Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[CabVet]

Sorry, you gave me an evidence I do not understand. So to me, it is not an evidence.

Exactly, you shouldn't be against (or for), something you don't understand. Before you can attack evolution you should at least know something about it, but I know this is asking too much.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly, you shouldn't be against (or for), something you don't understand. Before you can attack evolution you should at least know something about it, but I know this is asking too much.

Not at all. We ALL do that to everything at all the time. For a scientist, it is even more justified to do that.

So I say it again: Human does not evolve. The evidence is quite obvious.

 

[juvenissun]

Looks like natural selection in action to me.

If so, what is the consequence?

 

[Jamin4422]

We will keep changing, but exactly how or into what can't be predicted.

So if you want to know our future, then you need to read the Bible.

 

[Jamin4422]

Sorry, you gave me an evidence I do not understand.

Natural Selection is about the Birds and the Bees and who is going to mate with who and what the effect of that will be on the next generation. For example if a girl has a choice of two men. One with greased back hair and the other with natural hair. Her choice could have an effect on her son if he has natural hair or greased back hair.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not at all. We ALL do that to everything at all the time. For a scientist, it is even more justified to do that.

We all make judgement calls on things we know nothing about?

Speak for yourself.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So if you want to know our future, then you need to read the Bible.

Well, that's one possible future. it's up to us to decide how likely it is to actually occur.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If so, what is the consequence?

Fewer people susceptible to malaria -- meaning that they are adapting to what would otherwise be a lethal environment.

 

[brinny]

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. ~Socrates

(he's got a point )

 

[Trogool]

Not at all. We ALL do that to everything at all the time. For a scientist, it is even more justified to do that.

So I say it again: Human does not evolve.

Has anyone pointed out to you that "Human does not evolve" is a grammatical mess and doesn't really make sense?

The evidence is quite obvious.

That must be why you offer none.

 

[Shemjaza]

No one will ever be "post-human." We will always be a subset of humans no matter how much we evolve in billions of years.

What if you use "human" to just mean homo sapiens?

Post human is a common enough term used by transhumanists. It doesn't imply that they are no longer descended from humans, but that they they have changed so much that they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

 

[DaneaFL]

What if you use "human" to just mean homo sapiens?

Post human is a common enough term used by transhumanists. It doesn't imply that they are no longer descended from humans, but that they they have changed so much that they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

That's fair enough... just wanted to clear things up since it seemed like the OP didn't understand how evolution works.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by DaneaFL
No one will ever be "post-human." We will always be a subset of humans no matter how much we evolve in billions of years.

What if you use "human" to just mean homo sapiens?

Post human is a common enough term used by transhumanists. It doesn't imply that they are no longer descended from humans, but that they they have changed so much that they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

please elaborate.

 

[juvenissun]

Fewer people susceptible to malaria -- meaning that they are adapting to what would otherwise be a lethal environment.

So, some people are more evolved than some others?

 

[juvenissun]

Has anyone pointed out to you that "Human does not evolve" is a grammatical mess and doesn't really make sense?

What's wrong with it? I see it is perfect.

 

[DaneaFL]

please elaborate.

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by DaneaFL
No one will ever be "post-human." We will always be a subset of humans no matter how much we evolve in billions of years.

Originally Posted by Shemjaza
What if you use "human" to just mean homo sapiens?

Post human is a common enough term used by transhumanists. It doesn't imply that they are no longer descended from humans, but that they they have changed so much that they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

brinny:
please elaborate

10th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism - YouTube

is this video meant to answer the question? If so, where? Did you watch the video?

 

[DaneaFL]

is this video meant to answer the question? If so, where? Did you watch the video?

yes, it explains nested hierarchies... It's exactly what you are asking about.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
is this video meant to answer the question? If so, where? Did you watch the video?

yes, it explains nested hierarchies... It's exactly what you are asking about.

Where, does it specifically answer the question i asked (they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.)

from this:

Post human is a common enough term used by transhumanists. It doesn't imply that they are no longer descended from humans, but that they they have changed so much that they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.

i asked for elaboration on the changing so much that they no longer resemble our species (humans) in significant ways. What do they resemble, if not humans?

 

[DaneaFL]

Where, does it specifically answer the question i asked (they no longer resemble our species in some significant ways.)

i asked for elaboration on the changing so much that they no longer resemble our species (humans) in significant ways. What do they resemble, if not humans?

Don't you see how the nested hierarchy of species answers that question? In the video he went from single celled organisms all the way to humans.

The fossil record and genetics indicates our common ancestry with such precision that we can put it all on a tree of life and it matches perfectly with what we find in morphology.

That being said, at first glance, two species that diverged from their common ancestor a very, very long time ago might not look anything like each other but they won't be so different that we wouldn't be able to tell that they were related when we look deep into their morphology and genetics.

So in a few billion years, our descendants might not look much like modern humans at all, but no matter how much they change, we'll still be able to tell that they came from humans when we study their features closely.

A real-life example of this would be dinosaurs and birds. Birds don't look much like cretaceous-era dinosaurs but they still have enough in common with them that we can tell that they descended from dinosaurs by looking closely at their fossils.

...and again, DNA evidence is confirming this. We can now analyze dinosaur DNA that we've found to tell whether or not they are the ancestors of modern birds.

I hope that answers your question. Evolution can cause drastic physical changes between related species but both species will still always just be modified version of whatever their parents were.

This is why the "yeah but it's still a fish!" argument that creationists love is just plain ignorant.