How Far Have We Actually Evolved?
X_Stickman
Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Not good enough for a custom title. Join Date: 2003-04-15 Member: 15533Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Mentally, that is...</div> This kinda stems from stuff i'm doing in school, beliefs that i have formed, and that "Emotions in animals" thread. This might seem a bit strangely worded, but we're doing something about persuasive writing in school, and practice can't hurt, so bare with me.
We, as a species, have come a long way. You only need to look out your window to see that. We have entertainment, in many different forms, we have cures for diseases, we have transport and we even have space travel. I have no doubt that, in the ways of science, we are the smartest creatures on our planet. My question is, what caused us to do what we do?
Emotions, and indeed, instincts, guide us through everything we do. Films are created to induce strong emotional reactions in it's viewers. Indeed, the most successful of all films have left entire audiences crying, or shaking.
Cures for diseases... it's a hard one to put down to an emotion, but i would say fear. Fear that we might catch the disease, fear that our familys might catch it... kind of a hard one, but it's there. Maybe it's even a social, collective fear that drives us.
Sports... ahh, sports. People who play sports, any sports, enjoy it for the competetion. Why? Because they get "a rush" from it. Which is an emotional response, or at least, it's an instinctual response (the release of adrenaline for the "Fight Or Flight" defence mechanism, which makes an indidual feel very strong and powerful). People who watch sports often get very emotional over the results.
Space travel... This can be ascribed to wonder, i guess. A natural instinct to see "what's over there?". Many scientists believe that, before humans knew to follow heards of animals and kill them for food, humans wandered around everywhere, stealing food from predator kills. This emotion, or instinct (as i don't think there's even a name for it), ensures that human's will always be curious. That's it, curiosity. It ensures that we'll always be wondering what's over there? it could be the next meal.
Love.... the emotion that a lot of people think it soley for humans. I believe, and i'm not alone in this, that love is a base emotion, I.E, one that is in all humans. It is designed to draw a couple together, breed, and stay together long enough for the children to grow and be able to support themself in the tribe. This is also why a lot of marriages break up once the child is around 5-10, as this is when it would be able to support itself as an individual within a tribe.
Basically, there's simply too much to mention and list here. It is my belief, however, that humans are not as evolved past cave men as we think we are. Everything we do can be attributed to the exact same feelings, emotions and instincts that our ancestors did. We have remained the same, technology has changed, allowing us to expand further than humans could thousands of years ago.
You can see a lot of people are different. Some people react on a very basic level to threats, others react on a more thoughtful level. Some people see a threat, and either run away as fast as they can, or they stand and fight. Basic instinct, nothing wrong with at all, i mean, it's ensured humans have survived so long.
However, others, when given the same threat, will react differently. Others will try and out-think the threat, use a weapon, tactics, or even try to talk their way out of it. Some will just sit there and ride the threat out. These people, i beleive, have evolved mentally past the base instincts.
What i'm saying is, it's my belief that everything we have done, everything we have achieved, has been done because of basic instincts. We are not the super-intelligent beings that some believe we are, we are glorified apes with a bit of technology, and that is all.
looking back on this now... i don't get my point accross well. However, it's still grounds for a decent sized discussion. Also, while it is based heavily in belief, most points can be backed up by solid evidence, which means this shouldn't turn into a "Oh yeah? Well i think that YOU'RE wrong" kind of thing.
We, as a species, have come a long way. You only need to look out your window to see that. We have entertainment, in many different forms, we have cures for diseases, we have transport and we even have space travel. I have no doubt that, in the ways of science, we are the smartest creatures on our planet. My question is, what caused us to do what we do?
Emotions, and indeed, instincts, guide us through everything we do. Films are created to induce strong emotional reactions in it's viewers. Indeed, the most successful of all films have left entire audiences crying, or shaking.
Cures for diseases... it's a hard one to put down to an emotion, but i would say fear. Fear that we might catch the disease, fear that our familys might catch it... kind of a hard one, but it's there. Maybe it's even a social, collective fear that drives us.
Sports... ahh, sports. People who play sports, any sports, enjoy it for the competetion. Why? Because they get "a rush" from it. Which is an emotional response, or at least, it's an instinctual response (the release of adrenaline for the "Fight Or Flight" defence mechanism, which makes an indidual feel very strong and powerful). People who watch sports often get very emotional over the results.
Space travel... This can be ascribed to wonder, i guess. A natural instinct to see "what's over there?". Many scientists believe that, before humans knew to follow heards of animals and kill them for food, humans wandered around everywhere, stealing food from predator kills. This emotion, or instinct (as i don't think there's even a name for it), ensures that human's will always be curious. That's it, curiosity. It ensures that we'll always be wondering what's over there? it could be the next meal.
Love.... the emotion that a lot of people think it soley for humans. I believe, and i'm not alone in this, that love is a base emotion, I.E, one that is in all humans. It is designed to draw a couple together, breed, and stay together long enough for the children to grow and be able to support themself in the tribe. This is also why a lot of marriages break up once the child is around 5-10, as this is when it would be able to support itself as an individual within a tribe.
Basically, there's simply too much to mention and list here. It is my belief, however, that humans are not as evolved past cave men as we think we are. Everything we do can be attributed to the exact same feelings, emotions and instincts that our ancestors did. We have remained the same, technology has changed, allowing us to expand further than humans could thousands of years ago.
You can see a lot of people are different. Some people react on a very basic level to threats, others react on a more thoughtful level. Some people see a threat, and either run away as fast as they can, or they stand and fight. Basic instinct, nothing wrong with at all, i mean, it's ensured humans have survived so long.
However, others, when given the same threat, will react differently. Others will try and out-think the threat, use a weapon, tactics, or even try to talk their way out of it. Some will just sit there and ride the threat out. These people, i beleive, have evolved mentally past the base instincts.
What i'm saying is, it's my belief that everything we have done, everything we have achieved, has been done because of basic instincts. We are not the super-intelligent beings that some believe we are, we are glorified apes with a bit of technology, and that is all.
looking back on this now... i don't get my point accross well. However, it's still grounds for a decent sized discussion. Also, while it is based heavily in belief, most points can be backed up by solid evidence, which means this shouldn't turn into a "Oh yeah? Well i think that YOU'RE wrong" kind of thing.
Comments
Human behavior has never changed in documented history, never, never ever.
Intelligence is about the same, it's not that we've grown in intelligence we're just building on past intelligence. Sort of like building blocks if you will. Things would not have happened in our lifetime if not thousands of years ago another creation had happened. Paper, gunpowder, medicine, metalurgy, the list goes on.
In regards to your question... "My question is, what caused us to do what we do?" that you make in your post...
We've developed what we have to simply live easier lives, most of it was out of necessity and a large degree came out of military uses. Humans have persistently in documented history been just as intelligent, and their behavior has always remained the same.
Take this for example, If you take a group of people, and dump them anywhere in the world alone, away from our technology, they would inevitably work towards social order, create communities, create a group of hunters / military They would then develop housing, buildings for specific purposes, eventually start farming and so on. Everything from the beginning of our knowledge is just simply accomplishing things when we have the ability to. It wasn't that thousands of years ago we couldn't develop electricity because we weren't as intelligent, simply that we needed to accomplish other things before we could reach that point.
Once accomplishing our necessities, we begin to gather luxuries, or other things that simply entertain us, simply because humans are self-seeking.
I don't want to make a large discussion up about this, but I simply don't believe in the "caveman" or lower orders of the human species, and as many know, I don't believe in Darwinian evolution at all, change yes, evolution across species no. If you ask me, the fact that human behavior and intelligence has persisted since documented history should be evidence against some sort of evolutionary progression towards something that is stronger and smarter.
Intelligence hasnt changed. An ancient would be able to know which herbs could help heal grievous wounds, and which roots were best for eating, while modern humans, unless botanists, wouldnt know the difference between a shrub and poison ivy. The ancients had greater knowledge of astronomy, but lesser as well. They knew that day followed night and night followed day, they knew that three full moons roughly equalled a season. They knew that at particular times, rivers flooded etc etc. They were more in tune with nature and it's cycles. Their survival depended upon it.
This "Mentality" wore off when the first agricultural revolution began and civilisation began. Farming meant humans had a constant supply of food and stayed in one place. However, no single place was self sufficient. One place might have an abundance of stone, another a shiny yellowish metal. In yet others, strange fruits grew that were greatly appetising, while still in others the rich soil meant an over abundance of food. Trade began, folklore was traded. As time went on, problems were encountered, met with, and solved.
Elementary knowledge of geometry allowed structures to be built like never before. Experimentation lead to the knowledge that stone fared better when compressed as opposed to being stretched. Architecture (and eventually NS mapping <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->) was eventually borne of this.
We transferred from an Emotive, spiritual people, to a technologic and structured people.
We have yet to explore the full paths of the human mind. Only when the mind becomes insufficient to our needs will it evolve further.
Cave paintings are just paintings on the walls because there was no paper or real canvas in addition to poor paints. Not because their name is Og and they live in a cave with a club.
Ancient tools are just prototypes for tools to see how things work, not because they live in caves and fight sabertooth tigers with their bare hands. If I tried to put together a tool to use as a hammer with only resources outdoors as they are I would probably produce something that is claimed to be "ancient caveman tools".
Look at your siblings or your childhood art. Imagine drawing that on the only surface you can find with poor paints, you would probably get something similar to "caveman art". Take it for face value, I highly doubt it's any sign of their "civilization" or intelligence. It could just a form of art used by people who couldn't access any materials like papyrus or such.
Think of the "ancient murals" of buffalo and such. What if that was just a way for a teacher to educate the young in how to hunt ? They didn't have chalkboards or whiteboards, we use pictures to help illustrate ideas, just pay attention in your classes, how come when it's drawn on a cavewall it's any different then they way we do things ? But somehow when someone does that on a cavewall a couple thousand years ago they became labeled as some "caveman".
"Just Paintings on Walls"
Yeah right. Okay. So, they just decided to depict every day life for the heck of it. They painted bulls and other prehistoric creatures as they appeared in the correct proportions on an irregular surface.
Note the importance of that.
They painted images, to scale, on an irregular surface. That not only denotes artistic skill, but dedication beyond compare.
Protoypes my foot. I dont know what your trying to prove with that argument but your whole point is very vague to me, if possible clarify it.
I was trying to say that they were just paintings, not some kind of mystic caveman ritual. The Mona Lisa is just a painting also, I don't use it to say that it's substandard but it is a painting.
"Protoypes my foot."
I was saying that it wasn't that they were a bunch of stupid brutes with no talent trying to jam a bunch of stuff together and making ancient tools, but rather that these "ancient tools" were simply people trying to develop tools to fit their needs, any lack of durability is probably a note that they were probably prototypes. Simply, people trying to figure out what worked, and what doesn't. When we create prototypes for somethings, or models we usually use weaker materials like plastics or some modeling materials to test to see if it works in some practicality.
I think you misunderstood me Cronos.
Now I've forgotten what I wanted to say...
Not because their name is Og and they live in a cave with a club.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You think they lived in the sky with AK-47s?
The caveman idea is the idea of a man, who lives in a cave, and hunts food with very basic weapons. Since you've already pointed out that any human society which starts from scratch would initialy only have access to the most basic of impliments, and certainly wouldn't have the technology to build a house, i don't see how you can 'dismiss' the idea of the caveman. It's quite obvious that early man will have lived in caves or similar shelters, and will have used sticks, clubs or stones as hunting weapons.
What you're trying to do, instead of dismiss the idea of the caveman, is to paint an image where a modern society of humans live in a time with no modern technology, and make do with sticks and stones. The implication being these people are just like us, and equally intelligent. The problem with that scenario is how you define intelligence. You're obviously attempting to attack an evolutionary viewpoint, since that is practically the theme of your forum account, which means by intelligence you're referring strictly to mental capacity.
There is probably very little difference in the mental capacities of modern man and prehistoric man. You've mentioned this as if it were profound, but it really isnt. The anti-evolutionary argument on this topic is to point out that in terms of physical capacity, our brains have probably not advanced much if at all since the early days of man. This is no surprise however, when technological and scientific advancements are coming in at an exponential rate, yet we still only use a fraction of our brain's potential in that regard. Why would the physical specifications of our brains need to change when we aren't anywhere close to pushing that physical limit? Instead we have advanced in the areas we were most lacking, the way we use our brains. Development of language and reasoning, science and technology.
Likening prehistoric man to modern man purely on physical specifications misses the point. A prehistoric society lacks the foundations of our current thinking that have been built up over an extended period of time. Lacking any refined system of communication, they most likely rely on simple body language, this alone will cripple their ability reason and deduce. To coin Imma's terminology - Though they have the incredibly sophisticated 'hardware' that we have today, they lack the ground knowledge and education they need to make any real use of it. The difference may not be <b>genetic</b> evolution, but it is still significant advancement. Call it standing on the shoulders of giants, or tools to build tools to build tools, but that's what evolution IS. Building blocks. You don't critisize a dolphin for being no better than an ameboa on the grounds that the dolphin is no more likely to suddenly sprout wings.
So i would say we evolved quite a bit...
while its true that other animals work in groups, humans are the masters of teamwork.
perhaps the next level of mental evolution will be achived with a global language, then the world becomes an organism as the people are its cells, and we are all connected by a subconcious energy!
... or somthing
my theory has always been that we, as a race, must <b>collectively evolve</b> in thought to a sort of <b>social enlightenment</b>, in order to correctly utilize the concepts of communism or socialism.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In fact, that must be exactly what I meant. Hold on, that's right, what you said didn't make sense. The funny thing is that we are almost agreeing completely yet you seem to be so blinded of my disagreement with terms like "caveman" and "evolution" that you some how didn't really understand the content of my post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What you're trying to do, instead of dismiss the idea of the caveman, is to paint an image where a modern society of humans live in a time with no modern technology, and make do with sticks and stones. The implication being these people are just like us, and equally intelligent. The problem with that scenario is how you define intelligence. You're obviously attempting to attack an evolutionary viewpoint, since that is practically the theme of your forum account, which means by intelligence you're referring strictly to mental capacity.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Can you prove otherwise ? True, they don't have the same technology and the same foundations of discoveries that we have, but that doesn't entirely dismiss that idea that they weren't of the same intelligence. I never said or even implied that they knew how to create electricity since their creation on the earth. They had the capability to create it after they progressed, not because of evolution, but because of the transferring of knowledge. If the young were never told the knowledge of the past, there would be no progress, everyone would start from zero, some people would make it farther than other, but eventually they would die, and knowledge would be lost. It has nothing to do with the evolution of the brain, but the foundation, and documentation of knowledge. Science.
And yes, I do mean intelligence by mental capacity, that's how it's defined.
<i>in·tel·li·gence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tl-jns)
n.
The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge</i>
Unless you've been mistaken with the colloquialism of what intelligence is, like " He's smart etc." It's not what they know, it's their ability to gain knowledge, and then later apply it. We would never have progressed if that wasn't possible, minus the physical evolution of the brain, which you later say doesn't make sense.
So where does this caveman idea come from ? This primitive human beast ? That's what I'm disagreeing with. I don't believe that they were lesser humans. They were humans with less technology, but they had just intelligence we have. If they didn't, how would we get to how we are ? Everyone has to start off some where, and just because they had to use wooden spears doesn't mean they were of lesser intelligence. If you some how found yourself lost in a forest with no protection, the first thing you would do is find food and water and shelter. Then you would find security, probably in the form of a weapon, most likely wood and rocks because they are most likely readily available, <i>not because you're stupid</i>. We have evidence that they did start with little and work their way up. Especially if you pay attention to Masloh's Hierarchy of needs, that would make perfect sense with the development of humans from point zero. First they found shelter, caves, then security, weapons. It's the same thing we would do. And as they progressed, they could move out of their caves and build homes, find better weapons and the like. Not because they were stupid, but knowledge is learned through scientific theory, not something inherent in us "higher humans", they did what was important first, and then progressed, they weren't just going to sit in the middle of a dangerous place and try and figure out how to do things, but rather found food/water and shelter then established ways of progressing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A prehistoric society lacks the foundations of our current thinking that have been built up over an extended period of time. Lacking any refined system of communication, they most likely rely on simple body language, this alone will cripple their ability reason and deduce. To coin Imma's terminology - Though they have the incredibly sophisticated 'hardware' that we have today, they lack the ground knowledge and education they need to make any real use of it. The difference may not be genetic evolution, but it is still significant advancement. Call it standing on the shoulders of giants, or tools to build tools to build tools, but that's what evolution IS. Building blocks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, they lack the foundations of knowledge, what I said earlier, think of them as building blocks. That's still no evidence of them being of lesser intelligence, or being primal. There's quite possibly, little evidence to support that there was language, or communication. Sure it might not be written, but that most likely was developed, in addition to it probably not being needed until other things have been done. (Masloh's Hierarchy) I don't understand why scientists say that they communicated by body language, there's no real sold documentation of historical documentation of this. The lack of a verbal communication is simply an assumption by modern scientists, we honestly don't know, but I would most likely assume they did, even though it be because of religious beliefs, but that's not the topic. People can know how to speak and not write and read, we know this is true, so why can't it be a possibility ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->they lack the ground knowledge and education they need to make any real use of it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure they were making plenty of use of it. And I'm sure as they developed they taught their children certain skills and needs, cave paintings anyone ? If you ask me, a stone wall would make a perfect low tech blackboard. What better way to show children what is the best to hunt, or how and with what then drawing a picture of it ? Or maybe something else? Anyways, I think there's nothing to note that cave paintings indicate lower intelligence. Back on to the point though, I figure the best way to explain is to use math as an archetype. Math to me, would probably be the best way to explain, the earlier aspects of math like addition and subtraction are fundamental steps toward understanding more difficult subjects, like differential calculus. You can't understand calculus without first understanding subtraction, addition and so on, and then algebra. Just like technology, they had to first develop the early aspects of technology, and use that same technology and apply it to further technology. They didn't have the same ground knowledge today, of course they didn't, but surely as they learned, they developed a ground knowledge for their children, and then so on and so on. And from their education, they applied it to further their knowledge. Working their way from subtraction upwards. You can't simply understand calculus without developing simple math. Their technology started humbly because it had to, you can't make leaps and bounds, it's just like math. Not because they were of less intelligence.
This has nothing to do with me disagreeing with evolution or caveman, it's not my disagreement with evolution or cavemen to believe this. My belief that man has always been the same causes me to disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're obviously attempting to attack an evolutionary viewpoint, since that is practically the theme of your forum account<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I deeply apologize that my opinions are at disagreement with yours. I have no vendetta against you, you are simply saying what you believe to be true, and I'm simply doing the same.
We agree there has been little physical (genetic) evolution of mankind since prehistoric man. (I'll assume everyone has the same image in their head of what that means, as i don't have scientific terms or dates, and we probably wouldn't agree on the dates anyway :)
We agree mostly on how these early humans would have lived, and their priorities. I agree with you that the use of basic tools etc. is out of necessity, not out of stupidity. That because they do not have our foundations of learning, they cannot possibly be expected to understand modern technologies.
We're quarelling over impressions. You don't like the impression given by the word "caveman". Although it literally only means "man who lives in a cave" you see it as implying stupidity, and want to point out that, physically speaking their brains are as capable of ours. Ok fair point i agree with you. Where i have a problem with your post is the impression you give, when you imply that modern man is either as "stupid" as they were thousands of years ago or that it would be possible for us to go back in time and hold a thrilling philisophical debate with a man who just stoned a cow to death. It comes down to how you view intelligence, your definition is fine, but it is only 1 use of the word. Going by the wonder that is dictionary.com, which looks like the origin of your quote, we also get the following:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
5. Knowledge imparted or acquired, whether by study, research, or experience; general information.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Along with numerous other explanations. The point i'm getting at is, intelligence is not simply the physical capability of your brain. Were you to meet a forum user who had not recieved much of an education, with barely legible reading and writing skills, who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag and insisted on using a 3 letter word for homosexual every other line, you would not think of this person as terribly intelligent. Yet their abilities are probably far above those of early man, and calling said person a neanderthal would incur the wrath of Monse. So considering the multiple ways in the which the word is used, i do not like the phrase "We are no more intelligent than early man".
Apart from that, my only other beef was the (probably only implied) impression that this is strange, or doesn't fit with the theory of evolution. You seem to be dropping that so i'll drop it as well, as it's an ugly topic.
Addressing the thread topic then, while i agree we have not really evolved physically since the stage in question, our knowledge bank, social structures, way of life and ways in which we put our minds to use have evolved a long way. And yes i know you weren't dissagreeing with that.
One final thing...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I don't understand why scientists say that they communicated by body language, there's no real sold documentation of historical documentation of this. The lack of a verbal communication is simply an assumption by modern scientists, we honestly don't know
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Getting dangerously close to arguing over creation beliefs, but if you take the viewpoint that mankind evolved from lower lifeforms (Which clearly would not have had the capability of speech), then it follows early man would not have had any developed speech, and would have had to build it slowly from scratch into a workable ability. Speech doesn't just appear out of nowhere, it has to be developed which of course implies that at the early stages speech was incredibly simple or non-existant. If you go for the creationist viewpoint and have an initial 2 humans who had fully developed speech from the get-go, then you have a problem in explaining why different areas of the world speak in entirely different languages. Had developed speech been available from the begining, you could make arguments for modifications and varying dialects that altered the original language somewhat. But you can't explain why that language would have been completely reinvented or rewritten, which is the sort of change you're looking at between languages from varying parts of the world.
Bleh, i'm getting horribly off-topic there.
The question to whether we've metaphysically changed is that we haven't. Our amount of knowledge has changed yes. Our emotions, behavior, intelligence in capacity, entertainment, enjoyment and humor hasn't changed.
Our technology is a result of our experiences and events throughout our history. Built out of a necessity of need.
Just in note :
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->then you have a problem in explaining why different areas of the world speak in entirely different languages<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tower of Babel would be the first beginnings of different languages. Seperation of people groups would eventually lead to different dialects and sometimes a change in ways in which things are spoken. Sometimes this occurs because of a feeling of being different, or trying to seperate from idealogies or political/government groups.
you will have to study more the mindsets involved in your examples or in the examples you are considering and you must be able to refine your definition of emotion so you know exactly what you are talking about. It may be that you come across several different levels of states of mind such that only some you are willing to treat as emotions, and others as different for reasons which you will know then.
Also, it is not really correct to say people have evolved past instincts; rather, there is genetic variation in the population, and these people w/ their genes and their upbringings simply are a variation in their response to a situation. They are no more evolved than the "base" instinct people if go by fitness scale, since after all there conceivably exist situations in which reacting w/ "baser" instincts allows better survivability and production of offspring.
It is true that the independence of thought from emotions is an advanced intellectual ability and confers many advantages in most situations. However for certain happenings such as a surprising event I kind of tend to prefer my fast reactions and my fast cancelling of out of control behavior - I am almost impossible to startle, and I react immediately to emergency situations. And this is automatic, too fast for conscious decision, altho it may be an outgrowth of my conscious personality and my conscious and/or unconscious messages to the rest of my brain and nervous system. This is an example where I will favor instinct above all else. Furthermore I do not disparage emotions; I merely hold that it is desirable to be able to not become slave to them. I enjoy my right hemisphere a lot; it is much more entertaining than the left, from which the seat of this independent reasoning appears to lie.
I stated earlier that you must refine your definition of emotions, and here is an example. For instance, say you can look past what you feel at the moment. Yet, at that time, whatever decision you make is still weighted. You still have priorities. You still value some things more than others. Is that emotion too?
What about chemical changes in the brain vs in the body?
I do not profess to know the answers, else I would probably tell you. But I suggest that such distinctions be understood at the least to exist and the matter be studied.
Now, to those who say that we haven't changed, understand that evolution occurs just as much to behavioral patterns as much as immediate physical ones. For example, lets look at many mental illnesses. In a more natural setting, those genes may very well not be passed on due to the lack of usefullness to survival, but due to technology and our abilities to deal with such illnesses they do pass on. In that way, our genetics have been affected, not in a terribly noticeable way, but affected nonetheless.
Or, perhaps those who exhibited greedy or selfish behavior were the ones to get more wealth, therefore more children,and grant a greater possiblity of those children surviving. Now, modern technology shows that a good portion of our behavior is determined by genetics. So, on a technical level, "greed" may be actually passed on, if there is such a gene to affect this.
On these levels, we may have indeed evolved. Perhaps unnoticeable to us, but there, in a subtle form, affecting us without us even realizing it.