Perspectives on Evolution

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People expect to X-men out of evolution. It's not that yumpy.

[brewer]

My penis has evolved into something that neither I nor my wife are completely happy with.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Evolution is one of the areas in science that bother me.  It's not that I don't believe in it-- in fact, I think evolution is a fundamental property of any system with complexity, bonded interactions, and time.

My problem is that when we talk about the evolution of a species, we are talking about a species as though it's a thing.  This strikes me as somewhat mythological: humans cannot evolve (except in a different sense intellectually perhaps), but what it means to be human is slowly shifting-- there's a kind of Archetypal Man who is changing over time, both genetically and memetically (if I can coin that term).


So what, exactly, is changing over time?  Nothing, in fact, is changing, at all, ever, in evolution, any more than colors change from red to blue in a rainbow.  Nothing is developed, and yet it obviously IS developed.

What you seem to really be describing is the Problem of Universals.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, just a gripe with taxonomy.  

All descendants of ourselves will be human, because the term "human" refers to the genus, not the species. Much already -has- changed since the appearance of the genus, and will continue to do so. The fact that we might persist in calling ourselves "humans" as we further diverge (assuming we do..and that both groups survive to need a name for each other......) simply does not speak to any accrued disparity..or the lack thereof.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

https://www.wits.ac.za/homonaledi/whats-...rises.html

[TheBeardedDude]

Nah, just a gripe with taxonomy.  

All descendants of ourselves will be human, because the term "human" refers to the genus, not the species.  Much already -has- changed since the appearance of the genus, and will continue to do so.  The fact that we might persist in calling ourselves "humans" as we further diverge (assuming we do..and that both groups survive to need a name for each other......) simply does not speak to any accrued disparity..or the lack thereof.

I'm human because I am a Homo. Not because I am a Homo sapiens.





No homo

[Alex K]

Evolution is one of the areas in science that bother me.  It's not that I don't believe in it-- in fact, I think evolution is a fundamental property of any system with complexity, bonded interactions, and time.

My problem is that when we talk about the evolution of a species, we are talking about a species as though it's a thing.  This strikes me as somewhat mythological: humans cannot evolve (except in a different sense intellectually perhaps), but what it means to be human is slowly shifting-- there's a kind of Archetypal Man who is changing over time, both genetically and memetically (if I can coin that term).


So what, exactly, is changing over time?  Nothing, in fact, is changing, at all, ever, in evolution, any more than colors change from red to blue in a rainbow.  Nothing is developed, and yet it obviously IS developed.

Afaik evolution is not defined via species or speciation, but by changes of gene frequencies in a population. Speciation (splitting up of populations into groups that don't mate anymore) is a higher level outcome of that..?

[FatAndFaithless]

Evolution is one of the areas in science that bother me.  It's not that I don't believe in it-- in fact, I think evolution is a fundamental property of any system with complexity, bonded interactions, and time.

My problem is that when we talk about the evolution of a species, we are talking about a species as though it's a thing.  This strikes me as somewhat mythological: humans cannot evolve (except in a different sense intellectually perhaps), but what it means to be human is slowly shifting-- there's a kind of Archetypal Man who is changing over time, both genetically and memetically (if I can coin that term).


So what, exactly, is changing over time?  Nothing, in fact, is changing, at all, ever, in evolution, any more than colors change from red to blue in a rainbow.  Nothing is developed, and yet it obviously IS developed.

Afaik evolution is not defined via species or speciation, but by changes of gene frequencies in a population. Speciation (splitting up of populations into groups that don't mate anymore) is a higher level outcome of that..?

Yearp.  Changes in gene frequency over time is evolution, and evolution + a shit ton of time = speciation.

[JackRussell]

Alex K is completely right, traits are fixed(or not) in populations, not individuals.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Evolution is one of the areas in science that bother me.  It's not that I don't believe in it-- in fact, I think evolution is a fundamental property of any system with complexity, bonded interactions, and time.

My problem is that when we talk about the evolution of a species, we are talking about a species as though it's a thing.  This strikes me as somewhat mythological: humans cannot evolve (except in a different sense intellectually perhaps), but what it means to be human is slowly shifting-- there's a kind of Archetypal Man who is changing over time, both genetically and memetically (if I can coin that term).


So what, exactly, is changing over time?  Nothing, in fact, is changing, at all, ever, in evolution, any more than colors change from red to blue in a rainbow.  Nothing is developed, and yet it obviously IS developed.

Maybe it would help you to think of a persistent pattern that's changing. After all, you can't step into the same river twice because it contains different water molecules the second time. Even the shape of the river is changing slowly over time. Same with a cloud above a hill. The cells in our body get replaced over time as well. So the pattern that we call human is changing over time because of evolution.