CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Society › Philosophy › Humans haven't changed in millions of years...

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

Started by Richard Howard2 · · 👁 5 views · 61 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants Richard Howard2Bradley Fisher20mistybear282AJason Morgan2Amanda Williams2Henry Bailey2Matthew Doyle73Jose Palmer2Ronald Anderson5Kenneth Ward8swiftcobra15hollowtrucker77Larry Gonzalez11wiredhound14Nicole Miller37Taylor Campbell4Drew Bennett2Ethan Kim4
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#41 ·
Sound&Fury said:Look, Blijedooka, biological evolution is just the shift in a species' genetic makeup driven by natural selection. Period. It’s simple. Back in the day, only the most fit individuals were surviving long enough to have kids, but nowadays, people tend to pass away mostly after they've already reproduced, and practically anyone can have children (as Krleža once joked: making a baby is easy—try making an umbrella if you're such a genius). Now, sociological evolution is about changing living conditions, basically raising the standard of living. Those environmental factors actually shape the brain. While the brain has certain genetic predispositions like any other organ, it’s incredibly malleable—like a lump of clay (or more scientifically, lipoproteins). Unlike, say, your liver, the social environment a kid grows up in has a massive impact on how their brain develops.

First off, you're being way too patronizing...

Second, you didn't even specify what you meant... You said human evolution is finished. You weren't clear about whether you were talking about biological, social, or even some kind of astronomical type of evolution...

But let's see what the actual definition says:


Biological evolution is the theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time, causing their descendants to differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors. This process is dependent on the need of organisms to compete for the things which are essential to them individually to survive and reproduce. It is a continuing process that has been going on for millions of years, rather than a finished event, although there is some debate over the degree to which human beings are evolving now.


If you've been implying in your posts that the human brain is still changing... and then I pointed out how contradictory it is to claim human evolution is "finished" if we are still changing... doesn't that fly right in the face of the definition above?

.
Jose Palmer2 Jose Palmer2 Member
10 messages
joined Dec 2002
#42 ·

First off, you're being incredibly patronizing...


My bad... guess I've just got those unfulfilled parental instincts kicking in... I'm working on it...


Darwinism is the idea that groups of organisms adapt over time, making descendants look and function differently than their ancestors. This whole thing relies on organisms fighting for the essentials they need to survive and pass on their genes. It’s an ongoing process that's been grinding away for millions of years—not some one-and-done event—though people still argue about how much humans are actually evolving today.


That definition is super vague. Honestly, you can't wrap your head around evolution in just three sentences. For example, trying to cram differences in digestive enzyme chemistry under "morphological" or "physiological" changes is a stretch. The real key is the shift in genetic material.


If you were implying that the human brain is still changing... and then I pointed out how contradictory that is to the definition above if you claim human evolution is somehow "finished" while we're clearly still changing... what's that supposed to mean?


By that logic, bodybuilding would basically count as evolution.
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#43 ·
I honestly can’t wrap my head around this whole notion that people today are somehow more intelligent than they were, say, two millennia ago.
What exactly is the proof for that? What's the evidence?

The humans back then had to be infinitely more resourceful than we are just to stay alive, protect themselves, and actually build things...
And let's be clear, they weren't just scraping by; they were thriving, constructing massive monuments that we could barely replicate today, and they clearly mastered mathematics, astronomy, and medicine.

Or is "intelligence" nowadays just defined as being able to swing by the grocery store or drive a car?
Sure, maybe society as a whole has made some strides, but is that the same thing?

I agree it would be fascinating to drop someone from 2,000 years ago into our modern world, but honestly, I think it would be even more interesting to toss a person from today back into their era.

What do you all think—who would actually fare better?
🙂
swiftcobra15 swiftcobra15 Regular
305 messages
joined Dec 2002
#44 ·
Jose Palmer2 said:I'm not quite sure where you're pulling those numbers from, because my own research from various sources tells a completely different story, 😉

If we accept that people today perform better on spatial perception tests than they did a century ago, then we are looking at definitive neurological shifts. That’s just a fact.

😕

I truly respect the points you've laid out here, but we can't ignore the reality that "intelligence" is merely whatever an IQ test manages to measure—and frankly, those instruments are incredibly unreliable. 😉

As for spatial perception, surely you aren't suggesting they were all evaluated using the exact same metrics? 😕
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#45 ·
Sound & Fury said:
First off, you’re being pretty patronizing here...


My bad... I guess it's just an unfulfilled parental instinct kicking in... I'm working on it...


Biological evolution is the theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time. This process is driven by the necessity for organisms to compete for essential resources to survive and reproduce. It’s an ongoing process spanning millions of years, rather than a completed event, though there’s plenty of debate regarding the extent to which humans are currently evolving.


That definition is incredibly vague. Besides, you can't grasp the concept of evolution in just three sentences. For instance, it's hard to categorize differences in the chemical composition of digestive enzymes under simple morphological or physiological changes. The real key is the alteration of genetic material.


If you were implying in your posts that the human brain is still changing... and if I added that human evolution can't be "finished" if we are still changing... then how does that contradict the definition you provided?


By that logic, bodybuilding would count as evolution too.

Look, I never said evolution was over or that human intelligence is definitely increasing... I'm not claiming either side is fact. I just noticed what seemed like a logical inconsistency in your argument based on my own interpretation... I prefer to question things rather than just take an answer at face value...

And that bodybuilding analogy... honestly, it's a bit silly.
Let me put it this way:
You’re arguing that with every generation, intelligence rises and the number of neurons and synapses in the brain increases... meaning intelligence grows. If we follow that logic, humans will evolve into some kind of super-intelligent species in a few thousand years because we live in such a politically correct society... eventually, someone like Reiner will release a program or documentary claiming that hugging kids is vital for neuron and synapse development... and gullible people will swallow those politically correct programs, resulting in a collective generation of "super-intelligent and happy" kids with massive amounts of neurons and synapses. 😁
Unless, of course, you have some theory suggesting that spanking kids in childhood triggers a desire to hit the gym, making every generation more jacked...🙄

Regarding evolution... I know perfectly well that looking up a term in a dictionary isn't enough to understand it... but regardless, the claim that "human evolution is dead" is just one theory held by some scientists that many others don't agree with at all.
Larry Gonzalez11 Larry Gonzalez11 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Dec 2002
#46 ·
Is human evolution officially a finished chapter?

Maybe natural selection is done... though I wouldn't bet my life on it.
But honestly, won't our breakthroughs in genetic engineering fundamentally hijack the course of our future evolution?
Larry Gonzalez11 Larry Gonzalez11 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Dec 2002
#47 ·
Regarding neurons and synapses...

Everything I’ve read is absolute garbage.
Given my lifestyle over the last seven or eight years, my brain should basically be nothing more than a pathetic pile of gelatin or some lukewarm broth where a lonely neuron occasionally floats to the surface, looking completely opaque because the bottom is just a graveyard of dead cells...
Or at least, that’s what the scientists claim...

But then... my company decided to round up every single person with a Master's degree from across the entire United States to run some tests on our actual value...
I thought to myself... well, this is it, my career is officially over...
And then...
The intelligence test... absolutely phenomenal
Math... super
Logic..... super
Memory.... super

To hell with those scientists... they don't have a clue how the brain actually works...
Jose Palmer2 Jose Palmer2 Member
10 messages
joined Dec 2002
#48 ·
lighting Blue Eyes said:Look, I never said evolution had stopped or that human intelligence is definitely climbing—I’m not even claiming it is or isn't... I just hit what felt like a logical hole in your argument based on how I see things... I’d rather question an answer than just swallow it whole...

That bodybuilding analogy? It’s kind of stupid, if you want the plain truth.
Let me break it down for you:
You're arguing that with every generation, intelligence rises and we get more neurons and synapses... which means higher IQ... and if we follow that logic, humans will evolve into some kind of super-genius species in a few thousand years... because since we live in such a politically correct society... we'll probably end up with someone like Reiner running programs and documentaries about how coddling kids is actually good for their neurons and synapses... people are gullible enough to swallow those PC agendas, and it'll all result in one big collective cuddle session that produces "super-intelligent and happy" brats with massive amounts of neurons and synapses. 😁
Unless you have some theory that spanking kids during childhood triggers a desire to hit the gym so every generation ends up more jacked...🙄

As for evolution... I know you can't just look up a word in a dictionary and think you understand a concept... but anyway, the claim that human evolution is dead... is just one theory held by certain scientists that others don't even agree with.

Now you're just contradicting me for the sake of contradicting me. I never claimed humans would evolve into some super-being. In fact, I wrote:

And at the end of the day, I still stand by my belief that humanity is moving toward a sociological optimum for achieving intellectual maximums, and that social conditions—especially during childhood and adolescence—absolutely impact brain development.


Talking about a "maximum" isn't a huge deal; it's estimated that intelligence might only increase by 10-20% this way. But listen, the crucial part here is that we're talking about changes that happen within an individual's lifetime—specifically during childhood when the brain is forming. If a kid lives under the same conditions as an average child from 2,000 years ago, it doesn't matter that they were born in the 21st century.

The bodybuilding analogy actually works perfectly, because it's also about physical changes that aren't driven by genome shifts, but by changes occurring during a lifetime. Imagine if we all hit the weights. We’d be 50% stronger than our ancestors. But again, that would be a change triggered by lifestyle, not evolution, because our genome stays exactly the same. The social environment today—where kids' brains are constantly stimulated and fed a non-stop stream of data they spontaneously process—is basically a form of "brain building." But the fact that they might grow up with slightly more developed brains than peers from 20 centuries ago isn't due to evolutionary shifts; it's due to changed social conditions.
A Anonymous Veteran
3.6K messages
joined May 2005
#49 ·
I don't have the time right now to write out a full response... but something about this is really bugging me...

But look, the crucial point here is that we're talking about a fundamental shift in how an individual is shaped during their lifetime—specifically during childhood when the brain is actually forming. If a kid grows up under the exact same conditions as an average child from 2,000 years ago, it doesn't matter at all that they were born in the 21st century.

The bodybuilding analogy is spot on because it’s also about physical changes that aren't driven by altering the genome, but rather by changes that happen throughout a lifespan. Imagine if we all hit the gym constantly. We'd be 50% stronger than our ancestors. However, that would still just be a change induced by lifestyle, not evolution, because our genetic code remains identical. The social environment today—where kids' brains are constantly stimulated and fed a non-stop stream of data that they process instinctively—is essentially "brain building." But the fact that they might end up with more developed cognitive abilities compared to peers from two millennia ago isn't the result of evolutionary shifts; it's purely a result of changed social circumstances.

So, you're basically admitting it's just a lifestyle choice... exactly what Richard Howard2 was talking about... meaning these are changes that only last a lifetime, and the next generation doesn't inherit them biologically, but rather through parental knowledge and by adopting that same way of life...
Doesn't that lead to the conclusion that humans haven't actually changed at all?
Jose Palmer2 Jose Palmer2 Member
10 messages
joined Dec 2002
#50 ·
Sure, the human genome is basically the same across the board, which means we all carry the same genetic predispositions—though honestly, that’s a bit of an oversimplification. I mean, let's face it, massive plagues, diseases, and wars have always acted as a sort of natural selection process—like how the population in Europe plummeted by something like 66% after the Hundred Years' War. But people aren't identical clones. Take height, for instance. Taller people generally have larger skulls, which translates to more brain volume. And whether actual brain size correlates directly with intelligence is a debate we've been having on the old forums for ages...
Richard Howard2 Richard Howard2 Active MemberOP
128 messages
joined Dec 2002
#51 ·
Jose Palmer2 said:The human genome is fundamentally the same, which implies identical hereditary predispositions—though even that isn't strictly accurate. It’s a certainty that major epidemics, plagues, and wars acted as mechanisms of natural selection; for instance, the population of America was decimated by 66% following the Hundred Years' War. Regardless, people aren't identical. They differ in stature, for example. Greater height often correlates with a larger skull, and thus a greater brain volume. As for whether brain size actually scales with intelligence, we already had that debate on the old forum...


Yes, that holds water. Over time, the human being undergoes structural changes in both brain and body. A million years ago, humans possessed exactly what was biologically and evolutionarily necessary: massive jaws for hunting and masticating all sorts of food, paired with a relatively small brain.

That has shifted since then. We now possess larger brains and smaller jaws, less body hair for warmth, and our feet have lost that hand-like utility for climbing trees, among other things.

One could reasonably expect that in another million years, we will look exactly like the aliens described in modern sci-fi: massive heads perched atop fragile, weak bodies, because we simply won't need the rest. Some theories even suggest we are extraterrestrials from the future, sent back merely to observe ourselves.

However, my point remains: intelligence is a metric measured against one's contemporary environment, not in relation to where we were or where we will be in 2,000 years.

Furthermore, the intellectual nature of humanity is such that our cognitive capacity remains constant; it is civilization—the accumulated legacy left by countless generations before us—that enables progress. This is precisely how we diverge from the animal kingdom: through the ability to apply knowledge and utilize collective memory, ensuring we don't have to reinvent the wheel every single time.
Larry Gonzalez11 Larry Gonzalez11 Newcomer
4 messages
joined Dec 2002
#52 ·
The human genome hasn't really changed much over the ages... but in the near and medium-term future, we’re going to start poking at that untouched code and rewriting it entirely.
We'll see the emergence of what you might call a Shaper race...
Basically, we'll have the power to become whatever we want ourselves...
However, those opposed to messing with our DNA will pivot toward nanotechnology... instead of tweaking our genes, they'll choose to alter us through machines... leading to the birth of the so-called Mechanists.
Those who refuse to change will end up as outcasts... mere nobodies with zero rights in a civilization built on the fundamental conflict between nanotechnology and genetics...

Damn... I think I've been reading way too much Bruce Sterling...😁 😁 😁
wiredhound14 wiredhound14 Newcomer
1 message
joined Oct 2006
#53 ·
I truly believe the first step taken by our primate ancestors was the invention of tools. From there, humans just kept finding new ways to make life easier—think of things like organized religion, the power plug, or electricity.

And now, we’ve suddenly hit the 21st century, where you seem to think humanity has reached its peak or simply hit a dead end.

What comes next is exploration—not just exploring the world, but understanding ourselves and finding our actual place in the natural order. We aren't the center of the universe, and we aren't at the top of the food chain. That realization has been driving us since the days of Charles Darwin.

Personally, I think the next logical step is the total disappearance of religion. But, being the pessimist that I am, I suspect this society will probably tear itself apart in wars before it actually manages to evolve.
Nicole Miller37 Nicole Miller37 Member
10 messages
joined Oct 2006
#54 ·
Is there actually any progress to speak of? We found ourselves asking that very question, though we didn't bother asking anyone else—why bother when you can go straight to the source? We turned to Bel Hamvas himself. Our field reporter, Desanka Krivoguzić, sat down with him for this exclusive; she’s really the only one who had been calling out the absolute wilderness where Bel spent nearly an entire year in total isolation. When she finally tracked him down, he was preoccupied, lost in thought, seemingly hyper-attuned to some incredibly specific olfactory profile—something specifically tuned to the scent ratios characteristic of the broader fungal and mushroom families. And well, we all know how much Bel loves crafting and tasting fine wines... so, without further ado: here is the interview.

Desanka: Good grief, I thought I’d never track you down. If I hadn't brought this dozen or so cooked chicken heads with me, you probably would have gone absolutely insane from hunger. So, let's sit down and actually have a conversation for once. I even brought some bourbon to take the edge off—we might as well not be bored while we talk. So, my dear Bela... hehe... tell me something. Can we actually see any real development over those five thousand years everyone keeps obsessing over? Or is there some merit to the argument that there is no such thing as progress—that humanity has always been stuck in the same spot, and will continue to be stuck in the exact same spot forever?

Bela: Upon that first glance at the table of contents, a reader might walk away with the distinct impression that we aren't actually seeing any meaningful progress being made here.

Desanka:Great, now I have to go read a book too. What a massive chore...

Bela: Four thousand five hundred years ago, some nameless scribe in Egypt penned the *jadikovka*—the lament of a man weary of existence. Yet, looking at it now, you could just as easily believe someone sat down and wrote those exact same lines yesterday. And the style? It’s strikingly contemporary. The structure feels more like the modern rhythm of being King than that somewhat archaic vibe you get from an old soul like Walt Whitman. At the end of the day, the heavy themes of the human condition don't actually change. It’s always the same fundamental struggle, whether you're reading Lao Tzu, Origen, Master Eckhart, or Ralph Waldo Emerson. Perhaps that is precisely what makes us human: the fact that our most profound struggles remain eternal.

Desanka: Hmm... I can't help but wonder if he has a favorite book. It’s almost certainly *The Alchemist*, isn't it? One hundred percent. I'll have to ask him once things settle down.

Bela: There is no progress, no development; and yet, there is. There exists this mysterious transformation that one can almost track in real-time—something unspeakable, a slow, agonizingly sluggish drifting toward a final conclusion. To call it "progress" or "development" feels like an overstatement, especially by today’s shallow standards; besides, how could you even claim such a thing when there isn't a single tangible sign to show for it? Human nature isn't any more perfected today than it was when those primal words were first etched in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. On the surface, nothing has shifted. But beneath the veneer, we are moving toward something. If you try to interrogate damn history about this movement, you'll get nowhere. History won't give you an answer. Five thousand years ago, humanity stood exactly where we stand now, and we will never stand anywhere else. Damn history knows nothing of change or evolution; it only understands senseless congestion. It is merely rushing in place. But within a blessed history, one can certainly recognize a distinct movement—unacknowledged, perhaps, but undeniably felt.

Desanka: Whoa, hold on a second! Just take a damn breath, will you?

Bela: On the surface, human life has always looked exactly like it does today: hunger, war, chaos, disease, conflict, poverty, and suffering. But beneath that superficial layer—within that mystical transformation we call blessed history—something else has been happening for five millennia, ever since the first words of this book were etched down. Perhaps we, as individuals, haven't changed much. Yet, the whole? The collective whole is more. In some way, it has become softer and sweeter, more fragile yet more explosive, denser and more fervent. More mature. It’s becoming harder to truly live, and increasingly difficult to detach ourselves from the sheer weight of existence. While individual people haven't shifted their core values or ideas, the totality of human existence—beneath the surface, in the deep currents of actual history—has drifted closer to its true destination. What we refer to as "blessed history" is nothing less than a continuous, uninterrupted ascent; an unstoppable march toward glory. In this process, every subsequent moment stands higher than the last; every passing year is demonstrably superior to the one before it. Five thousand years have passed since the records of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus. In that span, the essence of humanity has traveled five thousand miles toward its ultimate goal. The external record of history provides no insight into this journey; it cannot, nor can it ever. This path can only be depicted symbolically. Symbolically—musically.

Desanka: So, he’s moved on to music now? Honestly, I'm just waiting for him to start singing at me. I've had quite enough of my neighbor, Mike, howling at the ceiling like some sort of lunatic every single night...

Bela: Music is the secret mechanism that allows me to realize how I can listen to the exact same themes over and over again while hearing something entirely different every single time. The subjects themselves remain static—they are eternal, unchanging, immutable—yet they constantly reappear in new keys, through different rhythmic formulas and meters, surfacing in endless variations. We see them reborn in new inversions, new combinations, set against shifting accompaniments or reshaped by different phrasing and harmonies. As a fugue of a billion phrases rolls grandly toward its final resolution, building tension and anticipation to a fever pitch, music employs its own unique suggestive tools to hint at that ultimate step. It manages to point us toward equilibrium, offering a glimpse of the final goal and the preparation required to reach it. I would argue that we can only arrive at the appropriate phase of human history through the experience of musical symbols. It is only through these symbols that we can discern that the human condition isn't simply "advancing" or "developing" in a linear sense; rather, it undergoes a mysterious, continuous transformation—spinning like a vortex, brewing a final solution within itself. Music alone suggests that change cannot be measured by a simple ruler, because it doesn't move in a straight line. It moves according to a sequence of numbers; not based on calendar dates, but according to an arithmetic progression hidden deep within the music itself.

Desanka: Numbers??!! For crying out loud... don't you know I have a literal allergy to numbers? Ever since my husband threatened me back when I was busy prepping boiled chicken heads for the winter pantry. You’re really going to sit there and count, aren't you? Go ahead, keep counting. Once you're done, I'll personally count every single boil and skin irritation on that hideous head of yours—let's see how much you enjoy counting out loud then.

Bela: Over the years, neither the individual nor humanity as a whole has actually become smarter, better, or even happier. We haven't evolved in intelligence, at least. What we have done is mature. As Novalis once put it: "Man does nothing but constantly return home." Humanity is following that exact same trajectory. And if we're looking at our final arrival back home? We might just be about five thousand years away.

Desanka: Quote : Originally posted by Jose Palmer2 Quoting a quote within a quote? Good grief. This was just one attempt by my seventh son in a row—though he didn't exactly get to see the finish line. Some local high school football players overheard him saying he was going to give them hell, so they beat him senseless and dragged his mother's name through the mud.

Bela:
The entire massive symphony actually boils down to just one central theme.

Desanka: More music. I’m actually losing my mind here... I think I need a shot of bourbon just to dull the mental ache.

Bela: The premise is incredibly simple. It really boils down to one thing: becoming human. It’s almost absurd when you think about it—as if none of us actually are. As if we’re all just perpetually striving toward some ideal version of humanity, living solely on the momentum of an assumed human essence we haven't quite grasped yet. What strange creatures we are. We’ve severed ourselves from both the animal kingdom and the spiritual realm, leaving us adrift in our own heads. We hold no kinship toward the world above or the world below. And yet, that true human being residing in the depths of our hearts? We haven't managed to reach it, let alone take it seriously.

Desanka: Ugh... alright then... HIIIIK... you want me to smile back at you too?

Bela: None of us actually lives for today—not really. We aren't living in the present moment at all. Instead, we’re all just perpetually living for tomorrow, or the day after that, or whenever that distant horizon finally arrives. We toss our entire destinies into the future, clinging to this hollow belief that once we arrive there, we will finally, truly begin to live. It’s as if we’ve collectively decided that what we’re doing right now lacks any real substance or value. We are hardwired into this frantic, endless rush, constantly chasing some unattainable version of the human experience. Nothing ever seems to satisfy us, does it? Nothing brings us peace—not sensory pleasure, not wealth, not fame, not even power. We tell ourselves we need "the real thing"; that we need to evolve into "real people." But it’s a heavy burden, isn't it? The human heart, trying to give birth to its own idealized image through millennia of struggle, finds itself weighed down by its own expectations. We spend years of agonizing effort trying to force ourselves into existence, driven by a restless, trembling persistence. In everything that has already transpired, there is only one thing of consequence. In everything yet to come, there is only one thing worth noting. That is what interests me in another person. That is the only thing that draws me to a book, a sculpture, or a piece of music. That is the only thing I want to hear in someone's words—and nothing else. Everything else is just noise. It's tedious, uninteresting, indifferent, and ultimately, irrelevant.

Desanka Krivoguzić:
Yeah, honestly, everything's a mess... if it weren't for this bourbon, HIIIK....

Bela: The book's subject is that very anxiety, that heavy burden, that persistence—that one singular, vital, and captivating occurrence; they constitute both the theme and the essence of the work, its beauty and its gravity, its scale and its thrill. This gritty symphony, this phenomenal madness and sacred patience: pushing forward, upward, always upward, until at last one is born, starves, digs through the dirt, rages, grits their teeth, however one manages, and however one chooses.

Desanka Krivoguzić: (snorting, completely wrecked on bourbon...)

Bela: The subject of the book is the grand symphony of human existence, the music resonating beneath the surface of history, the blessed, tangible melody of the human struggle whose sole desire and aim, its only theme and passion, is to be human—to be truly, authentically human—and to live humanely.

Bela: ?

Desanka Krivoguzić:
hhhrhhrhhrhh..fiiiiju.hhrhrhrrhrhrhrh, fiiiiiijjjjuuuuuu..

Bela: (muttering something angrily under his breath in Canadian..., then snatching a flask from Desanka to soothe his throat..)

Bel Hamvas, Anthologia Humana, Introduction

Desanka Krivoguzić - special field agent for Her Majesty, Queen Slivovitz.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#55 ·
Richard Howard2 said:Here is my thesis:

Once a person reaches the level that defines them in the debate of "Is man different from animals," their emotional and intellectual capacity hasn't actually moved an inch to this day.
The problem is that it doesn't look that way—after all, we see massive differences in human society between a thousand years ago and today. The reality is that civilization made those changes possible; it gave us the ability to pass down and build upon knowledge through the generations.

Otherwise, humans are the same. Eratosthenes, for instance—even though he lived two and a half millennia ago—was just as brilliant as today’s top scientists. It’s simply that he was building on the collective knowledge of his era, just as we are building on the knowledge of ours.

There is no progress!

It's hard to reach that conclusion using that specific logic.
The fact that Eratosthenes was on par with today's greatest scientists doesn't prove anything in this context, let alone prove that humanity hasn't evolved over millions of years.
And was Eratosthenes truly on the same developmental footing as today's leading philosophers—if any of us can even identify who those people are?
It's difficult to agree on this or even argue it effectively, because we simply lack the technology to observe someone's cognitive development—especially if it exceeds our own. There are ways to estimate it, I suppose, but it remains highly subjective and unreliable.

For a topic like this, it would be more appropriate to look at the developmental stage of the vast majority of humanity—the masses, rather than a few outliers at the peak that we can't even fathom.

I can say with quite a bit of certainty that most of us here are, in this sense, more advanced than the average person in history. We can actually define and approximate that average if we try, since they are below us and therefore don't pose a threat. Similarly, we can see how many people are right there on the same level as us.

Then, we could potentially compare that to what we know about history—for example, how little was known about life 2,000 years ago. However, if someone can strip away all the conventional ways of thinking taught to us everywhere and look at the situation more realistically and objectively—comparing the past to the present—I think they will arrive at the inevitable conclusion that humanity is indeed evolving.

Secondly, it seems quite certain that a significant number of us here (though I can't say the vast majority 🙂, I'm not entirely sure of that) are consciously working on self-improvement, and we succeed more or less, believing we are doing so (if not intellectually, then in some other way), because otherwise, we wouldn't even attempt it if we couldn't improve and change ourselves for the better.
So, that is yet another piece of evidence—an argument drawn from personal experience—that people really do evolve.
Drew Bennett2 Drew Bennett2 Member
36 messages
joined Oct 2017
#56 ·
It’s pretty obvious that these kinds of mindless debates, combined with such a blatant lack of basic knowledge and this overwhelming sense of pretentiousness (if you can even call it that), just proves one thing: generations of Americans have been spinning their wheels and fighting over nothing for ages.
Taylor Campbell4 Taylor Campbell4 Regular
369 messages
joined Jul 2009
#57 ·
🙂 I was just rereading my own post to figure out exactly why it sounded so incredibly dense and self-important—honestly, I couldn't help myself—and I stumbled upon this much larger blunder that happened simply because I was rushing through it:

I wonder if Eratosthenes would have stood on the same intellectual footing as today’s most prominent philosophers—assuming any of us could even identify who those heavy hitters are nowadays.

And so it was intended:
Was Eratosthenes really operating on the same intellectual level as today’s most prominent philosophers—assuming any of us actually reach that height? Capable. Can anyone figure out who they might be?

Maybe I should steer clear of using terms like "developmental stages" moving forward—I definitely overused that phrase in this thread. I realized some people might not grasp that I'm treating it as an objective biological fact. In my view, discussing these different stages actually adds depth to the debate, especially when we're tackling topics like how humans haven't fundamentally changed in millions of years. Using those terms isn't meant to sound pretentious; it’s just how I see the science.

In case anyone was actually wondering what I meant by that "level of development" I mentioned—since I might have been a bit vague—here’s the short version: I’m talking about levels of consciousness. Think of it this way: throughout our long journey of incarnations here on Earth, we all evolve at different speeds. If we were all moving at the exact same pace, life would probably be incredibly dull—who wants that? It’s just a fact of life that we progress at varying rates (whether we like to admit it or not), and honestly, we likely overtake one another throughout this evolutionary process. When we pass away, we return to the exact same level of consciousness we held at the end of our previous life. From there, we move forward toward true mastery. And then, the cycle begins again.
As we evolve our consciousness, we gradually gain greater mastery over ourselves—a process aided by our experiences here on Earth. Most of us have already achieved some level of control over our physical bodies, so the next step is the emotional body. Let’s face it: most people haven't quite mastered their emotions yet; we struggle to regulate how we feel, which tends to lead to all sorts of complications. From there, we move on to the mind—reaching a stage where we eventually gain full command over our thoughts, and so on. If anyone wants to dive deeper, I can recommend some reading material for a more detailed breakdown. Or, if you're not in the mood for a book but have a specific question about the process, just ask—I'll do my best to answer.
Ethan Kim4 Ethan Kim4 Member
19 messages
joined Oct 2006
#58 ·
Jose Palmer2 said:Human genomes are largely identical, implying we share similar hereditary predispositions (though that’s an oversimplification, given that massive epidemics, diseases, and wars act as forms of natural selection—for instance, the population of Europe dropped by 66% after the Hundred Years' War), yet people aren't all the same. For example, some are taller. Greater height often means a larger skull, which implies a larger brain volume. Whether brain size actually correlates with intelligence was already debated back on the old forum...

Is brain volume really proportional to intelligence?
Maybe the real factor is the complexity of the cerebral cortex.

As for the idea that a positive emotional environment during childhood is crucial for mental development—history is full of creative geniuses and brilliant minds who were orphans, neglected, or even abused as kids. They disprove that notion.

IQ tests are culturally biased and yield highly unreliable results, much like what the user mentioned earlier.
And what about "adapting to new situations"?
What are we even talking about here?
If someone were dropped into a completely alien scenario—say, abducted by extraterrestrials—they wouldn't "adapt" at all.
Adaptability is just finding an analogy to a previously known situation. In a new task, you recognize similarities to old, mastered tasks and follow that path to a solution.
Essentially, the advantage goes to those who already possess more information. This undermines the idea of intelligence being a purely innate, biological trait.
Brain matter density, neural connection intensity, or getting extra stimulation in childhood—these are mostly urban myths from the fringes of pseudo-science.

There is also the issue of stochasticity in control groups for IQ testing. Statistical research is worthless if the condition of stochasticity isn't met; without it, all these "measurements" are nothing more than arbitrary games. 🙄
Kenneth Ward8 Kenneth Ward8 Member
29 messages
joined Dec 2002
#59 ·
Humans undergo significant changes and continue to evolve constantly. While this shift might not yet be reflected in our intellectual capacity or similar traits, it’s already manifesting in several other ways. For instance, the human race is steadily growing taller and living longer. We are seeing women having children at increasingly older ages. These shifts happen gradually; it takes not just thousands, but hundreds of thousands of years for any meaningful change to take hold. In reality, these processes occur quite "spontaneously." Furthermore, evolution isn't a revolution, and there is absolutely no guarantee that whatever eventually evolves from humanity will be smarter, more intelligent, or even better in any way. It could very well go the opposite direction. Much like how humans could simply be an evolutionary dead end—destined to vanish just like the countless human-like ancestors who weren't fit enough to survive and have long since gone extinct...
hollowtrucker77 hollowtrucker77 Regular
681 messages
joined Nov 2007
#60 ·
Honestly, this whole thread feels incredibly condescending to me
To kick things off, I’ve got a question for everyone here: was it actually harder for the first human being who figured out how to fashion a spear or a bow and arrow, or is it more difficult for a modern person to learn how to drive a car??
My take is pretty simple: back then, people had to exert way more sheer willpower and intellectual grit just to achieve the things we now lazily take for granted as basic or outdated.
I’m genuinely worried that as we lose those fundamental challenges, we’re losing the drive and the necessity for intelligence along with them, which means as a species, we’re basically regressing—both physically and mentally.
An American living just 500 years ago would have been fully capable of surviving in brutal, unpredictable environments, whereas most of today's self-proclaimed "intellectuals" would probably starve to death on a working farm within a week.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads