gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Just in the last hundred years or so mankind has evolved to be a larger heartier species so clearly evolution is real. What the question is is did we actually evolve from lesser organisms or only from primitive man? I don't believe you could artificially evolve a primate from a reptile. You absolutely couldn't, because they are different branches of the evolutionary tree, if you like. Same reason we won't have wings any time soon. But go far enough back, and they will have a common ancestor or group of ancestors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I can buy that evolved from monkeys but I have a hard time buying that monkeys evolved from fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I can buy that evolved from monkeys but I have a hard time buying that monkeys evolved from fish. plenty of steps in between, but there have been billions of years for it to happen. Fish to monkey is clearly absurd, but as two steps on an endless journey, plenty of steps apart, no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 This might give a clearer idea of the process https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_of_human_evolution#First_living_beings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I personally think humans are "de" evolving. I don't think we're as robust as we were just a few centuries ago although the difference isn't substantial.......but I do think that 10's of thousands of years ago it was a completely different story. We're becoming specialized for sure and that's why there's all this new tech that does things we didn't used to need cause we were generally better beasts. I think a lot of people get fooled by modern athletes and all the exogenous hormones and synthetic vitamins and minerals they "have" to take to get to the level they do. People don't realize that while we have been smaller at one point we were "a lot" stronger but more importantly could do more "work", meaning we maintained peak output for a lot longer. Some of our best today can achieve the "peaks" in terms of pure strength, speed etc,etc.....but they can't hold the output like we used. There's some anthropological evidence out there to back that claim up btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 To be clear, evolution doesn't imply 'bigger, faster, stronger' it implies changing to thrive/survive better in the environment. So in our environment, having a super memory, for example, isn't important because thanks to things like Wikipedia, you can find out anything almost instantly. As such, younger people have much better short term memory, but worse long term memory than older people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 What Chris said. A species doesn't have to get more impressive physically. You can't devolve. We're adapting to our environment, which we're influencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Mankind has evolved? You are confused. Better nutrition and living conditions does not equal evolution. Â As far as MRSA, you are giving an example of natural selection. Clearly some of the bacteria already possessed the ability to resist antibiotics. If no bacterium possessed such an ability, there would have been none left to reproduce more resistant bacteria. It's still staph aureus. An example of evolution would be a bacteria suddenly becoming gram negative to give itself an advantage over it's gram positive competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 So you're questioning the ability of random mutations in DNA to create new traits to drive natural selection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 What Chris said. A species doesn't have to get more impressive physically. You can't devolve. We're adapting to our environment, which we're influencing. To be clear, it's possible to devolve, if you look at devolution as the reversal of evolution. Despeciation is a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I personally think humans are "de" evolving. I don't think we're as robust as we were just a few centuries ago although the difference isn't substantial...... Id say he has a point here..... Â Humans are the ONLY creature on the planet NOT capable of surviving in their natural habitat, without the use of tools, shelter, clothing, agriculture, etc.... Â Perhaps that is a counter production evolution, in a way....but without clothes, we'd freeze and die......without shelter, the same......without tools, we couldnt be efficient hunters.....etc etc etc.....so, if our world changed suddenly, we would be the least prepared of all the species to go back to basics.....thats for sure..... Â Most other creatures would adapt and survive just fine.......we are the exceptions and the one creature that doesnt properly fit into the earths eco system design..... Â Are we aliens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 We couldn't survive without tools, sure, but we can also make tools, which is what elevated us from the animals to start with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Also, what are you doing here Mud?! Realised where all the real action is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 We are getting bigger stronger and faster though on average Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/ http://www.kc-cofc.org/39th/Lectures/2001%20Manuscripts/RichardMasseyMissingLinks.PDF http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-theory-evolution.html http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Also, what are you doing here Mud?! Realised where all the real action is? Ha!.....just passin through....... Â This stuff is entertaining as hell to read.....but wayyyyy too many absolutes and hard opinions for me to join most of these "discussions".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 But since Im here, I do have some ideas on selective breeding and how it could change our evolution and actually create several types of humans.....yep, Im serious....  Using dogs as an example, we know we can easily manipulate their characteristics by selective breeding.....throw out the runts, match up the big ones up, and soon you have a large breed.........keep the nice ones and throw out the aggressive ones and soon you have a friendly breed, kill the dumb ones and breed the smartest ones and soon you have intelligent breeds, etc etc etc  People are the same and WE selectively breed ourselves.......the ole "birds of a feather flock together" mentality.....meaning smart people tend to breed with other smart people....big women tend to mate with big men.....attractive people tend to mate with other attractive people.....and, yes, stupid people tend to mate with stupid people....  So, my prediction is that if these habits were to continue in this vein for millions of years....there would be distinct groups of elite super smart humans, countered by groups of extra dumb non thinking humans.....and huge beautiful amazon types, countered by ugly less than attractive humans.....HA!  In the end, Im sure this wont happen simply because man will alter his own development with genetic manipulation, before nature has the chance......probably creating their own uber healthy and advanced elite class for those who can afford it....or by completely fucking it up and destroying everything.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 We are getting bigger stronger and faster though on average  Bigger yes, but not necessarily stronger. I know i'm talking about a warrior society but just about 2000 years ago those little Spartans who were about 5'8-5'10 on average would murder anyone on the planet in hand to hand fighting. They would compete in worlds strongest man challenges easily plus their metabolic conditioning is just nothing currently seen today. Those guys were barely 200lbs. Only the biggest roid monsters on the planet could match their peak output but they would die trying to match their workload.  Read up on some of the greek men who competed in strong man stuff, some eye opening things were being done in competitions. Like putting cow carcasses on their backs that must have been approaching 1k lbs and doing laps with em. And that was just 2000 years ago which is well after our decay started most likely. They dig up skeletons of people with ligament attachements not seen in modern man....they would have been 4x stronger than us just based on those attachments, let alone someone that actively trained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 In my humble opinion, when we started overeating meat and started processing foods it began the fall. The agro revolution also started the decay of the land, growing in the same spot constantly started to lessen the nutrition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 To be clear, it's possible to devolve, if you look at devolution as the reversal of evolution. Despeciation is a thing. What do you consider devolution then? The term seems redundant. Whether species die out or a species becomes less complex, it is still evolution. Â You can move left 3 spaces. You can then move right 1. You're going backwards relatively, but you're still moving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 19, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Id say he has a point here..... Â Humans are the ONLY creature on the planet NOT capable of surviving in their natural habitat, without the use of tools, shelter, clothing, agriculture, etc.... Â Perhaps that is a counter production evolution, in a way....but without clothes, we'd freeze and die......without shelter, the same......without tools, we couldnt be efficient hunters.....etc etc etc.....so, if our world changed suddenly, we would be the least prepared of all the species to go back to basics.....thats for sure..... Â Most other creatures would adapt and survive just fine.......we are the exceptions and the one creature that doesnt properly fit into the earths eco system design..... Â Are we aliens? If tue average temperature on earth suddenly changed by 10 degrees, we'd get through it much better than almost every species. If it gets colder, we wear heavier clothes, buy more heaters, etc. We can adapt in that sense instantly. Most animals and plants would have to go through generations and generations. A thicker coat of fur may work for some, but not all. Â I'm not sure how you think we couldn't adapt. Humans exist all over the globe. We adapt to the environment or modify the local environment. No, we don't have fur for warmth, but the point is we don't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Â Bigger yes, but not necessarily stronger. I know i'm talking about a warrior society but just about 2000 years ago those little Spartans who were about 5'8-5'10 on average would murder anyone on the planet in hand to hand fighting. They would compete in worlds strongest man challenges easily plus their metabolic conditioning is just nothing currently seen today. Those guys were barely 200lbs. Only the biggest roid monsters on the planet could match their peak output but they would die trying to match their workload. Â Read up on some of the greek men who competed in strong man stuff, some eye opening things were being done in competitions. Like putting cow carcasses on their backs that must have been approaching 1k lbs and doing laps with em. And that was just 2000 years ago which is well after our decay started most likely. They dig up skeletons of people with ligament attachements not seen in modern man....they would have been 4x stronger than us just based on those attachments, let alone someone that actively trained. I think objectively that mma fighters would probably destroy a spartan in hand to hand fighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 What do you consider devolution then? The term seems redundant. Whether species die out or a species becomes less complex, it is still evolution. Â You can move left 3 spaces. You can then move right 1. You're going backwards relatively, but you're still moving. In just the same way as we can see speciation over time, there are rare examples of despeciation - where two once distinct species that speciated from each other in the past - to take advantage of different food sources maybe - have merged again due to one food source being exhausted over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I think objectively that mma fighters would probably destroy a spartan in hand to hand fighting. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 20, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 In just the same way as we can see speciation over time, there are rare examples of despeciation - where two once distinct species that speciated from each other in the past - to take advantage of different food sources maybe - have merged again due to one food source being exhausted over time. Â So in that case, they both continued their evolutionary path and they happened to come back together. I'd see all change as evolution, regardless of the "direction". It is probably just semantics at some point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 So you're questioning the ability of random mutations in DNA to create new traits to drive natural selection? Well i can see where an organism that reproduces asexually might pass a random genetic mutation on to its offspring. I have a harder time believing that species that reproduce sexually will pass a random mutation along to offspring since DNA is recombined in sexual reproduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Well i can see where an organism that reproduces asexually might pass a random genetic mutation on to its offspring. I have a harder time believing that species that reproduce sexually will pass a random mutation along to offspring since DNA is recombined in sexual reproduction. It depends on whether the mutated gene becomes dominant. If so it can become prevalent right away. If not, it will probably just hide (like someone with dark hair, but a blonde gene) and get eliminated in a few generations unless it meets another equally or more recesove gene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Back in the day, in the AF, I thought I'd go to school to be a physician's assistant, but everybody in the field was telling me that it may never catch on....(no jobs, etc...) Â But I did take the prereqs and took genetics at Wright St. before ending that idea... Genetics is pretty amazing stuff. Â It's far more complicated than I ever got into, obvious. But it's another example of the profound complexity that I just believe did not "just happen by accident". Genes mutating and perhaps becoming dominant? Â Is that possible, Chris? Dr. Hoorta would know... Â https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Yes. It says so even in the link you posted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#By_effect_on_function Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Such a mutation would also have to give the carriers an advantage. Chances are it would give no advantage or a disadvantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.