The Problem with Evolution

Page 2 of 13 [ 196 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

26 Aug 2008, 2:16 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

My complaint about evolutionary theory is that I don't have wings. I WANT WINGS!! ! GRR.....

You have to Earn those wings by assisting a church and being devoted I suppose, on the other hand, you might want to try surgery.
http://onews.890m.com/2008/04/01/how-to ... nto-a-wing

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Aug 2008, 2:18 pm

Ishmael wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

The problem is the belief evolution ends with humanity, either the laymens misunderstanding of as faulty anti-evolution argument.

Yeah, evolution is just as random as chemical reactions.

You being a geneticist would hopefully have had some chemistry training, right? You know the percent yields, energy/number-of-molecules graphs, P/V graphs, experimental determination of the rate equation, use of Newton's method with the equilibria equations, et cetera?

Well, maybe not quite random, more like "controlled" random, in response to certain stimuli... At this stage; first life was closer to "true" random than so-called "controlled" random, yes.
Anybody who has even been through high scho (should) know chemistry.
Well, not at the highschool I went to... But, yes. I'm familiar with it. Why?
I don't think this argument should exclude those without intimate chemical knowledge: that would be most WP'ers!

Why? Well, you should know the difference between the controlled reactions in laboratory or factory and the controlled reactions in a cell, either prokaryotic or eukaryotic. Which one has higher percent yields?

As for evolution being random, it's the mutations that are the random part. The selective advantage from the mutation which increases probability of inheritance would be more predictable/less random. Not sure if I'm saying that correctly, but basically the selection wouldn't be as random as the mutation.

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2008, 12:00 am

Quote:

I think I understand what you're trying to say... do you mean you believe that evolution isn't true random, rather "random" within the limited options as a result of environments, both local and broader, and said environments effects on a species, and mutations being, essentially, the "odd one out", but by "selective advantage" do you mean if the mutation has beneficial characteristics to be exploited for survival? Is that close to what you mean?

Have you heard this theory, then? Note, theory - I neither deny nor believe this, it's something needing to be looked into - that homo sapiens sapiens are, in essence, a mutated branch of homo neanderthalis? With the increasing finds of genetic and other paleantological evidence in ancient man and it's cousins, that theory should - hopefully - be soon proven or disproven, I'm looking forward to seeing which, but does that not strike you as an interesting possibility?

Imagine - great, powerful, genetically pure human beings being the bastard cousins of an extinct race! That oughta take curebies down a few pegs!

Alright, that last sentence was really me joking, but I still think it's an interesting theory to pursue.

_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

27 Aug 2008, 12:02 am

Ishmael wrote:

Imagine - great, powerful, genetically pure human beings being the bastard cousins of an extinct race! That oughta take curebies down a few pegs!

Neanderthals were not dumb in the least bit.

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2008, 12:16 am

chever wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

Imagine - great, powerful, genetically pure human beings being the bastard cousins of an extinct race! That oughta take curebies down a few pegs!

Neanderthals were not dumb in the least bit.

I know, but that really just demonstrates a powerful point; survival.
Neanderthals were, likely, more intelligent and less violent and aggressive than homo sapiens sapiens.
But, homo neanderthalis could not kill prey from a distance - they didn't have the right shaped arms to throw spears, they had to beat prey to death from close range. They also travelled in very small packs, and whilst nomadic and not particularly territorial, had an intense dislike for other packs. They were also, probably, matriarchal.

So, it's an interesting theory that a genetic accident allowed sentient life to survive on Earth - if homo sapiens sapiens is a mutated branch off from homo neanderthalis, with traits that were - at the time - beneficial and ideal for their survival, than this "mutations are always bad" nonsense is pretty much a catch 22 thing, hey, they might not - still only a theory - even be alive if not for a mutation!

Perversion of the universe; every species alive, average of thirty similar dead. A twist of luck had homo sapiens sapiens as the head honchos, pushing homo neanderthalis into extinctinction.

Still; that's not my area of expertise. That's more for palaentologists and the geneticists working with them.

_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Aug 2008, 12:34 am

chever wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

Imagine - great, powerful, genetically pure human beings being the bastard cousins of an extinct race! That oughta take curebies down a few pegs!

Neanderthals were not dumb in the least bit.

If morphology were anything, my birth father would have been a Neanderthal. Brow ridges and occipital lobe at least. The Army had tested his IQ to be 181 supposedly. The best jobs they could give him were helicopter repair and some type of medical job at different times.

What I think about the relationship between neanderthalis and sapiens? They're variation of the same basic type. However, I wouldn't say the same of troglodytes or orangutans in relation to humans, but of course we'd be forced to accept them and bananas as all descended from a common ancestor for the requirement invented by man for truth that he must be able to comprehend it in order for it to be true.

Encyclopedia
Blue Jay

Joined: 11 Apr 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 86
Location: Utah

27 Aug 2008, 12:35 am

Orwell wrote:

Individuals don't evolve, species do

You people are simply talking past each other. You are using different definitions of the same word. Evolution in the broadest sense is simply any process of formation or growth; development. The biological term is just a special case of this. There are any number of non-biological, or even abstract (nonphysical?) processes that can be said to evolve. That said, individuals can and do evolve to a very limited extent even in the biological sense. There is more to heredity than simply nuclear DNA. Epigenetics (which genes are switched on or off), mutations, organelles like mitochondria, and often symbiotic organisms are passed on to the next generation. These things may change during the lifetime of an individual.

Psimulus
Sea Gull

Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 222
Location: Earth

27 Aug 2008, 3:54 am

Agreed. I have evolved exponentialy since I arrived here. I intend to keep evolving. Hopefully biogerontologist are able to assist me with this pursuit in the years ahead. If not timetravelers have my permission to come back and give me a ride. Hello Future.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

27 Aug 2008, 7:56 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

The problem is the belief evolution ends with humanity, either the laymens misunderstanding of as faulty anti-evolution argument.

yes, that's correct

_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl

oscuria
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,748

27 Aug 2008, 4:57 pm

Thank God for evolution. I would have hated having to cook a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

_________________
sticks and stones may kill you.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

27 Aug 2008, 6:43 pm

Ishmael wrote:

chever wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

Imagine - great, powerful, genetically pure human beings being the bastard cousins of an extinct race! That oughta take curebies down a few pegs!

Neanderthals were not dumb in the least bit.

I know, but that really just demonstrates a powerful point; survival.
Neanderthals were, likely, more intelligent and less violent and aggressive than homo sapiens sapiens.
[...]hey also travelled in very small packs, and whilst nomadic and not particularly territorial, had an intense dislike for other packs. They were also, probably, matriarchal.

"Evidence, please?"

The neanderthal tool kit was less sophisticated, and their symbolic displays were simple if existent at all, as compared to an Upper Paleolithic Revolution H. sapien. The evidence certainly doesn't favor that they were smarter.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Aug 2008, 6:43 pm

oscuria wrote:

Thank God for evolution. I would have hated having to cook a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Meaning what? If you mean dinosaurs for food, that wouldn't really be plausible and they'd be unclean anyway (Leviticus 11:29 ff).

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

27 Aug 2008, 8:32 pm

No, it's a matter of getting a big enough oven and a good sized apple to put in its mouth.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Aug 2008, 9:01 pm

Sand wrote:

No, it's a matter of getting a big enough oven and a good sized apple to put in its mouth.

Watermelons work better than apples for that purpose.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Aug 2008, 9:21 pm

twoshots wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

chever wrote:

Ishmael wrote:

Imagine - great, powerful, genetically pure human beings being the bastard cousins of an extinct race! That oughta take curebies down a few pegs!

Neanderthals were not dumb in the least bit.

Some of the scientists use the volume of a beings' skull to measure the possible size of it's brain, which was a presumed correlation with intelligence for some time. Also, while the technology that surrounds a person may be a measure of the science of the day, it is not necessarily a measure of intelligence of the people who use the technology.

Ishmael
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Jul 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 953
Location: Australia

27 Aug 2008, 9:25 pm

Twoshots, the theory is that a Neanderthals tool kit was not as extensive as a sapiens because of physiological issues, Neanderthal body shape wasn't as suited to tool use as ours. Symbolism has been theorized as a cultural aspect; having very little to do with intelligence.
The fact that sapien culture was more complex is a result of larger groups and interactions - Neanderthals were nomadic and travelled in groups of less than a dozen, sapiens semi-nomadic, and living in much larger groups.
Modern, more recent analysis of homo neanderthalis' brain case suggests greater memory and less volatile thinking ability - basically, as is theorized, they were less likely to panic or go insane. The way they hunted is what largely suggests greater intelligence; they could not hunt from a distance, spears and rocks didn't work for them, so they had to set up sophisticated (for the time) ambushes.
This us all theory, of course, but I can't find much cause to fault it - not my theory, not my field. But it is interesting.

_________________
Oh, well, fancy that! Isn't that neat, eh?

Page 2 of 13 [ 196 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13 Next

Jump to:

The Problem with Evolution Post Reply New Topic

The Problem with Evolution