gib
Part 6 - You wrote: Another good question! When they tell us that mankind in his current genetic form emerged 200,000 years ago, this really has to be taken with a grain of salt. The fact is, evolution doesn’t take giant leaps and then plateau for a good long while (like 200,000 years); it’s a steady ongoing process–sometimes making giant leaps, other times changing gradually and slowly.
Like everything - we chop things up for our own convenience and agree on standards. I do take genetics with a grain of salt - period - the geneticists truly still have so much to learn. Junk DNA it would appear is hinting at some of what we are talking about - then there is the theory of systems of genes rather than singular responsible genes. All this aside, you are correct it’s a steady ongoing process, I would say evolution has happened in the last one hundred years and especially the last thirty - but I would say my opinion is inconsequential only that it helps us to keep an open mind. Science does have its benchmarks as does philosophy - any application of science relies on these benchmarks - there is no reason not to invent new terminologies based on categories of information:
Or however else one wants to divide things up . . .
. . . obviously it is these divisions that we work with when we discuss these sorts of things . . .
. . . the divisions are a matter of convenience and . . .
. . . standards are just divisions that we agree upon . . .
. . . these standards however are very self limiting and need constant review - humans seek a system to live by which is ludicrous - the best rules are the rules that change to fit the environment to which we live in and that is always changing too. Mount Everest is not the same mountain it was half a million years ago so why would we say of anything in nature - especially weather, that today’s forecast is based on historical data. Old data is old data - the sooner we learn to realize that the sooner we will also be able to understand the genetics we have discovered - now, my apologies for some loose associations here, right now it makes sense to me but when you read it, if it does not make sense my use of analogy, please ask me to clear it up as there is some valuable info contained within.
Again it seems as though we prefer points of reference - benchmarks - as if we would go crazy without them - yes, we like to think of ourselves as a unified species - but nothing could be further from the truth - well, actually there are many things that could be - I agree to the 200,000 year reference point for the sake of this conversation as I do with a lot of things. I also agree with it being an oversimplification to say that’s the last time in our history when our genes went through a significant change.
Well, I have schizo affective disorder that can not be fully diagnosed - today I experienced mania for the first time because of my new medication - the benchmark used for my diagnosis is one based on the average person I imagine - obviously what ever I have is something new - perhaps a brain anyway. I like the way you have turned this conversation around gib - did you think I would not notice - lol - I like it though. Let me think further on this. I already owe you a few things - I am certain I am keeping track of them well enough - I must get the next response finished too.