How do we know evolution isn't going the other way?

[cerafim]

Speaking specifically of the origin of man. How can we be sure that we are'nt turning into primates?

It's awful presumptive to believe that humans are the most evolved isn't it? Certainly it's not hard to belief that man is actually turning into Primates, and that the remains that have been found actually are the intermediary (Transition) species.

Curious what others here think about that.

 

[Assyrian]

Too late. We are primates.

 

[random_guy]

Speaking specifically of the origin of man. How can we be sure that we are'nt turning into primates?

It's awful presumptive to believe that humans are the most evolved isn't it? Certainly it's not hard to belief that man is actually turning into Primates, and that the remains that have been found actually are the intermediary (Transition) species.

Curious what others here think about that.

From your post, it seems that you may have misconceptions about evolution. Evolution isn't about evolving into "better" creatures, per say, but rather adapting to the current environment. If there is some sort of selective pressure that favors us to lose our human traits, it may end up being lost or we'll end up going extinct. However, I don't see any force like that occuring anytime soon.

 

[sfs]

From your post, it seems that you may have misconceptions about evolution. Evolution isn't about evolving into "better" creatures, per say, but rather adapting to the current environment. If there is some sort of selective pressure that favors us to lose our human traits, it may end up being lost or we'll end up going extinct. However, I don't see any force like that occuring anytime soon.

Also, we're not more evolved than other primates. Chimpanzees and humans are descended from a common ancestor, and we've both been evolving since then for the same amount of time. (If anything, humans may be slightly less evolved, since our generation time is longer, so we've had fewer generations during which to evolve.) Chimpanzees (and gorillas, and gibbons, and monkeys) are equally evolved, but they've evolved to favor different traits than humans. Monkeys are quite bad as substitute humans, but they're much better at being monkeys than humans are.

 

[Assyrian]

Apart from Michael Nesmith, Davy Jones,
Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork of course.

 

[sfs]

Apart from Michael Nesmith, Davy Jones,
Micky Dolenz and Peter Tork of course.

Of course. I was aware of them as possible exceptions, but it is important to recognize that in biology, all generalizations have exceptions (including generalizations about generalizations).

Besides, are you absolutely positive that they're human? I mean, look at them . . .

 

[Gus2009]

Speaking specifically of the origin of man. How can we be sure that we are'nt turning into primates?

We are primates.

It's awful presumptive to believe that humans are the most evolved isn't it?

It sure is. Especially if one is implying that "most evolved" means better. Anyone who is correctly informed on evolutionary theory understands this. Nothing "evolves up".

Certainly it's not hard to belief that man is actually turning into Primates,

We are primates already.

and that the remains that have been found actually are the intermediary (Transition) species.

The remains that have been found of species such as homo erectus could, i suppose, be considered as a transition species between whatever came before them and homo sapien. I do not believe that homo sapien however, pre-dates homo erectus and the transition happened backwards as of the way we currently understand it. If you could prove this somehow, then current human evolutionary theory would be turned on its head. However, it wouldnt really affect evolutionary theory as a whole. Seeing as how one never assumes humans were "farther up" in their evolution than homo erectus.

Curious what others here think about that.

I think its a very interesting question and was useful in clearing up some misunderstood concepts.

 

[Assyrian]

Of course. I was aware of them as possible exceptions, but it is important to recognize that in biology, all generalizations have exceptions (including generalizations about generalizations).

Besides, are you absolutely positive that they're human? I mean, look at them . . .

♪♪wipe the sleep out of my eyes, the shaving razor's cold and it stings♪
I always assumed Davy just meant shaving his face...

 

[billwald]

The thread title is evidence of confusion between Social Darwinism and evolution. Evolution doesn't go in any direction.

 

[Dannager]

The thread title is evidence of confusion between Social Darwinism and evolution. Evolution doesn't go in any direction.

Well, no, evolution does move in the direction of organisms better adapted to their environment. That doesn't make them "better" than another species, though. Most laymen would say that we're "better" than cockroaches but, biologically speaking, cockroaches are more capable of surviving in a wider variety of environments than most humans are. Neither, of course, does that make cockroaches "better" than humans. Our mental capacity allows us to survive in some environments (and reproduce more with greater reliability) that cockroaches cannot.

 

[billwald]

ok, agree.