I saw someone said we are below lions on the food chain.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBpu4DAvwI8[/media]
There are ways to do everything. Also, whoever said we are good at long distance running was also correct, as I also have see a video of a guy who runs down an antelope I think over the course of a week. We excel at solving problems.. that's what puts us on top.
[QUOTE=Tomthetechy;33954742]
We, As a species, have no purpose. [/QUOTE]
this sounds like a theory in terms of philosophy
[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]
You're more than welcome. It's a rare pleasure to meet someone who genuinely wants to learn. There's plenty of material out there, if you want help finding it or just have questions, please feel free to ask. Evolution is one of the most beautiful theories, and it deserves to be known!
[QUOTE=Mon;34028823]hospitals are preventing human evolution[/QUOTE]
Nope. You can't stop or "prevent" evolution.
[QUOTE=wallyroberto_2;33966230]I think OPs point is less about biological evolution and more about society's response to idleness.[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[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]
That's pretty much it, though the timescale is usually many hundreds of generations.
Oh and another thing - evolution is lazy. It hardly ever produces the optimal outcome, nor can it look ahead to see what mutations would be beneficial in the long run, only the one that works at the time. A good example is the human eye - the photorecepting cells are actually the [I]back[/I] layer, and the nerves go on top of them. This is retarded since light has to pass through extra layers of tissue before hitting the receptors, and detail is lost. Additionally, we have a blindspot where the nerves have to tunnel through the back layers towards the brain. In other animals, such as squid, the receptors are in front and the nerves go behind, which is logical.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34032437]
Oh and another thing - evolution is lazy. It hardly ever produces the optimal outcome, nor can it look ahead to see what mutations would be beneficial in the long run, only the one that works at the time. A good example is the human eye - the photorecepting cells are actually the [I]back[/I] layer, and the nerves go on top of them. This is retarded since light has to pass through extra layers of tissue before hitting the receptors, and detail is lost. Additionally, we have a blindspot where the nerves have to tunnel through the back layers towards the brain. In other animals, such as squid, the receptors are in front and the nerves go behind, which is logical.[/QUOTE]
Good to hear, as I've always been told that evolution is this 'perfect thing that has no flaw", and what you just said makes it all the more believable.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34033294]Good to hear, as I've always been told that evolution is this 'perfect thing that has no flaw", and what you just said makes it all the more believable.[/QUOTE]
Oh it has his flaws alright.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KF3SCsxrOQ[/media]
Ponder this: We eat and breath using the same holes, we urinate and reproduce using the same organ, too. That's some pretty shitty engineering. You can kill yourself by eating wrong and choking on a peanut.
[b](there are some images at 3:06 that my be considered graphic)[/b]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ[/media]
Evolution doesn't operate on a grand design, it's completely blind.
If you want to see more, you should watch The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo[/url] - Part 1.
[QUOTE=MrWhite;34033294]Good to hear, as I've always been told that evolution is this 'perfect thing that has no flaw", and what you just said makes it all the more believable.[/QUOTE]
A really good example is the laryngeal nerve of giraffes. The nerve controlling it goes all the way from the head, down to the body, and then up to the larynx, because the neck stretched over time.
[url]http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/the_laryngeal_nerve_of_the_gir.php[/url]
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34032238]Nope. You can't stop or "prevent" evolution.[/QUOTE]
evolution works on weaker specimens dying out - that's natural selection
by supporting weaker specimens with hospitals, we're preventing natural selection, and halting evolution
[QUOTE=Mon;34034228]evolution works on weaker specimens dying out - that's natural selection
by supporting weaker specimens with hospitals, we're preventing natural selection, and halting evolution[/QUOTE]
Evolution rather "works" on people reproducing - spreading and creating new genes.
The human species will not look exactly the same in 100 million years just because we have hospitals.
Hospitals are rather speeding up evolution since they allow a greater gene diversity among humans.
We will become a more diverse species with more mutations being acceptable instead of being lethal,
and we will quicker find the most suitable combinations.
People will always die. Call it unnatural selection if it sounds better. It's still evolution.
It's kind of like saying "we have so much water on Earth. It's available to all animals! It's slowing down evolution."
It isn't. The resulting species will just become dependent on water. Just like many of us might become dependent
on hospitals in the future.
[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34035000]Evolution rather "works" on people reproducing - spreading and creating new genes.
The human species will not look exactly the same in 100 million years just because we have hospitals.
Hospitals are rather speeding up evolution since they allow a greater gene diversity among humans.
We will become a more diverse species with more mutations being acceptable instead of being lethal,
and we will quicker find the most suitable combinations.
People will always die. Call it unnatural selection if it sounds better. It's still evolution.
It's kind of like saying "we have so much water on Earth. It's available to all animals! It's slowing down evolution."
It isn't. The resulting species will just become dependent on water. Just like many of us might become dependent
on hospitals in the future.[/QUOTE]
Especially with global immigration. More genes are being mixed rather than staying in the same geographic location. [i]Eventually[/i], we will mix into one giant, planet-wide human race, with little physical variation between people of different cultures.
[QUOTE=OvB;34035315]Especially with global immigration. More genes are being mixed rather than staying in the same geographic location. [i]Eventually[/i], we will mix into one giant, planet-wide human race, with little physical variation between people of different cultures.[/QUOTE]
That's making gross assumptions about the future generations behavior when it comes breeding. For that to be true, all mates would have to be chosen at random among the entire population. While you'll definitely see more variations and mixing, I sincerely doubt that mankind will ever reach the uniformity you're prophesying.
Sexual selection is still in full effect, so you're more likely to see splits along the lines of mental, social and economic differences. It's a bit of a gross exaggeration, but you can already see today that better looking people marry each other, just as intelligent people seek out partners with similar attributes. The rich and famous also generally marry within their own "ranks", even if those marriages have a tendency to not last very long for the people who fall into the latter category.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;34040982]That's making gross assumptions about the future generations behavior when it comes breeding. For that to be true, all mates would have to be chosen at random among the entire population. While you'll definitely see more variations and mixing, I sincerely doubt that mankind will ever reach the uniformity you're prophesying.
Sexual selection is still in full effect, so you're more likely to see splits along the lines of mental, social and economic differences. It's a bit of a gross exaggeration, but you can already see today that better looking people marry each other, just as intelligent people seek out partners with similar attributes. The rich and famous also generally marry within their own "ranks", even if those marriages have a tendency to not last very long for the people who fall into the latter category.[/QUOTE]
What I'm saying is that while more and more people have the ability to move around, were going to be mixing a lot more, to the point where eventually a large sum of people will be part of a global grouping. Certainly not everybody as you also have large sums of people that can't move around in poverty stricken areas, or people that just don't want to move around. You'll still have your Africans and South Americans, Chinese, and so on and so fourth, but [i]eventually[/i] a large sum of people will be mixed together in one group of multiracial heritage. But as you said there are a lot of other social and economic variables, so anything like what I describe certainly won't be soon, nor will 100% of the population fall under it. I'm just saying a large number of people will.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.