Human's evolution in the most simple way . (bible, quote, believe)
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.
"This is part of my scientific paper which I discussed with some of my college professors last week" . Of curse with some modification that make it suitable for the forum
Let's try to explan human's evolution in the most simple way .
Natural selection is the basic mechanisms of evolution .
The three most important elements of natural selection are :
1-Mutation ,2-genetic drift,3-Qualities acquired from the environment .
Along with some other least important elements ..
Very simple ...
right ?
Ok ... Once upon a time there was this animal, it was neither a chimpanzee, a human or a gorilla, it had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas .
Just from a hallucination of a young student !!!
How can I have Indian genes before Indians even exist in the world ?
How did this animal has all those different traits ?
Where did it get it from ?
Any way Let's move on & try to apply those 3 elements in a practical way .. 1-Mutation
What is mutaions ?
Mutation is usualy a random chemical change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology .
Clear ??
Ok let's continue ... Over time natural selection gave the members of this group(animal with similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas ) adaptations , for example longer stronger arms .
How could that happene ?
genetic mutation in their entirety often fatal , most mutations do not give an advantage (longer stronger arms),Even those that are not fatal are disadvantageous.
"please wait .. don't rush to explain in 50 sentence with some big mysterious words to impress me". 2-genetic drift As these small adaptations carried on from generation to generation .
Let us reach the maximum limits of imagination & Suppose genetic mutations Produced a good traits (not fatal ) it can not be inherited as mendel law of inheritance said .
We can not build a whole theory on the rare incidents .
"Also don't rush to explain in 100 sentence with some big mysterious words to impress me". 3-Qualities acquired from the environment one group of these early proto-apes lived a lifestyle were intelligence and cunning cleverness” was one of the traits .
(intelligence lifestyle as one of the traits ?!!!! )
Let's see :
intelligence traits which can not be Produced by fatal disadvantageous genetic mutation which also can not be inherited from generation to another !!!
What about qualities acquired from enviroment ?
Well ..
lets put it that way :
Arnold Schwarzenegger son would not born with big Muscles !!!
He must workout !!! The more intelligent individuals produced more offspring until humans reached the intelligence levels we have today.
Nice story but not based on valid science . Once you understand how evolution works, you realize chimps and gorillas are just as “evolved” as we are, it’s just that the environment they evolved in selected different traits .
Since we are of the same type, it is natural to live in the same environment.
If that "common ancestor" story was right then nothing would make us different than chimps & gorillas . chimps and gorillas didn’t need to be clever in order to be a successful species.
But we need it ..
right ?
Why ?
We were living in the same environment .
The whole story doesn't make any sense .
It is not valid nether theoretically or scientifically .
When I subtract (confront ) this idea to my College professor at class he begins to justify it in a very loooooooong boring way until my brain shut down ...
Finaly the students just said : "well ..Your idea make sense but he is a professor .. he must be right" !!! The whole idea of my scientific paper shows that this whole process is not acceptable or logical once you but it in a simple way , That is the reason why every time scientists start to explan they have no other way but to dwelling it & use strange vocabulary in the most mysterious way just to make you look ignorant and can not absorb the topic !!!
In my humble opinion the whole theory was bult on some random rare incidents that contradict with some of the most basic scientific laws .
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 03-27-2012 at 08:19 AM..
As I understand it, you have two questions about or objections to evolution theory
(1) what about disadvantageous mutations?
Evolution works because a particular mutation which gives a survival advantage becomes a feature of that particular strain of the species. They will then become the dominant strain of the species and will hand on that mutation in their genes. A mutation which does not give an advantage (it is probably incorrect to talk of disadvantages or even harmful mutations) will not become apparent and will not play a part in the evolution of the animal.
(2) why aren't environmental changes passed on?
Because mutations which become dominant are in the genes. Thus a mutation that makes a leg more like a fin in a sea mammal will be handed on in the genetic structure, but if a shark bites off a flipper, the offspring won't all have missing flippers as that change is environmental, not genetic.
Any other questions, feel free.
Ah, I see there is one about how or why the human intelligence developed. Let's first point out that some animals are cleverer than others. i note that the cleverer ones tend to have (or had) more organization - dog packs, dolphins and veloceraptors. Primates too have an organized social structure, though they don't hunt in packs, or not now. Yet that advanced social instinct (an instinct is an evolved mental characteristic rather than an evolved physical characteristic) and perhaps it was to do with survival as they had little to protect themselves but their wits.
However is came to be, the primates have the most developed animal intelligence. How we went a bit further I don't know for sure, though I will try to read up, but I suggest that were some serious environmental pressures which favoured the hominids with the mutation that allowed them to think that bit better as well as the physical mutation that allowed them to walk upright for longer periods at the time of the African drought which meant they had to go looking for food and shelter.
I can also see the severe pressure of the Ice age which the Neanderthals were not able to survive. H. sapiens was able to use materials (e.g mammoth ribs and skins to make shelters) and better tools to kill those big beasts and thus managed to survive. I can't explain why a handy mutation didn't help the Neandertalers to survive, but I don't have all the answers.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-27-2012 at 08:44 AM..
AREQUIPA
As I understand it, you have two questions about or objections to evolution theory
Sorry ..
But I really think you misunderstood my point here!!!
It could be my mistake , Maybe I didn't explain it well
Quote:
(1) what about disadvantageous mutations?
Evolution works because a particular mutation which gives a survival advantage becomes a feature of that particular strain of the species. They will then become the dominant strain of the species and will hand on that mutation in their genes. A mutation which does not give an advantage (it is probably incorrect to talk of disadvantages or even harmful mutations) will not become apparent and will not play a part in the evolution of the animal.
I know ...
My point was not about disadvantageous mutations ..
In fact it is the opposite !!!
It is to show that the occurrence of genetic mutations in general is something rare & often fatal & do not give an advantage ...
For example :
Let's say there are 50,000 Ape living at the same environment ...
What is the chance of genetic mutation to occur with a new Characteristics ?
1 % ??
As we know most of it are fatal & do not give an advantage ...
This narrows the ratio more ...
so most of that 1% would not produce good qualities ...
Let's say 3/4 & that leaves us with 1/4 ....
Let alone natural causes such as death emigration etc ..
All those limit the ratio (1/4 ) even more and more ...
So upon that fact then .. "how could such successful process as evolution which produced tens of billions of spices could be driven by rare random incidents mostly fatal & do not give an advantage ??
It's a failure in every sense of the word ...
How could a successful process depends on a failure main factor ?!!
This is something mathematically and theoretically and practically impossible !!!
Did you get the point here ?
Quote:
(2) why aren't environmental changes passed on?
Because mutations which become dominant are in the genes. Thus a mutation that makes a leg more like a fin in a sea mammal will be handed on in the genetic structure, but if a shark bites off a flipper, the offspring won't all have missing flippers as that change is environmental, not genetic.
I know ...
We do not disagree here ...
That is exactly what I said :
Quote:
squall-lionheart
it can not be inherited as Mendel law of inheritance said
Quote:
Ah, I see there is one about how or why the human intelligence developed. Let's first point out that some animals are cleverer than others. i note that the cleverer ones tend to have (or had) more organization - dog packs, dolphins and veloceraptors. Primates too have an organized social structure, though they don't hunt in packs, or not now. Yet that advanced social instinct (an instinct is an evolved mental characteristic rather than an evolved physical characteristic) and perhaps it was to do with survival as they had little to protect themselves but their wits.
However is came to be, the primates have the most developed animal intelligence. How we went a bit further I don't know for sure, though I will try to read up, but I suggest that were some serious environmental pressures which favoured the hominids with the mutation that allowed them to think that bit better as well as the physical mutation that allowed them to walk upright for longer periods at the time of the African drought which meant they had to go looking for food and shelter.
I can also see the severe pressure of the Ice age which the Neanderthals were not able to survive. H. sapiens was able to use materials (e.g mammoth ribs and skins to make shelters) and better tools to kill those big beasts and thus managed to survive. I can't explain why a handy mutation didn't help the Neandertalers to survive, but I don't have all the answers.
Interesting ..
But not factual ...
Quote:
AREQUIPA
How we went a bit further I don't know for sure
Quote:
AREQUIPA
I can't explain why
I admire your honesty ..
So let's leave it that way for now ...
Thanks alot for your reply.
I really appreciate it .
Last edited by squall-lionheart; 03-28-2012 at 08:11 AM..
"how could such successful process as evolution which produced tens of billions of spices could be driven by rare random incidents mostly fatal & do not give an advantage ??
It's a failure in every sense of the word ...
How could a successful process depends on a failure main factor ?!!
Evolution doesn't happen just by random mutations.
Do you understand what natural selection is? It is based on variation in traits, differential reproduction, heredity and fitness. Here's a basic explanation with illustrations:
"This is part of my scientific paper which I discussed with some of my college professors last week" . Of curse with some modification that make it suitable for the forum
Let's try to explan human's evolution in the most simple way .
Natural selection is the basic mechanisms of evolution .
The three most important elements of natural selection are :
1-Mutation ,2-genetic drift,3-Qualities acquired from the environment .
Along with some other least important elements ..
Very simple ...
right ?
Ok ... Once upon a time there was this animal, it was neither a chimpanzee, a human or a gorilla, it had similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas .
Just from a hallucination of a young student !!!
How can I have Indian genes before Indians even exist in the world ?
The ancestor of Indians, who has many Indian genes, is still not quite Indian yet, unless you think that the first humans were Indians.
Quote:
How did this animal has all those different traits ?
Where did it get it from ?
It received its traits from its ancestors. It attained them by natural selection and mutations.
Quote:
Any way Let's move on & try to apply those 3 elements in a practical way .. 1-Mutation
What is mutaions ?
Mutation is usualy a random chemical change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology .
Clear ??
Ok let's continue ... Over time natural selection gave the members of this group(animal with similar traits to humans, chimps, and gorillas ) adaptations , for example longer stronger arms .
How could that happene ?
genetic mutation in their entirety often fatal , most mutations do not give an advantage (longer stronger arms),Even those that are not fatal are disadvantageous.
Well, every human has over 100 mutations. There are 40 generation between Adam and Jesus according to the bible. So by that time, Jesus would have added about 4,000 mutations. Actually it is somewhat less because natural selection will tend to weed out bad mutations, but if every person is really having 100 mutations each, it is impossible to get people without bad mutations everywhere.
Now take into account that we have 20,000 genes.
I guess Jesus is lucky that not one of his 4000 mutations were non-fatal.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,509,244 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
Evolution doesn't happen just by random mutations.
Do you understand what natural selection is? It is based on variation in traits, differential reproduction, heredity and fitness. Here's a basic explanation with illustrations:
1. How much the "learned" (observation of uses of) Technology has affected the evolution of ape to man? I believe some apes do uses tools (sticks for the most part) to get at some food sources. So I don't believe it too far of a leap that some of our ancestors could have figured out how to use some other tools to use to get at other food sources. Ex. using stones to get a bone marrow from an animal carcass that seems stripped of most of it meat. (Btw I believe chimps have been known to kill and eat other monkeys. so meat is on the menu.)
2. If some apes changed their diet from mostly vegetable matter to either a more protein/fat based diet or omnivore diet. How would this effect the possible route(s) for evolution for ape to man?
Last edited by baystater; 03-28-2012 at 09:55 AM..
Sorry ..
But I really think you misunderstood my point here!!!
It could be my mistake , Maybe I didn't explain it well
I know ...
My point was not about disadvantageous mutations ..
In fact it is the opposite !!!
It is to show that the occurrence of genetic mutations in general is something rare & often fatal & do not give an advantage ...
For example :
Let's say there are 50,000 Ape living at the same environment ...
What is the chance of genetic mutation to occur with a new Characteristics ?
1 % ??
As we know most of it are fatal & do not give an advantage ...
This narrows the ratio more ...
so most of that 1% would not produce good qualities ...
Let's say 3/4 & that leaves us with 1/4 ....
Let alone natural causes such as death emigration etc ..
All those limit the ratio (1/4 ) even more and more ...
So upon that fact then .. "how could such successful process as evolution which produced tens of billions of spices could be driven by rare random incidents mostly fatal & do not give an advantage ??
It's a failure in every sense of the word ...
How could a successful process depends on a failure main factor ?!!
This is something mathematically and theoretically and practically impossible !!!
Did you get the point here ?
I know ...
We do not disagree here ...
That is exactly what I said :
Interesting ..
But not factual ...
I admire your honesty ..
So let's leave it that way for now ...
Thanks alot for your reply.
I really appreciate it .
Perhaps there is a need for a couple more comments. I couldn't let you walk off thinking that you had proved that statistically mutation cannot function as a mechanism for evolution. Nor that not knowing just what ecological niche became available means that there is no evidence. There is evidence to suggest what factors provided the need for an evolution step, but it would be wrong of me to say that I knew for certain.
Mutations are not that rare. Talk origins posted: "humans have about 1.6 mutations per generation. This is likely an underestimate, because mutations with very small effect are easy to miss in the studies. Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has about 64 new mutations (Drake et al. 1998). Another estimate concludes 175 mutations per generation, including at least 3 deleterious mutations (Nachman and Crowell 2000)."
It is not true (as I said before) that most are 'fatal' unless you mean that most do not provide an advantage since the opportunities are not always there. I can imagine that out of a few thousand primates over a few thousand years it is not improbable that one had the mutation to take advantage. Note that chimps can walk or at least wade after a fashion. The capacity was already there. The species was lucky in having the mutation to enable one strain to walk far enough to be able to find new forage and survive.
Now I take your point that I am making suggestions rather than stating fact, but don't run off with the idea that it is all fantasy. There is hard evidence for bipedalism being developed in primates. Speculation about how mutations contributed to that is does not alter that hard evidence that somehow it did.
It seems to me that this idea you have that success cannot come out of a majority of failures is unsupportable. In fact, when you think of it, in many areas of progress, out of thousands of unsuccessful attempts, it only takes one to become the pattern of success.
Bear in mind that there is so much evidence in support of evolution having happened, that natural selection is the mechanism and that genetic mutation the means to make it work, that it is simply perverse to reject all that on the basis of what details are not yet known or can only be surmised since we can't go back in time and see for ourselves.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-28-2012 at 10:50 AM..
1. How much the "learned" (observation of uses of) Technology has affected the evolution of ape to man? I believe some apes do uses tools (sticks for the most part) to get at some food sources. So I don't believe it too far of a leap that some of our ancestors could have figured out how to use some other tools to use to get at other food sources. Ex. using stones to get a bone marrow from an animal carcass that seems stripped of most of it meat. (Btw I believe chimps have been known to kill and eat other monkeys. so meat is on the menu.)
2. If some apes changed their diet from mostly vegetable matter to either a more protein/fat based diet or omnivore diet. How would this effect the possible route(s) for evolution for ape to man?
There are many sites dealing with tool use but L-Squall likes it keps simple, so I picked this one relating to tool use and the development of society.
"A tool may be defined as an object used to facilitate some task or activity. A distinction must be made between simple tool use and tool making, which involves deliberate modification of some material for its intended use.
Examples:
use of stalks of grass to collect termites
use of leaves as wipes or sponges to get water out of a hollow to drink
use of rocks as hammers and anvils to open palm nuts and hard fruits
In the wild, gorillas do not make or use tools in any significant way, but chimpanzees do. Chimps modify objects to make them suitable for particular purposes. They can also pick up and even prepare objects for future use at some other location, and they can use objects as tools to solve new and novel problems.
To minimize actual violence and to defuse potentially dangerous situations, there is an array of affiliative, or friendly, behaviors that serve to reinforce bonds between individuals and enhance group stability. Common affiliative behaviors include reconciliation, consolation, and simple interactions between friends and relatives.
Most such behaviors involve various forms of physical contact including touching, hand holding, hugging, and, among chimpanzees, kissing. In fact, physical contact is one of the most important factors in primate development and is crucial in promoting peaceful relationships in many primate social groups.
One of the most notable primate activities is grooming, the ritual cleaning of another animal's coat to remove parasites, shreds of grass or other matter. Among bonobos and chimps, grooming is a gesture of friendliness, submission, appeasement or closeness.
I can imagine the advantages the widening the diet to make best use of resources, especially is they were getting scarce or there was more competition or it was more dangerous to go looking (I note that climate change leading to less foliage suitable for ambush was a factor in the extinction of the sabre- tooth tiger). The change in diet would lead to the teeth and jaw becoming less carnivorous and more human.
But Squall would say I am just guessing and don't know. I say that the evidence in that this happens and mutation has to be the mechanism. That I don't know all the details of the genetic workings does not alter that, but of course, if I can find some explanation I shall post it.
"Fossil evidence suggests that the earliest Primates evolved from small insectivores, initially attracted into the canopy by pollinating insects.
primates use long-term memory and planning to lower the costs associated with seeking out the best foods in the forest canopy, and because the foods they eat are of relatively high quality, elaborate digestive specialization generally is not required to digest them efficiently. A few lineages of primates do show fairly elaborate digestive specializations. These lineagess for example, the Colobinae or "leaf-eating" monkeysave diets composed in large part of leaves, including many mature leaves that tend to be low in nutrients and hard to digest.(Arq comment. Of course the monkey did not go to find the plants that it could eat, but its digestive tracts adapted to suit the food available. To deal with the fish cannot breath irreducible complexity objection, no doubt the monkeys had other foods to eat but the one that dad a mutation which would assist in digesting the leaves as well as fruit and insects would gain a great survival advantage)
The common ancestor giving rise both to apes and humans is likewise believed to have been primarily plant-eating. All humans and apes have the same basic digestive tract simple acid stomach, a small intestine, a tiny cecum, and a sacculated (folded) large intestine (or colon), though the human small intestine is longer and the human colon smaller than is the case for apes. Humans and apes also show the same pattern of food digestion, indicating that, biologically, in terms of gut form and function, humans have departed little from the ancestral condition. But, unlike apes, humans eat a wide range of different foods and have many different types of diets. What factors may have contributed to this difference between humans and apes?
Some 3 million years ago, before the first evidence of human beings, we know that climatic changes caused the vegetation in many areas of Africa to shift from tropical forest to more open savanna vegetation. This produced notable changes in the types of plant foods available in these environments. In particular, finding sufficient high-quality plant foods throughout the year probably would have been difficult for a large apelike primate such as those we envision as prehuman ancestors. One solution to this problem would be to try and find some other source of high-quality food. Animal foods are such a source: they are very high quality and, because of the huge herds of grazing and browsing animals in the African savanna, animal foods are far more abundant than is the case in the tropical forest canopy.
The association of stone tools with the earliest fossil evidence for human beings (genus Homo, species Homo habilis) suggests that early humans began to include animal as well as plant foods in the diet. Rather than just being an occasional food, as is the case for chimpanzees or other apes, meat and other animal products (tongue, bone marrow, brains, fat) appear to have become an integral part of the daily human diet. Initially, the earliest humans may have lived as scavengers and relied on meat from kills abandoned by carnivores. But increasing numbers of stone tools and processed mammal bones in the archaeological record suggest that humans gradually turned to the hunting of larger animals.
The evolution of humans actually follows the common primate trajectoryhat is, using brain power to resolve many important dietary problems. Morphologically, humans lack the huge jaws, massive teeth, and sharp claws of true carnivores. But their increasingly large and complex brains permitted early humans to substitute technology for carnivore teeth and claws and use tools and creative intellectual solutions to capture and prepare their animal and plant foods for consumption.
early humans developed a unique form of food acquisition characterized by a division of labor. Typically, male members of the social unit sought animal prey while female members sought out higher-quality plant foods." http://www.enotes.com/animals-primat...-primate-diets
Arq theorises....And the ladies were the ones who invented crop - farming, settled community and in due course, civilization. Men's hunting skills became less important and for a while matriarchs dominated with female fertility goddesses. Then men invented war and sky - gods and have been using those to assert their dominance ever since.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-28-2012 at 11:18 AM..
This was a "scientific" paper? In my world you would be kicked out of my class, and to another that teaches the very basics of evolution. My grandkids know more about evolution than you do.
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.
There is hard evidence for bipedalism being developed in primates. Speculation about how mutations contributed to that is does not alter that hard evidence that somehow it did.
