Evolution Revolution

Your comments on local and global news of the day
User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 2045
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Kellemora » 24 Sep 2015, 19:35

Just because there is very little difference between the types of mammals on our planet, don't mean they all came from a single source.
I often think about reasons why, nearly every creature has:
Two Ears
Two Eyes
One nose with two Nostrils
One mouth, which works for eating and breathing.
Four appendages, with an appendages on each with usually five phalanges.

Some creatures may have a long nose, such as an elephant, or a tall neck such as a giraffe.

Seems to me, all of our senses are important enough that they are included in almost all species, including fish, birds, etc. Insects and wormlike creatures seem to have a different set of codes, but even they are similar within their broad species.

If the Evolution Theory most speak of was correct, we would see all the transitional steps still going strong.
As my sons sign shows. We have millions of Apes of all types, and millions of people of all types. But where are the millions of those from in-between shown on the charts?

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Icey » 24 Sep 2015, 20:43

They aren't, are they, and this is one of the things that I often talk about. We might share a lot of similar DNA, but we're separate species. This COULD be due to evolving to suit our habitats, but considering how long this'd take, each one would've died out before it could reach what we see today. If they couldn't eat and reproduce, they'd be gone, but both humans and apes are with us now, and the apes would've had more than enough time to catch up and turn into us if they were meant to.

I don't dismiss theories of evolution entirely, but theories are all they are. There's no proof that we all stemmed from the same source. Perhaps similar ones, and therefore that's how we come to have such a variety of living things, but even if you include mutated genes which're passed down, I can't see how they'd produce millions of different organisms, and why haven't they all caught up with each other? They don't, because we're in a food chain, necessary for life as we know it. Each living thing relies on another, and the balance's incredibly perfect. It's a shame that human beings're ruining it all.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4464
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by yogi » 25 Sep 2015, 09:02

The missing links we have in our possession are being called misclassified. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of evolution is being classed as a matter of belief and nothing more. We all are entitled to our beliefs, I suppose. I'm favoring the explanations put forth by people who have devoted their entire lives to studying such things. I don't expect a consensus to ever occur, but that is what scientific method is all about.

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Icey » 25 Sep 2015, 09:29

I appreciate your views Yogi, and it probably seems more logical to go with those than anything leaning towards creation or intelligent design. I also favour your lines of thought, but have to question myself and others, due to those missing links you mentioned.
We often read about things these days which throw a spanner into the works, rendering all past theories as rubbish, while others're inexplicable at the moment, and so further theories spring up. Considering that most of them are science-based, I accept that a good deal of them're going to be factual. The "but" is that I keep an open mind, because we just don't know.

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4464
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by yogi » 06 Oct 2015, 10:22

Recent discoveries about the new species homo naledi show that it was capable of climbing trees, walking like humans, and using tools. This article is interesting for those revelations alone, but the conclusions presented about "missing links" is the most interesting part of the story.
These findings are quite intriguing, so it’s natural to wonder if H. naledi represents some kind of “missing link” in the fossil record. DeSilva says we need to refrain from using such language.

“The ‘missing link’ concept is based on an old and misguided idea that humans evolved from apes as we know them today and the resulting expectation that fossils would reveal a half-human, half-ape ancestor,” he told Gizmodo. “But, that is not how evolution works! Apes have evolved, too.”

DeSilva says that, instead of evolving from chimpanzees, we know that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that was neither human nor chimpanzee.

“We now have thousands of fossils of early human ancestors and extinct relatives, and this growing human fossil record reveals species like Homo naledi that have different combinations of ape-like and human-like anatomies, but I’d never call Homo naledi half-human and half-ape,” he says. “Our evolutionary history has been much more complicated, and interesting, than that.”

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Icey » 06 Oct 2015, 13:04

Interesting.

It seems that we're all agreeing on, is that the "missing links" refer to mutations of DNA which allowed some organisms to develop to suit a particular habitat, and others which didn't.

The sugars and proteins found in DNA have a bearing on each living thing, whereby the strong ones over-ride the weak. Therefore, you won't have a human baby turning into a reptile or fish again, but early foetuses can show signs of having a tail or gills.

http://www.science20.com/fish_feet/why_ ... ave_a_tail

User avatar
pilvikki
Posts: 4456
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 15:35

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by pilvikki » 07 Oct 2015, 12:25

what about my pet theory about people having been sea creatures at one point, far beyond the fishtail stage?

instead staying put, like dolphins and turning fish-shaped, we waddled back onto the dry land and got flat feet and sunburnt.

User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 2045
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Kellemora » 07 Oct 2015, 15:16

Then where are the millions that would be in each transitional stage, before another stage developed?

If you look around, it appears to me we are evolving, only backwards, hi hi...

User avatar
Icey
Posts: 10161
Joined: 18 Feb 2015, 18:13

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Icey » 07 Oct 2015, 16:49

Interesting thoughts.

I AM leaning towards evolution occurring, but not in the way that some think we came from apes, or even the sea. My own theory is that organisms developed on both land and water, and adapted as necessary to survive. This doesn't mean that all life had to look the same at the start. As I say, the mixture of proteins and sugars in DNA causes differences in how cells look and behave. Each cell acts in a specific way and they can mutate. Therefore, they may resemble what they originated from, but not be entirely the same.

Some new species of fish've now been found off the coast of Tasmania which either prove evolution in terms of them being at a transitional stage, or perhaps they're simply mutations, much in the same way as animals and people might be born with webbed fingers, 12 toes or one leg.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -pictures/

User avatar
yogi
Posts: 4464
Joined: 14 Feb 2015, 15:49

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by yogi » 10 May 2017, 10:15

More evidence is in, plus new fossil remains have been found. The age of Homo naledi is somewhere between 236,000 and 335,000 years old. This puts it in the range of Homo erectus and reserves a spot for it as a missing link in the evolutionary chain. No conclusions can be drawn yet, but obviously this find gives paleontologists something to talk about.

Read about the excitement here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... s-evolved/

User avatar
Kellemora
Posts: 2045
Joined: 16 Feb 2015, 11:54

Re: Evolution Revolution

Post by Kellemora » 10 May 2017, 14:02

Well I'm sure glad these ancient civilizations didn't allow PETA to preserve the dinosaurs.
Can you imagine how much it would cost to feed several thousand dinosaurs, or keep them from knocking over your garbage cans every night, hi hi...
At the rate taxes go up each year, if a 240,000 year old civilization still existed, the taxes would be 5000 times their income!
Maybe it's a good thing civilizations die out when their tax base crosses 25%, or not so good when you consider how far beyond that we are, and barely holding on ourselves.

Post Reply