Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[juvenissun]

The problem there is that I agree with them.

But you seem very convinced about this issue, but I can't figure out why you are so convinced. You don't seem to have the same single minded approach as AV, where the literal interpretation of genesis is all you need as evidence.

Can you at least describe what makes you so convinced?

Because we do not see any new human species for a long time. And there is no sign of biological change on human.

This is a fact. You can see it as well as I do.

 

[mzungu]

Because we do not see any new human species for a long time. And there is no sign of biological change on human.

This is a fact. You can see it as well as I do.

Just because you cannot see the tree grow every second does not mean the tree is not growing. You really need to read ToE before you utter such fallacies!

 

[juvenissun]

Just because you cannot see the tree grow every second does not mean the tree is not growing. You really need to read ToE before you utter such fallacies!

I am confident that the big tree in front of my yard is NOT growing.

 

[CabVet]

I am confident that the big tree in front of my yard is NOT growing.

And of course you would be wrong, that is unless the tree is dead.

 

[Shemjaza]

Because we do not see any new human species for a long time. And there is no sign of biological change on human.

This is a fact. You can see it as well as I do.

Every human has some level of mutation, this isn't a possibility, it's in every human we have ever examined. So humans do in fact biologically change, now if you expand the time frame from one generation to tens of thousands of them the mutations build up.

We've only been able to study genetic code for decades and only been recording detailed information for a few millennia... our species is two hundred thousand years old, these things happen so slowly we can only see it in retrospect. No individual or even civilisation exists on a timescale to observe human speciation via genetic drift directly.

We have evidence: the gradually changing fossils and the genetic markers in other species let us work out how this happened.


Are you following my arguments? I'm happy to explain if I've phrased something badly. I'm assuming you have some reasons for your beliefs, and I want to show you that I have reasons for mine.

 

[juvenissun]

Every human has some level of mutation, this isn't a possibility, it's in every human we have ever examined. So humans do in fact biologically change, now if you expand the time frame from one generation to tens of thousands of them the mutations build up.

We've only been able to study genetic code for decades and only been recording detailed information for a few millennia... our species is two hundred thousand years old, these things happen so slowly we can only see it in retrospect. No individual or even civilisation exists on a timescale to observe human speciation via genetic drift directly.

We have evidence: the gradually changing fossils and the genetic markers in other species let us work out how this happened.


Are you following my arguments? I'm happy to explain if I've phrased something badly. I'm assuming you have some reasons for your beliefs, and I want to show you that I have reasons for mine.

You may understand this backwards. If we can not explain human evolution problem, then we can not answer animal evolution problems.

 

[mzungu]

You may understand this backwards. If we can not explain human evolution problem, then we can not answer animal evolution problems.

Does anyone understand what he is saying here

 

[The Engineer]

Does anyone understand what he is saying here

I don't know exactly, either, but I guess it's about him ignoring your arguments about how humans change.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You may understand this backwards. If we can not explain human evolution problem, then we can not answer animal evolution problems.

The "problem" only exists in your mind -- your inability to solve it doesn't affect anyone else in the slightest.

 

[Shemjaza]

You may understand this backwards. If we can not explain human evolution problem, then we can not answer animal evolution problems.

What problem?

The changes aren't sudden, species don't change in a small step... it's doubtful you can tell from one generation to the next which is which.

Every human skull from the last few thousand years falls into a range... every human-like skull from over a million years ago falls into a different range. Only in retrospect to we assign clear definitions of Homo sapiens or Homo erectus.

 

[juvenissun]

What problem?

The changes aren't sudden, species don't change in a small step... it's doubtful you can tell from one generation to the next which is which.

Every human skull from the last few thousand years falls into a range... every human-like skull from over a million years ago falls into a different range. Only in retrospect to we assign clear definitions of Homo sapiens or Homo erectus.

The several so-called human species appeared in a very short period of time (10E6 years ago). And we haven't seen any new species for 10E5 years. Why not?

 

[mzungu]

The several so-called human species appeared in a very short period of time (10E6 years ago). And we haven't seen any new species for 10E5 years. Why not?

You simply fail to comprehend that evolution does not work like clockwork. It is a process that is not fixed time rate wise. You probably have this mindset simply because you believe in the 7 day creation myth that states how and which consecutive day God did this and that.

If you don't read up on ToE then we are just wasting our time.

Bring forth you evidences that you claim refute ToE and we will talk else try learning Ham slicing with lasers!

 

[Jamin4422]

You simply fail to comprehend that evolution does not work like clockwork.

Evolution is driven by environmental changes. As Creationism can tell you Evolution is not evolution at all. It is variation in all the various species designed to allow them to adapt to the variation or change we find in the environment. Right now global warming is having an effect. We have many different species having to either adjust and adapt or fact extinction. In some cases we do see population explosions.

 

[mzungu]

Evolution is driven by environmental changes. As Creationism can tell you Evolution is not evolution at all. It is variation in all the various species designed to allow them to adapt to the variation or change we find in the environment. Right now global warming is having an effect. We have many different species having to either adjust and adapt or fact extinction. In some cases we do see population explosions.

Environmental changes are only part of the causes that apply pressure on a life form resulting in it evolving in order to adapt. You have in essence accepted evolution albeit in a very simplified way and you are in err when you think that evolution only causes variations within a species without eventually causing a split and resulting in new species being evolved.

 

[juvenissun]

You simply fail to comprehend that evolution does not work like clockwork. It is a process that is not fixed time rate wise. You probably have this mindset simply because you believe in the 7 day creation myth that states how and which consecutive day God did this and that.

If you don't read up on ToE then we are just wasting our time.

Bring forth you evidences that you claim refute ToE and we will talk else try learning Ham slicing with lasers!

Why not, in the case of human evolution?

 

[sfs]

Because we do not see any new human species for a long time.

Sure we do. (Hint: 50,000 years is not a long time.)

And there is no sign of biological change on human.

There is abundant sign of biological changes in humans.

This is a fact. You can see it as well as I do.

Well, sure, it's a fact in the sense that it's completely false. Just you using your private definitions again.

 

[Shemjaza]

The several so-called human species appeared in a very short period of time (10E6 years ago). And we haven't seen any new species for 10E5 years. Why not?

Why not, in the case of human evolution?

Because that's fast on a evolutionary scale. Over that time period we've been expanding our territory and splitting up into sub groups... but there has been a relatively small amount of genetic change.

Two issues, humans are still very well adapted to our environments and the different populations are intermingling more frequently, so we won't likely see enough change for something to have a new species definition for even longer then the last few steps.

 

[mzungu]

Because that's fast on a evolutionary scale. Over that time period we've been expanding our territory and splitting up into sub groups... but there has been a relatively small amount of genetic change.

Two issues, humans are still very well adapted to our environments and the different populations are intermingling more frequently, so we won't likely see enough change for something to have a new species definition for even longer then the last few steps.

Juve seems to lack the insight and erudition that science requires in order to comprehend any specific field of science. He adheres to the creation myth that essentially is bound to a 7 day onset to completion of the creation of the universe to man.

He simply cannot understand how time scales work regarding each pertinent field. He believes that if evolution is true then humans must evolve within living memory into a different species. He totally disregards all the variables involved in the evolutionary process and essentially demands effect without cause.

I fear it is a total waste of time debating with him!

 

[juvenissun]

Sure we do. (Hint: 50,000 years is not a long time.)


There is abundant sign of biological changes in humans.


Well, sure, it's a fact in the sense that it's completely false. Just you using your private definitions again.

We have done the argument. You know that we are talking about different things. But others are still confused. If you want to continue the conversation, you need to teach me better. I understand the old stuff. (And you still have not answered my last two questions.)

 

[juvenissun]

Because that's fast on a evolutionary scale. Over that time period we've been expanding our territory and splitting up into sub groups... but there has been a relatively small amount of genetic change.

Two issues, humans are still very well adapted to our environments and the different populations are intermingling more frequently, so we won't likely see enough change for something to have a new species definition for even longer then the last few steps.

How frequent is frequent? I was told that one mixture among 500,000 is enough to mess up the change. How can you be sure that early tribes were intermingled smaller then this ratio?