[QUOTE=Noble;33966863]Another theory besides evolution by natural selection? No, there won't be. Evolution is fact, supported by mountains of evidence. It would be like asking if we will someday have another explanation besides gravity why objects fall to the ground when dropped.
Unless of course you meant something completely different by your post.[/QUOTE]
Nope thats what i meant, but i'am not sure if thats true thats what the Christians said thats what the Hindu's said thats what the Ancient greeks said so on and so on
[QUOTE=Knuffelbeer;33967725]Nope thats what i meant, but i'am not sure if thats true thats what the Christians said thats what the Hindu's said thats what the Ancient greeks said so on and so on[/QUOTE]
So basically you are saying that after all this evidence, there is still an alternative of a little invisible massless man in the sky making humans?
What about the other Homo Sapiens?
why do us homo sapiens sapiens get all the 'purpose'
(oh wait we fucked and killed them into extinction oh well)
[QUOTE=Knuffelbeer;33967725]Nope thats what i meant, but i'am not sure if thats true thats what the Christians said thats what the Hindu's said thats what the Ancient greeks said so on and so on[/QUOTE]
Except Evolution is actually backed up by peer reviewed data and evidence, Not some made up fairy tale.
we complain about littles things because are physiologically designed (I don't mean intelligent design here, I mean the ones that didn't exhibit this trait got killed pretty quickly) to find problems with everything and attempt to improve everything
we tend to biochemically treat every day life like a constant state of survival, when for those in the first world, that's not the case at all
It's quite difficult to consciously suppress the hypothalamic-pituitary axis (and all the other structures and feedback loops associated thereof), so us Westerners stress too much about things which don't need to be stressed about
[editline]31st December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;33968254]Except Evolution is actually backed up by peer reviewed data and evidence, Not some made up fairy tale.[/QUOTE]
The most probably scenario is that it will be refined further, and although there might be a few gaps of knowledge that lead to chuckles in another thousand years, that's not really our fault
- very tired post disregard most of it -
OP seems to think that there is no natural selection among humans anymore because there's no need to evolve. The thing is, Evolution does not have a purpose, it doesn't need one, and this whole obsession with purpose is the wrong way to go about it. Evolution only promotes the strongest individuals through natural selection to improve a species' survivability in its environment, there's no final goal for it. Evolution is not an agent, it's not a person acting with the intent to reach a goal. It doesn't even matter whether of not we humans have a purpose.
And what the OP is actually saying is that he thinks we're concerned with and measured by superficial things and values because we're at the top of the food chain, but you have to remember, Evolution doesn't pit species against each other, Evolution is natural selection in a species. And almost every aspect of modern society is a covert way of semi-controlled natural selection. Things like war, grades in school, the entire concept of nations, politics, any aspect of our world is designed to promote competition, and thus, natural selection.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33955995]Our purpose is to breed and stay alive. Evolution dictates this in all species.[/QUOTE]
JohnnyMo1 said it nicely.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33172402]Biology doesn't impart purpose. You are biologically given incentive to reproduce as a consequence of evolution, but that's not the same as purpose.[/QUOTE]
I'm really tempted to post another video of a talk on this topic, but by now that'd be everything I do on this subforum, :suicide:
We're here because we didn't die, same as every other living thing on the planet. That's it.
Anyone else think that this was going in the direction of existentialism (or nihilism) rather than natural science
Doesn't evolution rely on the continued mutation of a species based on characteristics enhanced through an individual's lifespan? I've not heard of one mutation that hasn't been detrimental, or at least completely neutral in its effect.
Also, how is a trait passed on through generation? Hasn't genetics proven that new genes can't be produced through any means, and that there are limits to how much change can occur in an individual organism?
[QUOTE=OvB;33958211]We know that the Homo genus which we are the only extant member of, evolved from other extinct Homo species and they evolved from other great apes like Chimpanzees and Gorillas. [/QUOTE]
I have to call this part of your post into question. I'm pretty sure we did not evolve from Chimpanzees and Gorillas but merely share a common ancestor.
or maybe I misunderstood you.
[QUOTE=Zestence;34009494]I have to call this part of your post into question. I'm pretty sure we did not evolve from Chimpanzees and Gorillas but merely share a common ancestor.
or maybe I misunderstood you.[/QUOTE]
Correct. We share a common ancestor. Sorry if I was misunderstood. Chimps and Gorillas diverge from an ancestor, then our line of ancestors diverge from Chimps early on. If I remember correctly.
Most of your points are pretty much common sense, to be honest. We didn't get bored per say, we adapted to survive.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34007763]Doesn't evolution rely on the continued mutation of a species based on characteristics enhanced through an individual's lifespan? I've not heard of one mutation that hasn't been detrimental, or at least completely neutral in its effect.
Also, how is a trait passed on through generation? Hasn't genetics proven that new genes can't be produced through any means, and that there are limits to how much change can occur in an individual organism?[/QUOTE]
Sounds like you're talking about micro vs. macro-evolution, which is a concept that is completely without merit.
Your question about beneficial mutations is also somewhat silly, as we can see a clear improvement in ourselves over our ancestors. The fact that we are smarter than our predecessors, and have managed to reproduce at the rate that we have, is testament to that.
I don't quite understand your question about whether traits can be passed on. This too is a pretty obvious fact, do you not share a resemblance to your parents and siblings? The fact that you, by examining the DNA of family members, can decide their approximate relation is proof of this.
The thing about evolution is that it, for the most part, happens in lots of very small steps. It's not something you'd read about every 10 years in the newspaper, its scale is much greater than that.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34007763]Doesn't evolution rely on the continued mutation of a species based on characteristics enhanced through an individual's lifespan? I've not heard of one mutation that hasn't been detrimental, or at least completely neutral in its effect.
Also, how is a trait passed on through generation? Hasn't genetics proven that new genes can't be produced through any means, and that there are limits to how much change can occur in an individual organism?[/QUOTE]
Some people naturally have larger muscles than others (and/or naturally create more testosterone). That can easily be seen as beneficial.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;34010470]Some people naturally have larger muscles than others (and/or naturally create more testosterone). That can easily be seen as beneficial.[/QUOTE]
yes, but when does this get passed on to the next generation? As far as I can tell, it sticks with that individual, and never gets passed on. Sure, the parent might get lucky and have a kid with the same qualities, but it is hardly guaranteed.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;34010231]Sounds like you're talking about micro vs. macro-evolution, which is a concept that is completely without merit.
Your question about beneficial mutations is also somewhat silly, as we can see a clear improvement in ourselves over our ancestors. The fact that we are smarter than our predecessors, and have managed to reproduce at the rate that we have, is testament to that.
I don't quite understand your question about whether traits can be passed on. This too is a pretty obvious fact, do you not share a resemblance to your parents and siblings? The fact that you, by examining the DNA of family members, can decide their approximate relation is proof of this.[/QUOTE]
We are more intelligent in what way? Intelligence is a hard thing to measure in the way you are using it.
Also, my resemblance to my parents is a tricky thing to deal with. That's not really an improvement in the chain of evolution as far as I can tell. A simple visual resemblance can't really prove that physical attributes are passed on through a species. To put it another way; when does a child receive a higher muscle mass from their parents than other children? And, if that happens, when does it get passed on to the next child? Where is that information stored in DNA? What makes that change in DNA? What if, over the span of millions of years, ended up needing another appendage for some reason? Where would that come from? What would inject that trait into DNA?I'm just not seeing any evidence hinting towards any sort of possibility of general improvement in any species over any length of time. Sure, there are some cases when offspring may be generally like their parents physically, but that in no way dictates how the offspring of them are going to end up.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34011573]yes, but when does this get passed on to the next generation?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I understand you completely.
But genes are passed from the genes of the parents.
Simplified:
You get half your chromosomes from the father (the sperm contains these).
You get half your chromosomes from the mother (the egg contains these).
Ideally. But because the whole mixer is "flawed", fuck ups in the assembling
the code occur. Mutations.
Sometimes they are severe. Most often they are not.
And when you reproduce, your offspring will inherit these mutations.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34011573]What if, over the span of millions of years, ended up needing another appendage for some reason? Where would that come from? What would inject that trait into DNA?[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't "come" from anywhere. What would happen is that the people who accidentally happened to have mutations of this kind (a second appendage) would be the only ones to survive -> and thus only their genes would be passed on to humanity. Soon everybody would have a second appendage, since everyone who didn't would die before they could reproduce.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34011573]yes, but when does this get passed on to the next generation? As far as I can tell, it sticks with that individual, and never gets passed on. Sure, the parent might get lucky and have a kid with the same qualities, but it is hardly guaranteed.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
We are more intelligent in what way? Intelligence is a hard thing to measure in the way you are using it.
Also, my resemblance to my parents is a tricky thing to deal with. That's not really an improvement in the chain of evolution as far as I can tell. A simple visual resemblance can't really prove that physical attributes are passed on through a species. To put it another way; when does a child receive a higher muscle mass from their parents than other children? And, if that happens, when does it get passed on to the next child? Where is that information stored in DNA? What makes that change in DNA? What if, over the span of millions of years, ended up needing another appendage for some reason? Where would that come from? What would inject that trait into DNA?I'm just not seeing any evidence hinting towards any sort of possibility of general improvement in any species over any length of time. Sure, there are some cases when offspring may be generally like their parents physically, but that in no way dictates how the offspring of them are going to end up.[/QUOTE]
It only gets passed down if it's genetic. If I had a genetic mutation where the gene that regulates muscle growth was gone (an actual problem([url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/ns/health-genetics/t/genetic-mutationturns-tot-superboy/#.TwIvzvmjTx4[/url])) and therefore my muscles were huge, then there's a chance that I'd pass it down to my offspring.
Now if i'm a normal human being and I decided to become a body builder, then have a kid, my kid won't be born with massive muscles because I was a body builder.
[QUOTE=OvB;34018247]It only gets passed down if it's genetic. If I had a genetic mutation where the gene that regulates muscle growth was gone (an actual problem([url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5278028/ns/health-genetics/t/genetic-mutationturns-tot-superboy/#.TwIvzvmjTx4[/url])) and therefore my muscles were huge, then there's a chance that I'd pass it down to my offspring.
Now if i'm a normal human being and I decided to become a body builder, then have a kid, my kid won't be born with massive muscles because I was a body builder.[/QUOTE]
Perfectly understandable. Can you give me an example of a mutation that would get passed down that would be beneficial to the species?
>simple facepunchers thinking they understand our evolution
lol
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34021655]Perfectly understandable. Can you give me an example of a mutation that would get passed down that would be beneficial to the species?[/QUOTE]
A really good example of this are the peppered moths. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution[/url]
They underwent gradual change as a consequence of industrialization, their environment changed and they were forced to change with it. Those who didn't, died. Those who did change, lived, and were able to reproduce with others that survived and thereby driving the species in a direction that could survive their environment better.
The fact of the matter is that if you look around you, all the animals are the sum of millions of tiny genetic changes of millions of years. Another good example would be that predators generally have their eyes located on the front of the skull to better identify and hunt down prey, whereas prey often has the eyes on the side of the head to keep on the lookout for potential predators.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34021655]Perfectly understandable. Can you give me an example of a mutation that would get passed down that would be beneficial to the species?[/QUOTE]
Tail girth/length, Paw/feet sizes, coloration/camouflage, teeth (and other mouthy things like jaw/beak etc)shape, arm span, leg length, pretty much anything.
A good example of adaptation is Darwin's finches.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/aBpok.jpg[/img]
The birds were each found on different islands in the Galapagos, and each were better suited for the environment they lived in. Though they are all clearly finches. This can also be seen in the giant tortoises in the Galapagos. (and pretty much any genus of animal on earth(chickens in India are different than chickens in the Americas, etc etc) It's also an example of divergent evolution: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution[/url]
Animals that are better suited for the environment have a better chance at survival, and thus a better chance to reproduce, passing down the gene. Over millions of years the change gets refined and noticeable. Say for example a type of bird that needs to stick its beak into a flower to eat. The offspring with short stubby beaks will eventually starve to death while the ones with long enough beaks will survive to breed, giving their offspring a chance to inherit the gene for a slightly longer beak. Over time, the gene proliferates and you have long beaked males breeding with long beaked females to produce mostly long beaked offspring. Eventually the short beaked gene becomes uncommon and anyone born with it inevitably dies.
It obviously goes far more in depth than that with hundreds of different genes changing with each offspring being born, but in essence that's how it works.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
The National Dog Show is the best example of evolution that you can see in todays world.
Anyone that doesn't think evolution is true is saying that this:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/3Mr5L.jpg[/img]
Can survive in the wild on it's own.
The only real difference being that dog breeding is artificial selection and evolution is natural selection.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;34022495]The fact of the matter is that if you look around you, all the animals are the sum of millions of tiny genetic changes of millions of years. Another good example would be that predators generally have their eyes located on the front of the skull to better identify and hunt down prey, whereas prey often has the eyes on the side of the head to keep on the lookout for potential predators.[/QUOTE]
Or their other sensory bits where eye's aren't exactly the best way to "see."
[img]http://i.imgur.com/1BZPH.jpg[/img]
Ampullae of Lorenzini(dots on nose) - the forward scanning sonar of nature that can detect miniscule changes in electrical impulses of anything from the magnetic field of Earth, to the metabolism in a wounded food's blood.
[QUOTE=truebluesniper;34021791]>simple facepunchers thinking they understand our evolution
lol[/QUOTE]
>Dipshits who can't tell when someone wants to better understand a subject that they know little of.
Really, though, get out.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
To all the above: Thank you so much for helping me jump the hurdle of wrapping my mind around this concept. I've been misinformed over the years about what evolution actually consists of. Now I realize that it isn't a sudden change in an individual that somehow spreads to others in the species, but rather an enhancement observed in an individual that allows it to better survive in its environment than others of the same species. tell me if I have this right or not: This enhancement is eventually spread throughout the species by simply allowing an individual to flourish in its environment over any others without said enhancement. Eventually, all the non-enhanced individuals are phased out in lieu of the enhanced individuals who can better survive in the environment, who continue to thrive until a better enhancement comes along. is this at all a correct way of looking at it?
Again, thank you for the help.
Well, evolution takes an extremely long time, and over time, humans have actually became larger in many parts of the world.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34024550]>Dipshits who can't tell when someone wants to better understand a subject that they know little of.
Really, though, get out.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
To all the above: Thank you so much for helping me jump the hurdle of wrapping my mind around this concept. I've been misinformed over the years about what evolution actually consists of. Now I realize that it isn't a sudden change in an individual that somehow spreads to others in the species, but rather an enhancement observed in an individual that allows it to better survive in its environment than others of the same species. tell me if I have this right or not: This enhancement is eventually spread throughout the species by simply allowing an individual to flourish in its environment over any others without said enhancement. Eventually, all the non-enhanced individuals are phased out in lieu of the enhanced individuals who can better survive in the environment, who continue to thrive until a better enhancement comes along. is this at all a correct way of looking at it?
Again, thank you for the help.[/QUOTE]
>really simpleton facepuncher getting angry when challenged with really no challenge at all
lol
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Trolling" - PLing))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34011573]yes, but when does this get passed on to the next generation? As far as I can tell, it sticks with that individual, and never gets passed on. Sure, the parent might get lucky and have a kid with the same qualities, but it is hardly guaranteed.
[editline]2nd January 2012[/editline]
Sometimes a beefy guy can have a small skinny son or vice-versa, but in general, people who are naturally strong/smart/athletic generally have parents who are strong/smart/athletic.
We are more intelligent in what way? Intelligence is a hard thing to measure in the way you are using it.
Also, my resemblance to my parents is a tricky thing to deal with. That's not really an improvement in the chain of evolution as far as I can tell. A simple visual resemblance can't really prove that physical attributes are passed on through a species. To put it another way; when does a child receive a higher muscle mass from their parents than other children? And, if that happens, when does it get passed on to the next child? Where is that information stored in DNA? What makes that change in DNA? What if, over the span of millions of years, ended up needing another appendage for some reason? Where would that come from? What would inject that trait into DNA?I'm just not seeing any evidence hinting towards any sort of possibility of general improvement in any species over any length of time. Sure, there are some cases when offspring may be generally like their parents physically, but that in no way dictates how the offspring of them are going to end up.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=truebluesniper;34027357]>really simpleton facepuncher getting angry when challenged with really no challenge at all
lol[/QUOTE]
Right, no reason to get angry besides some moron calling me a "simpleton". Having the audacity to imply that I don't have the capacity to understand a widespread scientific topic that I've been misinformed on, then not realizing how offensive that might be to someone who actually takes pride in his intelligence? How dense.
Go ahead, come back at me and start something.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34024550]
To all the above: Thank you so much for helping me jump the hurdle of wrapping my mind around this concept. I've been misinformed over the years about what evolution actually consists of. Now I realize that it isn't a sudden change in an individual that somehow spreads to others in the species, but rather an enhancement observed in an individual that allows it to better survive in its environment than others of the same species. tell me if I have this right or not: This enhancement is eventually spread throughout the species by simply allowing an individual to flourish in its environment over any others without said enhancement. Eventually, all the non-enhanced individuals are phased out in lieu of the enhanced individuals who can better survive in the environment, who continue to thrive until a better enhancement comes along. is this at all a correct way of looking at it?
.[/QUOTE]
Another thing of note is that it's absolutely dependent on environment. Some mutations might be detrimental in some environments, and might be good in others.
An example is sickle-cell anemia, in which humans may have some sickle-shaped red blood cells. Now this is generally a bad thing in most of the world, but it actually protects against malaria infection, which is why it's started to development in certain malaria-prone parts of the world.
[editline]3rd January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34028543]Right, no reason to get angry besides some moron calling me a "simpleton". Having the audacity to imply that I don't have the capacity to understand a widespread scientific topic that I've been misinformed on, then not realizing how offensive that might be to someone who actually takes pride in his intelligence? How dense.
Go ahead, come back at me and start something.[/QUOTE]
Just report for flaming/trolling and move on.
I'm sure more than a few facepunchers have some tertiary education experience with evolution processes. For instance, I studied animal domestication, which demands a reasonable grasp on evolution.
hospitals are preventing human evolution
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.