MattM 0 #26 April 1, 2003 QuoteMost people, even the ugly & stupid ones, live to an age where they can breed. Yea, thanks to beer..... Matt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
aero04 0 #27 April 1, 2003 Quote >I say no, we haven't changed since the very first day. A lot of evidence contradicts that. We have fossil records that show remains of humans that are more and more different from us the older they are. We have genes that encode for all sorts of non-human traits; they've been 'turned off' and become part of our so-called junk DNA. We see human fetuses express earlier stages of evolution during development, and we see that animals closely related to us (apes, chimpanzees) have 95% of our DNA - even the 'junk' strings match closely. That suggests a common ancestor. I must agree with this statement. I'm taking an archeology course this semester and the prof took a week talking about the many ancestors to modern day humans. It did seem like we were ape-like, then over time, we changed into what we are today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kiltboy 0 #28 April 1, 2003 That's my concern. If people are designed for certain characteristics using a small known band of data then eventually the diversity decreases and you end up with a shallower (possibly stagnant) pool. Not knowing a whole heck of a lot about biochemistry/biology I'll shut up now. David Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #29 April 1, 2003 Our gene pool, at the moment, is probably getting messed up. Survival of the fittest is no longer the rule in most places in the World. The ones who survive long enough to reproduce are no longer the fittest of the species. Things will probably revert back to this evolutionary state when our population growth grows too large. I know this may be a gloomy outlook on things, but I also think it is highly probable. It will be interesting to see if our species is even around in a few hundred years........Steve1 (The DoomSayer) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VivaHeadDown 0 #30 April 2, 2003 What are you saying Bill? If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck? What if it's not? What if your life depended on you being right? I see many options, and each one claims evidence in support, but they may not all be correct. Unless there is a Trickster God, but you've already dismissed that because you don't want to believe it. Just how sure can you be about what you've indicated as your choise? Don't Confuse Me With My Own Words Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #31 April 2, 2003 >What are you saying Bill? Not sure which post you are replying to, but - >If it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck? What if it's not? Then it's not a duck. Not sure what you were asking there. >What if your life depended on you being right? My life could well depend on doctors being right about evolution. Diseases, for example, evolve - do some research into MRSA and VRE to see how evolving diseases could kill you. Do some research on sickle cell anemia to see how evolution can keep you alive in the face of disease. >I see many options, and each one claims evidence in support, but >they may not all be correct. Of course. You must choose the theory that is the most consistent with the evidence. One possibility is that evolution created life as we know it. Another one is that god created us just like we are, created all other animals just like _they_ are, made them similar genetically (including their junk DNA) just for the heck of it, and then faked a long and consistent fossil record to confuse us. Or choose something in between (as many more scientifically minded religious types do.) To me, basic evolution without divine tampering best fits the facts as we know them. >Unless there is a Trickster God, but you've already dismissed that >because you don't want to believe it. Occam's Razor. God may indeed play tricks on us, and every time we discover something new (like the earth wasn't really covered by water for 40 days, or the earth is really round) then he 'fakes' the evidence to 'test our faith' or something. Occam's razor tells us that the simplest solution is probably the correct one; a simpler physical origin of the earth (and life as we know it) is, to me, more likely than a very complex and tricky god who intentionally misleads us. This does not mean that god does not exist, just that god is not all that meddlesome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #32 April 3, 2003 You can't really say that we've stopped evolving because it's too short a time period (if you're talking about the short time period since large settled populations started appearing, such as the last 7,000 years or so) You could have just as easily looked at a similar time period (or even much longer periods) during Homo erectus' or Homo habilis' long histories and concluded the same thing. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
themaninblack 0 #33 April 3, 2003 actually i think we do evolve and are currently evolving. look for the dramatic examples for ease of visibility. rwanda. the hutus and the tutsis duking it out. mostly hutus slaughtering tutsis with machetes as i recall, some 700,000 of them. this is the bleeding edge of evolution, (gruesome pun intended) a tutsi with any survival potential grabs his kids and starts hiking, becomes a refugee, gets the fuck out of the area any way he can, if he can. failure to kill enough hutus/violently defend his chilren/run for it results in death of the tutsi, his kids and kin and the end of his bloodline. this is evolution. you either fight hard enough to ensure the survival of your genes or you get naturally selected right off the map. and this IS natural selection. the hutu/tutsi conflict is basically "wild" humans behaving as naturally as possible...ever seen the jane goodall chimp behavior studies? they do the exact damn thing. one group of chimps was observed to methodically hunt down and kill/assimilate a weaker group until there were none left. genocide among the chimps. rwanda is the same but writ large. theres another step beyond that though and "modern" civilization has taken it already. weve evolved past that sort of behavior (haven't we?) we know better than to slaughter each other wholesale....now we build big civilized societies and work together with taxes to build enormous war machines whereby we can continue to evolve only now we set the rules....you come here, fuck with our kids, we go there, evolve YOU off the map, remove a threat to our kids ensuring their survival. unlike the doomed tutsis, WE will defend our kids by any means necessary. including war. which is why theres no shortage of american kids but tutsis are an endangered species. its a competitive planet. they didnt learn better soon enough. you are the weakest link. goodbye. evolution WILL be served, one way or another!!!! im not jumping, im imitating a reluctant meteor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masher 1 #34 April 3, 2003 Quoteactually i think we do evolve and are currently evolving. I think the same thing. Another piece of evidence for this (sans reference unfortunatley) is found in dental records. In developed countries, it is the norm to extract wisdom teeth, as they often cause trouble later in life. In third world countries, removing wisdom teeth isn't really an option, and so the instances of wisdom teeth actually causing trouble is declining; wisdom teeth _not_ causing trouble is being selected.-- Arching is overrated - Marlies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #35 April 3, 2003 That depends on weither you consider that an actual part of evolution or simply adaptation. What I would call evolution is more of a drastic change over time, i.e. growing a 2nd pecker, I condsider the teeth thing more of an adaptation thing.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masher 1 #36 April 3, 2003 Scientists are going more for 'step' evolution than 'gradual' evolution. There is a documented case (http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/projects/cases/galapagos2.html http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=067973337X are all I could find on short notice) of the same species of finch having different individuals with large and small beaks. After a meteorlogical event, there were only big seeds available to eat. The smaller beaked birds couldn't eat them, and hence died out. Rather than a gradual event, it all happened in less than a season.-- Arching is overrated - Marlies Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #37 April 3, 2003 QuoteYou can't really say that we've stopped evolving because it's too short a time period (if you're talking about the short time period since large settled populations started appearing, such as the last 7,000 years or so) Exactly. Humans today have organs that used to be considered vital, now they are not necessary. The appendix is a perfect example. Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
charliezulu 0 #38 April 3, 2003 Quote Quote . . . but I don't believe in a trickster god. How about Coyote the Trickster? Loki Oy, Zenister beat me to it! CZ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #39 April 3, 2003 "Humans today have organs that used to be considered vital, now they are not necessary. The appendix is a perfect example." Another example is the brain in noted individuals. -------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #40 April 3, 2003 Quote Another example is the brain in noted individuals. Should I take that as a very disguised personal attack?Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #41 April 3, 2003 >wisdom teeth _not_ causing trouble is being selected. Are you sure that's caused by evolution and not simply advances in hygeine? Even having clean water available helps reduce oral disease problems. The reason I question whether evolution is involved is that wisdom tooth problems would have to either kill or render people sterile before (or during) breeding age for it to be selected against. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #42 April 3, 2003 My wisdom teeth were taken out for cosmetic purposes. When I had my braces taken off, my orthodontist told me the wisdom teeth had to be removed so they wouldn't apply pressure on my now beautifully straightened teeth.Man, that surgery was a bitch.Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #43 April 3, 2003 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This could go bad quickly if we started "making" people with for example, greater strength, intelligence, etc. Could lead to a society of the have's, and have not's -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hmm... I think we are already there. How do you think a child from Congo compares to Bill Gates. What's the difference? I think the "haves and have nots" was put quite nicely in Gattica. Your lot in life is dependent on your DNA.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,008 #44 April 3, 2003 >My wisdom teeth were taken out for cosmetic purposes. I had three teeth taken out for purely functional purposes; fortunately I didn't even grow wisdom teeth. I got the big-teeth genes and the normal-size-jaw genes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
amy 0 #45 April 3, 2003 QuoteI got the big-teeth genes and the normal-size-jaw genes. So does genetics explain the extraordinary size of your (oops, sorry- public forum) And don't give me that "it was a fanny pack" line again. Amy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #46 April 3, 2003 Quote fortunately I didn't even grow wisdom teeth In your case, they're looking in the wrong place. Most likely they have settled in your brain.Chris _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VivaHeadDown 0 #47 April 3, 2003 Many examples of evolution given in this thread only show people's lack of understanding what evolution actually is. Correct me if I'm wrong, no really. A man with a machette chasing a family of a different tribe has little to do with evolution, and more to do with the belief that people are generally bad. Evolution begins with a mutation that enables an individual to meet the demands of his/her environment better than others, then is propagated down through generations as those without the mutation slowly die out over those generations. War between tribes might be one way of wiping out a line of specific gene sequences, but a more likely, and simple answer (Ohcams Razor), is that it was human nature and not genetic differences that put those tribes at war. Greed and lust for another's possesions, fear of an unkown person and what they may do to you. And as for archeological evidence, there is a wide spread belief that it supports only evolution. Many leave out the fact that there are multiple huge gaps missing between the past and the present. That in itself works against the thoery. By definition, evolution is a slow process over long periods of time. Huge gaps in a lineage support rapid bursts of mutations taking hold of a population and winning out over a short period of time. So where is the evidence? Where is the smoking gun? And coming up with the theory of large "steps" is a theory of convienience not supported by the facts either. But all of this is besides my first point earlier in the thread. Not looking at where we've been, we can still guess as to where we're going. This is because we adapt the environment to us rather than adapt to it. If evolution is correct, then any mutations that slowly creep up in the gene pool will not help anyone because the envonmental impact is negligible. Only something looked on as cool, like maybe two wangs, has a chance of propagating. And if Evolution is a bunch of balogna, then we still will not change into super human mind reading flying brainiacs any time soon. And we certainly aren't growing in any other ways, such as individual wisdom or common sense, so we are who we are. And nothing more. And that's not too bad. We may not have wings, but we have adapted with parachutes. The deserts may not support much life naturally, but we've adapted by irrigating. We don't have to wait millions of years to go off in one genetic direction. We have the ability to pursue multiple directions, achaieving whatever we want, and all it takes is the will to overcome current boundaries. That's not evolution, that's determination. Don't Confuse Me With My Own Words Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLsurfer 0 #48 April 4, 2003 This thread reminded me of a book I read a few years back, "Darwin's Radio" by Greg Bear. It's all about ancient diseases encoded in human DNA that have been dormant, coming back to life OR the next step in evolution. Don't want to ruin the story for those of you yet to read it. While reading this book, I got the same chills as when I read "Outbreak". Now we have SARS out there spreading around the globe, so who knows, maybe in a decade or two, the human race will take another evolutionary step. Problems just be opportunities in der workin' clothes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Broke 0 #49 February 10, 2006 The only reasion why so many "New" Diseases are emerging. Is because we have become better at identifying the different variations of the diseases.Divot your source for all things Hillbilly. Anvil Brother 84 SCR 14192 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #50 February 10, 2006 Wow, Broke brought up an old thread... QuoteQuoteI got the big-teeth genes and the normal-size-jaw genes. So does genetics explain the extraordinary size of your (oops, sorry- public forum) ... but an interesting one... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
