a) What do you mean "no change to primate"? We ARE the change, and we ARE primate.
b) Evolution will continue and is continuing. As the environment change (including human factors, competition), so will be species that "fit" into it. All the author need to do is wait for another few million year before concluding.
c) There is no GOAL in evolution. Human is not the goal. (Obviously, the fall into evolution misconception again) In the end, primate just evolve to be DIFFERENT primate, whether they evolve to become homo sapien is not important in evolution.
Please begin with Evolution 101 again.
In strict term, there is no "better" in evolution. You probably "better adapted". The question then raise the question of where in the "wild" you are referring to?
With or without education, human is better at co-operation, planning on future. Walking upright is also advantageous in traveling long distance on grassland. It is better at spotting food or enemy on grassland. All of these will work to our advantage in the certain part of the wild, and useless in other part of the wild.
So in another word, we will probably fare terribly in the jungle compare to a gorrila. However, we will be quite better adapted on grassland. We will probably fare horrible alone. However, we will be exceptional if we are in group.
Does that answer your question?
PS. If I remember correctly, our brain did get a tiny bit larger after civilisation. The limiting factor of human brain is birth. Also, as our diet change, some of us has become more lactose tolerant (we can drink milk as an adult!). So we HAVE changed!
Walking upright is also advantageous in traveling long distance on grassland.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 15:08
What makes homo sapien stand out from other primates is not because homo sapien walked upright some hundred million years ago.
Homo sapien is different from other primates because homo sapien is 'wise'.
As the environment change (including human factors, competition), so will be species that "fit" into it.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59
I do not agree.
If species "fit" into the environment, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else.
If species "fit" into the environment, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
c) There is no GOAL in evolution. Human is not the goal. (Obviously, the fall into evolution misconception again) In the end, primate just evolve to be DIFFERENT primate
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59
You are trying to say that evolution is a 'no goal' and a 'random' thing. This contradicts strongly with the most fundamental concept in science: that the nature and the universe have patterns, rules and laws. Things would not have happened randomly as they have appeared.
And now we are calling the specie thata create nuclear weapon to capable of destroying the planet acouple of times "wiser" (I never said a larger brain wiser. Otherwise, the elephant should be the wiser)
Evolution has no goal, does not mean it is random. Snow flakes has no goal, yet it is not random. Pattern can form due to natural process. Human is just a particular pattern, like a particular shape of snowflakes. (Homo sapian is not the only intelligence ever exist on earth, the others has just gone extinct)
We do walk upright and they generally don't. It is quite advantageous in certain environment. I never said it is the sole factor that distinguish us from them. (You never get over the idea that human is just another species, do you?)
There are some environment on earth that has not change much to pressure an evolution. Obviously, you forget the salamander that HAS changed.
Species change by MUTATION AND SELECTION. Now you get a lighter skin color? Evolution built on ancertor, it is not a puff from design. As long as the species manage to survive, it does not need to be perfect!