Evolution!! Did we come from monkeys?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Prometheus I have never liked the idea of adaptive mutegenesis. I have explored it, but don't consider it's evidance to be all that compelling. It's fallacy is cause and affect. Biological systems cannot deduct the proper evolutional avenue, they can only use trial and error - selective mutigenesis. I don't even think that human intellegance could be considered AM because it is not passed on through heredity, which is stipilated as part of allelic evolution.

Well, we know with some certainty that genetics plays a part in determining our intelligence.

[Prometheus]

Yes, but the fruits of intellegance are not passed on. Remember - look at cause and affect.

[Pooeypants]

I never suggested otherwise, I know that Nurture plays a big part in our intelligence development.

[CallousGiant]

It is like a family tree....I'm related to my cousin but not a descedant of...

Same thing with people, were related to monkeys but not descended from them, or worms for that matter.

[jeffl]

That's some good stuff, Capitalist Pig; but 'parsimony' is bad science

I think an argument could be made for AM if you consider traits that are recurrent; like the saber tooth in predatory cats, or the furthur reiteration of an already reiterated trait.

[MerlinsByte]

let me see If merlin has this right.Ive learnedsomuch from starboy and pooey.....monkey ...man and chemicals

natural selection: That miraculous process by which incredibly complex and useful structures, such as the eye or brain, are culled out from a vast array of random and purposeless mutations. In the distant past this marvelous natural artificer has produced the whole scope of existence from molecules to man but today it appears to be limiting its activities to such mundane matters as controlling the relative numbers of white and black moths in England.


sciencetific proof..The assimilation of data in such a way that the desired conclusion seems to be the most plausible hypothesis?

ahhhhh....

abiogensis...That slow process by which living organisms were spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This scientific fact should not be confused with the old discredited myth of spontaneous generation by which it was once foolishly believed that living organisms arose from non-living matter. (see Law of Biogenesis).


law of biogenesis ...Simply states the obvious...that all life comes from pre-existing life. This law, which was confirmed by Redi and Pasteur, permanently laid to rest the ludicrous idea of the ignorant ancients that living organisms could spring from inanimate matter. It should be emphasized that this law in no way precludes the slow origin of living organisms from inanimate matter through the process of evolution - after all, we are here, aren't we? (see Abiogenesis).


punctuated equilibrium....An ad hoc hypothesis or alibi that claims the reason there are no known transitional forms in the fossil record is because evolutionary changes occur so quickly and the reason we can't see evolutionary changes in the laboratory is because they occur so slowly. (see Hopeful Monster Theory).

oh and last but not least ....

The hopefl monster theroy...A concept first introduced out of necessity by the geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, which states that evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monsters." After being widely discredited for many years this idea is being reintroduced, out of necessity, as a serious theory. The great leaps forward implicit in this theory entirely account for the absence of the "missing links." (See Punctuated Equilibrium).



mb

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: MerlinsByte let me see If merlin has this right.Ive learnedsomuch from starboy and pooey.....monkey ...man and chemicals natural selection: That miraculous process by which incredibly complex and useful structures, such as the eye or brain, are culled out from a vast array of random and purposeless mutations. In the distant past this marvelous natural artificer has produced the whole scope of existence from molecules to man but today it appears to be limiting its activities to such mundane matters as controlling the relative numbers of white and black moths in England.

There is nothing miraculous about Natural selection. Another mundane jobbie that it's been restricted to is the evolution of multiple drug resistance bacteria. Shocking that, isn't it?

Quote by: MerlinsByte sciencetific proof..The assimilation of data in such a way that the desired conclusion seems to be the most plausible hypothesis?

Misnomer. Science doesn't deal with proof.

Quote by: MerlinsByte ahhhhh.... abiogensis...That slow process by which living organisms were spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This scientific fact should not be confused with the old discredited myth of spontaneous generation by which it was once foolishly believed that living organisms arose from non-living matter. (see Law of Biogenesis).

The occurence wasn't spontaneous, it is not an established fact. There is a model which has many developmental stages.

Quote by: MerlinsByte law of biogenesis ...Simply states the obvious...that all life comes from pre-existing life. This law, which was confirmed by Redi and Pasteur, permanently laid to rest the ludicrous idea of the ignorant ancients that living organisms could spring from inanimate matter. It should be emphasized that this law in no way precludes the slow origin of living organisms from inanimate matter through the process of evolution - after all, we are here, aren't we? (see Abiogenesis).

What it showed was that formation of life no longer can occur because the conditions are completely different now.

Quote by: MerlinsByte punctuated equilibrium....An ad hoc hypothesis or alibi that claims the reason there are no known transitional forms in the fossil record is because evolutionary changes occur so quickly and the reason we can't see evolutionary changes in the laboratory is because they occur so slowly. (see Hopeful Monster Theory). oh and last but not least .... The hopefl monster theroy...A concept first introduced out of necessity by the geneticist, Richard Goldschmidt, which states that evolution occurs by sudden and large changes in the offspring of a species resulting in radically different but well adapted organisms, i.e. "hopeful monsters." After being widely discredited for many years this idea is being reintroduced, out of necessity, as a serious theory. The great leaps forward implicit in this theory entirely account for the absence of the "missing links." (See Punctuated Equilibrium). mb

There are multiple models going around on about the exact mechanisms of Evolution. Don't make the laymen error of thinking that just because we're still examining and debating the finer points of a theory means there is a large disagreement between scientists on its validity; there isn't.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: Starboy Could it be possible that over time there could be a buildup of genetic combinations that could easily change back to a previous configuration in a much faster way than the changes needed to create the original set of traits from the more ancient species? That in some sense AM is taking place when change is driven by not only the environment but what was in the genome from the past?

That would be interesting, but so far I don't think any cases of "reverse" evolution, or instances of similar traits appearing concurrently are evident of anything other than selective mutagenesis.

Quote by: jeffl That's some good stuff, Capitalist Pig; but 'parsimony' is bad science

I'm not sure parsimony is what you meant. Perhaps you mean greedy reductionism? Even so, I don't know what you're trying to say.

Good article, by the way. I'd also suggest this one, this one, this one, this one, and finally, this one. Happy skimming!

Quote by: MerlinsByte Ive learnedsomuch from starboy and pooey.....monkey ...man and chemicals

Then the case is clear. You should learn a little more about evolution before you strike up debates with people about it. Try some actual science-oriented websites and books this time. Authors like Richard Dawkins (I'd definitely suggest The Blind Watchmaker) or Stephen Jay Gould; or websites such as CreationTheory.org, the Talk.Origins Archive, and The Panda's Thumb weblog.

[jeffl]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig ...I don't know what you're trying to say.

Sorry, inside joke i suppose:) The article i referenced happened not only to be interesting, relavent, and relatively sound; it also exercised 'maximal parsimony' in its analysis. In a recent 'discussion' another poster seemed to imply that parsimony was simply not used in science. I thought it was funny :eek:

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: jeffl Sorry, inside joke i suppose:) The article i referenced happened not only to be interesting, relavent, and relatively sound; it also exercised 'maximal parsimony' in its analysis. In a recent 'discussion' another poster seemed to imply that parsimony was simply not used in science. I thought it was funny :eek:

Whoops. Yeah, I guess I don't read/post enough. At least I got the tone in my second sentence correct. :)

[jeffl]

Quote by: Capitalist Pig Whoops. Yeah, I guess I don't read/post enough. At least I got the tone in my second sentence correct. :)

Yes. And thanks for the definitions, aswell.

[Lycan]

Come come now, you know the answer. All of the posts you quote are specifically in relation to how science is perceived in relation to science. Basically the coincidance of science with other explinations.

whatever, that is such a load... insulting people has nothing to do with science and trying to correct the insult has nothing to do with religious testimony... but i see this forum is just as bad as the rest...

[Prometheus]

but i see this forum is just as bad as the rest...

I heartily agree, it's probably not worth your time to post here any more.

(Yes, I know I am an unspeakable ass)

[Gilligan]

If we came from monkey's than why do we still have monkeys around? Maybe monkeys came from us. I probably shouldn't even respond to this thread, because I have no experience or schooling on it, but, an example of evolution that I know is true is todays Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) that evolved from the much bigger version called Carcharodon Megalodon . That kind of evolution makes sense. This ocean's garbage disposal has evolved to the size of the food available and the habitat to swim in.

Normally if something evolves doesn't replace what it evolved from? Why are there so many monkeys if humans evolved from them?

Personally, I think the Adam and Eve story makes much more sense than the monkey theory.

[Prometheus]

Personally, I think the Adam and Eve story makes much more sense than the monkey theory.

If you are uneducated in matters of science, that might seem so. The cure for that is to learn about the theories.

If we came from monkey's than why do we still have monkeys around?

I have answered this question innumrable time on forums and in debate, and I normally get exasperated with the repetition, but you seem pretty open-minded, so I will respond in a civil manner


The evolution of a species does not follow a straight line - it is more like a tree. One species branches into two or more species instead of morphing completely into another. The important concept here is known as "niche rule" meaning that (a) Only 1 species can occupy a given niche and (b) an unoccupied niche will eventually be filled. (A niche is the unique combination of living space and diet). When humans seperated from the apes, it was to fill a new niche - that of the newly arising open grasslands. The monkeys stayed around because their niche - the forest - was still there.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: bandaid If we came from monkey's than why do we still have monkeys around? . . . Normally if something evolves doesn't replace what it evolved from?

In addition to what Prometheus said, to say "man evolved from monkeys" is a gross oversimplification of events. It is much more accurate to say "monkeys and man share a common ancestor."

To learn more about human evolution, click here, here, and here.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Traditionally, religion has been primarily "magical", but science also used to be magical (alchemy). As a devoutly religious person myself, I have always tried to look at religion not as an abstract, "magical" construction, but concretely real with diety that are bound by natural laws. Primitive people must explain diety magically, but a more scientific mind can bring religion into a more real focus by allowing that what appears magical, is merely a manipulation of natural forces by an intellegance dwarfing our own.

You are doing nothing more than transforming god from the mind of reality into a being that just knows more than us. From a supreme being to a superior being. In your view all that keeps us from being gods is knowledge. All you are doing is illustrating your basic superstition. You're just a magical thinker that seeks the religion with the greatest mojo. Just so happens that for some reason you confuse science with religion.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Just so happens that for some reason you confuse science with religion.

Maybe. But if a supreme being *did* exist would he not be the supreme scientist?

From a supreme being to a superior being.

There are religions (mine included) that hold as a beleif that god *is* in fact bounded by rules himself. There rules vary with belief. But there are definitely religions the do only beleive in a superior being. Must god be all powerfull?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus Maybe. But if a supreme being *did* exist would he not be the supreme scientist?

Hey if you are making it up as you go along you can make god into George Burns for all I care. It is not as if there is any indication of any kind of god other than the possiblity of a first event god that has been long gone.

There are religions (mine included) that hold as a beleif that god *is* in fact bounded by rules himself. There rules vary with belief. But there are definitely religions the do only beleive in a superior being. Must god be all powerfull?

I understand that but so what? There are people who think that we are but a dream of "god". It is not as if any of them have much better than the evidence for gods that they would choose not to believe in.

Starboy

[FIFI]

Quote by: Starboy You are doing nothing more than transforming god from the mind of reality into a being that just knows more than us. Starboy

My mom knows more than me, does that mean I see her as a god?
I think there is more to it than that.