Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[Jamin4422]

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

Yet sometimes the underdog wins. It looks like Darwin did not even have the understanding and wisdom that Solmon had 3,000 years ago. How else can you explain a girl that it was even a fluke she went to the Olympics and was not expected to do well at all. Yet she won the gold that year.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 (KJV)

11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

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

In a modern sense the discovery of the HOX gene changed evolutionary theory. Gould saw this coming, Ernst Mayr did not see this coming. There was a big difference between Ernst Mayr and Gould.

In general though there are two schools of thought. One group says if you were to go back to the beginning and do it all over again you would get totally different results. Another group says you have universal laws & universal building blocks so you can go anywhere in the universe and end up with pretty much all the same results. Therefore aliens would look somewhat like us. At least they would be a carbon based life.

 

[Freodin]

Yet sometimes the underdog wins. It looks like Darwin did not even have the understanding and wisdom that Solmon had 3,000 years ago. How else can you explain a girl that it was even a fluke she went to the Olympics and was not expected to do well at all. Yet she won the gold that year.

Ecclesiastes 9:11 (KJV)

11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

You should really try to learn something about stochastics. Perhaps you can read the Bible on that... but I guess a mathematics book would be better.

Flukes are just that... flukes. The race IS usually to the swift, the battle to the strong. Bet against it, and most of the time you will lose.
This fact isn't changed by the exceptions.

 

[juvenissun]

Exactly! You finally get the idea!

Then you are absolutely wrong. Human race is not an evolution feature.

If it were, then why don't we call them species, instead of race?

 

[DaneaFL]

Then you are absolutely wrong. Human race is not an evolution feature.

If it were, then why don't we call them species, instead of race?

Do you know how we classify species?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you know how we classify species?

Not sure.

But whatever you do, you can not classify humans into species. No speciation, no evolution.

 

[DaneaFL]

Not sure.

You should probably start by researching how biologists classify species.

But whatever you do, you can not classify humans into species. No speciation, no evolution.

I love how you think you can just make an ignorant statement like that without any evidence or source... especially since you've admitted that you don't even understand how classification works.

Humans have been classified as apes ever since the Christian creationist Carolus Linnaeus figured out what an ape was. Keep in mind this was before we ever found any transitional forms and LONG before we had genetic evidence linking wild apes to humans.

What he figured out morphologically we have now triple confirmed in paleontology and genetics.

At this point, it takes a massive about to self-delusion and willful ignorance to deny that we came from ape ancestors.

From the fossil record, to our fused chromosome, to comparative anatomy, we have confirmed that humans fit snugly in the tree of life right next to our cousins the wild apes.

You must have a good reason for denying all the evidence presented by all these different branches of science. Would you care you explain why you don't accept this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

 

[mzungu]

Not sure.

But whatever you do, you can not classify humans into species. No speciation, no evolution.

You may deny all you want and you may claim all you want but the fact remains that a flat earth is nonsense while ToE remains unscathed from the wilful ignorant attacks it has received since it was first formulated.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not sure.

But whatever you do, you can not classify humans into species. No speciation, no evolution.

That's not how we use the term evolution... but I guess I'll bite.

If you don't consider evolution to have occurred until after speciation how distinct do two populations have to be until you are happy to accept it? Lions and Tigers enough? Wolves and Coyotes? How about Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis?

 

[juvenissun]

That's not how we use the term evolution... but I guess I'll bite.

If you don't consider evolution to have occurred until after speciation how distinct do two populations have to be until you are happy to accept it? Lions and Tigers enough? Wolves and Coyotes? How about Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis?

If human evolved, we should have already seen the consequence. If human did not evolve before 1900, then there is simply no hope that human will ever evolve.

 

[juvenissun]

You must have a good reason for denying all the evidence presented by all these different branches of science. Would you care you explain why you don't accept this?

I know I will not be able to see the consequence of human evolution. But I still like to see the sign of human evolution. So far, I see none. The change of human immune ability is NOT a sign of evolution. If our head became bigger, I might take it as a sign.

 

[CabVet]

If human evolved, we should have already seen the consequence. If human did not evolve before 1900, then there is simply no hope that human will ever evolve.

Do you know what lactase persistence is? How about sickle-cell anemia?

 

[DaneaFL]

I know I will not be able to see the consequence of human evolution. But I still like to see the sign of human evolution. So far, I see none. The change of human immune ability is NOT a sign of evolution. If our head became bigger, I might take it as a sign.

Why would bigger heads be any more a sign of evolution than the emergence of a new gene that makes certain people immune to aids? Both rely on mutations and changes in allelle frequencies.

Besides, what would cause our heads to get bigger anyway? Are people only mating with big headed people so that the entire population becomes big headed?

What about the family in german that has super bone density? If they keep mating within a closed population there could be an entire race of super strong people in a few generations.

However, this probably won't happen because humans have spread globally and our technology has mostly freed us from natural selection.

If you want to see drastic physical changes to give you evidence of evolution then you'll need to look at other animals like salamanders, fruit flies, or bacteria... And we've seen lots of this already.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yet sometimes the underdog wins.

Not as often as the favorite which is why, on average, the fittest genes are passed on at a higher rate.

In a modern sense the discovery of the HOX gene changed evolutionary theory.

It only changed our understanding of the link between genetics and morphology. The theory of evolution itself did not change at all. It is still mutation filtered through selection just as it always was.

In general though there are two schools of thought. One group says if you were to go back to the beginning and do it all over again you would get totally different results. Another group says you have universal laws & universal building blocks so you can go anywhere in the universe and end up with pretty much all the same results.

The second group doesn't exist. If we started life all over again we would not expect the same codon usage.

At least they would be a carbon based life.

That is not the type of building block they are talking about.

 

[Loudmouth]

I know I will not be able to see the consequence of human evolution. But I still like to see the sign of human evolution. So far, I see none.

Then you should spend some time comparing the chimp and human genomes.

If our head became bigger, I might take it as a sign.

The Panda's Thumb: Fun with Hominin Cranial Capacity Datasets (and Excel)

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you are absolutely wrong. Human race is not an evolution feature.

If it were, then why don't we call them species, instead of race?

The genetic differences between races is extremely small and only arose over the last 50,000 years. The darkness of skin is most definitely a product of evolution. Light skin is preferred in higher lattitudes since it maximizes vitamin D production with less sunlight. Dark skin at lower lattitudes is preferred to protect against the mutagenic effects of intense sunshine. We have also cited malaria-resistance genes, and we can add lactose tolerance in adults as another beneficial adaptation that has occurred in European populations.

 

[sfs]

Then you are absolutely wrong. Human race is not an evolution feature.

Juvenissun, why do you insist on making dogmatic proclamations like this when you don't know anything about the subject? Genetic differences between human populations, including the differences usually associated with "race", are indeed the product of evolution.

If it were, then why don't we call them species, instead of race?

Because most evolution does not involve the creation of new species. Tibetans are better at handling low oxygen than most people -- that's a product of evolution, even though Tibetans aren't a different species. Subsaharan Africans don't get vivax malaria -- that's a product of evolution, even though Africans aren't a different species.

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenissun, why do you insist on making dogmatic proclamations like this when you don't know anything about the subject? Genetic differences between human populations, including the differences usually associated with "race", are indeed the product of evolution.


Because most evolution does not involve the creation of new species. Tibetans are better at handling low oxygen than most people -- that's a product of evolution, even though Tibetans aren't a different species. Subsaharan Africans don't get vivax malaria -- that's a product of evolution, even though Africans aren't a different species.

Ironically, I learned that human race is not a product of evolution FROM YOU! Now you give me a positive answer (I will hold you as the responsible one): Is the variation on human race an evolutional change?

Now, you are playing trick with the definition of evolution again. I will ask this question one more time: will human "evolution" lead to different human species?

 

[juvenissun]

Do you know what lactase persistence is? How about sickle-cell anemia?

How about some people are wiser than some others?

 

[juvenissun]

The genetic differences between races is extremely small and only arose over the last 50,000 years. The darkness of skin is most definitely a product of evolution. Light skin is preferred in higher lattitudes since it maximizes vitamin D production with less sunlight. Dark skin at lower lattitudes is preferred to protect against the mutagenic effects of intense sunshine. We have also cited malaria-resistance genes, and we can add lactose tolerance in adults as another beneficial adaptation that has occurred in European populations.

What happened in the last 50,000 years which promoted this change? Are those factors still exist? When would we see an orange or a green race?

 

[sfs]

Ironically, I learned that human race is not a product of evolution FROM YOU!

Then you misunderstood what I was saying. (Note that I have not said anything about whether races are meaningful divisions of humans. I phrased my response here pretty carefully.)

Now you give me a positive answer (I will hold you as the responsible one): Is the variation on human race an evolutional change?

Yes. Any change to the genetic makeup of populations represents evolutionary change. The fact that any two populations of humans almost always differ subtly in the their genetics means that they have been evolving.

Now, you are playing trick with the definition of evolution again. I will ask this question one more time: will human "evolution" lead to different human species?

I'm not playing any tricks with definitions; I'm using the word "evolution" exactly as I do every day, at work and in publications. Will evolution lead to different human species? In principle it could, but it won't in the foreseeable future. The population is too large and too interconnected for speciation to occur.