|
| Thread: A Visit to the Zoo |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:13 AM |
|
|
Here's proof that we came from apes
hint: look at the arms, not the balls
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, make all the claims you want, but the theory of evolution is unproved.
Science is an imperfect tool with imperfect people making imperfect measurements with imperfect instruments, making imperfect observations, and reaching imperfect conclusions. Don't worship the fallible theories.
I guess with your criteria the only way to prove it is a time machine and a video recorder capable of recording 3.5 billion years. As I stated earlier, science is a thousand times more precise compared to your religion BECAUSE it is aware of that imperfection and I don't WORSHIP anything, I sure give it more credit than thousands of years old myths which are not using instruments while not making observations and reaching "perfect" conclusions.
As the Christian Augustine did, long before Darwin, I believe in a theistic evolution. I value science. However, unlike some, I recognize its limitations and that theories can certainly be incorrect. I don't consider scientists to be High Priests. Science is not my religion. I see no point in claiming that the theory of evolution is a proved fact when in fact it is not.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:29 AM |
|
|
Again, you are contemplating everything in religious terms when they are not, so your choice of vocabulary is out of place. A theory is not supposed to be a proven fact, it explains a set of proven facts which evolution of organisms is.
Atheist people are not atheists because science is their religion. Atheist people are not religious because they don't believe in religion.
You are free to believe anything you want. But since you state that you have no categorical problem with the idea of evolution itself, I wonder why are you so willingly decisive about trying to pass it as a hypothesis when it's definitely not.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 02:53 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:08, 23 May 2013.
|
@Elodin
Quote:
Science is an imperfect tool with imperfect people making imperfect measurements with imperfect instruments, making imperfect observations, and reaching imperfect conclusions.
And yet you have no problem using it as the basis for your contention that life begins at conception - and bragging about how superior an argument it is.
True, natural selection hasn't been "proven". But can you name one scientific theory that has? You can't, because theories aren't proven. The fact that you think they should be shows you don't really understand what a scientific theory is.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:04 AM |
|
|
Just to stop this from degrading again into a religious debate, a couple of facts.
A zoo with different kinds of "humans" would be possible, because we - homo sapiens - didn't come from thin air, and there has been no direct mutation or development from chimpanzee to homo sapiens. There are a couple of in-betweens, with homo sapiens being only the last one.
Of course, the further back in time things are, the more uncertain they are. It gets certain enough to be reasonably sure at about 3.5 million years b.c. when the Australopithecina evolved in Africa, a homini species that existed until about 1.8 mio years b.c.
The oldest stone tool that has been found is dated back to 3.4 mio years B.C., so this fits quite well.
Australopithecina species had seemingly enough of a brain to make stone tools, helping them survive. Also many of the subspecies seem to have developed erect gait.
From a subspecies of Australopithecina the species Homo developed between 3 and 2 Mio years b.c. The oldest homo species are Homo Rudolfensis and Homo Habilis. From there it went on to Homo Erectus. While there may be more subspecies than Homo Erectus, they are all pretty similar (and all extinct). Homo Erectus has been the first human species using fire and hunting, and the were seemingly the first to come to Europe. They seem to have developed at around 1.8 Mio years B.C. Genetic markers point to an overall population of 55.000 at around 1.2 Mio years b.c.
One interesting fact is, that the brain volume of homo erectus has increased over their some 1.5 mio years of existence, doubling in the time to a max of 1250 ccm.
From a subspecies of Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis (about 800.000 BC, the Neandertaler developed IN EUROPE (only), the time is unclear, sometime between 500.000 and 130.000 years BC.
Meanwhile in Africa, from the rest population of Homo Erectus Homo Sapiens developed. The oldest found is dated at about 195.000 years BC.
Homo Sapiens is the only homo species that survived.
At around 11.000 BC, in Mesopotamia, Homo Sapiens first settled down to work the land and keep cattle. This basically marks the start of civilization as we know it. The oldest WHEEL found has been dated from 3.500 years B.C., and while we don't know that much about the time in-between 11.000 and 3.500, it's the time when settlements became towns, when writings (and numerals) and religion was developed and so on.
(In comparison, in Europe the settling-down started only at about 5.500 BC, so it's no wonder that the first empires of old developed in Mesopotamia.)
Now, what is so hard to believe with that short history of the human? The evolutionary characteristic are hands with a thumb to be able to manually work the surroundings and a brain being able to process and store more data. It would seem that as a survival trait the brain needed to reach a certain size in order to be not just a small advantage, but a decisive factor (with the erect gait meaning two limbs not needed to stand and walk on, but having them free for defending/attacking).
So once the brain reached the critical mass, the process got massively fired up.
An interesting side question is, why the Neandertaler got extinct, because he had everything of the above mentioned. The main theory is that their procreation was too "slow" (they had to breastfeed their children 3 years, homo sapiens only 2), and additionally they needed more time to reach sexual maturity, which means, that a female could probably have at most 4 children in a life span, which seems to have been not enough to survive in hard times (so procreation rate is another survival factor, it would seem).
Bottom line is, that things started off SLOWLY. Mutation doesn't mean, wham, a minute before we had a brain volume of 500 ccm, and the next it doubled. Instead it's more like, brain volume gained a tiny bit with every new generation (with the usual fluctuations), leading to rather slow habitual changes based on slightly more capacity to thought, from 5 generations to five generations in combination with climate changes (forcing to adapt or react or giving golden opportunities).
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:14 AM |
|
|
Didn't the neanderthal mind have more functions dedicated to sight versus social intelligence? They weren't as entrepreneurial (and/or ambitious?) as the human being. The records show neanderthal communities having a smaller radius with trade & migration than humans, and the amount of breeding that went on between humans and neanderthals was fairly limited (modern people are generally well below 5% neanderthal; not a whole lot).
Other habits, like nurturing time could have had a detrimental effect, but the initiative to trade & move around is a huge deal. As a species, we have very little genetic diversity versus the vast majority of other species, and it's due to our propensity to say "**** this" and move around for various reasons ranging from desperation to ambition.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
An interesting side question is, why the Neandertaler got extinct
I remember reading and article about us being one of the reasons. The details are blurry but there was naturally a rivalry between neanderthals and homo sapiens. Also keep in mind, that after a short time we went out of Africa, the humans almost went extinct too. there was some volcano explosion again and our species barely made it.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:31 AM |
|
|
Well, I think humans killing the **** out of neanderthals was pretty much a given. We rock at that. But that still leaves the question of why humans came out on top and neanderthals got a reservation for the museum.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:37 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 09:39, 23 May 2013.
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Quote:
Science is an imperfect tool with imperfect people making imperfect measurements with imperfect instruments, making imperfect observations, and reaching imperfect conclusions.
And yet you have no problem using it as the basis for your contention that life begins at conception - and bragging about how superior an argument it is.
True, natural selection hasn't been "proven". But can you name one scientific theory that has? You can't, because theories aren't proven. The fact that you think they should be shows you don't really understand what a scientific theory is.
There's no need to be upset. We just agreed on something. Evolution has not been proved.
Yes, science is an imperfect tool but we have discovered a lot of things with it, such as a 100 years old man is the same human organism as that single celled human organism he was in the womb so long ago. Just more mature. Of course that is a "discovery" that should have been obvious to everyone without proof, but it was not.
Anyways, as long as we recognize science to be a tool with limitations and that scientific theories are not divine revelations handed out through high priests of science then we can better keep a more objective viewpoint and a more open mind.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:38 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 09:59, 23 May 2013.
|
@blizz
Well, if they needed to breastfeed longer we definitely outnumbered them. That's the same reason the European conquerors kicked the hell out Mayans and Inkas and so on. No domestication meant they depended on mother milk longer and that resulted in less population, hence needing less organizational skills and technology.
@Elodin
You are reading what you want to, again. He said natural selection (the theory of evolution) hasn't been proven, not evolution itself. They are two different things, that's what we've tried to get through your head: Theories are not proven, they are based on proven facts. If you look at the first post of Corribus, you will see he also mentions the FACT of evolution just like I did.
And you are the objective one because you are skeptical of science and yet not of Christianity? How sad...
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:42 AM |
|
|
There's a lot of reasons for why Eurasian civilizations catapulted ahead of Africa/Americas/Australia. But what do you mean by domestication?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 09:50 AM |
|
|
|
They didn't have cows or goats to milk so the infant depended on mother milk much longer, it is one of the core reasons they remained as smaller groups not advancing much in technology and organization.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 11:58 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't know but based upon your strange initial post maybe you should hop on down to the zoo. I think they might accept you. 
How kind of you William, I could use a change of scenery but the truth is dude (my word long before you had ears to ear it), in my current shape I think it would be more likely the "House of Wax" However my waxwork would have to have my Kramer in order to draw the crowds. 
@All
Zerox well described why I asked my question; decades have sped by since I was sitting in class-rooms and being told what to believe I was just curious if there where any major discoveries according to science (beside ones that cause what was previously believed to be revisited & revised)
Btw, I do believe in Science and as a matter of fact am very dismayed at how much speculation is being reported as Science, but that's another topic someone else can start.
As far as man's origins I believe rather it may be discovered some day to be an odd mixture of all that's tossed about because I think on this subject man is sort of like in the 1200s when he knew there was a world but could not see the whole thing and thought it flat. Another problem is, I also believe we see tiny glimpses and it might be impossible for a very long time to see much more, because, our earth has a great ability to eat evidence and what is sought may never be found; unless of course they do find a buried spaceship with the owner's manual intact. That would make some folks very happy.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:07 PM |
|
|
You have blind evolution artu, I have theistic evolution. May you find your way as pleasant.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:30 PM |
|
|
|
There is nothing blind about natural selection, it is a pattern based on survival and adaptation. Non-directional does not mean blind. But I don't think you have the formation to even contemplate on that, so don't bite more than you can chew.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:35 PM |
|
|
Can somebody explain what the frack "theistic evolution" is??? Sounds like some kind of half-baked excuse to adapt a 2000 year old book to modern times. :S
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:40 PM |
|
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:44 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 16:45, 23 May 2013.
|
Also, there are domesticated breeds of sub-saharan African cattle that produce milk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiga
They seem to originate from West Africa though which if I'm not mistaken, has had some of the more successfull African kingdoms (Ethiopia was never colonized, right?)
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:49 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 16:53, 23 May 2013.
|
Quote:
Also, there are domesticated breeds of sub-saharan African cattle that produce milk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigar
Read again, I never mentioned Africa. The American continents (South and North) don't have domestication of farm animals prior to European invasions. I don't remember hearing of it, but if you dig and come up with an exception to the rule (like a minor tribe domesticating lamas or something) that won't change the result much.
Think of all the Westerns you watched, do you remember cows walking around those Indian tents ever
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted May 23, 2013 04:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
You have blind evolution artu, I have theistic evolution.
"Blind" vs. "theistic"? Really?
Ok, non-theistic. It's still blind, dude.
clicky
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
| |
|
|
