Human's evolution in the most simple way . (Jews, God, believer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Topic-Unrelated NOTE: Please: stop with the line-by-line colors stuff! Just select ALL your text once you've typed it all in, then add the color one time, one place!! You do realize how difficult it is to work with your posts later, do you not? Just a non-religious observation, squall!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart
I want to tell you something ...
If the occurrence of mutations are something that happen frequently and permanently then that would have been absorbed and completely understood ,Added another peoblem to it which rarely produces good qualities .
You can not build a successful process based on rare random incidents .
Mathematically it will be a failure on all common standards .
You REALLY need to talk to a statistics & maths professor, squall, since apparently you won't believe me (with my engineering degree. Nope; no math there! Or my biology degrees; no genetics or Evolution info there... sigh) or orogenicman the geologist, or others here with established and credible higher educations. What, you don't like what we say, so you just toss it out as invalid? Why? Because such logical reviews and higher education resulted in our becoming atheists? Therefore we didn't learn it right? WTF?
Unlike you, with your interesting and academically defensible () conclusions such as.....
___________________________________
"You can not build a successful process based on rare random incidents. Mathematically it will be a failure on all common standards ."
Well, yes, sorry to say, indeed you can! In the simplest possible explanation (which any stats professor will instantly confirm..): even a few individuals with a notable genetic superiority will, through simple exponential growth, create, in a very short time, a population of survivors that will quickly overcome or out-compete the lesser version. As with bacterial resistance, Neanderthals, and so on.
A Children's Primer on Exponential Growth, the basics for intransigent theists:
(notice those simple example curves in the graph, and how the green curve of growth rises exponentially? As in: it doubles with each next generation, which builds on the last, etc? So, 2 becomes 4 becomes 8 becomes 16 becomes 32 becomes 64 becomes 128 becomes 256 and so on.
Get it now? If we extend this exponential growth to, let's say a mere 20 generations, that'll be 2^20 power or (brace yourself... ) 1,048,576 little bacteria, all from one beginner.
Ahhh, but what if there were, let's say, 1000, or 10,000... survivors with that improved genotype? [both mighty small numbers when we're talking bacteria, but still, this is all for demo purposes...] My calculator can't show me the results of that one!)
Take a moment in your education process and scroll down in this Wiki article to Applications and briefly read the Biology section!
Or this interesting link, in case this all still stumps your head... this one runs a simple app in which you, squall, yourself!!!, can experiment, just like a REAL SCIENTIST!
With just a few different exponential growth models, you'll become an expert in all of this, and will FINALLY understand how a few chance survivors that carry a distinctly superior ability can rapidly out-compete the "lesser" versions, no matter how many of those there might be, and thus edge towards becoming an all-new species Wow, huh?
And you couldn't see how it could possibly happen, huh? Q: do you perhaps have any money in a compound interest [i.e.: exponential growth...] savings account? Same thing, just so you know!
So... if you really are serious about defending your argument and your main debating points, then you 1) owe it to yourself, 2) to your self-esteem, 3) to being intellectually honest with yourself and us, and 4) to your overall education, to bother with reading these and participating in that interesting and educational active application.
Otherwise, you need to explain to us all why you would not participate. Which is fine; but then you have to leave the building!
Originally Posted by LindavG
I wouldn't even dare to hand in something like that as a scientific paper.
You should learn how to stand behind what you believe in ...
Quote:
Do you really think you know more about biology than your professor and the other ~ 98% of biologists who accept evolution?
They want to keep their jobs ...
The theory of evolution has become to biologists like Israel to the western media !!
If you even dare to questione it you become automatically an outcast ( Ignorant ,anti semitic) .
That what made me doubt that there is something wrong here !!!
It became more sacred than all religions !!!
Why ??
Why don't they treat it like the rest of science and theories ?
Who is behinde it & what is the purpose ?!!
Is it because it fights the idea of God ?
There is something fishy going on here !!
Quote:
The arrogance of some religious believers never fails to amaze me.
I did not mention religion or God in my thread !!
Quote:
Somehow they're all experts in physics, chemistry, cosmology and biology and think they know better than the scientists who have spent their lives studying these topics. And to top it all off, they have the nerve to accuse the scientists of arrogance
I appreciate their effort but I don't need from nobody to tell me what to believe in, I have to be convinced on my own ...
That is my biggest problem .
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-01-2012 at 05:46 AM..
Originally Posted by distraff
You have got it backwards. We have the common ancestor's genes, not the other way around.
It is like asking how my mother could have many of my genes before I even existed.
I know you do ..
My question was how can a creature has human genes before humans exist ?!!
But if you finde it a weird question then please don't bother answering !!!
Some times I scared my self ...
Quote:
This is because my genes are not unique to me, they were inherited from my mother.
It was not about my genes or yours .. it was about the common ancestor's unique genes !!!
Please read :
"There was this animal, it was neither a chimpanzee, a human or a gorilla, it had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas"
3 in one ..!!!
It sounds more like hair lotion than an animal !!!
Quote:
Thanks for accepting my explanation.
You are welcome .
Quote:
If you have any more questions about evolution, feel free to ask.
I won't ...
I promise
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-01-2012 at 07:35 AM..
It seems to be inexplicable, or incomprehensible, to the constant deniers of Evolution that any part of this logical process occurs.
But still... let's try it one more time:[/b]
√ Chance mutations in any organism's genome sequence do occur. We can see this by simple observation.
Do you disagree with this 1st observation squall? Yes or No?[/B
√ Given the pure chance aspect of this one element of Evolutionary change (i.e.:yes, there are other established mechanisms...], one would expect, in a complex organism, that most changes would therefore be lethal. Purely by statistical probability. As well, the higher, more complex organisms do not usually exist in large numbers, thus their statistical chances for Evolutionary improvement lessen as they become more complex. This does not mean such improvements are not possible, just slower.
[b]Do you disagree with this 2nd observation squall? Yes or No?[/B
√ Given the mass number of such reproductive events in the lesser uni- or simple multi-celled organisms, existing as they do in huge numbers in ocean water (10 B per liter, reproducing about once every 24h, and therefore growing exponentially), it's reasonable to predict that any beneficial change would rapidly become dominant, if it offers any sort of reproductive/survival benefit.
[b]Do you disagree with this 3rd observation squall? Yes or No?[/B
Well, before I waste any more of my time, I need to have your Yes/No answers to the first 3 observations. I can explain each one in more detail if you just don't get it, but if you just plain refuse to participate or give us a simple answer, then why should I, or anyone else, bother to continue?
[b][b]Do you disagree with this conclusion squall? Yes or No?[/B
I know you do ..
My question was how can a creature has human genes before humans exist ?!!
But if you finde it a weird question then please don't bother answering !!!
Some times I scared my self ...
It was not about my genes or yours .. it was about the common ancestor's unique genes !!!
Please read :
"There was this animal, it was neither a chimpanzee, a human or a gorilla, it had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas"
3 in one ..!!!
It sounds more like hair lotion than an animal !!!
You are welcome .
I won't ...
I promise
My dear chap, asking searching questions of evolution theory is one (credible) thing. Mocking the answers is another.
The points was that the human inherited the ancestor's genes and evolved the human genes. Just as one inherits the mother's genes rather than their own from the mother. Learn from the example and don't make yourself look foolish by saying that you didn't ask about anyone's mother.
You didn't ask about fruit - flies and rats, either, but it is impossible to explain the theory without such examples.
Sneering at the attempt to give some idea of a common ancestor is unworthy of you, too. If you have had your questions answered, well and good. If you just want to dismiss the pretty sound evidence (far sounder that any other theory) for evolution through mockery and a statement that you don't want to hear any more, that would be unfortunate in opting for faith - based bias over evidence - based reason, and I believe that you are better than that.
Can you still find evolution unfeasible after all the questions have been given pretty good answers, I'd say? I'm not asking you to believe it let alone give up belief in God (and you can't bamboozle us that religious faith is not what drives your antagonism to evolution) but just to accept that by and large it explains they way things are far better than any other theory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-01-2012 at 08:08 AM..
Originally Posted by rifleman It seems to be inexplicable, or incomprehensible, to the constant deniers of Evolution that any part of this logical process occurs.
I don't deny all the aspects of Evolution...
Quote:
√ Chance mutations in any organism's genome sequence do occur. We can see this by simple observation. Do you disagree with this 1st observation squall? Yes or No?
No as most mutations do not give an advantage .
Quote:
√ Given the pure chance aspect of this one element of Evolutionary change (i.e.:yes, there are other established mechanisms...], one would expect, in a complex organism, that most changes would therefore be lethal.
Do you disagree with this 2nd observation squall? Yes or No
No ...
Quote:
Purely by statistical probability. As well, the higher, more complex organisms do not usually exist in large numbers, thus their statistical chances for Evolutionary improvement lessen as they become more complex. This does not mean such improvements are not possible, just slower.
Do you disagree with this observation squall? Yes or No?
If you are refering to genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in human geno then I have to say :
Yes !!!
From what I know the change in the DNA code is not a common thing !!
(only in the case of exposure to radiation or harmful chemicals , highly toxic ...etc).
Otherwise I wouldn't have the same DNA code with my ancestors .
Quote:
√ Given the mass number of such reproductive events in the lesser uni- or simple multi-celled organisms, existing as they do in huge numbers in ocean water (10 B per liter, reproducing about once every 24h, and therefore growing exponentially), it's reasonable to predict that any beneficial change would rapidly become dominant, if it offers any sort of reproductive/survival benefit.
Do you disagree with this observation squall? Yes or No?
If you are refering to genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in human geno then I have to say :
Yes .
Quote:
Well, before I waste any more of my time, I need to have your Yes/No answers to the first 3 observations. I can explain each one in more detail if you just don't get it, but if you just plain refuse to participate or give us a simple answer, then why should I, or anyone else, bother to continue?
Do you disagree with this conclusion squall? Yes or No?
I gave you all of your answers ...
Of curse now you will start explaining in in a very loooooong boring mysterious way as all of you always do !!!
As for you to make it look acceptable you have no other way but to do that!!
If you are refering to genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in human geno then I have to say :
Yes !!!
From what I know the change in the DNA code is not a common thing !!
(only in the case of exposure to radiation or harmful chemicals , highly toxic ...etc).
Otherwise I wouldn't have the same DNA code with my ancestors .
If you are refering to genetic mutation which can be seen to increase the information in human geno then I have to say :
Yes .
I gave you all of your answers ...
Of curse now you will start explaining in in a very loooooong boring mysterious way as all of you always do !!!
As for you to make it look acceptable you have no other way but to do that!!
Well, let me explain it in a short and simple way.
Most of the millions of mutations that occur do not result in either advantage or disadvantage. The disadvantages are mostly bred out as they do not help in survival. The few that give an advantage do and become the dominant strain. How can you disagree that a mutation which gives a survival advantage has every chance of becoming the dominant strain?
Radiation DNA mutation is another matter. It is the much more common evolutionary mutation which is the relevant factor here.
Your objections are simply incorrect and invalid. You cannot seriously maintain these objections - they are simply wrong and not in accordance with the facts.
If you can't maintain those (and of course use the 'too long and boring excuse' as I am VERY succinct ) as a reason to persist in your denial of evolution theory, what possible reason can you have for denying that it is perfectly reasonable, feasible and in accordance with the facts?
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
My dear chap, asking searching questions of evolution theory is one (credible) thing. Mocking the answers is another.
Sorry ...
Sometimes you have to use "mocking" in order to deliver the message
Quote:
The points was that the human inherited the ancestor's genes and evolved the human genes. Just as one inherits the mother's genes rather than their own from the mother. Learn from the example and don't make yourself look foolish by saying that you didn't ask about anyone's mother.
Forget about common ancestor & please tell me ...
Is it possible for any creature to has the genes of another creature who does not exist yet ?
Quote:
Sneering at the attempt to give some idea of a common ancestor is unworthy of you, too.
Why ??
Biologist said that there was an animal who had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas !!
I want to know how ?
Why is it unworthy ?
Quote:
If you have had your questions answered, well and good. If you just want to dismiss the pretty sound evidence (far sounder that any other theory) for evolution through mockery and a statement that you don't want to hear any more, that would be unfortunate in opting for faith - based bias over evidence - based reason, and I believe that you are better than that.
I did not mention God once so please leave "Faith ,God" out of it ..
All I did was try to apply some aspects of the theory on simple logic ..
*Genetic mutation in their entirety often fatal , most mutations do not give an advantage ,Even those that are not fatal are disadvantageous .
Of course there are exception but if we assume that the theory of evolution in terms of genetic mutation is right then we should change those informations about mutations .
All the answers were useing the same scientific words which I read 100 times before .
It is not about that ... it is not about how you explan it .. it is about how could that explaning be possible logically and upon normal standards .
Quote:
Can you still find evolution unfeasible after all the questions have been given pretty good answers, I'd say? I'm not asking you to believe it let alone give up belief in God (and you can't bamboozle us that religious faith is not what drives your antagonism to evolution) but just to accept that by and large it explains they way things are far better than any other theory.
Forget about the theory of evolution and convinced me how is it possible for any system to achieve such huge success with such vast number repeatedly again and again depending on rare & random incidents , which in turn "if it it happen" then mustly it would not give any advantge ?
Could you give me an example other than evolution ?
Thank you
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-02-2012 at 08:06 AM..
Sorry ...
Sometimes you have to use "mocking" in order to deliver the message
Point taken, but there is no message, just mocking.
"There was this animal, it was neither a chimpanzee, a human or a gorilla, it had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas"
3 in one ..!!!
It sounds more like hair lotion than an animal !!!"
We all like a laugh, but what's your point here other than sneering at the idea of a common ancestor to primate lines?
Quote:
Forget about common ancestor & please tell me ...
Is it possible for any creature to has the genes of another creature who does not exist yet ?
Well, yes in a way, though of course it would not have the genes which evolve as the genetic element which imparts some evolutionary difference to the future creature.
It's like asking, can any car have the parts of a future car? In a way, all future cars are going to be based on the features of the present ones, but the particular features which make those later cars an improvement won't be in the present ones. Those developed features can stand for the the human genes and the general parts of the present and past cars can represent the general and predominately primate genes. (1)
Quote:
Why ??
Biologist said that there was an animal who had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas !!
I want to know how ?
Why is it unworthy ?
Ok I see your point: you can't understand '3 in one ..!!! and you quip "It sounds more like hair lotion than an animal !!!"
Well, you said it, not us. It in fact isn't gorilla, chimp and human all in one.
Let's say it's like taking the Wright biplane and then looking towards the Cessna, Jumbo jet and stealth bomber. It would be true to say that the biplanes, monoplanes and flying - boats were all ancestors with 90% of the 'genes' of later aircraft, but it is back to front to say that the Biplane was Cessna, airliner and stealth - bomber all in one. Please don't say we are not talking about aircraft. This is an analogy designed to show that humans, chimps and gorillas are based on that earlier common ancestor but that ancestor was more a basic primate but not with the particular and separate genetic adaptations which made those later primate species different from it and from each other.
Quote:
I did not mention God once so please leave "Faith ,God" out of it ..
All I did was try to apply some aspects of the theory on simple logic ..
*Genetic mutation in their entirety often fatal , most mutations do not give an advantage ,Even those that are not fatal are disadvantageous .
Of course there are exception but if we assume that the theory of evolution in terms of genetic mutation is right then we should change those informations about mutations .
All the answers were useing the same scientific words which I read 100 times before .
It is not about that ...
it is not about how you explan it .. it is about how could that explaning be possible logically and upon normal standards.
Ok, no God then. So we can assume you won't be using God- belief or religious faith when all your questions have been answered. In fact they have been, but it's evidently a question of getting you to understand that.
Quote:
Forget about the theory of evolution and convinced me how is it possible for any system to achieve such huge success with such vast number repeatedly again and again depending on rare & random incidents , which in turn "if it it happen" then mustly it would not give any advantge ?
Could you give me an example other than evolution ?
Thank you
Plenty. Let's say that we have a million kids go to school, but only a few end up being president, professor of astronomy or a Nobel - prize- winner. That doesn't mean the educational system isn't working or not worth doing.
In films, fashion, advertising, more drafts end up in the waste - basket than ever make it into the finished product. That doesn't mean that the wastage really isn't efficient or that the process should be scrapped. The final result that is actually used is worth all the effort involved to come up with a worthwhile improvement.
Evolutionary adaptation through natural selection of mutations which give a survival advantage is like that.
(1) in fact that is quite a god analogy for 'mitochondrial eve'. Suppose that, after fifty years of car development we have all the various makes and companies but the Honda Jazz is the best adapted (I get no sponsorship money, honest!) to general use and so the other models and makes get rather abandoned and the Honda company develops other improved models of the Jazz. Mitochondrial Jazz would indeed be the 'Eve' of all the cars in the world, but it would not fit the facts to say that the Jazz was the first and only car. In fact anyone looking at it would have to say 'surely there had to be a lot of development before we got to the Jazz?'
That is the case with mitochondrial Eve. She was not suddenly made up of nothing, Genesis - style. She was one of a long line of primate developments and one of many other pairs. It just happens that hers are the genes which appear to have been the line which gave rise to us as we out- survived all the other groups.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-02-2012 at 10:05 AM..
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Point taken, but there is no message, just mocking.
"There was this animal, it was neither a chimpanzee, a human or a gorilla, it had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas" 3 in one ..!!! It sounds more like hair lotion than an animal !!!"
We all like a laugh, but what's your point here other than sneering at the idea of a common ancestor to primate lines?
Well, yes in a way, though of course it would not have the genes which evolve as the genetic element which imparts some evolutionary difference to the future creature.
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Quote:
Ok I see your point: you can't understand '3 in one ..!!! and you quip "It sounds more like hair lotion than an animal !!!"
Quote:
It's like asking, can any car have the parts of a future car? In a way, all future cars are going to be based on the features of the present ones, but the particular features which make those later cars an improvement won't be in the present ones. Those developed features can stand for the the human genes and the general parts of the present and past cars can represent the general and predominately primate genes. (1)
I see ...
Thanks
Quote:
Well, you said it, not us. It in fact isn't gorilla, chimp and human all in one.
Let's say it's like taking the Wright biplane and then looking towards the Cessna, Jumbo jet and stealth bomber. It would be true to say that the biplanes, monoplanes and flying - boats were all ancestors with 90% of the 'genes' of later aircraft, but it is back to front to say that the Biplane was Cessna, airliner and stealth - bomber all in one. Please don't say we are not talking about aircraft. This is an analogy designed to show that humans, chimps and gorillas are based on that earlier common ancestor but that ancestor was more a basic primate but not with the particular and separate genetic adaptations which made those later primate species different from it and from each other.
Ok ...
Quote:
Ok, no God then. So we can assume you won't be using God- belief or religious faith when all your questions have been answered. In fact they have been, but it's evidently a question of getting you to understand that.
It have been answered but not applied to logic yet ...
Quote:
Plenty. Let's say that we have a million kids go to school, but only a few end up being president, professor of astronomy or a Nobel - prize- winner. That doesn't mean the educational system isn't working or not worth doing.
My dear friend ...
I relly thank you for that example ...
It will lead you to my point .
Please read carefully :
You're talking about a million who produced 2 or 3 Presidents ..
Ok ?
But on the other hand the theory is talking about a President who produced a million Presidents !!
You could be right if human population is decreasing, but in fact it is increasing .. it was & it will always be ...
This thing would never succeed on rare mutations which usually don't give an advantage .
The Quantity here is very important .
Keep in mind that we are talking about a successful process which beginsfrom few to many not the other way around ,A President as a survival advantage ...
so upon that the whole million of kids would end up being presidents & that is logically impossible!!!
I know it could be confusing but if you try to look at it from my angle you will understand my point here .
Quote:
In films, fashion, advertising, more drafts end up in the waste - basket than ever make it into the finished product. That doesn't mean that the wastage really isn't efficient or that the process should be scrapped. The final result that is actually used is worth all the effort involved to come up with a worthwhile improvement.
Again you are referring to let's say 20 hours of footage which ends up in a 2 hours movie .
But the theory is talking about a 2 hours movie which produce a 20 hours of footage & again that is logically impossible !!
Quote:
Evolutionary adaptation through natural selection of mutations which give a survival advantage is like that.
About survival advantage ...
What was humans need to have to be pretty in order to survive ?
Quote:
(1) in fact that is quite a god analogy for 'mitochondrial eve'. Suppose that, after fifty years of car development we have all the various makes and companies but the Honda Jazz is the best adapted (I get no sponsorship money, honest!) to general use and so the other models and makes get rather abandoned and the Honda company develops other improved models of the Jazz. Mitochondrial Jazz would indeed be the 'Eve' of all the cars in the world, but it would not fit the facts to say that the Jazz was the first and only car. In fact anyone looking at it would have to say 'surely there had to be a lot of development before we got to the Jazz?'
So are you saying that Eve could be modern human ancestor but not the very first human female ?
Quote:
That is the case with mitochondrial Eve. She was not suddenly made up of nothing, Genesis - style. She was one of a long line of primate developments and one of many other pairs. It just happens that hers are the genes which appear to have been the line which gave rise to us as we out- survived all the other groups.
It is more logecal for me to understand how an Aircraft company (Eve) could produce all kind of Airplanes (Humans ) than a seafood company( fish )!!!
Keep in mind that our topic is to applied logic on some aspects of evolution theory .
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 04-03-2012 at 06:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
