FileFront Forums - Evolution

FileFront Forums (http://forums.filefront.com/)

- The Pub (http://forums.filefront.com/pub-578/)

- - Evolution (http://forums.filefront.com/pub/201115-evolution.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by t0m

Just a theory I have, but I believe that at any given point in time, only one species can be dominant. We also have the advantage of highly developed brains.

But why has our brain developed farther than is needed for survival? Recorded history started some 10000 years ago, exactly what happened before that point it unknown. In the end everyone is left to their opinions, this is mine.

Maybe this is something I'm just not getting here... Why do people talk about evolution as if there is intent behind it? Why would you think monkeys decided to walk upright and lose their tails just to become another species? It's ridiculous.

Apparently, humans are the only animals that have a consciouness, ability to form complex abstract theories, etc... And yet, when a guy finds a wife and impregnates her, is he thinking about how the mixture of their genes will affect the human species on the whole? No. And if humans - the only things that could possibly be making that sort of contemplation - aren't doing it, then crocodiles and apes and dinosaurs sure as hell won't.

And this thing about the hearts (irreducable complexity, or something like that?)... Evolution does not mean that any organ that is not of great use to a species will be removed immediately on the advent of the next generation. If it meant that, what about the appendix thing in the human digestion system, for example? That's of absolutely no use to us now, and hasn't been for many generations, but it is still undeniably there. Evolution isn't trying to perfect all creatures. Evolution isn't trying a thing. Evolution has no consciousness, no intent, no point.

Voted on not having an opinion.

Evolution is real. It explains the origins of practically everything. All those religious versions are nonsense.

finaly somebody mentions it... well i dont believe that crap..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mephistopheles

And why do whales have rudimentary legs? The evolution of the whales had long been criticized by creationists because there had not been enough fossils to prove it. But during the past years the collection of transitional vertebrate fossils has grown and the (creationist) criticism isn't substantiated anymore (if it had ever been).

Here are some pictures of transitional fossils:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence...chus_large.jpg

http://vbeaud.free.fr/Sciences/Biolo...akicetus_2.jpg

http://www.kp-art.fi/taustaa/taustaa2/img/02_5_7.jpg

http://www.cas.cz/ziva/cisla/0405/17.jpg

http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/U...ocetidaeA5.jpg

I suggest you follow this link to get the whole story:

http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/0...-whales-tales/

uh, my friend, you posted a pic of Andrewsarchus, which was after Ambliosetus and around the same time as Balisaurus. It's been basically ruled out as an ancestor to whales and has been more closely linked to goats and sheep (it's a hoofed carnivore) :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truce

Yes. Decision is not relevant--if the species needs to change, it does; if it doesn't need to change, it stays the same. The animals have no knowledge of the change.

The ant hasn't changed much for 400 million years--except getting smaller, as many insects have. Which makes sense--the more plants and animals on the planet, the less room there would be. Insects decreased in size as a result, and probably also to make better use of vegetation, to remain hidden and harder to see/eat.

Quote:

Apparently, humans are the only animals that have a consciouness, ability to form complex abstract theories, etc... And yet, when a guy finds a wife and impregnates her, is he thinking about how the mixture of their genes will affect the human species on the whole? No. And if humans - the only things that could possibly be making that sort of contemplation - aren't doing it, then crocodiles and apes and dinosaurs sure as hell won't.

Humans have what might be called an ultra consciousness--advanced reasoning, awareness of mortality--but all mammals seem to be able to dream, have basic reasoning ability, et cetera, a consciousness.

Quote:

And this thing about the hearts (irreducable complexity, or something like that?)... Evolution does not mean that any organ that is not of great use to a species will be removed immediately on the advent of the next generation. If it meant that, what about the appendix thing in the human digestion system, for example? That's of absolutely no use to us now, and hasn't been for many generations, but it is still undeniably there. Evolution isn't trying to perfect all creatures. Evolution isn't trying a thing. Evolution has no consciousness, no intent, no point.

Voted on not having an opinion.

Well, yes, the old appendix. It's still being fought over.

This sums it up:

The scientific argument:

Quote:

The appendix has no known physiological function but probably represents a degenerated portion of the cecum that, in ancestral forms, aided in cellulose digestion. It is believed that the appendix will gradually disappear in human beings as our diet do not includes cellulose any more. In the other animals, the appendix is much larger and provides a pouch off the main intestinal tract, in which cellulose can be trapped and be subjected to prolonged digestion.

The creationist argument:

Quote:

The appendix contains a high concentration of lymphoid follicles. These are highly specialised structures which are a part of the immune system. The clue to the appendix’s function is found in its strategic position right where the small bowel meets the large bowel or colon. The colon is loaded with bacteria which are useful there, but which must be kept away from other areas such as the small bowel and the bloodstream.

If the appendix was meant for assisting digestion in some way, as it does in other mammals, the it serves no function in humans (in that regard).

If the appendix used to serve that function but now serves a different purpose, moreso in regard to immune system, then this is evidence that organs can adapt and change to serve other purposes.

Therefore, this does not support the creationist argument that nothing in humans in unnecessary; in fact, it weakens the overall argument, showing that while everything may seem to have a purpose, some purposes are no longer relevant, yet the human body has adapted to changing circumstances and found another use for the organ.

Since the begining of the primates, there have been numerous species of monkeys that decided to walk upright, possible for easier access to food. We have always had four fingers and a thumb. All primate species I believe have this.

Eventually when our ancestors began to stand up longer, they probably figured out how to make use of tools such as sticks and rocks to fend off from enemies. This is when our brains began to evolve. And I think it wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for our thumbs. Our thumbs hold the key to our success. Anyway, once we began to figure out the functions of tools, our brains over a period of a few million years started to adapt to make use of this knowledge. We become more proficient at using tools. Soon we begin to figure out more complex things, like using animal fur to keep us warm. This takes away the need to use fur over time.

You people against these ideas just think that this all happened over a period of a few thousand years or something. It took millions of years for the evolutionary changes to take place that make humans what we are today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steakboy

Thanks for the info, but you obviously didn't follow the link I provided http://forums.filefront.com/images/smilies/winkx.gif.

(http://afarensis.blogsome.com/2005/...d-whales-tales/)

Quote:

A word on what a transitional fossil specimen really is: A transitional is not necessarily directly ancestral to the later organism. It might be, but we really can’t know for certain if a given transitional is the direct forebear of a later species or not.

Consider the paleontologist who finds the partial skeleton of a Dachshund, a red fox, and a wolf. Is one ancestral to the other? Which way does the lineage flow; from big to little or vice-versa? What if you have only a few leg bones and some pelvis for the red fox, a partial skull of the Dachshund, and the lower jaw and a scrap of spine for the wolf? And what if you’d never seen a living canid of any kind! That’s the dilemma paleontologists are in when they try to assign ancestry. It’s pretty amazing, a testament to the dedication and expertise of paleobiologists, that they’ve been as successful as they have. This uncertinaty becomes increasingly resolved when the fossil record is more complete.

Andrewsarchus is actually a relative of our familiar hoofed animals and a distant relative of the early whale, Basilosaurus.

and the reason I did not follow your link

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumb site

Page Does Not Exist.

And people were asking why the top creature decided to jump in the water, I just thought I'd point out, it didn't, it never turned into a whale. Hoofed animals don't get along well with water, messes up their equilibrium and they get really stupid and often drown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steakboy

and the reason I did not follow your link

And people were asking why the top creature decided to jump in the water, I just thought I'd point out, it didn't, it never turned into a whale. Hoofed animals don't get along well with water, messes up their equilibrium and they get really stupid and often drown.

Polar bears anyone?

If their main food source was in the water, and over a period of time they keep eating animals from the water, eventually they are going to make changes to allow them to manuever in the water better. Until, that is, they are in the water completely. You're hypothesis is easily blown out of the water by fifth grade biology.