Evolution Since Human Intervention

[Profpat]

Around 60,000 years ago, a man—genetically identical to us—lived in Africa. Every person alive today is descended from him. How did this real-life Adam wind up as the father of us all? What happened to the descendants of other men who lived at the same time? And why, if modern humans share a single prehistoric ancestor, do we come in so many sizes, shapes, and races?

The above came from the internet, an Amazon book review.

Here is the thought or the question: Why?

There are different types of great apes, and there are diffent types of dolphins and elephants, why are there no different types of man anymore? Have we, man, reached the evolutionary high point? Or is 60,000 years a very small time period when talking about evolution? Will a second type of man evolve, one with a third eye or telepathic powers? I guess if we need it we will, but I don't know that we need anything else that we haven't had for the past 60,000 years. Now is it microevolution, where we attempt to perfect the mind, body, spirit we presently have?

Best,

Pat

[labelwench]

Human evolution, or anthropogenesis, is the origin and evolution of Homo sapiens as a distinct species from other hominids, great apes and placental mammals. The study of human evolution encompasses many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics and genetics.[1]

The term "human" in the context of human evolution refers to the genus Homo, but studies of human evolution usually include other hominids, such as the Australopithecines. The genus Homo had diverged from the Australopithecines by about 2.3 to 2.4 million years ago in Africa.[2][3] Scientists have estimated that humans branched off from their common ancestor with chimpanzees - the only other living hominins - about 5–7 million years ago. Several species of Homo evolved and are now extinct. These include Homo erectus, which inhabited Asia, and Homo neanderthalensis, which inhabited Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.

The dominant view among scientists concerning the origin of anatomically modern humans is the "Out of Africa" or recent African origin hypothesis,[4][5][6][7] which argues that H. sapiens arose in Africa and migrated out of the continent around 50-100,000 years ago, replacing populations of H. erectus in Asia and H. neanderthalensis in Europe. Scientists supporting the alternative multiregional hypothesis argue that H. sapiens evolved as geographically separate but interbreeding populations stemming from a worldwide migration of H. erectus out of Africa nearly 2.5 million years ago.

The above from Wikipedia.

In reflecting on the nature of our species, I really have to chuckle on occasion.

So many cannot even balance their chequebook, and yet we would contemplate the origin of our species, and the origin of the universe.

[Graybeard]

Evolution since Human Intervention

The purpose of this thread is to invite an examination of the process of evolution

At some point in our history, our intervention in the process of natural evolution has dramatically impacted the acceleration of change, and I might suggest we have skewed much of the balance of co-evolution in this regard.

Lloyd, I agree with the first post. I just don't agree with its emphasis.

Greg, I'm completely with you on the scientific side of evolution, but your language use is too loose, which allows gigantic mis-interpretations, just as this last statement; 'Evolution has no fore-ordained course or plan'__Then why does it keep producing galaxies of similarity, over and over and over?

Because it is evolving within the Laws of Physics. Its random process is conditional on previous events. It is following the course of a fractal, which I see as 'almost symmetrical', but not quite.

I just don't think you can use that word, evolution, with any precision__without massive qualifiers, as it's far too nebulous a concept, with the subject material as Lorrina has premised this thread__What is our influence on evolution since the hunter-gatherer days...? This forces the subject to be discussed in two evolutionary states__the universe and mans... We've certainly evolved new cures for diseases, or we'd all be dead, with this much population__That's certainly pre-planning evolution. You can call it reaction, but it's also planning... Most anything said with the subject premised as Lorrina has premised it is bound to have dual meanings and interpretations, thus requiring clear linguistic qualifiers__or else you've just got argument...

You can't narrow the premise of someone elses thread, and expect respect...

I don't see how I can 'narrow the thread' and yet at the same time my language is 'to loose' and requires 'massive qualifiers'. I think you are misinterpreting me, possibly my fault.

We still have our minor control within the uncontrollables__that doesn't mean we can walk through fire.

But I had already said this, 'Inside the system we have our local effect, which triggers a local response, which triggers a local effect .... and so on.

That statement would be false, as I am inside the over-arching system of evolution, but still have my individual control over self, and possibly someday over the evolved man made systems... You don't have to be a god to be in control of certain private evolutions... You're just painting with far too broad a brush...

I don't know where you'd sell that radical an idea...? Self-control has been known about since the Code of Hammurabi... That's a simple law code of man's control over his otherwise highly irrational evolutionary nature...

We also have our local control__Law codes over killer actions__Local cops and global militaries__Fully planned evolutions...

Once again, I said the same, 'Inside the system we have our local effect, which triggers a local response, which triggers a local effect .... and so on.

Because you have tried to narrow the premise of the thread to your own narrow perspective, which is counter to the premise of the thread__Mans influence on evolution...

My own perspective may be counter to the thread in debate, but it is still allowable, or are we not to disagree in threads ? And it may be narrow, inasmuch as anything may be the reality, but only one thing is the reality.

To make it easier, and not too narrow, nor too pedantic, nor too anal ......

Man's influence on the process of Natural Selection is no more than any other Mammal. We only think it is ... because we think that, 'we can think outside the box' ... but our thoughts ... those that we consider 'outside the box' ... physically take place within the box. We are not outside Nature, and therefore our acts, our influences, our 'control' are all within Nature.

What you see as consciousness, awareness, a unique ego in control of its destiny ... I see as ripples in emergent behaviour. No more. I also see the conduits that emergent behaviour evolves within as Genes and Memes.

Nothing changes, no Laws are outraged or broken. Its an alternate view that meets the known facts just as much, ( in fact I believe more) as yours does. You see Man as a central hub looking out along the spokes, a Copernican viewpoint. I see Man as a grain of sand being eroded and shaped by the tides. Powerless to do anything but make himself as comfortable as he can in the temporary situation in which he finds himself. And that comfort in the main, comes from the belief that if things get too bad, too uncomfortable, he can alter them. Within a local Universe he can, but only locally, and indeterminately.

I am well aware (lol) that on this forum this is not a popular viewpoint. But also you should note that I do not relate my posts to my role as Moderator. I try my absolute best to moderate without any bias from 'cool bananas ... greg'. Truly !!

In any case, I take no offence from you Lloyd, as I know that your science is sound ... so, feel free to tear my posts apart, as I will do yours .....

cool bananas ... greg

[Graybeard]

I believe my quote above agrees with your observation that both competition and co-operation serve selfish goals, Greg.

Evolution is change, is it not? Genes and memes, our bio-chemistry and our learned behavior, are they not part of the evolutionary process? But not consciousness? Do I misunderstand you?

Perhaps you will enlighten me......?

And why the scowl? The SEG suits you much better. In my opinion....

Yes ... sorry about this late response ... I do agree with you .... and also Lloyd, but he just doesn't see it ... lol.

The grumpy devils were a typo and I have fixed them.

cool bananas ... greg

[Lloyd Gillespie]

I just don't agree with your ideas of reducing man to mammal, and stating no difference Greg. To me that's just intellectual paganism, and we've since evolved far above that view. Intellect changes mind states, to new mind states__That's natural selection by man/woman__To truly improve mental evolutions__To think otherwise is foolish/childish. We've evolved far above mammal's mental conditions, by our personal/individual natural selections. It's all still within nature__No-one's outside it Greg. It's also a rational calculation of the truths concerned__trouble is, most people have just forgot how to do the simple rational calculations, to find necessary conditions and ideals of sound truths...

And certainly you are always allowed different views, but I'm not gonna try to understand you__You're not even within either scientific or common sense views. You're way too far away from accepted reality, for me...

See ya,

[austintorn@aol.com]

When the environment changes, whether by man, the weather or climate, certain organisms who just happen to be resistant can then flourish while the remainder perish, such as when man used pesticides to protect crops.

[Graybeard]

I just don't agree with your ideas of reducing man to mammal

This is an odd statement. We are Mammals. What your really saying here is that it is a given that we are 'greater in some aspect or ability', what else can it possibly mean ? This is a presumption without evidence.... you are stating this 'a priori'. A priori knowledge or justification is independent of experience (for example 'All bachelors are unmarried')

Can you provide an example of anything, any trait, that is uniquely human, that no other mammal or creature can demonstrably possess ? I will try to show you that this trait exists in other mammals, or even other species.

You see Man as on a road of descent, having fallen from some previous high ... I see Man as in total ascent, at this moment having reached our highest pinnacle given our starting condition.

cool bananas ... greg

[labelwench]

Can you provide an example of anything, any trait, that is uniquely human, that no other mammal or creature can demonstrably possess ? I will try to show you that this trait exists in other mammals, or even other species.
Originally posted by Greybeard

If I were to suggest an example, it would be that we are a mammalian species with the ability to create new species by inserting the genes of one into another. We still are limited by the need to work with what exists in nature, yet we are able to make modifications that would not otherwise occur through the usual mechanisms of cross-pollination, cross-breeding or mutation.

We, ourselves, are a product of natural selection and evolution, and so this is a 'normal' thing to undertake.

Yet, it is my perception, that, by our ever increasing talents and tools, we are able to accelerate the introduction (and extinction) of species, at a rate that has not been witnessed before.

Other perspectives invited.....

[austintorn@aol.com]

Evolution is the way the Universe fullfills its "Potential". It's "Potential" is to be all it can be, by becoming more then it was before. "Potential", is nether an Intelligent design or goal, it is just a "Fullfillment".

Intelligence is just a Factor of Potential being Fullfilled.
DNA is just a Factor of Potential being Fullfilled.
This is why Creation is Intelligent.

The potential of becoming more than it was is because substance is not inert, for the simple[some of it] always seems to combine and recombine, up and up. Does it have to? Maybe. While some may think that this doesn't say much, it's probably because there's not much to say at the simple level.

[Profpat]

" Can you provide an example of anything, any trait, that is uniquely human, that no other mammal or creature can demonstrably possess ? I will try to show you that this trait exists in other mammals, or even other species."

" Opposing thumbs and the ability to procreate humans " from my internet research. But while some animals may be able to make the most primitive of tools or display a rudimentary awareness, they don't construct Cathedrals or write books.

I believe there is a BIG difference between Man and "dumb" animals Greg, which I think is obvious.

Best to you,

Pat