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

spidergoat said:
I submit that humans are the most rapidly evolving species on the planet. Take a look at how unstable our phenotype is, our jaws are born misaligned most of the time, and that's why we need braces. This is a product of an incomplete transition between a forward sloping jawline, and the modern flat face. A stable species would have perfected that by now, especially since it affects eating habits.
Click to expand...

Well, there isn't exactly a whole lot of pressure on our genetics to correct it, since we have braces etc. to correct it.
 
Two somewhat recent articles on the subject that take polar opposite viewpoints:

Satoshi Kanazawa in a Psychology Today blog claims evolution pretty much came to a stop 10,000 years ago with the onset of agriculture.

Kanazawa, S, "Why human evolution pretty much stopped about 10,000 years ago", Psychology Today blog, 2008
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...lution-pretty-much-stopped-about-10000-years-


Kathleen McAuliffe in Discover Magazine writes on recent research that says exactly the opposite: The pace of evolution has vastly increased with the onset of agriculture.

McAuliffe, K, "They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To", Discover Magazine, March 2009
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to
 
Evolution steps along on two legs: diversification and cull (that's genetic population, not somatic, eh? both often involve geographic spread, consequent isolation etc).

From the diversification standpoint, we are in explosion mode as a species - radiating rapidly. From the cull standpoint, there are more arguments.

One major planetary-scale culling event was the wipeout of the Americans between 1500 and 1700; two continent's worth of human beings subjected to a series of plagues and other challenges that killed most of them, creating extreme differentials in reproduction and consequent culling.

It's only after the cull that evolutionary change becomes evident, usually. The people arguing for evolutionary stasis are arguing that culling is not happening and will no longer happen on a species significant scale. We can hope.
 
Last edited:
charles brough said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


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?


Why can't social theorists explain it without coming up with four to eight different conflicting theories?
Click to expand...
In order:

What about skin color, facial shape, stature (scandinavians, anyone?)?? Thats proof any human can come up with in three seconds.

From what I learned humans are getting larger because of better nutrition.

Because every social theorist wants his theory to be the greatest.
 
DRZion said:
In order:

What about skin color, facial shape, stature (scandinavians, anyone?)?? Thats proof any human can come up with in three seconds.

From what I learned humans are getting larger because of better nutrition.

Because every social theorist wants his theory to be the greatest.
Click to expand...

a social theorist is someone who has the guts and courage to stand up and admit they are speaking their own thoughts instead of pedaling some shit saying god told them to think that
 
Enmos said:
Well, there isn't exactly a whole lot of pressure on our genetics to correct it, since we have braces etc. to correct it.
Click to expand...

Correction, western industrial society has means to correct it, a luxury not afforded to much of the human race.
 
ripleofdeath said:
prove "no"
Click to expand...


Don’t have to. You made the positive statement, so the onus of proof is on you. I’ve never seen psychiatric conditions like ADHD or neurological conditions like autism cited as evidence of human evolution. But that doesn’t mean they’re not; I simply may have never come across the scientific literature that demonstrates how. So what have you got for us?
 
Hercules Rockefeller said:
Don’t have to. You made the positive statement, so the onus of proof is on you. I’ve never seen psychiatric conditions like ADHD or neurological conditions like autism cited as evidence of human evolution. But that doesn’t mean they’re not; I simply may have never come across the scientific literature that demonstrates how. So what have you got for us?
Click to expand...

i made a comment/statement.

you said i was wrong/disagreed with it.

NOTE: you did not say
"please explain your comment and tel me why you think this"
or any colloquialised simile.

you said "NO" .

thus "what is the point in bothering discussing it with you since you have already stated it is not possible in your reality ?

none really is it.

 
Chimps are superior to us in some ways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khe9bXT-OHE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrPb41hzYdw&feature=fvw

Well this is just cute...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuzUigpHjMU&NR=1

We happened to evolve in such a way that was more useful to obtain critical population mass and skills/abilities for the specialization of labour.

Enmos is right, we really aren't THAT much better than Chimps. It's just amazing what a few small advantages(and disadvantages) can make!
 
Last edited:
How about blue eyes? That is a trait that is only 5000 to 10,000 years old (look it up). Something about blue eyes made it successful for reproduction despite being recessive, whether it was merely attractiveness or something else. That's a mutation that has changed our bodies, at least for some of us like me.
 
It's sex - selected like a peacock's tail. Good point though. We are still going through...changes.

There's a thread somewhere about it. Actually a couple at least.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
No. Humans are apes. The taxonomy of primates has been normalized since the advent of DNA analysis....it is not correct to place humans apart from the apes.
Click to expand...
What! So........you're saying.................we've been livng on thte planet of the apes all along!:eek:
planet-of-the-apes-1968-20061208003013495.jpg
 
Ophiolite said:
What has that got to do with evolution? I'll answer for you. Practically nothing.
Click to expand...
Well, that's not really true. Everything effects evolution. The increase in available nutrition removes one selective pressure from populations in advanced western nations, but allows others to come into play. Such as the many maladies associated with obesity.
 
charles brough said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Click to expand...
So I presume you imply that the act of evolve does not include the psychological characteristics of the human species? Don't you think that maybe there is a more intrinsic connection between the psychological characteristics of our species and our physiological characteristics? In which case your point would then not be valid.


Besides, we did not evolve much in a social level. We still have several behaviors characteristic of our tribal eras. Our tools, thought different, haven't changed much our behaviors. Our behaviors are still essentially the same. Particularly when females are involved.... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top