Well, unless you can read minds over the internet, I would guess Prescience.
An old question…If we evolved from the apes, why do apes still exist?
Now I know someone is going to reply with a link that shows that man evolved from a different form of ape. Or that Neanderthal, Simian (sp?) and the rest of the evolution line is our path to homosapians today. But I still wonder why?
In response to the original question, NO!
Well, because the apes we evolved from aren’t the same apes that exist now. I know that’s what you predicted someone was going to reply with, but that’s the answer. The question is like saying, “Oh yeah? If I’m decended from my great grandfather, why do I have cousins?” If you rephrase the question like that, you might realize that it doesn’t make much sense.
I think we’re missing the point that this “step” in evolution (sorry, Darwin’s Finch!) isn’t biological, it’s technological. If we ever do manage to be able to implant technology in someone’s brain to enable them to communicate with others, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be passed on genetically to the species. Each new member of the species would have to have this insertion for it to work.
(Unless of course by “cellular” you mean biological cells, and not cellular phone-type cells. If that’s the case, that’s EXTREMELY farfetched.)
Darwins Finch:
Thanks. Now I’ve got a better feel for where your coming from. I do not think the definitions listed cover the question I was trying to ask. See below for details.
To post here is to invite this type of discussion. I do not consider myself picked on and I would not have it any other way. (I enjoy it actually). I’m just glad no one seems to be getting down on me for typing and grammatical errors. Where’s the spell check in this joint?
This certainly seems to be true. It would seem that when you post here using words with multiple definitions and implications, you should really clarify in the initial post the definition you are using. I will do so in the future.
Now, the reason my question can’t be limited to the definitions at the site you listed is that it isn’t grand enough. When I say evolution, I am referring to the progression of matter from simple to complex. Your site mentions nothing of the birth of stars, or the universe (a word with several definitions itself: capitalization, and lack thereof, is important here). Natural selection is definately a part of the process I was referring to, but it is not the only part by far.
Is there a beter word to describe the process that has shaped all of existence so far? It would seem, according to the evidence, that this part of the Universe was created billions of years ago in some sort of explosion (Big Bang). Since then matter has steadily been moving towards more and more complex forms. This is the process I refer to. This is the process that I have seen creationists doubt. This process would include humans transforming and improving themselves.
My question was “If I evolve, does that prove evolution exists?” It seems to have led to a couple of other questions:
-
How do I define evolution? (see above):
-
How do creationists define evolution? (whole other thread?)
-
Would becoming Posthuman(a Transhuman is still just a human hoping for better tech) constitute proof that the above described process occurs? (No is the only answer I have seen so far, so:)
-
What would constitute proof of evolution (as described above) in the eyes of a creationist?
I have answers to the above, but am interested to here what others think.
The term is not from the language of Taxonomists, but from the language of Transhumans. If you like I can link you to a definition. It is inherently theoretical as it has not yet happened (and may or may not ever happen). The species would not be Transhuman, it would be Posthuman. One proposed title should the Posthuman come about is “Homo Excelsior”. There are others. This is the one I prefer. I like the sound of it. Nobody knows what the Posthuman will look like. We can only make theories until the technology advances far enough.
DaLovin’Dj
Try looking at it from the point of artificial selection - dog breeding is a popular example. If I take a population of breed A and subject it to pressure (say for better cold tolerance) to create breed B, I have not destroyed breed A. Breed B might now make a great sled dog, but I’d still want breed A around for those long treks through the (warm) desert.
Now this isn’t speciation, but it carries enough similarities to provide a useful analogy. Evolution of a new species does not necessitate the demise of the ancestor from which it evolved.
jab1 I’m still curious as to an answer for this one as well. It’s been a bit since I’ve taken thermo, but I don’t see any problems with Seraphim’s point.
And now for a general comment on the “direction” of evolution.
Take the speciation of modern horses, for which there exists a rather complete fossil record. This record documents how the little proto-horses running around in the woods become larger (longer-legged), change their dentary, and change their hoof structure, all of which serves to make them “better adapted” to the new environment of grassy plains. Wow! What spectacular evolution towards a “better” species!
Now lets run that sucker in reverse. The horses get smaller, dentary changes, etc. All of which makes them “better adapted” to the “new” forest environment. Hmmm…
Evolution is not being directed towards some final goal. Mutations happen. If they’re beneficial in the current environment, they stick around (to grossly simplify). What this means, dalovindj, is that without knowing the future environment, it’s impractical to speculate on what adaptations might prove beneficial.
As we all know, SF stories aren’t cites. Especially when I can’t recall the title or author. But please allow me to paraphrase this novella. Humanity has stratified. Humanity has also met other races, including one “hive-mind” type, except the controlling mind seems to be about on par with a queen bee, smarts-wise. One human sect seeks to get the genetic code of the hive “workers,” to employ as mindless drones for their own drudge work. The guy sent out to do this runs into some trouble - the hive pops out a few individually sentient drones, and they smack our protangist around. In the classic “No, I expect you to die, Mr. Bond” moment, they explain to him that the hive has found it most beneficial to remain effectively stupid, unless otherwise needed. It prevents it from wasting energy on pursuing such abstracts as art, to the detriment of the survival of the species as a whole. Once it was a species of individually sentient beings, but now it only reverts to that “worse” evolutionary state on limited occassions.
That was all a little garbled, but I hope you get the point. There are no absolutes in evolution.
-ellis
Geez, a person can’t toss in an irrelevant semi-sequitur for comic effect wiffout gettin corrected on definitions. Holy frioles and little catfish.
frijoles.
::ducking & running::
dalovindj, reading through this thread, it seems to me that many posters are trying to improve your question. The question you asked doesn’t seem to be getting the answer you are looking for. I think that you restated your question here:
The phrase used to describe most of what’s happened so far is evolution by natural selection. What you propose with Transhumanism is evolution by unnatural selection. Human-based differentiation is easliy seen in domesticated animals. I don’t know what creationists beleive, but it is exceedingly difficult to refute the idea that humans can alter a species through selective breeding.
If I understand what you’ve written about Transhumans, it involves humans altering humans through technology. In your question, you aske whether this can prove evolution by natural selection. I can’t see how it does. It simply reinforces the notion that humans can alter animals.
From reading things around here, there is much evidence for evolution by natural selection. If the views of some creations are to be believed, then they won’t be convinced that evolution by natural selection exists until they watch a 4 billion year long movie entitled, “The Making of the Earth”.
Natural selection does not possess some inherent bias towards greater complexity. It just so happens that more complex organisms are better suited to survival in some situations. But when the bombs go off, I’ll be placing my bets on the bacteria.
What Robb said regarding the basic premise of Transhumanism, as I understand it, is basically correct - this does not represent evolution, as commonly defined. Natural selection would still be providing the pressures (unless you’re going around killing all the non-“improved” folks), but the variation upon which is acting is not due to mutation, and not (from what I can tell, unless Transhumanism invovles tinkering with germ-line DNA) inheritable.
-ellis
Robb:
But natural selection does not include the evolution of matter before life arose, and as I indicated in my last post, the definition I am using includes the entire history of the evolution of matter from the beginning to now. This includes, but is not limited to, the evolution of the species.
Now I would say that if humans gain new powers and abilities it is a continuation of this process. Take the following scenario:
Genetic scientists blow this stuff wide open. We are fully able to improve the human being. We do this at a genetic level. We use life’s language to improve our lot in life. These changes are able to be passed on to future generations. Time goes on. Eventually all that is left are people with the new souped up bodies and genes. Now, when they go to school and ask “How did we get here?” They will have to start at the Big-bang and go right on through Natural Selection, and then discuss the changes we humans made consciously. The production of the Posthumans would have been part of a process begun billions (if not more) years ago.
That is the evolution I refer to.
I fear you are correct. I wonder what the budget on a flick like that would be? More than Waterworld?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ellis555 *
**
Try looking at it from the point of artificial selection - dog breeding is a popular example. If I take a population of breed A and subject it to pressure (say for better cold tolerance) to create breed B, I have not destroyed breed A. Breed B might now make a great sled dog, but I’d still want breed A around for those long treks through the (warm) desert.
Now this isn’t speciation, but it carries enough similarities to provide a useful analogy. Evolution of a new species does not necessitate the demise of the ancestor from which it evolved.
Fair enough and I knew the responses were going to point in that direction, but in your hypothetical situation doesn’t that make you the creator of an “evolved” dog. Who is to say that the “Higher Being” has not done that to us? Can we undoubtably say that Nature and/or older forms of man were not purposely altered to “create” a new being. Perhaps I am nitpicking but if one is a Belief (Creationism) and one is a Theory (Evolution) than neither can win this argument.
In my theory, if man’s creation was too drastic then it could have been perceived as either an outcast or danger to the existing forms of prehistoric man. Forced to live on its own and most likely die out before it had a chance to thrive. Now I am cutting out a lot to this situation but you people are smart and can follow my reasoning.
Therefore, we were created slowly in order to not upset the balance of the lesser beings we were replacing.
I know creationist believe that man was created out of the likeness of God and we did not “evolve” from anythng. But this is just a theory to try to bring the two opinion closer together.
Hows that? I probably have enough holes in this to make swiss cheese.
Inanimate matter does not evolve.
dalovindj, I want to try to summarize what I think you are writing, please correct me where I am wrong.
To look at evolution the way you see it, I’ll split it into three groups.
- Time after Big Bang. (the mechanism for which things became more complex I don’t know the name for)
- Time of natural selection, where organisms and critters run around and species evolve.
- Time of humans, and ultimately transhumans.
I’m not trying to suggest that people aren’t going to change in your scenario, only that the mechanism for change is different. In natural selection, the environment and changes in at are important part of evolution. To have transhumans, the environment becomes secondary. Humans become primary - they are directing the change. I think that I’ve read that humans will be altered to fit different environments, but the method of that change is directed by people.
I am not tryng to deny your idea that it is a continuation of an old process. I’ve been trying to think of a decent analogy. This is the best I’ve done so far: once upon a time we traveled by walking because we happened to have legs. Eventually, we managed to tame animals, and let them do our walking. We know drive cars and fly in planes. We can see this as an extension of an old process of human travel, but somewhere in their humans became the creators of the means of travel, not just users of what we found. What I’m trying to suggest is that through your long process, creating transhumans will be humans taking over the mechanism in a way not found in the past.
NYR407:
[quote} Can we undoubtably say that Nature and/or older forms of man were not purposely altered to “create” a new being. [/quote]
No we cannot. Whether or not evolution (and the universe at whole) is driven by a creator is an undetermined issue. The fact that all of this MAY be of intelligent design, however, does not in any way disprove the fact that evolution occurs.
Evolution and a Creator can work together. But the creator could be the equivalent of a kid with a fish tank in the Universe. There is no evidence one way or the other about the true nature of God. Books written thousands of years ago by HUMANS, does not constitute proof of a God (to me). Neither does it disprove any scientific theories whatsoever. It seems to me to be pure mythology.
As far as the big question - Is there a God? The answer is We just don’t know.
Andros:
[quote} Inanimate matter does not evolve. [/quote}
As per my above definition it does. 1st second of Big Bang: No stars or planets. Give it some time and then planets and stars evolved. This is the process I refer to. Humans, Plants, and bacteria alike are all made of materials that were once inanimate. I forget who said it, but I love this quote:
“We are all made of Stardust”
DaLovin’DJ
One problem with this argument is that the belief you are describing is not creationism. Creationism, IIRC, is the belief that all the species were created as they are now, without having evolved from earlier ancestors. Exact details will vary depending on if you’re an Old-Earth or Young-Earth creationist, whether you’ll acknowledge ‘microevolution,’ etc.
You seem to be describing some sort of ‘directed evolution’ in which critters evolve, but with guidence from a Higher Being. I think the scientific response would boil down to:
- The existence (or non-existence) of a Higher Being lies outside the realm of science.
- There’s no firm evidence that evolution has proceded in any ‘prefered direction.’
- Natural selection has so far worked adequately as an explanation for how evolution occurs.
Sorry about the itallics in my last post. I accidentally hit the ‘submit’ button instead of ‘preview.’
dalovindj wrote, in the OP:
You left out:
[ul][li]Red destructive eye beams that can’t be shut off[/li][li]Teleportation (accompanied by the stench of brimstone)[/li][li]The ability to walk through walls and other solid objects[/li][li]Skin that turns into organic steel[/li][li]Retractable adamantium claws[/li][li]The ability to store, and later explosively release, cosmic rays[/li][li]Telekinesis[/li][li]Giant feathered wings growing out of your back[/li][li]The ability to “charge” items on contact so that they explode a few seconds later[/li][li]The ability to create ice, at will, out of the moisture in the air[/li][li]Manipulation of magnetic fields[/li][li]Manipulation of the local weather[/li][li]The ability to absorb other Post-Human’s superpowers on contact[/li][li]Telepathy, but not as strong as Dr. Xavier’s.[/ul][/li]Hope this helps.
Fair enough. Per my definitions: Mozart wrote jazz, peach cobbler is made from kumquats, and the sky is yellow with botswana polka-dots.
Again, the common usage of a word, and its precise scientific meaning are not the same.
You are welcome to use the vernacular and state that the universe evolves, provided you understand thoroughly that the “evolution” of the universe and biological evolution are as entirely unrelated as . . . two completely unrelated things.