originally posted by: Trolloks
Ok, start of the "evfolution/de-evolution" theory. The word "evolution" is used too oftern, but what your explaining is addaptation to the surrounding
habbitats, so it may appear to be loosing information, but it is only loosing information that is no longer needed there for is no longer needed to be
included in our DNA, yes we loose something and people call it "de-evolution", but we are loosing useless information, purley because it is now
The bing bang, it did not start from nothing, it started from matter and anti-matter coliding with each other, causing a huge explotion of matter,
which created the gas's, which created the stars, galaxies ect, which in turn created the gravitational pull needed to create galaxies and planets
The soup, as you said, there is a very slim chance that this could happen, however there is still a chance, and it is only logical considering the
number of plannets out there that it must of happen at least once.
And the whole begining of evolution. It starts very very slowly, a small bacteria for example. Bactiera is known to occure in the most extream
habbitats, all that is needed is some form of atmosphear to protect it from radiation (however latley it has been found that on mars there are
bacteria that can withstand up to 1000 times as much radiation as humans) and an atmosphear is not a rare thing to be created, all that is needed is a
little bit of water vapour, the hard part is keeping it, which earth managed.
Natrual selection, yea sure that part has alot of holes in it, but its only one part of evolution, the theory behind evolution was there before
Agreed, this is like saying that if a human was born without an appendix, that this would be a step backwards.
In reality, it's not, considering the appendix does nothing beneficial at all while at the same time, posing risk for rupture and infection, with
deadly side effects, the human would be stronger without it.
I'd call that, advancing a design, evolving a design. Not regressing a design, devolving a design.
It's trimming unneeded bits that put the rest of the needed bits at risk -- this is streamlining to a more efficient and healthy creature.
Evolution makes perfect logical sense, but considering the OP is lost and doesn't know where evolution starts and when it stops -- and what it applies
to in the scientific context of macro DNA adaptions of life pretty much proves that he doesn't understand evolution.
Polar bears are a PRIME example of provable evolution. See, they were just brown bears, then the area froze -- and they were still just brown bears,
but then there was a genetic mutation that altered the pigment of the baby brown bear, which made him white. A birth defect. The white coat allowed
him easier hunting abilities because he was camouflaged, this meant he ate the most food, had the least get away -- this gene pool then propagated
because it was the most nourished and the brown bears in the area died out.
Just as easily as the mutation made the polar bear white, it could have made it black -- the black ones would have died out because they lost their
hunting advantage by loosing their ability to hide and stalk -- just because the white ones remained, doesn't mean that there weren't other color ones
popping out at the same time, it just means that the white ones prevailed.
This is called natural selection -- which is a CRUCIAL part of the concept of evolution.
What do you think is going to happen to polar bears when there is no longer sheets and sheets and miles and miles of everything white?
They'll die out and something else will replace them.
The polar bear is a prime example of logic, as it's also a prime example of evolution, as it's also a prime example of natural selection.
Nothing illogical about it. You can talk about stars, the big bang, space -- but none of that has a damned thing to do with polar bears existing.
Evolution, natural selection, probability, and logic, have EVERYTHING to do with polar bears existing.
And that's just one example, and literally every single living creature on earth are other examples. Including humans.
There is just as much variety in humans as all other life, we have slant down eyes, slant up up eyes, round eyes, oval eyes -- we have white skin,
black skin, olive skin, red skin, yellow skin, bronze skin, caramel skin, brown skin -- we have pigmies [3 foot], we have giants [7 foot] we have men
dominance [roman] we have woman dominance [amazonian] and everything in between, since all of the above has mixed bred and created new variants in the
It's quite obvious that pigmies and giants are being bucked by natural selection, as it's quite obvious that pale skin is too. So when you see how
much variety there is in humans, and how that variety has created even more variety -- when we have Neanderthals, pre/post hominids, and modern humans
-- can you NOT see evolution in action?
You'd have to be blind not to see it -- it's fairly obvious to anyone with a working and logical brain. I'll go there, it's -- COMMON SENSE.
It's also extremely easy to see that humans are a subdivision of primates. We aren't gorillas, we aren't monkeys -- it's easy to see, that all 3,
Apes/Monkeys/Humans share a common starting point or ancestry and are just 3 different examples of variations that survived the natural selection
It's not like anyone is saying Humans are related to Giraffes or Marsupials, or an Ocelot... It's easy to see that those are very different from us,
but at the same time -- you can see other examples of Ocelot variants that survived the natural selection process.
At the same time, it's also easy to see that dolphins are closer to humans than fish, and one could wonder what a variant of humans/primates would
have been had they not have left the water. I.E. We share similar ancestors, much older than apes/monkeys/hominids. This is why dolphins are good
at math, have emotions like compassion and empathy, and are even smart enough to intuit when a human is in danger.
The plantaris muscle is used by animals in gripping and manipulating objects with their feet – something you see with apes who seem to be
able to use their feet as well as their hands. Humans have this muscle as well, but it is now so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors
when they need tissue for reconstruction in other parts of the body. The muscle is so unimportant to the human body that 9% of humans are now born
Another perfect example of humans evolving in action. Provided the humans that carry the genes that cause it's removal continue to survive and spread
the gene, the percentage of people born without this muscle will continue to grow until virtually every human doesn't have one.
The appendix on the other hand is likely to NOT go away, because of natural selection. He who has a bigger appendix has less chance of infection,
therefor, natural selection favors having a LARGER appendix. Even though if we cut it out and never grew it, we'd be in a better situation, natural
selection is steering the evolution of this organ -- which is causing it to be larger on average.
We'll likely be stuck with appendices until we get to a point in genetic alteration to where we can remove it's creation instructions from the genome
-- in which case, it'll be unnatural selection.
edit on 25-5-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)