Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[juvenissun]

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!

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

 

[sfs]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[Jro]

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.

 

[sfs]

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.

 

[mzungu]

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!

 

[juvenissun]

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?

 

[juvenissun]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

 

[mzungu]

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.

you call organ and blood incompatibility "simple feature"

 

[RickG]

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.

 

[juvenissun]

you call organ and blood incompatibility "simple feature"

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.

 

[juvenissun]

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?

 

[RickG]

So, why? Why should it happen?

Isolation of populations. That is what is seen in evolution. Example, Darwin's finches.

 

[juvenissun]

Isolation of populations. That is what is seen in evolution. Example, Darwin's finches.

I was told (by sfs) that to isolate human group was and is very difficult.

 

[Jamin4422]

I was told (by sfs) that to isolate human group was and is very difficult.

Yep, you can isolate the good and the bad. The problem is keeping the good boys and girls away from the bad boys and girls.

 

[RickG]

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..

 

[Jro]

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.

 

[sfs]

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.)

 

[sfs]

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.