Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[brinny]

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.

Evolution continues then, and the theory is that we are continuing to evolve? Is that right? If so, into what? And if the term is "posthuman", does that indicate something "past" human? If so, what would this "posthuman" be called? Is there an example, a visual of what this would look like? And is this "posthuman" better? And if so, how? Does that mean that humans, as they are now, are "primitive'?

 

[mzungu]

Evolution continues then, and the theory is that we are continuing to evolve? Is that right? If so, into what? And if the term is "posthuman", does that indicate something "past" human? If so, what would this "posthuman" be called? Is there an example, a visual of what this would look like? And is this "posthuman" better? And if so, how? Does that mean that humans, as they are now, are "primitive'?

The hummingbird moth and the hummingbird are totally different animals yet they resemble each other so much that at a distance one may confuse the two.

These two animals resemble each other simply because Function dictates form. Evolution is a process that also applies the above and evolution does not care if it is dealing with a bacteria or a human. Evolution is a constant process and depending on the pressure to change will determine the time scale required for change.

An example being: Sharks, Cockroaches, Crocodiles, have changed little the past few hundred million years simply because their form is so well suited for survival that there is little pressure for them to change. On the other hand during the Industrial revolution; White peppered moths had a colour disadvantage over their black coloured brothers the black peppered moths and due to the trees being covered by coal soot made the white moths easy prey to the birds then suffice it to say that eventually the majority of moths ended up being black in a very short time period.

Humans have variations between the races that are the direct result of evolution: The West African pygmies have lived in the dense jungles of the Congo for a much longer period than the Indians in the Amazon. The African pygmies are very short and this gives them the advantage of moving in the dense foliage just like the short winged birds that live in forests compared to the long winged birds of the open oceans. The tribes that live in open savannah are lankier and taller.

in short; Being short in dense jungle is an advantage as it allows for unrestricted movement while being tall in the savannah where the grass is tall and no trees gives the advantage of observing the presence of predators and the ability to run longer distances in the open.

 

[Shemjaza]

please elaborate.

Most concepts for humans becoming something that could be called post human involve us modifying ourselves and our offspring genetically and/or technologically until we have a population that isn't able to interbreed either through behaviour or genetics with what we currently call humans.

For example if a population of humans were to change themselves to adapt to life in space stations or on a colony on another planet their genetics might be different enough to make interbreeding difficult, or it could just be the differences in reproductive behaviour could make them distinct as a species from main line humans.

In nature Lions and Leopards are in similar areas but are not really genetically compatible with offspring being mostly sterile or have other genetic problems. However Coyotes and Wolves seem to be quite genetically compatible, but their different behaviour patterns make interbreeding in natural situations rare.

Does that make some sense?

Also as to whether a post human is "more advanced", that depends on the environment. I'd assume that if humans make a lot of effort to modify themselves with new genes or machines they'd think they had improved on the basic human pattern. However, if something unexpected happened and the engineers who designed the post human modifications missed something we might still have the good old natural generalist homo sapiens living on and ultra specialised homo superior going extinct.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, some people are more evolved than some others?

of course not -- that wold imply that evolution has a goal; a "finish line" that some people are closer to than others, which is simply not the case.

it means that some people have evolved differently than others.

 

[DaneaFL]

Evolution continues then, and the theory is that we are continuing to evolve? Is that right? If so, into what? And if the term is "posthuman", does that indicate something "past" human? If so, what would this "posthuman" be called? Is there an example, a visual of what this would look like? And is this "posthuman" better? And if so, how? Does that mean that humans, as they are now, are "primitive'?

Yes, the laws of biology don't just stop. Evolution will always continue as long as genes are able to mutate.

Humans will evolve into whatever it takes to survive in whatever new environment we find ourselves in. Things don't just evolve to make themselves better... things evolve because of natural or artificial selection.

This "posthuman" would be classified as a Homo sapien, sapien, xxxxxx. (whatever they decided to call them.)

As far as will they be "better". That's not the best way to describe how evolution works. There's no goal in mind, so there's no way to tell if our descendents will be smarter, stronger, faster, or dumber, weaker, slower.
It all has to do with how the environment changes.

A good movie to give you a visual of this would be The Time Machine (2002). In the movie, in the distant future, homo sapiens have split into 3 distinct species. One species looks nearly identical to ancient humans because they have continued to live on the surface and weren't pressured by the environment to change much.

However, the other two species lived underground and changed drastically. One species became weaker, pale, and hunched over from living underground but their mental abilities were far more advanced. The other species was bred to be workers and soldiers and has massive muscles but very little intelligence.

The movie isn't entirely accurate but it gives you a good idea about how natural and artificial selection could possible affect human evolution in the future.

Personally I think that now that we are relatively free from the vicious cycles of death that drove the evolution of our ancestors, I hope we can now evolve through our technology instead and cut down on the suffering.

 

[brinny]

After reading this thread, interesting though it be, it merely reinforces how blessed we all are to have such vivid imaginative creativity but also how limited we really all are, no matter how passionately we wish it were not so.

This again comes to mind:

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

Peace.

 

[TLK Valentine]

After reading this thread, interesting though it be, it merely reinforces how blessed we all are to have such vivid imaginative creativity but also how limited we really all are, no matter how passionately we wish it were not so.

This again comes to mind:

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

Peace.

I always preferred how Daniel Boorstin put it -- "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge.”

 

[mzungu]

This again comes to mind:

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

Peace.

Do you know why he said that? Socrates was expressing his humilty as any true wise man would.
He said Εν οίδα ότι ουδέν οίδα (one thing I saw (know) is I saw nothing (know nothing). Socrates was speaking in humility. Here is a very good explanation of what Socrates meant:
(Plato's famous account of the trial and death of Socrates.)
When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

Thus when people claim to know something they do not know then they are in fact unwise. Creationists dismiss ToE when they know nothing about it and this is tantamount to claiming knowledge one does not posses.

Science requires the humility mandatory to an open mind and the discipline of a trained mind. It does not require a submissive mind for the inquisitive mind is the cornerstone of erudition!

 

[brinny]

Thank you, each of you. You gave it your best shot. That's all we can do, right? You have every right to keep trying. Just take it easy when/if someone doesn't agree with you. We're all on our own journeys. We're all trying hard to be as transparent as possible, to speak the truth as we see it, to wish other fellow travelers well. No intent to insult from here. There might have been an edge of it at times, on my part, i admit. For that i apologize. I do re-think things and then come back and apologize when i've come to my senses, and remember this:

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." ~Plato

 

[juvenissun]

of course not -- that wold imply that evolution has a goal; a "finish line" that some people are closer to than others, which is simply not the case.

it means that some people have evolved differently than others.

So, how many different "types" of evolution have happened on human? Could we identify and classify them generally?

 

[DaneaFL]

So, how many different "types" of evolution have happened on human? Could we identify and classify them generally?

I don't understand the question. Creatures that are more able to survive in an environment pass on their genes.

I wasn't aware there were different "types" of evolution... please explain.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, how many different "types" of evolution have happened on human? Could we identify and classify them generally?

Depends on what you mean by a "type" of evolution -- care to elaborate?

 

[juvenissun]

Depends on what you mean by a "type" of evolution -- care to elaborate?

You said we evolve differently. How do you describe, or classify that difference?

I think you are against the wall. I might just quite.

Still: human does not evolve.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You said we evolve differently. How do you describe, or classify that difference?

Two people go to college. One majors in History, the other in Mathematics. How do you describe, or classify that difference?

Is one better or more educated than the other?

I think you are against the wall.

I do get the impression I'm talking to one.

I might just quite.

quite what?

Still: human does not evolve.

So you say.

 

[Tomk80]

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

And that is all people need to know about you. Stupidity squared.

 

[Shemjaza]

You said we evolve differently. How do you describe, or classify that difference?

I think you are against the wall. I might just quite.

Different pressures produce different results.

In an environment with a lot of malaria and cycle cell anemia carriers have an advantage so become more common. If that same population spreads to an area without malaria the chance of getting full blown cycle cell anemia becomes a negative so will eventually reduce in frequency.

Still: human does not evolve.

I am curious about this phrase. Is the odd grammatical structure just there because it seems to annoy evolutionists, or is there some American cultural cue I'm missing?

Also, if humans don't evolve, why have separated populations drifted apart in genetics and appearance? We all have far more in common then we have differences, but imagine an average native of Kenya, Finland and Thailand. (I guess you could imagine the Intelligent Designer deliberately modified the many groups of humans after the tower of Babel, or something. Seems like a weird thing to do though.)

 

[juvenissun]

Different pressures produce different results.

In an environment with a lot of malaria and cycle cell anemia carriers have an advantage so become more common. If that same population spreads to an area without malaria the chance of getting full blown cycle cell anemia becomes a negative so will eventually reduce in frequency.



I am curious about this phrase. Is the odd grammatical structure just there because it seems to annoy evolutionists, or is there some American cultural cue I'm missing?

Also, if humans don't evolve, why have separated populations drifted apart in genetics and appearance? We all have far more in common then we have differences, but imagine an average native of Kenya, Finland and Thailand. (I guess you could imagine the Intelligent Designer deliberately modified the many groups of humans after the tower of Babel, or something. Seems like a weird thing to do though.)

So you think race is a consequence of human evolution? And some people can resist some diseases is also an example of human evolution?

 

[The Engineer]

So you think race is a consequence of human evolution? And some people can resist some diseases is also an example of human evolution?

Exactly! You finally get the idea!

 

[mzungu]

So you think race is a consequence of human evolution? And some people can resist some diseases is also an example of human evolution?

​

BY JOVE I THINK HE'S GOT IT
​

 

[Loudmouth]

So you think race is a consequence of human evolution? And some people can resist some diseases is also an example of human evolution?

Yep. The very slight physical differences between humans is due to different genes moving towards fixation in different environments, some of which are driven by selective pressures such as skin color vs. lattitude.

In the sickle cell example, it is an example of a mutation being selected for by the presence of malaria in the environment. It is a clear example of evolution occuring in humans. There is even new competition between malaria-related alleles Hb S and Hb C.