Is the human race fooling their selves into believing they evolved simply because of technology?

Question

Adapting or evolving?

This isn’t a matter of ‘religion versus science’. Merely thought provoking and I’m more than interested in hearing your responses.

Me just rambling on:
Are we not the same now as opposed to four thousand years ago or further back then that? I feel as though the human race is absolutely fooling themselves into believing they are superior… even superior to their ancestors. The human race didn’t evolve, they merely adapted to their surroundings to a great extent. To me the word evolution should never have even existed except in the comic book universe.

Answer 1

Your understanding of evolution may be too naive, too simplistic, too exact, too literal. I don't think it happens in a vacuum.

I think it's a more complex event - there were more changes going on in the environment that influenced the evolutionary process. .

The concept does not state that man evolved over a period of a few thousand years, but over eons. That's what makes it a more viable argument than a mysterious spirit blowing man into existence in a few minutes. .

There could have been one or more catastrophic or significant incidents that caused two disparate living organisms to merge and produce a third unique one.

For example, take dinosaurs, some event cause their extinction, and after eons another set of animals came into being. Why a totally different set?

I think the same event that wiped out dinosaurs was a catalyst among others in the creation of the 'new' creatures. That's what evolution means to me - a combination of circumstances and eons of time.

It is possible that today's humans ARE a result of evolution.

Answer 2

We evolved to what we are now and have been for about the last 100,000 years. I think we have quit evolving for now because we are functioning well as we are now.

That's not to say we might not evolve in the future if maybe we got off the planet to other habitations. These other habitations are not likely to be a 100% match for Earth, so given a few generations evolution has a high chance of occurring.

Also, I have read recently about an idea that the planet as it has moved and rotated has experienced periods of high peek gamma radiation bombardments and it may correlate to periods of extinction and evolution. Kind of neat actually I think this might be one of S. Hawkins's ideas. Can't really remember, I read a lot.

Technology isn't a hindrance to evolution, technology is a human tool. One that can hurt or help us like fire. Environment,
sets the requirements and our DNA answers and hopefully has
enough options.

Answer 3

I don't think that even 4000 years ago Evolution thinks we were biologically significantly different. Evolution takes place over much longer time periods than that.

Anyway, "Superior" is subjective. If you're going to define superior, you have to define your values.

Edit: Ominous june, how do we not live in logic? I dare you to say something illogical that you truely believe to be true.

At first, it'll seem like you can, but there are some very fundamental reasons why that's not possible (in part because of how "true" is defined). Oh well.

Answer 4

Erm... Humans have roughly the same biology now as they did ten, twenty, thirty thousand years ago, well before writing systems were invented, well before even agriculture was invented. Human evolution took place over millions of years before that. Adaptation is a continuous process as is evolution. They are related, but one does not take the place of the other.

Further, the basic idea for evolution pre-dates our current modes of technology, so I don't think you can blame technology for it.

Answer 5

How are you defining "evolved"?

I agree with spamandham - I believe that we are "adapting."

And if we didn't do this, we would likely still be living in caves.

But I think that we also need to be concerned about where technology leads us.

And I agree with your point that we are fools to think that we are somehow "superior". I believe that each generation of humans has developed the intelligence and, by extension, the technology, to deal with their immediate world and in doing so has contributed to the flow and advancement of the human experience.

Answer 6

As far as the broad population goes, you are not far off. It too, though has evolved in that reactivity to adverse events is now more moderate compared to medieval times, or to animals. The technological progress humanity has made is not due to its broad masses, but largely due to isolated talented individuals who were interested in new things, and unwittingly transformed infrastructure.

In the meantime, we still have a traffic grid problem, so tell your
friends about Hallitubes -

Answer 7

Call it adaptation if you want, the end result is the same. The term 'evolution' implies superiority only in the sense of superior reproductive success in the current environment. It does not imply any kind of moral superiority.

Answer 8

this could be an common one. If the international gets too warm, we've shown that we are in a position to stay to tell the story it with the aid of fact the "Cradles of Civilization" have been in warm, dry areas. If the international gets chilly, then we've already shown that we are in a position to stand up to ice an prolonged time, and that's with out any "intense" technologies. If the international gets overpopulated, it is going to, out of necessity, stability itself out. i do no longer think of we ought to tension approximately surviving the subsequent a hundred years. the authentic question is a thank you to we save the subsequent a hundred years from growing to be to be the subsequent dark Age.

Answer 9

Evolution isn't concerned with 4 thousand years ago. It is concerned with millions of years ago Yes, we are pretty much the same as we were four thousand years ago, but we are much different than we were a million and a half years ago..

Answer 10

I think it's ironic that the only people who claim that humans are too advanced to have evolved naturally are the ones who demonstrate the least advanced mode of thinking.