Human's evolution in the most simple way . (America, Muslim, divorce)
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.
The theory of evolution has become to biologists like Israel to the western media !!
[color=indigo]If you even dare to questione it you become [color=indigo]automatically an outcast
Hey, look. Someone who thinks there's a vast conspiracy to promote evolution instead of "real" science also believes there's a world-wide conspiracy of Jews trying to take over the world. Color me unsurprised.
I wouldn't even dare to hand in something like that as a scientific paper. Do you really think you know more about biology than your professor and the other ~ 98% of biologists who accept evolution? The arrogance of some religious believers never fails to amaze me. 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
On a subject such as evolution, any theory/opinion is worth the scientific community's attention. It can only be proven by the fossil record, and to date, less than one percent of the fossil record has been unearthed. That leaves 99 percent of the proof still in the ground.
Mutation almost certainly did play a large part of the development of species. Early life did not have the social structure and codes of conduct we enjoy today. Mutations were far more likely, and came along far more often than they do today. The first mutation would be considered a "freak of nature", but when it reproduces, it becomes a mutation. When the mutation takes over dominance of the species, it becomes the norm.
Mutations can take 3 possible directions. The first would be to advance evolution. Improvements of strength, agility, or intellect increase the chances of the species survival. A side-step, where it doesn't actually improve anything, just makes it a bit different. Or it could retard evolution. It could, effectively, be a step backward. That would generally not survive well. It seems that the greater the ability to reason, the better the chances of survival of the species.
Man's history on this earth is filled with "dead ends" that did not survive. We know about them, but we do not have enough information to say why the species did not survive. For more than a century, the demise of Neanderthal has been debated. Only recently, has science been able to show that they may have been absorbed into the mainstream of society so that they are still with us today.
So, any theory about evolution is worth looking at, and many of them are also worth investigating. I'm sure you've heard the saying: "Out of the mouths of babes."
(Signpost.) Look, I'm sorry you're confused, but it isn't difficult. It's like a road that splits into three other roads (Gorilla ave, Chimp lane and Human drive). Human Drive itself splits into other roads. It isn't as foxy as your little cartoon seems to show.
Quote:
It have been answered but not applied to logic yet ...
Quote:
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 .
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 !!
In the analogy, the 2 hour film which results is copied into thousands of copies, DVD's, videos, books, spin - off remakes, TV adaptations...
As to the president, one president can have a lot of descendents.
And I don't see how you still refuse to accept that the few mutations which do give an advantage would be selected naturally to be the dominant strain.
Of course, the president analogy only goes so far because human society does not (any more) choose a dominant male and make him the breeder of as many offspring as possible. The analogy was only intended to address your point that such a selection system was inefficcient. It was not intended to be an explanation of the subsequent progress of evolution, though car manufacture has some elements in common.
I could find an analogy of the tough conditions imposed by the Saharan drought and the Ice age which took out the other hominid strains, but too many analogies will just confuse you. And you seem rather over- willing to declare yourself confused.
I'll just mention that a million president's kids will not all end up being president because the one who will (or should) end up being president is the one who (thanks to another mutation -remember this is just an analogy of natural selection) would have to get an advantage over all those others.
Quote:
About survival advantage ...
What was humans need to have to be pretty in order to survive ?
As to pretty, it is logical that our instincts drive us to select mates which will be the most suitable to continue the species. I once saw a programme where women tended to select men with wider necks as this indicated a healthy specimen. I also have a theory that an interest in racially different partners is also an inherited evolutionary trait.
Quote:
So are you saying that Eve could be modern human ancestor but not the very first human female ?
he Mitochondrial 'Eve' hypothesis does (as I understand it) suggest that her genetic offpring spread all over the world, though she her elf was the descendent of her own ancestors all the way back to the common ancestor - the 'hairlotion chimp' as you may recall .
Now, I have some reservations about that theory though it is what the evidence suggests at this time - there may be further evidence and rethinks as there always is with evolution - theory. That's how science works. My mention was an aside to show how the term 'Eve' does not indicate a first- ever woman, but a postulated ancestor (as you say) whose genes we all have (in addition to a lot of other later developed ones)
Quote:
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 .
The aircraft or car company is a better analogy as deliberate selection of advantages is an element analogous to natural selection. A sea-food company doesn't operate that way, but markets whatever it can sell. There is an element of selection in producing and marketing seafood, but it would confuse you to explain how one could fit it into an analogy of evolution. These analogies are only to get over an idea - not to prove something. The evidence is in the field of evolution, not in the analogy.
On a subject such as evolution, any theory/opinion is worth the scientific community's attention. It can only be proven by the fossil record, and to date, less than one percent of the fossil record has been unearthed. That leaves 99 percent of the proof still in the ground.
Mutation almost certainly did play a large part of the development of species. Early life did not have the social structure and codes of conduct we enjoy today. Mutations were far more likely, and came along far more often than they do today. The first mutation would be considered a "freak of nature", but when it reproduces, it becomes a mutation. When the mutation takes over dominance of the species, it becomes the norm.
Mutations can take 3 possible directions. The first would be to advance evolution. Improvements of strength, agility, or intellect increase the chances of the species survival. A side-step, where it doesn't actually improve anything, just makes it a bit different. Or it could retard evolution. It could, effectively, be a step backward. That would generally not survive well. It seems that the greater the ability to reason, the better the chances of survival of the species.
Man's history on this earth is filled with "dead ends" that did not survive. We know about them, but we do not have enough information to say why the species did not survive. For more than a century, the demise of Neanderthal has been debated. Only recently, has science been able to show that they may have been absorbed into the mainstream of society so that they are still with us today.
So, any theory about evolution is worth looking at, and many of them are also worth investigating. I'm sure you've heard the saying: "Out of the mouths of babes."
very well said
Thank you AREQUIPA for keep on responding to my posts I really appreciate it
My eyes are killing me I can not continue today .
Will continue tomorrow
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,512,471 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by squall-lionheart
The theory of evolution has become to biologists like Israel to the western media !!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Hey, look. Someone who thinks there's a vast conspiracy to promote evolution instead of "real" science also believes there's a world-wide conspiracy of Jews trying to take over the world. Color me unsurprised.
good catch KC I didn't even see that.
So Squall-lionheart I'm intriqued.....Please enlighent me on your corrolation between biologist/evolution and Israel/western media?
While I can't speak for others. I promise I won't pass any personal judgment on any of your thoughts on this. Though I might have more questions.
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Hey, look. Someone who thinks there's a vast conspiracy to promote evolution instead of "real" science
Biology Uncovered: Haeckel's Diagrams - YouTube All comments :
They have them in my 2010 text book!!
And whilst it says that haeckels drawings were found to be false. It downplays this fact and still attempts to state that his hypothesis was / is correct without his main source of proof....
Thats not science, its propaganda Gilbertus1986 1 year ago
Quote:
also believes there's a world-wide conspiracy of Jews trying to take over the world. Color me unsurprised.
You should learn how to stand behind what you believe in ...
I do, and I believe in (or more accurately, I accept) the theory of evolution
Quote:
They want to keep their jobs ...
Quote:
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 !!
I did not mention religion or God in my thread !!
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 .
I am currently writing a paper about Orientalism vs. Occidentalism (actually, right now I'm taking a 10-minute break from my research ) and your comment reminds me of something I just read:
"Misdiagnosis of what is "Western" can take a heavy toll by undermining the support for democracy or liberty in the non-Western world. It can, in addition, help to undermine the understanding of objectivity in science and knowledge, on some alleged ground of the need to be adequately skeptical of "Western science". - Sen, A. (2006). Identity and Violence. The Illusion of Destiny.
On a subject such as evolution, any theory/opinion is worth the scientific community's attention. It can only be proven by the fossil record, and to date, less than one percent of the fossil record has been unearthed. That leaves 99 percent of the proof still in the ground.
So, any theory about evolution is worth looking at, and many of them are also worth investigating. I'm sure you've heard the saying: "Out of the mouths of babes."
No, it's not. The opinion of someone who clearly does not understand even the basics of that which he is criticizing is absolutely worthless to the scientific community. I don't engage in debates about quantum mechanics or astrophysics because I know I don't have sufficient knowledge to contribute anything to the debate, let alone to correct professionals in these fields. If you think you found evidence that categorically disproves evolution, you should operate under the assumption that this is the result of your own biological illiteracy and not some piece of brilliance mysteriously overlooked by everyone in academia for the last two centuries.
"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 .
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.
. 
I can not continue today .
