How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?

[The Barbarian]

He got a lot of stuff wrong. He believed that if we started all over again from the beginning evolution would have gotten different results.

Quantum mechanics would pretty much guarantee that. At the scale of molecules, events appear to be irreducibly random. Eventually, those quantum events would produce different results on a reset. However, much would be the same because of physical laws. We have natural experiments in this from South America and Australia. And the results show that we'd have "wolves" although they might be canids, borhyaenids, or marsupials, or even a different class of animals if the clock was reset prior to mammals.

We now know that the laws are consistent everywhere in the Universe so the results are going to pretty much turn out the same.

Such as pterosaurs rather than ospreys. Or even stranger things. But that's a long way from "anything can happen", which was not Gould's point. Rather it was that there are predictable courses evolution can take, even if it carries along different sorts of organisms.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I notice philosophers can't agree on even basic things, unlike science, so it's not surprising that philosophy has opinions, and science has conclusions based on evidence.

"You have now heard some illustrations of my thesis that philosophers disagree because disagreement is part of the human path to wisdom, even to the first principles of wisdom. There is no philosophy worth knowing, deep and wise and true, that is not born of disagreement, and of problem-raising and problem-solving. And not just historically, or in its original discovery, but also in its teaching and learning. Just look at the Summa theologiae of St. Thomas. It is half occupied with opposing views and the resolution of them. Disagreement can be 29 an obstacle to truth, but it is not purely that. It is also a necessary means to it."

https://thomasaquinas.edu/sites/default/files/augros-lecture16.pdf

Science is not looking very good here.

 

[Brightmoon]

He got a lot of stuff wrong. He believed that if we started all over again from the beginning evolution would have gotten different results. This is how they came up with planet of the ape type of movies. We now know that the laws are consistent everywhere in the Universe so the results are going to pretty much turn out the same.

Miracles tend to restore the law. Not violate it. Miracles are difficult to prove because everything is restored to normal and the way it all should be. Even God does a work in our life to get us back on track to becoming the people that He created us to be.

if you did what Gould suggested very few modern species would show up not just humans . We have a pretty significant genetic deletion that allows our chromosome 2 to be made up of 2 other shorter ape chromosomes . Do you really think that would happen again ? Or how about the asteroid that wiped out the non avian dinosaurs and allowed mammals to take over their environmental niches .

 

[Brightmoon]

Btw flatworms and bananas are related and they’re related to humans as well, so what was your point for bringing that up? That you don’t understand the family tree

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The real flood took place around 200 million years ago when Pangaea was destroyed. Long before Cro-magnans came along.

Who wrote that down as a flood story?

 

[The Barbarian]

Science is not looking very good here.

Science is very difficult and never gets to absolute truth. There's only one thing in its favor:
It works for real world problems.

Philosophy is beautiful and systematized to logical processes. There's only one thing wrong with it:
It doesn't work for real world problems.

 

[dad]

Btw flatworms and bananas are related and they’re related to humans as well, so what was your point for bringing that up? That you don’t understand the family tree

I understand your claimed family tree. You do not understand the family tree of man. Bananas are not related to me. The reasons you think they are faith-based.

 

[dad]

Science is very difficult and never gets to absolute truth.

You'd never know it the way they talk.

There's only one thing in its favor:
It works for real world problems.

Causing them?

 

[Brightmoon]

I understand your claimed family tree. You do not understand the family tree of man. Bananas are not related to me. The reasons you think they are faith-based.

with the flatworms and bananas it the shared DNA . With other hominids it’s the DNA and the anatomy . That’s not faith it’s evident evidence . So say hello to brother ? Sister? banana tree for me from cousin Brightmoon

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Science is very difficult and never gets to absolute truth. There's only one thing in its favor:
It works for real world problems.

Philosophy is beautiful and systematized to logical processes. There's only one thing wrong with it:
It doesn't work for real world problems.

I do not remember whom, but there was a philosopher who wrote or said, when trying to make a decision to write down all the positive and negative things related to it. That sounds real world to me.

 

[The Barbarian]

I do not remember whom, but there was a philosopher who wrote or said, when trying to make a decision to write down all the positive and negative things related to it.

Sounds like a scientist.

 

[dad]

with the flatworms and bananas it the shared DNA .

We share the air also. That does not make us relatives. We have skin, that does not make us relatives. Having a small percentage of genes that are the same does not make us banana kind.

With other hominids it’s the DNA and the anatomy .

Anatomy is not evidence of relatedness. If things were created, they would still have similar anatomies! That is nothing your faith has a monopoly on. That is faith not evidence that similar creatures came from the same ancestor.

So say hello to brother ? Sister? banana tree for me from cousin Brightmoon

It sounds more like a clown act than a reasoned argument.

 

[Kaon]

How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?



Thanks,

Daniel

Because we (humans) are degenerate. We do not cooperate, we destroy our environment, we murder (for fun, not for consumption of nutrients), and we lie to each other for fun.

The animals may be better candidates for the next stage in "evolution" of species.

 

[miggles]

How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?



Thanks,

Daniel

i read that humans are getting taller and stronger. by 3020 or so the average height for a man might be 8'. 6' will be short. lol.

 

[The Barbarian]

i read that humans are getting taller and stronger. by 3020 or so the average height for a man might be 8'. 6' will be short. lol.

Mostly, a matter of lifestyle, nutrition, and medical care.

JAPANESE STANDING TALLER

By T.R. Reid
January 23, 1993
TOKYO, JAN. 22 -- Here's another stereotype about Japan you can toss into history's trash can: Those "little Japanese" aren't so little anymore.


The rapid westernization of this traditional Asian society has brought such major changes in diet and lifestyle that Japanese people have experienced one of the fastest collective growth spurts ever recorded, according to public health officials.
...
The fundamental change in the Japanese diet is visible every day at noon in every Japanese city, as people turn away from the traditional lunch of rice balls wrapped in sea weed to form long lines in front of places like McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, which now rank as the No. 1 and No. 2 most popular restaurants in Japan.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...-taller/94ba4f2d-68f9-49ed-9617-0d3287f41a1f/

 

[MrsFoundit]

Philosophy is beautiful and systematized to logical processes. There's only one thing wrong with it:
It doesn't work for real world problems.

Without philosophy science as no ability to solve real world problems, it would lack cohesion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Without philosophy science as no ability to solve real world problems, it would lack cohesion.

The evidence seems to show that science antedated philosophy. Perhaps why epistemology was one of the first concerns for philosophers. Thales, who was regarded as the first philosopher by Aristotle, was a mathematician and astronomer.

Thales was much involved in the problems of astronomy and provided a number of explanations of cosmological events which traditionally involved supernatural entities. His questioning approach to the understanding of heavenly phenomena was the beginning of Greek astronomy. Thales' hypotheses were new and bold, and in freeing phenomena from godly intervention, he paved the way towards scientific endeavor. He founded the Milesian school of natural philosophy, developed the scientific method, and initiated the first western enlightenment.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

 

[MrsFoundit]

The evidence seems to show that science antedated philosophy.

Nevertheless science needs philosophy for cohesion.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nevertheless science needs philosophy for cohesion.

Science is a pragmatic enterprise. Thales' idea that knowledge can be gained by making a hypothesis about something and then testing that idea, is the beginning of a rational and consistent philosophy.

Not all philosophy has been rational and/or consistent, however.

But since philosophy was founded by a scientist, some of that pragmatism remains in philosophy.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Who were the first Scientists both modern and ancient world?