|
uriahchase
Skinny White Boy
Registered: 09/25/04
Posts: 675
Loc: SoCal
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856197 - 03/02/05 07:59 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i only read about the first four replies....Gomp proved you wrong ...
and besides evolution is just a theory never any proof of it has been found. nor ever will. i think this is a good post to end this thread.
--------------------
Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are -Kurt Cobain Hotter than the left sink handle.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: deafpanda]
#3856204 - 03/02/05 08:01 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deafpanda said: Just demonstrating that theories are not facts until proved wrong, they are theories until they have amassed significant corroborative evidence.
I never said that your "theory" was not true, just not well thought out.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: uriahchase]
#3856215 - 03/02/05 08:05 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
uriahchase said: i only read about the first four replies....Gomp proved you wrong ...
and besides evolution is just a theory never any proof of it has been found. nor ever will. i think this is a good post to end this thread.
You need to read the WHOLE thread.
Evolution has been witnessed and documented. Just not in "human" evolution.
Again back up and read the thread.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3856400 - 03/02/05 09:04 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You need to read the WHOLE thread.
Evolution has been witnessed and documented. Just not in "human" evolution.
Again back up and read the thread.
Can I suggest you do the same? Every question or wrong assumption you had about evolution has been answered. You refused to read it or just ignored it, sticking to your "theory" as if it has any grounding in science at all. It doesn't. You realize you are completely wrong? If you read a biology book you would realize this. The mechanisms of what you speak of have been figured out a long time ago. You aren't thinking up anything new or interesting here, and frankly, I am amazed you refuse to learn when people are teaching you something.
-------------------- I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: looner2]
#3856585 - 03/02/05 10:08 AM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I am amazed you refuse to learn when people are teaching you something.
Don't be amazed, looner. Pride and Ignorance are two conditions we humans are not likely to lose any time soon
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3857427 - 03/02/05 01:32 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Quote:
Paradigm said: Questioning facts has indeed gotten us far, but science cannot tell us why, only how.
I never said science could tell us why.
I just told you a theory of how and why that you cant disprove.
Arent all theories, facts untill they are disproved?
What? No. They're theories until they're disproved, and frankly, your ideas fit more under the category of "dogma" than theory.
Quote:
Isnt the theory of gravity still holding up? Yea, no one had disproved it yet.
Wrong again. Einstein's general theory of relativity proved Newton wrong about gravity.
Quote:
Prove my "theory" wrong.
You clearly don't understand the concept of the burden of proof. It's not up to me to prove you wrong. It's up to you to prove your idea to be true.
--------------------
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3857488 - 03/02/05 01:50 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I have never mentioned any kind of "dogma" or ritual, just the concept of "divine intervention".
I haven't even tried to dispute our current views of science.
I never told anyone that their theory was wrong.
I didn't even say that "random" mutations in our evolution never happen.
All I said was that some of the mutations could have been given a "nudge" toward one direction or other.
Here is another example.
When proto-man had to "adapt" from living in a jungle/forest environment to the savanna. We had to learn to walk upright on our back 2 legs. This would have caused "major" lower back pain and made the proto-human (us) miserable. He had to make a major adaptation to this new environment.
God/Mother Nature, hears our misery and nudges our genetic makeup in a direction that would make walking on 2 legs less painful.
Meanwhile the tail and appendix that we used to rely on slowly disappears. We made that change on our own.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3857556 - 03/02/05 02:05 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Don't even bother, eh. He obviously doesn't want to learn anything new. Arguing with a person who believes that God himself "nudges" our genetic makeup in certain directions isn't likely to go very far
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
freddurgan
Techgnostic
Registered: 01/11/04
Posts: 3,648
Last seen: 11 years, 9 months
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3857583 - 03/02/05 02:11 PM (19 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said:
Here is another example.
When proto-man had to "adapt" from living in a jungle/forest environment to the savanna. We had to learn to walk upright on our back 2 legs. This would have caused "major" lower back pain and made the proto-human (us) miserable. He had to make a major adaptation to this new environment.
God/Mother Nature, hears our misery and nudges our genetic makeup in a direction that would make walking on 2 legs less painful.
Meanwhile the tail and appendix that we used to rely on slowly disappears. We made that change on our own.
God you are so wrong. We wouldn't have started to walk on two legs until we COULD walk on two legs. Even IF the quadripedal people just "decided" to start standing up on two legs, which they wouldn't have because that's rediculous, they COULDN'T because like you said it would be highly unnatural and would be a detriment to survival.
Now, the way it actually works is that some of the quadripeds were born better at walking on two legs. Not much better, but better. A better sense of balance, maybe a stronger back? This would give an obvious survival advantage and so this particular animal/animals (probably more than one at a time given population numbers) reproduced, causing their offspring to be better at walking on two legs. Over THOUSANDS of years these more adept, but not completely bipedal creatures became more and more prevalent. And eventually they were the majority, and eventually more were birthed that were better at walking, and AGAIN the cycle repeated. And evenutlaly, after all those thousands and thousands of generations, millions of years have passed and those that were once bipedally-gifted have given rise to those that are indeed bipedal.
They didn't become bipedal because they WANTED to, or TRIED to, they became bipedal because they COULD.
Even your last statement is wrong and it's for the same reasons as you've been wrong this WHOLE time. They aren't adapting in the sense that you say they are. They didn't force themselves to adapt so they could live in the savannahs, instead, they COULD live in the savannahs because over the years enough evolution occured that allowed them to do so.
You keep putting the whole scenario backwards. That's just not how it works.
And the appendix and tail aren't going away because we don't need it. It's going away because the ones that were born with a different/lesser/modified tail survived better than the bipedals that had tails, so they reproduced more and made less people with tails.
Once again, you're doing it backwards.
Edit : Trendal, I hear ya. This is getting sad. But I'm learning alot about evolution and am enjoying this thread because of it.
Edited by freddurgan (03/02/05 02:13 PM)
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3858875 - 03/02/05 06:05 PM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
niteowl said: I have never mentioned any kind of "dogma" or ritual, just the concept of "divine intervention".
Which is a dogma, not a theory. A theory can be tested.
Quote:
I haven't even tried to dispute our current views of science.
I never told anyone that their theory was wrong.
I didn't even say that "random" mutations in our evolution never happen.
All I said was that some of the mutations could have been given a "nudge" toward one direction or other.
Which cannot be tested or measured, and thus does not qualify as a theory.
Quote:
Here is another example.
When proto-man had to "adapt" from living in a jungle/forest environment to the savanna. We had to learn to walk upright on our back 2 legs. This would have caused "major" lower back pain and made the proto-human (us) miserable. He had to make a major adaptation to this new environment.
The transition from jungle to savannah did not happen overnight. It took millions of years of living on the edge of the forest.
Quote:
God/Mother Nature, hears our misery and nudges our genetic makeup in a direction that would make walking on 2 legs less painful.
Complete speculation. There is no indication from the fossil record(nor could there be) that such an event took place.
Quote:
Meanwhile the tail and appendix that we used to rely on slowly disappears. We made that change on our own.
We got rid of the tail long before that.
--------------------
|
uriahchase
Skinny White Boy
Registered: 09/25/04
Posts: 675
Loc: SoCal
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: Silversoul]
#3859868 - 03/02/05 09:14 PM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
okay i read the whole fuckin thing..now i think ive pulled my retina,andf spraned my cornea...hehe yah i still agree with my previous reply my veiw hasn't changed.
*why hasn't our bodies "evolved" since there has been record of history<~~~~~??
*did that make any sense to you???? hmmm..i need better writting skills. any way why haven't humans eveolved enough to no longer have weak immune systems that are suceptical(?) to the common cold? or does human kind take its precious time gettin' started on this..?
traits are carried from parent to child some reccesive some dominate. but i don't beleive that we as humans have or will ever "develope" new traits or through evolution "change" our genetic blueprints..
AMANAPLANACANALPANAMA
--------------------
Wanting to be someone else is a waste of the person you are -Kurt Cobain Hotter than the left sink handle.
|
looner2
ABBA fan
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: uriahchase]
#3860201 - 03/02/05 10:14 PM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Natural selection doesn't take its full course on humans. The sick, deformed, brain-dead, and weak all get to mate and have kids.
-------------------- I am in love with Acidic_Sloth
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: uriahchase]
#3861578 - 03/03/05 08:40 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
*why hasn't our bodies "evolved" since there has been record of history<~~~~~??
Because recorded history is FAR shorter of a time span than evolution occurs in. We have a few thousand years of recorded history. Evolution takes millions of years.
any way why haven't humans eveolved enough to no longer have weak immune systems that are suceptical(?) to the common cold?
Don't forget that the common cold is mutating constantly and thus is MUCH more able to adapt to our immune systems than our immune systems are able to adapt to the cold virus.
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: freddurgan]
#3861756 - 03/03/05 09:59 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
freddurgan said: God you are so wrong.
Again someone said that my theory is wrong with no "concrete proof"
Quote:
Now, the way it actually works is that some of the quadripeds were born better at walking on two legs.
Im guessing that you were there to record these evolutionary changes. (doubt it) You are basing your "theory" on scientific events that have only been discovered in the past 100 years or so.
What really happened millions of years ago is still only speculation....a "theory".
So my "theory" of divine intervention holds as much water as your "theory" of only random mutations.
You can no more prove your theory than I can prove mine.
That's why its called a THEORY
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3861779 - 03/03/05 10:05 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trendal said: any way why haven't humans eveolved enough to no longer have weak immune systems that are suceptical(?) to the common cold?
Don't forget that the common cold is mutating constantly and thus is MUCH more able to adapt to our immune systems than our immune systems are able to adapt to the cold virus.
Also the single-celled, cold virus can "evolve" much faster than the highly complicated mulit-cellular entities that we have become. That is why no one can prove the theory of "human evolution".
We nave observed "evolution" in these single-celled organisms and made a big "leap of faith" and said that human evolution must evolve in the "exact" same manner as the single celled creatures.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3861793 - 03/03/05 10:11 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
probably what is at the root of confusion and disagreement here is the nature of randomness or god.
it is presumed that we are in a fractal universe and that all representations are statistically turbulent and at the same time co-relative on several scales of examination (teh patterns repeat gloriously).
this relative aspect of fractals and their tendency to repeat at jumps in scale according to their unique signatures makes one feel as if in the hands of a greater being.
this great one either is the fractal essence (randomness) or creates with the principle of randomness in every stroke.
-------------------- _ 🧠 _
|
niteowl
GrandPaw
Registered: 07/01/03
Posts: 16,291
Loc:
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: probably what is at the root of confusion and disagreement here is the nature of randomness or god....
this great one either is the fractal essence (randomness) or creates with the principle of randomness in every stroke.
I believe that for the most part it is a random system, that can be manipulated by a "higher conscience" if "it" deems it necessary.
And their is no way to prove or disprove either theory.
Arguing about who is right and who is wrong is pointless.
-------------------- Live for the moment you are in nowDon't be bogged down by your pastDon't be afraid of what lies in your future
|
trendal
J♠
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3862073 - 03/03/05 11:23 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
If you cannot prove/disprove your idea, it is not a theory. It is dogma.
Hasn't this already been pointed out, several times?
--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
|
gnrm23
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/29/99
Posts: 6,488
Loc: n. e. OH, USSA
Last seen: 5 months, 21 days
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: trendal]
#3862085 - 03/03/05 11:25 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
google: lamarckism
-------------------- old enough to know better not old enough to care
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,063
|
Re: Evolutionary changes [Re: niteowl]
#3862086 - 03/03/05 11:25 AM (19 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
I would give in to that and would definitely be on guard about that meddling "higher consciousness" which can manipulate randomness.
but that has nothing to do with your testicles that part was really really ridiculous unless you have an unique relationship with the higher consciousness and or randomness itself
Edited by redgreenvines (03/03/05 11:26 AM)
|
|