How long before the next set of humans evolve from (anything)?

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

 

[Bodhi]

the problem with this view is the biased focus on similarities and the ignoring of the differences.

Of course there are differences to expect. Explain the problem you have with that. And don't forget to answer my question about observing i.d. I want to know about that one

 

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

We spend very little time adapting to those things due to houses, cars and the like. We're not changing much physically.

Houses and cars are examples of the changing environment.

 

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

We spend very little time adapting to those things due to houses, cars and the like. We're not changing much physically.

Houses and cars are examples of the changing environment.

You saying we're going to adapt to the controlled environments of those things? What possible changes could be evoked?

Modern houses better protect humans from the climate, and cars reduce the amount of foot travel for humans.

A likely environmental example is modern obesity.

Another example--that's likely to be a product of selective breeding--is how humans have been getting taller.

 

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

We spend very little time adapting to those things due to houses, cars and the like. We're not changing much physically.

Houses and cars are examples of the changing environment.

You saying we're going to adapt to the controlled environments of those things? What possible changes could be evoked?

Modern houses better protect humans from the climate, and cars reduce the amount of foot travel for humans.

A likely environmental example is modern obesity.

Another example--that's likely to be a product of selective breeding--is how humans have been getting taller.

Height isn't very significant

Subjective.

 

[Rock_Well]

Because that just so happen to be the number that the question allows.

take however many a number you need.

Then proceed to the next question: "How much longer before a('nother) verifiable example of (x number) of human beings evolving into existence, independent of any outside intelligence, comes along?"

another point: we have countless examples of human-kind and and animal-kind being begat by like kinds of it's own.

ie. cows begetting cows, cats begetting cats, birds begetting birds, etc.

we have no examples of ANY-KIND evolving, coming to existence, from a KIND other than it's own. ie: no frogs, that grew up to be little boys later.

Also, we have no examples of ANY-KIND evolving, coming to existence, independent of any outside intelligence, than that which occurs doing say the natural mating process.

Well first of all, your question doesn't make any sense by supposing that only two humans would pop up out of some kind of simple form unrelated to the species that humans evolved from, unable to mate with like animals, natural selection steering the path of evolution towards larger brains and other qualities that make humans beings human. Honestly, I think you should study the topic a little more before you attempt to debate it.

You can look back and see fossil evidence of the evolutionary path of animals; elephants and horses in example. Evolution takes years and years, more than the span of your lifetime to actually see it take place in front of your eyes.

The initial question asks about the first man and where did the first man come from. Pretty straight forward. But the question, so far in this thread, has been dodged. Of course the question doesn't make sense when it is assumed that one thing evolves from another even though this assumption has never been proven factual. how do we know evolution to be factual if it cannot be observed? you admit evolution takes more than the span of the person lifetime to actually see it take place.

you also mention the fossil record.

"That a known fossil or recent species, or higher taxonomic group, however primitive it might appear, is an actual ancestor of some other species or group, is an assumption scientifically unjustifiable, for science never can simply assume that which it has the responsibility to demonstrate. — It is the burden of each of us to demonstrate the reasonableness of any hypothesis we might care to erect about ancestral conditions, keeping in mind that we have no ancestor alive today, that in all probability such ancestors have been dead for many tens or millions of years, and that even in the fossil record they are not accessible to us." Gareth V. Nelson, "Origin and Diversification of Teleostean Fishes," Annals, New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, p. 27.

So scientifically, it is not possible to prove any assumed evolutionary phylogeny concerning the fossil record.

I have a question for you though: In what way can we observe any outside intelligence playing any part in the evolutionary process? Other than the Bible telling you so, where do you get this idea?

say a botanist produces a new species of plant. Assuming things evolve from one thing to the next, it's just a matter of time before this plant would evolve, no?

 

[Rock_Well]

Obviously, evolution and natural selection are better theories than the intelligent design theory. Unlike the God theory, we can actually observe evolution taking place.

Evolution takes years and years, more than the span of your lifetime to actually see it take place in front of your eyes.

oh yea?

 

[Rock_Well]

the problem with this view is the biased focus on similarities and the ignoring of the differences.

Of course there are differences to expect. Explain the problem you have with that. And don't forget to answer my question about observing i.d. I want to know about that one

human and chimps are genetically distinct from one another, and it doesn't matter how far back in time you go, the fact is it has never been genetically proven that humans and chimps share even a common ancestor, contrary to what your high school teacher might've told you. surprise!

 

[Bodhi]

human and chimps are genetically distinct from one another

of course they are. They're different animals

 

[Bodhi]

say a botanist produces a new species of plant. Assuming things evolve from one thing to the next, it's just a matter of time before this plant would evolve, no?

Do you observe a God creating new species of flora/fauna every day? Where in your life are you observing any outside intelligence?

 

[Bodhi]

The initial question asks about the first man and where did the first man come from. Pretty straight forward. But the question, so far in this thread, has been dodged.

the question has already been answered. You could understand it if you knew how to comprehend what you're reading. The first man evolved from man's ancestors. it doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

[Bodhi]

"Despite their obvious differences, humans and chimpanzees share 98 percent of their DNA; a difference of only 2 percent accounts for the distinction between the two species (the difference between humans and gorillas is 3 percent). Likewise, on the genetic level, natural selection seems to explain how mutations in genes, which are random but arise naturally, can be selected out and hence create new varieties within living beings. Genetic mutation is also thought to be the engine for evolution at the molecular level. And natural selection is seen as the mechanism that favors the development of neural groups (transmitters, receptors, and so forth), which give rise to the individuality and variability of each brain and, on the level of species, to the special qualities of human consciousness, for example." The Universe in a Single Atom, pg. 100-101

"Asanga, writing in the fourth century, understood the origins of the universe in terms of the theory of dependent origination. This theory states that all things arise and come to an end in dependence upon causes and conditions." .. "Asanga rejects the possibility of the universe being the creation of a preceding intelligence, arguing that if one posits such an intelligence, it will have to totally transcend cause and effect. An absolute being that is eternal, transcendent, and beyong the domain of the law of causality would have no ability to interact with cause and effect, and therefore could neither start something nor stop it." .. "the origination of the universe must be understood in terms of the principle of an infinite chain of causation with no transcendence or preceding intelligence." The Universe in a Single Atom, pg. 84

 

[whar]

The very question of the first man shows a flawed understanding of evolution. Individuals do not evolve rather populations do. So the question is how did the first people arise? But this is addressed directly in my previous post. Species are a continuum. There is never a time that a parent gives birth to something other than the same species. However variation occurs from generation to generation with changes accumulating over time. It would reach the point that a biologist would say 'This is a new species compared to what was here 200,000 years ago.' But you would never have a moment where you could draw a bright line between 2 generations and state generation A belongs to species 1 and their offspring, generation B, belongs to species 2.

*EDIT* There does exist bright lines in some cases such as in plants when they double their chromosomes. In this case parent belongs to species 1 while offspring belongs to species 2. However in animals this is not the case.

 

[GSonII]

I think just evolving without the help of some superior being makes less sense than doing so.

 

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

We spend very little time adapting to those things due to houses, cars and the like. We're not changing much physically.

Houses and cars are examples of the changing environment.

You saying we're going to adapt to the controlled environments of those things? What possible changes could be evoked?

Modern houses better protect humans from the climate, and cars reduce the amount of foot travel for humans.

A likely environmental example is modern obesity.

Another example--that's likely to be a product of selective breeding--is how humans have been getting taller.

Height isn't very significant

Subjective.

It isn't subjective if I can provide adequate objective evidence.

If men were to grow sufficiently larger overnight not a lot would change in regards to the way we live. Clothes would have to be bigger, houses reconstructed, diets would probably need modification and so on. Nothing too significant in regards to how we live though.

In comparison, something significant such as the development of a new lobe in the brain, wings, gills, or walking up right would completely change the way an organism lives and develops. Size was considered beneficial in earlier economies where labour jobs were abundant. With the advent of technologies that do the labour for us however, size and associated strength and power are no longer issues as methods and tools have evolved to make work easy even for small sized humans. The impact of increased size is small.

This shit isn't magic yo; that kind of change doesn't happen in complex organisms over such a short period of time.

Even in cases of speciation; the newer species typically only varies slightly from the "parent" species. Take the blackcap I mentioned earlier for example: The newer species had only slightly rounder wings and longer beaks; small changes basically.

Evolution is the mainly a summation of many small changes rather than one big change. If changes are summed over time, the shorter amount of time you looked at, the smaller the sum of the changes will be.

Over the past 300 years human height has increased after remaining rather stagnant. Countries once known for their short people became countries known for tall people. The contributing factors are likely nutrition and selective breeding.

A noticeable difference in height over a relatively short time is a significant change for a species.

 

[Rock_Well]

"Despite their obvious differences, humans and chimpanzees share 98 percent of their DNA; a difference of only 2 percent accounts for the distinction between the two species (the difference between humans and gorillas is 3 percent).

The so called 98% similarity is the result of slanted and biased research. scientists that came up with this high percentage in similarity did so by SELECTIVELY USING HUMAN AND CHIMP DNA SEQUENCE FRAGMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY HIGHLY SIMILAR, but NOT the sections that don't line up. Anzai, T. et al. 2003. Comparative sequencing of human and chimpanzee MHC class I regions unveils insertions/deletions as the major path to genomic divergence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (13): 7708-13. The complete genomic sequence for both human and chimp are currently unavailable due to DNA sequencing technology limitations. In the ones we do have, a more thorough, solid analysis need to be done.

Yall evolites can quote the inaccurate research of biased scientific studies and man-made fairy tales of natural selection all you want, but what you can't do is show the math used to arrive to these conclusions. just huge leaps of faith mixed with a dash of wishful thinking on some, "night's like this iii wiish' Eddie Cane ish.

 

[Rock_Well]

The very question of the first man shows a flawed understanding of evolution. Individuals do not evolve rather populations do. So the question is how did the first people arise? But this is addressed directly in my previous post. Species are a continuum. There is never a time that a parent gives birth to something other than the same species. However variation occurs from generation to generation with changes accumulating over time. It would reach the point that a biologist would say 'This is a new species compared to what was here 200,000 years ago.' But you would never have a moment where you could draw a bright line between 2 generations and state generation A belongs to species 1 and their offspring, generation B, belongs to species 2.

*EDIT* There does exist bright lines in some cases such as in plants when they double their chromosomes. In this case parent belongs to species 1 while offspring belongs to species 2. However in animals this is not the case.

touching a bit on your previous post - even in theory, in order for this to be true, yall must concede that the species at the extreme starting point of the spectrum must've NOT been a walking, talking, thinking human. but then graddddually, over millions of years, the species became 'humanized', a walking, talking, and thinking being. :/

If the being at the extreme beginning is to be considered 'human' then umm....evolution in terms of what then? because the transitional evidence of - 'from animal to walking, talking, thinking being' - jus doesn't exist other than in drawings lol.

 

[Rock_Well]

why so salty towards the idea of a common Creator?

 

[fiat_money]

Humans are done evolving for the most part. Immune systems and the likes are still evolving, but in regards to significant physical features it seems to be done as there is nothing else for us to really overcome on this planet at the moment - we are the dominant species.

No, humans are constantly evolving.

Recorded human history only goes back a few thousand years, a mere 2.5% of the time since they speciated.

We haven't been around long enough to conclude that we've stopped evolving.

How else would we evolve physically at this present moment with no predators or harsh geography to overcome?

Changing environment/habits, selective breeding, natural genetic variation.

You know, the usual ways in which biological evolution occurs.

We spend very little time adapting to those things due to houses, cars and the like. We're not changing much physically.

Houses and cars are examples of the changing environment.

You saying we're going to adapt to the controlled environments of those things? What possible changes could be evoked?

Modern houses better protect humans from the climate, and cars reduce the amount of foot travel for humans.

A likely environmental example is modern obesity.

Another example--that's likely to be a product of selective breeding--is how humans have been getting taller.

Height isn't very significant

Subjective.

It isn't subjective if I can provide adequate objective evidence.

If men were to grow sufficiently larger overnight not a lot would change in regards to the way we live. Clothes would have to be bigger, houses reconstructed, diets would probably need modification and so on. Nothing too significant in regards to how we live though.

In comparison, something significant such as the development of a new lobe in the brain, wings, gills, or walking up right would completely change the way an organism lives and develops. Size was considered beneficial in earlier economies where labour jobs were abundant. With the advent of technologies that do the labour for us however, size and associated strength and power are no longer issues as methods and tools have evolved to make work easy even for small sized humans. The impact of increased size is small.

This shit isn't magic yo; that kind of change doesn't happen in complex organisms over such a short period of time.

Even in cases of speciation; the newer species typically only varies slightly from the "parent" species. Take the blackcap I mentioned earlier for example: The newer species had only slightly rounder wings and longer beaks; small changes basically.

Evolution is the mainly a summation of many small changes rather than one big change. If changes are summed over time, the shorter amount of time you looked at, the smaller the sum of the changes will be.

Over the past 300 years human height has increased after remaining rather stagnant. Countries once known for their short people became countries known for tall people. The contributing factors are likely nutrition and selective breeding.

A noticeable difference in height over a relatively short time is a significant change for a species.

I know that such a development takes a long ass time to occur, i was just using that example to display how small an impact height has on how humans live overall. The way humans live impacts height far more than the opposite.

That just means that you're evaluating the significance of biological evolution by its impact on the species's life. While I evaluate the significance of biological evolution by the developed genotypical/phenotypical differences and the amount of time it takes them to occur in.

 

[Bodhi]

Solid, you still haven't answered my question.