Zingari Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 What I can't understand is why are we not evolving today into some super human if that is the case of evolution, why did it have to stop at the human being we are today? p.s this might not even be related to the topic but though I would throw it in there! i suppose the simple answer to that in a physical sense is that there is no need to evolve because we can use all manner of tools rather than wait for them to evolve .
The Doctor Posted 27 February 2013 Author Posted 27 February 2013 What I can't understand is why are we not evolving today into some super human if that is the case of evolution, why did it have to stop at the human being we are today? p.s this might not even be related to the topic but though I would throw it in there! We're still evolving - but a) it's an incredibly long-term process & b) the super-human idea would have to be favourable against non-super human in order to survive and the species progress to super-human.
Carl the Llama Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 Because ERV's make up less than 5% of the total genome. The sheer size of the genome, and the number of possible ERV's that could remain means that for the same ERV to insert into the same loci in two different genomes is so incredibly low that it's statistically impossible. That is an arbitrary statement. Statistically significant/impossible depends entirely on the whims of the man doing the calculations: It's entirely possible for one man to declare data statistically significant and another to declare the same data statistically insignificant and have both be technically correct on the basis of their individual calculations. Human existence could be easily calculated to be statistically impossible, but here we are.
Charl91 Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 What I can't understand is why are we not evolving today into some super human if that is the case of evolution, why did it have to stop at the human being we are today? p.s this might not even be related to the topic but though I would throw it in there! We probably are. Soon we'll all look like this.
davieG Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 We'll probably exhaust the planet of the vitals for living before we get the chance to evolve in a significant manner unless of course that depletion causes a step change in the evolution of man and other species.
Finnegan Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 It always makes me giggle in these debates when people with no relevant education come out with lines like "I don't think we'll ever really know...." when what they mean is "I'm too stupid to understand this." The best and most brilliant minds in history are telling you evolution exists and offer up boundless evidence but you don't agree. Wow. Part of wisdom is accepting your own limitations. I don't understand, for example, quantum physics so you know what? I'm not going to tell Brian Cox I think he's wrong because I can't get my dumb head round his teachings. But for some reason, when it comes to a few select issues (evolution, creation, global warming, etc) we all think we're experts. Ludicrous.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 But for some reason, when it comes to a few select issues (evolution, creation, global warming, etc) we all think we're experts. Ludicrous. I don't think the two are comparable. Global Warming has many brilliant scientists on both sides of the argument arguing of the extent of it's 'existance', some brilliant minds on both angles. No brilliant mind has really given a decent argument to Evolution, the only one is really based on a fantasy.
Finnegan Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 That is an arbitrary statement. Statistically significant/impossible depends entirely on the whims of the man doing the calculations: It's entirely possible for one man to declare data statistically significant and another to declare the same data statistically insignificant and have both be technically correct on the basis of their individual calculations. Human existence could be easily calculated to be statistically impossible, but here we are. lol here we go, point and case. "I don't understand a word of this ERV stuff but hey, this is the internet, so I'm going to tell this ginger nobhead that his education is a load of bollocks because I personally don't like these facts he's quoting from his credible, researched, expert sources." Jesus.
whoareyaaa Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 But then where is the cross-over event of man evolving from a chimp? obviously it wouldn't be a case of 2 chimps eventually giving birth to a human so how did the first human evolve from the chimp? this is what I don't understand about evolution... surely one day a human doesn't just appear because the chimp has reached its limits.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 People tend to say that yes, however it's not under the remit of the theory of evolution. Evolution is concerned with variation over time, not the origins. Just because several people who accept evolution also believe a form of abiogenesis was the origin of life on earth, doesn't mean it's covered by evolution any more than people who accept stellar death believing in string theory means string theory is a part the death of stars. What exactly do you mean? Emotions are just chemical reactions, or more accurately the change in the concentration of various chemicals in the brain (e.g. seretonin) - they're excreted from various glands following stimulation. Because ERV's make up less than 5% of the total genome. The sheer size of the genome, and the number of possible ERV's that could remain means that for the same ERV to insert into the same loci in two different genomes is so incredibly low that it's statistically impossible. Surely the "origins" are fundamental to evolutionary theory . You can't just fast forward to a convenient period where life can be observed evolving and ignore how things got to that stage. where the possibility of some sort of pre determined plan may be part of the explanation .
davieG Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 I don't think the two are comparable. Global Warming has many brilliant scientists on both sides of the argument arguing of the extent of it's 'existance', some brilliant minds on both angles. No brilliant mind has really given a decent argument to Evolution, the only one is really based on a fantasy. A bit like should we remain in Europe.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 i suppose the simple answer to that in a physical sense is that there is no need to evolve because we can use all manner of tools rather than wait for them to evolve . No the simple answer is that it's a process that takes 1000's of years if not more.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 It always makes me giggle in these debates when people with no relevant education come out with lines like "I don't think we'll ever really know...." when what they mean is "I'm too stupid to understand this." The best and most brilliant minds in history are telling you evolution exists and offer up boundless evidence but you don't agree. Wow. Part of wisdom is accepting your own limitations. I don't understand, for example, quantum physics so you know what? I'm not going to tell Brian Cox I think he's wrong because I can't get my dumb head round his teachings. But for some reason, when it comes to a few select issues (evolution, creation, global warming, etc) we all think we're experts. Ludicrous. Thats like saying you would have agreed with all the brilliant theological teachers and priests because they were cleverer than you .
Captain... Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 We're still evolving - but a) it's an incredibly long-term process & b) the super-human idea would have to be favourable against non-super human in order to survive and the species progress to super-human. I disagree that we are evolving as a species, there may be evidence of evolution in the poorer parts of the world, but without any fight for survival, nor selectivity of breeding partners, there will be no cause for evolution. What I'm saying is that physically inferior specimens are breeding and the gene pool is being filled with floaters, seeing is there is nothing to scoop them out, they are all starting to clump together.
Finnegan Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 I don't think the two are comparable. Global Warming has many brilliant scientists on both sides of the argument arguing of the extent of it's 'existance', some brilliant minds on both angles. No brilliant mind has really given a decent argument to Evolution, the only one is really based on a fantasy. Pretty much the entire scientific world thinks global warming is happening. The industrially backed right wing news media may dispute whether or not it's happening but every credible scientific source is yelling "uh... We should probably take a few less planes, yknow, just to be sure."
Babylon Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 But then where is the cross-over event of man evolving from a chimp? obviously it wouldn't be a case of 2 chimps eventually giving birth to a human so how did the first human evolve from the chimp? this is what I don't understand about evolution... surely one day a human doesn't just appear because the chimp has reached its limits. We didn't evolve from a chimp, we are both branches from a common ancestor.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 A bit like should we remain in Europe. Yep, no one really knows either way, I'd agree with that. The problem of course with the vocal pro-EU lot is that they are generally the same folk who were telling is 10 years ago what a disaster it would be if we didn't join the Euro. Pretty much the entire scientific world thinks global warming is happening. The industrially backed right wing news media may dispute whether or not it's happening but every credible scientific source is yelling "uh... We should probably take a few less planes, yknow, just to be sure." Not really, there are some very respected scientists who are still disputing it.
Carl the Llama Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 Yep, no one really knows either way, I'd agree with that. The problem of course with the vocal pro-EU lot is that they are generally the same folk who were telling is 10 years ago what a disaster it would be if we didn't join the Euro. To be fair that's not exactly been proved or disproved yet either. I've always thought keeping the pound was a good move, but I'm becoming less and less sure if I'm honest. But hey, I'm pro-EU, what do I know?
The Doctor Posted 27 February 2013 Author Posted 27 February 2013 Surely the "origins" are fundamental to evolutionary theory . You can't just fast forward to a convenient period where life can be observed evolving and ignore how things got to that stage. where the possibility of some sort of pre determined plan may be part of the explanation . Not really - evolutionary theory covers how species vary over time and how we'd get from pre-historic fish-like things to what we are today. How the first cell was formed doesn't impact on that. I disagree that we are evolving as a species, there may be evidence of evolution in the poorer parts of the world, but without any fight for survival, nor selectivity of breeding partners, there will be no cause for evolution. What I'm saying is that physically inferior specimens are breeding and the gene pool is being filled with floaters, seeing is there is nothing to scoop them out, they are all starting to clump together. Evolution is always occurring - mutations still occur in our DNA, these mutations can still be helpful. In general though yes, given we've turned nature into our bitch and no longer need to compete with each other to survive, evolution is rather slow even by it's standards since the aspect of natural selection has gone by the way side for us.
Finnegan Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 Thats like saying you would have agreed with all the brilliant theological teachers and priests because they were cleverer than you . No, it's "like saying" that you're comparatively thick as pigshit so stop challenging well researched and universally accepted theories from people who have dedicated their lives and considerable IQ to it purely because you and a few fellow internet nutjobs and tinfoil hat fashionistas don't understand them.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 To be fair that's not exactly been proved or disproved yet either. I've always thought keeping the pound was a good move, but I'm becoming less and less sure if I'm honest. But hey, I'm pro-EU, what do I know? Put yourself up a pro-euro candidate now, big gap in the market for it. See how you get on.
Babylon Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 No, it's "like saying" that you're comparatively thick as pigshit so stop challenging well researched and universally accepted theories from people who have dedicated their lives and considerable IQ to it purely because you and a few fellow internet nutjobs and tinfoil hat fashionistas don't understand them. Ouch.
Zingari Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 No, it's "like saying" that you're comparatively thick as pigshit so stop challenging well researched and universally accepted theories from people who have dedicated their lives and considerable IQ to it purely because you and a few fellow internet nutjobs and tinfoil hat fashionistas don't understand them. So you would never have questioned the religious explanation of life prior to evolutionary theory based merely on the idea that they were smarter than you ?
The Doctor Posted 27 February 2013 Author Posted 27 February 2013 But then where is the cross-over event of man evolving from a chimp? obviously it wouldn't be a case of 2 chimps eventually giving birth to a human so how did the first human evolve from the chimp? this is what I don't understand about evolution... surely one day a human doesn't just appear because the chimp has reached its limits. Ah, another misunderstanding, chimps aren't our ancestors. These charts are generally a bit overly simplified but the point remains - that point where we branch off to human and chimpanzee is where our common ancestor went the way of the dodo. We're not descended from them, we're their cousins in essence.
Guest MattP Posted 27 February 2013 Posted 27 February 2013 tinfoil hat fashionistas. lol Best insult I've seen on here for ages.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.