Evolution

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Yorick: Even if it were so, if not one change occurs in any species in 4000 years, I don't believe the math adds up as to the time frame evolution theory puts forth.

But changes happen gradually. You're not A and then all of a sudden you're B. You maybe become a bit taller A, or a bit more curly, or something like that. And if it's useful to be a bit curlier A, the change will be kept. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
And there are changes happening in humans, but they're really small. Some of us still have wisdom teeth, some don't. I, for example, will only grow 3. And some of us have more 'tail bones' than others. I think they're called tail bones; anyway, they're the remains of the tail. And then there's also the appendix. It once probably had a function, but now it doesn't anymore. It'll probably disappear with time. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Mutations and circumstances change one specie into another. It's a process of becoming. There is no clear line, really. We can only say something is a new specie when the differences are big. That's why it takes such a long time for a specie to 'become a new specie'. But it doesn't mean changes don't occur. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Masklinn]

Masklinn "the other way round" is not what evolution theory presents. See the link I provided on page 1. An environment change precipitates a physical change. A need arises, then change ensues. What you are presenting is quite different.

Graaaah Yorick !
This is exactly what evolution theory presents !
An environement changes then only the ones who have mutated in such a way that they can survive will survive !!!

A need arises, then change ensues.

It's a bad way to say it !
A change ensued that perfectly fits the need that will arise.

But then we can say that when a need arises, a change ensues, but this is only when you look at it as a whole.

This is evolution theory and natural selection.

[ 02-24-2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Masklinn ]

[Moiraine]

Another thing. We all so used to the basic organizational shape most animals on earth share (a torso, a head holding all sensory devices and central management, two forelegs, two hindlegs) that we forget how remarkable this is in itself ! We are organized the same way than a fish or a fly ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

The genetic scientists learn more and more everyday about genes. A few genes seem to be responsible from the general organization of our body - and the remarkable thing is that these genes are the same for a fish, a mouse, a bird, a human. If you take out the gene that controls the growing of an eye and its localization in a fly and replace it by the same gene from a mouse - it works ! If you damage or remove that gene, the eye grows all twisted in the first case (on a leg for example) or not at all in the second case. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I see I haven't got a reply to my original question - I can see there is a lot of emotional response to the concept of evolution - but not why ... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sever]

Originally posted by Yorick: [qb]Have you ever painted or created something? Poured effort into a creative expression of your inner being? If it is truly a reflection of your inner self, how much do you cherish it?

[qb]

Yes i do create, and yes i do cherish. But my point was about the individual. I do not cherish each and every minute spec of colour on the canvas. I do not cherish each letter on the page. I cherish the whole. Suppose each and every binary digit in a program had a conscience and mind of it's own. What would they think of their origins. Imagine what wild speculations they could compose without being able to see the 'whole'. Would you or i, as the hypothetical programmer, even care about the thoughts of the insignificant individual?

This is heading OT towards a Religion vs Science debate and i think i need to state my standpoint before it gets too blurred. I believe in logic and reasoning and at every point in my life where i have applied these two key factors to the question of Creation vs NS, Natural Selection has come out on top.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Yorick: The instinct bit is interesting as well. Humans have no instincts like every other animal does. All we do is learned through mimicry or trial and error, not instinctivness.[/QB]

But we do have instincts. There's this British show on tv that explains different kinds of insticts we have (I don't know the name because it's a part of a Swedish show). We have an instinct that we don't like bitter food. Because poisonous food is usually bitter. And that some of us are afraid of snakes. And all those instincts connected with sex. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I don't know if that's what you meant. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ahh, I just noticed there's lots of posts that have been posted while I was writing. So, sorry if something's been said already, or I haven't seen it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Yorick. People whose 'recent' roots originate from hot dry countries have dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin. While people originating from cold countries have the opposite hair, eyes and skin characteristics. You do tan when you go under the sun, don't you ? [img]smile.gif[/img] Evolution is exactly the same process - only it takes longet to make it permanent. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Africans "tan" as well Claude (I got raked over the coals by a feisty Haitian femme for not knowing that...) They have different shades from sun exposure. Also, albinism exists in all races, regardless of the climate and effects.

Thirdly, blue eyes are regressive genes, not climactically influenced. All eyes start blue.

There's a great article online arguing that we can't judge races by appearance anyway, because of the gradual changes in appearance from person to person. Only at the extremes do we see definable differences.

Finally evolution theory is what allowed racist policies in South Africa and the "Terra Nullis" policy that dispossessed Australian Aboriginies. It was believed that Australian Aboriginies were lower down the evolutionary chain.

In Berlin I read a book that had articles from the apartheid era. Shocking. One article was concerning a ruling in a South African court that decided the Bantu was a human being.

Previously the Bantu was hunted for sport.

Horrific.

The moral implication of evolution theory is quite obvious. Some in history, as proven, have believed themselves as further evolved than other humans.

I believe we are all created equal.

I have a dream that people will be judged by the content of their character, not the colour of their skin. (Thanks M.L.K. )

[ 02-24-2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Spelca]

Has anybody read this article? [img]smile.gif[/img] "Same-sex animal mates challenge Darwin"
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...7-011400-6571r
Darwin wasn't right about everything. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Edit - Stuff.

[ 02-24-2003, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Spelca ]

[Sever]

Originally posted by Yorick: However unlikely or likely a scenario surrounding bones may be, all we actually have in our hands are bones. Not firsthand proof. Howver the evolutionist, when confronted with new evidence, will attmempt to place their find into the pre-existing theories and it's framework. [/QB]

I'm sorry i wasn't aware that there was any proof at all of Creation. Bones, unlike humans, cannot lie or bend the truth. The stories that they tell are how we interpret them. Their evidence stays intact until we dig them up and study them. Then they get placed in with the pre-existing theories and framework. You got that spot on. That's how we learn. That's the only way we learn.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by daan: Heck, I'd love to be a monkey [img]smile.gif[/img] Having a tail and being able to climb like crazy seems fun enough to me I quite dislike Darwin though, he's a twit. Survival of the strongest .. yeeeeaaa right [img]graemlins/nono.gif[/img] It's based on pure luck if you ask me ( and quite a few newer scientists ), nature has a balance, if you come along and dont fit the equilibrium you can be as tough as you want .. you wont survive. Its about being in the right place at the right time, not how strong you are.

That's why it's called survival of the FITTEST, not strongest. In some species, strong and fit are not equal. Take humans for example. Smaller, slight of build, slow to run, bad eyesight sound at first blush like an evolutionary loser. But add a bigass brain and a penchant for business and computers and you've got Bill Gates. FITTEST.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: The instinct bit is interesting as well. Humans have no instincts like every other animal does. All we do is learned through mimicry or trial and error, not instinctivness.

But we do have instincts. There's this British show on tv that explains different kinds of insticts we have (I don't know the name because it's a part of a Swedish show). We have an instinct that we don't like bitter food. Because poisonous food is usually bitter. And that some of us are afraid of snakes. And all those instincts connected with sex. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I don't know if that's what you meant. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Ahh, I just noticed there's lots of posts that have been posted while I was writing. So, sorry if something's been said already, or I haven't seen it. [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]Bitters are an aquired taste.

That's not an instict Spelca. That's part of your bodys sensory information reception. Instinct is behaviouraly orintated.

Sex is a good example. Most people LEARN how to be good lovers, they are not born that way. Lovers explore each other.

Anyhow in this day and age there's so much sex education and mimicable actions in popular entertainment, it's no suprise one can "know what to do" despite having never done it. (To a degree)