or at least it would make a good science fiction story
im so happy i found this on youtube I always felt like i was weird for thinking like how these videos tell you think. I felt really lonely with my crazy mind. Always wondering about the universe about the human race and so much stuff that i think most people miss. I cant say this youtube page opened my eyes. But i can say that it showed me that im not alone out there with thoughts and ideas like this.
The line "everyone is stupid except me" comes to mind
Nah you’re just weird
Basically every thought you have had, someone else had. Considering 100B humans have existed
@@sasquatchwizardyaa 😂
Back in primary school, a teacher once asked the class to draw the heads of people in the future. Everyone else drew bulbous heads similar to the gray aliens of Roswell fame, I drew a head similar to modern humans but with more of the space dedicated to the brain cavity. I argued that it doesn't take much change to increase the volume of the brain cavity as volume increases at the third power of increases in radius and there's also no correlation between brain volume and intelligence besides with society and communication, we all benefit from the intelligence of others hence there are no environmental drivers to increase average intelligence and so long as we have large populations and population growth, we will have sufficient exceptional people even though they may be a decreasing percentage of the population. The teacher didn't buy my argument but then she also thought water turning into ice was a chemical change (actually I don't remember if that was the same teacher but frankly I was not impressed by my primary school teachers).
We're not fucking pokemons . We are evolving all the time
+BLADESMITHGAMING Fantastic point.
The movie Idiocracy explained future human evolution pretty well.
Yea we didn't stop evolving... we're culturally evolving all the time, and our brains our changing their structure to adapt to these new cultural selective pressures, the biological pressures of gross evolution are just too long term for us to realize, but we can easily imagine how our changing environment could influence our biological species, in particular our minds and body image (sense of beauty, etc.), over huge spans of time.
He's talking about physical evolution not neurological evolution
Ok, neurological evolution IS physical evolution. The brain is a physical system, and any evolution of the physical brain would be constitutive of neurological evolution.
SystemFreaKk13 yes and no,
Neurons are what controls your brain and that is physical but neuron activities aren't
augie nelson .........................
WOW.
Of course they are.........
electrochemical activity, i.e., action potentials, neurotransmission, etc., (aka "neuron activity") is physical activity. This is basic science.
I mean seriously? You're either trolling, or fundamentally ignorant of the most basic scientific truths.
"Neuron activities aren't [physical]," unbelievable... what the hell happened to scientific literacy in this world?
If neuronal activity wasn't physical, our bodies would collapse to the ground, and our brains would switch off. In fact, the mammalian brain, and arguably all brains and all of life, would have never existed.
Do the slightest amount of investigation before you willingly embarrass yourself...
SystemFreaKk13 you really think you're correct in this just by insulting, *sigh* you're saying I'm the stupid one,
Thanks, very clear content.
If they can grow a human ear on a pigs back they can grow birds wings on the back of a human.
The title of the video is wrong. He did not say that we stopped evolving.
Thank you evolution, for creating this great man!
"As far as gross evolutionary pressure is concerned"--precisely, such pressures, in the classic sense of the term, may be no more but new, societal pressures have taken their place.
And despite the fact that these constructs, norms, and expectations are man-made, they still impose evolutionary pressures on people. As random genetic mutations continue to occur and we continue to reproduce sexually: there will be some degree of evolution, and natural selection, that is still occurring.
In short, so long as there is competition that involves possibly life-threatening losses to the losers--there will be evolution and natural selection. Plus there is always the unforeseeable series of disasters that may revert us to previous ways of life (but let us not look at the future in such a way).
I really love talking about these types of things and I am going down a path that I will never reverse. I want to become better, smarter, and stronger with each day. If you find me to be genuine bring me your knowledge and life experience so that we may both grow. That is all, no more no less
Human are no longer evolving. Humans are devolving. Mongrelization is just speeding it up. Without advanced genetic engineering. We only have selective breeding options available and that would take generations before it will have much of a impact. You would need to start with a decent size group and weed out the undesirables generation after generation. You would use a test and slowly increase the bar over generations. Those that fail the test will be removed, you would most likely remove their children as well at some point. no marriage will be permitted outside the group. The people of this group could end up with similar brain, skull and facial characteristics.
Jack Hand So in other words you believe in Naziism.
MasterOfSparks More like applied eugenics, which at one point in time was a very popular concept which sadly lost it's popularity when it because associated with Nazism. There was actually a paper published recently about the benefits of mandatory sterilization for certain types of people. For instance, every girl going for a second abortion would have her tubes tied, every man unable to pay child support for a certain period of time would get a vasectomy, every felon convicted of a repeat offense of a violent crime would be sterilized. It sounds crazy to Americans and Europeans because we've always lived in a society where we are free to do what we like sexually, but there are some cultures where this sounds normal. And from an evolutionary and societal standpoint it's superior.
You'd have better luck claiming it as a superior system were we actually living in a society where a man's income reflected the quality of his genetics. But we live, instead, in a country where there is very little if any real upward mobility. In fact we have a collapsing middle class. You'd better not wish for such things unless your family has very deep pockets. You may well find yourself on that list through one little twist of fortune.
Did I mention anything that relied solely on income? No, the things listed are based more on a lack of judgement and common sense.
What the hell is a "rockstar" astrophysisist doing commenting on biology? Tell it to Hollywood. This guy is so self-important. Evolution is alive and well.
Application to daily life: Success = lack of change. Failure = growing to be better.
We stopped evolving? I believe humans just a few hundred years ago were quite a bit smaller than nowadays actually.
That has more to do with the foods we eat and our medicine that evolution though
EMI94100 That's because of nuitrition. In Japan, people are taller and taller by the generation because they eat more meat and their diets are more varied and balanced.
Malin Sheffield Well to me that is an evolutionary process. It's not natural selection but it is still evolution. There seems to be a popular misconception in terminologyabout this.
EMI94100 never really thought of that. It's just a different type of evolution.
Height is a criterium of attraction especially for women (obviously everyone has preferences, so please don't troll me by saying "hey I like short guys!", it's just much more common to find taller men attractive), so the fact that taller men are more likely to procreate could have something to do with this. This is natural selection at work however, which implies that we are in fact evolving, since NS is the engine through which evolution is driven.
We are close to genetic equilibrium, not a good thing for the survival of the human race, but once we start populating other planets, we will find many different species of human.
THIS GUY KNOWS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT👆
This man made 100% clear that we still evolve every generation but it's just that we don't have major evolution, but yet they still decide to put "mankind has stopped evolving" in the title.
"Many many decades away, we'll still look pretty much the same."
No shit. That's less than 100 years is it not? This guy's the "You weren't there" in the scientific community.
Adam Jensen: "I never asked for this.."
Mr Kaku please....
We live in a society where our governments, schools, police and institutions are corrupt. Tens of millions of people dying from starvation, global poverty and war war war... The driving force of our evolution is no longer done for the best of mankind, but rather a profit and Mr Kaku wants us to believe we are at our evolutionary peak..??
Mr Kaku, You don't see the animals screwing themselves for a profit..
iLikeSushiXD
If you watch it again, you will find he touches on both subjects..
Gross evolutionary pressure, or the need to evolve(social beliefs??) and genetic changes to humans..
MrWizardofozzz Actually, I would disagree, you do see animals screwing themselves for a profit. You see it all the time.
One, carnivores. Two, insects that eat their mates. Three, male lions who kill opposing males' cubs. Four, birds who warn other birds when there's a predator nearby (I really like this one because it actually seems like the bird is endangering itself, but when you think about it, a bird that ends up raising the alarm first increases its chances of surviving relative to the flock's. How is this screwing someone over? The bird is more likely to survive because the flock will provide great cover, but someone else is probably going to get gobbled). Five, cuckoos infest other birds' nests with their own young. Baby cuckoos kill the host's own babies as soon as it hatches. Six, some ants go on all out war and enslave other ants to work for them.
One reason why we don't see war in nature (those ants being a big exception) is because a gene that increases your chances of going to war also decrease your chances of surviving and then reproducing. So, a gene that goes to war has less chance of propagating and could be invaded by its counterpart: a gene that stays home and has sex with all the ladies.
Not to mention, that to make war worth it, there has to be a lot to gain from winning. Baboons raid each other's tribes for women because they're a valuable asset for reproduction. I'd guess that species that stockpile their assets are more prone to war-like behavior.
Reproductive profit is what drives evolution. There are ways to profit by cooperating and there are ways to profit by screwing someone over. We see all kinds in nature. Mr Kaku is making the point that, nowadays, we aren't under as much pressure to evolve, at least not in spectacular ways. Either way, I would argue that social pressures influence humans more than evolutionary pressures. Evolutionary pressures are too slow and indirect. And, as Mr Kaku mentions, they aren't as powerful in our modern societies as they used to be when we were more wild.
You do not know what evolution is so it becomes absurd to people that do when you try to wing it like this. Get an education about it, or stfu.
Julio Cervantes
Actually all the animals you listed do what they do for others.. the lions kill for the pride, the cuckoos for their babies and so on.. Not sure what you meant by birds notifying others of predators..?? how is that gaining a self profit..?? they do it for others... as a whole..
Insects are not animals..
Show me an ANIMAL that profits from its actions.. Eating, breathing and reproducing is a natural self preserving action... eg a squirrel will steal nuts to gain an advantage through the winter, even if it from another squirrel... And not only will it steal, but it steals more than it needs...
superhund14
You are correct, nobody knows what are final destination will be like, but nobody asked that did they..?? People have much more evolving to do, some more than others(hint)..
qualified people in one field shouldn't assume they know everything in every other field
this is a perfect example
complete nonsense you'd get out of a 1st year undergrad bio student
it would be interesting to see how much we evolve in colonies on other planets where we have a very small population
Now, how come a theoretical physicist feel tempted to talk about evolutionary biology all of a sudden?
because a question came from a wondering person?
Really? So, I happen to be a computer scientist myself. Why don't anyone ask me a question about quantum mechanics? Becuase you know, since I am a scientist, I can, for some reason, answer any scientific question, even though it might not relate to my own field of science.
You can have more than one interest, only because someone doesn't have a Ph.D in that subject doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about Evolutionary Biology. Turing didn't formally have an interest Biology, and he started to research into Mathematical Biology.
H
*Kasper Hansen*
Because you are a nobody hack that is not a respected intellectual!
Now fuck off back under your bridge!
This is so typical of physicist thinking about biology, it seldom works. He doesn't know whether there is a gross evolutionary pressure against something, and neither does anyone else. In 100 000 years we will know however. This dude is seriously suffering from the "expert in one area (physics), must mean I understand everything just as well!", which actually makes me wonder whether he is a true expert to begin with, since normally when you learn something, you realize that you do not understand anything about it. This really provoked me.
I disagree with Michio's appraisal that natural section was responsible for a big brain. The primary factor that created a large brain in humans was energy input vs. energy output. To explain, mankind's large brain developed because he had more energy coming into his body than going out. Input was generally larger than output. That man cooked his meat (a high source of vitamin B12 energy) allowed his body to spend less time breaking down the tissue in order to metabolize it. The brain began to swell with the added energy input over the many centuries. What is causing mankind to not evolve is the fact that most of the food energy has been removed from our food, through processed methods (and vitamin B12 has been declining in our food since 1950). Also, we stay indoors often, avoiding the Sun, which is a high energy source. If you have a surplus of energy within the body that exceeds your output, the remaining energy will swell your brain, making it larger. If input exceeds output, the brain will benefit. This is somewhat painful, and causes turbulence in the emotions, but it is evolution. Picking the correct foods is key, the foods must deliver the maximum amount of energy to the cells. Raw Paleolithic foods are the best choice. Food Companies the ones responsible for mankind's recent lack of evolution. By denuding the food of its nutrients, food companies have greatly impeded the evolution of a larger human brain.....
He's missing two important factors in evolution: 'spontaneous mutation' and 'mate selection'. One good example: the fiddler crab
Why wasn't this question reserved for a Biologist, say for instance Richard Dawkins?
I was wondering this, too. Kaku should have declined to talk about something he had little expertise in, didn't, and the result was this train-wreck of a video.
Dr. Kaku needs to stick to physics or go back and take General Biology 101. This is a "gross" misunderstanding of evolution. To say that there is no selective pressure on humanity is a fallacy. Sure, it doesn't involve fisticuffs with a lion, but there are still selective pressures. The important thing is how well a mutation or a shuffling of phenotype can survive. And mutations happen all the time. So we are still evolving. "Gross" evolution is just as much nonsense as the idea that "macroevolution" doesn't happen. Evolution isn't an improvement thing. It's not a progressive thing. It's nothing more than your mutation doesn't interfere with your ability to survive and reproduce. That's all it is.
You had me at "fisticuffs with a lion."
Evolution is primarily due to mutation; if the mutation make an individual more adaptable to his environment, his genes will tend to "weed out" those who do not have the mutation. It's not something that happens in a few years or even a few centuries, but over tens of thousands of years.
Kevin Mulkerrins yea, I trust him over you.
Decades from now we'll look the same? That's obvious. This video was the least informed subject that kaku ever took on.
It'll take 10s of thousands of years for humanity's appearance to significantly change.
Biggest point he neglects to mention. We care for our sick and afflicted. That's the reason evolution has pretty much stopped for humans.
I think he is right that selection pressure has greatly diminished, but it certainly hasn't vanished. After all, plenty of people still fail to reproduce, and sadly, still all too many children fail to live to adulthood. So genes are still being lost from the gene pool, just not as fast as before and not as ruthlessly.
There is a lot of evidence that sexual selection based on appearance will continue to play a role, with selection for greater facial symmetry, greater height, and smooth / unblemished skin, being several examples of nearly-universal attractiveness signals. Of course, the question must be raised, how much taller, smoother, or more symmetrical can humans actually *get*?
But he's probably right when it comes to what he calls "gross" changes (in the scientific sense, meaning "significant", not "ugly" or "hideous"). We are humans, so we are genetically programmed to find other humans attractive. Someone with a very unusual mutation, such as polydactyly (six fingers), is more likely to be seen as too "weird" to mate with, even if that adaptation is actually more useful. So to a certain extent, our sexual preferences / tastes will serve as a sort of drag or anchor on our evolutionary drift, preventing us from moving too fast in any one direction lest we become too "different" and thus fail to reproduce. And the overall, powerful selection pressure that our ancestors faced is now much diminished.
I think in a few hundred years, people will look much the same - just much "prettier", by their standards.
Edit: oh yeah, and international travel will, within a couple centuries, eradicate racial differences in all except a few stubborn holdout enclaves. The vast majority of the human race will be a more or less homogenous golden brown color. Sadly, it will probably not be until different "races" have ceased to exist, that racism itself will finally go away. :\
The cynic in me tells me that as long as it benefits certain groups to label other groups as "the others", racism will simply be changed to discrimination based on some other trait, language or any arbitrary quality rather than skin colour. But who knows, maybe we can ultimately reach a Star Trek Federation-esque level of unity and civilization :)
You can see evolution in rows of fosil skeletons across history, or even the dog who originally came from the wolf, you can see it in everything. One must understand that evolution does not happen in one life time, could that be why religious faction don't belive evolution exist? I don't think the bible is ment to be taken literally, but more as a book of satirical stories which are ment to show people that depending on a god/religion to much will have dire consequences.
"We can't create a pig with wings." - Michio Kaku 2011
Mankind is devolving. The 2006 movie “Idiocracy” was prophetic.
Hey, I live In Australia
Hello to Australia
The next step in our evolution, really, will be technological, biomedical engineering is making its debut, so we'll be playing with our genes as it advances, imagine a human being, but with 230 lbs weight and about 7 feet, we could be smarter, stronger and faster with such technology, sadly we won't be alive to see it performing at its best.
***** We'll need to colonize space, and find more resources on other planets (assuming we can achieve interstellar travel of course, i'm pretty confident). Technology will always fail, quite frightening the fact that it will be inside our body!
kre8noys
i think that maybe once we colonise space, we will adapt/evolve to fit our new environment maybe not so much as a natural kind of evolution, but maybe a more synthetic like creating technology that allows us to live better in the environment of space
Awesome, 7 legs, however... women won't be attractive to us anymore... that could take hundreds of years :/.
coolbeatguy why?
@@mancak35 you need 7 legs to have 7 feet. Maybe or a couple on some legs.
10.000 BC we looked pretty much the same. Except our brain potential was not active as it is today. Back then we didn't have technology, internet, complex mechanics, we only had Fire, Food,Shelter and few more other things in terms of how to survive. After the technology,mechanics, physics started evolving our brain started to download tons and tons of new information therefore we adapted to new world, so by my humble opinion we were intelligent back then as we were now, except it took us thousands of years to discover something useful, such as fire. (which was discovered by coincidence) , or (theory of gravity, apple fell down). etc etc. Michio is a great mind, one of smartest people so far.
Pretty much what i wanted to say, disregard my grammar mistakes but you're totally right. That's mainly how i feel about ''evolution' of humans, and people kinda talk bullshit when it comes to that. Sadly they forget one simple thing that our brain stopped evolving long a go and that we're getting dumber instead of smarter.
Thank you for your opinion OdouDog!
You have no idea how wrong you are.
Still doesn't expain why animals can't evolve.
Bold statements in the caption and pretentious name channel, I wont watch any of your videos.
RUclips why are you shoving this channel in my face?
It's starting to feel like an annoying salesman that keeps knocking on my door craving for my time and attention, if I wanna buy something I can go to the store. I know better than you what I need. So in conclusion.
RUclips, please stop shoving this channel in my face.
Nic K Now I know you're a moron to talk down on Big Think content.
It's almost like everybody saying it's not true watched about a minute and a half of the video. What he saying is true
We need to challenge ourselves in new ways: explore new planets, develop new technologies, find ways to teach those who don’t want to learn, overcome our flaws, create sustainable methods of living... not to instigate cosmetic changes like larger heads, but to prevent dysgenics, and ensure a heathy future for our species.
Man no longer adapts to his environment, he adapts to his own kind, less physical changes and more mental...have you seen all the people looking at their phones lately?
He is a good physicist, but not that much of a biologist. Of course humans are still evolving. As long as a certain type of people gets more offspring than others, and there is a pattern in this, we are talking about selection. When more and more humans are moving to urban areas, it's those who are able to adapt to these conditions best that will succeed most in the modern age. How far we are going to evolve in that direction depends of course on how long we will be living under present conditions.
Finally, someone who gets it. Just because we've become more globalized, that doesn't mean we've stopped evolving. There are millions of people who will never leave their hometowns. Those are our Australias. Unless he really believes that a jet-setting Oxford intellectual will someday cross-breed with someone from the backwoods of Tennessee whose highest intellectual pursuit is one day finishing reading the label on a can of Coors. The evolutionary lines of the future are being split today along socio-economic lines.
Aside from that, we know that we're still evolving. And while he's correct that we (and not even the majority of us) are no longer under difficult survival conditions, we now have to compete against other human beings for dominance. We have social pressures and even more complex ideas to learn than ever before. And what organ do we know developed to work with social situations and houses our cognitive processes? The brain. And comparing brain sizes from just 2000 years ago to brain sizes today, we see that brains have gotten larger. So the notion that we've evolved for as long as life has existed and yet somehow stopped in the past 100 years or so is ridiculous.
OuroborosChoked A more complex society will mean that one has to be able to understand all the rules to succeed. Maybe one could say that natural selection, in the traditional sense of the word, has been replaced with cultural selection. People who would be doing great in another time and another place, will suffer in a modern large city. It's no longer just the nature, tribe and the partner that does the selection, it's the culture and society. School, job and how you interact with others. You may be a great, funny and clever guy, but if you don't have any education or a job, how will you find a woman to reproduce with. When humans lived as hunters and gatherers, there were no jobs. You just did your duty in the tribe instead of thinking about what you would become when you became an adult.
There is also important differences depending on where you live. In Mecca in Saudi-Arabia certain personal traits will be less appreciated than in for instance Amsterdam. Isolate these cities for thousands of generations, and nobody will deny that humans are still evolving.
Tim Hansen I think it could be argued that cultural selection is still natural selection... as it is still a natural process... not, for example, eugenics or breeding.
OuroborosChoked It's a natural process, but I was referring to natural selection "in the traditional sense of the word". The different forms of selection have changed a lot since the stone age. When people talk about natural selection, they are normally thinking of the mechanisms humans were exposed to in the really old days when we actually lived in natural ecosystems. Many of these are gone today, and they forget about the new ones that has surfaced instead. Calling it cultural selection could serve as a reminder that even if the original or "natural" kind is gone, it does not mean we have stopped evolving.
I don't think he is correct.
We're evolving, just backwards ...
Humans have been around for only 200,000 yrs and so many people already think we've stopped developing.
Nice to see a scientific, commonsense approach to this. There's tons of cheese on YT on this topic.
you'll make people hungry typing cheese like that..
What a moronic response.
Of course in a the decades from now we will look pretty much the same.
Evolution doesn't happen over such a short time frame as decades.
If it did the first breed of fish would have walked on land in less than a century of time....
MK: You forget that there may be pressures in the future that are not currently happening. The future is uncertain.
Michio, you forgot one thing. Who's to say the planet will not undergo extreme changes again? This being the case, man has not stopped evolving! If anything it's speeding up! The amount of time we've had this type of technology we have today is but a blink of an eye in comparison to the four point four million years we've been around.
Michio Kaku is the shit
I don't think so.
Yo mom is shit Craig