Accept the atheistic evolutionary cosmos, under the standard theory.

Accept a limited form of the Gaia notion, (that the biosphere adapts).

Accept a limited inspiration from the Teilhardian notion of complexification as destiny.

Reject the notion of intelligent design.

It could well be that the growing interconnectedness is a time-reversed intelligent design.

Mentality (the noosphere) is growing. Evolution is accellerating.

Could the end point, be a loving singularity?

It would explain why you can’t find God….

He(She) didn’t get here yet!

We didn’t become him(her) yet.

If the process of “evolution” as it referrs to natural selection has indeed accelerated then I would also contend that the absence of any accelerated diversity in the human species tends to counter the theory of “evolution” as primogenesis. I will again ask for a single example of any existing species for which a known mutation affecting the number of chromosomes (either additional or less) has produced a demonstrably improved and more viable state.

1) relatively rich in nutrients and energy
2) can be harvested without harm to the animal (unlike butchering, or even bleeding)
3) does not require storage or preparation (unlike butter, cheese, etc)
4) available year-round

Interestingly enough, it’s also the kind of thing that wouldn’t have become an advantage until we started domesticating animals. So it’s conceivable that the mutation might have occurred at various points in human history, but died out for lack of usefulness.

Darwin: Here’s something recent in the subject from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6397001.stm :

Dr Mark Thomas, from UCL, said: “The ability to drink milk is the most advantageous trait that’s evolved in Europeans in the recent past.

“Although the benefits of milk tolerance are not fully understood, they probably include the advantage of a continuous supply compared with the ‘boom and bust’ of seasonal crops, its nourishing qualities, and the fact that, unlike stream water, it’s uncontaminated with parasites, making it safer.

Check out Gregory Clark’s _A Farewell to Alms_ for fascinating evidence of an evolutionary psychology explanation of the Industrial Revolution.

Tribespeople in modern day Africa use their herds for much more than “milk” :

a) butter (which is less than 1% lactose, and therefore digestable by all)
b) meat
c) blood (”milked” from the animals over the course of their lifetime via bloodletting)
d) curds/cheese (many styles of which are digestable into adulthood)

Is there something so fabulous about drinking raw liquid milk that it provides a significant advantage over these other uses of herd animals? I mean, sure, it’s a benefit, but compared to everything else herds provide.. seems pretty marginal.

=darwin

Experimental evidence indicates that roughly 25 generations is required for selection to spread a loci change throughout a small, cohesive population. Nothing discussed here changes or challenges these findings. So 25 human generations should approximately be 500 years (25 x 20 where 20 is an average reproductive age or age of 1st reproduction).

All the larger human population and civilization does is increase the total diversity of the genome and the potential loci for selective pressure to act on, as I see it.

Humans are animals like any other animal species on earth and like all life, any selective pressure is natural, be it human or whatever, its still natural selection. The artificial distinction between natural and human induced selective pressures are simply hubris.

At any rate, I fail to see how basic mechanisms of propagation of genetic change have been impacted at all.

Otherwise it would be helpful if authors distinguish between distribution and shuffling of existing genes and actual new functionality (yes, that would be pointy ears or green blood).