Is Evolution a "posthuman" concept?

[RickG]

Sorry Juve but I think you are purposely being dismissive and are not in the least interested in learning anything.

Yes, a common trait of denialism, which is quite different from skepticism. But what I find most puzzling is that the denial side must rely on deliberately misrepresented science that they are shown over and over contains deliberate misrepresentations and outright false claims, yet ignore those facts. Never mind that there is nothing in the published peer review literature that denies evolution, there is not even any "original research" performed by evolution deniers, in their own literature. And I emphasize that, "no original research" in their own literature.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes, a common trait of denialism, which is quite different from skepticism. But what I find most puzzling is that the denial side must rely on deliberately misrepresented science that they are shown over and over contains deliberate misrepresentations and outright false claims, yet ignore those facts. Never mind that there is nothing in the published peer review literature that denies evolution, there is not even any "original research" performed by evolution deniers, in their own literature. And I emphasize that, "no original research" in their own literature.

The irrefutable fact is: there is no, and will not have, new human species.
So, human does not evolve.

 

[sfs]

The irrefutable fact is: there is no, and will not have, new human species.
So, human does not evolve.

In other words, you've ignored everything everyone has said on this thread. Exactly as mzungu suggested.

 

[juvenissun]

In other words, you've ignored everything everyone has said on this thread. Exactly as mzungu suggested.

No. I simply do not agree with your definition of evolution.
For me, no speciation, no evolution.
For you, you should consider a question: What really caused human to interbreed so thoroughly?

 

[Shemjaza]

The irrefutable fact is: there is no, and will not have, new human species.
So, human does not evolve.

There's that weird phrasing again.

Can anyone explain this to me, is it an American thing, or just a Juvenissun thing?


Also to Juvenissun, do these guys count as human or not?

If so then we have had new human species... if you just mean Homo sapiens, well, I guess we'll be in for a looong wait for a new species.

 

[juvenissun]

There's that weird phrasing again.

Can anyone explain this to me, is it an American thing, or just a Juvenissun thing?


Also to Juvenissun, do these guys count as human or not?

If so then we have had new human species... if you just mean Homo sapiens, well, I guess we'll be in for a looong wait for a new species.

I don't see why should it be a long wait. It should be that either it has already happened or it will never happen.
Why is your reason not applied to some of those skulls?

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't see why should it be a long wait. It should be that either it has already happened or it will never happen.
Why is your reason not applied to some of those skulls?

I don't understand. I think it does apply to those skulls, those are examples of arguably human species that existed and either become a different species or went extinct.

As to why it takes a long time? Well: very limited pressures; a very large, mobile population; and compared to most animals a very long rate of reproduction.

 

[sfs]

No. I simply do not agree with your definition of evolution.
For me, no speciation, no evolution.

But what you have to realize is that you are never going to communicate with other human beings if you ignore the language they use and make up your own. "Evolution" means something -- a range of things, actually. According to everyone else, if humans have tripled their brain size over the last several million years (as they have) because of genetic changes, then that's evolution. According to you, it isn't, unless they've split into different species along the way. What point do you think you're making by adopting this definition?

Here's the reality: our ancestors have changed, a lot over the last six million of years. Our diet changed, we started walking upright, we lost our hair, our brains increased in size by a factor of three, we started using language, and so on. In the process, we split into different species several times. During the last 1% of that period we didn't form a new species. Based on this set of facts, according to you, humans haven't evolved. Doesn't that strike you as a pretty silly definition of "evolution"?

For you, you should consider a question: What really caused human to interbreed so thoroughly?

Humans interbred so thoroughly because they'll have sex with anything vaguely human, and sometimes they aren't that picky. It's really not very mysterious.

 

[sfs]

There's that weird phrasing again.

Can anyone explain this to me, is it an American thing, or just a Juvenissun thing?

No, I can't explain it to you, and yes, it's a Juvenissun thing.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't understand. I think it does apply to those skulls, those are examples of arguably human species that existed and either become a different species or went extinct.

As to why it takes a long time? Well: very limited pressures; a very large, mobile population; and compared to most animals a very long rate of reproduction.

If these conditions applied to those skulls, how did they evolve?

 

[sfs]

I don't see why should it be a long wait. It should be that either it has already happened or it will never happen.

It has happened, many times. Our ancestors did indeed form new species repeatedly. Of course, it hasn't happened since the last time it happened, but that's going to be true regardless of how often it happens.

Suppose you have a clock that chimes on the hour. It's now 3:06. A guest arrives and asks if your clock ever chimes. "Yes," you say, "many times a day."

Your guest responds, "So it's chimed in the last five minutes, then?"

"Well, no, it hasn't. You're going to have a wait a while for it to chime again."

Your guest concludes, "That clock doesn't keep time, then. If the clock is ever going to chime, it should have chimed by now. It hasn't chimed in the last five minutes, so it never will. Therefore it doesn't keep time."

"What does keeping time have to do with it? We're talking about chiming. A clock can keep time without chiming."

"Only by your definition of keeping time. According to my definition, if it doesn't chime, it doesn't keep time."

Will you conclude a) this guy makes a pretty good point, or b) this guy is nuts?

 

[juvenissun]

But what you have to realize is that you are never going to communicate with other human beings if you ignore the language they use and make up your own. "Evolution" means something -- a range of things, actually. According to everyone else, if humans have tripled their brain size over the last several million years (as they have) because of genetic changes, then that's evolution. According to you, it isn't, unless they've split into different species along the way. What point do you think you're making by adopting this definition?

Here's the reality: our ancestors have changed, a lot over the last six million of years. Our diet changed, we started walking upright, we lost our hair, our brains increased in size by a factor of three, we started using language, and so on. In the process, we split into different species several times. During the last 1% of that period we didn't form a new species. Based on this set of facts, according to you, humans haven't evolved. Doesn't that strike you as a pretty silly definition of "evolution"?


Humans interbred so thoroughly because they'll have sex with anything vaguely human, and sometimes they aren't that picky. It's really not very mysterious.

I use human evolution as the best example to examine the idea of evolution because it is modern and it has the most abundant sample. However, the target is still on the general idea of evolution. The majority of the samples, in that scope, are animals. Since you can not do a similar study even to the last extinct animal as you do to human, so in order to use a consistent definition, I will go by the speciation. You detect genetic differences among humans. That is fine. But no speciation.

You take all those human-like skulls, skeletons into the argument and treated them as human species. That is not accurate. On what base do you tell a chimp, or a humanoid, from a human? Morphology? Not using DNA anymore? Is that a double standard? Whatever knowledge you learned from the DNA study of human can NOT be applied to those that are not studied at the same level. Vise versa.

Human behavior is VERY mysterious because it is very different from ALL other animals.

 

[juvenissun]

It has happened, many times. Our ancestors did indeed form new species repeatedly. Of course, it hasn't happened since the last time it happened, but that's going to be true regardless of how often it happens.

Suppose you have a clock that chimes on the hour. It's now 3:06. A guest arrives and asks if your clock ever chimes. "Yes," you say, "many times a day."

Your guest responds, "So it's chimed in the last five minutes, then?"

"Well, no, it hasn't. You're going to have a wait a while for it to chime again."

Your guest concludes, "That clock doesn't keep time, then. If the clock is ever going to chime, it should have chimed by now. It hasn't chimed in the last five minutes, so it never will. Therefore it doesn't keep time."

"What does keeping time have to do with it? We're talking about chiming. A clock can keep time without chiming."

"Only by your definition of keeping time. According to my definition, if it doesn't chime, it doesn't keep time."

Will you conclude a) this guy makes a pretty good point, or b) this guy is nuts?

No one has ever heard how did the clock chime 6 minutes ago. It might not chime the same way. I might just vibrate, and not chime at all. We do not even know if the clock was the same color/shape 6 minutes ago.

That is the point. Why do we even have a few human species at earlier time? Why some of them did not change for a long time, but some only existed very briefly? Can you use the genetic information to answer the questions?

 

[mzungu]

Human behavior is VERY mysterious because it is very different from ALL other animals.

I will disregard the rest of your post as you have been answered many times and you are just beating a dead horse. However regarding this your last sentence of your post, then I totally disagree; Humans and Chimpanzees and Bonobos not only share 98.6% of our DNA but socially, especially with Chimpanzees, we have much in common; (murders, rapes, prostitution, wars, etc).

The problem with debating with you is that you are debating a subject you not only are unfamiliar with but you have no intent of familiarising with that that you so readily dismiss.

You are not here to ask nor debate. If you wish to make life difficult for us then I am sorry to inform you that far from it you are only confirming that a gene is responsible for fundamentalism in humans which also does not allow them to see the err in their way of thought!

 

[juvenissun]

I will disregard the rest of your post as you have been answered many times and you are just beating a dead horse. However regarding this your last sentence of your post, then I totally disagree; Humans and Chimpanzees and Bonobos not only share 98.6% of our DNA but socially, especially with Chimpanzees, we have much in common; (murders, rapes, prostitution, wars, etc).

The problem with debating with you is that you are debating a subject you not only are unfamiliar with but you have no intent of familiarising with that that you so readily dismiss.

You are not here to ask nor debate. If you wish to make life difficult for us then I am sorry to inform you that far from it you are only confirming that a gene is responsible for fundamentalism in humans which also does not allow them to see the err in their way of thought!

I thought you have left.

Bye bye again.

 

[Shemjaza]

As to why it takes a long time? Well: very limited pressures; a very large, mobile population; and compared to most animals a very long rate of reproduction.

If these conditions applied to those skulls, how did they evolve?

Well the pressures were greater and the populations were probably a little shorter... but just like it probably will for us, it took a long time.

G and H are over a million years old. A few thousand years of medicine and agriculture are not yet going to show the kind of difference s we'd call a new human species.

 

[juvenissun]

Well the pressures were greater and the populations were probably a little shorter... but just like it probably will for us, it took a long time.

G and H are over a million years old. A few thousand years of medicine and agriculture are not yet going to show the kind of difference s we'd call a new human species.

We do not know if the pressure was greater. It could be smaller instead.

No matter how small is the population, just ONE interbreed will probably homogenized the genetic differences of the whole population. The smaller the population, the smaller the chance of speciation. (recently learned from sfs).

I think there is no hope for any new human species in the future. No hope. And I am not sure there was any.

 

[Shemjaza]

We do not know if the pressure was greater. It could be smaller instead.

Actually we do. These species were under greater danger from their environment then we are. They spent eons living in the wilds with very limited technology.

Some of them even had the ultimate danger, of competing with other human species after long isolation ended.

No matter how small is the population, just ONE interbreed will probably homogenized the genetic differences of the whole population. The smaller the population, the smaller the chance of speciation. (recently learned from sfs).

I'm not sure I follow how this is relevant, can you explain?

I think there is no hope for any new human species in the future. No hope. And I am not sure there was any.

Why?
Even with limited evolutionary pressure there's still genetic drift that will build up over the eons. Humans will change, eventually we will have changed to the point where we aren't really the same species as today.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually we do. These species were under greater danger from their environment then we are. They spent eons living in the wilds with very limited technology.

Some of them even had the ultimate danger, of competing with other human species after long isolation ended.

I'm not sure I follow how this is relevant, can you explain?


Why?
Even with limited evolutionary pressure there's still genetic drift that will build up over the eons. Humans will change, eventually we will have changed to the point where we aren't really the same species as today.

Sorry, I am not good at this issue. I can argue a little, but am not very good in explaining. Your comrades can do a better job than I can.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry, I am not good at this issue. I can argue a little, but am not very good in explaining. Your comrades can do a better job than I can.

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?