You have missed nothing, but you don't appear to have understood it.
The changes are genetic. There are many other genetic changes that have occured over the past ten thousand to one hundred thousand years. This is very well established. You can choose to be ignorant of that if you wish.
Your irritable comments seem to be to the effect that genetic evolution started us "on the road" to culture and civilization. What is this "road to" explanation mean?
The 'road' is the behavioural pathway from a lifestyle akin to other primates such as the chimpanzee to today's complex, global civilisation.
Correct.
As previously noted, the evolution of abilities such as language skills and complex tool making, perhaps complemented by environmental changes, provided the basis and the impetus for a progressive deepening and broadening of knowledge and skill sets embedded in the culture. (Humans, empowered by their genetic heritage became the first animals to have an efficient means of converting tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge.)
Charles, you made the statement (it's in the title) There's no human evolution only pre-human evolution.
Yes. So why don't you focus on discussing that instead of making utterly false and inaccurate statements. If you want to make a thread titled "Most if not all human evolution over the past 40,000 years has had no significant influence on the emergence of complex culture and civilisation." then I would be in complete agreement. But that is not what you chose to do.
The use of the word 'upper' implies that you think organisms evolve in a direction and that there are advanced organisms that are somehow better than primitive organisms. Such concepts have no place in a discussion on evolution, so this question is irrelevant.
We cannot readily predict major changes that might require tens of millions of years to evolve. We can say that ears into wings is unlikely. So far no winged animal has evolved a wing from their ears.
They would do that for two reasons: a) a series of changes, brought about by mutations, would provide a competitive advantage in a particular environment. b) the environment would change over time in a way that favoured evolution of the feature affected by the mutation.
You are confusing cultural evolution with biological evolution.
All this time we have been arguing over nothing. You agree our "progress" was not genetic since about 40,000 and I agree that my title was misleading.
No charles, we were arguing over your abyssmally poor choice of title and your blatant inability to perceive how wrong it was as evidenced by your savaging of Hercules Rockefeller's excellent rebuttal of your poorly thought out post.
You know, you are really weird! All you seem able to do is create a tirade and leash an unending diatribe of abuse. I am getting bored with it and give up expecting something intelligent and civil out of you.
