If Evolution is true, why are human adaptations not ubiquitous?

[Gottservant]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

 

[Strathos]

Because they were not subject to the exact same conditions that our ancestors were.

And right now, many of the great ape species are being wiped out a lot faster than they could possibly hope to evolve significantly.

EDIT: BTW, kudos to you for making a thread with a comprehensible OP for once.

 

[Anguspure]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

Plenty of wild animals cheerfully coexist with mankind (bacteria being the foremost, but also animals such as Rats, Mice, Cockroaches, Racoons, Squirrels, Seagulls etc), and it is the traits that these animals display that make are naturally selected for over populations of creatures that do not have similar traits.

 

[Gottservant]

Because they were not subject to the exact same conditions that our ancestors were.

And right now, many of the great ape species are being wiped out a lot faster than they could possibly hope to evolve significantly.

So Evolution's speed is variable or constant?

If constant, why ok for humans but not other species? If variable, you mean if we slowed it down, we would see human adaptations in other species?

EDIT: BTW, kudos to you for making a thread with a comprehensible OP for once.

 

[Gottservant]

Plenty of wild animals cheerfully coexist with mankind (bacteria being the foremost, but also animals such as Rats, Mice, Cockroaches, Racoons, Squirrels, Seagulls etc), and it is the traits that these animals display that make are naturally selected for over populations of creatures that do not have similar traits.

You are ignoring the pressure humans are placing on them?

 

[Gottservant]

If you rule out human adaptations, you don't see apes learning to communicate like humans as a backward step, for human evolution?

You don't see it as introducing selective competition, to teach apes language?

 

[Anguspure]

You are ignoring the pressure humans are placing on them?

I'm not sure what you are implying here. Humans are not placing any pressure on them that the ones who survive are not adapted to.
The environment that includes the human element is one in which the animals who thrive in that environment, are well adapted to survive.

 

[Gottservant]

I'm not sure what you are implying here. Humans are not placing any pressure on them that the ones who survive are not adapted to.
The environment that includes the human element is one in which the animals who thrive in that environment, are well adapted to survive.

You can't see that it's incongruous to say "humans need to adapt" but "those like humans, are lucky" - even not having to adapt, until humans do?

 

[Anguspure]

You can't see that it's incongruous to say "humans need to adapt" but "those like humans, are lucky" - even not having to adapt, until humans do?

If evolution is true I don't see that humans need to do anything. If evolution is true then everything is what it is. There is no need or should, there is just what is.

 

[Gottservant]

If evolution is true I don't see that humans need to do anything. If evolution is true then everything is what it is. There is no need or should, there is just what is.

Yes, but noone says "this is true", without first examining the way in which it is true - that in the end they can determine whether what they thought was true, gave them life.

You are saying Evolution is what all but the dead, live by - but I don't see it happening.

I see species coming back to life, individuals being resurrected and inferences of truth defining everything - none of that needs to evolve?

 

[Anguspure]

Yes, but noone says "this is true", without first examining the way in which it is true - that in the end they can determine whether what they thought was true, gave them life.

You are saying Evolution is what all but the dead, live by - but I don't see it happening.

I see species coming back to life, individuals being resurrected and inferences of truth defining everything - none of that needs to evolve?

I agree with you here. I do not believe that anything identified by evolutionists has creative or restorative properties.
But given that natural selection is what is given in order for populations of things to adapt to an ever changing environment, that is how it works.

 

[Strathos]

It's variable, as it depends on many factors. If a 'human-like' trait (however you define that) is beneficial and efficient, it will be selected for.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

A more human ape, is the future? Why not?

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

Good question. Evolutionists will tell you that there has not been enough time. Wrong. When a monkey comes up to me at the Zoo and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?" I might accept evolution as a possibility. Until then, not a chance.
The ideal adaptation for humans would be multiple arms. Then I could wash the dishes while playing my guitar.

 

[Shemjaza]

Good question. Evolutionists will tell you that there has not been enough time. Wrong. When a monkey comes up to me at the Zoo and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?" I might accept evolution as a possibility. Until then, not a chance.
The ideal adaptation for humans would be multiple arms. Then I could wash the dishes while playing my guitar.

There's been plenty of time... humans demonstrate that. It's just that they weren't in the same environment and didn't get the same mutations that helped us become what we are today.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Hi,

So yes, there are adaptations that are specifically human. Humans also assert their selection pressures on other species. Why don't other species respond to humans with human adaptations?

Because adaptations are transmitted through genetics. It's very naughty to sexually molest animals, and it wouldn't work anyway.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Good question. Evolutionists will tell you that there has not been enough time. Wrong. When a monkey comes up to me at the Zoo and asks, "Am I my keeper's brother?" I might accept evolution as a possibility. Until then, not a chance.
The ideal adaptation for humans would be multiple arms. Then I could wash the dishes while playing my guitar.

We also need more hours in the day.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If Evolution is a continual force, human adaptations will be found everywhere?

Domestic animals fit this niche, but they haven't yet become human?

A human adaptation is a bigger brain. When we domesticate turkeys, we're selecting for bigger drumsticks.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I recently got a thorn stuck deep into my finger and was fascinated by the mechanism that my body used to expel it. I also pondered the evolutionary factoid that only those with this ability survived. All whose body lacked this ability perished. Curious that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A human adaptation is a bigger brain. When we domesticate turkeys, we're selecting for bigger drumsticks.

They successfully crossed a turkey with a centipede, so everyone could have a drumstick. Unfortunately they were unable to catch them.

 

[Aussie Pete]

There's been plenty of time... humans demonstrate that. It's just that they weren't in the same environment and didn't get the same mutations that helped us become what we are today.

The real reason that scientists back evolution:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair wasn’t right about much. He was a socialist, after all. But he was right about that. Evolutionists control the budgets and so most scientists will not go against the status quo