|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 12:20:49 GMT 9.5
On another thread it has been proposed that evolution is not a theory but rather a fact.
The counter proposal is that theory abounds with missing links, none of which has yet been discovered despite 150 years of enthusiastic research.
For example, there is a view that humans have evolved from earlier apes and that by some process of selection humans:
- lost the hand-like use of the feet - became much weaker than apes (weight for weight) - lost a great deal of mobility especially in the trees (where it is safer) - required clothing and shelter - achieved poor eye sight in the dark and in intense sunlight - required up to 15 years for off-spring to become self-supporting.
What selection processes could produce such a degradation?
Is evolution a theory or a fact?
|
|
|
Post by chingus on Nov 21, 2011 12:48:13 GMT 9.5
Hypothesis, at best.
But hey, less experience exists for creationism.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 13:00:38 GMT 9.5
It may be useful to distinguish Biblical creationism from what the actual data indicate. The data point to three "explosions" in diversity "The Cambrian explosion has generated extensive scientific debate. The seemingly rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century,[6] and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] .......The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere," "There were two similar explosions in the evolution of land plants: after a cryptic history beginning about 450 million years ago, land plants underwent a uniquely rapid adaptive radiation during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.[10] Furthermore, Angiosperms (flowering plants) originated and rapidly diversified during the Cretaceous period." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosionThe periodic explosions separated by long periods of equilibrium are coped with in evolutionary theory by introducing the concept of "punctuated equilibrium". This is merely a renaming of the phenomenon and hardly qualifies as an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 13:07:27 GMT 9.5
"One example of a Cambrian-appearing organism is the sponge. There are four classes of sponges, all of which appear abruptly in the Cambrian. Despite a relatively unspecialized structure, the classes are distinct and difficult to relate to one another. There is no sign of intermediary fossils and there is certainly no consensus as to how they could potentially have evolved from a common ancestor. Despite their primitive form, the sponges are quite separate from the rest of the animal kingdom. "
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Nov 21, 2011 13:09:32 GMT 9.5
tool use and different environment covers most of those. weve been over this befor.. look at smaller organisms if u wanna see evolution in action.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 13:54:44 GMT 9.5
...look at smaller organisms if u wanna see evolution in action. No evolution for humans?
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Nov 21, 2011 14:03:03 GMT 9.5
our tools r a bit more advanced than those of birds or other primates. see if u can find evidence of changes in the genpool cause of tooluse.
the difference between adapting or evolving is putting on a jacket when its cold outside or evolving a mechanism that keeps your core temperature at normal values in your environment. if there were no clothes, we would only xist in favorable environments (like the other primates). brainpower is far more important than physical strength when conquering new environments.
small organisms have faster reproduction cycles. their evolution takes place at a much faster pace than humans. (minutes compared to decades)
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 14:15:12 GMT 9.5
... see if u can find evidence of changes in the genpool cause of tooluse. I suspect that even now there are difficulties in mapping genetics sufficiently accurately to distinguish damage from long term changes, let alone determine causation of long term changes ...if there were no clothes, we would only xist in favorable environments (like the other primates). Although there have been stories for centuries about an ape-like entity living in the snow of the Himalayas brainpower is far more important than physical strength when conquering new environments. Quite possibly so. The difficulty is demonstrating transition stages (missing links) as humans lose strength, four handedness, agility, and good sight while gaining brain power. Would there be viable intermediate points for dumb and fairly strong hominids? The neanderthals had larger adult brains than we do newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/09/neanderthal/If brain size is related to brain power the neanderthals should be the dominant species.
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Nov 21, 2011 14:44:12 GMT 9.5
those with xeptional skill in using tools r more likely to produce offspring. u would have to know what qualities r needed and see if those qualities r passed on more often.
lots of hair i assume?
“Brain size reduction in modern humans over the past 40,000 years is well-documented,” the researchers said in their notes. “We hypothesize that growing smaller but similarly efficient brains might have represented an energetic advantage, which paid off in faster reproductive rates in modern [humans] compared to Pleistocene people. Reducing brain size thus might represent an evolutionary advantage.”
it seems bigger isnt always better.
as its a fairly gradual process, id say there should be. how intelligent is a chimp?
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 15:05:16 GMT 9.5
Small brains allow humans to have better power to weight ratio and hence breed faster.
Does that pass for science these days?
|
|
|
Post by chingus on Nov 21, 2011 15:36:15 GMT 9.5
Maybe, if you think of it along the lines of improvements in circuitry. I'm thinking 'energetic advantage' = a more efficient 'machine.'
Once upon a time, a single computer required enough hardware to fill a warehouse. But the laptop I'm using now is a bajillion times more powerful than that old dinosaur. (In fact, I'd bet my phone is too.)
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 17:30:58 GMT 9.5
....along the lines of improvements in circuitry. ...= a more efficient 'machine.' .. That seems to be closer to creationism than evolutionism
|
|
|
Post by chingus on Nov 21, 2011 18:28:39 GMT 9.5
Why not? I have always thought the two schools of thought were not mutually exclusive. Indeed, evolution is almost always presented as change for a reason; adaptation, etc. If so, then that implies a 'guiding hand' behind the reason. If you're a pious man, that guiding hand is G-d. If you're a Sitchin fan, that guiding hand is E.T.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 21, 2011 19:12:16 GMT 9.5
...I have always thought the two schools of thought were not mutually exclusive. ... Quite so. Life on Earth shows clear signs of periodic intervention. Lloyd Pye has produced some excellent materials www.lloydpye.com/eykiw.htmOf course it may be that humans have not seen evolution yet. For example we do not say that an acorn evolves into an oak tree, it merely unfolds. Could it be that the Earth has been periodically seeded (e.g. Cambrian explosion) and the complexity and adaptation that we see around us is merely the outworking of that seeding?
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Nov 22, 2011 0:40:02 GMT 9.5
Evolution by Natural Selection is a theory. Theory does not mean "guess" or "wishful thinking." One of the rough parts of scientific inquiry is that a particular proposition must be falsifiable. This means that it must be able to be tested. Creationism or intelligent design(ism) cannot be tested and is simply the product of a religious movement that wants its ideas taught as science, hence the change of the label from "creationism" to "intelligent design." For those that did not follow a few of the cases in which this was brought to court, there was an argument of "irreducible complexity."
It sounded good but did not stand up well to when viewed closer. The demands for "missing links" also failed when it was shown that the links are not missing.
Regarding tool use, when the first ape made and used a stone tool he changed (albeit slightly) the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). When that ape was better able to acquire food and such he also improved his "evolutionary fitness" (meaning he got more women). Using the stone tool effectively required small differences amongst the population. Those with better hand-eye coordination for example were better able to use the tool. Over time, a relatively short time at that, the tool-user improved and then improved the tool - eventually putting it on the end of a stick as an axe or as a spear. Hunting behaviors improved to exploit the natural resources, more meat and fats.
Culture, as an expression of meeting our animal needs, creates changes in the EEA. This in turn selects for different traits bringing about further changes. Intelligent designism would suggest that we are well suited to our environment. We aren't in several respects.
For example, the other-race effect (ORE) can be seen as a left-over from our evolutionary past. Earlier somebody (I think it was MGC) mentioned that our brains are calory hogs. This is true. This also would suggest that it would make sense for an animal attempting to survive to become a cognitive miser. It would be necessary to accurately identify members of your own tribe if for nothing more than purely social reasons, and to not waste cognitive resources on being able to identify members of another tribe. Easy to say but hard to test right? Indeed. Recently a study has been conducted that showed the other-race effect (ORE) or as others call it "own-race bias" (ORB) is entrenched by 9 months of age. This is similar to our acquisition of language. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection coupled with our understanding developed during the Cognitive Revolution which saved used from the dark days of behaviorism has produced a testable hypothesis that shown to be very robust statistically and practically.
In the times that the ORB/ORE developed to address our need for cognitive miserliness our situation was quite different. The traits leading to ORB are not as useful now, some may argue that they are not useful at all. Another behavior, that is apparently a product of our face processing hardware, is the uncanny valley effect. This effect has been shown in both Homo sapiens and macaque monkeys. Wonderful no?
|
|
|
Post by Henka on Nov 22, 2011 1:14:58 GMT 9.5
Or, we could be intellectually lazy and ascribe it to alien intervention...
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Nov 22, 2011 1:28:22 GMT 9.5
Small brains allow humans to have better power to weight ratio and hence breed faster. Does that pass for science these days? that was from the site u posted a link to. its a hypothesis.
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on Nov 22, 2011 9:36:02 GMT 9.5
Why not? I have always thought the two schools of thought were not mutually exclusive. Indeed, evolution is almost always presented as change for a reason; adaptation, etc. If so, then that implies a 'guiding hand' behind the reason. If you're a pious man, that guiding hand is G-d. If you're a Sitchin fan, that guiding hand is E.T. Mind is the Builder? We can all be guiding hands, even ET's came into being somehow or t'other. I think the explanation below needs some consideration about the whole scheme of things. The processes of evolution are seen to be orderly, sequential and purposive. What is achieved at any one stage becomes incorporated into the next. The mineral which provides the vegetable and animal kingdoms with their necessary elementary material is itself the expression of countless elemental lives. The ideal forms already exist in the inner worlds; they are brought forth into the physical world by the building of dense material around the astral models. This is the work of the elementals who, in their own kingdoms, evolved the abilities necessary for carrying out this function. They are the workmen, obedient - even if not wholly efficient - to the will of the architects and directors, the upper Hierarchies.
A further example of the utilization of past achievements in further advances is found in the methods of reproduction of the early human races. These methods are briefly summarized in The Secret Doctrine: the First Race reproduced by fission, a method utilized in the amoeba and in cell-division; the Second Race reproduced by budding, the offspring growing out from the parent until it can lead an independent existence, as in the sea-anemone, hydra and many vegetables; both the Second and early Third Races developed a kind of hermaphroditism, male and female organs inhering in the same individual and producing a single cell which developed into a multi-cellular organism with the features of the parent, as in most plants and in worms and snails; with the later Third Race came the separation of the sexes and true sexual union. Again, the development of the human embryo illustrates the incorporation of earlier achievements into later developments, the foetus recapitulating early evolutionary stages before the offspring emerges as recognizably human.
hpb.narod.ru/DeityCosmosMan-Book1.htm
I think the process itself evolves, while all the initial stages remain in place also. Life IS. At our level of experience Life Moves through the processes and pushes the boundaries with each successive wave.
|
|
|
Post by paul on Nov 22, 2011 9:53:54 GMT 9.5
Or, we could be intellectually lazy and ascribe it to alien intervention... Perhaps we could start with the data first. Earlier I referred to 3 "explosions" of diversity that were separated by long periods of stasis. Could those data assist with resolving the typical polarisation of belief into creationism and evolutionism?
|
|
|
Post by mgc on Nov 22, 2011 10:07:07 GMT 9.5
insufficient data. look closer to home. its right under your nose, and in it and on it
it is likely life formed on multiple occasions and in several directions.. if it only formed once, THAT would be something to think about, wouldnt it?
|
|