|The contents of the Super race page were merged into Superhuman on 8 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|The contents of the Super-humanism page were merged into Superhuman on 8 August 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk o contribs) 00:58, 8 May 2008
I found the following info on the net about superhumans: "J.A. Mitchell's Drowsy (1917), and Wilmar H. Shiras' Children of the Atom (1953), to increasingly more paranoid accounts of "outsider" supermen threatening humanity, e.g. Georges LeBas' Jean Arlog, le premier surhomme (1921 and Norvell Page's But Without Horns (1940), to name but a few." There is little or no information about these examples to be found, so if somebody know a little more, these could probably be included on the list as well. Hipporoo (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I saw a little, like, really little, kid, attack a student that was at least 5 times his size! The small guy was rather shrimpy, and I thought he was a goner when I first saw him charge towards the big guy. Turns out he really knew how to dominate the entire thing. Didn't get hit, not even once! After the battle, I saw that the attacker was moving somewhat slow. The big guy (The attacked) seemed to be very physically hurt. The reason why I assume it was superhuman strength is because the little kid's arms were really tiny, and the big guy's arms were really large. I know adrenaline is a cause of superhuman strength, but, it must've been quite an adrenaline rush, if he hurt the big guy that badly. However, the question is: Was it a superhuman feat? Thanks, in advance. The event I witnessed will always be in my memories, and I want to know the facts. Thanks.
A robot that surpasses human powers attributed to only humans (ex: Turing test) is superhuman? It's super-something, but not exactly human. Furthermore, having above-average talent in some narrow field doesn't make one super-human. By the definition here, all high school valedictorian's are superhuman. The definition needs work.--184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone (220.127.116.11) has added a presumably fictional entry to this list with the name "Fergus Murrell" and subsequently linked to the page from Reddit. I've undone the edit for a second time. Sup3rmark (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I am working on SuperHumans Project. From the traditional Indian medicines of Ayurveda and Rasashastra, I have found some formulations to make the homo sapiens to the SuperHumans. I have seen nice results in my clinical trials. If anybody want to join me on this project you can contact me for sure. Dr. Milind Chatrabhuji, Suvarna Ayurveda, Shop No. 10, Chandravilla Flats, Near Atmajyoti Ashram, Ellorapark, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Call me at plus Nine One Eight Triple Zero Four Five Nine Seven Three Two. or Email me at milind.chatrabhuji at gmail dot com. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I just merged the contents of Super race and Super-humanism into this article, as the content and focus was largely overlapping. I didn't deal with some of the content problems that exist in some of the paragraphs, because they are a little above my paygrade, but it strikes me that, as well as cleanup, there is a lot of potential expansion that could be done to this article, and I can imagine it being re-split into for example Superhumans in philosophy, Superhumans in popular culture and so on, with this as the parent article. Maybe some of these articles already exist. I'm aware that the version of this article I left today can be much improved, so fire on :) Jdcooper (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)