There's no "Human Evolution," only PRE-human evolution!

[charles brough]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the almost two hundred thousand years we have been Homo Sapiens, anthropologists have been unable to demonstrate any significant further biological evolution.

So, why confuse the issue and claim "human evolution" when the evolution only evolved apes to us and we are not and have not evolved biologically?

In being objective in science it is important to ues terms in precise ways. Why should words be used to claim something that the anthropologists cannot demonstrate?

Oh, yes, they did conclude we are a little smaller in statue and our brain case is a triffle smaller, but if we count that, we imply that it explains "human progress" and it certianly does not, does it?


Its time to concentrate on social evolution to explain what is going on and quit fiddling around grasping for biological evolutionary straws that don't exist.

Why can't social theorists explain it without coming up with four to eight different conflicting theories?

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

 

[Cyperium]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the almost two hundred thousand years we have been Homo Sapiens, anthropologists have been unable to demonstrate any significant further biological evolution.

So, why confuse the issue and claim "human evolution" when the evolution only evolved apes to us and we are not and have not evolved biologically?

In being objective in science it is important to ues terms in precise ways. Why should words be used to claim something that the anthropologists cannot demonstrate?

Oh, yes, they did conclude we are a little smaller in statue and our brain case is a triffle smaller, but if we count that, we imply that it explains "human progress" and it certianly does not, does it?


Its time to concentrate on social evolution to explain what is going on and quit fiddling around grasping for biological evolutionary straws that don't exist.

Why can't social theorists explain it without coming up with four to eight different conflicting theories?

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com

If we in the future don't find ways to engage our brain then it will become less and less significant since there are less threats that can optimize it, if that happens then the brain will become smaller and smaller and we will probably get less smart too. Unless smartness is a way to get lucky

Perhaps in the future we will have to prove ourselves intelligently (or socially, or something else that depends on the functions of the brain). At least we will have to engage in how to properly set up machines...but I wonder if that is enough.

 

[spidergoat]

Some people have evolved adult lactose tolerance in the years since diary animals were domesticated. Most mammals grow out of this.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

....anthropologists have been unable to demonstrate any significant further biological evolution.

Wrong. Modern humans have been constantly evolving. See example below.

So, why confuse the issue and claim "human evolution" when the evolution only evolved apes to us….?

Wrong. Evolutionary theory does not state that we evolved from apes; it theorizes that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. That you do not comprehend this distinction speaks volumes for your understanding of the theory you are trying to discredit. :bugeye:

In being objective in science it is important to ues terms in precise ways.

LOL! The irony.

Why should words be used to claim something that the anthropologists cannot demonstrate?

Wrong. The evolution of modern humans has been amply demonstrated.

Oh, yes, they did conclude we are a little smaller in statue and our brain case is a triffle smaller, but if we count that, we imply that it explains "human progress" and it certianly does not, does it?

For a start, who are “they”? It’s a common implicit assertion of internet crackpots that there is some sort of global scientific orthodoxy that conspires to “rig” the world’s collective knowledge.

And yes, for the first time you have said something correct: heritable changes in stature and the size of the brain case in a population over time is evidence of evolution.

Its time to concentrate on social evolution to explain what is going on and quit fiddling around grasping for biological evolutionary straws that don't exist.

The world’s evolutionary scientists will take your suggestion under advisement.

Modern humans have been constantly evolving

Researchers at the University of Chicago, Illinois, have identified the regions of our genetic sequence that show the strongest marks of natural selection. Their work highlights the genes that have been most important in adapting to new lifestyles, and could help to identify the genetic factors involved in complex medical conditions such as high blood pressure and alcoholism.

Genes that show the most evidence of recent selection include those involved in milk digestion. Although most mammals drink milk only in infancy, humans seem to have adapted genetically to digest it throughout life.

Genes for skin pigmentation also bear the hallmarks of rapid evolution - highlighting the fact that many populations have become more fair-skinned as they have colonized more extreme latitudes with less sunshine.

It's a snip

The team used data from the International HapMap Project, which collates and maps out 'single-nucleotide polymorphisms' (SNPs). These are sites in the genome at which DNA varies between people by just a single letter of genetic code. The team sampled data from more than 200 unrelated individuals in three different racial groups: East Asians, Europeans and the Yoruba of Nigeria.

Genetic mutations that confer an advantage on a given population spread much faster than they would through natural, random mixing of genes. These portions of DNA should carry certain SNPs along with them as they are selected for over time. So if researchers find a string of SNPs that are mostly the same letters within a given population, they can say that the accompanying genes have come under strong selection pressure.

The method reveals changes that have occurred since various populations split to colonize different areas of the globe, says Jonathan Pritchard, who led the research published in the journal PLoS Biology.

Food and sex

Many of the genes that showed evidence of selection involve food metabolism, notes Pritchard. This shows that adapting to different diets has been a key trend in recent human evolution.

Around 20% of the genes identified showed evidence of selection in more than one of the populations. Chief among these were genes involved in reproductive processes such as sperm manufacture, showing that these were equally important in different settings.

All three racial groups showed equal amounts of recent evolution. This is interesting, says Pritchard, given that African populations have remained in the birthplace of our species, while others have moved away. Travelling populations might be expected to encounter challenges favouring more selection pressure than those that stay still.

But, notes Pritchard, the environment can change as much with time as it does with distance. "It is perhaps naive to think of Africans as staying 'in the same place'," he says.

Pritchard is not convinced by the predictions of some experts that advances in medicine will negate evolutionary pressures from now on. "Even today there is plenty of scope for natural selection, such as in genes that impact fertility or fetal survival."

References
Voight B. F., Kudaravalli S, Wen X. & Pritchard J. K.
PLoS Biol, 4 . e72 (2006).

 

[blobrana]

Sry,
i`m not qualified in this field, but i noticed this article a while ago.

"English Heritage studies have confirmed that Yorkshire men were not so much big heads - as round heads - in early medieval times.
Research on nearly 700 skeletons recovered from the deserted village of Wharram Percy, near Malton, North Yorkshire, has revealed a puzzling shift in men’s skull shapes between the 11th and 13th centuries."

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.11781

i only mention this because i think there are some interesting ideas put forward, which others may find useful.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Evolutionary theory does not state that we evolved from apes; it theorizes that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

No. Humans are apes. The taxonomy of primates has been normalized since the advent of DNA analysis.

Apes are the entire superfamily Hominoidea within the order Primata. There are two families of hominoids:

• Hylobatids or "lesser apes," which includes thirteen species of gibbons in four genera
• Hominids or "great apes," which includes six species in four genera: The orangutan in genus Pongo, the mountain gorilla and the lowland gorilla in genus Gorilla (this is subject to change, as the classification of species and subspecies of gorillas is still being sorted out), the chimpanzee and the bonobo in genus Pan, and the only living species of human in genus Homo

It is correct to say that modern humans and the other species of modern apes evolved from a common ancestor, but it is not correct to place humans apart from the apes.

Apes and Old World monkeys share a common ancestor, which differentiated from the New World monkeys 40 million years ago. The apes differentiated from the Old World monkeys 25 million years ago. The hominoids ("great apes") and hylobatids (gibbons) differentiated from each other within the ape superfamily 18 million years ago. The orangutans split off from the rest of the hominoids 12 million years ago; the gorillas did so 7 million years ago, and the early humans split off from the common ancestor of the chimpanzees and bonobos between 3 and 5 million years ago. I have not been able to find an estimated date of the chimpanzee/bonobo split, but this is in fact the most recent division within the apes, not the human speciation.

 

[aaronmark]

Kind of on subject: Why is there such an enormous developmental gap between humans and their closest relatives?

Not being well studied in this area, I would guess that there should be a smooth gradient of development in nature rather than distinct and isolated species if there is a common tree from which we're branching.

For example, humans invent things and wear clothing... why is there such a chasm that our closest relatives aren't inventing only slightly less (or more) elaborate tools, or gradually introducing clothing into their culture?

 

[K.FLINT]

Forcing Natures Hand.

Evolution in animals has happened because of enviromental needs, this can also be seen in humans who are also animals.

For example the elephant, manatee and a small furry animal called a rock hyrax are evolutions of the same animal and are all very different.

So to are humans different that were born in extremely hot or cold climents compared to those of moderate ones.

Scientists have forced evolution in the laboratory and created a new species of fruit fly.
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11147751/

also Scientists have created a butterfly hybrid.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13320805/

Through this one can see that the forcing of genetic evolution is a fact.
Insects, animals and humans follow the same code. Time or enviroment or right or wrong even a human breeding project can force natures hand.

 

[spidergoat]

Kind of on subject: Why is there such an enormous developmental gap between humans and their closest relatives?

Not being well studied in this area, I would guess that there should be a smooth gradient of development in nature rather than distinct and isolated species if there is a common tree from which we're branching.

For example, humans invent things and wear clothing... why is there such a chasm that our closest relatives aren't inventing only slightly less (or more) elaborate tools, or gradually introducing clothing into their culture?

We measure history in centuries or millenia, evolution usually takes millions of years. Actually, now that we have studied apes further, they are more like us than most people would like to admit. They have culture, make and use tools... The biggest difference is they never left the forest. Modern humans likely evolved in the Great Rift Valley, an area of varied ecosystems, in particular, open tree-dotted plains that required an upright stance to transverse the distances. It was probably just luck that we happened to find ourselves in circumstances that favored larger brains.

 

[charles brough]

Wrong. Modern humans have been constantly evolving. See example below.
Wrong. Evolutionary theory does not state that we evolved from apes; it theorizes that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. That you do not comprehend this distinction speaks volumes for your understanding of the theory you are trying to discredit. :bugeye:
LOL! The irony.
Wrong. The evolution of modern humans has been amply demonstrated.
For a start, who are “they”? It’s a common implicit assertion of internet crackpots that there is some sort of global scientific orthodoxy that conspires to “rig” the world’s collective knowledge.
And yes, for the first time you have said something correct: heritable changes in stature and the size of the brain case in a population over time is evidence of evolution.
The world’s evolutionary scientists will take your suggestion under advisement.

I just ran across this old post! It is so filled with mis-interpreting and, I hesitate to say, arrogance, that I must have, then, thought better of responding.

In my original post, I stated clearly that our evolution has not completely stopped but that it is not significant enough to explain the changes in human society in the last, let us say, some 40,000 years. Now, I don't think that is hard to understand! My point is that there is a natural selection process going on between societies that does explain it. Now, the author of that strange post seems to be unable to understand what social evolution could possibly be and seems totally uninterested. My post is for those who are.

The author seems to imply that the long description of minute health-related genetic changes by Dr. Prichard, a geneticist at Univ. Chicago is biological evolution and significant enough to account for "human progress." That implies the poster is saying that we are genetically more healthy than we were some 40,000 years ago. I don't believe that and I suspect Dr. Prichard doesn't either, but even if he is and we are, it does not explain the growth of human culture, our science/technology and hence our growth in numbers---in other words, "progress."

It does not explain the rise and fall of civilizations and does not explain human history. What can explain it is a natural selection between process going on between societies, not between individuals and non-genetically. (See http://atheistic-science.com) That is my point from the very beginning, and his long post above is all off in some other direction.

Also, the author apparently likes to quibble over such things as whether we evolved from ape-like primates or apes! Weren't ape-like primates "apes?" They were certainly not monkeys. Next, I suppose he will ask me if I think we evolved from the Gibbon---or the gorilla---or what? Can you imagine---he actually things I don't believe in evolution!! LOL

charles

 

[Ophiolite]

In my original post, I stated clearly that our evolution has not completely stopped but that it is not significant enough to explain the changes in human society in the last, let us say, some 40,000 years. Now, I don't think that is hard to understand! My point is that there is a natural selection process going on between societies that does explain it. Now, the author of that strange post seems to be unable to understand what social evolution could possibly be and seems totally uninterested. My post is for those who are.

Charles, you have now made your point clearly. It is a point with which I am confident Hercules would agree. It is a consensus view amongst anthropologists, as far as I am aware, that cultural evolution entered an accelerating phase over the last 30,000 years or so that led to the current complexity of modern civilisation. Biological evolution continues and will play an important role in the future of humanity. It accounts for the extraordinary cultural evolution in as much as it provided the entity, homo sapiens, that could engage in such evolution.

The problem is that your original post did not make your intent at all clear.
I read it and was left with the impression that you
a) denied any evolution was now affecting man.
b) that anthropologists claimed that biological evolution was responsible for the advances of the last 30000 years

Those points are wrong and that is what Hercules and others were addressing. You may have intended something else, but when several established, intelligent, perceptive members of the forum arrive at the same wrong interpretation it strongly suggests the error may have been with the author, not the reader. I'm glad you straightened it out.

 

[charles brough]

Thank Orphiolite,

These are direct quotes from my post: "significant further biological evolution."

and: "why should words be used to claim something that the anthropologists cannot demonstrate? ---that is, significant biological evolution.

It seems to me that if what further biological evolution we have undergone in the last 40,000 years cannot explain why we have "progressed," cannot explain why civilizations rise and fall, and cannot explain history, then it is reasonable to say there has not been enough further biological evolution to be significant---at least in the last 40,000 years.

In my first post, I mentioned 200,000 years because that seems to be the consensus among anthropologists that is when biologically modern man appeared. However, we know of a radical change in human social evolution occurred about 40,000 years, so it is reasonable to believe that further biological evolution did lead up to it.

charles,

 

[Betrayer0fHope]

The environment changes, the organisms (and rocks, as new studies find) evolve.

 

[fantasus]

A big question is "what is "evolution" anyway"? What do biologists and others mean by the word? does it mean 1:simply change? then it is almost a truism there is "evolution" since there will allways be change. Or does it mean 2:"improvement"? Then we have to find out the difference between the two, and get a new problem defining "improvement" (Some perhaps would avoid "improvement". Then chose "fittness" or whatever. I cannot see we can avoid a problem defining universally what evolution" is, regardless of definitions).
Example: Some nations have a very much higher ferility rate and population growth than others at the moment. Is it an example of modern human "evolution" or not?
I guess most biologists would say it´s not, since the reasons must be "development" and not "better genes" or "fitter popultations" - but how do we find out what the latter may be?

 

[Ophiolite]

Fantasus, you have asked some useful questions, but they are ones that already have well defined answers.
Evolution is neither of the two alternatives you have offered. You are correct in as much as it involves change, but it is not any change. It is most certainly not 'improvement', even if some of the changes lead to an organism that is 'fitter' for its current environment.
Evolution is defined as a change in the proportion of alleles within a population over time.
Since differing fertility rates within segments of the global human population are likely to cause such a change then that is, by definition, evolution.

And no, as should now be clear, evolution does not mean 'development'. To repeat and expand, it is the change in genotype brought about by environmental influences (internal and external) acting upon the phenotype.

 

[fantasus]

Did I miss something?

Fantasus, you have asked some useful questions, but they are ones that already have well defined answers.

Evolution is defined as a change in the proportion of alleles within a population over time.
Since differing fertility rates within segments of the global human population are likely to cause such a change then that is, by definition, evolution.

But then "change" is evolution, though a specific form of change(alleles). To talk about "evolution" in this sense seems to me to be comparable to talk about weather change. Of course there is differences in number of surviving offspring - off course the weather changes? Or is there something I missed?

 

[Dinosaur]

Starting on page 68 of the January 2008 issue of SciAm is an article discussing recent evolution of Homo Sapiens. An early part of that article.

Not only has Homo Sapiens been doing some major reshuffling since our species formed, but the rate of human evolution may, if anything, have increased. In common with other organisms, we underwent the most dramatic changes to our body shape when our species first appeared, but we continue to show genetically induced changes to our physiology and perhaps to our behavior.

The article claims that changes in skull & brain size will be minimal in the future. The SciFi concept of a larger brain with a higher forehead will not occur.

Examples of changes in the last 20,000 years or so include significant changes to our immune system & digestive capabilities.

 

[Cyperium]

For a start, who are “they”? It’s a common implicit assertion of internet crackpots that there is some sort of global scientific orthodoxy that conspires to “rig” the world’s collective knowledge.

And yes, for the first time you have said something correct: heritable changes in stature and the size of the brain case in a population over time is evidence of evolution.

"They" is the common knowledge. Who "they" is, is uncertain but is probably the people that spread the ideas that are worth listening too, since "they" talk for the masses.

Can't be sure though, but I do think there is a "they" out there

 

[Zap]

Dumb people and smart people can have virtually identical skeletons. Therefore I do not think that skeletal similarities of the earliest humans to ourselves indicates that there has been 'no' evolution in all the intervening time. It is possible that we have increased our general intelligence since then - until recently. In any event it seems now that we are peaking and starting in the other direction.

 

[Dinosaur]

Charles Brough: Did you make up the following?

During the almost two hundred thousand years we have been Homo Sapiens, anthropologists have been unable to demonstrate any significant further biological evolution.

It would surprise me if anthropologists are this dumb with regard to Homo sapiens evolution.

There is a lot more to evolution than obvious changes in body shape, which has not changed much in the last 150,000 years consider the following.

• Do you think that there were Orientals, White Caucasians, & Native American Indians in Africa where Homo Sapiens first appeared?
  
  
• One Sickle Cell gene results in resistance to a deadly form of malaria without causing Sickle Cell anaemia. The Sickle Cell gene originated in areas of Africa which have a lot of that lethal form of malaria. Coincidence or evolution ?
  
  
• Some modern Homo Sapiens cannot digest cows milk while others can. The presence/absence of this digestive ability is associated with parts of the world with & without dairy cows. Coincidence ?
  
  
• There are some who think that evolutionary changes 50,000 to 100,000 years ago resulted in our modern linguistic abilities. Note that our ability to learn a language is excellent up to the age of about 5 or 10 years & deteriorates as we becmome adults. This is due to what computer folks would call hard wired functions in our brains that we are born with.

I happen to know about the above, but am far from being an expert in either anthropology or evolution. I am sure that the experts can come up with many more examples of Homo Sapiens evolution in the past 20 to 50 thousand years.