Humans haven't changed in millions of years...

Here is a thesis I’ve been mulling over:

Once a human being reaches a certain level of development regarding the question of whether we are fundamentally different from animals, their emotional and intellectual baseline remains essentially static. It hasn't moved an inch through history.
The misconception arises because people look at the massive disparities between societies from a thousand years ago and our world today. They mistake progress for evolution. In reality, what we see is simply the byproduct of civilization—the ability to pass down knowledge and build upon it across generations.

Strip all that away, and the human animal is identical. Take Eratosthenes, for example. Even though he lived two and a half millennia ago, his raw intellect was likely equal to any top-tier scientist working in a modern American lab today. The only difference is that he was building on the collective intelligence of his era, just as we are building on ours.

There is no actual movement.

Millions and thousands aren't even in the same league, let alone from an evolutionary standpoint...

That was merely an illustration; you know perfectly well it’s foolish to take such a statement at face value.

If my memory serves, Homo sapiens has been around for roughly a million years. That missing link—that specific, elusive moment of divergence we struggle to grasp—actually occurred several million years ago.

The missing link here? It’s all about language. We need a language that makes inputting abstractions way easier... something that actually opens up a whole new way of selecting things.

Exactly.

Even so, I still haven't quite grasped the mechanics of how this all works, nor how we reached this particular point. What exactly was it that breached the barrier?

Richard Howard2 said:Let me lay out my thesis here:

Once a person reaches a certain level of development where they actually start asking questions like "Is humanity fundamentally different from animals?", they haven't actually made any meaningful progress in their emotional or intellectual capacity since then.

I don't know about all these little nuances you guys are debating,
but if you ask me,
it feels like Western civilization has actually regressed—massively, in fact—in terms of its collective emotional and intellectual intelligence over the last fifty years.

Over the last fifty years, the average emotional and intellectual capacity of people in Western civilization has... let's just say, regressed significantly.

You really ought to read more closely; you've completely misinterpreted my point.

I am discussing human nature and our innate cognitive-emotional abilities, not the structure of society. If an individual possessed modern weaponry and industrial manufacturing back in ancient times, their behavior would be identical to how they act today.

That falls under the umbrella of societal influence, which is not what this thesis addresses.

I seriously don't buy this idea that breaking through some mental barrier was some sudden "aha!" moment or whatever. For us, it’s always been a slow, grueling process that feels like it takes forever...

Or maybe, I guess, you could call it his first real brush with abstraction—that moment when Adam just said TREE and wasn't thinking about one specific trunk in front of him, but more like the whole concept.

Can you even imagine what was going through Adam's head back then? And man, imagine the absolute struggle he went through just trying to explain to everyone else what he actually meant when he said tree.

The element of time—how long a specific link lasts—isn't really the point here. Everything moves at a glacial pace, sure, but what happened was still a definitive turning point.

Indeed, the situation involving Adam serves as an excellent illustration. Abstract reasoning remains one of the most vital components of this entire process.

Richard Howard2 said:You really need to work on your reading comprehension because you completely missed the point here.

I’m talking about human nature and our inherent intellectual and emotional capacities, not about how we organize ourselves into a society. If someone had access to modern weaponry and massive industrial factories back in ancient times, they would have behaved exactly the same way they do today.

That's a societal issue, and that isn't what this thesis is addressing.

😁
I actually agree with that part too...
but don't get worked up
because honestly, listening to your constant rambling is just exhausting... it's like you can't process a single coherent thought... anyway, enjoy yourselves... I'm out.😁

Richard Howard2 said:Look, I was just using that as an example. You know as well as I do that taking that statement literally is pretty pointless.

If my memory serves me right, Homo sapiens have been around for about a million years. That missing link—that specific moment where everything shifted—likely happened several million years ago.

I think you might be off on the timeline there. Homo sapiens have actually been around for roughly 500,000 years, having evolved from earlier hominids—specifically Homo heidelbergensis. Even among scientists, there’s a massive debate over the exact evolutionary path. Honestly, I think we need to define a clear line for when we can actually call someone a "human"... which is why your thread title feels a bit misleading. No wonder people are misinterpreting you...

That being said, I totally agree that aside from physical changes, we haven't really made much progress intellectually or emotionally...

But wouldn't that very shift cause us to stop being "human"? Just like how Homo erectus transitioned into Homo heidelbergensis, which eventually evolved into Homo sapiens...

Thanks for correcting me on Blue Eyes.

Yes, such a shift would likely signify a transition from Homo sapiens to some entirely new iteration—a sort of "Homo superior" (X-Men).

But one has to wonder: what actually defines this superior form? How would they perceive our world, or even interact with it? Would their heightened intellect manifest as a physical imprint on the material realm, something akin to telepathy?

So, how do new species actually emerge? It boils down to mutation and natural selection—evolution, in short. From what I understand, there is still an ongoing debate regarding whether humans originated in multiple locations or just one single spot, which would mean a literal "Adam" and/or "Eve" existed (though I get the impression the latter view tends to be more prevalent).
There is also a similar dispute over whether modern Homo sapiens emerged as a "pure" lineage or through interbreeding with Neanderthals, who either were "assimilated" into our species or simply died out due to competition with a more dominant group.

Personally, I don't think we can predict what the next evolutionary step will look like, but it seems quite possible that it won't be a natural process at all. Instead, humanity might trigger it ourselves—essentially engineering our own evolution.

🙂 Jason Morgan2

And that is entirely plausible. The next step will, if it doesn't initiate the process outright, at least accelerate the individual. We are talking about true non-linearity then!

It seems to me that we've entered a new evolutionary phase for Homo sapiens—one that isn't driven by biology, but rather by our social structures and scientific advancements. This might actually be the answer to that question about the fundamental difference between humans and animals that Richard Howard2 has been searching for for such a long time.

Richard Howard2 said:Read more carefully. You missed the point entirely.

I’m talking about human nature and intellectual/emotional capacity, not how society functions. If they had modern weapons and massive factories back in ancient times, people would still act the exact same way they do now.

That’s a societal issue, which isn't what my thesis is about.

I disagree. I don't think they'd act like us because people back then lived by raw instinct. They were actually connected to nature. We aren't. Most people today are just stunted; what drives the masses has nothing to do with our actual nature. Everything is fake, calculated, and unnatural. We've changed, sure, but not for the better. This constant "progress" is just us losing what actually makes us human.

Nah, I think the biggest shifts are actually about self-awareness and education. A long time ago, you didn't necessarily need an education just to get by in life, but nowadays? It’s basically a requirement. As for self-awareness, people seem to be getting hyper-fixated on their surroundings—like nature—but they're looking at it through a totally warped lens. Just look at the whole vegetarian movement: "We won't eat anything with a face."

On top of that, we've reached this point where people just take everything for granted, which means we aren't really evolving. Sure, our civilization is packed with incredible inventions, scientific breakthroughs, and massive progress, but how much does the average person actually understand or even know how to replicate? Seriously, ha?

Kali said:I honestly don't think they would act the same way people do today. Back then, humans were guided by this incredibly sharp instinct because we were so much more connected to the natural world—something you just can't say about us anymore. We’ve become stunted. Most people nowadays are driven by things that have absolutely nothing to do with our true nature. Everything feels artificial, calculated, and just... off. Sure, there’s been change, but it hasn't been for the better. This constant pushing of boundaries feels like we're just one step closer to losing what actually makes us human.

Uhm, no way! Instinct hasn't changed at all! It’s still right there inside us. We just call it parapsychology now!

How can you say nothing is changing? It’s shifting constantly, especially at the start 😕