I'll be a monkey's uncle.

ALL HUMAN BRAINS HAVE NOT EVOLVED EQUALLY, WHY JUST STUDY CHIMPS, ARE CHIMPS BRAINS ALL EQUAL? HOW MANY LEVELS OF HUMAN BRAINS ARE THERE? THE QUESTION IS WHY NOT, SOLVE THIS PRIOR TO WONDERING ABOUT CHIMPS,ARE HIGHER LEVELS OF BRAINS FOUND IN DIFFERANT RACE'S, REGIONS? WE HAVE PLENTY OF GAPS ON THIS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISCOVERED.

"Ignorance is bliss"?

I don't want any software updating going on up here. I'll take my chances with what I have. Good on you though and when you are in need of some troubleshooting on that thing I hope to be there to restart you!

Our parrot, Cirrus the African grey, laughs maniacally whenever she sees George W. Bush on TV. That's made me wonder what she senses that we don't, or if she's just watched too much Jay Leno with us. When Cirrus' original owners got divorced, Cirrus ripped out every feather she could reach. Her original owners eventually gave Cirrus up for her own good, and that's how we got her. It took over a year for her to stop calling for her previous male owner in the owner's wife's voice. Most of her feathering has grown back.

Chauncey the Moluccan cockatoo once stole a screwdriver to attempt to escape his cage, tying a rope in his cage in a knot to hold the screwdriver. But Chauncey's really not that smart. He stole a Phillips-head screwdriver, and all the screws are slot-headed. Try as he might, he couldn't get the screws loose with the screwdriver. Chauncey survived Hurricane Andrew (the computer chip in his chest tells us he was found by one of the animal recovery teams), but when a storm comes, he still has what can best be described as apparent psychotic flashbacks.

Even my own intelligence can be called into question. When a large parrot is having flashbacks, sticking one's hands into his cage isn't a good idea, as the scars on my arms and hands testify.

Our parrots remind me of Koko the gorilla showing a photo album and signing about Ball, her pet cat. The cat was killed in an accident, and Koko still signs "sad."

No, they might not have the most interesting conversations, but a lot of humans I know don't rise much above "give beer me give drink."

I find this incredibly ironic. Human beings are considered to be at the top of the evolutionary ladder precisely because their brains are the most sophisticated, allowing them to engage in abstract thought and cultural sophistication. And yet, this same sophistication makes it harder for them to evolve further? The Darwinian concept of evolution suggests that those species best adapted to given climactic conditions tend to survive, while others die out. In that sense, I guess intelligence doesn't really factor into the equation, unless intelligence helps you to survive. I guess, ultimately, the assumption that man is at the top of the evolutionary ladder because he has the largest brain needs to be called into question!

Or the human species will saynothing more cogent than, yo momma give me eat. Perhaps just in another year or two.

On the other hand, the dinosaurs died out because of their tiny brains!

I'll go out on a limb (not to worry, it's a strong one) and say that no chimp, anywhere, was ever taught ASL.  Some chimps have been taught some signs and maybe understand them, but knowing a few signs is as far from knowing ASL as knowing a couple words of any other language is from knowing that language.

First, any language--ASL included--has thousands of signs, not a hundred or so.  More importantly, any language--ASL and other signed languages included--has a grammar.  There is no indication that the chimps have learned grammar.  Your example "sentence" of "give orange me give eat" is right on the mark (as is the longer sequence of words at the Wikipedia article you link to).

I could supply lots of URLs for further study on the alleged language capabilities of chimps and other non-human primates, but this one is typical:  

 http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/
languagelog/archives/000525.html

I'm not sure a bigger brain would make us any smarter than we already have the potential for.  It's said that we all can have a photographic memory and total body control if we work at it.  If this is true, I'd speculate that one of the main reason we don't is self-doubt.  

As a former martial artist, I saw first-hand how people slowed themselves in what they could do with their own doubt.  People get so frustrated when they make even a simple mistake or forget one little thing that little progress is made even over a very long period of time.  A bigger brain isn't needed but perhaps less emphasis on "winning and losing" in our culture could help.  

As for a photographic memory, look at how much people in hypnosis can remember.  I think "a self-induced hypnosis" is actually a better description for a state of meditation than the word "meditation" itself.  It's an indescribable calm that would make a packed 24-hour bus ride (with babies crying and all) seem like the most fun you've ever had... REALLY!

everyone knows that humans are only the third smartest animal on the planet, following Mice then Dolphins.

 

 

42

As a software developer, it makes perfect sense to me that highly sophisticaticated systems would be much more difficult to improve. I see the problem with software all the time: small, incremental improvements (the kind evolution uses) eventually reach a point where there isn't much more you can do - if you want significant improvements, you have to make sweeping, fundamental changes. This is very hard to do with complex systems when you know exactly what you are trying to accomplish; it makes perfect sense that it would be nearly impossible to accomplish blindly.

Methinks you should check out David Brin's "Uplift Wars"!

A. C. Clarke had "superchimps" manning(?) a dirigible.

If you wanted to "uplift" dolphins, would you have to develop bionic hands for them?  Please note that the largest brain belongs to the sperm whale.  Might they be the world's greatest philosophers?  If that's the case, why are we allowing them to be killed off by the Japanese, Icelanders and Norwegians?

So many questions!

It can be reasonable, on many levels, to assume that human beings have reached the apex of Darwinian evolution. From this point forward our evolution will likely be governed by intellegent decisions such as genetic engineering and electromechanical augmentation. Both of these processes achieve improvements to, "natural," systems much faster. That much is already evident in the world around us (Gene therapy, Genetic Engineering, Cochlear implants, Exoskeletons) . To suppose that this process will not include other species is rather unimaginative. We humans have always used the assistance of other creatures to live (Dogs, Cats, Birds), to think we wouldn't work to improve their abilities (which we have already done through selective breeding) is preposterous.

First, looking back at how evolution has occurred and projecting it forward to estimate how we will evolve is ill advised.  We are in the process of seizing control of genetics and will determine our own evolution, exploiting it for our own benefit.  It is no longer survival of the fittest – it’s survival of what we see fit.  

Evolution is ending, design is taking over, and not only for us but for everything else – eventually – that is if nothing happens like a pandemic or a big meteorite – then it’s back to the old plan, evolution.

I believe the true limitation of further human evolution is the fact that we now control our environment so completely that we no longer need to adapt to it. Evolution is based on species changing in response to a changing environment; we now adapt our environment to suit us.

First, it says that the genes themselves are evolving more slowly, but the expression of existing genes is evolving more rapidly. The latter is probably the more important point, since there are genes that are known that are as yet unexpressed as far as we can tell, as well as "junk" DNA that may be hidden unexpressed genes or may be directions for modifcation of expressions or expression rates. With so many potential genes available to evolve with, how fast they themselves change is fairly irrelevant. The complexity of the interaction of all the genes involved makes for more possibility, and so more possibility for change, than we'd need for millenia even if the genes themselves stopped changing.

Second, with respect to ASL, grammar and chimps: The "grammar" of ASL is far more fluid than any other language. The ordering of signs is due far more to how easy it is to transition from one sign to another within the same sentence/statement than any "logical" ordering. The same sentence can be expressed several different ways and still be understood, but it is most likely to be expressed in the easiest way. That's not just my opinion as an ex-terp (a "terp" is an ASL interpreter), it's a statement made by the very people who devised most of the rest of the stuff about ASL grammar that you can read in the Wiki article at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_sign_language

Also, if you try to tell someone from the Deaf (that's capital D) community otherwise, that there's a particular word order specified by ASL, they'll tell you in no uncertain signs that such an assertion is an attempt to impose SEE (Signed Exact English) on them, and that doing so is considered an invasion of their culture by the dominant, hearing culture. And make no mistake about it, they do have their own culture, since they have their own language, their own community, and mostly because they say so and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise.

As for ASL and apes, the one feature ASL "grammar" has in common with all other languages is that it is generative. That is, it evolves in intelligent minds, resulting in new signs. This generative nature is how a child can learn so much language (in all its facets, not just words) in such a short time. Fact is, it isn't possible to teach a child language as fast as they can pick it up and use it. One of the arguments for true (ASL) language use by an ape was in the case of Koko the gorilla. She took the signs for "apple" and "drink" (very different in terms of the position and movement parts of ASL "grammar") and invented a single sign for "apple juice". That's the widely reported instance. I read Penny Patterson's dissertation, and there is a far better example of generative grammar in it. After Mike, her intended mate, had been brought in, and he could not communicate with her, Koko went into a funk. She did not like Mike at all. She thought he was stupid, and said so. Penny tried to coax Koko out of her state by saying "I like Mike. I think Mike [is] a smart gorilla." Koko replied angrily "Koko think Mike dirty toilet stink". That's just the literal translation -- it was pretty obvious that she was making up the equivalent of cuss words. I can't think of a better example of generative language common to kids her age (she's about 5 human years old equivalant mental age).

Not specifically related to language, but what I believe to be indicative of Koko's intelligence, was her episode on AOL. This was back in the strictly dial-up, pre-internet days. AOL advertised that Koko would be coming on in one of their chat rooms and had been given a special keyboard and taught how to use it. On the appointed day, they logged Koko in. The moderator passed along a few statements and questions from the attendees to whoever was with Koko at the time. Koko watched for a bit, poked a few of the keys (which she did really know how to use) watched for about another 5 minutes, and walked away. Now, I think that's one smart ape. In contrast, many of the humans remained in Koko's chat room for almost an hour after she left.

What a blow to the Evolution Theory! Imagine that, a minor mutation of our brain could in fact make it less useful. That would mean Evolution was going backwards. But wait, that would destroy the whole Evolution Theory. Darn it, I hate it when that happens.

I've read studies that suggest that the more intelligent one is, the less likely they are to have children, and the children they have are born later in life. Assuming that some of human intelligence is genetic in nature, this means that once we've reached a certain level, the stupid people will out-populate the smart ones, bringing the level of human intelligence down. And it's the less intelligent ones whose genes will propagate the furthest.

A.I. systems will soon surpass humans as the dominant sentient beings on Earth, and unlike our cranial meat matrixes they'll be able to evolve their silicon (if that's what they are still using) brains on the fly, or just replace outdated modules - for what purposes, humans will only dimly be capable of guessing at.

I hope they at least like us as pets.  Probably not.  Humans aren't nearly as pleasant as dogs and cats.

Mike from Laurel: One correction: In ASL, the grammatical syntax is vastly different from English. In fact, the language itself is very much conceptual. Thus, instead of signing "Give me an orange to eat, please." one would actually sign something very similar to "give orange give me eat" (though this particular example has one to many gives in it). Thus, it is very reasonable to believe that the chimp was taught ASL, as it is even using the proper language syntax.

Surely the issue with evolution of brains is just an extension of the idea that the more specialised an organism is, the less likely it is to survive under evolutionary pressure. Or perhaps there is less evolutionary pressure because we have more complex brains and are thus better able to deal with changes in our environment. Some reflection on this would be interesting.

Also, I don't think that failure to evolve our brains farther is necessarily a problem in the immediate future. It is unlikely that we have reached the limit of what our brains can do and farther research in neuroscience may help us make much better use of what we have.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if these chimps were released into the wilds and left to their own devices. It would also be interesting to see what would happen if they were carefully reintroduced into existing groups of chimps. With their newly discovered language skills, it might just improve the quality of life for the whole group. At that point, we could come back in a few generations and see if the skill is lost, or advanced in a way that they find to be more efficient to their anatomy. Perhaps the reason why they are not more advanced is because their current method of communication is insufficient. Is communication the key here?

We already thrive in our "niche." Because of our intelligence, we can make a life anywhere on our planet. Because of that, we're not really under much stress to adapt. Even if we were, who's to say that bigger, better brains would be the thing that helps us thrive? And that's really all evolution is about, anyway: beneficial mutations being passed down to offspring until it overruns a species.

Even if someone got lucky with a mutation that made a better brain, the only way it would affect us as a species is if it somehow promoted the production of many offspring and a life long enough to make those offspring. I can't really see that being the case.

If a human goal is to become more advanced intellectually, it will have to be an artificial change. Evolution is unlikely to do it for us.

I personally would assume that evidence of continued brain evolution could be found in the negative as well as the positive changes in function. If an increase in, for instance, the occurrence of autism is noticed it would not be unreasonable to consider this as a possible indication of an ongoing evolutionary change that expresses itself this way in some cases.

It would also not be unreasonable to think that in other cases the change expresses itself differently. The other expressions may be more or less noticeable and may be more or less desireable. But in that much evolutionary change can take thousands of years to produce a stable change even in an isolated population it would be arrogant to insist that in as large and mobile a population as exists in our world that we would even notice the changes for centuries even if they have been on going for centuries already. In my opinion, evolution is going on but at a pace slowed by population size and mobility. In ten thousand years our descendants may see the changes that began ten thousand years ago and be just as blind to them as we are today.  

@Wayne Mims:

Of course a minor change or mutation, if it's the wrong one, can make our brain less useful. If it were exactly the right change, it would make our brain more useful.

That's how evolution works: change happens at random. Sometimes the change is bad, and that leads to the animal being less surviveable and its genes not being passed on. Sometimes the change is good, and leads to the animal out-competing its brethren and replacing them.

This finding just states that, as the organism becomes more complex, the chance of a beneficial mutation decreases. That doesn't disprove evolution, it just makes a statement about how evolution occurs: quickly at first, and then more slowly as the organism becomes more complex.

Gee it's nice to *understand* concepts before you get sarcastic about them

To expand a bit on my previous post, evolution, as defined, does NOT work in reverse. That is, species as a whole do not adopt *less* advantageous adaptations in place of more advantageous ones.

If a single specimen develops an unhelpful or damaging mutation, this doesn't cause the species to evolve backwards. It causes that specimen to die, or fail to reproduce, or whatever. That mutation passes away, and the species continues as normal.

This doesn't necessarily mean that organisms never evolve to become less complex or less intelligent. In some situations, having a very simple body plan, or a very simple nervous system, can be very helpful! That's not evolving backwards, that's evolving *forward* to adapt to your situation.

Damn dirty apes.

Wayne: Evolution does not state that beings cannot de-evolve. In fact, the history of evolution is full of species that failed due to a bad mutation. Naturally, the only mutations still around are the ones that did not fail (yet). This being said, there have been countless mutations that did not work out so well. Moreso than mutations that did. Thus, having some humans develop a mutation in the brain that causes less intelligence or some other "defect" does not disprove evolution. In fact, people born with genetic defects now are a case in point. Autism, down syndrome, other children born mentally deficient due to genes...all are cases of genetic "mutation" that would have resulted in failure (the death of said defective individual) had "normal" humans not intervened on their behalf.

Loren: You are correct. It is true that more intelligent people have less children on average than less intelligent ones. It is, at this point, due to the environmental pressure known as economics. Intelligent people know that they need to finish college, get that good career going, or whatever before having children in order to provide for them well. Further, they understand that having 8 children is likely going to overtax their bodies, minds, and pocketbooks. Not to mention at least some of those 8 children are likely going to have "issues". Less intelligent people, however, make the decision to have 8 children when they cannot even take care of themselves. They make the decision to have children at 17 or younger, or engage in activity that will produce "accidental" children. Combined, the cumulative effect is that the percentage of intelligent people is decreasing. In effect, we are breeding ourselves stupid.

How did we get this 50 billion neuron brain if just a little mutation can easily confine its owner to a funny farm, straight jacket, or devolve him to the IQ of a toaster oven. Just another classic demonstration of how stupid the evilution theory is. Those who believe the evilution nonsense must have had some mutations to their brains.

To quote scout29c:

"We are in the process of seizing control of genetics and will determine our own evolution, exploiting it for our own benefit.  It is no longer survival of the fittest – it’s survival of what we see fit."

I find this really interesting. Can the case be made that evolution ends where technology begins? The Darwinian concept of evolution through "survival of the fittest" may work for animals who are at the mercy of their environment. But what happens when animals develop technology that enables them to control their environment? Could it be said that Darwinism--survival of the fittest--no longer applies? Or is technology merely an extension of evolution, so that, after a point, technology is what continues to evolve, while the human species begins to devolve?

   As to the comment about A.I. soon to overtake human thought; here's a counter-point.  As has already been proven in a number of different venues, an increase in a system's complexity slows down its ability to increase its development.

   Or to put it another way---it might be very concievable that once A.I. intelligence approaches the I.Q. quotient of a human being, it will begin to level off and not continue expanding in such steep learning curves.

   We have memory units which far exceed the capability of any human to recall facts.  But no 'software' yet approaches an adult human's intelligence.  It could very well be the complexity of 'software' which separates Man from a Chimp will be the factor that restains A.I. intelligences from surpassing human intelligence. 
     

To Uday Gunjikar: It's also been noted that dinosaurs died out because they didn't have a space program...

Anyway, it was pointed out decades ago by the late dolphin researcher John Lilly that brains become more susceptible to damage from sudden rotations (among humans, boxers seem to be most at risk) as they get larger. The massive bodies of most cetaceans, living in a denser medium, put them at less risk to this than humans are, so, mechanically at least, they have fewer constraints in this area. (not to mention childbirth/pelvic size issues) Larger, more complex brains for land animals don't help if the owner is more likely to suffer damage to it before puberty, so evolution simply can't *go* very far in that direction....

(What we may *choose* to engineer ourselves into at some later time, however, is another issue.)

It should also be noted that 'evolution' has no goal or plan, what works (increases the chance of survival) in a given situation tends to get passed along, what doesn't, doesn't. Even larger, more complex brains come at the price of being signifigant consumers of oxygen and other physiological resources. But for some (like us), the increased intelligence (which includes a problem-solving capacity that's valuable in novel situations) is 'worth' it.

IF biology works essentially the same across the universe, we may reasonably expect to see this pattern repeated elsewhere. (including the biological modifications and enhancements, where intelligent *and* [unlike cetaceans] technologically capable life arises)

If it is true that we hardly take advantage of our brains full potential that maybe things we consider fantasy can actually be reality? Think of all the old fairy tales of witch-craft and magic. People flying and throwing fireballs from their hands etc etc...can we really say this isnt possible, and instead it is possible just not probable? I bet a hundred years ago it was impossible for a chimp to hold some sort of conversation with a human. And let us not forget the dream of flying...which we now do for all sorts of reasons at all sorts of time. Maybe when we no longer have our toys to play with, we will be forced to use what we've always had but never dreamt of being able to do. Much like the MA guy was saying earlier.

Puh shah. Brains start evolving slower because intelligence allows them to externalize adaptation. Internal adaptation no longer conveys survival advantages -- once you know enough math to build a calculator, you have little incentive to evolve beyond that. Today for example, whether you know a survival fact from memory or from Google, it's equivalent.

I am always at odds as to just what is a properly or fully functioning mind really is. We see day after day so much of the stupidity that seems to dominate humanity. If you base it all on technology and the gains there, the truth is, a vast amount of humanity doesn't benefit from or require technology at all.  

How much has humanity really evolved? You just can't include all of humanity in the same basket.  There is much variability within cultures and societies. You can blame religion for having the audacity of placing humans at the top of some hierarchy too.  

As for the future of evolving brains? Any mutations that happen to screw things up you can blame on a poisoned biosphere!

Human beings are not the pinnacle of evolution as many people believe. Modern humans have only been on this planet for a few million years, the blink of an eye in comparison to how long life has existed. Intelligence, on a human level, was/is an evolutionary dead end. how do know this? well, humans are the only species with this so called intelligence. If evolution had favored intelligence it makes sense that we would have more than one species in the entire world with the "intelligence" to make an atom bomb. and as soon as we blow ourselves up, assuming the earth survives I doubt this planet will ever see another "intelligent" species.

@ Jordon,

As far as the sarcasm, you're right, I didn't need to put that in.  As far as the evolution theory, you can believe what ever you want.  A theory based on thousands of hypothesis (what ifs) relying on trillions of events happening in the right sequence over billions of years to eventually develop a human being, now that takes a lot of faith.  I still can't quite come to grips myself about us having such a large brain that we don't hardly use.  Using evolution theory, we wouldn't have developed anything more than what we needed to survive.  However, if we were created with a brain with the capacity to learn, grow, and appreciate life, that makes more sense to me.  I don't claim to have all the answers like most evolutionist do, and I can't accept the fact that there's nothing more to my being here except being part of some accident. My goal is to help others and to leave this earth a better place when I'm gone.  

As far as being stuck with the brains we have, if we're created with them this way, then we're stuck; if not, then let's hope your anticipated evolution of our brains takes a forward step the next time it decides to change, instead of randomly going backwards.  

To quote N. Smith from Miramar, Florida:
"How did we get this 50 billion neuron brain if just a little mutation can easily confine its owner to a funny farm, straight jacket, or devolve him to the IQ of a toaster oven. Just another classic demonstration of how stupid the evilution theory is. Those who believe the evilution nonsense must have had some mutations to their brains."

It works, because for every individual that develops a bad mutation, there are millions that do not.  Your argument is roughly similar to "How do we have planes that fly at all?  If one little hose comes out the whole plane comes crashing down.  Just a classic example of why flight doesn't really work. People who believe in planes are stupid."  See how silly that is?  We know the physics theories that deal with flight work because planes actually fly.  We know the theory of evolution works, because we see things evolve.  Imagine that.  It works just like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, the theories that describe the laws that govern electricity, and even the theories of medicine that have probably saved your life at some point.  The ever-changing Flu virus, mutating bacteria, our own species' changes in height, speed, strength, etc, and more productive cows are all proof that evolution happens, sometimes quickly, sometimes not.  [...]

LJ Cincinnati, (In effect, we are breeding ourselves stupid.) Britney Spears comes to mind.

Quoting LJ:

"We know the theory of evolution works, because we see things evolve.  Imagine that.  It works just like the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Relativity, the theories that describe the laws that govern electricity, and even the theories of medicine that have probably saved your life at some point."

Actually, it's not quite the same thing. The theory of evolution cannot be expressed as a mathematical formula like the other theories and laws you mentioned. The Darwinian concept of natural selection to explain the diversity of plant and animal life (i.e. macroevolution and microevolution) is basically an argument, a hypothesis, to explain observed facts. We don't have conclusive evidence to prove that evolution is exclusively responsible for the diversity of life. However, it is the only scientific and scientifically acceptable theory that makes any sense to us. The only other explanation is in the realm of faith and religion. That's why it is the currently accepted scientific explanation for the development of life, if not the best one. It's the prevalent theory, just as Newtonian physics was prevalent before Einstein's General Theory of Relativity came along.

Wayne:

You may, of course, believe whatever you want. Science should never claim to have a corner on "truth". It only states what "most likely" happened, based only on observable phenomenon. If you have some personal reason to believe that there is a higher power, then I can see why it would make more sense to believe that this higher power created things.

Science, however, lacking evidence of that higher power, explains things through "mundane" means, based on evidence and observation.

On the subject of why our brain is so complex, it should be noted that you've got something a little bit wrong about evolution: organisms *don't* evolve "just enough to survive". If that were the case, chances are, we would just have one or two animals on the surface of the planet who were *kindof* good at *everything*. Just enough to get by.

But that's not how it works. If an organism develops an adaptation that makes him *better* at gathering food or avoiding danger or attracting mates, it doesn't matter that his species was surviving "well enough" with the old adaptation. With the new adaptation, he outcompetes the rest of his species, breeds more often, and lives longer. In effect, the new, better adaptation replaces the old, inferior one, despite the fact that the adaptation wasn't technically *necessary* for the species' survival.

Likewise, if an organism mutates in a way that makes it inferior, it doesn't matter if it is still "good enough" to survive. Its peers are good enough to survive *better*. They will eat his food. They will take his mates. They will kill him in territory battles.

In other words, being "good enough" isn't good enough if there's a superior adaptation around.

In conclusion, extreme survival pressure, that is, situations where a species must adapt or face extinction, *does* speed evolution, but even without that pressure, creatures do continue to evolve just by becoming superior to themselves and outcompeting their own species.

Modern humanity, of course, being a different case since being intellectually or physically inferior doesn't reliably cause death in most modern societies.

To quote Jordan:

"Modern humanity, of course, being a different case since being intellectually or physically inferior doesn't reliably cause death in most modern societies."

Does that imply that the next evolutionary step for mankind is to become intellectually or physically inferior? Are superior intellect and superior physical prowess (the qualities, one would assume, of the "superman" or the next step in human evolution) ultimately evolutionary dead ends? Is the next step in human evolution to be less intelligent and less athletic? If so, then maybe Kevin Federline represents the next step in human evolution? If that's the case, the I think I'd be better off dead!

Gary Bradski also has an inportant point that I only indirectly alluded to. Once you have a species both intelligent enough, and physically capable (dolphins, even as intelligent as I believe them to be, simply can't make fire [though they've shown a tool making/using capacity, even within their physiological limits] and all the things that technology as we know it requires) of technology, they are likely to take themselves *out* of evolution's loop.

I live in an area where cold and snow predominates at this time of year (though this particular winter's been quite mild so far...but I'm in Upstate NY, not Denver), but rather than wait for millions of years of natural selection to bring about a form of human with fur and larger reserves of body fat...someone, long ago, invented houses and central heating.

In a technological civilization (particularly one with the set of ethics we generally have), those individuals with physical traits that would have given them a very small chance of survival 10,000 years ago, now survive through technology and social support (Where would, say, Stephen Hawking be without both?), and still, hopefully, ccontribute.

We clearly aren't waiting for evolution to generate (if it's even possible) a vacuum-tolerant human, we continue to use technology to do what we want, well beyond what our physiology allows. And as we ultimately gain the ability to alter our biology and/or combine it with technology (even someone with one implanted false tooth is technically a cyborg), or develop artificial intelligence (that calculator, or the PC in front of you, is only the beginning) evolution will more and more, come to be in our *own* hands, making the question of how much more intelligence is possible via natural selection somewhat moot.

This, too, may have happened elsewhere in the Universe.

Quoting Frank:

"Once you have a species both intelligent enough, and physically capable . . . of technology, they are likely to take themselves *out* of evolution's loop."

Sure, but technology does not eliminate the competitive urge in man, which also contributes to Darwinian natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" does not only imply adaptation to the natural environment, but also to survival through competition (which brings to mind gladiatorial combat). The competitive urges in man can be seen even in our technologically sophisticated age, in which warfare is deemed to be a viable solution to the problems of the world and weapons technology constitutes by far the most significant investment of any national budget.

Uday:

"Does that imply that the next evolutionary step for mankind is to become intellectually or physically inferior?"

No. The next step for humanity's darwinian evolution is to stop evolving entirely. There are no real selective forces working on humanity at the moment, and in most places, we aren't even outcompeting each other for the ability to stay alive and mate. So we just aren't going...anywhere at all, unless we bootstrap ourselves as Alan says by engineering our own evolution through biological or mechanical means...

I for one *totally* want a google-implant.

Or even just a calculator implant.

Jordan:

"I for one *totally* want a google-implant."

Google in your brain? Dude, I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but that's an open invitation to all the spammers, fraudsters and identity thieves of the world to mess directly with your brain! I'd think twice about that, if I were you!

Yep, , I'm certain that one distant day in the future that mankind will discover that we are indeed the smartest monkey's in the universe. Good for us

Uday: You're quite right. Evolution has indeed shaped much of our underlying behavior. But technology now means human changes are no longer limited to the hit-and-miss and (by definition) slow pace of evolution. Now we can (or soon will) change ourselves in conscious, specific ways. The 'Intelligent Design' people will be right...but it won't be a deity at the drawing board.

Hopefully, (though past history isn't encouraging, in this respect) we'll have some of a deity's wisdom, as we do. But what has brought us this far, will indeed be reflected in what we choose to do next.

Frank, the promise of technology is seductive. The future is unexplored territory, but in the wake of the exponential technological advances of the previous century, your optimism may well be justified. However, while technology can do wonders to solve the logistical problems of life (which I wholeheartedly embrace), it can do little or nothing to change human nature. So, I support your optimism, but I think we also need to be a bit more realistic about our vision of the future!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):