Darwin's Natural Selection Still at Work in Humans

Post Reply New Topic

If you took the trouble to read what i've posted here on this site, you'd notice that I have explained my position on various issues perfectly well. I've also attempted to answer any questions people have directed at me: ask Vetivert or Duncvis. The only exception, I believe, was in a current thread where Blackligger asked me something, but I decided it wasn't appropriate to comment further.

Again, if you took the trouble to read what I write, you would find I do agree with a number of policies expounded by the left (but not many).

Your comment on science baffles me, RobertN.

ascan

Then what about like when earth had two species at the same time Homo Sapiens and Homo Erectus. I know they where quit different. How did one species come Homo Sapiens lets say where did they come from out of the blue. I understand random mutations of genes. But the question is how do random mutations effect us today and tomorrow then to. We might be new species then maybe the earth will have two species then too.

I didn't think Homo sapiens co-existed with Homo erectus (or H. ergaster, or whatever), or that other Archaic hominid species. However, I wouldn't be surprised, given how bushy evolution can be.

To my knowledge, Homo sapiens existed alongside (for awhile at least) Homo neanderthalis and Homo erectus. And of course now that we've found out, Homo floresiensis.

But as for "human" that is only an amorphous label. It's a generalization that only has existence categorically. Every creature is different than the next, some more than others. This includes humans, too.

And as for Natural Selection, choosing a mate based on attraction, smarter people getting better jobs (many times), people who get Major Depression and people who don't, is all Natural Selection. Life is always based on "better". Otherwise, there is no improvement.

I guess I meant Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons they where two different species. That where living at the same time. This still the same question though, like I stated above. If we have random mutations would we form new species then.

Neanderthals and ourselves evolved from H. erectus. Both Neanderthals and ourselves were knocking around Europe together about 40K years ago, and in Palestine 100k years ago. The reason two species evolved from one ancestor was because one population became isolated; bred and evolved separately. Neanderthals migrated out of Africa first, and colonised Europe about 250k years ago. This population was separate from the one remaining in Africa, which evolved into people like us. They left Africa about 100k years ago, reaching Europe about 50K years ago.

We're talking about long periods of time for evolution to occur, and quite significant changes in climate that would have acted to favour certain characteristics. These characteristics are a function of the genes. Normally, random mutations may have no impact at all, but if a certain combination produces, for example, someone who's taller, and taller people end up more likely to breed, then that will get passed on, to an extent, to their offspring. Similarly, if another combination produces a shorter person, and being short puts you at a disadvantage, then that's less likely to get passed on because that person's not so likely to reproduce. That's a very simplistic way to describe it, but I think it gives the general idea.

Exactly the same happens today, but because we interbreed across the planet, any changes will be across the whole population, generally speaking.

That's the best I can do, there are a few inconsistencies, but I think it gives the idea.

ascan

Even with inbreeding, could there arise today two separate species then. As I see it could happen naturally or more likely artificially by us doing the selective breeding. We have come to a cross roads in technology that we could do this or in the near future could. Then we might have two species or more then on the earth given rise to even more discrimination than what we have today. I hope we don't go this way but I feel that we are going this way. If we fast forward many thousands of years what would we see. How man Homo Sapiens in our century made it worst. or maybe we made it better. What is the future of mankind it matter not what species to me. That is something to think about I think.

Only with two isolated populations and a few hundred thousand years.

But I'm no expert. I can only conclude that from what I've read.

can anybody answer this.

What about technology being used to create a new race of humans then. What happens then we favor them over us or would we have to separate species then to deal with. Just something to think about in this technology world of ours for sure.

stamping out stupid people is Survival of the fittest, Sean.

The fact of the matter is stupid people will always have other stupid people that will want to breed with them. (natural selection).

You know, for once, I have to go with Sean and say that survival of the fittest is continuing.

And Robert, it always WILL exist, direclty or indirectly...

Even computers go through survival of the fittest...

Armies and nations do.

Atoms themselves quite possibly do, but who knows?

Also, Sean, whatever it was I asked and you decided not to reply on the topic, would you mind PMing me the answer? (and the question, to be honest, I've forgotten)

brilliant, BL! - glad to know it ain't just me who does that.

When and where was the question?

Oh, it was Ascan who said that. Gah, note to self, avoid posting at 6am....

No. I disagree. Perhaps on a micro-scopic level, it occurs though. I believe people with souls and feelings deserve more respect than to be treated as some kind of biological quality control. That is why we have rights in most civilised societies (excluding the US).

Plus, read my bit on page 1 again. It is impossible to prove a scientific theory - one single experiment can break a whole century of thought. It has happened before in science and it will happen again. Some other theory will come along sooner or later.