Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Can Evolution Be A Fact?


Abiyoyo

Recommended Posts

Abi - you seem to be missing something vital in your questioning. All animals evolve to exploit environmental niches. If an animal has progressed to the point where it is perfectly exploiting an environmental niche - and by "perfectly exploiting" I mean that the animal is deriving maximum reproductive capacity, species survival, and nourishment from that niche with little or no viable competition for the available resources - then the environmental pressure to adapt more perfectly stops, and the animal stops evolving, for all intents and purposes. Cockroaches are one example of an evolutionary stasis. Horseshoe crabs are another. They haven't evolved for a long, long time because they have not needed to evolve.

 

When humans began to branch off from the other primates, the environmental pressure was pretty strong. There were a lot of animals competing for the same resources, and each type of animal was pursuing a different evolutionary "strategy" for obtaining those resources. Some of our cousins pursued the strategy of being large and powerful enough to defend their food and turf. They were the ancestors of the Gorilla. Others pursued the strategy of being quick and agile climbers. They were the ancestors of a number of species of monkey. Still other pursued a combination of agility and intelligence. They were the ancestors of chimps and Bonobos, among others.

 

At least two population groups were differentiated by focusing primarily on intelligence combined with bipedal locomotion. One of these was the ancestor of Homo Sapiens. The other was the ancestor of the Neanderthals. Homo Sapiens turned out to be the better adapted of the two, possibly because the shape of our mouths and larynx gave us the ability to develop language.

 

Along the way, countless population groups wandered off into evolutionary dead-ends and became extinct. Other groups found a "perfect fit" in their niche early on, and stopped evolving due to lack of environmental pressure. Humans, by pursuing brain over brawn, were forced to become far more intelligent than any other animal in order to survive at all. We can't run very fast, our teeth and fingernails are lousy weapons, and we can't climb very well. All we can do is out-think our adversaries or die. This created pressure to become more and more intelligent as well as manually dexterous, linguistically complex, and even pushed us to increase the available nutrition in our food by cooking it before eating.

 

The reason that Bonobos have not become more similar to humans is that they adapted well to their niche earlier than we did, and had no need to continue developing such things as intelligence, speech, weaponry and the like. They fit their environmental conditions quite well.

 

Humans lucked out on the evolution sweepstakes. We developed sufficient intelligence to make up for our physical shortcomings - and it turns out that this is the evolutionary strategy needed to become the most successful animal on the planet. But make no mistake - if primates had not been the group whose environment pushed their genes to explore this strategy, some other group would have. Flightless birds, perhaps, or cetaceans.

 

Asking "why aren't bonobos more like people" is no different from asking "why aren't cockroaches more like people?" The answer to both questions is the same: because they don't need to be.

 

The more compelling question is, "why are bonobos so similar to people?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Abiyoyo

    43

  • Shyone

    18

  • Ouroboros

    6

  • par4dcourse

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

. . . and now I see that Shy has answered in far fewer words. :Doh:

 

Writer's Syndrome: never use a sentence when an essay will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . and now I see that Shy has answered in far fewer words. :Doh:

 

Writer's Syndrome: never use a sentence when an essay will do.

Quite frankly, after reading your reply, I was going to say:

 

"Yeah, what he said. That's what I meant."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about the myelin in the brain compared to primates? Do you think this affects their overall intelligence?

Is the myelin different in the apes? I didn't know that. If you're right, then sure, why not. Perhaps the ability to form very complex synaptic connections is different in the human brain, and that's why our intelligence has gone so much further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most peculiar thing is that I can't really understand what Abiyoyo's problem is. He seems to be saying that if they are like us, then why aren't they US. Why don't they build cities or have elections or make long term plans?

 

On it's face, that kind of question is naive and silly because they aren't human, but he doesn't understand why they didn't evolve in the same way. It's as though every species subjected to the same types of stresses would evolve in the same way, so they should have evolved along with us.

Right.

 

If they had evolved just like us, then we would hear the question: why aren't they just dumb apes anymore? Where did the dumb apes go?

 

And if they had died out, then the question would be: where is the missing link?

 

You damned if you have it, and you're damned if you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you think about the myelin in the brain compared to primates? Do you think this affects their overall intelligence?

Is the myelin different in the apes? I didn't know that. If you're right, then sure, why not. Perhaps the ability to form very complex synaptic connections is different in the human brain, and that's why our intelligence has gone so much further.

The best study I could find on myelin and neuronal subtypes suggests that apes and humans are the same, but old world monkeys are different.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14685003

Due to these scaling trends, the region of orofacial representation of primary motor cortex in great apes and humans is characterized by a greater proportion of neurons enriched in neurofilament protein and parvalbumin compared to the Old World monkeys examined.

 

 

So...

 

Some monkeys are different from other monkeys. Meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the difference is coded in the small section of DNA which is different between humans and chimps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

IOW, they don't need big brains to do what they do where they do it, and more intelligence has not proven to be necessary for their continued existence (assuming some apes are smarter than others). For humans, the strength that other species need has not been a requirement for survival.

 

 

 

Then by your logic, the human tribes that still exist in the jungles around the world are really apes under cover? The tribesmen do not have need to travel? Are you suggesting that the evolved man started evolving, changing into 'human' from ape to return have evolved into the jungle?

 

Doesn't make much sense does it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So...

 

Some monkeys are different from other monkeys. Meh.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/speakingbonobo.html

Here is an experiment that went on with Bonobos in which I assume is related to the experiments on rats increased brain weight by about 10%, and increased neural tissue in the part of the brain that processed the experience.

 

The point is that though there may be an increase in certain aspects neurologically, they will not push past the neurological makeup of an ape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yadda, yadda, yadda. you know nothing about evolution. buy some science books and study then you might learn something.

 

how can evolution NOT be true? It is closer to the truth than the pipe dream of Jesus, god and heaven and hell.

 

I am not saying evolution isn't true. I do believe we have evolved into what we are today by evolution. It's the premise that we evolved from primates that baffles me. I have been reading and studying, and have read a great deal on the matter.

 

What are your thoughts other than rhetoric?

 

I wanted to add Heretic that the logic of something just 'poof' appearing without any hard evidence, 'hard' evidence; is just the same as believing God poofed everything into being. :HaHa:

 

You did not read far enough. People are not descended from apes and primates. We are descended from a common ancestor that also evolved into primates and apes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This created pressure to become more and more intelligent as well as manually dexterous, linguistically complex, and even pushed us to increase the available nutrition in our food by cooking it before eating.

 

 

:twitch: Most essential nutrients are diminished when you cook food instead of eating it raw. We cook meat because it contains bacteria/sickness in the blood of whatever animal you cook. Hence, why we thoroughly have to cook pig products.

 

Plus, don't you know that humans aren't equipped to eat meat, the intestines are shorter in humans than all the other meat eating animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yadda, yadda, yadda. you know nothing about evolution. buy some science books and study then you might learn something.

 

how can evolution NOT be true? It is closer to the truth than the pipe dream of Jesus, god and heaven and hell.

 

I am not saying evolution isn't true. I do believe we have evolved into what we are today by evolution. It's the premise that we evolved from primates that baffles me. I have been reading and studying, and have read a great deal on the matter.

 

What are your thoughts other than rhetoric?

 

I wanted to add Heretic that the logic of something just 'poof' appearing without any hard evidence, 'hard' evidence; is just the same as believing God poofed everything into being. :HaHa:

 

You did not read far enough. People are not descended from apes and primates. We are descended from a common ancestor that also evolved into primates and apes.

 

Well, that is the poof part. The common ancestor branched. One evolves into human, the other into primate. Right? All kinds of theories of 'how' that happened. Two alone have been mentioned in this thread. Environmental factors, forcibly having to gain intelligence and the possibility that we developed different physical attributes regarding human language and communication.

 

But, they are educated guesses at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know why the hell I'm not a fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This created pressure to become more and more intelligent as well as manually dexterous, linguistically complex, and even pushed us to increase the available nutrition in our food by cooking it before eating.

 

 

Most essential nutrients are diminished when you cook food instead of eating it raw. We cook meat because it contains bacteria/sickness in the blood of whatever animal you cook. Hence, why we thoroughly have to cook pig products.

 

This is completely false. Cooking makes nutrients far more accessible by doing much of the work of breaking down complex molecules into forms we can use. With raw foods, this work is done by chewing and stomach acids.

 

You have been misinformed. Here's a study on the subject, if you're interested.

 

Plus, don't you know that humans aren't equipped to eat meat, the intestines are shorter in humans than all the other meat eating animals.

 

Again, you are misinformed. We can digest raw or cooked meat. Sashimi is delicious. We have, however, physically adapted to our diet of cooked food.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

IOW, they don't need big brains to do what they do where they do it, and more intelligence has not proven to be necessary for their continued existence (assuming some apes are smarter than others). For humans, the strength that other species need has not been a requirement for survival.

 

 

 

Then by your logic, the human tribes that still exist in the jungles around the world are really apes under cover? The tribesmen do not have need to travel? Are you suggesting that the evolved man started evolving, changing into 'human' from ape to return have evolved into the jungle?

 

Doesn't make much sense does it?

You are confusing style of living with evolution. The mental evolution of man took place under very primitive conditions; just different from the apes. Compare the brains of humans living in primitive conditions and, to the extent they are the same this argues for being the same species (not to mention reproductive compatibility).

 

I'll grant you that with genetic isolation, individual populations of humans would eventually develop different species, but we do not currently have genetic isolation and the admixture of DNA from different races ensures that we will have continued compatibility for eons to come. That isn't to say that, in the few million years since homo sapiens has become a single independent species, there haven't been "varieties" of humans. These are the ethnic differences that might be the harbingers of different species had the process of genetic isolation continued indefinitely.

 

You could put an ape in the city, but he would still be an ape. If you left him in the city with plenty of ape poontang and lots of time, he would become something else.

 

Incidentally, evolution is not unidirectional. It is possible that species could evolve into something well suited for an ecologic niche but poorly suited for anything else. Pandas are a good example of a mammalian species that has become so specialized that not having enough eucalyptus would doom them.

 

DON'T FORGET THE TIME REQUIRED. Is that clear enough for you? Civilization is maybe 10,000 years old. Evolution takes hundreds of thousands or even millions of years for major species that reproduce slowly - including primates.

 

The evolutionary pressures, including reproductive pressures, on humans living within modern civilization is perhaps different from that of people living in isolated primitive conditions and - IN TIME - that would result in the development of new species provided 1) there are differential pressures applied that favor different features or mutations and 2) genetic isolation prevented the introduction of genes into the population.

 

IOW, your argument is premature. You have an inkling, but you are overlooking major ingredients in the picture. It's as though you expect two people to walk into different rooms and "evolve." It isn't JUST genetic isolation. The process is complicated. Do you intentionally simplify it so that you can't understand it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to know why the hell I'm not a fish.

It's a weird thing - and here I go on another tangent.

 

We carry with us the ancient seas from which our ancestors slithered and evolved many eons ago. Our blood has salts and our cells are bathed in these salts, and life is merely the exercise of using energy to create potential differences between cells and serum. Skin is the bag we use to carry around our fish tank.

 

Our ontogeny suggests that we still have the genes for gills, although they are suppressed during fetal maturation. We are vertebrates, just like our fish ancestors (who developed this means of structural support contrary to other species that were around that used exoskeletons).

 

We are descendents of fish, and they are our relatives. And they are delicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You have been misinformed. Here's a study on the subject, if you're interested.

 

:rolleyes: I can got to the raw food sites and they say the opposite.

 

 

Again, you are misinformed. We can digest raw or cooked meat. Sashimi is delicious. We have, however, physically adapted to our diet of cooked food.

 

Yes, we can digest it, after time. John Wayne ring a bell? Why haven't our intestines evolved to deal with our new habit of cooking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Snopes ring a bell?

 

Jesus Fucking Christ, Yoyo. You're arguing with an MD about digestion.

 

That's like arguing with me about hydraulics or diesel engines- you'll lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Snopes ring a bell?

 

Jesus Fucking Christ, Yoyo. You're arguing with an MD about digestion.

 

That's like arguing with me about hydraulics or diesel engines- you'll lose.

 

:lmao: Good read Iskerbibel! Best of the week for me. I actually thought that steak and all blocked the intestines! :Doh:

 

Okay, Wayne out. Proof in. The details somehow were argued but the frame of my point is still not answered. Nobody can tell me what 'hard evidence' that doesn't eventually come under 'skepticism' or is filed away as a hypothesis for the evolution of ape to human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how much information one researches within the parameters of the evolution of human beings; the unknown and hypothesis of why human beings are indeed uniquely different from our common ape ancestor are at best an educated guess.

 

I admit the question of, If God is the creator, Couldn't He have made both ,but made humans unique in thought and reason as we are, in the mentioned image of God, not necessarily in a physical aspect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact of the matter is that regardless of how much information one researches within the parameters of the evolution of human beings; the unknown and hypothesis of why human beings are indeed uniquely different from our common ape ancestor are at best an educated guess.

Yes, humans are "uniquely different" (redundant much?), but so is the chimp/bonobo complex, as well as gorillas and orangutans. Each is "uniquely different." I'm guessing by your use of such a ridiculously redundant phrase you are trying to say that H. sapiens is more different from the other primates than they are from each other. Well, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas. As for the "educated guess," good thing what we have educating us are fossils showing primates with an increasingly upright position and an increase in brain capacity. :scratch:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<snip for trying to sound really really smart and belittle the discussion>>

 

Well, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

As for the "educated guess," good thing what we have educating us are fossils showing primates with an increasingly upright position and an increase in brain capacity. :scratch:

 

:thanks: What is you point again? Have you read the thread or did you just respond to the last post you saw?

 

What do you think of the experiments being done on Bonobos? Should they have begun to show more signs of relevance to humans experience by now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans have the capacity to plan, long in advance, and I think the only other stunner of the primates was the Santino chimp that makes piles of rocks for the next day to throw at people coming into the zoo.

 

Animals have the capacity to think long term also; being able to plan in the long term ensures survival. Shoring up food in preparation for winter is not just instinctual because the older animals know (from experience) exactly how much to store and in what conditions.

 

 

This is really pathetic. Humans didn't evolve from primates. We are primates.

 

I believe we are still classified as ape. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Then why haven't they adapted the same as tribal humans?

 

If you are talking about societal order and having a hierarchy, our primate cousins have just that. They may not build towering structures, but they do build elaborate nests and have social order just like humans. In fact, most social animals (animals that live in groups) have some sort of pecking order.

 

Instead of just assuming humans are the top of the ladder and are the pinnacle of life, if you just study the behaviors of animals, you will find that we are not solely unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You have been misinformed. Here's a study on the subject, if you're interested.

 

:rolleyes: I can got to the raw food sites and they say the opposite.

 

*sigh*

 

yes, you can.

 

Which is why you should go to a library and read some serious nutritional SCIENCE. Raw food freaks are totally full of shit. They have an axe to grind here. I don't. I'm just telling you what I've read about actual availability of nutrients in cooked v. raw food.

 

Chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas all spend the majority of their time every single day doing one thing: chewing food. Hours and hours of chewing food. Why? Because raw food is difficult to digest.

 

Any nutritionist with an actual college education will tell you the same. Or just wander over to the local community college and ask a prof. in that department.

 

You might also be interested in reading this book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<snip for trying to sound really really smart and belittle the discussion>>

 

Well, chimps are closer to us than they are to gorillas.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

As for the "educated guess," good thing what we have educating us are fossils showing primates with an increasingly upright position and an increase in brain capacity. :scratch:

 

:thanks: What is you point again? Have you read the thread or did you just respond to the last post you saw?

I'm venting a bit (one can only keep so much in side for so long). But I am pointing out a fundamental problem with what you said: every species is unique in some way, and humans are not somehow *more* special.

 

What do you think of the experiments being done on Bonobos? Should they have begun to show more signs of relevance to humans experience by now?

Why should they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.