Chrono Compendium
Enhasa Halls - Chrono Series Analysis => History, Locations, and Artifacts => Topic started by: GreenGannon on November 20, 2004, 03:14:36 am
-
At GameFAQs, there has been posted, yet another theory. Providing the theories—and the link, of course—to help form counter-arguments. This should further our understanding of what it is we study, as any endeavor we choose to pursue.
I now present—without any further ado on my part—the theories.
This may have been brought up before, but in 65 000 000 BC, there are two tribes, the Ioka, and the Laruba.
The laruba have Blue hair. When you talk to one of them in their burned village, she/he says that he had a red rock but it made him feel funny so he threw it away, or something like that. Could it be that the laruba were the foundation for the Zeal royal family?
They may have gained intellegence, or magic from the dream stones. THis is supported by the fact that the Nu speaks perfectly when he holds the red rock, but when he gives it to you he speaks like an idiot.
There is some reason to all of this—as far as the Ioka/Laruba point—however, some points are quite absurd. Such as his suggestion that dreamstone was the primary cause for the evolution. Dreamstone! What's more, this was posted on the Chrono Cross board!
Of course, a few replies later, another—quite similar— theory was posted by another pondering fan.
Yay! Someone else has the same theory as me!
Anyway, the Nu in the Laruban ruins gave you the Silver Rock, which therefore can't be Dreamstone.
Aside from that, your theory matches mine nicely.
Larubans: Blue/purple hair.
Iokans: Brown hair.
Zealans: Blue/purple hair.
Earthbound: Brown hair.
Now, over 64,088,000 years, one would expect enough diffusion that that would be evidence of jack and squat. However, this is a Japanese video game, and stuff like hair color tends to mean stuff, I'm told. I therefore rule out coincidence.
Second point: The Larubans were always hiding themselves while the Iokans were the warrior types.
The Zealans probably raised their lands not only for the superiority factor but as prevention of an uprising.
I admit this particular connection is tenuous, but it could work.
Third point: The Larubans could tame the Dactyls. This implies an affinity with the natural world and/or latent magical talent. Either would be conducive to learning the secrets of a magical stone.
So my theory is thus:
The Larubans found out they could channel magical energies through the Dreamstone, harnessed those energies, and eventually refined them to the point where they were a race of skilled mages.
The Iokans, a warrior tribe, would fear such a thing, and woudl likely try to lash out and eliminate this percieved threat. After all, with magic, strength becomes irrelevant, and remaining hidden won't stop them from carrying out attacks with magic.
Eventually, at a point probably far closer to 12kBC than to 65MBC, the Larubans grow powerful enough and skilled enough to raise masses of land into the sky indefinitely (q.v. Netheril). Here, they establish their kingdom, and rename it after their royal dynasty, Zeal.
At some indeterminate point, which may be before or after the above paragraph, they grow arrogant enough to presume superiority over the Iokans, and once they levitate their lands, they can literally look down on their former neighbors and call them "earthbound".
This is the theory as I have developed it. Interestingly, I originally had this idea in a theory I had about Lavos itself, back in the pre-CC days. This sort of spun off of part of that, and over time, grew refined to what you see above.
First off, I am glad to see that he addresses the Nu/Red Rock point, as it was a rather moot point. I am also intrigued by the hair color notion, which—ridiculous as it may sound—has proven true time and time again.
It does, sadly, seem to completely ignore the existence of the Frozen Flame.
"GameFAQs General Message List." CJayC. 16 November 2004. CNET Networks. 19 November 2004. <http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=24058&topic=17544357>.
-
Yeah, this idea was posted on the CT/RD/CC/CB thread, and used in the first Laruba encyclopedia entry; it simply has never had any official placement in the Analysis until now.
-
Somehow I don't think many people bother to consider that Zeal didn't just suddenly appear -- it would have to go through all the stages of technological development that we've been through and then some to get where they are. The kingdom of Zeal in the form it takes in 12KB.C. was not the majority of the kingdom's history -- the government had to last long enough to develop the technology to get to that point. In effect, what we know as Zeal could have had a hundred-thousand year history before Lavos destroyed it.
-
This is an interesting theory, one I haven't heard yet. My thoughts:
Larubans: Blue/purple hair.
Iokans: Brown hair.
Zealans: Blue/purple hair.
Earthbound: Brown hair.
Now, over 64,088,000 years, one would expect enough diffusion that that would be evidence of jack and squat. However, this is a Japanese video game, and stuff like hair color tends to mean stuff, I'm told. I therefore rule out coincidence.
While interesting, I don't think there's a whole lot that can be said about this. Also remember that not all Zealians have blue/purple hair. As far as I can remember, outside of Janus, the only Zealians with such colour are the women.
The Larubans found out they could channel magical energies through the Dreamstone, harnessed those energies, and eventually refined them to the point where they were a race of skilled mages.
The Iokans, a warrior tribe, would fear such a thing, and woudl likely try to lash out and eliminate this percieved threat. After all, with magic, strength becomes irrelevant, and remaining hidden won't stop them from carrying out attacks with magic.
Eventually, at a point probably far closer to 12kBC than to 65MBC, the Larubans grow powerful enough and skilled enough to raise masses of land into the sky indefinitely (q.v. Netheril). Here, they establish their kingdom, and rename it after their royal dynasty, Zeal.
At some indeterminate point, which may be before or after the above paragraph, they grow arrogant enough to presume superiority over the Iokans, and once they levitate their lands, they can literally look down on their former neighbors and call them "earthbound".
One should remember where Crono & Co got their dreamstone from - Ayla. I don't there's any evidence to suggest one tribe possessed it and learned to manipulate its properties whereas the other failed to do so. I would definately contest the fact that magic makes strength irrelevant, however. In virtually every game I can think of, physical attacks and technique easily rival magic - and no matter how powerful a mage gets, they're still mortal; a knife to the back kills them all the same.
Anyway, this is all very interesting. I still like my idea of the Zealian/Earthbound distinction arising from natural disparities in wealth (dreamstone), but this is a neat way of using specific peoples and places in the series.
-
Then again, doesn't the royal family dye their hair blue?
-
Then again, doesn't the royal family dye their hair blue?
Is this old chestnut still out there!? I see this getting banded about all the time, despite the fact that there's absolutely nothing, zilch, zero to back it. No in-game quote, no reference in the instruction manual, no mention in any guide that I've never seen, nada. It's been suggested that some quote to this effect was inserted into the game when it was ported to the PSX, but how likely is that, really? I've been told that the text in the Japanese PSX port is identical to that which appeared on the SNES cartridge, just as it is on this side of the Pacific. So... unless something else comes along, can we let this die?
Sorry, but for some reason, this bugs me even more than Ghetz's Shirt. :x
Oh, and Leebot, this is totally NOT directed at you personally!!!
OdF
-
I believe it was originally a theory used to explain why Schala's hair turned blonde in CC, but it's just a theory. If you have a better theory for the discrepency, I'll gladly listen.
-
Just asked a Japanese friend of mine. He's played the Japanese version some 15 times, and doesn't think there was anything suggesting they dye their hair in the game, and says there was nothing indicating that in the Japanese guidebook, either.
-
I believe it was originally a theory used to explain why Schala's hair turned blonde in CC, but it's just a theory. If you have a better theory for the discrepency, I'll gladly listen.
What I'm reacting to so negatively is the assertion (not made by you, but made quite frequently) that there was some tidbit to this affect actually inserted into the PSX rerelease of Chrono Trigger. It's a totally bogus statement, but it is most often cited as the origin of the theory you brought up.
I'm not saying that it's unreasonable to assert that Schala's blue hair was the result of a dye-job. In fact, I'd say it's a perfectly fine explanation. It just bugs me that this theory originally came about because of a false claim concerning the Japanese rerelease. (And I'm sure that it did, because I never saw anyone discuss the hair issue until after it got around that some new information had been added to the rerelease.)
Sorry, I guess I shot off at the mouth a little. Like I say, my rant wasn't directed at you personally in any way.
OdF
-
It does, sadly, seem to completely ignore the existence of the Frozen Flame.
I do believe that Lavos hadn't landed yet in 65,000,000 BC. That is why the theory ignores it. I simply believe the Frozen Flame was found around Zeal's uprising.
-
Exactly. The Frozen Flame wasn't discovered until 30,000,000 BC at the earliest.
-
I think you mean 3,000,000BC.
Well, It is most likely that no one was advanced till 3,000,000BC, but It would make sence if the Laruban's were the ancestors of the Zeal Blood line, that would give an insight on why they of all people have blue/purple hair. Otherwise it would seem closer as to Ayla and Kino being the ancestors of The Zeal Blood line directly.
-
Exactly. The Frozen Flame wasn't discovered until 30,000,000 BC at the earliest.
CC only states that there is 3,000,000 years of evolution between the last prehistoric humans and the first modern humans, not that it precisely began in 3,000,000 BC.
A brain that has developed abnormally
to 3 times the original size in the
span of 3 million years...
For all we know, the prehistoric humans could have began to abnormally evolve in 65,000,000 BC and became fully modern humans in 62,000,000 BC.
-
Yes, But that quote makes it seem as if they're refering to the past 3 million years, because they compared it to other people's brains at the time when that happened, I think. Because if the FF was found any earlier, than Zeal would have been created earlier too. But as we know it, whoever found the FF got it then lost it, and they continued to evolve to the Enlightened ones. Queen Zeal then did something that made Zeal really great, and they found the FF and built the Mammon Machine also with some Dream Stone that was passed down.
-
I've had this theory before about the Larubans evolving into the Zealians, but we can't know for sure, especially since not everyone in Zeal had blue hair. It is a theory to consider seeing as how none of the Earthbound people had blue hair. The theory though about the blue haired Larubans claiming to be superior reminds me of that old Dr. Seuss book about the Sneetches and their starred bellies. :P The two tribes probably had some intermingling before they separated themselves though. I mean 65 million years is a long time for the tribes to stay separated, especially since brown hair isn't exclusive to the Earthbound tribe.
The quote was most likely refering to the past 3 million years, but I'm probably wrong. There's no real indication that I saw suggesting that it was the case. It makes more sense for the people to take 2,988,000 years to evolve magic and become air
-
I've had this theory before about the Larubans evolving into the Zealians, but we can't know for sure, especially since not everyone in Zeal had blue hair. It is a theory to consider seeing as how none of the Earthbound people had blue hair. The theory though about the blue haired Larubans claiming to be superior reminds me of that old Dr. Seuss book about the Sneetches and their starred bellies. :P The two tribes probably had some intermingling before they separated themselves though. I mean 65 million years is a long time for the tribes to stay separated, especially since brown hair isn't exclusive to the Earthbound tribe.
The quote was most likely refering to the past 3 million years, but I'm probably wrong. There's no real indication that I saw suggesting that it was the case. It makes more sense for the people to take 2,988,000 years to evolve magic and become airborn than taking a full 64,988,000 years.
-
I would assume it was from 65,000,000 to 62,000,000. It says it triple from its original size, and I don't think you can get much more original than prehistoric.
-
I'd rather believe the quote meant that it was in 3 Million BC. If humans would of been evolved since 62 Million BC they'd of far surpassed Zeal in 12,000 BC.
-
It doesn't say that they stopped evolving, just that the brain stopped growing. And I'd like to see your calculations on determining how long it should take for a human to gain magical abilities via evolution.
-
Forget magic, I mean technonoly. Human society dates back for the last 3000 years (5000, if you're religous enough), and for those 5000 years we've built major cities, invented great devices, discovered some great things. You're actually telling me that what we did in 5000 years, took the oh so wise and magically potent Zealians 61 Million years?
-
Huh? Just because they gain those abilities doesn't mean they will instantly know how to use them. I would have to assume that learning to use magic would take much much longer than the actual evolutionary process. Especially with no Spekkio to help.
-
Huh? Just because they gain those abilities doesn't mean they will instantly know how to use them. I would have to assume that learning to use magic would take much much longer than the actual evolutionary process. Especially with no Spekkio to help.
Don't forget that CT almost mirrors the real world in evolution etc. Look at the big leap from 600AD - 1000AD. In the span of about 20 years, Lucca invents the first robot, computer, gun etc. And then about 999 years later, everyone is living in domes with highways and crazy computers etc.
I'd have to say that the game implies that the evolution started at 3,000,000BC. That would have been the point when the humans first came in contact with the flame. Then somehow that altered them to quickly, so they could not really evolve anymore (they obviously evolved physically over the 62,000,000 years). That is why they are an incomplete race torn between Love and Hate (game says that itself)
-
Of course they naturally evolved on the course of 65 Million years, and still the Flame evolved them.
In 3 Million years they did what we did in 5000. Then it came crashing down, and it tooks them 14,000 years to get back to that level. Seriously.
-
We have no idea of kingdoms pre-Zeal... for that matter we dont have much about kingdoms post-Zeal and pre-Guardia.... Fact is empires could have came and fell, came and fell.
Another fact about their world, there were magically potent monsters. Our humans had far less competition. Creatures like the Mystics and the Beasts were far stronger than the animals we faced against. You can't kill the Beasts with one hit of Lucca's gun, but considering Lucca has a very advanced gun, I am positive it could take out a tiger or even a mammoth.
Human society actually dates back to 8000 BC... aka the neolithic era, with the creations of permanent settlements (you could make the arguement that it starts at 25,000 BC with the paleolithic era) ... civilization starts at roughly 3100 BC in the city states of sumer...
We have not reached the level of Zeal... There is no way for us yet to make something like the Ocean Palace, or even something as fast as the blackbird and that size. We have no way of mass harnessing the energy at the core of the earth or sun. Truth is we are just more advanced than Guardia 1000 AD. 1000 AD Guardia = I would say 1900 AD US.
-
1000 AD Guardia seems to fit along the lines of an earlier time on Earth than 1900, but probably not too much so. I'd say it'd be fair to say about 1875, but that's just my opinion.
-
1000 AD Guardia seems to fit along the lines of an earlier time on Earth than 1900, but probably not too much so. I'd say it'd be fair to say about 1875, but that's just my opinion.
Don't forget the Dragon Tank had missiles. The Chrono Series is ahead of us in some technologies, but behind in others. I also think that, because there may not be any fossil fuels available, there was never an industrial revolution.
-
Huh? Just because they gain those abilities doesn't mean they will instantly know how to use them. I would have to assume that learning to use magic would take much much longer than the actual evolutionary process. Especially with no Spekkio to help.
Don't forget that CT almost mirrors the real world in evolution etc. Look at the big leap from 600AD - 1000AD. In the span of about 20 years, Lucca invents the first robot, computer, gun etc. And then about 999 years later, everyone is living in domes with highways and crazy computers etc.
I'd have to say that the game implies that the evolution started at 3,000,000BC. That would have been the point when the humans first came in contact with the flame. Then somehow that altered them to quickly, so they could not really evolve anymore (they obviously evolved physically over the 62,000,000 years). That is why they are an incomplete race torn between Love and Hate (game says that itself)
Human evolution cannot be compared to technological evolution, they are two completely separate things that have no bearing on one or another.
-
The only relation they have with each other is the fact technology tends to speed up as humans are in their "final fully evolved" formed... but besides that, they are truly irrelevant.
-
Humans are not "fully evolved." It just seems that way because we can solve almost any problem with our technology. However, though, evolution is a process that never ends. Until we somehow manage to overcome each and every one of our flaws in every field of our existence forever until the end of infinity, we will continue evolving.
-
Well technically we have stopped evolving in any real constructive manner. Evolution of sexual reproducing species occurs pretty much exclusively in small, stressed populations. Human beings are (for the moment) perfectly evolved. However, being perfectly evolved and perfect are 2 vastly different things. Being perfectly evolved means that a species is capable of reproduction in it's current enviroment. If a species exists and it is capable of maintaining it's numbers then evolution ceases to occur. It simply stops. Evolution for mankind has not occured in a major form in tens of thousands of years. Small changes may have occured one I can think of off the top of my head is a predominance aof a single sickle cell anemia gene in humans from certain locations because having a single gene of that type gives some disease protection. However, nothing major as to change a human into something else has occured or will likely ever occur.
Humanity in all likelyhood is in it's final naturally evolved state. I have no doubt that in the future humanity will alter its genetic code for favorable traits, but it won't be natural. However one could argue that even artificial manipulatation is evolutionary because it was the products of our evolutionary changes that eventually led to us having the tools capable of such modifications.
Well gah, anyway, humanity is done evolving for now. Until human populations get stressed and change is needed for survival then evolution is stalled.
-
Well technically we have stopped evolving in any real constructive manner. Evolution of sexual reproducing species occurs pretty much exclusively in small, stressed populations. Human beings are (for the moment) perfectly evolved. However, being perfectly evolved and perfect are 2 vastly different things. Being perfectly evolved means that a species is capable of reproduction in it's current enviroment. If a species exists and it is capable of maintaining it's numbers then evolution ceases to occur. It simply stops. Evolution for mankind has not occured in a major form in tens of thousands of years. Small changes may have occured one I can think of off the top of my head is a predominance aof a single sickle cell anemia gene in humans from certain locations because having a single gene of that type gives some disease protection. However, nothing major as to change a human into something else has occured or will likely ever occur.
Incorrect. Humans are not perfectly adapted to our environment. That we can maintain numbers is not indicative of evolutionary "perfection". The Neanderthals were by all measures better adapted for the ice age than we were, yet in the end, we won out. Evolution doesn't just stop, that's a ridiculous assertion. Genes mutations don't just suddenly stop because we can maintain our numbers.
With sickle-cell, you are refering to what is called heterozygous advantage, which is a trait that evolves. Another example of this is found in Ashkenasi Jews, and evolved in the last few hundred years. Blink of an eye in evolutionary terms; humans are still evolving, and will continue to do so until we go extinct.
Hell, the shape of the human skull has been changing over the last few centuries.
Humanity in all likelyhood is in it's final naturally evolved state. I have no doubt that in the future humanity will alter its genetic code for favorable traits, but it won't be natural. However one could argue that even artificial manipulatation is evolutionary because it was the products of our evolutionary changes that eventually led to us having the tools capable of such modifications.
Evolution is a process, not a goal. The "final" state will be whatever state the last generation of humans finds itself in.
Well gah, anyway, humanity is done evolving for now. Until human populations get stressed and change is needed for survival then evolution is stalled.
I will say this...ecological stress will accelerate our evolution, you are correct in this. But it has not stopped.
-
People like to think that human kind is done evolving because it's hard to see what we could possibly turn into. Mankind is still evolving though, such as how we have as a whole gotten taller than we were 500 years ago (though not by much). No, evolution isn't done with us yet.
-
Some do believe that humans will never evolve again because instead of adapting to the enviroment, they adapt the enviorment to them. They keep looking at Natural Selection as the only way to evolve, while every generation is more evolved then the one before, because the gene pool has become greater and more detailed.
-
Incorrect. Humans are not perfectly adapted to our environment. That we can maintain numbers is not indicative of evolutionary "perfection". The Neanderthals were by all measures better adapted for the ice age than we were, yet in the end, we won out. Evolution doesn't just stop, that's a ridiculous assertion. Genes mutations don't just suddenly stop because we can maintain our numbers.
The fact is that evolution is not always a forward moving process. It doesn't make people be more complex or necesarily better. It's only goal is to maximize adaptability to an enviroment. There are plenty of cases where a human being would seem inadequate. For example: No claws, relatively weak muscles, takes a long time to raise young (most animals have some kind of chance at survival if you just dump them on the ground, huamn babies wouldn't last long. Most not all animals). Humans for the most part have no natural offensive or defensive abilities. However, there are two things that makes a human perfectly evolved for our enviroment and that is our brains and oposable thumbs. We don't need claws, tough skin, or any of the other specializations because we can think of a way to work around them or simulate them. The fact is that with a human brain even if the body is unsuited for an area (where it's too hot, where it too cold, ect.) we still survive. Take any animal grossly out of its natural enviroment into one vastly different it will most like die, do that to a human and its survival is dependant not on its body as an animal, but on its mind.
As for mutations stopping, no definitly not. Although it likely sounded that way from how I stated things. Evolution is not a one person thing, its not a small group thing, its a species thing. A single person gets a mutation that gene isn't going to be too important without pressure. If a gene is not needed (i.e. doesn't help the person have kids) then the gene will not be of any major importance. It'll exist but will have no strong prevelance.
I say evolution has stopped because our species is at the point where there is no reproductive pressure (save for constant widespread disease in an area, or reproductive problems) nearly any person on this planet that is capable of having kids can do so, it makes no difference whether their genes are of any quality. In smaller populations where food is scarce and predators hunt them, only the top most suitable 25% of a group might survive. That 25% is chosen on luck (I can't discredit this) and their genes. How strong are they naturally, how smart, how fast, disease resistent, aggressive, passive, ect. all matter.
Without such pressures then the "bad" genes and the "good" genes all exist in the pot. Evolution stalls because nothing is there to kill off the "bad" ones and to promote the "good" ones. If we ever get some kind of pressure back then evolution will pick up.
With sickle-cell, you are refering to what is called heterozygous advantage, which is a trait that evolves. Another example of this is found in Ashkenasi Jews, and evolved in the last few hundred years. Blink of an eye in evolutionary terms; humans are still evolving, and will continue to do so until we go extinct.
Some groups do have some pressures that lead to changes. Such as long standing disease in an area. In fact you can begin to see the results of this in Africa where Aids is so prevelant and being such a debilitating disease that some populations have developed resistance to the disease, some people seemingly unable to catch it. This is evolution in a way but until the whole species aquires these genes I don't know if that counts.
Evolution is a process, not a goal. The "final" state will be whatever state the last generation of humans finds itself in.
I will say this...ecological stress will accelerate our evolution, you are correct in this. But it has not stopped.
Evolution is a process but it has a goal that is reachable. Once a population no longer needs to change in order to reproduce sucessfully then evolution no longer does anything. As stated above there are places where changes are needed to reproduce successfully (like populations with high prevelance of aids) but they are for smaller groups, not the species as a whole. I say that evolution has stopped because what our bodies might be inadequate with, our minds make up for. As our technologies and knowledge advance there will be less and less factors stressing our population. New medicines to kill disease (thus preventing our bodies from naturally developing those defences), new fertility drugs or pregancy techniques (thus allowing genes that evolution would normally kill to continue). Our brains have slowly been making it so that evolution no longer works. Evolution is designed to make a species suitable to its enviroment. Humans now make their enviroments suitable to their species. Everything evolution does humans are now able to do or are working on being able to do. So maybe it's not 100% stopped but its only a matter of time.
-
To say that a mutation isn't evolution because it only affects a given population of the species, and not the species on the whole is the opposite of the truth. In fact, this is the manner in which many new species are created. The split between chimps and bonobos was most likely a (few) mutation that was only present in one or two groups of the species. Then things such as the Founder Effect kicked in, and bam! Two species where at first there was only one.
You are incorrect in your characterization of AIDS resistance in Africa. People did not evolve it because of the prevelance of AIDS in the region. It's a random mutation that became adaptive because of the prevelence of AIDS in the region. The mutation occurs at some low rate in the global population, but since there is less pressure from AIDS on the global poplulation than in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is often not noticed, and provides no (known) adaptive benefits. No person or entity chose for people to evolve that trait. The inheritence of aquired characteristics is a failed model of evolution, not that I think you were aiming to argue it.
I agree that humans, more than any other species, have the ability to shape our environment. We are capable of interfering in our own evolution. I'm going to ignore the ethical implications, as they are beyond the scope of this discussion, but it will suffice to say, that for better or worse, humans can have a great effect on when traits are adaptive or not. There was some discussion of this same issue in General Discussion, regarding the social context of skill desirability (musician vs. hunter gatherer). But the fact that human beings can influence our evolution to a great degree does not mean that evolution has stopped, simply that an aditional mechanism for it to work in now exists.
-
Wow I regret saying the words "fully evolved" now...
By "fully evolved" I was refering to the fact that evolution had developed the current "final" humanoid, or homo sapiens. I am not talking about basic mutations and stuff, but instead the entire genetic makeup of the species.
-
and you're STILL wrong. Evolution never stops. There is no "final" form in evolution except for becoming a God. As long as there's something higher than us on the evolutionary web, we will be forced to keep evolving, no matter how slowly we have to take it.
-
and you're STILL wrong. Evolution never stops. There is no "final" form in evolution except for becoming a God. As long as there's something higher than us on the evolutionary web, we will be forced to keep evolving, no matter how slowly we have to take it.
And you are still wrong. Evolution does not stop as long as a species reproduces. Evolution is a process. No goals, just mechanisms.
-
and you're STILL wrong. Evolution never stops. There is no "final" form in evolution except for becoming a God. As long as there's something higher than us on the evolutionary web, we will be forced to keep evolving, no matter how slowly we have to take it.
Why do you think I put "final" in quotes? I meant currently we are the final form.
We are the most advanced form of the primate family up to this time. In the future we very well maybe some primitive pathetic being, but relative to the mutations thus far, we are "final" because we are the most recent.
Final is probably a very poor word to describe it.
-
The latest form in our evolutionary path, might fit.
-
I dunno if it's occured to some of you, but...
Evolution happens over huge time periods!
The longer a creature's lifespan, the slower evolution will take place. Turtles have massive lifespans and little need to change much, and as a result, Turtles have showed little visible evolution from prehistoric times. Germs, on the other hand, keep changing and mutating all the time (and are becoming immune to some of our medicines...).
Due to humans having a relatively low death rate, natural selection has less of an impact right now, but that isn't to say that evolution has simply stopped. For example, naturally blonde haired people may well soon be extinct. This is a very minor thing (no more blonde people) but it could be considered an evolutionary movement, the blonde hair gene vanishes, no more pale haired humans are born, all humans have darker hair. Blonde hair presents no actual advantage, and was probably a mutation to begin with, so it does make sense that it would eventually fade out.
-
I dunno if it's occured to some of you, but...
Evolution happens over huge time periods!
The longer a creature's lifespan, the slower evolution will take place. Turtles have massive lifespans and little need to change much, and as a result, Turtles have showed little visible evolution from prehistoric times. Germs, on the other hand, keep changing and mutating all the time (and are becoming immune to some of our medicines...).
Due to humans having a relatively low death rate, natural selection has less of an impact right now, but that isn't to say that evolution has simply stopped. For example, naturally blonde haired people may well soon be extinct. This is a very minor thing (no more blonde people) but it could be considered an evolutionary movement, the blonde hair gene vanishes, no more pale haired humans are born, all humans have darker hair. Blonde hair presents no actual advantage, and was probably a mutation to begin with, so it does make sense that it would eventually fade out.
Good point.
YAY NO BLONDE PEOPLE. j/k (I on the other hand am black haired). But the point is if we are defining small little mutations as "evolution," then really every single baby is differently evolved...
-
Well, it's not the mutation itself that's evolution. It's when the mutation is proven to be useful, passed on, and becomes a fundamental part of the genepool.
-
I dunno if it's occured to some of you, but...
Evolution happens over huge time periods!
Evolution happens generation to generation. The actual amount of time is irrelevant. It just usually takes many generations for a given mutation to spread through the population, or at least a significant portion.
The longer a creature's lifespan, the slower evolution will take place. Turtles have massive lifespans and little need to change much, and as a result, Turtles have showed little visible evolution from prehistoric times. Germs, on the other hand, keep changing and mutating all the time (and are becoming immune to some of our medicines...).
See above. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but you've got the right idea.
Due to humans having a relatively low death rate, natural selection has less of an impact right now, but that isn't to say that evolution has simply stopped. For example, naturally blonde haired people may well soon be extinct. This is a very minor thing (no more blonde people) but it could be considered an evolutionary movement, the blonde hair gene vanishes, no more pale haired humans are born, all humans have darker hair. Blonde hair presents no actual advantage, and was probably a mutation to begin with, so it does make sense that it would eventually fade out.
Blonde hair is a recessive trait. Even if the next generation of humans had no blondes, the generation after that could be ~15-25% blonde. Although I'm not really sure why you think that blonde hair is becoming less prevelant in humans. I've seen nothing to suggest any change in relative rates of hair color in recent times, or was this just an example?
I disagree with your last assertion. Every change to a living thing, since the first self-replicating strands of DNA, has been a mutation. That a trait results from a mutation does not mean that it logically follows that it must fade out of the genome in time. Hair at all was a result of a series of mutations, but there have been hair-growing animals for ~70 million years.
-
I disagree with your last assertion. Every change to a living thing, since the first self-replicating strands of DNA, has been a mutation. That a trait results from a mutation does not mean that it logically follows that it must fade out of the genome in time. Hair at all was a result of a series of mutations, but there have been hair-growing animals for ~70 million years.
Humans have been losing hair... we have no need for it. Hair was created so we could survive incredible cold, but the ice age has been over for a good while now. Humans have no use for the obscene amounts of hair that our homonid and greater ape cousins had. Wisdom teeth is another trait that will eventually be taken out of the gene pool. We have no use for those miserable teeth, while our primitive brethern needed them for eating raw meat. Some of our organs are becoming useless, due to the fact they were designed to counter bacteria and toxins that are no longer a problem with our current food.
-
I disagree with your last assertion. Every change to a living thing, since the first self-replicating strands of DNA, has been a mutation. That a trait results from a mutation does not mean that it logically follows that it must fade out of the genome in time. Hair at all was a result of a series of mutations, but there have been hair-growing animals for ~70 million years.
Humans have been losing hair... we have no need for it. Hair was created so we could survive incredible cold, but the ice age has been over for a good while now. Humans have no use for the obscene amounts of hair that our homonid and greater ape cousins had. Wisdom teeth is another trait that will eventually be taken out of the gene pool. We have no use for those miserable teeth, while our primitive brethern needed them for eating raw meat. Some of our organs are becoming useless, due to the fact they were designed to counter bacteria and toxins that are no longer a problem with our current food.
-On hair: You are incorrect. Head hair blocks out UV rays, thus preventing skin cancer. Neccisary.
-Wisdom teeth: You are correct. We are slowly losing these. I was born with only 3; hopefully my children will be born with even fewer. However, they were not for eating raw meat. Wisdom teeth are molars, they are meant for eating plant matter.
-Organs: You refer to the apendix. It is indeed vestigial. We still use pretty much everything else though.