Isn't evolution....?

[Willum]

So usually scientists are mocked for evolution because no one has even seen an ape transform into a man.

Though this would be countered by watching caterpillars transform into butterflies, antlions into lacewings, grubs to beetles, tadpoles to frogs, and so on, if science didn't point out to Jews and Christians that these were the same animal.

But if we examine this with the "giving the religious what they want," approach:
Isn't simply learning something an example of evolution? Putting on muscle mass - is that not an evolution, in the broadest sense?

Is not Joe Piscopo a very different animal now than when he was on SNL?
As we learn and grow in response to the environment, are we not evolving exactly as a religious person would say we must, in order for evolution to be true, according to their standards?

Even, in some sense, by scientific standards? Animals have adopted with different characteristic within regions, and remain the same species.

So isn't all of this really, all part of the same picture. Adaptation leads to advantage, advantage leads to acclimatization, acclimatization leads to evolution in the technical sense... but are they really different?

I propose that learning and musculature are both an example of and a result of evolution.

Counters?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 19 by H.sapiens]

Wow, somebody didn't read the point counter-points!

I think if you did, you would find no need to be insulting - and, like it or not, Joe's DNA, all our DNA changes in time, from when we were born, sorry I didn't write that in my opening, but I had since learned this - after the headscratcher posited by this OP.

You didn't add anything to the topic we didn't cover, but you were demeaning, thanks!

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 21 by Willum]

It seems to me that the problem is with the original statement: No one has seen an ape become a man.
Evolution does NOT claim that apes evolve into humans. That is a misconception of the anti-evolutionists. Anyone who make that claim either does not understand the concepts of human evolution or may be purposely setting up a "straw man" argument to knock down.
Human evolution states that man and the living apes all descended, millions of years ago, from a common ancestor. An ancestor whose progeny diverged into different evolutionary tracks.
Perhaps a better example for someone who does not quite understand human evolution would be this:
Consider cousins. Cousins have all descended from the same ancestor. They are related. But we would not say that any particular cousin evolved form any other cousin.
The idea that humans descended from apes is simply a misunderstanding of the theory. No need to try to get around it.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 22 by Joe1950]

Well, yes, but a better argument is vox poplularum, give the people what they want:

Christian irrationally want to see a man become an ape, because that is how CHRISTIANS want evolution to be defined, give 'em what they want.

Men don't become apes, or contrary-wise, but our genes change during the course of our life-time.

Since this is what they want evolution to be, let it be evolution to them! Apes don't become men in the course of a life-time, but they do become different apes then they were before.
And if a change occurs between procreations, is that not in-line with the principle, if not current definition (which can change), of evolution?

V/R

PS, Joe, you have great insights.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

It is correct to see evolution as something which involves changes which can be observed the way you have exampled.

What makes human beings outstanding in this regard is that they have the right form for the job, and while it is not too different from the apes, it is so different that there is no observable path left behind in order to show us exactly what the process was and why humans have changed so much more dramatically than any other critter on the planet.

Does this mean 'GOD' must have been involved? Well there is the dilemma really - defining a GOD which could do this without bringing all the religious dross into the equation.

Which is why I think of GOD as consciousness, and in relation to this universe, consciousness within forms.

It is why I like the idea that the earth is a self conscious self aware living entity and without that, no life forms could have come to be, on the face of the planet.

Sure, there are the obvious other necessities, most obvious, the sun. But if a self aware entity can exist within a planet, then such can exist within the sun, and we do not know how much, if any, encoded data exists in the light the sun produces which also may contribute to the way in which forms are shaped.

[center]Image 1 - Image 2
[/center]
If such an Entity exists within the framework of the Solar System, as a direct reason for life evolving on the planet, then that would be the first place to look in relation to ideas of GOD, why they form in the minds of humans and what might occur in relation to evolution in relation to the mind of a planet.

Transhumanism is the next step in this ongoing story of evolution, and this explains better than anything I have yet seen as to why humans have the form they do in relation to intelligent purpose and design, in this universe, specific to life on earth.

The human form is adequate to a point, but is not the final step in the procedure. The procedure is far-sighted and the animal form is not the final one the GOD is interested in developing.

There is much yet to do and all the time in the universe in which to do it.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by William]

What makes human beings outstanding in this regard is that they have the right form for the job, and while it is not too different from the apes, it is so different that there is no observable path left behind in order to show us exactly what the process was and why humans have changed so much more dramatically than any other critter on the planet

There is an observable path that differentiated us. Look no further than Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus. The fossil record paints a clear path. We pretty much have it all painted out in which process allowed us to grow larger brains(we started eating meat). Humans have not changed more dramatically tha any other critter.

[William]

[Replying to post 25 by DanieltheDragon]

Humans have indeed changed dramatically from Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus.

But to your point about there being a clear picture, I can go along with that as it doesn't take away from anything else I said in my post.

Perhaps it could be argued that humans 2000 years ago were dramatically different from humans today, even that they had the same biological outfit, same sized brains etc...so the difference in why they were not using computers way back then has to do with something other than biological evolution.

That, at least, can be traced accurately enough.

One day there won't be human beings in meat-sacks anymore. The purpose of the human form is very obvious in our present age.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 25 by DanieltheDragon]

Humans have indeed changed dramatically from Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Erectus.

But to your point about there being a clear picture, I can go along with that as it doesn't take away from anything else I said in my post.

Perhaps it could be argued that humans 2000 years ago were dramatically different from humans today, even that they had the same biological outfit, same sized brains etc...so the difference in why they were not using computers way back then has to do with something other than biological evolution.

That, at least, can be traced accurately enough.

One day there won't be human beings in meat-sacks anymore. The purpose of the human form is very obvious in our present age.

Yes we are differentiated enough from Heidelbergensis and others hence why we are Homo sapiens just like elephants are differentiated enough from Mastadons. Humans are not special in this regard.

The complexity of tool use in humans is unrelated to evolution there are many folks who choose to live less advanced lifestyles I.e Amish Menonites etc.

What is the obvious reason for meat sacs?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 26 by William]

Perhaps it could be argued that humans 2000 years ago were dramatically different from humans today, even that they had the same biological outfit, same sized brains etc...so the difference in why they were not using computers way back then has to do with something other than biological evolution.

This is simply due to the progression of technological development and the increase in collective human knowledge. It wasn't possible to build a computer 2000 year ago because there was no understanding of electronics, but it was possible to build a chariot pulled by horses with wheels, metal armour, and a slew of other items which constituted technology at the time.

The development of technology has been exponential as the human population has also grown exponentially, and this is especially true since the industrial revolution began. When I wrote my first Fortran program in 1976 we had to fight for keypunch machines and wait 15-30 minutes for a paper printout, and just a few years later when PCs came out memory was measured in Kbytes and clock speeds in single-digit MHz. Now smartphones have GB of memory and GHz clock speeds, and I read just today that 90% of all of the digital data that exists today was created in just the last 2 years.

So the reason we have computers today and they didn't 2000 years ago is not at all a mystery. The pace of technological development has been exponential, as has the accumulation of human knowledge. There is no indication that this process is slowing down. In 2000 years the people of today would no doubt not recognize the technology around them than the people of 2000 years ago would recognize what we have today. We do have the same basic brain as homo sapiens of 2000 years ago, but the knowledge available to us when we are born and start learning is vastly greater than was available to humans 2000 years ago.

[Joe1950]

2000 years is not a long time. Significant genetic differences between populations take a much longer time, I think. In other words, people who lived 2 or 4 or 5 thousand years ago are essentially the same in terms of intellect, abilities, as people who live today. Of course, there is a wide range of variation within the human family.

A good point about technology. Technology, at least in the more highly industrialized regions , is advancing at a tremendous pace. When I was a kid we read the "Dick Tracy" comics every Sunday. He had this amazing wrist radio with a picture screen on it! Today we have gone well beyond anything Dick Tracy fans could have imagine!

The problem, as I see it, is that while we are advancing as a species in the area of technology, we are not advancing in other areas. We have vast scientific knowledge yet still cling to centuries old myths. We fully understand the processes of evolution, the genetic code to some extent, can travel into space. Yet we cling to old myths. It is as though the human race has a split personality.

Our technological advances have led to fantastic qualities of life for many. At the same time, the weapons of war have become more and more precise and brutal. We seems to be in a constant battle between using our technology for good or evil. ( I define "good" as benefiting people by enhancing their lives, and "bad" as producing misery for people.)

[William]

[Replying to post 28 by DrNoGods]

The complexity of tool use in humans is unrelated to evolution there are many folks who choose to live less advanced lifestyles I.e Amish Menonites etc.

The choice to limit use of tools is not reflective of biological evolution. The use of tools and advancing in complexity re tools is part of the process of evolution and cannot honestly be separated from the evolution of the tool designer and user.

What is the obvious reason for meat sacs?

To eventually create tooled forms which can withstand the rigors of the universe for much longer than the meat sacks and generally out-perform the meat sacks as device.

Meat sacks are a tool themselves and perfect for the job.

Or, said more appropriately, the human form is a tool for consciousness to use to create better tools, and is perfect for that task.

Biological forms are part of a process not the end of a process. Evolution continues and we would do well to understand that we are not at the end of the story - we are more near the very beginning of it.