1
   

Evoloution and Humans: Does it stop?

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 01:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
rosborne, I am an optimist like you; I have friends all around the world and in the US, and find 99 percent of people decent and loving people. I also find the fear-mongering of global warming to be unconvincing on the basis that this planet has gone through several ice ages, and we're still not 100 percent positive what we are experiecing now is only a cycle.


Fair enough. Your other comment (below) just seemed unsupportedly pessimistic.

cicerone imposter wrote:
The tinkering is what's going to get homo sapiens into big trouble.


cicerone imposter wrote:
On the other hand, I see no reason why humans cannot limit the polution of our environment by limiting the use of fossil fuels.


I agree. Just because things are good, doesn't mean we can't do even better.

cicerone imposter wrote:
Lastly, I honestly believe we are living in the best of times when we can communicate with people around the world instantly without incurring high cost, and travel half way around the world in one day. It's still in the first century of high tech and biotech as we know it. I'm sure we humans will find cures for many ailments that have been a killer for many.


We seem to agree.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 01:25 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The tinkering is what's going to get homo sapiens into big trouble.

It's one of those quick on the draw, not thought through comments I'm guilty of once in awhile. Wink
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Dec, 2004 01:52 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
The tinkering is what's going to get homo sapiens into big trouble.

It's one of those quick on the draw, not thought through comments I'm guilty of once in awhile. Wink


Me too Smile

I'm about to get myself in trouble over in the "Wisconsin School OK's Creation" thread Smile

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1042543#1042543
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 10:24 am
A Lone Voice wrote:
Evolution has shown that we started out as small primates, then grew, learned to walk upright, expanded our brain pan, began communicating with language, and now here we are.


Shown? By pretty pictures, imaginative movies and lots of religious belief - not by scientific evaluation, just wishful thinking.
0 Replies
 
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 10:36 am
That's it, not by scientific evaluation.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 01:10 pm
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Shown? By pretty pictures, imaginative movies and lots of religious belief - not by scientific evaluation, just wishful thinking.


No. Shown by deductive reasoning based on scientific evidence.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 01:52 pm
Think finch; they have evolved to survive in their particular environment.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 01:54 pm
The world's land mass was at one time all attached. The separation of continents have evolved to produce different kinds of fauna and flora that can survive in their particular environments. That's evolution.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 05:17 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
The world's land mass was at one time all attached. The separation of continents have evolved to produce different kinds of fauna and flora that can survive in their particular environments. That's evolution.


LOL - That's adaptation, not evolution.

You're getting your terminology confused along with the other mish-mash of ideas that is endlessly absorbed into the evolutionary worldview.
0 Replies
 
Bibliophile the BibleGuru
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 05:18 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Shown? By pretty pictures, imaginative movies and lots of religious belief - not by scientific evaluation, just wishful thinking.


No. Shown by deductive reasoning based on scientific evidence.


LOL - Scientific evidence? Laughing Hocus-pocus.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 05:32 pm
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Shown? By pretty pictures, imaginative movies and lots of religious belief - not by scientific evaluation, just wishful thinking.


No. Shown by deductive reasoning based on scientific evidence.


LOL - Scientific evidence? Laughing Hocus-pocus.


Is it the process of science you don't trust, or the people?
0 Replies
 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 07:57 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Shown? By pretty pictures, imaginative movies and lots of religious belief - not by scientific evaluation, just wishful thinking.


No. Shown by deductive reasoning based on scientific evidence.


LOL - Scientific evidence? Laughing Hocus-pocus.


Is it the process of science you don't trust, or the people?


If you read the post it is clear that it is the very concept of scientific evidence bib is ridiculing. That is enough to make me give up on him/her.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 08:14 pm
Bib doesn't believe in scientific evidence; it's all intelligent design.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:17 pm
Einherjar wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:
Shown? By pretty pictures, imaginative movies and lots of religious belief - not by scientific evaluation, just wishful thinking.


No. Shown by deductive reasoning based on scientific evidence.


LOL - Scientific evidence? Laughing Hocus-pocus.


Is it the process of science you don't trust, or the people?


If you read the post it is clear that it is the very concept of scientific evidence bib is ridiculing.


Bib just likes to generate debate. His posts are temptingly obscure, but they never really say anything.

Right Bib?

Come on Bib, tell us how you really feel Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Dec, 2004 09:30 pm
Most all scientists are wasting their time studying evolution, because they can't "prove" anything they observe. Only Bib has all the right answers.
0 Replies
 
Jimi
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 02:22 pm
To mutate to the extent of creating 46 and 48 chromosomed beings out of a single-celled, anucleic organism in the actual amount of time it took to get this far is inconceivable.

Scientist estimate the world is around 4.5 billion years old. That's a hell of a lot of years, but then they estimate that life on this planet is only 3 billion years, starting with Cyanobacteria. These organisms developed in one of three Eons: the Hadean, Archean, or Proterozoic Eon.

Since then, there have been several different eras of life, starting with the Paleozoic Era. The Paleozoic Era was when the first hard bodied organism showed up, about 540 to 248 million years ago. (That's quite a stretch in and of itself.)

The Mesozoic Era was from about 248 million years ago, to 65 million years ago.

As the diversity of life on this planet shifted, the eras changed, from Paleozoic, to Mesozoic, to Cenozoic Eras. There is a a definite transition in species diversity in these eras. Species mutation and biological anomolies could not have changed at such a drastic rate in the juxtaposition of these eras. It's biologically impossible. So, in the start of the last era transition, when most dinosaurs died off, and mammals took over, the possibility of evolution from Mesozoic to Cenozoic Eras is absurd.

And even in the 65 million years of the Cenezoic Era, evolving from lesser primates, nature not only discarding the "beta versions" of humanity, but then discarding the link, and then giving us less chromosomes just seems kind of backward.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 05:22 pm
Jimi

I am not surprised. What matters most is not the number of tools in your toolbox but the ability to use them Very Happy


It's not the size of your tool that matters, but the knowing how to use it does:D

I suspect that once intelligence began to be selected for a lot of our genome that is concerned with what we call instinct in animals became superflous and eventually disappeared.

A fawn or a calf is born, and has the physical equipment for it, knowing how to walk, recognize its Mom, swat flies and a host of other instinctual actions that in humans has to be learned.

A baby is born knowing how to suck, breathe, and keep its heart going. The rest is simply manifestations of intelligence.

Genetically speaking it's a bit more efficient to learn something than to go through all the bother of encoding it in a genome.

(How many generations would we have to go through to be born knowing the rules of football or how to light a fire) :wink:
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 06:18 pm
it has stopped and is moving backwards make no mistake....
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:17 pm
akaMechsmith wrote:
It's not the size of your tool that matters, but the knowing how to use it does Very Happy


Only guys with little tools say that Wink
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2004 10:36 pm
A couple of things to consider...

Jimi wrote:
To mutate to the extent of creating 46 and 48 chromosomed beings out of a single-celled, anucleic organism in the actual amount of time it took to get this far is inconceivable.

Scientist estimate the world is around 4.5 billion years old. That's a hell of a lot of years, but then they estimate that life on this planet is only 3 billion years, starting with Cyanobacteria. These organisms developed in one of three Eons: the Hadean, Archean, or Proterozoic Eon.


Smaller organisms (bacteria) live shorter lives than larger ones, so there are a lot more generations per year (or even per day) to generate changes. Most people who try to calculate this type of thing forget that not every living thing produces young on a yearly basis.

Jimi wrote:
As the diversity of life on this planet shifted, the eras changed, from Paleozoic, to Mesozoic, to Cenozoic Eras. There is a a definite transition in species diversity in these eras. Species mutation and biological anomolies could not have changed at such a drastic rate in the juxtaposition of these eras. It's biologically impossible.


I'm not sure what you are saying here, but it seems that you are suggesting that the changes in biological populations between epochs are due to spurts of mutation and selection, but this isn't what happened at all.

A huge diversity of genetic variation is and was, already available in the biosphere before these epochs transitioned. The change in populations was due primarily to changes in environment which allowed one or another of the less populous organisms to become a more populous organism. Evolution didn't spurt, nature simply applied a different filter to survival.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Which building has the highest load bearing? - Discussion by tali
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Bizarre Proposal to Increase the Number of Planets - Discussion by oralloy
DDT to Return as Weapon Against Malaria, Experts Say - Discussion by gungasnake
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evoloution and Humans: Does it stop?
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 12:02:14
▲ ▼