evolution: The greatest conspiracy

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7

 

translation: humans with one leg or one arm, or 4 arms or no arms, with fur (hehe), with whiskers, with no whites in the eyes, with polka dotted tongues,
with scales, with shells, with feathers, with wings, with gills, with antennae, with various types of locomotion, with extremely long noses or no noses, etc. all that is possible through genetic manipulation or genetic damage but doesn't occur naturally otherwise

Well. Actually, many of those features do occur naturally. Birth defects are naturally occurring. They happen without having to be bitten by a radioactive spider or due to any other man-made force. People are born with no legs or one leg, one arm or no arms. There's a whole Family on Ripley's believe it or not with fur covering their entire face. That's genetics.

Those that don't occur naturally because those features offered no significant advantage to our ancestors. Species only see new features develop over hundreds of thousands of years when those feature offer real world advantages.

Nature encouraged an opposable thumb for hanging onto branches. The trees were a safe place for apes when there are predators on the ground. This feature would later facilitate the creation and usage of tools. Other Apes in the wild today use sticks as tools to fish ants out their mounds. You'll also notice that the outdoor Chimpanzee exhibits at the zoo lack objects like small rocks. They have a tendency to use them as weapons against visitors by throwing them.

Nature later encouraged humans to have long legs for long-distance walking in search of food, two eyes capable of color vision to judge distance and distinguish tasty treats or dangerous predators in the environment around them. Being tall is also helpful when your environment is full of tall grasses. Chimps today are also known to walk on two legs while crossing a shallow river.

Summary: If a feature that an animal is born with helps that animal to get food or reproduce better than his competition, then that feature is more likely to make it to the next generation. Now multiply that process over the course of millions of years and you have hairless apes throwing spears at each other.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by undo

 

Thanks for the corrobating evidence undo!
She was kept "alive" for 15 years before she was allowed to die!
If that isn't trying everything possible i don't know what is!

Edit ot add:
Marx killed people?
Karl Marx, or some other marx living down the block?

[edit on 4-10-2009 by debunky]

15 years of 'living' hell on earth.

reply to post by andrewh7


no advantage?
what about armor, airplanes, underwater breathing apparatus?
not arguing your point per sey, just asking the question. if those features
aren't advantageous, why'd we make them artificially?

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7

 

no advantage?
what about armor, airplanes, underwater breathing apparatus?
not arguing your point per sey, just asking the question. if those features
aren't advantageous, why'd we make them artificially?

Advantage in this context = necessary for survival and reproduction.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being warm and cold blooded. So, animals went in both directions and thrived in both directions. From there, other features had advantages and disadvantages, and animals thrived in both directions. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I don't really want to go into the practical problems with a human having with a turtle shell or wings. So, I hope going over the gills issue will make my point here. We don't have those features because not only did we NOT need them to successfully survive and reproduce, but their emergence may in fact have made it more difficult for us to do so.

Humans have lungs. So do dolphins. Manatees, too. These mammals live their entire lives in the water. But they all have lungs just like people do. You never see a mammal with gills in nature. Why is that?

The main reason is because a mammal would need to have GIGANTIC gills. Gills work for fish because fish are cold blooded. Cold blooded animals need a lot less oxygen than warm blooded animals do. Imagine that you have a 100-pound human and a 100-pound fish sitting on a couch. A human being needs maybe 15 times more oxygen than the fish does. If the human then gets off the couch and starts swimming, the human needs even more oxygen. So does the fish, but fish are super-efficient in the water.

Fish also use their mouths and gill flaps to constantly pump water over their gills. Lots of fish (like certain sharks) have to swim constantly so enough water flows through their gills.

Go look at a goldfish sometime and notice how much of its head is taken up by its gills and gill flaps. Now imagine a human being with gills and gill flaps, but the gills are 15 times larger. You would need a whole new torso just to hold the gills! And that would be pretty gross.

That's why people don't have gills. Compared to air, there just is not enough oxygen dissolved in water to keep a warm-blooded animal going. Dolphins don't breathe underwater - they hold their breath.

By the way, air planes, tanks, and submarines are not genetic features. They are inventions made by man to do things that are fun but not necessary to our survival or reproduction over the course the last few million years. We didn't even invent those things until the last hundred years and we stole the ideas from what we observed in nature.

Mammal with wings = Bats
Mammal with armor = Armadillos




[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by kleverone
I think the world would be a lot better place if we all just said "we don't really know, lets all try and figure this out together as objectively as possible".

Been doing that for a few thousand years now. Some people just refuse to understand the concept.

reply to post by andrewh7


so wouldn't people who live by water and have done so for thousands of years, and have typically spent as much time in the water, swimming and diving for things like clams, pearls, and various other underwater goodies, just keep their underwater advantages? why would those be weeded out of the population if they were so central to survival of the species ?

and wings seem really advantageous, as do regenerating limbs and tough skin. i'ma confused !

soft skin evolved because we stopped fighting?
hehe. excuse me. hehehhehhe.

okay, i'm over it.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7

 

so wouldn't people who live by water and have done so for thousands of years, and have typically spent as much time in the water, swimming and diving for things like clams, pearls, and various other underwater goodies, just keep their underwater advantages? why would those be weeded out of the population if they were so central to survival of the species ?

and wings seem really advantageous, as do regenerating limbs and tough skin. i'ma confused !

soft skin evolved because we stopped fighting?

hehe. excuse me. hehehhehhe.

You're not really understanding me. Every advantage also has its disadvantages. Which species do you think is quick and more nimble - A turtle or a rabbit? However, which species is better off if corned by a predator at a dead end? Flying animals perform very poorly on the ground but great in the air. Soft skin makes you agile but more vulnerable, and armored skin makes you stronger but slower. Regenerating a limb is costly in terms of caloric intake but worth the sacrifice if you can still function (move and eat) without the limb and the loss of it distracts a dumb predator (lizards who purposely shed their tails when grabbed).

Humans regenerate their skin cells and liver cells (which filter toxins from the blood). I think you are selling our species short. We didn't get to the top of food chain by being weak. We are very smart and capable hunters.

If there was only one right answer for successful reproduction and survival, there would be only one kind of animal. The world is full of highly diverse niches that different species have slowly adapted to exploit.

It is known that dolphins at one point in time lived on the land. They gradually lost their legs and returned full-time to the sea. So, if a particular population of humans became separated from the rest of us and stopped breeding with us, lived on the beach and required seafood to survive because it was the only source of nutrition available, it is possible that their population would learn to hold their breath much longer, just like dolphins, because it would be a highly advantageous feature. However, such a serious modification as gills, which would require millions of years, is actually impossible for warm-blooded mammals who require more oxygen than gills can provide. Both dolphins and humans are mammals - we shared a common ancestor in the past. We stopped breeding and moved in different directions to exploit different environmental niches.

I think you may be beginning to understand the concept of evolution but the human brain has a lot of difficultly contemplating hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years because our life spans are so short.


[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by newworld

 

I disagree - I was a lesbian for most of my 47 years - but also a devout believer in God. I kept telling people that I was a 'lesbian with morals". I finally realized just how crazy sounding that one was.

A homosexual, including my previous lifestyle, is going directly against God's moral definition of what's right and wrong, and what is considered "sin".

i.e. I finally realized that I couldn't straddle both sides of the fence - I had to either be for God - or against Him. I chose "for".

You are (IMO) tormenting yourself needlessly.

The Bible is great book, and contains much wisdom. But it was written by human beings, human beings as imperfect as you. Human beings with biases and cultural baggage very different to your environment.

Homosexuality was declared 'taboo' in some cultures and not in others. What was the difference between the different cultures that resulted in different responses. More specifically, why did the Biblical authors condemn it in one place and mention it in complete neutrality in others?

And how does that inform your attitude to yourself? If your feelings of love for another human being seem to you to be misplaced and you are uncomfortable with the situation, why do you really need to justify your discomfort with the words of a 3000 year old scribe speaking from a cultural perspective completely alien to you?

If you are uncomfortable in a gay lifestyle, that is all the justification you need. Period. It doesn't have to be a sin against God, you don't have to feel guilty about it one way or the other, it is just wrong for you.

You can gain comfort knowing that humans have been wrestling with the same issues as you for 3000 years, sure, and can get insight into how they handled those issues. But you don't have to feel guilt that you are human and still have the same issues after 3000 years.

Trust yourself.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Sure "man" wrote the Bible - and what they wrote was inspired by God.

And what I am writing is inspired by God:

The Bible is fact. The Bible is fiction. The Bible is myth. The Bible is enlightened history. The bible is bad history. The Bible is code. The Bible is multileveled disinformation. The Bible is propaganda. The Bible is a health manual. The Bible is poetry. The Bible is philosophy. The Bible is a manual on animal husbandry.

But mostly the Bible is a collection of many diverse writings, of diverse origin (in time, space, and culture), written by many diverse human beings, to serve many diverse human needs.

It contradicts itself in many places specifically because of this diversity of human origins and needs. It is completely misunderstood because of a complete lack of understanding of the cultural background and problems facing the humans that wrote it.

And every word of this post is inspired by God.

reply to post by andrewh7


well actually, i was in college to be a doctor of natural medicine. i was on the dean's list and the president's list. i'm not stupid or uneducated. well, a case could be made that i'm occassionally silly but that's a different topic. i had all the same classes most do who need their bachelor's degree, including biology courses. (and worse, microbiology. .. which i found fascinating).

anyway, do me a favor. before you reply to me again, remove all those stereotypes you have about people who don't believe in evolution and just shuck 'em over to the side for the time being. i don't get into these kinds of discussions because i enjoy being talked down to, insulted, degraded, stereotyped, categorized, homogenized and marginalized!

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by andrewh7

 

translation: humans with one leg or one arm, or 4 arms or no arms, with fur (hehe), with whiskers, with no whites in the eyes, with polka dotted tongues,...all that is possible through genetic manipulation or genetic damage but doesn't occur naturally otherwise

Oh yes, some of these exist:
Variations on a theme....
Yu Zhenhuan China’s hairiest man

Chuy the Wolf Man

I bet they could survive cold conditions better than a less hairy person, and I see no reason why cold weather could not select for the hairiest people to be survivors.

People are born without arms. Remember the Thalidomide babies? How about Faith the dog that doesn't have front legs, but walks upright on her hind legs? The same thing can happen naturally through a genetic deletion. Obviously, this would not be a characteristic that ensures survival.

Thalidomide Boy

Dog Walks on Hind Legs


I'm tired of looking things up! Off to bed!

Originally posted by Welfhard
reply to post by nomorecruelty

 

that is where Armageddon will take place.

Armageddon isn't an event. It's a place. It's translation corruption of Megiddo, a valley.

And the battle already took place. In 1497 BCE.

reply to post by Lookingup


those were fascinating cases!
but what we need here is an entire race of 'em, ya know, living somewhere on this planet (preferably, although i'd accept extra-planetary possibilities as potentialities provided they originated from there and came here).

to be honest, i think the fossil record better supports the individual species not transitions per sey, especially not transitions based on natural mutations. i'd be more convinced were the transitions artificially induced, however. by artificially, i don't mean via natural disasters.

Ok, I lied, I'm not going to bed yet.
One more thing, if evolution is a bunch hooey, then someone please explain how Methacilin Resistant Staph Aureus (MRSA) is NOT an example of evolution.

According to Creationists, MRSA must have been around since the beginning and has just been hiding out for a few billion...er... thousand years until recently.

Originally posted by nomorecruelty

You can inbreed, sure - but can you take a dog and watch it day to day and see it change into anything but a dog?

Believe it or not, that would actually DISPROVE evolution, not prove it.

According to evolution, mankind started as dirt or sludge or whatever it is they claim - and evolved from that into what we are today.

Evolutionary theory makes no such claim, or anything even remotely resembling it. Evolutionary theory only addresses what happens to life one it exists.

Once more for good measure: Evolutionary theory does not address abiogenesis. Period. It is silent on the matter. Completely.

That is physically, and scientifically, impossible.

Not necessarily. There is other work going on, and there are several candidate hypothesies for abiogenesis. Some day the various competitors will probably be synthesized into a theory.

But that theory will be the Theory of Abiogenesis, NOT Evolution.

reply to post by Lookingup


THAT is your assertion. most creationists believe in microevolution, not in macroevolution. microevolution is many small changes in a species. they don't cause you to sprout wings or lose your skin, at least, not naturally. a moth gains pigmentation camoflage commensurate with its locale but it doesn't grow
human skin just because it likes to eat human clothing or is in their locale. it's a question of degrees of severity.

i'm willing to consider that pigmentation can play a role in geography, but pigment is not the only difference between racial characteristics in humans. it's as if we all had different progenitors, who typically speaking were human (with perhaps a hybrid or two tossed in) but who each have characteristics indicative of only their species --- no major variations between.

i suppose you could make the case that there are intermediates between skin shades but again, it doesn't change the species as a whole, just the
color of a major organ. the organ still does the same job, but with less or more efficiency, depending on the task.

reply to post by nomorecruelty


Ok, it's time to turn up the volume. I'd like for you or someone else to refute the the evidence of the fusion of chromosome #2 in humans as well as the evidence of common retroviruses and their role in evidence of a common ancestor in humans and apes. Here are some videos if you need to brush up on information, or use your own sources.

Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes

Evidence of Common Ancestry: Human Chromosome 2

Endogenouse Retroviruses and Evolution

reply to post by Lookingup


i had this same discussion when the first lateral insertion discovery was made. to me it looks like .....well let me give you an example:


ever hear of the bible code?



the argument is made AGAINST the bible code, that with enough letters in group patterns (as language is wont to do) you can make literally any word into any other word. the same argument is used to support the idea that given enough time a monkey could inadvertently type out the complete works of shakespeare, which is also the basis of slow evolution over time.

now we are not debating whether the bible is true or not. we are debating the idea that given DNA has been relegated to an alphabet of its own, that it has become a language capable of patterns, do you not agree?

the rest is self explanatory

[edit on 4-10-2009 by undo]

reply to post by undo


I wish I could go to sleep, but this thread is just one big train wreck after another.

I have the definition of the scientific version of the word, theory, right on my computer, waiting for a moment like this.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

Where is the little smiley that shows me bashing my head against my desk?

reply to post by undo

given enough time a monkey could inadvertently type out the complete works of shakespeare, which is also the basis of slow evolution over time.

Well it's not quite a good analogy. It would work like this. The line of Shakespeare is the pressure and a line of nonsensical random letters. Random mistakes start occurring at a particular rate. Mistakes that made the sentence more like a line of Shakespeare were keep and less like were discarded.

Eventually after enough time, Shakespeare emerges.