both, it was the same time which is why it makes no sense, they lost their fur in the mid ice age which is about when they reached that far into Europe
both, it was the same time which is why it makes no sense, they lost their fur in the mid ice age which is about when they reached that far into Europe
Of course it makes sense--they began wearing furs to stay warm, so why on earth would they need hair?
we have a thin layer of hair, hardly enough to conserve heat by any manner. Take off your clothes and run around the tundra a while, you'll see what I'm talking about
This thin layer of hair was fur tens of thousands of years ago.
Quote:
Of course it makes sense--they began wearing furs to stay warm, so why on earth would they need hair?
Yes.
The first humans with under-develloped fur, if you will, came from africa, were even under the glaciation temperatures were still relatively hot. Has they migrated, their fur did not reappear. They started to wear fur instead. It took these people less time to think about furs than to evolve, wich is a prossess done in many generations.
To give an example, human evolution will probably end because of medical science.
Thats practicly my theroy also, i dont think there would still be monkeys...Just me though.
This is a common question asked by people who know nothing or very little about evolutionary biology (or biology itself).
The answers is:
Quote:
We didn't evolve from the monkeys that still exist today - so there is no reason for there not to be any monkeys. It's like asking: if we evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-celled organisms today? Why aren't there only human beings?
But that question simply makes no sense. Just because one line of evolution from single-celled organisms resulted in us, that doesn't mean that no other lines of evolution could exist. Some apes evolved in a line that became us. Others branched off to chimpanzees, others branched off to gorillas, others branched off to orangutans, and so forth.
Evolution has no goal. Has no top, has no bottom, no upperclass, no lower or middle class; evolution is the process of change that life forms go through as a species struggles to survive, as a species, by adapting to the environment around it.
Humans are not "more developed" or higher than other life; we are a young species and have huge brains, that's all.
And yes, species can branch off and form new species; a small group becomes separated from the main group and has to adapt to changing circumstances, different from that of the main group; when it changes enough, it becomes a different subspecies. The more time and changes that go by, it can be defined as a new species.
Here is the end-all-and-be-all of why evolution is the dominant scientific theory for explaining things like the fossil record, biodiversity, microevolution, et cetera: because it works. Evolution is the only scientific theory that works in this case. We have a relatively large amount of proof to prove it, too.
Why microevolution IS macroevolution: microbes breed much faster. We're talking about a new generation every two hours, folks. Calling a prehistoric human generation 15 years, that makes our 3 million years of evolution from austropith-whatevers to modern humans equivalent to 45 years in microbe terms. Calling it 20 years gives you a figure of 34 years. So let's settle on 40. 40 years ago equals 1965. So, the timetable that has given us humanity from ape-like ancestors has been compressed into a middle-aged person's life. Think about what could have happened in that time. Microbes are also notably more receptive to mutagens, so our pollution may have in fact accelerated natural evolution.
I ramble. My point is, that is microevolution. It is also macroevolution. We have new species or microbes that have popped up in the last half-century, and you know what? We should not be surprised. These new species will die or live, depending on their compatibility with the world. Those that live will mutate like their forbears due to simple probability, and create new species. Over time theis process will keep rolling until the world ends. That is macroevolution.
About the whole "747 in a junkyard" myth: that is only true if the end goal is to randomly create a human. However, evolutionary theory does not treat humans as an end, but as a beginning. Humans can only be an end if they make themselves so. Evolution does not care about humans, or anything else. A species of semi-intelligent octopi that has lots of predators and few ways to defend itself, or a organless bacterium that survives in lukewarm water quite easily and is toxic to its predators. Who wins? The bacterium.
One argument I have seen in the past is the invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am going to prempt this argument by arguing that entropy is necessary for the evolutionary process to take place. Without a tendency for instability the biological systems would remain stagnant. This disorder creates evolution in creatures just as stress creates innovation in society. The hottest fire forges the strongest steel.
Right, that's my $4.82.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."-James Madison
Here is the end-all-and-be-all of why evolution is the dominant scientific theory for explaining things like the fossil record, biodiversity, microevolution, et cetera: because it works. Evolution is the only scientific theory that works in this case. We have a relatively large amount of proof to prove it, too.
Why microevolution IS macroevolution: microbes breed much faster. We're talking about a new generation every two hours, folks. Calling a prehistoric human generation 15 years, that makes our 3 million years of evolution from austropith-whatevers to modern humans equivalent to 45 years in microbe terms. Calling it 20 years gives you a figure of 34 years. So let's settle on 40. 40 years ago equals 1965. So, the timetable that has given us humanity from ape-like ancestors has been compressed into a middle-aged person's life. Think about what could have happened in that time. Microbes are also notably more receptive to mutagens, so our pollution may have in fact accelerated natural evolution.
I ramble. My point is, that is microevolution. It is also macroevolution. We have new species or microbes that have popped up in the last half-century, and you know what? We should not be surprised. These new species will die or live, depending on their compatibility with the world. Those that live will mutate like their forbears due to simple probability, and create new species. Over time theis process will keep rolling until the world ends. That is macroevolution.
About the whole "747 in a junkyard" myth: that is only true if the end goal is to randomly create a human. However, evolutionary theory does not treat humans as an end, but as a beginning. Humans can only be an end if they make themselves so. Evolution does not care about humans, or anything else. A species of semi-intelligent octopi that has lots of predators and few ways to defend itself, or a organless bacterium that survives in lukewarm water quite easily and is toxic to its predators. Who wins? The bacterium.
One argument I have seen in the past is the invocation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I am going to prempt this argument by arguing that entropy is necessary for the evolutionary process to take place. Without a tendency for instability the biological systems would remain stagnant. This disorder creates evolution in creatures just as stress creates innovation in society. The hottest fire forges the strongest steel.
Right, that's my $4.82.
And it was worth every penny
Seriously though, excellent post--I was awaiting further arguments before bringing out the big guns, but you've pre-empted them.
Yes, Second Law of Thermodynamics--in addition--applies to closed systems. Biological systems are far from closed.
Thank you, Nord. That was what I was thinking no more than two weeks ago, and here is my chance to say something.
All Darwin and Co. did was take the evidence before them and extrapolate a theory from it, which was based on the evidence. If you don't like it because it contradicts your belief system, you can simply call it BS and go on your merry way, but it is still treated as fact (not truth, fact) because it is the scientific theory that best explains some facet of our world. If you can think of a better theory, go ahead. Galileo did so, as did Newton, and Einstein. Perhaps the future will prove them wrong, but for now, with what we have seen, they are correct. Darwin holds the same honor.
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."-James Madison
Last edited by !moof; June 23rd, 2005 at 07:43 PM.
i just cant believe that some god would just create the whole world with a snap of the fingers , so untill there is a better theory or the evolution theory gets trashed i will stick with it thats all.
oh and i dont believe in big bang either . I think that the universe has just been there and will be for ever. we tend to think about everything in terms of gensis and destruction because we are bound by them
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Re: Evolution 
Chief Master Sergeant
Linear Mode
