Evolution

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quote: 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.[/QUOTE]The only problem is, homo-erectus had a "pea brain" Timber. (That's the words the biologists used) Somehow the 'evolutionary loser' mysteriously developed a big ass brain as well.

[Spelca]

Originally posted by Yorick: 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)

Okay, an example given in the show. Most women (at least me) don't know when they're ovulating. Yet, most of the cases when a woman cheats is when she's ovulating. It's an instinct to find a better mate, with better genes, even though women probably don't think of getting pregnant when they cheat. It's an instinct. Or, that women while they ovulate find men with more masculine features more attractive. That's an instinct. [img]tongue.gif[/img] (Weird examples, I know. [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Oh, bitter, babies don't like bitter. Give bitter food to a small baby that has never tried bitter before, or even solid food, and it'll spit it out. [img]smile.gif[/img] So it can't be an aquired taste.
And there's also the maternal instinct. That comes very natural too. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Just because you can't exactly 'feel' an instinct doesn't mean it's not there. It's something so natural that you don't even notice it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: Quote: 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. )[/QUOTE]Yorick, nonono ! It is not the evolution theory that is a cause of racism, it is because some people use it to further their own agenda !

What the science tells us is that currently THERE IS ONLY ONE HUMAN SPECIE ON EARTH. The criterium is simple - we can all interbreed. It was not always the case - Neanderthal people were as fully humans as we are, but apparently (a doubt still subsist) they were a different human specie since it doesn't seem they could breed with our ancestors (or we would see traces of their gene pool inside us).

Furthermore, evolution states that there are slight gene differences in the different human groups because they had been living isolated for centuries. If these groups had kept isolated for much much MUCH longer, they would have become different species. There. But how could that imply that the differences between the human groups imply a hierarchy ?

You can believe the evolution theory is true or that it isn't. But you can't say that we must say it is false because some people may twist it to suit their own prejudices !

[ 02-24-2003, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: Moiraine ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sever: Quote: 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.

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.[/QB][/QUOTE]I see the world as art. Beit a sunset, a waterfall a human face or an other scene we attempt to capture in paintings and photos.

Therefore I see it all proof of an artist.

The theme I was emphasising was that I am looking at what I have now, in front of me. Tangible reality. I'm not basing my theory on the speculation surrounding a piles of bones I found in a desert. Mine is simple.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Spelca: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: 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)

Okay, an example given in the show. Most women (at least me) don't know when they're ovulating. Yet, most of the cases when a woman cheats is when she's ovulating. It's an instinct to find a better mate, with better genes, even though women probably don't think of getting pregnant when they cheat. It's an instinct. Or, that women while they ovulate find men with more masculine features more attractive. That's an instinct. [img]tongue.gif[/img] (Weird examples, I know. [img]tongue.gif[/img] )
[/QUOTE]COnsidering a woman ovulates once a month it's not hard to find women cheating when they're ovulating.

Sorry mate, but that's the lamest reasoning I've heard for infidelity in a long time.

Infidelity is normally a symptom of relationship dysfunctionality, not a cause in itself.

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Yorick: COnsidering a woman ovulates once a month it's not hard to find women cheating when they're ovulating. Sorry mate, but that's the lamest reasoning I've heard for infidelity in a long time. Infidelity is normally a symptom of relationship dysfunctionality, not a cause in itself.

She didn't say it was an EXCUSE for infidelity, Yorick.
SO you don't believe PMS exists?? Women menstruate every months, lots of women are cranky and/or suffer from minor physical probs like headaches, SO it's not so hard to find women who are cranky prior to menstruation, doesn't mean PMS exists??
I haven't seen the facts Spelca has, but I assume the conclusion was drawn based on SIGNIFICANT facts (significant in the mathematical sense); i.e. a significantly greater number of women cheated when they were ovulating. Or perhaps, women who were already unfaithful only actually cheated during ovulation.

Oh and another example, humans have two fears they are born with: fear of darkness and fear of heights. That IS instinct. Of course humans have instincts.
You're absolutely right most of what we learn, we learn through imitation, not instinct. But that doesn't mean we have NO instinct at all, like you say. It's just that most of the time, we don't need it, so we *evolved* to rely less and less on it.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: You can believe the evolution theory is true or that it isn't. But you can't say that we must say it is false because some people may twist it to suit their own prejudices !

Just attempting to answer your original question with that one Claude. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

About instincts - how about this : monkeys - and apes - and humans - are not physically fearsome animals. Thus, to protect themselves from predators, they have to develop a group dynamic instead of a solitary life. High social skills are hence necessary for them to survive, more crucial than basic instincts. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I have read the interesting following theory about sex and monogamy : on human females, unlike most monkeys and apes, you can't see when they are ovulating. It implies that more sexual intercourses are necessary to ensure a baby is conceived. Most current simians are NOT monogamic. But human babies require a long investment in education, so it is done better if the father is implied in a longer relationship with the mother than just an intercourse, and thus helps with raising the baby. Sex would thus serve more than the purpose of reproduction - it would be an incentive to keep the male around for the duration of the baby's education. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Melusine: Quote: Originally posted by Yorick: COnsidering a woman ovulates once a month it's not hard to find women cheating when they're ovulating. Sorry mate, but that's the lamest reasoning I've heard for infidelity in a long time. Infidelity is normally a symptom of relationship dysfunctionality, not a cause in itself.

She didn't say it was an EXCUSE for infidelity, Yorick.
SO you don't believe PMS exists?? Women menstruate every months, lots of women are cranky and/or suffer from minor physical probs like headaches, SO it's not so hard to find women who are cranky prior to menstruation, doesn't mean PMS exists??
I haven't seen the facts Spelca has, but I assume the conclusion was drawn based on SIGNIFICANT facts (significant in the mathematical sense); i.e. a significantly greater number of women cheated when they were ovulating. Or perhaps, women who were already unfaithful only actually cheated during ovulation.

Oh and another example, humans have two fears they are born with: fear of darkness and fear of heights. That IS instinct. Of course humans have instincts.
You're absolutely right most of what we learn, we learn through imitation, not instinct. But that doesn't mean we have NO instinct at all, like you say. It's just that most of the time, we don't need it, so we *evolved* to rely less and less on it.[/QUOTE]Hi Mel. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Fear of darkness and heights are fear though ASSOCIATION and relative experience. An ignorant child is a fearless child. We learn our fears Mel. We learn fears and inhibitions. Damages that can be healed.

If it were instictive, a person born blind would be perpetually frightened, or at least battle that instict in their life. A person learns to associate the dark with certain things - vulnerablity, abandonment, aloneness, hidden dangers.

We are learning from inside the womb. Associating certain sounds with the mothers emotions for example. These are not instincts.

Most if not all predatory carnivores are born with the instinctive ability to hunt for example.

Now, regarding PMS, I never said PMS didn't exist. Spelca didn't use PMS as a reason, but the ovulation cycle creating increased desire for a mate. In my experience, PMS leads to increased desire NOT to have a mate.... joking, joking

Ah. After reading your post again, it seems I misunderstood your point re. PMS. No matter.

Anyhow, my point was that all women ovulate once a month. Deciding to cheat and break a commitment is not a sudden impulse that occurs within the 72-36 hour period surrounding ovulation. Cheating doesn't happen by accident. Sexual urges may increase during that time, but deciding where to direct those sexual urges is another story. Given the frequency of ovulation, and the frequency of human infidelity, it would not be hard to find large numbers of females who have had an affair close to when they're ovulating.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: But human babies require a long investment in education, so it is done better if the father is implied in a longer relationship with the mother than just an intercourse, and thus helps with raising the baby. Sex would thus serve more than the purpose of reproduction - it would be an incentive to keep the male around for the duration of the baby's education. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree.

If true that's another reason why I'd reject Spelca's idea of instinctive infidelity.