People assume that we are the finished article - we're not.
shareWhenever I watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" or some similar man-in-the-street interviews, I believe we may be undergoing devolution.
shareGood reply! Could not have said it better! 👏🏻👏🏻
shareIdiocracy, here we come!
shareWe've been digressing for about 40 years, and its only going to get worse. Luckily, I'm over the hill.
share[deleted]
I for one believe we are the finished article....has been....always will be. In other words I don’t believe in evolution. Species are born, species adapt or they die out. A frog does not become a dog, a dog does not become a cat, etc. A species doesn’t evolve into another species. The same with our climate. It is cyclical, no worse today than it has been in prior decades. The 1930’s were much warmer....dust bowl comes to mind.
shareI agree. All that stuff is stupid! Why don't people believe common sense stuff like a rib becomes a woman and planets are disk shaped. Just look in a telescope - everything is flat as a pancake!
shareCome to think of it...you’re right. The “planets are disk shaped” and “everything is flat as a pancake!” A rib became a woman? Who woulda thunk? A rib became a woman. 🤔 Interesting.
shareI object, Sir. Pancakes are not flat!
shareWell, we’re taller, faster, stronger and living longer, so there’s that.
shareEvolution doesn't claim that a frog becomes a dog, nor that any amphibian becomes any mammal. Evolution merely says that a species gradually changes into a "better" version of itself. For example, in response to environment and survival imperatives, some hominids gradually changed into smarter hominids with extra features, like bigger brains.
If you believe in god, you could look at it like, God released version #1 of the "Human" app, and then posted regular patches whenever He noticed vulnerabilities and incompatibilities.
Then He decided that the app had unfixable security issues and wasn't compatible with other apps in the System, so He discontinued support of it.
I admit I may not be as knowledgeable as others in the theory of evolution. But, the following is what I believe explains evolution:
“descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
Evolution is a process of continuous branching and diversification from common trunks. This pattern of irreversible separation gives life's history its basic directionality.”
What I see in the explanation of evolution is the changing of one species into another species.
I think of Data from Star Trek TNG. He, being a man made life form (robot), did continue to evolve in thinking, did act on those thoughts (having sex) to the point of almost becoming a sentient being....”almost” is the key word. In the end he did not evolve into a human, a different species for him, he was still....just a robot.
Not "better," just more suited to the current habitat.
shareThe Sherpas have evolved to live in high altitude areas
https://www.cnn.com/2015/11/11/health/sherpas-superhuman-mountaineers/index.html
To what type of evolution are you referring? If mostly tall people reproduce, then humans will evolve into taller beings. If you're referring to evolving into another species, I don't believe that has happened, or will happen.
shareWell, we’re taller, faster, stronger and living longer, so there’s that, so it would be interesting to see where we will be in say 100 years time? Then, you take in further; what about 10000 years? 100000? A million?
shareThey do? Well yeah, they're wrong.
shareI’m starting to believe in devolution, as I look at the world around me; at least, a social devolution, a world more often rewards and encourages mediocrity than it does excellence, though there are rare instances when excellence is rewarded exceedingly well!
Actually, on reflection, what I’m seeing is dystopia, not the decline of the human genome. IF we, as a species and a prosperous planet, survive, a new species that moves beyond Homo sapient will emerge, just as our ancestors emerged from Cro Magnon; and the new ubermenschen will kill us, and perhaps eat us.
Well sometimes I have to agree it seems we're devolving socially.
shareEvolution is impossible as the world is right now. Every specie is genetically locked to a spectrum of possibilities. Mutations is a lack of genetic information, not an addition of information.
In fact, there is no evidence that any specie ever had the ability to evolve. It's a very weak theory that doesn't add up in light of DNA science.
Oh yes! Thank you! Finally in words I can understand even though I wouldn’t be able to expound as you did. Growing taller isn’t evolving as the person is still the same species. I also have a hard time believing birds were once dinosaurs.
shareNo one ever claimed birds were once dinosaurs. But they did share a common ancestor.
Just like no one ever claimed taller humans were a different species. But at some point genes mutate and sometimes those mutations are better suited to survive environmental changes.
That's why intact skeletons have been found of other species of humans. Neanderthals, Homo floresiensis (aka The Hobbit), Denisovans. No one is claiming these now extinct species who at one time roamed the earth alongside homo sapiens "evolved" into anatomically modern humans, but we did share a common ancestor.
I beg to differ. My ancestor was as human as I am. We may have become more intelligent, but that was out of necessity. “Necessity is the mother of invention” therefore we adapt.
shareWhat do you mean by "as human as I am"?
Are you saying your ancestors all shared the same human genome that you have? If so, then that's just factually wrong. You go back far enough and your human genome is not the same as that of your ancestor before speciation resulted in the varying branches of the genus Homo.
This was all confirmed when the human genome was finally mapped back in 1999. The field of genetics hasn't been the same since, as we've been able to track minute changes in genetic traits over time.
I do believe they were as human as I am. But, I also believe environment was/is a big factor in determining our features, our genetic traits. Different environments were a factor in determining the different races in human beings. But, with all the pronounced differences in the races....we are still one species....human beings.
Is it possible our human genome has been altered from our ancestors due to advancements in living conditions, medical care, food, etc. Just as some are more predisposed to have cancer, heart disease, etc. I’m aware with DNA advancements we can be informed if we will succumb to a specific disease.
But, in the end I refuse to believe I’m from a branch that broke off from something that wasn’t as human as I am.
Again, what do you mean by "as human as you are"?
Do you consider neanderthals "as human as you are"? Because Homo neanderthalensis is a classified species distinct from Homo sapiens (aka modern humans) even though we know from mapping the human genome that humans did interbreed with neanderthals before they went extinct. Caucasians typically have a small percentage of neanderthal DNA to show for it. So were neanderthal ancestors "as human as you are"?
What about Australopithecus? This is one of the earliest known human species, the remains of around 300 Australopithecus were found dating to around 3 million years ago. But if you saw an australopithecus you'd mistake it for an ape or monkey, not a human. Is Australopithecus "as human as you are"?
I’ve come to the conclusion, you are missing what I’m attempting to convey. I’m unable to debate you on a subject in which you have more knowledge than I do. I’m basing my beliefs on my faith as a Christian. I do not believe there were a lower form of humans. You can believe, if you are Caucasian, you have a small percentage of neanderthal DNA....I will not accept what you deem as fact. For me this debate is over. Thank you for your patience.
shareOk. But I just want to make clear that the idea some Caucasians (and Asians) have a small percentage of neanderthal DNA isn't an article of faith. It's a confirmed fact from analysis of the genomic DNA from Neanderthal fossils that resulted in the complete sequencing of Neanderthal DNA in 2008.
The complete mitochondrial DNA sequence allowed researchers to compare this Neanderthal mtDNA to modern human mtDNA to see if any modern humans carried the mtDNA from related groups to the Neanderthal group.
That's how we know.
Well, I now have been educated and it took Biblical facts to do it as per the following:
http://www.genesisandgenetics.org/2017/11/17/where-does-neanderthal-fit-in-the-bible-update/
There are a number of empirical flaws in your theory you call "Biblical fact" so I'll just point out the most glaring. If Neanderthals really were "direct line ancestors" of modern humans as your article contends, then Neanderthal DNA would be present in ALL humans, not just Caucasians and Asians with ancestors from the areas of Europe and Siberia where Neanderthal fossils have been found and from which Neanderthal DNA was sequenced.
shareFrom the following article it appears Neanderthal DNA is present in other humans....not just Caucasians and Asians. It has been found in Africans. So, my prior link to Biblical based findings re: DNA found in all modern humans, became more factual.
“The Percentage of Neanderthal Ancestry in Africans
The idea that Africans fail to carry Neanderthal DNA has recently been proven as wrong. Marc Haber, a British geneticist from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Hinxton, has found that the Touboo in Chad and the Amhara in Ethiopia carry Neanderthal genes. Whereas Eurasians carry ~2% Neanderthal ancestry, Ethiopians carry ~1% Neanderthal ancestry, and Central Africans carried ~0.5% Neanderthal ancestry.“
https://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-science/widespread-appearance-neanderthal-dna-africans-have-it-too-008690
Except it still couldn't have happened that way because homo sapiens have fossil records from up to 300,000 years ago and neanderthals have a fossil records from 130,000 years to 40,000 years ago. That means our human ancestors co-existed at the same time as neanderthals so we cannot be direct descendants.
shareSome further info....quite interesting as it mentions environmental factors as I did. Rather lengthy reading.
https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/those-enigmatic-neanderthals/
Notice where it states Neanderthal & Modern human remains were buried together.
The problem with your article is that it's dated 2010 and doesn't cite any of the recent work, some of which I've already mentioned regarding Neanderthal DNA sequencing that has established Neanderthals as having a genome distinct from modern humans. Not just mitochondrial DNA as I already cited from 2008 but in 2014 the complete nuclear genome of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains in Siberia was published. Just 99.7% of the nucleotide sequences of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of sequences with chimpanzees.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/
Furthermore, the results from the complete sequencing of the neanderthal genome definitively put to rest your notion that modern humans could have descended from Neanderthals. We know this because Neanderthals had a mutation in the MC1R receptor gene responsible for hair and skin pigmentation which changed an amino acid and made the resulting protein less efficient. This resulted in a phenotype of red hair and pale skin. Modern humans display similar mutations of MC1R and people who have two copies of this mutation have red hair and pale skin. However, no modern human has the exact mutation that Neanderthals had, which means that both Neanderthals and humans evolved this phenotype independent of one another. It wasn't inherited.
In 2016 researchers published a new set of Neanderthal DNA sequences that show evidence of human-Neanderthal interbreeding as far back as 100,000 years ago. Their findings are the first to show human gene flow into the Neanderthal genome as opposed to Neanderthal DNA into the human genome. It makes sense some were buried together because we know they interbred. That's why humans have a tiny percentage of Neanderthal DNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4933530/
Your biblical theory just doesn't hold up to the groundbreaking discoveries in the field of modern genetics made possible by advancements in technology that have allowed us to accurately and efficiently map complete genomes over the last 20 years.
I’ll have to cede to you as it’s apparent you are much more versed than I am with respect to DNA and our origins. Thanks again.
shareSpecies is somewhat arbitrary, it's a difficult thing to define. Easy enough if you stick to simplistic examples like dog vs cat, less easy if you compare dog vs wolf because both share a common ancestor and can still interbreed. But just to add more complication there were many other canids, like bone crushing dogs and hyenas in North America. And within each species you can find traits that are similar to related species, past and present, which blurs the lines.
share"Mutations is a lack of genetic information, not an addition of information."
Not it's not. This is a myth.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/
"no evidence that any specie ever had the ability to evolve."
Species evolve all the time by adapting to their changing environment.
That's the theory of adaptability, not evolution. You don't even understand what you're talking about.
sharelol, are you serious?
Actually if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that adaptation is the root concept behind Darwin's theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the mechanism that explains how species change and adaptation explains why they do.