Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 35
Send Topic Print
Evidence of Evolution being a hoax (Read 78125 times)
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #420 - Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:34pm
 
muso wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:44am:
Soren wrote on Nov 19th, 2012 at 11:33pm:
So now it' about the number of DNA per cell, is it? (data, data everywhere, not a thought to think)
A plant is now more complex a life form than a human being? Or what?
A plant has more DNA than me - yet it still gets eaten by the first goat that comes along while I get only mildly bothered by the passing Spot of Lack.

Is that entropy or evolution? Remind us, will ya.




Spot would definitely be  more on the entropy and less on the evolution. 

There you go deconstructing again.  My point was about evolution not being always a tendency towards more complex life forms.  Some life forms are perfectly adapted to their environment and have hardly changed through time. An example is a brachiopod found in the intertidal zone in many parts of the world, including Australia. The genus is Lingula, and they have existed almost unchanged since the Ordovician Period about 450 million years ago.




The fog, the fog!

Our environment is not unique - or if you like, we are not alone in our environment. Why was it only us who developed all these extraordinary traits, with no other creature coming even close, even though they have been existing in the same environment as us and have been surviving very well?

Chimps, worms, flies - all survived perfectly well without ever needing to develop anything remotely human.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #421 - Nov 20th, 2012 at 10:20pm
 
well Soren I can only say  ... that is one of the eternal questions,  .... to date.

I would suggest chance.....  Huh

AND
more importantly,  the sheer 'desire'  or 'ambition' that  'life' exhibits to 'be'.   In all it's myriad forms. 'Life' is truly astonishing.

AND you can be sure, on statistics alone, that 'life' exists elsewhere in the universe as we know it.
Life persists when it would seem impossible,  to us.!

AND nothing stays the same, does it.?
I'm talking from a human viewpoint, ... because even  in our short span we can  observe change in the world around us.
You need to remember that after all we are mere specs on the wider scale.

I see no particular  'mystery'. Roll Eyes


Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #422 - Nov 20th, 2012 at 10:23pm
 
As far as homo sapiens is concerned,  the part that makes us unique is our brains. The rest of the human body is not significantly different from that of the hominids that didn't develop intelligence and especially sentience to the extent that h. sapiens did.

The brain itself starts off with around 200 billion neurons. It reduces to around 100 billion by the time we reach maturity. 100 billion is an enormous number. It's about the number of stars in the (Milky Way) galaxy, and each neuron can make up to 10,000 synaptic links.

Our nearest living relative is (arguably) the bonobo, a species of chimpanzee, but there were other hominids through prehistory, some of them less intelligent than homo sapiens. 

As you pointed out earlier, we are born with very rudimentary brain function, but it grows in complexity as we grow up.  The brain is to intelligence as the canvas is to a masterpiece.

No permutation of the 25000 protein synthesising genes can be used to predict the final structure of the brain. Every time you think, the brain rewires a little bit more.  So we are much more nurture than nature, and that nurture is the result of necessary interaction with other human beings.  Without human contact and interaction, the brain doesn't develop and even loses the capacity to develop. The canvas that is the brain has remained fairly constant for say 50,000 years. The part that has changed is the "software" (or the programming from other human beings and finally from the individual) - and that "software has been progressively improving as time goes on - not through a process of allelomorphic genetics, but through inheritance through parental influences.  As humanity became more and more complex, the capacity of the individual to learn increased. Another factor has been the development of the epigenome, but let's not go there. 

Take away that nurture factor, and we'd be probably much less intelligent than a bonobo.

Now you might argue that the collective and growing sentience of mankind could be defined as a god factor. It's certainly as special  as it is mysterious. If you think of the awareness of mankind developing over the last few thousand years, it's a pretty spine tingling idea. 

What do you think the effect of spoken language in its first rudimentary form would have been? (on human intelliegence) A means of communicating subtle ideas.  Then later, what do you think the impact of the written word was on the collective intelligence of humanity? It must have been even more iconoclastic. So I'd argue that our "environment" was particularly unique from that perspective.

Quote:
John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.


That was an incredible flash of insight by the person who wrote that original text.

Did the "word" create mankind in his current form. Did the ability to communicate subtle ideas transform the early hominids into homo sapiens?

These are questions, not answers. I'm expressing ideas, and I make no apology for quoting one of the sacred texts of humanity. They all contain wisdom.

Now I'm expecting more than a simple deconstruction from you Soren.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Nov 20th, 2012 at 10:50pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Baronvonrort
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 18626
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #423 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am
 
Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:34pm:
Our environment is not unique - or if you like, we are not alone in our environment. Why was it only us who developed all these extraordinary traits, with no other creature coming even close, even though they have been existing in the same environment as us and have been surviving very well?




The Aborignes were isolated from the rest of the world until about 220 years ago, how far had they developed compared to the rest of the world?

Was it the lack of a bible to explain the universe or some other factor that held them back?

You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?
Back to top
 

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #424 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am
 
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?



No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
magpie
Full Member
***
Offline


slayer of trolls

Posts: 210
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #425 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:29pm
 
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?



No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.

your lack of understanding may be due to the fact that you are an advocate of Darwin's emphasis on the "many slight differences" as the ultimate source of variation to be acted upon by natural selection.
In the early 1900’s, this view was opposed by "Mendelian geneticists", who emphasized the importance of "macromutations" in evolution. The Modern Synthesis resolved this controversy, concluding that mutations in genes of very small effect were responsible for adaptive evolution.
A decade ago, Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne re-examined the evidence for this neo-Darwinian view and found that both the theoretical and empirical basis for it were weak. Orr and Coyne encouraged evolutionary biologists to reexamine this neglected question: what is the genetic basis of adaptive evolution?
current thinking includes the field of epistasis in heterogeneous environments and the potential of maintenance of genetic variation in traits of adaptive significance.

you got served.
Back to top
 

the Victorious Alliance. members wanted
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #426 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:38pm
 
magpie wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:29pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?



No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.

your lack of understanding may be due to the fact that you are an advocate of Darwin's emphasis on the "many slight differences" as the ultimate source of variation to be acted upon by natural selection.
In the early 1900’s, this view was opposed by "Mendelian geneticists", who emphasized the importance of "macromutations" in evolution. The Modern Synthesis resolved this controversy, concluding that mutations in genes of very small effect were responsible for adaptive evolution.
A decade ago, Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne re-examined the evidence for this neo-Darwinian view and found that both the theoretical and empirical basis for it were weak. Orr and Coyne encouraged evolutionary biologists to reexamine this neglected question: what is the genetic basis of adaptive evolution?
current thinking includes the field of epistasis in heterogeneous environments and the potential of maintenance of genetic variation in traits of adaptive significance.

you got served.



The evolution of 'incontrovertible facts' before our very eyes! Thanks, Jacquei!

The evolution of the idea of evolution is evidently a much faster process than evolution.

Good to see unshaken faith in the ever-shifting 'current truth'.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Postmodern Trendoid III
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 10266
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #427 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:44pm
 
magpie wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:29pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?



No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.

your lack of understanding may be due to the fact that you are an advocate of Darwin's emphasis on the "many slight differences" as the ultimate source of variation to be acted upon by natural selection.
In the early 1900’s, this view was opposed by "Mendelian geneticists", who emphasized the importance of "macromutations" in evolution. The Modern Synthesis resolved this controversy, concluding that mutations in genes of very small effect were responsible for adaptive evolution.
A decade ago, Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne re-examined the evidence for this neo-Darwinian view and found that both the theoretical and empirical basis for it were weak. Orr and Coyne encouraged evolutionary biologists to reexamine this neglected question: what is the genetic basis of adaptive evolution?
current thinking includes the field of epistasis in heterogeneous environments and the potential of maintenance of genetic variation in traits of adaptive significance.

you got served.


Attribute your sources!
Plagiarist.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/9048168767/ref=nosim/prokorg-20
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #428 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:47pm
 
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?


No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.



That's not what I'm saying, and I'm sure that you're aware of that.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
magpie
Full Member
***
Offline


slayer of trolls

Posts: 210
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #429 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:48pm
 
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:38pm:
magpie wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:29pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?



No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.

your lack of understanding may be due to the fact that you are an advocate of Darwin's emphasis on the "many slight differences" as the ultimate source of variation to be acted upon by natural selection.
In the early 1900’s, this view was opposed by "Mendelian geneticists", who emphasized the importance of "macromutations" in evolution. The Modern Synthesis resolved this controversy, concluding that mutations in genes of very small effect were responsible for adaptive evolution.
A decade ago, Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne re-examined the evidence for this neo-Darwinian view and found that both the theoretical and empirical basis for it were weak. Orr and Coyne encouraged evolutionary biologists to reexamine this neglected question: what is the genetic basis of adaptive evolution?
current thinking includes the field of epistasis in heterogeneous environments and the potential of maintenance of genetic variation in traits of adaptive significance.

you got served.



The evolution of 'incontrovertible facts' before our very eyes! Thanks, Jacquei!

The evolution of the idea of evolution is evidently a much faster process than evolution.

Good to see unshaken faith in the ever-shifting 'current truth'.


it was quick, it was clean, you should thank me for that. bet you didn't feel a thing.
your status has been updated on 'the' thread.
your demise was evolution in action. dinosaur.
Back to top
 

the Victorious Alliance. members wanted
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #430 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:58pm
 
magpie wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:38pm:
magpie wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 2:29pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 8:03am:
Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 12:42am:
You did say we developed (evolution?) these extraordinary traits so how can you explain those who appear to have  missed out on these traits like the aborigines?



No. That's what muso is saying.
I am not convinced that the principle of natural selection for fitness explains our development of the traits that sets us apart from animals and plants.

your lack of understanding may be due to the fact that you are an advocate of Darwin's emphasis on the "many slight differences" as the ultimate source of variation to be acted upon by natural selection.
In the early 1900’s, this view was opposed by "Mendelian geneticists", who emphasized the importance of "macromutations" in evolution. The Modern Synthesis resolved this controversy, concluding that mutations in genes of very small effect were responsible for adaptive evolution.
A decade ago, Allen Orr and Jerry Coyne re-examined the evidence for this neo-Darwinian view and found that both the theoretical and empirical basis for it were weak. Orr and Coyne encouraged evolutionary biologists to reexamine this neglected question: what is the genetic basis of adaptive evolution?
current thinking includes the field of epistasis in heterogeneous environments and the potential of maintenance of genetic variation in traits of adaptive significance.

you got served.



The evolution of 'incontrovertible facts' before our very eyes! Thanks, Jacquei!

The evolution of the idea of evolution is evidently a much faster process than evolution.

Good to see unshaken faith in the ever-shifting 'current truth'.


it was quick, it was clean, you should thank me for that. bet you didn't feel a thing.
your status has been updated on 'the' thread.
your demise was evolution in action. dinosaur.


Laffing AT you, Jacquie, not with you.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #431 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:00pm
 
Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:34pm:
Our environment is not unique - or if you like, we are not alone in our environment. Why was it only us who developed all these extraordinary traits, with no other creature coming even close, even though they have been existing in the same environment as us and have been surviving very well?

Chimps, worms, flies - all survived perfectly well without ever needing to develop anything remotely human.



You must have missed this point in my reply. I am claiming that our environment is actually quite unique, and that it is becoming even more unique with the advent of technology.

No other species is exposed to the nurturing environment that is generally provided by our civilisation and our parents. I'm using the word 'environment' in its original intent to encompass all influences around us as we grow up and as our species develops.  That includes the linguistic environment as well.

When I talked about environmental constraints, the environment that we create is part of that.

You may say that it's a cyclic argument, but that's the nature of mental development. It's a cyclic process.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #432 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:05pm
 
muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:00pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:34pm:
Our environment is not unique - or if you like, we are not alone in our environment. Why was it only us who developed all these extraordinary traits, with no other creature coming even close, even though they have been existing in the same environment as us and have been surviving very well?

Chimps, worms, flies - all survived perfectly well without ever needing to develop anything remotely human.



You must have missed this point in my reply. I am claiming that our environment is actually quite unique, and that it is becoming even more unique with the advent of technology.

No other species is exposed to the nurturing environment that is generally provided by our civilisation and our parents. I'm using the word 'environment' in its original intent to encompass all influences around us as we grow up and as our species develops.  That includes the linguistic environment as well.

When I talked about environmental constraints, the environment that we create is part of that.

You may say that it's a cyclic argument, but that's the nature of mental development. It's a cyclic process.



Post hoc, rather than cynical.

We became 'human' well before Prometheus (ie technology) and any technological impact on our environment.

.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #433 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:15pm
 
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:05pm:
muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:00pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:34pm:
Our environment is not unique - or if you like, we are not alone in our environment. Why was it only us who developed all these extraordinary traits, with no other creature coming even close, even though they have been existing in the same environment as us and have been surviving very well?

Chimps, worms, flies - all survived perfectly well without ever needing to develop anything remotely human.



You must have missed this point in my reply. I am claiming that our environment is actually quite unique, and that it is becoming even more unique with the advent of technology.

No other species is exposed to the nurturing environment that is generally provided by our civilisation and our parents. I'm using the word 'environment' in its original intent to encompass all influences around us as we grow up and as our species develops.  That includes the linguistic environment as well.

When I talked about environmental constraints, the environment that we create is part of that.

You may say that it's a cyclic argument, but that's the nature of mental development. It's a cyclic process.



Post hoc, rather than cynical.

We became 'human' well before Prometheus (ie technology) and any technological impact on our environment.

.


Were we entirely human before language?
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: Evidence of Evolution being a hoax
Reply #434 - Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:21pm
 
muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:15pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:05pm:
muso wrote on Nov 21st, 2012 at 3:00pm:
Soren wrote on Nov 20th, 2012 at 8:34pm:
Our environment is not unique - or if you like, we are not alone in our environment. Why was it only us who developed all these extraordinary traits, with no other creature coming even close, even though they have been existing in the same environment as us and have been surviving very well?

Chimps, worms, flies - all survived perfectly well without ever needing to develop anything remotely human.



You must have missed this point in my reply. I am claiming that our environment is actually quite unique, and that it is becoming even more unique with the advent of technology.

No other species is exposed to the nurturing environment that is generally provided by our civilisation and our parents. I'm using the word 'environment' in its original intent to encompass all influences around us as we grow up and as our species develops.  That includes the linguistic environment as well.

When I talked about environmental constraints, the environment that we create is part of that.

You may say that it's a cyclic argument, but that's the nature of mental development. It's a cyclic process.



Post hoc, rather than cynical.

We became 'human' well before Prometheus (ie technology) and any technological impact on our environment.

.


Were we entirely human before language?


You tell me.

The whole idea of language developing like a tail or skin pigmentation or feathers is bizarre. It is a leap which is not dependant on the voice producing bits of the body. They are necessary but not sufficient. Human language is not just complex bird song.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 35
Send Topic Print