Can human evolution negate evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-06-2013, 12:28 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
To get even more pedantic, I actually don't think you negate evolution. Its a process that occurs no matter what. Humans can of course artificially impact a population to the point where we are altering the outcome as compared to one in which no meddling was done, but that is only at a low level. Trees impact our evolution, germs impact our evolution and we impact theirs. Every aspect of a system impacts the evolution to some degree of all the other living organisms. Each of us every day is a part of evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 06:40 PM
Can human evolution negate evolution?
It's silly to even have a phrase then "natural selection" it implies an unnatural selection.

I see you guys aren't the global warming types.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 06:54 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
The idea that instincts that took millions of years to accumulate, or tendencies that took 100,000 years or more to instill, like hunting & gathering, could be totally erased in "the blink of an eye" (evolutionary time scale-wise) is a bit arrogant of us. Isn't it?
I don't know.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 06:54 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The idea that instincts that took millions of years to accumulate, or tendencies that took 100,000 years or more to instill, like hunting & gathering, could be totally erased in "the blink of an eye" (evolutionary time scale-wise) is a bit arrogant of us. Isn't it?
I don't know.

Our evolution includes our minds, our ideas.
The evolution of human societies has arguably become as, or more, important than our biological instincts.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 07:05 PM
Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 06:54 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The idea that instincts that took millions of years to accumulate, or tendencies that took 100,000 years or more to instill, like hunting & gathering, could be totally erased in "the blink of an eye" (evolutionary time scale-wise) is a bit arrogant of us. Isn't it?
I don't know.

I would say that most of the worlds population are not and do not know how to live in a hunter gatherer society. And yes that is erased, hence we don't live in societies like that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:12 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 07:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 06:54 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The idea that instincts that took millions of years to accumulate, or tendencies that took 100,000 years or more to instill, like hunting & gathering, could be totally erased in "the blink of an eye" (evolutionary time scale-wise) is a bit arrogant of us. Isn't it?
I don't know.

Our evolution includes our minds, our ideas.
The evolution of human societies has arguably become as, or more, important than our biological instincts.

I agree to a point. But it doesn't matter whether a chimp uses a stick he found on the ground, or a metal rod covered in phermones placed in his hand by one of us, to dip into an ant hill for some food. The instinctual need for sustenance drives the activity. Likewise, I think it would take the physical removing of body parts (glands & the like) to make sex any less important to humans. Education can cause a change in the way you go about it, but the drive is still there. And powerful.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:17 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 07:05 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 06:54 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  The idea that instincts that took millions of years to accumulate, or tendencies that took 100,000 years or more to instill, like hunting & gathering, could be totally erased in "the blink of an eye" (evolutionary time scale-wise) is a bit arrogant of us. Isn't it?
I don't know.

I would say that most of the worlds population are not and do not know how to live in a hunter gatherer society. And yes that is erased, hence we don't live in societies like that.

Extreme case, so disregard it if you wish. I'm not an expert.
An organized crime member wishes to alpha dominate his territory. He utilizes the hunter portion of his hunter/gatherer tendencies to eliminate the competition, thus securing his dominace of the territory, and allowing easier gathering of money and goomah's to his authority.
The scenario doesn't have to be violent, though.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:44 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 08:12 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 07:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  Our evolution includes our minds, our ideas.
The evolution of human societies has arguably become as, or more, important than our biological instincts.

I agree to a point. But it doesn't matter whether a chimp uses a stick he found on the ground, or a metal rod covered in phermones placed in his hand by one of us, to dip into an ant hill for some food. The instinctual need for sustenance drives the activity. Likewise, I think it would take the physical removing of body parts (glands & the like) to make sex any less important to humans. Education can cause a change in the way you go about it, but the drive is still there. And powerful.

But now you are talking not about evolution, but the products of evolution.

What we have done is massively changed the selection criteria that are the basis of evolution. The drives and instincts that work in our environments will be the ones selected for.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:53 PM (This post was last modified: 24-06-2013 08:57 PM by TheGulegon.)
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 08:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 08:12 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  I agree to a point. But it doesn't matter whether a chimp uses a stick he found on the ground, or a metal rod covered in phermones placed in his hand by one of us, to dip into an ant hill for some food. The instinctual need for sustenance drives the activity. Likewise, I think it would take the physical removing of body parts (glands & the like) to make sex any less important to humans. Education can cause a change in the way you go about it, but the drive is still there. And powerful.

But now you are talking not about evolution, but the products of evolution.

What we have done is massively changed the selection criteria that are the basis of evolution. The drives and instincts that work in our environments will be the ones selected for.

And will cause massive change in less than eons? Particularly in the information age, where customs, or even information itself, (the criteria itself) [i.e. the time spent for any modern criteria "changing" actual instincts & "grand scale" behaviors isn't enough] etc...can change with the swiftness of technological upgrades within single generations? Not arguing, just wondering Shy Just not convinced it'd take a shorter time by appreciable amounts.
Change takes us too long sometimes. Physically, and psychologically, both.
Again. I don't know.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-06-2013, 08:56 PM
RE: Can human evolution negate evolution?
(24-06-2013 08:53 PM)TheGulegon Wrote:  
(24-06-2013 08:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  But now you are talking not about evolution, but the products of evolution.

What we have done is massively changed the selection criteria that are the basis of evolution. The drives and instincts that work in our environments will be the ones selected for.

And will cause massive change in less than eons? Particularly in the information age, where customs, or even information itself, (the criteria itself) etc...can change with the swiftness of technological upgrades within single generations? Not arguing, just wondering Shy Just not convinced it'd take a shorter time by appreciable amounts.

Thousands of years, hundreds of generations, is sufficient for real changes; eons are not required.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: