Michio Kaku: Mankind Has Stopped Evolving | Big Think

Подписаться 7 млн

Просмотров 2,1 млн

50% 1

Has Mankind Stopped Evolving?
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink/youtube
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are no more evolutionary pressures driving gross human evolution, but that doesn’t mean we won’t be able to genetically re-engineer ourselves in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIO KAKU:
Dr. Michio Kaku is the co-founder of string field theory, and is one of the most widely recognized scientists in the world today. He has written 4 New York Times Best Sellers, is the science correspondent for CBS This Morning and has hosted numerous science specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery/Science Channel. His radio show broadcasts to 100 radio stations every week. Dr. Kaku holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York (CUNY), where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study as well as New York University (NYU).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Question: Have human beings stopped evolving? Will humans look any different in the future? (Submitted by Kiran Uttarkar)
Michio Kaku: Kiran, if you read science fiction you might think that humans in the future will be slender, short, bald, with big heads and big eyes that sort of the stereotype that you get from the comic books. However, you have to realize that as far a gross evolutionary pressure is concerned; there is none anymore on the human race. For example, in the old days, when we lived in the forests, there was enormous selection and pressures placed on us to develop a large brain, to understand how to use tools, to run, to be able to navigate, to survive in the forests. Enormous pressures on us because if you were not fit to live in the forest, you died. And so your genes are not here today.
But how much evolutionary pressure is being placed on us today? Well, first of all, there are no more Australias. Australia is a content that broke off from the other continents and it evolved very rapidly because it diverged from the rest of the evolutionary tree. There are no more Australias anymore.
In the sense, we have jet airplanes. You can jet airplane… you can go pretty much anywhere on the planet earth, meet people, have children and your genes are now spread throughout the planet earth. We no longer have any isolated pockets, like Australia, which would accelerate human evolution. Now, evolution is still taking place, it takes place every time two people mate. It takes place inside our bodies, in our immune systems, in our body chemistry. Evolution is still taking place. But gross evolution, that is, evolution that will give us big brains, big eyes, bald heads and little bodies, that kind of gross evolution is pretty much gone.
Now, that doesn’t mean that we can’t have genetic engineering. That’s many decades away. At the present time, we can only manipulate perhaps one gene at a time. It is a very painful process, we cannot, for example, create a pig with wings, that would require thousands of genes being manipulated. And we simply don’t have that technology. We only manipulate one gene at a time.
So I think we are many, many decades away from being able to actually influence human evolution. So in other words, chances are, decades from now, we’ll look pretty much the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT BIG THINK:
Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Subscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.
Read more at Bigthink.com for a multitude of articles just as informative and satisfying as our videos. New articles posted daily on a range of intellectual topics.
If you're interested in licensing this or any other Big Think clip for commercial or private use, contact our licensing partner, Executive Interviews: bigth.ink/licensing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Big Think here:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Instragram
📹RU-vid: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Наука

Опубликовано:

30 май 2011

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 9 тыс.

@bigthink 4 года назад

Want to get Smarter, Faster™? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/SmarterFaster

@ScienceFan1859 4 года назад

Big Think did you watch THIS video? Oh....the irony

@babynuggets649 4 года назад

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

@rhysdavis2852 3 года назад

Plot twist: Your the idiot

@johnphantom 3 года назад

@@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.

@fjccommish Год назад

People who believe what Kaku said in this video got dumber. Your channel is about small think.

@raintaken7610 4 года назад

This video is almost a decade old and now we have crisper-cas9 boys. Can’t wait to see what happens in another 10years.

@colinpierre3441 6 дней назад

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.

@grimm00002 5 лет назад

"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

@idoabitoftrolling2172 2 года назад

is this a joke or are you just stupid?

@BrotherWitch 9 лет назад

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.

@Chase-fy1yv 9 лет назад

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

@theshells6873 9 лет назад

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.

@theshells6873 9 лет назад

***** Yes that is true - and with respect to the human condition it is even more prevalent than among our fellow sentient beings.

@Chase-fy1yv 9 лет назад

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.

@theshells6873 9 лет назад

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.

@TheYear-wi1cq 9 лет назад

There's intellectual pressure not physical pressure.

@NiKtHeB0Ss 9 лет назад

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.

@driedpancake 9 лет назад

Jerber SPUDDA No,in fact people of lesser intelligence tend to have more children,so it is the opposite.

@balduran. 9 лет назад

Jerber SPUDDA how is it possible that so many idiots have no trouble surviving if there is intellectual pressure on us? :D

@flabbywhalefish8874 9 лет назад

Jerber SPUDDA From examining popular culture and RU-vid comments, I'd argue that that's a rather optimistic statement to make.

@jackrockwell6698 9 лет назад

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.

@rafarga1980 8 лет назад

The Kardashians. Sad proof that humanity has stopped evolving ^_^

@Caspernil 9 лет назад

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.

@andyshinnnn Год назад

100% agree with your sentiments

@AdityaRaj-hp8tn Год назад

Same

@ilon7799 10 месяцев назад

That’s fucking true!

@Gerkinstock 10 лет назад

"Chances are, decades from now, we'll look... pretty much... the same." Bold prediction, Captain Humdrum.

@MrChase959 10 лет назад

anarchy

@theeditor8776 8 лет назад

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

@Sushilala33 8 лет назад

+CabraLad thats why he used the term "gross evolutionary pressures".listen lol

@theeditor8776 8 лет назад

+Ilya Seleznyov I'm addressing the title, I did listen -.-

@Sushilala33 8 лет назад

its just a word. whatever value judgement you attach to it is just a selective bias towards one aspect of its umbrella usage.

@whateverbro3848 8 лет назад

How is it obvious? Right now our enviroment isn't putting enough pressure on us and there is no evidence showing we are evolving.

@sohaibbaig248 8 лет назад

did you even watch the video?

@jamminjim247 10 лет назад

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.

@DeepSpaceNinja 8 лет назад

Natural Selection is still happening. For example, extremely obese people are less likely to reproduce. Which means those genes are less likely to propagate.

@markgregory6224 8 лет назад

than why so many fat people in the world?

@lilrewb4646 8 лет назад

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.

@toshitsuneomizu1678 7 лет назад

+Josh Rubin its called the sexual selection.

@DeepSpaceNinja 7 лет назад

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.

@maximillianhollander-holla7910 7 лет назад

McDonalds has got your back in that scenario

@DiccusBiggus 6 лет назад

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.

@Nijichannn 2 года назад

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

@mrentp Год назад

@@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

@Nijichannn Год назад

@@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.

@mrentp Год назад

@@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.

@scholaroftheworldalternatehist Год назад

Decades is a short time. Centuries from now humans will most likely look different as they incorporate non-biological additions into their body

@tipntricksstuffnthings449 4 года назад

Absolutely love how this video reeled me in!

@Riken 10 лет назад

Combinations with machines and computers is the next step of human evolution.

@TheStyrofoamPeanut 10 лет назад

That will not be evolution, because it will be caused purposefully by humans. Evolution is random genetic change bottlenecked by natural selection.

@TheWilsonBros1 10 лет назад

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.

@evilchimpmunks 10 лет назад

***** 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.

@nameless12345 10 лет назад

i fucked a vacuum once.

@TheStyrofoamPeanut 10 лет назад

***** 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.

@santiagodraco 10 лет назад

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.

@santiagodraco 10 лет назад

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.

@enidok7386 10 лет назад

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.

@santiagodraco 10 лет назад

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.

@enidok7386 10 лет назад

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.

@JimInTally 6 лет назад

Santiago: Exactly.

@tiffsaver 10 лет назад

If you don't believe that mankind has stop evolving, simply watch an episode of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo."

@tiffsaver 10 лет назад

***** Religion has been around a lot longer than science, my friend... unfortunately.

@LegendOfZub 10 лет назад

tiffsaver And devolution is still a form of gross evolution

@tiffsaver 10 лет назад

***** 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?

@tiffsaver 10 лет назад

***** "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?

@tiffsaver 10 лет назад

***** 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.

@biggoof6186 7 лет назад

I find these videos very entertaining to me and interesting.

@Necron3145 10 лет назад

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.

@runnerup72 10 лет назад

no scientist or government give birth to a real A.I. it means the end of humans.

@user-dk2dr1sr1h 10 лет назад

+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 :-)

@lepiota1074 3 года назад

Thanks, very clear content.

@BenCarnage 10 лет назад

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.

@z3n0h0rv4th 6 лет назад

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.

@FeelingTehRUSH 10 лет назад

it would be interesting to see how much we evolve in colonies on other planets where we have a very small population

@buzz9825 7 лет назад

This guy is a fu-king genius for me. Much respect for all his work.

@geraltofrivia9424 11 месяцев назад

BOUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

@Downthehollow 10 лет назад

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.

@kelumo7981 4 года назад

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

@Daniel_WR_Hart 5 месяцев назад

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

@whatisacreeper 10 лет назад

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.

@sasquatchwizard Год назад

The line "everyone is stupid except me" comes to mind

@lee-226 Год назад

Nah you’re just weird

@scholaroftheworldalternatehist Год назад

Basically every thought you have had, someone else had. Considering 100B humans have existed

@Pinusarap-du6fc 10 месяцев назад

@@sasquatchwizardyaa 😂

@MassDynamic 10 лет назад

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.

@Nijichannn Год назад

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

@negroniusblaximus7420 11 месяцев назад

niggerlover cope

@SuperManning11 6 лет назад

I wonder if he has updated his projected time frames since the development of CRISPR gene editing technology?

@MrSmileySpy 10 лет назад

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.

@garybuttherissilent5896 Год назад

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.

@SteveStubbert 10 лет назад

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.

@Gypsy2057 Год назад

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.

@GauravSharma-dy8xv Год назад

Yes Neanderthals had bigger brain than homo sapiens

@KaiCalimatinus 10 лет назад

Combined with lack of pressure, said pressure's greatest effect would be on childhood. In the developed world, with medical technology and lower poverty rates, a great many children in otherwise difficult situations will survive long enough to reach adulthood and procreate, meaning that even of someone carries genes that may be not entirely suited, or lacks genes that would help, still no selection even happens beyond the passing on of some mutations into the pool. So not only are there less challenges to whittle a gene pool down, but any hardships after having children barely count genetically.

@Jedi_Are_Scum 2 года назад

I've been saying this for 30 years since I was 10 years old... No one understood me. Glad my idol says it.

@Renjia 10 лет назад

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.

@healthyskepticism7703 7 лет назад

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

@SunnyApples 7 лет назад

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?

@vinegarypoo 6 лет назад

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

@asquirrel9758 6 лет назад

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

@vinegarypoo 6 лет назад

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

@dropdeadandfly 10 лет назад

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

@infini_ryu9461 2 года назад

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.

@numbercode2486 2 года назад

@@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

@infini_ryu9461 2 года назад

@@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.

@garybuttherissilent5896 Год назад

he is making no sense is what you wanted to say

@justine313 9 лет назад

There is intense pressure on us to evolve! We live in a world full of people that have let themselves go in terms of: intellect, wisdom, health, and many more qualities that we are starting to forget about as a whole. There is a select few that see what is going on and push against grain.

@magic-maro 6 лет назад

Thank you evolution, for creating this great man!

@maximoplf 10 лет назад

Can someone explain me the deal he mentions with Australia? Why did it push the evolution for being isolated?

@LmdL 5 лет назад

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").

@owenphillips6421 3 года назад

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.

@phatcatrat 10 лет назад

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.

@VladTepesh409 5 лет назад

I like the idea of human genetic engineering in order to survive on other planets like in the movie Titan with Sam Worthington from Avatar. Both of those movies were really cool.

@johnwang9914 5 лет назад

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).

@proroklebioda2634 10 лет назад

+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.

@MarioAlemi 10 лет назад

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.

@user-dk2dr1sr1h 10 лет назад

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.

@MarioAlemi 10 лет назад

***** 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".

@JimInTally 6 лет назад

Ah, but the "modification of the gene" happened by mutation.

@andyshinnnn Год назад

2022, checking in. Can confirm, we still look and act the same.

@AchillesBuena 3 года назад

That dude riding the motorcycle has one of the coolest shirt ever.

@KingaGorski 2 года назад

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…

@BOBMAN1980 10 лет назад

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.

@maxmaninch 3 года назад

How should I ask the question??On utube or through any other platform

@MamunKhandaker 9 лет назад

Hi Big Think, If I have a question, where do I send it? I need an email address or some way where I can put my question.

@SpiritofSix 10 лет назад

"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

@Jackhand100 10 лет назад

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 10 лет назад

Jack Hand So in other words you believe in Naziism.

@mynameismatt2010 10 лет назад

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.

@MasterOfSparks 10 лет назад

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.

@mynameismatt2010 10 лет назад

Did I mention anything that relied solely on income? No, the things listed are based more on a lack of judgement and common sense.

@crazycool1128 10 лет назад

isn't "gross evolution" the result of many little changes over a large period of time?

@Ddstairclimber 4 года назад

yes

@Sam_Goetmaekers 7 лет назад

Will we go on evoltion, when we live on new plantes?

@kennethmitchell1960 10 лет назад

Put short, one of the factors required for evolutionary processes is non-random death or near to it. This factor has been greatly reduced. Evolutionary drives for our species now rely more so on non-random mating, or near to it.

@Anglomachian 10 лет назад

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.

@dustbunny2206 10 лет назад

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.

@Anglomachian 10 лет назад

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.

@dustbunny2206 10 лет назад

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.

@daviddean707 5 лет назад

Reply to biomedical engineering - our brains might come up with an answer to technology if technology is seen as a pressure.

@TheLalalandloser 9 лет назад

Adam Jensen: "I never asked for this.."

@ChinaPrincessDoll 8 лет назад

Mr. Khaki I was evolving in 2011 my dark brown eyes looked light almost golden I guess more walking or running?

@elstupido9309 8 лет назад

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

@weterman4320 8 лет назад

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.

@TitoSunshine22 8 лет назад

THIS GUY KNOWS WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT👆

@SystemFreaKk13 9 лет назад

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.

@augienelson993 9 лет назад

He's talking about physical evolution not neurological evolution

@SystemFreaKk13 9 лет назад

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.

@augienelson993 9 лет назад

SystemFreaKk13 yes and no, Neurons are what controls your brain and that is physical but neuron activities aren't

@SystemFreaKk13 9 лет назад

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...

@augienelson993 9 лет назад

SystemFreaKk13 you really think you're correct in this just by insulting, *sigh* you're saying I'm the stupid one,

@InferiorGamer 8 лет назад

Although I would think that the current 'stage' of our evolution, now the 'final' stage, would slowly overtime improve? Maybe in 100 years certain mechanisms we currently have will be modified to run more efficiently. For example maybe our bones will be slightly stronger, or our organs stay healthier for longer. Not sure if this makes any sense but seems plausible.

@zissou6928 10 лет назад

I've always wondered about the mysterious intelligence that gave the chameleon its unique trait. evolution doesnt really explain that does it?

@christophersheffield9574 7 лет назад

I spread my DNA all over when I visited Taiwan last year.

@jordancrago5129 10 лет назад

Why wasn't this question reserved for a Biologist, say for instance Richard Dawkins?

@tylerantony4641 10 лет назад

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.

@AboveBeyondVapor 3 года назад

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.

@p.bamygdala2139 6 лет назад

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.

@EMI94100 10 лет назад

We stopped evolving? I believe humans just a few hundred years ago were quite a bit smaller than nowadays actually.

@jaceh4942 10 лет назад

That has more to do with the foods we eat and our medicine that evolution though

@IsaVarg 10 лет назад

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.

@EMI94100 10 лет назад

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.

@jaceh4942 10 лет назад

EMI94100 never really thought of that. It's just a different type of evolution.

@benwashere202 9 лет назад

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.

@nfinn42 10 лет назад

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. :\

@StillRooneyStarcraft 10 лет назад

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 :)

@ryasora3919 9 лет назад

i had this talk with my dad when i was 9 XD

@kimpetersen1971 8 лет назад

What when humans become a class 1/2 civilization (according to one of his other videos), when we begin to explore other planets/solar systems/galaxies? ;)

@TechXSoftware 10 лет назад

Hey, I live In Australia

@appleslover 3 года назад

Hello to Australia

@eliasnunez4506 10 лет назад

If we'd still be able to evolve, we'd probably turn Asian.

@Myra_Breckinridge 5 лет назад

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.

@bubbaho-tep3468 5 лет назад

That's ok with me, I love Asian food...lol

@ansh6370 5 лет назад

@bobo bear Someone: mentions Asians. *ThAt'S rAcIsT!*

@trevorburgess6813 5 лет назад

Due to a harsh environment, even as you said before with our previous ancestors, do you not think that even now with our urban and technological wonders that, that is our new harsh environment. Instead of basic evolutions, would our bodies not start to evolve to the new chemicals and other toxins that surround our every day lives, as well as our brains having to deal with the rush of information that is thrown at us today? I have more to discuss but I would really enjoy a conversation on this topic as the start.

@rayswarnau1997 8 лет назад

I'd say we are done evolving, the only changes that will take place will only be regressive (not backwards but in a differen't direction that was already went to elsewhere) and further entrenchments.

@Pay-It_Forward 8 лет назад

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

@schroeder666 8 лет назад

+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.

@Pay-It_Forward 8 лет назад

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.

@IWashMyOwnBrain 10 лет назад

I JUST HOPE WE EVOLVE BEYOND RELIGION .

@HewkiiMusic 10 лет назад

We should have, a long time ago

@mikeltronski2540 9 лет назад

Vaedrix i hope so religions brought the worst out of mankind.

@IWashMyOwnBrain 9 лет назад

***** 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

@IWashMyOwnBrain 9 лет назад

***** 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". :^)

@traviousmitchell5601 5 лет назад

IWashMyOwnBrain awww someone sounds hurt

@MachielGroeneveld 10 лет назад

He's missing two important factors in evolution: 'spontaneous mutation' and 'mate selection'. One good example: the fiddler crab

@juanenfermobastardo337 10 лет назад

I would assert that perhaps the sort of gross evolutionary pressures of which Dr. Kaku is speaking may not be the same ones we faced in the past, nor are they as obvious, but still exist. With all due respect to Dr. Kaku's brilliance, he's a theoretical physicist speaking on a subject a bit outside his area of expertise.

@kre8noys 10 лет назад

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.

@kre8noys 10 лет назад

***** 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!

@mancak35 10 лет назад

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

@coolbeatguy 10 лет назад

Awesome, 7 legs, however... women won't be attractive to us anymore... that could take hundreds of years :/.

@mancak35 10 лет назад

coolbeatguy why?

@ashleyhill6697 2 года назад

@@mancak35 you need 7 legs to have 7 feet. Maybe or a couple on some legs.

@JamesR624 10 лет назад

Yep. A collection of anonymous RU-vid commenters TOTALLY have much more experience and authority on biology than a professional and well known scientist.

@dpt4458 3 года назад

Oh he has made comments before on other subjects with the same level of confidence and was completely wrong

@Seapin1 3 года назад

Argument from Authority

@shevaschaos 9 лет назад

What about how a person feels about their appearance... Now a days everyone stresses how they look wouldn't that suggest maybe some big change in our looks?

@ryxd100 7 лет назад

North Sentinel island is an isolated human population or an ''Australia" but that is an outlier

@MrWizardofozzz 10 лет назад

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..

@MrWizardofozzz 10 лет назад

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..

@juliocervantes8523 10 лет назад

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.

@superhund14 10 лет назад

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.

@MrWizardofozzz 10 лет назад

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...

@MrWizardofozzz 10 лет назад

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)..

@superhund14 10 лет назад

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.

@TheZoeBig 10 лет назад

The title of the video is wrong. He did not say that we stopped evolving.

@909955847736 8 лет назад

We are already in the beginning phases of transforming ourselves into something like "The Borg" and "The Binars" from Star Trek The Next Generation - a new cybernetic species combining human/machine/computer. I expect the possible ramifications of this concept to be explored a lot more in near-future science fiction. But looking at some of the comments I am reminded of the philosophy of the rock group Devo and the introduction to the movie Idiocracy (de-evolution). Perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of a great polarization of humanity, like with the Morlocks and the Eloi. When it comes to Darwin's concept of evolution, I believed it when it was taught to me in school. But since then I have taken a much closer look at the theory, especially it's blatant lack of scientific method, and I now include Charles Darwin in the fraternity of popular science-fiction authors including Jules Verne and H.G. Wells.

@Sakura13kohime 10 лет назад

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.

@slayeristhebest94 9 лет назад

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

@PFB1994 Год назад

The movie Idiocracy explained future human evolution pretty well.

@isaacandrewdixon 7 лет назад

"We can't create a pig with wings." - Michio Kaku 2011

@PyroblastDK 10 лет назад

Now, how come a theoretical physicist feel tempted to talk about evolutionary biology all of a sudden?

@aguven 10 лет назад

because a question came from a wondering person?

@PyroblastDK 10 лет назад

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.

@HarryMiller365 9 лет назад

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.

@venicealfiesantiago9871 7 лет назад

@OccultThinkTankOFFICIAL 6 лет назад

*Kasper Hansen* Because you are a nobody hack that is not a respected intellectual! Now fuck off back under your bridge!

@AlmostEthical 10 лет назад

Nice to see a scientific, commonsense approach to this. There's tons of cheese on YT on this topic.

@SrmthfgRockLee 10 лет назад

you'll make people hungry typing cheese like that..

@Dan-uf2vh 3 года назад

almost one decade is already passed (9 yrs)

@AnimeFan4815 10 лет назад

well there is no seclusion to form new races now,but there might be if space travel gets more advanced

@kevinmulkerrins605 10 лет назад

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.

@TheGleasonMan87 10 лет назад

You had me at "fisticuffs with a lion."

@JimInTally 6 лет назад

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.

@schutzdan23 6 лет назад

Kevin Mulkerrins yea, I trust him over you.

@Langkowski 10 лет назад

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.

@OuroborosChoked 10 лет назад

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.

@Langkowski 10 лет назад

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.

@OuroborosChoked 10 лет назад

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.

@Langkowski 10 лет назад

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.

@EE-yu6kh 6 лет назад

thanks Kaku. i wont be a big headed big eyed creature a million years from now, thats a relief.

@Jereeeeeeee 5 лет назад

Application to daily life: Success = lack of change. Failure = growing to be better.

@davidtoulon9514 8 лет назад

I don't think he is correct.

@satansaysimnuts 10 лет назад

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....

@needs2know1 8 лет назад

MK: You forget that there may be pressures in the future that are not currently happening. The future is uncertain.

@seandaily6344 8 лет назад

We've been influencing human evolution for a while now.. and as far as genetic manipulation goes, it's been achieved since '09. The publishings weren't made public until a few months ago because of its controversy and or "unethical" application.