Can you see that we evolved from primates?

[Squawk]

your ideas are fine. i like your ideas. but im suggesting this.


..................................................100 thousand yrs............................1 billion yrs.......................10 billion yrs...........................100 billion yrs
corded -> primate -> human -> human/? -> unknown -> new species no longer primate or human

That suggestion would invalidate common ancestry. Speciation (due to evolution) is a branching process which results in a nested hierarchy. You can also retract the steps backwards (or could, if you had complete information). You're suggesting that a speciation event can occur that puts the daughter species on a different lineage, an evolutionary impossibility.

If it happens, evolution is falsified.

 

[Nemesiah]

your ideas are fine. i like your ideas. but im suggesting this.


..................................................100 thousand yrs............................1 billion yrs.......................10 billion yrs...........................100 billion yrs
corded -> primate -> human -> human/? -> unknown -> new species no longer primate or human

They will (probably) no longer think of themselves as humans just as we dont think of oursleves as our lungfish-type ancestors, but since we are still corded and primate, the will still be coorded and primate even if by that point they don't think of themselves that way.

Deep down we share genetic and fisiological characteristics with our lungfish-like ancestors, it's just that we dont think of ourselves that way, it may come to pass that those descendants of us (you really. I plan on not having kids) would be genetically incompatible with today's humans but their clasification would still be "a kind of human" just as we are "a kind of primate".

Think this is the gist of what they are saying. please anybody correct me if I'm wrong or if you feel I'm misrepresenting your point of view.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I hope this makes sense, if not please POLITELY point out the flaws in this idea.

your ideas are fine. i like your ideas. but im suggesting this.


........................................................100 thousand yrs........1 billion yrs.......................10 billion yrs...........................100 billion yrs
corded....->............. primate....->..... human -> .............. human/?..... -> ............... unknown......->................ new species no longer primate or human
..................................................................................................genetic engineering->............................................................

this is purely speculative but for me this seems very plausible given this kind of time frame. also genetic engineering could play a large factor here.

:facepalm:

Your Linnaean way of looking at classification is out of date and wrong. Please read this link and learn about how modern taxonomy is done.

Think this is the gist of what they are saying. please anybody correct me if I'm wrong or if you feel I'm misrepresenting your point of view.

You have the gist of it. Which leads me to believe that ranchodeluxe is just being obtuse.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

your ideas are fine. i like your ideas. but im suggesting this.


..................................................100 thousand yrs............................1 million yrs.......................1 billion yrs...........................10 billion yrs
corded -> primate -> human -> human/? -> unknown -> new species no longer primate or human

They will (probably) no longer think of themselves as humans just as we dont think of oursleves as our lungfish-type ancestors, but since we are still corded and primate, the will still be coorded and primate even if by that point they don't think of themselves that way.

Deep down we share genetic and fisiological characteristics with our lungfish-like ancestors, it's just that we dont think of ourselves that way, it may come to pass that those descendants of us (you really. I plan on not having kids) would be genetically incompatible with today's humans but their clasification would still be "a kind of human" just as we are "a kind of primate".

Think this is the gist of what they are saying. please anybody correct me if I'm wrong or if you feel I'm misrepresenting your point of view.

yes pretty much but i believe that a new classification of species could arise from humans within the next 100 thousand years as a result of genetic engineering. also i believe that computers might someday become self aware and when we are extinct one artificially intelligent being might ask other "Can you believe that we evolved from primates?".

 

[australopithecus]

yes pretty much but i believe that a new classification of species could arise from humans within the next 100 thousand years as a result of genetic engineering.

But that new species would still be human, and still be a primate. That the point we're making.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

yes pretty much but i believe that a new classification of species could arise from humans within the next 100 thousand years as a result of genetic engineering.

But that new species would still be human, and still be a primate. That the point we're making.

well once we start toying with genetic engineering many new species will be difficult to classify and indeed some new classifications will need to be made. besides after mankind has nuked himself back to the stone age a few dozen times than the words primate or human probably wont even exist anymore. :mrgreen:

 

[australopithecus]

well once we start toying with genetic engineering many new species will be difficult to classify and indeed some new classifications will need to be made.

Only at species level, if any. You can't evolve out of, or be genetically engineered out of a clade. If your ancestors were human then you're human too, regardless of engineering.

 

[MillionSword]

well once we start toying with genetic engineering many new species will be difficult to classify and indeed some new classifications will need to be made.

Exactly how drastic are you expecting these changes to be as a result of genetic engineering?

 

[ranchodeluxe]

well once we start toying with genetic engineering many new species will be difficult to classify and indeed some new classifications will need to be made.

Only at species level, if any. You can't evolve out of, or be genetically engineered out of a clade. If your ancestors were human then you're human too, regardless of engineering.

all the knowledge that we hold so dear and true wont even be relevant in 100 thousand years.

 

[Nemesiah]

well once we start toying with genetic engineering many new species will be difficult to classify and indeed some new classifications will need to be made.

Only at species level, if any. You can't evolve out of, or be genetically engineered out of a clade. If your ancestors were human then you're human too, regardless of engineering.

Just to open a can of worms here

IF it could be that though some very advanced genetic manipulation one could mix a feline ovum with a canine spematozoa AND the ofspring were viable and could reproduce between themselves then you would have a new "hibrid race" that would have both lines as a parent branch; this happes hith mules (half horse half donkey) BUT they are sterile so I THINK (please correct me) they are not a new species.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTICE that hose would be corded->mamal->cat / dog->hobbit so they would not have stoped being cat / dog, it would just be a much more messed up genealogy

THIS IS PURE SPECULATION (fun experiment though, as long as one does not have sex with it)

 

[australopithecus]

all the knowledge that we hold so dear and true wont even be relevant in 100 thousand years.

Says who?

 

[Squawk]

Just to open a can of worms here

IF it could be that though some very advanced genetic manipulation one could mix a feline ovum with a canine spematozoa AND the ofspring were viable and could reproduce between themselves then you would have a new "hibrid race" that would have both lines as a parent branch; this happes hith mules (half horse half donkey) BUT they are sterile so I THINK (please correct me) they are not a new species.

IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTICE that hose would be corded->mamal->cat / dog->hobbit so they would not have stoped being cat / dog, it would just be a much more messed up genealogy

THIS IS PURE SPECULATION (fun experiment though, as long as one does not have sex with it)

The ability to produce a sterile hybrid in that instance shows that the two species are recently diverged. Consider what would happen if viable hybrids could be produced, and the two populations were permitted to mix and breed. The defining characteristics of each daughter species (horse and donkey) would eventually be wiped out, with the new single species essentially reverting back to the ancestral type that diverged originally to produce the two species in the first place. It wouldn't be quite the same, but thats the general principle.

I see no reason why a new organism could not be manufactured from scratch, or loosely based on an extant organisms DNA. I would likely not consider such an organism to lie withing any current clade. Essentially we would be starting a new branch of life. I don't think we could consider it to share a common ancestor with anything living since reproduction was not the creative process involved here.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

i hate to tell you this but i doesnt seem likely that a culture of humans 100 thousand years from now would still speak our language or have knowledge of our current species classifications and our current knowledge would be lost remnants of an ancient civilization. much like how we view ancient mayan or egyptian knowledge. like i said after we blow our selves back to the stone age enough times all that knowledge will be lost in time like tears in the rain. :cry: and i didnt even mention plagues or natural disasters. how long to you think our current civilization is going to last? :lol: its cute that you guys think its going to go on forever.

 

[Squawk]

i hate to tell you this but i doesnt seem likely that a culture of humans 100 thousand years from now would still speak our language or have knowledge of our current species classifications and our current knowledge would be lost remnants of an ancient civilization. much like how we view ancient mayan or egyptian knowledge. like i said after we blow our selves back to the stone age enough times all that knowledge will be lost in time like tears in the rain. :cry: and i didnt even mention plagues or natural disasters. how long to you think our current civilization is going to last? :lol: its cute that you guys think its going to go on forever.

I happen to agree with this.

 

[aMarshall]

A metaphor if I may: A small company starts out selling fishing supplies. They eventually and slowly expand to fishing boats, and acquire other companies. They expand into farming equipment and acquire further. They expand in several other fields as well. Eventually they start focusing in solar energy, close other areas entirely. The company at this point has no employees, merchandise, names, or accounting information of the original company. However, no matter how that company changes in the future, it cannot change the path of history that got it there. The company will always keep that hierarchy of change.

Even if by genetic engineering humans eventually have none of the morphological traits or genetic makeup we currently have, the path we took to get here remains unchanged, and that is what the clade structure goes by. Would it be useful at that point to call 'ourselves' primates? Only as a historical tool I suppose.

Humans are a subset of all of these things:

Eukaryota
Animalia
Chordata
Vertebrata
Mammalia
Theriiformes
Eutheria
Boreoeutheria
Euarchontoglires
Primates
Haplorrhini
Simiiformes
Catarrhini
Hominoidea
Hominidae
Homininae
Hominini
Hominina
Homo
Homo sapiens

...and everything that descends from us by reproduction is as well.

About losing our knowledge in the future, that doesn't change the facts of what we evolved from. In such a case we may rediscover our ancestry but call them different names. Or perhaps not be able to piece it together correctly, if genetic engineering indeed causes our future descendants to be lacking of anything that could be shown to match us (as others have pointed out this is very extremely unlikely to happen naturally).

 

[MillionSword]

its cute that you guys think its going to go on forever.

You don't need to be a patronising twat tbh.

 

[lrkun]

This should perhaps be in a sub-forum on evolution, but I want to bring it to the awareness of believers in religion.

We have the interesting idea (fact) that we evolved from primates, and yet we do not really know it as we know that the sun rises, or that organisms grow, etc. We believe evolution is true, but this is not the same as really knowing.
Think how amazing it would be to be able to actually watch evolution unfolding over millions of years. Imagine having it all on video, and being able to speed it up. If you could do this, you would really know it.
I have noticed that it is in a way possible to see that we evolved from primates. There are many people who are really not so different from each other. It is almost possible to predict what they are going to say. I find this easier to notice in simple-minded people. I have not perceived it easily in well-educated, clever people.
We do not see each other in this light. It is difficult to express - we think 'He is John', 'She is Sarah', we see individuals. When you see someone in the way I have just been describing, I think you see more sharply.

If we could really know, in the strongest sense of the word, the truth of evolution, would it change the way we see ourselves, would it benefit us? The first thing that came to mind to me on this, was the problem of overpopulation. Believers in Christianity, Islam and Judaism do not like the idea that population growth should be checked (I do not know this from experience, but I think it must be true), but is it realistic to think that it does not matter if the human race keeps getting larger? From what I know of monotheistic religion, I would say that the most obvious reason believers do not like it is because they believe that we are all created by god, we are 'children of God'.
I have more to say on this subject, but I will post this now.

First, welcome to the forums.

Second, what's your source? Why do you believe your source to be true? Who is the author? What result do you hope to achieve by asking this question?

 

[Squawk]

its cute that you guys think its going to go on forever.

You don't need to be a patronising twat tbh.

I also agree with that.

 

[ranchodeluxe]

its cute that you guys think its going to go on forever.

You don't need to be a patronising twat tbh.

i am sorry. please accept my apologies.

 

[Nemesiah]

i hate to tell you this but i doesnt seem likely that a culture of humans 100 thousand years from now would still speak our language or have knowledge of our current species classifications and our current knowledge would be lost remnants of an ancient civilization. much like how we view ancient mayan or egyptian knowledge. like i said after we blow our selves back to the stone age enough times all that knowledge will be lost in time like tears in the rain. :cry: and i didnt even mention plagues or natural disasters. how long to you think our current civilization is going to last? :lol: its cute that you guys think its going to go on forever.

The way we keep records nowadays is much better than those of the ancients, even if the language is lost, I believe that the "humanity" of the future will have a prety good idea of what was happening along these times, maybe not the particulars but certanly the important stuff, also, while a nuclear war will wipe most of humanity (along with many many innocent annimals) I do not believe it will completely wipe the culture, "humanity" will (I believe) have set backs and plateaus but I do not belive that in the world of the future an interred statue of liberty will be meaningless. I do not belive wi wil have to re-discover wrting, or agriculture (yes the particulars, but not the whole idea) buildings may fall but the knowledge of how to build them I belive is spread enough that it will survive even cataclismic events (AS I UNDERSTAND there are some repositories of this in the nuclear bunkers that america has under some mountains (TBH I don know if this is a myth but I seem to recall a discovery channel special on nuclear bunkers or some such))

I don't think it is naive to belive that "humanity" will survive, just not as we think or hope.