_BiB_ Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Why not? How about populations in the Andes? Shorter and stockier with shorter limbs than your average human stock, with increased lung capacity. Reason? Cold, thin air at altitude. Not "speciation" precisely...sub-speciation at most, simple morphology at least. And not the only example, either...I can easily think of two more, and I'm dead certain that's not all of them (don't know a whole lot about anthropology). And keep in mind: homo sapiens has only been around some 40k years; there really haven't been all that many situations where any sort of environmental pressure has needed to be solved by evolution. For the most part, migration and adaptation have always been options. 161955[/snapback] I'll give you the benefit on the 40,000 years, when I get a chance to look up-I think actual homo sapiens go back much farther. Still, how can you equate Australopothecus to Cro Magnon in less than a couple million years? That's the paleobiological equivalent of going from steam power to space flight in 10 years. Even WITH accelerated development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 The theory of gravity doesn't explain everything either. No single theory does.As for human evolution stopping, compare the average height and weight of human beings today with those in, say 1850, or better yet, their respective life spans. Pretty major change. That concern really is directed more at natural selection, not evolution. On that basis, we are doing just fine when it comes to survival so there has been no need to change, at least not to the extent of growing horns or something that dramatic. Further, these changes occur over millions of year, how would we see a change between humanity on tuesday and humanity on wednesday? 161630[/snapback] That wasn't the question...Good answer and I agree with it, but why aren't the APE's still evolving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Are you kidding? The oldest human fossil is about 160,000 years old, and the separation between man and ape (Assuming evolution is right) took place a long time before that. Evolution takes place over 1,000,000,000s of years. We are a pimple on a virus on a gnat of the ass of the elephant of time. If we see evolution happening in the short time we've been looking for it (200 years), it would be a miracle. And we do see missing links all the time- just not as they happen. We see them after they happenED. And we may see evolution in action more than we know- only time will tell. Living creatures that resist certain disease may be evolving. 161629[/snapback] The time it took means nothing...It happened right? Why would it stop? If it took years why isn't it going on still why aren't we seeing the "early Humans" still around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 That wasn't the question...Good answer and I agree with it, but why aren't the APE's still evolving? 161980[/snapback] Who says they're not? Evolution, by definition, can only take place on a timescale roughly equivalent to a species' lifespan. That's why it's highly evident in viruses and bacteria, which have a generational span of hours. So why would you expect to see significant evolution in a species that generates a new generation every 20 years or so...particularly when zoological taxonomy as a field is maybe three hundred years old? Your question is equivalent to asking "Why haven't apes evolved in my lifetime"? The answer to which is: because you haven't lived long enough to see it yet. And even so...I'll have to see if I can dig up the reference, but I dimly recall reading something about a chimpanzee colony established on a small African island some 50 years ago (trader couldn't sell them, so he dumped them. Some story like that). In 50 years, the chimps were already showing divergence from non-isolated populations. Ditto for the lion prides in N'gorogoro crater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I'll give you the benefit on the 40,000 years, when I get a chance to look up-I think actual homo sapiens go back much farther. Still, how can you equate Australopothecus to Cro Magnon in less than a couple million years? That's the paleobiological equivalent of going from steam power to space flight in 10 years. Even WITH accelerated development. 161970[/snapback] You're right...Homo sapiens dates back about 100k years. My mistake...I always associate the extinction of the Neanderthals (which was about 40k years ago, simultaneous with the migration of H. sapiens int Europe) with the rise of H. sapiens. But still...that's Australopithecus to Homo Sapiens in...call it two million years. First of all, I reject your steam power/space flight analogy on the basis that there's no truly accurate way to compare the two. But anyway...the relation between Australopithecus and Homo Sapiens isn't necessarily a linear one. For about a million years, in fact, the two genuses existed side by side (A. robustus only went extinct about a million years ago...well after H. habilis, in fact.) A better measure would be to look at evolution within a genus...for example, H. habilis to H. Sapiens. That evolution took place on a scale of a couple million years. Compare that to horses, or rhinos...or elephants...which evolved species-to-species on a scale of...a couple million years. If you want to go up a level and compare families...horses and elephants evolved within their families on a scale of tens of millions of years. Apes (Family hominidae)...same scale. There's nothing truly inconsistent with the established scale of human evolution as compared to other large animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Holy smokes! We’re ALL wrong. I completely forgot about Brig Klyce and “panspermia.” There is no creator, and there was no pre-biotic soup, kids. The origin of life comes from…drum roll please…outer space, baby! http://www.panspermia.org/ Modern panspermia suggests that life arrived on earth as bacteria hitching a ride on a comet, seeding the earth. Groooooovy. I mutate and kill bacteria for a living. I hope the microbe God isn’t pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 Holy smokes! We’re ALL wrong. I completely forgot about Brig Klyce and “panspermia.” There is no creator, and there was no pre-biotic soup, kids. The origin of life comes from…drum roll please…outer space, baby! http://www.panspermia.org/ Modern panspermia suggests that life arrived on earth as bacteria hitching a ride on a comet, seeding the earth. Groooooovy. I mutate and kill bacteria for a living. I hope the microbe God isn’t pissed. 162187[/snapback] Oh, shut the !@#$ up. You're confusing our train of thought. Not to mention our argument. What were we talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 The time it took means nothing...It happened right? Why would it stop? If it took years why isn't it going on still why aren't we seeing the "early Humans" still around? 161981[/snapback] If the evlutionary divergence from apes to homo missinlink was a mutation, the mutation has evolved and left the prior species behind. That's how it works. You don't keep seeing mutations over and over again. The useless ones are left behind- useless. And useful mutations are extremely rare, which is why they take so long to evolve. There have been several species along the homo-X line, and not all of them were necessarily a linear progression. It's not a clear line of ape begat neandrethal begat sapien. Without googling, its something like, Ape begat homo something begat both neandrethal and erectus and erectus begat sapien. In a book by Gould (which may well be debunked by now), neadrethal was a species that did not evolve into something else. It just died out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 If the evlutionary divergence from apes to homo missinlink was a mutation, the mutation has evolved and left the prior species behind. That's how it works. You don't keep seeing mutations over and over again. The useless ones are left behind- useless. And useful mutations are extremely rare, which is why they take so long to evolve. 162265[/snapback] See that is where I have a problem Evolution is NOT a mutation...Big difference. Look it's not that I don't know that evolution exits but IMO it is not the ANSWER to all life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 So why would you expect to see significant evolution in a species that generates a new generation every 20 years or so...particularly when zoological taxonomy as a field is maybe three hundred years old? Your question is equivalent to asking "Why haven't apes evolved in my lifetime"? The answer to which is: because you haven't lived long enough to see it yet. And even so...I'll have to see if I can dig up the reference, but I dimly recall reading something about a chimpanzee colony established on a small African island some 50 years ago (trader couldn't sell them, so he dumped them. Some story like that). In 50 years, the chimps were already showing divergence from non-isolated populations. Ditto for the lion prides in N'gorogoro crater. 162016[/snapback] I'm not saying that I should be able to watch an ape or chimp and watch them turn human right before my eyes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 See that is where I have a problem Evolution is NOT a mutation...Big difference. Look it's not that I don't know that evolution exits but IMO it is not the ANSWER to all life. 162582[/snapback] "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." Evolution IS a result of mutations, random mutations that may lead to a trait that would be beneficial for an organism, perhaps to utilize a new food source expanding its niche, or a slight change in color that allows it to avoid a historical predator. Mutations cause genetic variation, spurring on natural selection and "evolution". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 See that is where I have a problem Evolution is NOT a mutation...Big difference. Look it's not that I don't know that evolution exits but IMO it is not the ANSWER to all life. 162582[/snapback] Says Websters? Evolution is the combination of several things, one of which is new genes that prove to be more successful than previous generations. These gene changes are mutants. Useful mutations survive and thrive over time (dwarf elephants). Useless ones don't (neandrethal). Who said it was the answer to all life? The point is that ID, a broadbrush answer- and one that I find somewhat satisfying by the way, is not a scientific one, and deserves no place in science classes or in the scientific debate over evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 That wasn't the question...Good answer and I agree with it, but why aren't the APE's still evolving? 161980[/snapback] What makes you think they have stopped? DNA studies indicate that modern Apes and Humans share a common acestor. Credible attempts at dating the separation between the two have been made. Apes today are not the apes of yore. One interesting theory is that a climate change altered the environment in Africa inhabited by our common ancestors. The forested regions became much smaller and the savannahs dominated the area. They consisted of flat, open grass lands with clumps of trees here and there. There was competition between hominids for the forested areas remaining. Our ancestors lost that battle and had to adapt to survive on the savannah while ape ancestors remained in the trees. One adaptation, a key one in fact, was bipedalism. It is far more efficient for traveling long distances over open ground. Less of the body is exposed to the sun making it easier to avoid overheating. Walking on all fours would not be possible for long periods. You also need to see over the tall grass to help spot predators. There is geological evidence to prove that such a climate change took place and that it happened at about the same time the DNA evidence targets the divergence between apes and man. I do not present this as some sort of accepted fact beyond argument, just a fascinating hint of the kind of debates, studies and fossil findings that are out there. If they want balanced presentation of competing theories they ought to be arguing over the "Out of Africa" theory vs. contemporaneous or paralell evolution. That is the debate over whether many human ancestor came from Africa and migrated all over the place, each in their turn from australopithecus to Homo Sapiens or whether some long ago ancestor migrated everywhere and in separate locations developed along the same lines so that you have the same ancestors evolving at the same time in different locations. For example, could Homo Habilis have evolved more than once in many different locations? These are the kind of things that the actual scientists are arguing about, not evolution and intelligent design. It is elected officials, school boards, who are pushing this. In Dover Pa., the science teachers recommended a basic science book with standard evolution in it. It was the school board that decided to add in intelligent design and only after they were provided with free copies of a book pushing intelligent design. The fact that the book involved, "Of Pandas and People" has about as much credibility among scientists as the notion of a flat earth was of no concern to them. They are elected officials following a political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 See that is where I have a problem Evolution is NOT a mutation...Big difference. Look it's not that I don't know that evolution exits but IMO it is not the ANSWER to all life. 162582[/snapback] Don't mix evolution and natural selection. Evolution is a fact, natural selection is one theory as to evolution's mechanism. It is not the only one. The work being done to try and demonstrate the actual mechanism of evolution is some of the most exciting being done in the field right now. I recently read a study which found that the nature-nurture conflict is a mirage. It turns out that DNA (nature) can be altered by environmental (nurture) influences. I think I read it in Discover Magazine (not related to the TV channel), their year end issue on the most important scientific discoveries of the year. Bottom line, our DNA may actually be responsive to outside influences. Proving whether that is true and how it responds as well as why it does are truly fascinating questions. It may seem that I am posting a lot on this out of a desire to rap the fundamentalist on the head with evolution. That is really just a side benefit . My real motivation is that I find this to be one of the most truly fascinating fields of discovery around. I only hope I live long enough to see what they find out. I don't mind dying, I mind not knowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 It may seem that I am posting a lot on this out of a desire to rap the fundamentalist on the head with evolution. That is really just a side benefit . My real motivation is that I find this to be one of the most truly fascinating fields of discovery around. I only hope I live long enough to see what they find out. I don't mind dying, I mind not knowing. 162868[/snapback] See I am doing the same thing but the opposite side...It is sort of fun and I do like getting another view on things...From some people. I have had some of the same talks with a friend of mine who just finished up a PHD in evolution science from Berkley (liberal ba$ard.. ) and it was very interesting. I was able to go into a little more detail about my points with him than I have time here and there were some, not many, but some points I did win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 has anyone considered that we (humans) have ruined evolution with all of our meddling in the environment and in our own societies with improvements in technology in health care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 has anyone considered that we (humans) have ruined evolution with all of our meddling in the environment and in our own societies with improvements in technology in health care? 163057[/snapback] No such thing as "ruining" evolution. Evolution still goes on...it just goes on an environment that includes the results of our actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 No such thing as "ruining" evolution. Evolution still goes on...it just goes on an environment that includes the results of our actions. 163068[/snapback] We care if we survive, nature doesn't. So far, we are winning the survival game. Nothing says that has to last forever or even another hour. I think George Carlin said that the Earth will someday shake us off like a bad case of fleas. For all we know, God created us to amuse and feed viruses, his true chosen ones. Our sense of self importance won't let us consider the idea that we aren't all that special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 No such thing as "ruining" evolution. Evolution still goes on...it just goes on an environment that includes the results of our actions. 163068[/snapback] perhaps ruined is the wrong word to use...we've just moved away from the strongest and most desireable characteristics survive concept due to the way we approach things in society today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 perhaps ruined is the wrong word to use...we've just moved away from the strongest and most desireable characteristics survive concept due to the way we approach things in society today 163246[/snapback] I'd like to respond thoughtfully to your post but your avatar prevents any hope of me..umm..being..ermm.....trying.....uhhhh, what was I saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 I'd like to respond thoughtfully to your post but your avatar prevents any hope of me..umm..being..ermm.....trying.....uhhhh, what was I saying? 163261[/snapback] You always go for those beady eyed broads. What else do you see in her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 You always go for those beady eyed broads. What else do you see in her? 163303[/snapback] Eyes? She has eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 You always go for those beady eyed broads. What else do you see in her? 163303[/snapback] She is animated, literally. Gotta like that. Plus, as a cartoon character, she is not eligble to file a palimony suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts