BlueJ123
VoijaRisa
BlueJ123
hmmmm, these are very sound articles. If humans did evolve naturally over time, how come other animals who have also been evolving do not share the same intelligence, versitility, and social groupings that humans do?
Natural selection says that species will evolve to fit their environments. If they cannot they die off.
Intelligence, versitility, and social groupings aren't
requirements. Species can live perfectly well without these. Intelligence can actually be a huge waste in competition for limited resources. If an early hunter gatherer species stopped to take a day off to say "What's it all about, really?" and another species took all the food, that wouldn't go too well for them now would it? Intelligence isn't always a good thing.
Versitility has been evolving. It creates new species. Look for "speciation" on that same website.
Social groupings aren't always good either. Get everyone together, and a single natural disaster, or a big hungry predator is more able to take you all out at once. Keeping all your members seperate can also have an evolutionary advantage.
You are right, these arent always good things, but yet humans make use of all three and are the dominant life form. strange isnt it?
Not really, the climates we've gone through in the past hundred thousand years encouraged these traits so we have them. Other animals just didn't move through the same climates (they either migrated somewhere else or the local groups died and the ones that were already in nicer climates stuck around.)
Aquatic ape theory suggests that we became upright walkers, grew larger brains, and got breath control from spending time in lakes and such*. From there we would have taken those out to the plains where the upright walking and larger brains were appropriate to allow us to avoid predation from the various predators (we needed to grow the intelligence elsewhere as having less of it wouldn't have given any benefit and would have just been a waste of energy.) From there being smarter was above the threshold that usually works against it so we kept going in that direction and reached a point where we could make and use weapons.
After that we had to deal with the threat of freezing to death (without the weapons we'd probably have starved,) so being intelligent enough to conserve energy but still get things for expending it would be useful so we again had an appropriate level of intelligence to grow more so.
And around that point you pretty much had modern humans. About all that's changed is that we found a warmer climate and figured out how to grow our own food fairly effectively (and there's evidence for particular brain genes developing at that time that encouraged somewhat different social behaviors- I wish I had that article bookmarked...)
So we sort of won the lottery a couple of times. Well, maybe not the lottery but a few "guess how many candies are in this jar" contests at least- well, it's more like nobody else could get into the building where the contests were being held.
Usually those things wouldn't have been helpful but we had the right prerequisites for them when the right environments came along to encourage them.
*aquatic ape theory ends there and the rest is pretty much agreed on
BlueJ123
Linleyjd
BlueJ123
Linleyjd
What I don't understand is why people so dogmatically belive in creationalism when there is no real evidence of it.
I think it has to do with the fact that we
can believe and have moral convictions. for humans there is more to life than just survival. Plus its not like creationism is the only thing in Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim faith. Its just part of the belief system.
it seems like creationalism is a religious type of thing and doesn't really belong in science. even if humans and animals are different, what evidence is there that humans were directly made my a superior being to disprove that humans just got lucky?
neither can be proved. therefore i believe either both are taught, or neither is taught.
What can be proven is about enough to fill ten minutes of class time. The rest you have to make some assumptions and just mostly prove.
2+2=4 is one such example. You have to assume that there aren't mind control waves messing with your sense of numeric conservation- there's no way to prove that there aren't so you can either stop at where you can't prove things or you can continue as best as is possible.
FreeArsenal
BlueJ123
One theorey is that lighning in an early atmosphere of N2 Co2 and other gasses, but not too much O2 ecited the molecules, making them bond, falling into the primordial ocean. Thene you have the formation of amino acids and proteins. thats the very beginning of life.
That's not evolution anymore, it biogenesis... lol...
In any case, the theory of lightening hasn't quite been reproduced, and the statement that the earth was different in the past doesn't help if you consider the fact that heat destroys proteins. Lightening produces heat (about 5x hotter than the surface of the sun), and thus would likely destroy the proteins unless there were a large enough mass of them to receive only the electricity and not the heat, since lightening is just a flash.
The other theory I mentioned, panspermia that some scientists are considering comes from the idea that life came from another world.. or the "seeds of life" came from another place... but that still doesn't explain the first form of life, since it's just saying that life on earth came from another place.
Lightning produces a lot of heat right where the tranfer of charge is but a little less heat out to the sides a bit and a little less heat still a little further out.
There's a distance from the bolt that produces just the right amount of heat for amino acids to form from those more common compounds, and that's all there would have to be.
Koravin
FreeArsenal
I never said evolution was wrong.
Then why don't you believe it?
He draws some imaginary line in the dirt between animals and humans but won't tell me what the difference is.
