Talk:Superhuman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On Evolution:

This part is mostly incorrect and could be worded better.

"The main problem with this concept is that it is dominated by a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. Mutation takes place, but it is only a summation of the interactions of genes with the environment for many generations which eventually leads to the development of a new species, and then further time has to occur before one species becomes extinct while another, not necessarily the mutated species, survives. It is also possible (indeed, common) for two species from the same ancestry to survive at the same time, under separate environmental conditions, or occupying different niches."

This doesn't really explain how the concept draws from a flawed understanding of the theory. I think the author is saying that there must be pressure on a population in order for it to change, which happens over a great deal of time, before you get an entirely new species. This is certainly true. However, its application to this concept is inaccurate. To start, spontaneous mutations do indeed happen very rarely, giving rise to entirely new characteristics in a single generation (or single animals!). For example, new colours of birds (budgies are only green in the wild, but have been bred to be blue, white, yellow etc.), or new breeds of dogs. Do not think of evolution happening at a snail's pace, it happens in tiny bits, all the time.

Now, as for realism: yes, it is inaccurate. I would not say it is a "misunderstanding" though. Actions movies and the like often alter the physics of how real machines/people would move or react for the sake of enhancing the movie. By the same logic I should accuse those of misunderstanding classical physics.

To conclude, there's a difference between misunderstanding and artistic merit. While it is certainly not possible for the mutations themselves to come to be, the mechanism of mutation is not that far off.