[loser]

So, back to the original topic. Quote: Quote by: loser I'm sure that I don't understand the TOE in all of its nuances so perhaps someone can answer this question for me. If you are sure that you don't understand it, then why on earth would you offer the opinion that it is hard to accept in the last paragraph? If you understand it, then it is actually quite easy to understand on a broad, high school level. If you don't understand it, then how on earth can you say that it goes against reason? That's unreasonable.

The key is in the word "nuances". I understand it's premise "on a broad, high school level" and, in fact, even more so than that. Furthermore, I am quite proficient in science, most notably in chemistry. However, like many other science-minded intellectuals (a minority, to be sure, but growing) I am not satisfied with being a part of the status quo. I am a pioneer, not a settler. I am an eagle, not a lemming. I am a rebel (with a cause), not some dandy yankee doodle. IOW, I feel no need to sublimate my own understanding in deference to the major consensus.

In fact, your response to rez was ad hominem without a single response to any matter on which he instructed you.

I suggest that you go back and re-read Rez's reply to me. Instructed? Give me a break, please.

Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer. Quote: It's my (mis?)understanding that evolution is triggered as a survival of the fittest phenomenon; that adaptations which give a species a clear advantage (a better chance of survival) are the ones that are passed on. Yes. It is your misunderstanding. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, a social economist. Spencer was talking about business in a capitalist society, i.e., businesses that offer products and services that the public demands succeed, while those that do not fail. No biggie. Still a valid theory in economics today. But it misses the mark in biology. Darwin didn't like the phrase "survival of the fittest" applied to his theory (only one of at least 5 in "On The Origin Of Species"), and didn't actually use it until the 5th edition after the public use had become so common. It was Alfred Russel Wallace co-discoverer of the theory who actually accept the term. Even at that, he always (without exception) clearly stated that he was talking about "natural selection" whenever he used the term. Further, natural selection is not a matter of "clear advantage." Clear to whom? The simplest way to state natural selection is differential reproductive success. It is statistical. Those individuals that posses genetic characteristics that give them a better chance to reproduce more offspring will tend to pass those beneficial characteristics on to a relatively larger portion of the population.

You seem to be nit-picking (isn't that an evolutionary advantage passed down in certain species of monkeys? ) over semantics. When I said "survival of the fittest" I was referring to "natural selection". Furthermore, I backed up "clear advantage" with "a better chance of survival". Though I didn't use precise terminology, wasn't the 'gist' of what I was saying amply clear? Nevertheless, thank you for that history lesson.

Hopefully, you are aware that humankind evolved in equatorial Africa.

No, I'm sure that the false ToE has man evolving from some neo-man species (i.e., cro-magnum, etc) based on ancient ape skulls or the like. However, I'm sure that earliest man originated in the Mesopotamia area. I would hope that all humans would be aware of that.

Some arctic animals swim in frigid arctic waters that will kill us in seconds. How much better it would be for humans to have such fur in order to live in the many hostile and extreme conditions. It's not seconds. I notice that you tend to exaggerate a bit.

No, I exaggerate a lot (creative license) but, in this case, I wasn't exaggerating. What I meant was that if a man falls in these icy waters he has literally only seconds to get out before hypothermia sets in. Once this happens, a person becomes too weak to even hold on to a rescue line that might be thrown to him.

So how well do you think that these arctic animals would do in waters around the equator. Why do you think that we don't find them there?

1) Not good and 2) because they weren't designed for equatorial living.

The simple answer is that we evolved in an environment where we didn't need fur. How is that against reason?

So, evolution was a thing of the past but is not applicable in today's world? If so, your simple answer is inadequate.

What environment would? If living in climates like Greenland and Siberia would be suited for fur, why don't humans living in those kind of conditions develop fur? If your answer is "given enough time" then it's unacceptable because stretching adaptation into millions of years makes it unviable. In that length of time, climate change would have artic conditions turned into equatorial conditions. Adaptation must work in periods of time as short as one season. This, in fact, is just what was observed in the case of the finches of the Galapagos Islands when La Nina and El Nino effected climatic changes there.

It's a fact that skin pigmentation is a direct result of climate conditions (eco-systems). This is a 'generational' adaptation and not one measured in millenia.

Because we didn't evolve in an environment with extremes. We evolved in tropical Africa.

Are Icelanders evolving?

But you haven't used reason. First of all, you haven't bothered to educate yourself. Second, you haven't stated why a theory that you don't understand (by your own admission) is unreasonable

I think I have on all three accounts. You, like many others who think themselves wise, are being very presumptious...as if you know what I know. If you're basing your judgment on my words (a select few, at that) then you really don't have much judgment. Don't be so hasty with your conclusions and you won't be wrong as often.

How disingenuous can you be?

Quite...

Actually, the AAH was proposed by marine biologist Sir Alister Hardy. I know that a playwright wrote several books on the subject, but is this sufficient to discredit it as a possibility? The popular alternative, the savannah hypothesis, has a number of flaws that make the idea questionable or, in the least, in need of refinement.

Of course, the flaws in both hypotheses are rather moot if you discard the ridiculous ToE.

For darn sure, we are learning more through science than we expected, and we are learning a lot more about how things are as they are, then we could learn if we restrict ourselves to studying holy books.

Indeed, science is a wonderful thing if one can accept truth and reality and not try to twist and pervert it because holy books reveal things that science cannot confirm.

By that I mean that it was never presented to the scientific community for review, i.e., it was never clearly stated, the evidence was never investigated, no predictions were ever made, and it was never tested, and no results of testing were ever published in peer reviewed scientific journals.

If it had, would that have done it for you? Do you trust the scientific community, scientific journals, and peer review? Wouldn't you rather do your own investigations and make your own predictions and do your own testing? I know I would.

It's one of several attempts to formulate a possibility as to what environmental pressures forced evolutionary adaptations such as bipedalism and larger cranial capacity. I'm curious, since it seems that you may disagree with both of these perspectives, as to what your opinion is on what forced these fairly extreme biological changes?

My answer is simple. Man has ALWAYS been bipedal and has ALWAYS had a larger cranial capacity. What's difficult about that?

The problem is that there is no evidence to support any of it.

Which holds true for anything involving the ToE.

see seals and sea lions that are quite nice examples of mammals that are returning to the sea and still bear their young on land. The all have hair simply because it is insulation against the cold. And there are penguins that are examples of birds returning to the sea. They too retain feathers as insulation against the cold water, and yet they bear their young on land. And otters and beavers spend most of their life in the water, but retain thick fur as insulation against cold water, while bearing young on land. So whales have a layer of blubber (fat) that insulates them from the cold water - even the young have a layer of blubber in spite of the fact that whales calve in relatively warm waters. So please explain why humankind should have lost our hair without developing webbed feet, webbed hands, flippers, or blubber. Why is this hypothesis based solely on the fact of reduced hair? There are so many aquatic mammals and birds that retained thick fur or feathers as insulation against water, and some that lost hair while developing thick layers of blubber as insulation. And yet, we are to believe that humans were aquatic long enough to lose hair without developing other aquatic characteristics. I'm waiting.

How about walruses? A lot of blubber, scant fur, tusks over a meter long and the largest penis of all mammals...what's up with that? Evolution gone awry?