Evolution

64 posts

Flag Post

Humankind, for thousands of years, have thrived on this homeworld we call Earth. But what has occured before we thrived we’ve yet to know. Did we REALLY evolve (not pokemon-wise) from Homo Sapiens who were back then mere Neanderthals that was still in the process of learning what fire was? Or did we come out of something much more than that? And since humans have evolved and adapted to so much in the past, will we continue to evolve if the need arises? What is evolution, and where will it take us?

 
Flag Post

All I can tell you is that, we were created humans so we are HUMANS!

 
Flag Post

true, but exactly what has caused us to become humans?

 
Flag Post

The ingenious process known as biological evolution.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by douchenorris:

Did we REALLY evolve (not pokemon-wise) from Homo Sapiens who were back then mere Neanderthals that was still in the process of learning what fire was? Or did we come out of something much more than that?

I’m not really sure what you are trying to say here.

And since humans have evolved and adapted to so much in the past, will we continue to evolve if the need arises? What is evolution, and where will it take us?

Evolution never stops.
No one knows where it will take us in the long run. There are speculations, but the most important fact about evolution is that it has no pre-determined goal. So predictions are difficult, if not impossible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by douchenorris:

Humankind, for thousands of years,

No, try millions. Not thousands, millions. Around two million years ago, the earliest ancestors of our current species, Homo erectus began to appear. quite similar in appearance to homo sapiens, with a brain about 3/4s the size of ours.

have thrived on this homeworld we call Earth. But what has occured before we thrived we’ve yet to know.

If you ignore all the evidence we’ve compiled (wikipedia link, was the most apt) via a couple of hundred years of increasingly accurate scientific investigation, then sure. Otherwise, we know it fairly well. A few areas of uncertainty here and there, and probably a handful of homo species unaccounted for in the outer branches, but in general, the tree is well-known.

Did we REALLY evolve (not pokemon-wise) from Homo Sapiens who were back then mere Neanderthals that was still in the process of learning what fire was?

What?

We did not evolve from Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens. That is the name of our species.

We did not evolve from Homo Neanderthalis either. They are a separate branch of the tree. An evolutionary dead-end that was in all likelihood rendered extinct by their cousins, Homo Sapiens, out-performing them. Although it is certainly possible that some elements of that lineage interbred with our ancestors.

Or did we come out of something much more than that?

We evolved from simpler organisms. Successive generations becoming increasingly complicated and arguable sophisticated (arguably because our bodies are full of evolutionary mistakes). If you are trying to suggest we devolved from something else, you would need to provide at least some evidence of what that something else was.

And since humans have evolved and adapted to so much in the past, will we continue to evolve if the need arises? What is evolution, and where will it take us?

Evolution never stops. Every successive generation evolves. You can see it visually by looking at a child and their parents. Notice that the child has some features from each parent, but not all their features match those of either parent, and they look like a different being, not a clone of either parent? That’s a visual indicator of evolution. DNA from two different beings is combined in new combinations in the offspring in a purely trial-and-error process to see which combinations work and which don’t.

In addition, DNA replicates with about a 99.9% accuracy rate. Every so often you get a random error, or spontaneous change in a gene, for no other reason than an I/O error. This alters the expression of the gene and the way multiple genes interact in unexpected ways. Sometimes this creates a beneficial change, and sometimes it does not. What we term genetic disabilities are usually such coding errors, resulting in a disadvantage for the organisms. They are just as likely to create improvements, such as different brain structures (think Einstein, his brain had physical differences to the norm), or improved reflexes. Clonus might be considered an example of this. An oscellating reflex pattern that has far more in common with a car suspension than a knee-jerk reaction. The reflex oscillates back and forth for several moments after impact, dampening the effects.

If the child survives to adulthood and breeds then the new combination was a success. If they don’t, it was a failure. It is that blunt and that simple. Only through hundreds of thousands and then millions of successive generations, with perhaps many many attempts dying off before they pass the genes on, do we get to the stage where we are at today, with a race with many beneficial mutations able to thrive in far superior ways to its ancestor-species.

As to where it will take us, if we allow evolution to contine in the natural way, there is no telling where we will end up. It is pure trial-and-error after all. If we take control of evolution ourselves and engineer beings to our own specifications, that’s when things get interesting.

Regardless of the methods used: natural or artificial, both are evolution. A change in the genetic encoding of successive generations.

 
Flag Post

Big bang started it all. Then all the galaxy’s and planets etc were formed. Bacteria formed on earth then evolved into something which evolved into something and so on until we evolved from monkeys. Proof? chimpanzee’s are related to us.

 
Flag Post

Humans are not evolved Neanderthals, we are two different species entirely. And as far as scientific research has shown us, we have evolved from primates and many intermediate species have been found. It is incredibly hard to deny that evolution exists unless you begin with a bias.

 
Flag Post

Just wanted to point out the use of the word “devolved” in Vika’s post is incredibly misleading to those who don’t actually understand evolution. There’s no such thing as devultion. Evolution is not linear. Life does not tend towards “perfection” or even complexity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:
There’s no such thing as devultion.

Well, there is. Evolution towards a previous form is basically what that means. An earlier, simpler form the organism held, it is evolving back towards. There are some examples in nature, such as the common house mite.

Its not the first such case as this stickleback shows, but it is essentially the same thing. Whilst I agree that you cannot devolve in the traditional sense, but more evolve towards a state like a previous state, I also recognise that a majority of the readers of this forum have not finished high school, and in several cases failed it entirely. So using a term most are going to comprehend, makes sense. Especially when explaining all the fine details – like above, is just going to confuse the heck out of them.

 
Flag Post

Right, but I also think the term devolution is misleading and encourages the pokemon interpretation of evolution. While there are cases of species losing adaptations that are no longer viable, you couldn’t say that the resulting species is identical to the species that lacked that adaptation originally, as that’d be selectively identifying adaptations as the definition of a species instead of more modern and accurate genetic definitions.

There are a handful of simple species that haven’t genetically changed much, and while many superspecies maintain enough genetic relation to their ancestors that they could likely mate and thus are still for all-intents-and-purposes the same species, their genetic makeup is not identical. The expression and repression of genes does not indicate a step back or forward, but a refinement or revision.

 
Flag Post

It is still stepping way beyond the understanding of the people I was trying to get an answer out of to do that. They claim that we evolved from a much more capable entity – a super-human race who were our progenitors. Each generation becoming less and less in order to create us.

The subtleties of evolution are lost on such people, so you’re only hurting your chances of getting a decent answer if you try to include them – to speak to the person as if they have the same level of understanding as yourself, until such point as they show that they do.

Thus the term devolution is perfect for the intended audience. It gets the meaning across without being offputting by delving into techno-babble. I find when you start ‘talking over the heads of your audience’ as it were, they stop being responsive, and spend more time feeling insulted and grumpy, then actually answering your query.


I never did get an answer, which tells me they didn’t actually have any evidence (surprise, surprise), whilst the terminology I did choose to use was simple enough that they could not claim to be confused by the terminology.

 
Flag Post

I understand, I just get a lot more mileage out of my method. I think maybe we seek different things, though. I find that I have had the most profound impact on the other, and have been most profoundly impacted by discussions that use the same base terminology without loading those words. That said you’re correct, I connect with far fewer people because of my unwillingness to be practical with communication instead of accurate. I think for me it’s about quality over quantity, and I’ve never been interested in evangelizing. Not that you are, I just think my approach is distinct in that way.

 
Flag Post

Evolution is not linear. Life does not tend towards “perfection” or even complexity.

I may have to take you up on Life not tending towards complexity. Do you suppose you could furnish some examples to the contrary? I’d cede perhaps in microcosm, but I’d have to say viewing the history of life as we know it, it certainly does seem to trend towards complexity.

Also anyone have any feelings about the possible outcomes of Lamarck-esque meta evolution? That we’ve seen inherited characteristics develop not as inheritance from similar survivor but spontaneously appear from the previous generations needs? Such trigger effects are not out of the purview of evolution, but certainly reflect a different sense of genetic-self.

I looked but could not find the article I read in this regard, but, the example case was a breed of fleas. Normally the fleas themselves are smooth backed, but when roughed about throughout their lifetime, the next generation has spiny backed fleas. Looking at the two generations from an isolated perspective, this should not occur. There is no selection pressure biasing inheritance here, it’s strictly an environmental trigger resulting in generational change.

Also, given that, where does this start, where does this end? If we establish that some (or perhaps all) species are holding potential triggers to express an outcome in their young, we start dealing with a present that is much more manifestly determining our future.

Actually did find some articles, once I started with the right keywords.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/16/the-sins-of-the-fathers-take-2.html
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2009/01/waterflea-helmets-lamarckian-o.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

 
Flag Post

Hmmm, this is a tricky situation. Yes, evolution on earth has tended towards complexity overall, and evolution does that, yes. That said, an evolutionary shift in an individual organism doesn’t have to be towards complexity, and in many cases is not. There are more complex creatures than there are simple organisms, but those complex creatures are all built up of those simple organisms. Furthermore, those individual simple organisms may not have changed for billions of years. We exist in the same world as amoebas, and are both equally evolved creatures. Amoebas can be more complex, but aren’t necessarily so. There are viruses that haven’t changed at all from their ancient relatives, and there are viruses that split off from those viruses and haven’t stopped changing since. It’s true that evolution makes more and more complex creatures, but it doesn’t mean that less complex creatures are inferior. Contrary, they’re essential to further variation.

Someone else can say this far more clearly, I know.

 
Flag Post

encourages the pokemon interpretation of evolution

I guess it steers more for a Digimon interpretation, since Pokémon do not devolve. Unless you count Mega Pokémon devolving from their Mega Evolutions, which will be possible in Gen VI.

evolution on earth has tended towards complexity overall

Well, not all species. Some species stay on the same level of complexity, or some even more simple as time goes on. But sure, we started out with only some random bacteria, and now we’ve got both mammals and bacteria. Seems more complex to me :P

 
Flag Post

Right, that’s why I said overall, and implied it might be somewhat of a misnomer to leave it at that. Considering both the “primitive” and complex species are both still around and have both changed significantly, one isn’t really the advancement of the other.

 
Flag Post

Yes I certainly don’t mean to suggest complexity is superior. (Although, there may be a case to that, but a different matter). It also, as you suggests, seem to be less a trend towards greater complexity over all, and more towards a greater ceiling on complexity. That we have smaller living organisms seamlessly integrated into larger more varied ones (stomach flora, mitochondria, so on.) is really a most apt observation.

 
Flag Post

Yes, perfect. That’s a much more clear way of saying it. There is a maximum level of complexity that is constantly being pushed by evolution, but evolution is not the process of all things getting more complex.

 
Flag Post

Evolution is a secular science just like heliocentrism, it is highly biased and without any religious basis. Now evolutionist are overwhelming the science and don’t forget that science is nothing but bigotry to mind you should stick to Bible rather than doing science. As Harun Yahya said evolution had created billions of death, and evolution is rooted on Ancient Far-East Paganism which Darwin went to Far-East and read the scripture after that putting an identical person in Beagle to clarify his theory (remember only theory not law) while he write The Origin of Species with the help of Lucifer.
Darwin is a highly atheistic person, he love to argue with God’s wisdom and pious member of Christianity. This behavior is common in scientist, scientists are the slave to mind and to develop mind over words of God is a trap laid by Satan itself. So stop using your mind by simply believing the Bible, if you still learn secular science then I would regard you as a Satanist.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Maurice_:

Evolution is a secular science just like heliocentrism, it is highly biased and without any religious basis. Now evolutionist are overwhelming the science and don’t forget that science is nothing but bigotry to mind you should stick to Bible rather than doing science. As Harun Yahya said evolution had created billions of death, and evolution is rooted on Ancient Far-East Paganism which Darwin went to Far-East and read the scripture after that putting an identical person in Beagle to clarify his theory (remember only theory not law) while he write The Origin of Species with the help of Lucifer.
Darwin is a highly atheistic person, he love to argue with God’s wisdom and pious member of Christianity. This behavior is common in scientist, scientists are the slave to mind and to develop mind over words of God is a trap laid by Satan itself. So stop using your mind by simply believing the Bible, if you still learn secular science then I would regard you as a Satanist.

Shoo troll. There’s a nice gullible audience for you elsewhere.

 
Flag Post

Let me just throw this out there. What if we are not the only intelligence in the universe? What if another species was on earth and say manipulated our DNA? What if, this manipulation is what created man as we now are?

Has anyone ever read any of the books out there by authors who have researched the Sumerian tablets? There are thousands of tablets that have been translated. It’s funny, but they actually parallel the Bible in may ways. Study the Indian texts and you will also find references to a race of beings other than ourselves. I have also done some research on our own American Indians and their stories of the star people who created them. All of the American Indians have stories of creation being from sky people or star people.

With this said, you who believe in creation are only partly right and those who believe in evolution are only part right.

 
Flag Post

“Let me just throw this out there. What if we are not the only intelligence in the universe? What if another species was on earth and say manipulated our DNA? What if, this manipulation is what created man as we now are?”

While I’m not saying the concept is impossible, it’s very unlikely, given the size of the universe. We also have no evidence of such. The fossil record is quite complete and goes back a very long distance, so any ‘intervention’ would need to have been done billions of years ago in a subtle manner. You can think about it all you want, but there’s no reason to assume or really entertain the idea.

“Has anyone ever read any of the books out there by authors who have researched the Sumerian tablets? There are thousands of tablets that have been translated. It’s funny, but they actually parallel the Bible in may ways. Study the Indian texts and you will also find references to a race of beings other than ourselves. I have also done some research on our own American Indians and their stories of the star people who created them. All of the American Indians have stories of creation being from sky people or star people.”

People do try to explain things, hence religion. All ancient cultures had their creation stories. The sky was unknown and thus the fascination of many. It’s also visible anywhere in the world, meaning there’s a high chance someone somewhere referenced it in that manner. Over thousands of years civilizations and beliefs have grown and died, finding some that closely resemble one another isn’t far fetched.

For example, many cultures have a flood story. A flood is a natural disaster that can happen many places in the world. People writing about these disasters is to be expected, but we shouldn’t make a hasty generalization that because several writings telling of floods in different areas of the world at relatively close times indicates a global flood. Correlation /= causation.

“With this said, you who believe in creation are only partly right and those who believe in evolution are only part right.”

No. You just postulated a question and took it as true for that conclusion. If you want to say that, you’ll need more. And regardless of whether there was an intervention or not, our observed facts are not changed; evolution occurs.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kasic:

While I’m not saying the concept is impossible, it’s very unlikely, given the size of the universe. We also have no evidence of such. The fossil record is quite complete and goes back a very long distance, so any ‘intervention’ would need to have been done billions of years ago in a subtle manner. You can think about it all you want, but there’s no reason to assume or really entertain the idea.

“Has anyone ever read any of the books out there by authors who have researched the Sumerian tablets? There are thousands of tablets that have been translated. It’s funny, but they actually parallel the Bible in may ways. Study the Indian texts and you will also find references to a race of beings other than ourselves. I have also done some research on our own American Indians and their stories of the star people who created them. All of the American Indians have stories of creation being from sky people or star people.”

People do try to explain things, hence religion. All ancient cultures had their creation stories. The sky was unknown and thus the fascination of many. It’s also visible anywhere in the world, meaning there’s a high chance someone somewhere referenced it in that manner. Over thousands of years civilizations and beliefs have grown and died, finding some that closely resemble one another isn’t far fetched.

For example, many cultures have a flood story. A flood is a natural disaster that can happen many places in the world. People writing about these disasters is to be expected, but we shouldn’t make a hasty generalization that because several writings telling of floods in different areas of the world at relatively close times indicates a global flood. Correlation /= causation.

“With this said, you who believe in creation are only partly right and those who believe in evolution are only part right.”

No. You just postulated a question and took it as true for that conclusion. If you want to say that, you’ll need more. And regardless of whether there was an intervention or not, our observed facts are not changed; evolution occurs.

First of all, we don’t know the extent of the universe. As far as we know it is infinite. You do have evidence, you only have to look for it. Our fossil records are incomplete and archeology is constantly changing it’s order of our past. They must as they find more and more that is unexplainable. Who build the pyramids in Egypt? Are they the same people who built the ones in Mexico, or Europe? Explain some of the artifacts that science won’t accept, but yet they are there and they are tangible. They don’t fit where archeologists think they should so they dismiss them.

Many have read these books. I would suggest you read one, you might find it quite interesting. I suggest you look at some of Zacharia Stitches works, in particular “There Were Giants Upon The Earth”. Mankind likes to think he knows all there is to know about everything, when in reality, mankind knows very little.

I do agree with you, people need to explain things and turn to religion for answers. We as the human race need these answers and if you notice, we tend to group together in our quest, hence the need for religion. It’s comforting to many.

Yes, all of the different religions have a flood story of one type or another, even the Sumerian tablets. The causes and affects are a little different, but they all boil down to a flood, of worldwide proportions. That is not natural.

I don’t believe in creation or evolution as being the final answer. Evolution is basically a theory and Creation is faith based.