Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[Gottservant]

You may find this hard to answer, I don't know. Naturally the argumentative among you will be reluctant to call Evolution anything other than a theory. But I am just wondering if my logic is still headed in the right direction, in your opinion.

Posthuman: pertaining to that which is after or progressive from the relationship found in humanity.

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

The belief that populations evolve, but not individuals is something that looks like a posthuman belief, to me, and seems to support my hypothesis. There are other examples. I don't know, is it even possible to conceive of a posthuman evolution?

 

[Blayz]

You may find this hard to answer

I don't think I will, let's see...

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

The answer is no.

There, didn't think I'd find it hard, and I was right!

 

[Freodin]

You may find this hard to answer, I don't know. Naturally the argumentative among you will be reluctant to call Evolution anything other than a theory. But I am just wondering if my logic is still headed in the right direction, in your opinion.

Posthuman: pertaining to that which is after or progressive from the relationship found in humanity.

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

The belief that populations evolve, but not individuals is something that looks like a posthuman belief, to me, and seems to support my hypothesis. There are other examples. I don't know, is it even possible to conceive of a posthuman evolution?

You are still missing the most basic concept, and thus you keep on posting these questions that miss the mark by the mile.

"Evolution" - the biological Theory of Evolution - deals with a very specific concept, which is, in the most simple terms, hereditary change. Every other form of change is not described by this theory.

Evolution is change, but not every change is evolution.
You change. You are not identical to the individual that you were ten, twenty, thirty years ago. But this is not evolution.
Species change. You are also not identical to your children. This is (part of) Evolution.

Consider how the change is expressed. You change, but every change in you that is not expressed in your hereditary material will be lost when the individual you dies. The changes that are hereditary will be carried over to your potential offspring.

That is why individuals do not "evolve". They cannot evolve, because evolution deals with change between individuals, not within individuals.
Populations (or species, or lines of descend) evolve, because evolution does describe the change between generations, and the results this change has of the distribution of hereditary attributes within the group.


That alone should be enough to negate the "post" part of your OP. Evolution simply does not deal with the question that you raise.
But evolution does deal with any (biologically) reproducing systems. It is not limited to humans. So evolution is not "posthuman" in the same way as it is "postcanine".

 

[juvenissun]

You may find this hard to answer, I don't know. Naturally the argumentative among you will be reluctant to call Evolution anything other than a theory. But I am just wondering if my logic is still headed in the right direction, in your opinion.

Posthuman: pertaining to that which is after or progressive from the relationship found in humanity.

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

The belief that populations evolve, but not individuals is something that looks like a posthuman belief, to me, and seems to support my hypothesis. There are other examples. I don't know, is it even possible to conceive of a posthuman evolution?

Human does not evolve.

Is this a good answer to your question?

 

[Loudmouth]

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

No.

Wow, that was easy.

The belief that populations evolve, but not individuals is something that looks like a posthuman belief, to me, and seems to support my hypothesis.

That is not a belief. It is an observation.

 

[Loudmouth]

Human does not evolve.

Then please explain why there is a correlation between the frequency of sickle cell trait within a population and the presence of endemic malaria.

Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection

That looks like evolution to me.

 

[brinny]

You may find this hard to answer, I don't know. Naturally the argumentative among you will be reluctant to call Evolution anything other than a theory. But I am just wondering if my logic is still headed in the right direction, in your opinion.

Posthuman: pertaining to that which is after or progressive from the relationship found in humanity.

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

The belief that populations evolve, but not individuals is something that looks like a posthuman belief, to me, and seems to support my hypothesis. There are other examples. I don't know, is it even possible to conceive of a posthuman evolution?

Makes perfect sense, unless evolution "stops". Does it?

 

[juvenissun]

Then please explain why there is a correlation between the frequency of sickle cell trait within a population and the presence of endemic malaria.

Modern Theories of Evolution: Natural Selection

That looks like evolution to me.

Sorry, you gave me an evidence I do not understand. So to me, it is not an evidence. And I still argue strongly that human does not evolve.

Of course, unless or until you explain that evidence to me.

I might see the general idea: one particular sickness only happened to one special group of people. Is that what the evidence is about? If true, you called that an evidence of evolution? If so, it is pretty laughable.

 

[brinny]

wonder what "posthuman" would look like?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You may find this hard to answer, I don't know. Naturally the argumentative among you will be reluctant to call Evolution anything other than a theory. But I am just wondering if my logic is still headed in the right direction, in your opinion.

Posthuman: pertaining to that which is after or progressive from the relationship found in humanity.

In other words, would you say that since Evolution postulates the ongoing development of the human species beyond its current definition - possibly into numerous branches - that the theory itself is not advancing humanity as it is, but rather interpreting it as what it will be?

No. Evolution explains our past, and how we got to this point, but it actually doesn't do much to predict our future. We will keep changing, but exactly how or into what can't be predicted.

In fact, I've heard it argued that since we now have plenty of non-biological ways to adapt to our environment, natural selection no longer exerts any pressure on us. Not sure what there is to that.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sorry, you gave me an evidence I do not understand. So to me, it is not an evidence. And I still argue strongly that human does not evolve.

Of course, unless or until you explain that evidence to me.

I might see the general idea: one particular sickness only happened to one special group of people. Is that what the evidence is about? If true, you called that an evidence of evolution? If so, it is pretty laughable.

Well, as you said, you don't understand it, so you've really got no reason to laugh.

Actually, people with a specific genetic condition (one that is passed down) have an immunity to a specific disease. It's true that the genetic condition carries a few substantial downsides, but it still beats having the disease.

 

[brinny]

....except there's always the possibility of new diseases....

 

[Shemjaza]

As usual I'm not sure I'm following Gott's mindset, but I think I can answer it.

Evolution is not a post human concept because it applies just as well to our current species, our ancestor species and also to the hypothetical posthuman child species.

I do hope such creatures actually get a chance to exist and that the homo genus doesn't just end with sapiens extinction.

No. Evolution explains our past, and how we got to this point, but it actually doesn't do much to predict our future. We will keep changing, but exactly how or into what can't be predicted.

In fact, I've heard it argued that since we now have plenty of non-biological ways to adapt to our environment, natural selection no longer exerts any pressure on us. Not sure what there is to that.

A lot of people think that because the old evolutionary pressures don't really apply any more that we don't evolve... there are still pressures on modern humans, just not the same ones. Two examples that I suspect will have an effect on us in the long run is the ability to breed later in life and the ability to cope with a very calorie rich diet.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, as you said, you don't understand it, so you've really got no reason to laugh.

Actually, people with a specific genetic condition (one that is passed down) have an immunity to a specific disease. It's true that the genetic condition carries a few substantial downsides, but it still beats having the disease.

So, is that an evidence of human evolution?

 

[brinny]

hmmmmmm....this "post-human" thing...does that mean one is not "human" any more?

 

[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.

That's like saying that a tiger is a "post-feline" species or that a fish is a "post-vertebrate" species.

Also, I really hope humans won't evolve much more because if they did that would mean there must have been some drastic environmental changes and a lot of humans would have to die.

I think that now that we are relatively free from the natural selection pressure of evolution, we can concentrate on evolving through our technology and not the vicious cycles of death that our ancestors had to endure.

Lastly, evolution is not "just a theory". This strawman has been explained many, many times here in this forum so I won't explain it again.

A lot of your questions seem to indicate that you aren't completely clear on how evolution works yet.

Start by watching these very easy to understand videos by potholer54:

6 -- Natural Selection Made Easy - YouTube

 

[mzungu]

No. Evolution explains our past, and how we got to this point, but it actually doesn't do much to predict our future. We will keep changing, but exactly how or into what can't be predicted.

In fact, I've heard it argued that since we now have plenty of non-biological ways to adapt to our environment, natural selection no longer exerts any pressure on us. Not sure what there is to that.

Actually it does: We have finer hair while the number of follicles remains the same due to the wearing of clothing. We have smaller jaws due to eating cooked food which is softer and easier to chew. Evolution does not require natural causes. It just requires causes be they natural or man induced.

 

[TLK Valentine]

....except there's always the possibility of new diseases....

Not just a possibility, but a virtual certainty. What's your point?

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, is that an evidence of human evolution?

Looks like natural selection in action to me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

hmmmmmm....this "post-human" thing...does that mean one is not "human" any more?

One would have to ask Gott what he means by "human," I suppose.