Evolutionism.

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

So, I noticed that there has been a lack of threads disucssing evolution and anything related to said theory.

At moments it may be hard to talk about it, since it's so bloody obvious, although there are a lot of people who dismiss this subject (and I'm not talking about creationists by the way). In terms of biology, it is still somewhat a theory and a fact.

Why would I open a thread like this? Well naturally evolution is just a ""simple"" (note the double ") process eg. there are certain traits in a gene pool that by natural/artificial selection get cleaned out, thus, "creating" a new set of traits that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Evolution happens over the course of millions of years, that amount of time is hard for even us to grasp. That's why the only evidence is actual observation of other species and... microorganisms. Due to their extremly short "life" spans we can toy around with them and notice how ceratin situations/genes change them.

I was wondering where we as humans are continuing as a species. For the past hundreds of thousands of years we have been evolving into a smarter, more sofisticated race than our cousin primates. Due to certain mutations our muscles have been degrading (and our overal structure) giving way to the expanding of the mind- the single most powerful weapon this natural world has ever seen and our biggest attribute.

The natural order is simple, every single creature that lives strives to pass on its genes. That's what surviving is all about, because what's the point of surviving if you cannot reproduce? Every animal that lacks the ability to plan ahead and is not aware of itself (depressing if you think about it) revolves its whole life around finding the next shag buddy and passing on its genes, insuring that its species will survive.

As humans have evolved their brain into something far more complex we now can decide whether or not to reproduce. It's happening all the time and is not considered something abnormal... from our point of view. Some people live their whole lives without having children, which is perfectly fine. We are starting to break natures rules, the very foundations of this world and are heading in a completely new direction, one that has been unwalked by any other living being on this planet.

I don't know if you understand what I am trying to implie, but we are starting to evolve completely different in a way no other animal ever has. Which brings up the question, were are we heading?

That's quite a bit of rambling, so I hope you all join in this discussion and we can work out a few theories.

 

[reddan1981]

I am interested in the physical demonstrable proof of evolution, i have yet to find any thing that is not theoretical heresy. I have however, found evidence to question the validity of the authors morality. Darwin was a paedophile. He nonced his own children and practiced occultism. Should we trust his theories?

 

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

I had no idea there were such accusations, although I still don't think that has anything to do with his theories. The problem is they are still speculations. Freud, being the father of modern psychology had tons of theories, most of which can be stated as accurate, but some are still questionable (like humans actions are motivated only by sex and pleasure, which I find not exactly true).

But yes, physical proof is the best form of evidence out there. From what I remember, albeit not that clearly, Darwin on his voyage on the HMS Beagle came to the conclusion of the whole process while observing a certain species of birds on the Galapagos Islands. He noticed that while they were the same size and species, all of them had very different characteristics depending on the situation of the island they were living on. Some, when there was not other animals to eat on, had developed beaks perfect for crushing fruit, while others adapted in other ways. So we can see that evolution is also the ability to adapt to certain enviroments, thus creating new individuals and even new species.

I'm glad someone joined into the discussion, I find that evolution is an amazing topic to talk about.

 

[reddan1981]

Small scale changes, such as the size or shape of bird beaks or the slight changes of colour in the wing of 'peppered moths' as evident from Darwins studies can only be testimony to the fact that MICRO-evolution occurs. Whilst I agree that species can adapt within their own genre to environmental stresses, we have not witnesses enough between- species evidence to conclusively state that one species can change into another.

 

[qwizoking]

only read the op, too many false assertions

 

[texasjack]

Marsupials

 

[HeatlessBBQ]

 

[HeatlessBBQ]

~The Stoned Ape Theory ~

~The Stoned Ape Theory ~

~The Stoned Ape Theory ~

~The Stoned Ape Theory ~

 

[reddan1981]

only read the op, too many false assertions

Please elaborate.

 

[texasjack]

This is miscat anyway. Evolution isn't a religion or belief system or philosophy. None of those can be proven. Evolution is science because it can.

 

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

That's the whole point of this thread, I would like to hear each and everys opinion. It's just our perception of the fundamentals of nature, but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. A lot of people simply don't buy evolution, because of lack of observable (to them) proof, and I'm not just talking about religious people who believe it contradicts their faith (it doesn't have to though).

 

[Heisenberg]

Small scale changes, such as the size or shape of bird beaks or the slight changes of colour in the wing of 'peppered moths' as evident from Darwins studies can only be testimony to the fact that MICRO-evolution occurs. Whilst I agree that species can adapt within their own genre to environmental stresses, we have not witnesses enough between- species evidence to conclusively state that one species can change into another.

Micro-evolution is evolution. Small changes add up over time. The only thing the term micro-evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it. It's an indication of time-frame. It's not an actual category used by scientists.

Evolution does not postulate that one species changes into another. It says that species branch off. It does not predict special transitional species, it says we are all transitional species.

I am interested in the physical demonstrable proof of evolution, i have yet to find any thing that is not theoretical heresy. I have however, found evidence to question the validity of the authors morality. Darwin was a paedophile. He nonced his own children and practiced occultism. Should we trust his theories?

Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. The moral standards of the author are completely inconsequential to the validity of the statements. What matters is the evidence, the predictions, and the results of experiments. If morals are part of your criteria for judging the accuracy of science, then perhaps it is your evaluations we should be weary of trusting.

 

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

Micro evolution is the best way to show adaptions mechanisms amongst micro organisms since their reproduction rate is immensly greater than that of multi cell organisms. Natural/artificial selection is observable and we can see what genes natures deems as worthy to pass on to the next generations.

Mammals on the other hand take billions of years to evolve, that's why some can be sceptical.

 

[qwizoking]

.... evolving into a smarter, more sofisticated race than our cousin primates. Due to certain mutations our muscles have been degrading (and our overal structure) giving way to the expanding of the mind-




my favorite and easiest to simplify. but theres something almost every sentence
first what is "sophisticated" second
thats completely false and the opposite is true. we are taller,stronger, faster and better looking...in terms of sexual attraction..titties are bigger come in sooner, faces more symmetrical etc. im also not sure todays minds are innovative enough to come up with the philosophical and mathematic ideas etc we did long ago. innovation is slowing...

religion doesnt have anything to do with it, and if evolution is proven it wouldnt be a problem for say christians. in the same way a christian can say the "let there be light" was gods finger snap/big bang. and ot talks about a progression of animals in the bible.
not saying what i believe, i have studied christian "apologetics" from well known professors, im a pretty rounded person.

however evolution isnt really debatable in the since we can "evolve" animals through selective breeding and create a new sub species as it were, like a min pin from a wolf or whatever . weve created fruits never found in nature. there are many things difficult to explain, the boom of life for example. but science easily explainsm much harder to predict.

evolution hardly takes millions of years certainly not billions lol, think Bout the age of most species. even a new species takes a fraction of that. people just have trouble with inbetweens. shouldnt there be a half person half monkey?
lol no not at all, genes generally effect many traits and usually work in combination. one shouldnt expect any transitionary animal. but at some point a species could mate. then it couldn't

as far as this thread..
your not guaranteed "progression" and this is important. our brains are not likely to be appreciably more "intelligent" in another thiusand years. our muscles are not going to be more efficient, how much do you really expect to "evolve"
all of this becomes more complicated than anyone here can speculate on. in the same way, ive spent decades studying pharmacology and cannabis, still barely having a clue about the drug and its complex compounds

my penny.

 

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

"evolving into a smarter, more sophisticated (thanks) race than our cousin primates. Due to certain mutations our muscles have been degrading (and our overal structure) giving way to the expanding of the mind-"

Well our brains use the most energy that is produced in the body. In nature, such "gifts" have to be recompensated in the form of energy. You can't have a powerful brain like ours AND have jaws that can snap bones in half or the ability to lift the amount of weight gorillas do for example. That form of monkey is immensly strong and they don't sit in the gym training, they are born like that.

The only way to allow certain organs to expand is to in, very simple terms, redirect the energy we could be losing from having to upkeep the eg. jaw muscles and allow that energy to be focused on using the brain. Since we started walking, using tools and what not, our brains have been hungry for energy, which is normal considering that such new actions create new, unfound in our species neurological pathways.

That's what I meant. And sophisticated in a general sense, cultural, spiritual, mental etc.

 

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

So just like with the example on the jaw muscles degrading, technology has pushed humans hundreds of ears forward in a relativly short time. Nowadays people don't use the muscles at the same rate as our GRAND PARENTS, so I'm not talking about ancestors that lived thousands of years ago. The human body is adapting at a huge rate, we are not as strong physically and mentally as people who lived hundreds of years ago.

So my guess is that over the course of a few decades/centuries, our muscle matter will start degrading and that will cause new pathways for us to walk on. What will happen, I cannot guess, but I think that the mind will greatly benefit from this. I think we are going to start evolving mentally faster than ever before. More specifically our emotions will porbably start evolving, we might in the future no not what anger is or survival instincts, we could very well start losing them over time since technology will be doing most of our chores for use. Be it cleaning, to traveling and thinking.

 

[qwizoking]

we dont need to redirect energy.
cows or bulls spend all day grazing, we have the ability to get all our needs in a single meal before we even start our day. lol we dont sacrifice our brain for an unrelated jaw bone and muscle. there are many examples in nature. also why do we think we are smartest, how do we calculate this. our brain is relatively small compared to some other animals.

and what your saying is all opinion.
most doesnt make sense from a science/historical perspective

we are much stronger in all ways than our ancestors, as well as taller etc read my post, why am i repeating... think about football players now and when the game first came out.


hence my first post in the thread, too many false assertions to have an intelligent debate or discussion

 

[Gregor Eisenhorn]

Cows eat plants that have cellulose in them, and no animal can digest cellulose, therefore they eat a shit ton of food (and cows have a huge digestive system with chambers mind you, try filling that up) which is then broken down by bacteria into protein. All that means that first it does take some time, secondly grass isn't exactly rich in protein, therefore they have to eat much more. Humans have a different diet that consists in protein rich foods. Cows are huge freaking animals that are also warm blooded which means they have to eat a LOT to upkeap their metabolism. Same thing with birds. Crocodiles on the other hand are bigger than birds, but have a slow metabolism and are cold blooded, therefore only eat a small amount of food. (Because being energy efficient they don't need to eat so much to produce energy for their digestive systems, thermoregulation systems and so on )

Only humans have developed their cerebrum to the point that we can think abstract thoughts. We can plan ahead, which ither animals cannot do. They "live in the moment" or so to speak.

 

[texasjack]

Fyi you can't change your genes. Short of receiving large amounts of radiation the genes you're born with are the ones you die with. So if you have tall genes but don't get enough food you'll be short. Your kids still have a good chance of being tall though. You can't change anything through behavior or environment to your genes. Fyi

 

[reddan1981]

Micro-evolution is evolution. Small changes add up over time. The only thing the term micro-evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it. It's an indication of time-frame. It's not an actual category used by scientists.

Evolution does not postulate that one species changes into another. It says that species branch off. It does not predict special transitional species, it says we are all transitional species.



Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. The moral standards of the author are completely inconsequential to the validity of the statements. What matters is the evidence, the predictions, and the results of experiments. If morals are part of your criteria for judging the accuracy of science, then perhaps it is your evaluations we should be weary of trusting.

Hello again heis, im going to have to disagree with your conjecture. I used the term MICRO evolution to distinguish my own thinking on the matter, you might note that I separated the word micro and typed it in capitals. Your understanding of the word is incomplete so you shouldnt of been so eager to jump in to contradict me, however i understand that you have built your career (or atleast created an online persona espousing your theoretical excrement) based on the back of the idea of evolution of mind.

1. Micro evolution is evolution. Well it certainly has the word evolution in it, however microevolution and macroevolution are different intentions on the word. Microevolution is scientifically defined as, the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift or even migration) within a population or species. Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary changes at the species level or higher,that is, the formation of new species, new genera and so forth. My point being that you yourself have incorrectly stated that 'the only thing the term micro evolution indicates is the resolution we are using to look at it'.

2. Small changes add up over time. Ok? Can you list the structual changes needed for an invertebrate to form from a single cell? A cell doesnt have the genes needed to produce even a simple nodal chord, so how can a fish produce legs if it hasnt the gene coding to do so? You must know, because you argue for the processes so vehemently. Before you say mutation (like most dissident persons might) can I add that mutations might produce novel genetic changes, but NEVER has a mutation been known to ADD coded information to an already complex DNAsystem. On the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration in the information present in DNA. Never has a helpfull mutation been observed.

3.Morality has nothing to do with hypothesis testing. Morality is an indication of an individuals ability to rationalize and make correct judgment, so an individual acting immoral demonstrates poor judgment, no?