3
   

Human evolution is accelerating

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2007 09:14 am
real life wrote:
I've no problem agreeing that education benefits man in a number of ways.

But the word 'evolution' refers to a genetic/biological process.

You've not shown how education alters man's biological makeup to cause him to evolve any differently.

If you still maintain that it's so, then please answer: are humans that live in societies with no written language and no universities to be considered 'less evolved' than you and I ?

You can't have it both ways , Setanta. If education is part of evolution, then face the consequences of your view.


I'm not saying and i have not said that the accumulation of knowledge has altered man's biological nature, nor that it has caused him to evolve differently. I am pointing out that the accumulation of knowledge allows the human race to remove itself from the equation of natural selection. Natural selection would doom people with certain genetic conditions, or people exposed to certain disease organisms--if it were not for the accumulation of knowledge which allows us to avoid the circumstance. Good public health procedures can limit the spread of disease, or even prevent its introduction into the population. Good medical care can allow an individual to survive to reproductive age in circumstances in which the absence of that knowledge would doom the individual to die before reproducing.

The accumulation of knowledge makes evolutionary pressures increasingly irrelevant, since we can overcome the deleterious effects of disease, injury, exposure to the elements, limited food resources or genetic "deficiencies."
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2007 09:25 am
The Indohyus story is but one of a number of possible ancestor links. I want to see the one specimen that is clearly geologically the founder species. Indohyus was a "contemporary" of some of the already evolving species , like Pachycetus.
Quote:
Indohyus ("India's pig") is a genus of extinct artiodactyl known from Eocene fossils in Asia. A December 2007 article in Nature by Thewissen et al. using an exceptionally complete skeleton of Indohyus from Kashmir indicates that raoellids may be the "missing link" sister group to whales (Cetacea).[1] All other Artiodactyla are "cousins" of these two groups. δO18 values and osteosclerotic bones indicate that the racoon-like or small deer-like Indohyus was habitually aquatic, but δC13 values suggest that it rarely fed in the water. The authors suggest this documents an intermediate step in the transition back to water completed by the whales, and suggests a new understanding of the evolution of cetaceans.

The fossils were discovered among rocks that had been collected more than 30 years ago in Kashmir by the Indian geologist A Ranga Rao who found a few teeth and parts of a jawbone, but when he died many rocks had yet to be broken open. Ranga Rao's widow gave the rocks to Professor Thewissen, who was working on them when his technician accidentally broke one of the skulls they had found and Thewissen recognised the ear structure of the auditory bulla, formed from the ectotympanic bone in a shape which is highly unusual and only resembles the skulls of whales and the earlier land creature Pakicetus.[2]

However, not all paleontologists are particularly persuaded that Indohyus is the transitional fossil that cetacean-origin experts were looking for. ScienceNOW, a daily news feature of the journal Science, notes that a team set to publish in the journal Cladistics postulates an extinct group of carnivorous mammals called "mesonychids" as more closely related to cetaceans. Additionally, the ScienceNOW article notes that "cetaceans are so different from any other creature that researchers haven't been able to agree which fossil relatives best represent their nearest ancestors."[3]

About the size of a racoon or domestic cat, this herbivorous deer-like creature shared some of the traits of whales, and showed signs of adaptations to aquatic life, including a thick and heavy outer coating to bones which is similar to the bones of modern creatures such the hippopotamus, and reduces buoyancy so that they can stay underwater. This suggests a similar survival strategy to the African mousedeer or water chevrotain which, when threatened by a bird of prey, dives into water and hides beneath the surface for up to four minutes.[4][2][5]

SOurce---Wikipedia :Indohyus (indian pig)
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Dec, 2007 10:38 am
real life wrote:
Do you really think that successive generations of critters with smaller and less functional legs experienced a 'survival advantage'?

You mean swimming creatures like whales and their ancestors who were using their tails as a primary means of propulsion, and who's legs were not only unnecessary, but a hindrance to streamlining? Yeh, sure I do.

And you avoided the point... why in creationism would modern whales have pelvic bones? Evolution provides a very good answer, what does creationism have to say?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 09:38 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
Do you really think that successive generations of critters with smaller and less functional legs experienced a 'survival advantage'?

You mean swimming creatures like whales and their ancestors who were using their tails as a primary means of propulsion, and who's legs were not only unnecessary, but a hindrance to streamlining? Yeh, sure I do.

And you avoided the point... why in creationism would modern whales have pelvic bones? Evolution provides a very good answer, what does creationism have to say?


What makes you think they are 'pelvic' bones? They are not even attached to the spinal column and they have functionality completely unrelated to locomotion.

A degenerating pelvis would make walking quite difficult for the 'transitional form' and interfere with swimming , making the critter unsuited for land or sea.

Leaving the transitional critter vulnerable in this way can hardly be termed a 'survival advantage', can it?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 10:09 am
real life wrote:
What makes you think they are 'pelvic' bones? They are not even attached to the spinal column

I suppose it's just coincidence that they look like pelvic bones, they're in the same location as pelvic bones and that they show up in transitional forms with more and more definition going back in time. Just what you would expect from an evolving line.

real life wrote:
and they have functionality completely unrelated to locomotion.

What functionality do they have RL? I guess if creationism is right, they must be there for a reason.

real life wrote:
A degenerating pelvis would make walking quite difficult for the 'transitional form' and interfere with swimming , making the critter unsuited for land or sea.

The Pinnipeds seem to do quite well living between land and sea with limited mobility. Your suppositions don't hold up well in the light of day.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 01:42 am
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
A degenerating pelvis would make walking quite difficult for the 'transitional form' and interfere with swimming , making the critter unsuited for land or sea.

The Pinnipeds seem to do quite well living between land and sea with limited mobility. Your suppositions don't hold up well in the light of day.


Yes, they do quite well. In fact, the 'earliest' pinnipeds were not very different from those of today. Where are the llllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggg ages of transitionals?

How many million years do you suppose it took a land dwelling critter to
'evolve' into a mostly seafaring varmint?

You are going to have to cram MAJOR changes into a fairly short time span to explain the lack of transitionals.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 05:58 am
I believe RL walks around with earplugs and bliners. This point has been discussed in sufficient detail for even the slowest students to understand.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Jan, 2008 07:38 am
real life wrote:
You are going to have to cram MAJOR changes into a fairly short time span to explain the lack of transitionals.

There is no lack of transitionals.

And you still haven't explained why a spontaneously created whale would have residual pelvic bones.

Creationism doesn't explain anything about the world we find around us, evolution does. Of what value is the idea of creationism?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 09:28:46