"Human Evolution is Over"

by JanH 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  IslandWoman

  Jan,

  Mankind continues to be an anomaly. We determine our own course, we now defy evolution and can determine our own destiny, albeit in a limited way. The universe continues in its set course, the animals on earth for thousands of years have continued in their set course, but man does not. Why is it that only man has the intelligence and ability to change not only his environment but also his whole way of life at will?

  Also, is this the final lesson of evolution: all is well until an intelligence emerges which has the potential to eventually destroy itself and much of life with it, resulting in a repetitive cycle; the emerging of lower life forms?

  I am not trying in any way to make some point here, what I am interested in is your opinion on this.

  Thanks,
  IW
• 

  JanH

  Dw,

  Mans brain is trying to figure out whats outside and inside himself, which is very crucial to next steps of evolution. Can't you see it.
  Just think about it for a while, and you see it clearly.

  I see clearly, and you are right and wrong. You are right that the progress we see and are making ourselves can be called evolution, and that this is the important thing going on with humans now. It is social learning. Take a newborn baby out of our civilization and into a (theorietical) primitive society living like humans did thousands of years ago, and nothing developed over the last centuries in art, science, knowledge will remain in that person when s/he grows up.

  It has nothing to do with biological evolution. It doesn't change the makeup of our bodies. Evolution only works if a favorable genetic change is brought on to the offspring. Obviously, this is not happening very much now. In fact, since science keeps alive almost everybody today, it is quite likely that humans after some generations will be less able to fight disease if modern science should disappear.

  There is no evolutionary pressure to select for intelligence, artistic talent, healthy bodies, etc, if those without special advantages are equally likely to bring their genes on to the next generation as those with them.

  In fact, it is not unlikely that intelligent people (IQ wise) actually have less children today than less intelligent people. If that is the case, evolution will cause a downward trend in intelligence. For now, advantages in nutrition and health (and better childcare) far outweighs variations in inherited intelligence. Thus, we see an increase in intelligence as measured in IQ tests in the western world. That may not continue to be the case always.

  - Jan
  --
  - "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
• 

  willy_think

  Jan,
  I can't buy that. The article doesn't address Genetic Drift and other evolutionary factors. I get the feeling the author sees evolution occurring only as jumps or abrupt changes in the population. while I see all changes as evolutionary.

  The Great and Powerful Oz:
  

  pay no attention to the man behind the curtain
• 

  JanH

  willy,

  I can't buy that. The article doesn't address Genetic Drift and other evolutionary factors.

  The article discussed the western world specifically. In our parts of the world, we have a huge population making up a gene pool. As Muir and others have made clear, significant evolutionary change tends to take place in smaller, isolated populations.

  Naturally, since genetic drift is a random process, it is really only important in quite small populations. In a population of a billion or more, I doubt it is a factor at all. But if you have references showing the opposite, I'd be interested in learning about it.

  The synthetic theory of evolution does not discount other mechanisms than natural selection, it merely states that natural selection is the most important mechanism. This is very well supported by the evidence. Perhaps we should add "unnatural selection" as a mechanism? In that case, we may well be able to talk about evolution again.

  I get the feeling the author sees evolution occurring only as jumps or abrupt changes in the population.

  I don't interprete it that way at all. Evolution is not about "abrupt" changes unless you consider 50,000 years a short time. If you mean substantual changes, then I agree with you. I think those scientists were well aware that small adjustements in the gene pool will never stop (not as long as there are humans around).

  while I see all changes as evolutionary.

  Genotype changes are. Other changes are not biological evolution, as I have gone to great pains explaining in this thread. That people like using the word "evolution" for things other than biological evolution is fine, and nobody has a monopoly on this word, but the scientists refered to in the article did talk about darwinian evolution, so it is hardly sensible to criticize them if you chose to operate with a different definition of "evolution."

  - Jan
  --
  - "How do you write women so well?" - "I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability." (Jack Nicholson in "As Good as it Gets")
• 

  D wiltshire

  With reguards to Genotype of evolutionary changes how would we know whats going on unless we understood the DNA code much better than we do now?

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  plmkrzy

  Pardon me. I don't know anything about science but the therory of evolution has always been strange to me. My room-mate is a believer in evolution we talk about it sometimes. I have a couple of questions that one of you could probably answer for me if you wouldn't mind. There simple it think.
  1) Lets say that we did decend from apes a million or so yrs ago.
  Why did the evolution process stop? And if no one thinks that it did stop then why don't we see it continuing today? I mean in regards to apes not humans.

  2)Didn't the theory that we came from apes start whit the discovery of ancient fossils found that couldn't be identified?
  Couldn't they have just been another form of life that existed with other pre-historic creatures like dino's? Maybe they were a life form of their own and were wiped out with the dino's?
  I just think that there are more possibilities for there existance then just evolution.
  plm
• 

  D wiltshire

  Plm,

  Why don't you start a thread about that, because it is kinda off topic.

  If someone lived a trillion X longer than you, and had a billion X more reasoning ability would he come to the same conclusions as you?
• 

  gravedancer

  ...we now defy evolution and can determine our own destiny, albeit in a limited way. The universe continues in its set course, the animals on earth for thousands of years have continued in their set course, but man does not. Why is it that only man has the intelligence and ability to change not only his environment but also his whole way of life at will?

  Am I the only one who sees man directing his future as evolution? Accelerate it, morph it, secure it....its just another progression in our evolution.