evolution has nothing to due with increase in life span.
peace :)
Printable View
evolution has nothing to due with increase in life span.
peace :)
then you misunderstood my point-Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
genetic similarity between humans and apples does not mean we evolved from an apple- it just means that all living things are made from the same ingriedients-just mixed in a different order- I agree with the fact that we are all related- but is it to hard to fathom that we were created by something greater then us? Like a Celestial Chef mixing things up to a taste he likes? The theroy that everything came from a single cell and kept growing and changing is a neat theroy, but it's just that a theroy- it hasn't been proven and can't be proven- just like it's impossible to back up the creation therory without having any hard scientific data-
So just like that it's a mystery- the one great mystery- we aren't meant to have the answeres for
like i siad there's no linking fossils or skeltons that relate us to bipedal primates- nothing that shows an "inbetween stage" of evoulution- there's no hard evidence that show native americans crossed the land bridge to be in north and south america- and the whole climate change thing effects skin color- if that were true then wouldn't the indians closer to the eqator resemble black people? hmm....
evolution in that sense is bullshit- basing everything of genetic mutations- if you have child with born with an extra arm and he mates with normal girl what are the chances of their child being born with an extra arm- I know evolution doesn't work quite like that and take millions of years but just think about it
How Evolution Works
Mutations are accidents in reproduction. The only place where such mutations can occur is in the production of the haploid cells (cells with a single set of chromosomes) in the sperm and egg, or in the joining of the two in conception. A reproduction accident anywhere else in the body will affect only the cell that suffers the accident. Such accidents will not be added into the gene pool and thus are not mutations. In such an accident, the sick cell is quickly replaced by a well one and the incident is over. Yet when such an accident occurs in the sperm or egg, it will appear in every cell in the offspring. This mutation then has a 50% chance of occurring in each grandchild. If the recipient of the mutation has several children, the odds are that the mutation will join the species gene pool by way of one or more of his children.
Natural selection then determines the fate of the mutation in the species gene pool. The test is not survivability or excellence. The test is in species population growth. If the mutation aids the growth of the species population then it is successful and will remain in the gene pool. If it does not, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool (through death and hardship).
Here are a few examples concerning man and evolution to help gain understanding of the way evolution works. The effects shown are not necessarily caused by genetics, but evolution treats all conditions as if they were. Note that natural selection acts as if all genes are involved in the success or failure of the individual. Each case that reduces the expected offspring is considered a vote against each gene in the genome. Each case that equals or exceeds the expected offspring is considered a vote for each gene in the genome. The mixing of genes in recombination allow individual allele selection over the long period of time.
Effect1: The new gene shortens the life to 35 years. Natural selection would not see this defect as detrimental since the children will be old enough to fend for themselves by that time.
Effect2: The parent has too many children. If so many children were born that the resulting death or misery rate reduced the number of the children who had children, evolution would see this as detrimental. If society takes care of his children for him they will be healthy enough to raise more children and evolution would judge the condition as beneficial
Effect3: The parent does not take good care of his children. If society does not interfere by taking care of the children for him, the suffering children are less likely to raise children of their own and evolution would judge that the condition is detrimental. If society cares for his children, evolution will judge the condition beneficial.
Effect4: The new gene lengthens life to 150 years. Evolution will not see this change as beneficial. Neither will it see later mutations that degrade it as detrimental, until the life expectancy gets so low that it affects child bearing and raising.
Effect5: The man is a murderer of children. His murder of someone else's children will affect the evaluation of the genes of their parents adversely. If the murderer has sufficient children of his own, evolution will not see anything detrimental in his lineage.
Effect6: The man is cruel and vicious with his wife. As long as he does not kill her or otherwise render her unable to care for her children, evolution will see no harm. Even if he kills her and society takes over the raising of his children, evolution will still see no harm
Effect7: The man dies of an accident before he has children. Natural selection will see this death as detrimental
Effect8: A young lady decides not to marry and have children. Natural selection will see this as detrimental.
Effect9: A man decides to adopt children instead of having his own. Natural selection will vote for the genes of the natural parents of the children and vote against the adoptive parent's gene set.
A great difference clearly exists between the goals of evolution and those of a compassionate culture. We are built one way, but we want to be another way. Luckily there is a large overlap where both evolution and man desire the same thing. Unfortunately, where we differ the choices are all quite painful
.................................................. .................................................. .........................................
What Is Human Evolution?
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...turkanaboy.jpg Human evolution is the theory which states that humans developed from primates, or ape-like, ancestors. In 1856, a strange skull was found by some workmen in the Neander Valley in Germany. The odd appearance of the skull led some to believe that it had once belonged to a person who was afflicted with rickets. They did not believe it could have come from an ancestor of modern man. It did, however, form the notion that there could have been creatures that were half-human and half-ape. Ernst Heinrich, a German scientist, claimed that if such a creature were ever found it should be named Pithecanthropus erectus, which means upright apeman.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...oiseiskull.jpg Even before the discovery of the skull, which is now known as Homo neanderthalensis, people hypothesized that there was some sort of transmutation took place between species. This, however, was not widely accepted. On November 4, 1859, the view on evolution as a whole changed dramatically. This was the date that Charles Darwin published his work The Origin of Species. With the release of this work, the theory of human evolution became a bit more believable. The theory of natural selection was proposed by Darwin within The Origin of Species. This theory states that the physical traits of an organism are selected for according to the environment it lives in.
Darwin's theory peaked the interest of many scientists who went out in search of skulls which would branch the gap between apes and humans. In 1890, a Dutch physician by the name of Eugene Dubois found a low, apelike skull on the banks of a river in Java. Dubois also discovered a humanlike thigh bone near the skull. He concluded that this creature was the link between apes and humans which Heinrich hypothesized about. Other fossils began to be found which appeared to be transitional.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...ages/taung.jpg In 1925, Raymond Dart found a skull which was the first to be classified as Australopithecus. The skull looked apelike in appearance, but had humanlike teeth. Dart discovered the skull in a box of fossilized bones sent to him from Tuang. Mary and Louis Leakey also found a number of Australopithecine fossils. The Leakey's main area of focus was the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania. Another researcher, Donald Johanson, found similar fossils in the Afar region of Ethiopia. Johanson is credited with finding the fossil skeleton of "Lucy", an Australopithecus afarensis, which shows that ancestors of humans were walking upright at around 3.6 million years ago.
As the amount of finds increased, so did the number of species. Today, the Australopithecus genus includes:
- A. anemensis
- A. afarensis
- A. africanus
- A. boisei
- A. robustus
- A. aethiopicus
(A. is an abbreviation for Australopithecus)
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...es/habilis.jpg Even though these fossils had both human and ape characteristics, the apelike qualities outnumbered the human ones. Scientists sought to find fossils that were closer to modern man than the Australopithecines. In the early 1960's, Louis Leakey found what he thought was another A. boisei skull, however, the brain case was larger than previous finds. After collaboration with P.V. Tobias and J.R. Napier, he named the skull Homo habilis, which means "handy man". He came up with this name because of the tools found at the site of the skull. Leakey figured that the enlarged brain size made it possible for H. habilis to form tools according to how his/her mind perceived it should look like. Other species of this genus that were found include H. erectus, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, and our own species, H. sapiens sapiens.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...piensapien.jpgSome controversy concerning the labeling of H. sapiens neanderthalensis has arisen in past years, as to whether it should be considered part of the sapiens line. Previously, Neanderthals were considered to have been the transitory form from H. erectus to H. sapiens sapiens. The ideology then shifted to a position that Neanderthals were not a transitory form, but were instead a genetic dead end. Their abrupt disappearance in the fossil record has yielded suggestions that Neanderthals were outcompeted and replaced by anatomically modern human beings. The current viewpoint among many people is that Neanderthals were in fact a separate species and have been labeled by some as H. neanderthalensis, dropping "sapiens" from the name.
thier is proof linking skulls to us and aps..................as it shows
u see ape skull
u see human and ape characteristics in the next skull
and so on...as u look u can see how it is...how evolution worked
as the evirment changes
i need to see pictures- post them- showing them all in order-Quote:
Originally Posted by 100pr00f
guaranteed you won't find a picture that show skull that is between a man's and a monkeys
these skull you showed are of a different species other then human but do not prove that humans evloved from them- when I see those skulls I see different species- I don't see the human part of it-
you could post a skull of rat, then a skull of dog, the skull of a lion- and say- the rat evolved into the lion
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/...ages/taung.jpg
here is one...it is a skull of a mix ....
its when we started to walk upright
http://www.chineseprehistory.org/cli...l/zkdrec1s.jpg This composite reconstruction of the skull of "Peking Man" has come to epitomize H. erectus as a distinct human species. In actual fact the reconstruction, done by Weidenreich and his associates, represents a female. Many features of the Zhoukoudian crania, such as their "beetle-brows," and various crests and ridges on the surface bone of the skull tend to differentiate the "Peking Man" material from other contemporaneous humans. These seem to be localized rather than species defining features
WOW! you convinced me
u are misunderstanding evolution adn over simplifying it tremendously.. thats why it isnt sitting well with uQuote:
Originally Posted by Charging Soldier
. so imagine u are born with a genetic mutation that causes your red blood cells to have a slightly different shape than normal red blood cells.. by chance, this mutataion is inheritable in your children.... your children then are born with this mutation... as an unexpected benefit, this mutation makesyour children immune to Malaria... this advantageous random mutation now has extreme survival value if you live in a Malaria rich environment... if u do, your offspring will inevitably (if everything goes right) have offspring that have a slight advantage over other humans who dont have this evolutionary advantage.. the end result is a population of homo sapiens that are immune to Malaria.. all due to a chance occurence of a genetic mutation.
Man on this planet has become what he has become because of a loss of intelligence. What you have is a beast within the body of an intelligent life form.
Mutations aren't inherited. I am not a gambler. LOL "by chance.."
on what planet do u live?Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
mutations are inherited all the time..what make su think they are not inheritable?
and yes.. chance and probability has a strong role in most of biology..
i have no why idea why ppl cant accept this. everything isnt planned out.. many things occur and are the way they are simply because of the role of the dice...
humans are here simply because a random chance event that wiped out the dinosaurs
People can't except evolution because the theory goes against it's self- if everything was the roll of the dice things would be more chaotic- if humans have been slowly evolving from primates then why are we the only creatures that evolved to have large brains cabable of choice? An animal can only run on instinct, while humans can choose what they want to do with their lives. A human can choose to only eat vegatables or make their diet of only meat, while animals have to go off of insticts- the instict hunt, or be a scavanger- the instinct to mate- A human can choose to go through life with out mating- we can choose not to eat and fast- why are we the only creatures that don't have to adhere to the instincts of the wild? The gift of a mind to make choices and choose what to do with our bodies and life is what makes us different from everything else that "evolved" i'm not saying evoultion didn't happen- it just didn't happen to humansQuote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs