• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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! :wave:

Bye bye the third time. Don't come back !
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟409,919.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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.)
I continue to doubt that you're actually talking about anything. Previously, you decided that modern humans hadn't evolved because they hadn't speciated, based on a definition of "evolved" that you made up. Now you seem to be going further and saying that modern humans haven't changed at all; presumably this means you've now redefined "changed". None of this has any point that I can see, nor does it affect the overwhelming evidence that humans evolved from earlier species and continue to evolve.

As for your two other questions -- do you mean about why some of our related species lasted longer than other? No, we don't know why, and in fact we have only the sketchiest idea of how long each lasted.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I continue to doubt that you're actually talking about anything. Previously, you decided that modern humans hadn't evolved because they hadn't speciated, based on a definition of "evolved" that you made up. Now you seem to be going further and saying that modern humans haven't changed at all; presumably this means you've now redefined "changed". None of this has any point that I can see, nor does it affect the overwhelming evidence that humans evolved from earlier species and continue to evolve.

As for your two other questions -- do you mean about why some of our related species lasted longer than other? No, we don't know why, and in fact we have only the sketchiest idea of how long each lasted.

Evolution is evidenced by speciation. So I say: no speciation, no evolution. Early human species are questionable. And the current human does not evolve at all. Having genetic differences is true. But it is not evolution. And I still clearly remember that you told me that human race is NOT a sign of human speciation.
 
Upvote 0
Evolution is evidenced by speciation. So I say: no speciation, no evolution. Early human species are questionable. And the current human does not evolve at all. Having genetic differences is true. But it is not evolution. And I still clearly remember that you told me that human race is NOT a sign of human speciation.

Things can evolve without speciating. You're strawmanning the heck out of this thread. Also, tons of stuff has speciated. I left like, what, six months ago or something (you're welcome ;)) and people were correcting you on this. You should do some reading or, I don't know, something.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟409,919.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is evidenced by speciation.
No, evolution is evidenced by genetic change in a population of organisms. A small fraction of the time those changes result in speciation. I'm afraid this is another of those things you've made up.

So I say: no speciation, no evolution.
And biologists say: you're wrong.

Early human species are questionable. And the current human does not evolve at all. Having genetic differences is true. But it is not evolution.
Of course it's evolution. Look, you can repeat it as many times as you like, but it will still be wrong. Genetic change to a population is evolution. Most people from Norway, for example, have very different skin and hair color than did the humans who left Africa 50,000 years ago; that change occurred because of natural selection. According to you, though, no change at all has occurred to those humans. Do you really think Norwegians have dark brown skin?

And I still clearly remember that you told me that human race is NOT a sign of human speciation.
Human races are not an instance of speciation. They are, however, the result of evolution. That's what I've told you repeatedly. Apparently you can't hear that statement, though, because you've decided (based on nothing in particular) that evolution only counts if it involves speciation.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟39,975.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is evidenced by speciation. So I say: no speciation, no evolution. Early human species are questionable. And the current human does not evolve at all. Having genetic differences is true. But it is not evolution. And I still clearly remember that you told me that human race is NOT a sign of human speciation.
Try to transfuse blood between people without first checking their blood type. Also try to transplant organs without matching donor to recipient. Have you ever wondered why? No I guess not! You believe we are all direct descendants of Adam and we have not evolved. How then do you account for such differences? What about skin colour, hair type, alcohol, and disease resistance between different races, etc?

Try spinning that!
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Of course it's evolution. Look, you can repeat it as many times as you like, but it will still be wrong. Genetic change to a population is evolution. Most people from Norway, for example, have very different skin and hair color than did the humans who left Africa 50,000 years ago; that change occurred because of natural selection. According to you, though, no change at all has occurred to those humans. Do you really think Norwegians have dark brown skin?

So, would the black people who live in Norway fade their color gradually?
Or, the Norwegian people will gradually become light-gray in color?

If not, why not?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Try to transfuse blood between people without first checking their blood type. Also try to transplant organs without matching donor to recipient. Have you ever wondered why? No I guess not! You believe we are all direct descendants of Adam and we have not evolved. How then do you account for such differences? What about skin colour, hair type, alcohol, and disease resistance between different races, etc?

Try spinning that!

Your examples are good to me, at least (so, thanks). But they are not any better than simple feature like skin color difference among people.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, evolution is evidenced by genetic change in a population of organisms. A small fraction of the time those changes result in speciation. I'm afraid this is another of those things you've made up.

OK, let me see a little more according to your definition.

By your definition, then everyone is evolving everyday. This definition can obviously not apply to fossil record. If so, what word could paleontologists use to define their idea of evolution?

Why would such a definition have any practical meaning to both biology and paleontology? We recognize that genetic change happened all the time. This fact could simply be put as a background knowledge. Why do we need to waste this word, which could be put to a much better use, to define the background process?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is evidenced by speciation. So I say: no speciation, no evolution. Early human species are questionable. And the current human does not evolve at all. Having genetic differences is true. But it is not evolution. And I still clearly remember that you told me that human race is NOT a sign of human speciation.

Anthropology is not my academic field, but I have seen the word "clade" used to distinguish race or populations. Even among the same race, there are very distinct population characteristics.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
you call organ and blood incompatibility "simple feature":confused:

It is not, so it is not as good as a simpler one.

It is hard to talk to you, even just using one sentence. It is a heavy burden in education.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟139,126.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Anthropology is not my academic field, but I have seen the word "clade" used to distinguish race or populations. Even among the same race, there are very distinct population characteristics.

So, why? Why should it happen?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I was told (by sfs) that to isolate human group was and is very difficult.

Perhaps you should ask "sfs" about the context meant. Look at your Asian peoples. There are distinctive physical characteristics between Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Mongolian, etc..
 
Upvote 0
Perhaps you should ask "sfs" about the context meant. Look at your Asian peoples. There are distinctive physical characteristics between Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Mongolian, etc..

I've always found the most fascinating isolation (although not genetic necessarily) to occur in the South Pacific. Papau New Guinea has some 800 native languages in an area about the size of California.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟409,919.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I was told (by sfs) that to isolate human group was and is very difficult.
No, you were told by sfs that complete isolation of modern human groups for very long periods of time was and is very difficult. You were also told by sfs that genetic differences between modern human populations were indeed the result of isolation, specifically isolation by distance. See post #86 in this thread (the first time "isolation" was introduced in this thread.)
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,884
66
Massachusetts
✟409,919.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Anthropology is not my academic field, but I have seen the word "clade" used to distinguish race or populations. Even among the same race, there are very distinct population characteristics.
I haven't seen that use of "clade", which is inconsistent with normal phylogenetic usage. A clade consists of all organisms descended from single group (usually a species, but it could be as small as an individual). As has been pointed out several times in this thread, there is usually at least some interbreeding between groups in humans, meaning that any clade large enough to encompass a good-sized group woud have to include virtually the entire human population.

The term common used in genetics is "population", which has the advantage of being vaguely defined and implying no particular boundaries, kind of like the groups it describes.
 
Upvote 0