>> Why they keep on insisting that men sprang from mud via apes and
> simultaneously reject the notion that human evolution isn't subject
> to gene dominance rules as are other critters (which would lead
> eventually to a new and improved species) is puzzeling. To them
> there simply can never be a higher human form other than the one
> which currently occupies the earth.
>> The logical conclusion to that argument is that evolution is static
> when it comes to humans, which means that the argument of "one race,
> forever" contridicts the science of "liberals" themselves.
I'm a bit unsure what you mean by 'gene dominance rules' -
dominance/recessiveness is entirely unrelated to how 'desirable' the
effect of a particular gene is reckoned to be. It's a matter of
biochemistry, rather than moral judgement. Also, 'improved' only has
evolutionary meaning in relation to the reproductive environment
Future human evolution is an interesting area for debate. There are
maybe two different (though overlapping) areas to consider.
First, the slow changes to the balance of various genes in the whole
species over time. For example, global exposure to infectious diseases
(which has become more possible in the last few hundred years due to the
amount of travel of people and goods) may influence the prevalence of
verious gene variants, particularly in the immune-system areas of the
genome. Similarly, the supression or eradication of human diseases,
whether by immunisation or other means may reduce the pressure required
to maintain the prevalence of a resistance-related gene which has a
definite negative side (if it were possible to wipe out malaria, there
could be a selective disadvantage everywhere on the planet to carriers
of the sickle-cell trait.) Maybe people with a natural resistance to
pollutants might be at selective advantage.?
Secondly, speciation - primarily the (eventual) appearance of two sets
of human descendants who have been separated for sufficiently long for
interbreeding producing fertile offspring to have become biologically
difficult/impossible. Alternatively, rather than slow drift after a long
period of mutual separation of two human populations, possibly some kind
of 'founder event' (mutation or deliberate genetic intervention) might
cause a subpopulation of humans to arise who are sufficiently
incompatible with the main human population (but ferile within their own
group) to enable them to be considered a separate species.
Unfortunately for someone desiring actual speciation, it seems that even
when human populations have apparently been effectively isolated for
thousands of years, matings between populations are still successful in
producing fertile offspring, and the amount of modern travel and
interbreeding would render slow-drift speciation effectively impossible.
I guess someone could try and *deliberately* set up a separate species,
but even if it were possible, I suspect that most of the types likely to
want to do that sort of thing are the kind whose offspring wouldn't be
any great loss to the mass of humanity.
> If the ToE is in fact true, a new human species will eventually
> evolve, which at the onset might appear to "liberals" as beings
> claiming "super-race" status (which of course couldn't be
Barring human genetic intervention, the creation of any new species
would be so slow and gradual that there wouldn't be any significant
point at which anyone could claim to be part of the new species. You can
only really define a species with hindsight.