Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgzl | Hacker News Reader

Every once in a while I'll ask people this question: assuming evolution is true, which species do you think will evolve next?

View on HN

All species are evolving at the same time, so this question doesn't make sense as written. I assume you mean to ask which species will be the next to attain humanlike self-awareness.

I find it an interesting thought experiment. [Weasel words ahead!] I think our behavior (damaging the ecosystem, causing habitat loss and so forth) might be putting evolutionary pressure on other species in a way that could lead to an increase in intelligence and self-awareness. But I also fear that we're doing it too much, too quickly, and that extinction is easily as likely.

I think this sounds reasonable until you really consider Earth's history. We've gone through far more radical changes in environment - not only in terms of temperature shifts from ice ages to worldwide saunas but also in terms of geographic change as what was presumably one land mass gradually divided into many, land bridges between the newformed continents disappearing, even things such as the oxidation of our planet which resulted in the extinction of nearly all life. Yet, through it all - only one species managed to evolve anything like our cognitive and developmental ability. Quite peculiar in many ways.

There were lots of cognitive human like species. I.e. neanderthals etc. They're just dead now.

The Neanderthals lived hundreds of thousands of years longer than the entire existence of homo sapien. Their peak technological development was stone age, which sounds even nicer than what it is. Pound two rocks together, notice sharp pieces fall off, use them -> you're now in the stone age. And, contrary to misinformation driven by mass media - there is no clear evidence they engaged in any form of art, adornment, or generally symbolic behavior. [1] Extremely high rates of traumatic injury among the discovered remains also implies that in their hundreds of thousands of years of existence they failed to even refine their hunting technique.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Culture

> Yet, through it all - only one species managed to evolve anything like our cognitive and developmental ability.

Source? I mean that's a pretty bold statement...

Evolution is not going towards some future goal and humans are not more evolved than other species.

This question make no sense in the context of evolution. What do you think it's like pokemon where a species achieves the necessary requirements and suddenly it evolves into a different species?

"assuming" a proven true fact is true?

Nobody says "lets assume that maths are true" or "lets assume that computers really exist"

I say "assuming" because many times I'm communicating with people who don't necessarily believe in evolution, and I'd rather not derail my thought experiment with an argument over whether evolution is real. Instead I have the argument with pompous believers of evolution who scold me for being respectful.

> Pompous believers of evolution

The disrespectul terminology says a lot. Evolution is not a "belief", is a fact and yes, I'm aware that you know it.

There is a skyscrapper of scientific articles documenting it in every coin of the planet, by entire generations of people from each nationality. We are aware of the existence of dinosaurs since more than 345 years ago. Darwin explained evolution "for children" 160 years ago. Most of his picture is still valid and relevant, accumulating proof after proof and expanding and gaining complexity and resolution since then.

Don't fall in the trap of disperate attention seekers or trolls. The only question for people that choose not understand that evolution is real in 2019 is: What is your excuse for lying to yourself?

which species do you think will evolve next?

All of them. Next question?

Living populations never stop evolving.

If you ask "which new species will evolve next", then my answer is that species is a human-made category system nature doesn't care about.

Specifically in the area of bacteria, you can constantly observe evolution (e.g., pathogens becoming resistant to certain antibiotics).

When to label the result of such an evolution process as "new species" is a very arbitrary decision.

Suppose humanity eventually achieves true digital sentience and that sentient AI surpasses and extinguished humanity.

Is that sentient existence alive? What is its evolutionary relationship with homo sapiens?

Is accidental genetic mutation the only form of evolution?

Probably some type of bacterium since they have the shortest generation age (~30 minutes) and there's likely to always be a pocket of them somewhere in an environment that forces them to adapt.

>Every once in a while I'll ask people this question: assuming evolution is true, which species do you think will evolve next?

Good question. I think Cats because they are intensely bred and they have a major deficiency in their personality (which is that they're boring and don't care about people) that if evolution fixes that then those improved cats will become immensely more popular than their boring ancestors

Reply on news.ycombinator.com