So with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans?

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So it occurred to me that I was making my argument against Evolution to complex, looking for the inner workings that just weren't there. I now realize the problem is very simple: you are suggesting that with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans - humans that are like monkeys, but that are nothing like us.

The argument neglects one thing, that humans might develop into super human beings, before monkeys evolve into different human beings - there would be a conflict between super humans and different humans?

The whole thing hinges on whether you are satisfied with what you are already. For example, if selection pressures favoured being human but not super human, but monkeys still became different human beings, those different human beings might develop into super different human beings.

EDIT: You could also ask "would different selection pressures, mean different monkeys and then different humans?" - it all depends on what you mean by selection pressure, right?

You are basically required to be paranoid, about how quickly other species might develop something better than human - because you can't let go of the idea that humans are already developed. If you didn't need to gratify your ego, you would realize that the only humans that are going to outdo the rest, are the ones that are already here!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Based on your hypothetical above, I'm not sure you completely understand what the theory of evolution proposes.

 

[Gottservant]

Based on your hypothetical above, I'm not sure you completely understand what the theory of evolution proposes.

I'm just taking the assertion, at face value.

If monkeys can evolve humans, different monkeys can evolve different humans.

It's like the most basic interpretation, you can imagine?

 

[thecolorsblend]

I'm just taking the assertion, at face value.

If monkeys can evolve humans, different monkeys can evolve different humans.

It's like the most basic interpretation, you can imagine?

Okay, I'm out.

 

[Gottservant]

Okay, I'm out.

Don't give up! Just be realistic?

If anything is going to evolve, its going to be our technology - that's a great thing (we just have to drop this nonsense that monkeys somehow know what they are evolving).

Can the caterpillar use its cocoon, to become a better caterpillar? That's the same sort of silliness?

 

[DaisyDay]

If monkeys can evolve humans,

They can't.

That there is your problem - monkeys cannot evolve into human beings. Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor or two but they/we are contemporaneous. Monkeys evolved into monkeys and humans evolved into humans - the divergence has already happened millions of years ago.

 

[Gottservant]

They can't.

That there is your problem - monkeys cannot evolve into human beings. Monkeys and humans have a common ancestor or two but they/we are contemporaneous. Monkeys evolved into monkeys and humans evolved into humans - the divergence has already happened millions of years ago.

I don't mean to embarrass you, but you have posited a common ancestor, which under different conditions could have evolved different humans - as if the common ancestor being dead, limits Evolution.

A monkey could go back to being a common ancestor and then evolve a different human?

It's the same question, just in the changed context you presented.

 

[Freodin]

Hm, you know, the last time I went outside, I met quite a number of different humans. It was fascinating.

You should try it sometimes, Gottservant.

 

[Gottservant]

Hm, you know, the last time I went outside, I met quite a number of different humans. It was fascinating.

You should try it sometimes, Gottservant.

I am not saying I have a craving for difference in my fellow humans; I am saying you are saying the difference of humans is a progression which is not enough for anyone.

I told you the way out of my argument, that humans may evolve to be super, before monkeys or a common ancestor go back to something different.

Your understanding of selection pressures is like money in the bank: you can use it to justify any kind of change you like - that's not right.

Certainly not calling my God the greater monkey, is not right.

 

[Tanj]

Hi there,

So it occurred to me that I was making my argument against Evolution to complex, looking for the inner workings that just weren't there. I now realize the problem is very simple: you are suggesting that with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans - humans that are like monkeys, but that are nothing like us.

The argument neglects one thing, that humans might develop into super human beings, before monkeys evolve into different human beings - there would be a conflict between super humans and different humans?

These are two of the most sensible and reasonable paragraphs you have written on this board. Congratulations. There is in fact an interesting debate amongst some scientists as to what would happen if you rewind the clock and ran the world again, whether the same humans, different humans, or no humans would arise.

You are basically required to be paranoid, about how quickly other species might develop something better than human

Well given that the last time it happened it took 4 million years, I'd argue you don't have to be too paranoid.

 

[Gene2memE]

I don't mean to embarrass you, but you have posited a common ancestor, which under different conditions could have evolved different humans - as if the common ancestor being dead, limits Evolution.

If the environment were different, then different traits could have a positive impact on reproductive success. Thus, the species that developed from the last common ancestor of apes and humans could be different to the current human baseline.

This species wouldn't necessarily be 'human' though - how different from baseline do you need to go for something to be a 'different' type of human? That's a sort of Ship of Thesus philosophical question without a satisfactory answer.

A monkey could go back to being a common ancestor and then evolve a different human?

No. If things were different then things would be different. But the phrase 'go back to being a common ancestor' is nonsensical. Evolution only travels one direction.

Also, the last common ancestor of APES and monkeys was about 12 to 15 million years ago. Humans ancestors and other Great Apes diverged about 6 to 8 million years ago. Meaning your ideas about common ancestry are deeply flawed.

I think I understand what you're getting at, but your posts are so loaded with ill informed speculation, it's hard to tell.

 

[Sparagmos]

Hi there,

So it occurred to me that I was making my argument against Evolution to complex, looking for the inner workings that just weren't there. I now realize the problem is very simple: you are suggesting that with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans - humans that are like monkeys, but that are nothing like us.

The argument neglects one thing, that humans might develop into super human beings, before monkeys evolve into different human beings - there would be a conflict between super humans and different humans?

The whole thing hinges on whether you are satisfied with what you are already. For example, if selection pressures favoured being human but not super human, but monkeys still became different human beings, those different human beings might develop into super different human beings.

You are basically required to be paranoid, about how quickly other species might develop something better than human - because you can't let go of the idea that humans are already developed. If you didn't need to gratify your ego, you would realize that the only humans that are going to outdo the rest, are the ones that are already here!

Why would I be paranoid about something that could happen thousands, if not millions, of years after my death? And why would ego or fear or the lack thereof change the scientific fact of evolution?

Honestly- if you think you can challenge evolution, why aren’t you posting on science forums and asking the experts these questions?

 

[Skreeper]

Hi there,

So it occurred to me that I was making my argument against Evolution to complex, looking for the inner workings that just weren't there. I now realize the problem is very simple: you are suggesting that with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans - humans that are like monkeys, but that are nothing like us.

The argument neglects one thing, that humans might develop into super human beings, before monkeys evolve into different human beings - there would be a conflict between super humans and different humans?

The whole thing hinges on whether you are satisfied with what you are already. For example, if selection pressures favoured being human but not super human, but monkeys still became different human beings, those different human beings might develop into super different human beings.

You are basically required to be paranoid, about how quickly other species might develop something better than human - because you can't let go of the idea that humans are already developed. If you didn't need to gratify your ego, you would realize that the only humans that are going to outdo the rest, are the ones that are already here!

Vape on, brother! That weed you're using must be pretty spicy, you HAVE to tell me where to get it.

 

[Freodin]

I am not saying I have a craving for difference in my fellow humans; I am saying you are saying the difference of humans is a progression which is not enough for anyone.

I told you the way out of my argument, that humans may evolve to be super, before monkeys or a common ancestor go back to something different.

Your understanding of selection pressures is like money in the bank: you can use it to justify any kind of change you like - that's not right.

Certainly not calling my God the greater monkey, is not right.

No, Gottservant. As always, you are simply not listening to what other people say, just what the voices in your head tell you.

What I, humorously, tried to tell you was that humans already are different. And in some way, you have to deal with it. Xenophobia is a way, but it's not a happy one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,

So it occurred to me that I was making my argument against Evolution to complex, looking for the inner workings that just weren't there. I now realize the problem is very simple: you are suggesting that with a change in selection pressures, monkeys could give rise to different humans - humans that are like monkeys, but that are nothing like us.

The argument neglects one thing, that humans might develop into super human beings, before monkeys evolve into different human beings - there would be a conflict between super humans and different humans?

The whole thing hinges on whether you are satisfied with what you are already. For example, if selection pressures favoured being human but not super human, but monkeys still became different human beings, those different human beings might develop into super different human beings.

You are basically required to be paranoid, about how quickly other species might develop something better than human - because you can't let go of the idea that humans are already developed. If you didn't need to gratify your ego, you would realize that the only humans that are going to outdo the rest, are the ones that are already here!

We are super beings.
When I was in college in design class, we created body designs that were "improved" for humans. There are more than 2000 billionaires in the world today. Nobody has yet found any common body improvement that they agree on. Perhaps lasik surgery is more common, but that is still restorative. Billionaires have surgery done trying to get back to "normal" or natural. We are already as super as we can even think up.

God designed us to be just as super as we are.

 

[Ophiolite]

we just have to drop this nonsense that monkeys somehow know what they are evolving).

I want to work with you for a while to see if we can actually achieve communication, I wish to focus on this single sentence of yours.

What makes you think that some people believe that "monkeys somehow know what they are evolving"?

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't mean to embarrass you, but you have posited a common ancestor, which under different conditions could have evolved different humans - as if the common ancestor being dead, limits Evolution.

Evolution is limited, by time and lineages, among other things. Different humans did evolve, but we're the only ones left at this time.

A monkey could go back to being a common ancestor and then evolve a different human?

A monkey cannot "go back" to being what it is not. Different humans (e.g. Homo sapiens, Homo neanderthalensis) did evolve just as different monkeys did evolve.

It's the same question, just in the changed context you presented.

No, it isn't, but I don't think you understand that.

 

[DaisyDay]

You are basically required to be paranoid, about how quickly other species might develop something better than human

Other species have developed better than human - octopus eyes, seal's swimming ability, owl's hearing, cheetah's running, etc.

 

[JackRT]

I want to work with you for a while to see if we can actually achieve communication, I wish to focus on this single sentence of yours.

What makes you think that some people believe that "monkeys somehow know what they are evolving"?

No matter the species it is not individuals that evolve, it is populations that evolve.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A monkey could go back to being a common ancestor and then evolve a different human?

No.