The Evolution of Evolution

Palomar · 2005-08-02 11:51:21

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology … html]Click

*I admit it: There is still a part of me which refuses to believe or strongly consider that we descended from apes. :? No doubt a hold-over from childhood religious conditioning. But honestly? I'd rather have been created in the image of a supernatural being than a monkey.

But I'm still an agnostic.

Anyway, interesting link. Enjoy.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 03:14:20

LO

But honestly?, I'd rather have been created in the image of a supernatural being than a monkey.

And honestly, doesn't the supernatural being shit and piss as any monkey ? :shock:

DonPanic · 2005-08-03 03:38:34

LO
Personnaly, I like much better the idea of the humble extraction being rising slowly to conscience and cleverness, with some failures but toughly trying to overcome than the idea of the fallen angel returning to barbary.

Rxke · 2005-08-03 04:10:28

I give that site a huuuuuuge thumbs down, or am i missing something and is it for kids?

I mean: showing that top-ten is all but worthless info.
I'm pretty sure all the average visitor will remember from that top ten is the tidbit about head-butting ancestors

Not only are the descriptions confusing (is hominid XYZ a direct ascendant to our species or a 'branch', for starters...)
there's no link to more info if you want to read more... Unexcusable.

Huuuuge thumbsdown. Heck, I said it might be ok for kids, but I retract that. Give kids a good source of info, and they'll absorb it like sponges, Kids are amazing that way, don't dumb them down with "ooh nice flashy bitesize quick infotainment"

I absolutely hate the way 'knowledge' gets disseminated, these days. Lifescience, my frigging Xss. It's pure entertaiment.

grumblegrumblegrumpygrumpy.

DonPanic · 2005-08-04 07:07:43

LO

I'd rather have been created in the image of a supernatural being than a monkey.

Sure you're a very handsome one

To tell the truth, when I see some mankind specimens, I can very hardly admit they have been created in the image of a supernatural being too,

He, for instance,

so happy he just learned he have been created in the image of a supernatural being

the supernatural being can't be that ugly

SpaceNut · 2005-08-05 09:47:36

Though evolution is a tough act to follow it is made harder by the time scales involved. Some transitions happened very quickly while other are still on goning.

It would now appear that Evolutionary Accident Probably Caused The Worst Snowball Earth Episode.

Where in the simple growth of bacteria to more plant like abilities of photosynthesis which has lead to even more change could have attributed to other climatic coolings.

clark · 2005-08-05 13:28:42

I like bananas

DonPanic · 2005-08-05 17:57:30

It would now appear that http://www.terradaily.com/news/iceage-0 … olutionary Accident Probably Caused The Worst Snowball Earth Episode.
Where in the simple growth of bacteria to more plant like abilities of photosynthesis .

Saw the same subject TV.
What about this http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMWXH808BE_in … l]bacteria proliferation ?

reddragon · 2005-08-06 14:27:12

I'd rather have been created in the image of a supernatural being than a monkey.

I prefer humanity being the best yet (in our own minds at least) of everything that has lived on Earth over millions of years, but perhaps not the best ever to come, than a flawed clone of an ideal being. In my opinion, evolution fits well with the spirit of advancement.

Anyway, whatever we may personally prefer, evolution by natural selection appears to have happened. Large quantities of data appear to prove it, and there are no data with which it is incompatible -- something that cannot be said for creationism, intelligent design, or any other hypothesis that I know of.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-15 05:38:27

Well then how can non living things give birth to the living just might be even harder to explain.

[url=http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_of_life_launched/?page=full]Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution[/url]

The Harvard project, which is likely to start with about $1 million annually from the university, will bring together scientists from fields as disparate as astronomy and biology, to understand how life emerged from the chemical soup of early Earth, and how this might have happened on distant planets.

Exploring the natural order
The theory of evolution has been both fascinating and religiously charged since its very beginnings, because it speaks directly to the place of people in the natural order. In another era, the idea that humans are the close cousins of apes -- a scientific fact now supported by overwhelming evidence -- was seen as both offensive and preposterous.
Today's research of origins focuses on questions that seem as strange as the study of ''ape men" once did: How can life arise from nonlife? How easy is it for this to happen? And does the universe teem with life, or is Earth a solitary island?

Then looking back in time to earths early atmoshphere:

New look at an experiment
Every high school student learns of the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment: A flask, containing elements of the early Earth's atmosphere, was jolted with electricity, like bolts of lightening. This simple setup created a wealth of organic molecules, but since, the prevailing view of the makeup of the early atmosphere has changed, and the experiment doesn't work well with the new recipe.
Some researchers have suggested that organic molecules could have been carried to Earth in the icy core of comets, or that life began near the intense heat of deep sea vents, an environment that drives unusual reactions.

Palomar · 2005-08-15 07:28:03

LO
I'd rather have been created in the image of a supernatural being than a monkey.
Sure you're a very handsome one
To tell the truth, when I see some mankind specimens, I can very hardly admit they have been created in the image of a supernatural being too

*Actually I am rather pretty (you inquired).

DonPanic, I have -no- trouble believing some people evolved from apes. LOL!

But there is a supernatural element I can't quite let go of and I'm not sure why. ::shrugs:: I am an agnostic. But then this thread isn't about my preferences nor sentiments...

I remember doing book reports on evolution in elementary school. Those were great fun; I researched the Period I'd been assigned to with relish; it was a pre-homo sapiens Period and so, of course, the focus was on dinosaurs, flora, etc.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-15 11:46:10

DonPanic, I have -no- trouble believing some people evolved from apes. LOL!

Evolved?

Interesting to consider what really separates us from the animals, especially from our close ape relatives. Apes have social structures, though simpler than our own. Chimps have been known to use crude tools, sticks to get termites and things of that sort. They organize into closed social groups and have been knwon to fight other such groups in an vaguely organized fashion. Chimps and gorillas have even been taught to communicate via sign language, demonstrating the capacity for symbolic reasoning.

We seem to be little more than really advanced apes. Kinship goes beyond mere genetics.

I've not heard a non-evolutionary position on that. I'm sure there is a Creationist line on it, I'm just not familiar with it. It does beg the question though, why would a supernatural being create a reasoning, social animal only to have it fight and eat in the jungle, then turn around and create another similar creature with more advanced capability? From an evolutionary standpoint it makes perfect sense, a steady progression, though perhaps steadier than we might like. From a "creation" standpoint it seems to imply that God needs practice or change his mind, either of which has profound theological implications.

It would be interesting if some small pocket of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus survived to this day, further blurring the line between what we think of as man and ape.

John Creighton · 2005-08-15 12:06:30

DonPanic, I have -no- trouble believing some people evolved from apes. LOL!
Evolved?

Interesting to consider what really separates us from the animals, especially from our close ape relatives. Apes have social structures, though simpler than our own. Chimps have been known to use crude tools, sticks to get termites and things of that sort. They organize into closed social groups and have been knwon to fight other such groups in an vaguely organized fashion. Chimps and gorillas have even been taught to communicate via sign language, demonstrating the capacity for symbolic reasoning.
We seem to be little more than really advanced apes. Kinship goes beyond mere genetics.
I've not heard a non-evolutionary position on that. I'm sure there is a Creationist line on it, I'm just not familiar with it. It does beg the question though, why would a supernatural being create a reasoning, social animal only to have it fight and eat in the jungle, then turn around and create another similar creature with more advanced capability? From an evolutionary standpoint it makes perfect sense, a steady progression, though perhaps steadier than we might like. From a "creation" standpoint it seems to imply that God needs practice or change his mind, either of which has profound theological implications.
It would be interesting if some small pocket of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus survived to this day, further blurring the line between what we think of as man and ape.

It is obviously a missing chapter in the bible where god instead of striking a group of people down by lightening decided to try turn them into apes instead. Perhaps so they would have respect for nature.

Bill-ape-7-1 And upon a distance pasture, a people raised livestock not for food, but sport and perversion. God looked down saddened by what he saw. For to have domain over the lords creation means to be a Shepard and not a wolf. If not for the sheep then for the children who are taught to be deviant and cruel by the livestock their parents keep. As a lighting bolt filled the hand of the lord with all his furry, then came a second thought. Let these people become beast at the mercy of others and let them be a reminder of how a hand against a beast is like a hand against man. And with love wisdom and justice the lord spared these people from fury and fire and said let them be humble. Let them be at the mercy of man and let them be a lesson. For these I spare with my infinite love shall be called apes.

Palomar · 2005-08-15 12:25:02

*There is a 3rd alternative, along the lines of (yes, I'll be brave enough to drop the name) Zechariah Sitchin's ideas. Do I believe Sitchin's theories? No. But I've wondered...(agnostic).

Maybe it's a lingering remnant of some sort of arrogance, but when I look at the evolutionary charts for humans I cringe. I love animals but I don't want to be related to apes like that.

Of course we have a fossil record and etc. And no doubt previous "conditioning" is playing a part. It's rather difficult to explain without trying to describe impressions and subjective feelings on the matter ... which aren't scientifically based so I'll defer.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-08-15 12:27:32

That could have been a proverb from the planet of the apes movie.

Neanderthal possibly if a clear dna sample where found you would find that they did intermix with small pockets of modern man.
I have seen a few people that have had the high forhead and very big bone structure that was associated with them.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-15 14:10:28

It would be interesting if some small pocket of Neanderthals or Homo Erectus survived to this day, further blurring the line between what we think of as man and ape.

You know, they're still looking for Ebu Gogo. That whole "Monkey Man" thing over in India is looking really suspicious, too.

I have seen a few people that have had the high forhead and very big bone structure that was associated with them.

I wasn't aware that you've seen me in public before, SpaceNut.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-15 17:53:43

I don't have trouble seeing how apes and humans evolved from the same ancestor. The resemblances are sobering!
But the transition from non-living material to living organisms, capable of reproducing, metabolizing, and evolving, is still a major stumbling block for science. There are various clever ideas for how that transition came about but, when it comes down to the details, and any prospect of duplicating the process in a laboratory, the fact is we're hopelessly lost. We still don't have a clue.

I find this current impasse in science to be perplexing. There is evidence that life arose on Earth very quickly after the surface temperatures settled down sufficiently to allow carbon compounds to maintain their integrity and persist. It's even thought probable that life could have been extinguished by asteroid bombardment on more than one occasion, yet it reappeared with astonishing rapidity.
-- On the face of it, it looks like life should just pop into existence at the drop of a hat! We should surely be able to duplicate Earth's early conditions in a laboratory and have life emerge from non-life before our very eyes. And, from that, we should know perfectly well how life originates by now, and be able to repeat the process ourselves any time we like. I think it's odd that life seems so irrepressible in Earth's earliest history, yet so elusive today.

[Maybe this isn't actually biological evolution I'm talking about here (?), since I'm dealing with the origin of biology, rather than its development. But I suppose you'll allow me the benefit of the doubt - after all, non-living material changing into living material could be thought of as a kind of evolution, I guess.
-- If not, then my apologies for getting off-topic.]

Palomar · 2005-08-17 05:38:29

I don't have trouble seeing how apes and humans evolved from the same ancestor. The resemblances are sobering!

*Yeah...sobering. And on a certain subjective level I still reject it.

The mix of opinions in this thread and the personal beliefs/preferences -- or lack thereof -- of folks here is just as interesting. At least one person here (not I) believes in God while embracing evolution. An avowed atheist has chimed in. Other folks are "okay" with evolution and ape ancestry. I'm an agnostic who, if ignoring the fossil record and other evidence, sees major flaws in all "explanations" as to how we got here, all of which lead to cyclical sorts of questioning.

There is evidence that life arose on Earth very quickly after the surface temperatures settled down sufficiently to allow carbon compounds to maintain their integrity and persist. It's even thought probable that life could have been extinguished by asteroid bombardment on more than one occasion, yet it reappeared with astonishing rapidity.
-- On the face of it, it looks like life should just pop into existence at the drop of a hat! We should surely be able to duplicate Earth's early conditions in a laboratory and have life emerge from non-life before our very eyes. And, from that, we should know perfectly well how life originates by now, and be able to repeat the process ourselves any time we like. I think it's odd that life seems so irrepressible in Earth's earliest history, yet so elusive today.

Is Dr. Frankenstein in the house? Interesting though, yes. And what about civilization? The arts, mathematics, writing (cuneiform) architecture, etc.; there seems to be evidence that civilization (ancient Sumer) sprang up shockingly quickly. Of course there could be historical records predating Sumer long since lost. Ancient Sumer (predating ancient Egypt's earliest dynasty by thousands of years) has an interesting history, or what we know of it.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-17 06:00:42

There is evidence that life arose on Earth very quickly after the surface temperatures settled down sufficiently to allow carbon compounds to maintain their integrity and persist.

The question then revolves around our definition of "quickly" in this context. We're talking about geologic time afterall, it's entirely possible that if we created a sufficiently large enclosure of early-Earth conditions that in the very quick span of a couple million years primitive life would emerge from those base elements arranging by chance into ever more complex forms. Unfortunately we don't have that kind of time to check it out.

spontaneous generation redux.

The universe is full of these weird little order-from-chaos things, whether we're talking about life, the formation of planets in stable orbits around their stars, the arrangement of those stars into defined galaxies. . . We don't get it yet, but I suspect that we can get it.

And when we do, that evolution chart may well start with a clump of moist dirt. Humbling ain't it.

Palomar · 2005-08-17 06:30:50

*Has been on my mind, might as well say it:

Doesn't it seem that believing entirely in evolution has thwarted us? The 18th century Enlightenment was a heady period of nearly unbounded potential and promise. Sure, certain elements of that philosophical period were overly optimistic, but most of its philosophes were logical and realistic (for the time); not all got carried away with optimism.

Along comes Darwin...and it seems we've fallen on our faces. In some respects (politics aside), the Apollo Program was borne of the Enlightenment "can-do" spirit.

The overall human reaction to evolution seems to be: "This is all we can ever be." (Fatalistic, why bother?) Apathy, stasis, "who cares?" seems to have followed as a result.

The non-evolutionary "explanations" of our existance do, despite their inherent flaws (and ignoring the fossil record), seem to continue to hold out the concept of "this isn't all that we are; we can be better" (self-determination).

I definitely prefer the self-determination/optimistic/Enlightenment model.

It's empowering to consider one may be a godling (instead of a monkey). Each are an entirely different mindset which can only bear different manners of "fruit."

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-17 06:46:22

It's empowering to consider one may be a godling (instead of a monkey). Each are an entirely different mindset which can only bear different manners of "fruit."

We can take control of our own evolution to become whatever we choose to be, whether philosophically or in a more mundane biologic sense. Rather than being merely a reflection of God we can through our own toil and genius become Gods.

What's more empowering than that?

Shaun Barrett · 2005-08-17 07:05:22

CC:-

The question then revolves around our definition of "quickly" in this context. We're talking about geologic time afterall, it's entirely possible that if we created a sufficiently large enclosure of early-Earth conditions that in the very quick span of a couple million years primitive life would emerge from those base elements arranging by chance into ever more complex forms. Unfortunately we don't have that kind of time to check it out.

This is a very good point and I agree we should never lose sight of the yawning gap between human timescales and geological timescales. It may indeed be all that'skeeping us from mimicking nature - maybe we just haven't been at it long enough!

-- Having said that, there are some scientists, especially Dr. Paul Davies (incidentally, born in Britain, now Australian), who have studied the various proposed pathways which might describe the transition stages from non-life to life. Dr. Davies seems to be coming to the conclusion that it's going to be fundamentally very difficult to explain how something as innately complex as even the very simplest life, can arise from inanimate matter. [Note the italics.]
-- He isn't suggesting that we just need more time. He's suggesting, from a mathematical and information-science-based analysis, that there's something 'odd' about that non-life/life transition. We may need to re-evaluate the laws of the universe, or at least supplement the ones we know with new ones, before we'll be able to comprehend it.
I believe he is suggesting that we'll have to totally revise how we think about the universe and that this may lead us to some very interesting conclusions.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-17 07:16:33

We may need to re-evaluate the laws of the universe, or at least supplement the ones we know with new ones, before we'll be able to comprehend it.
I believe he is suggesting that we'll have to totally revise how we think about the universe and that this may lead us to some very interesting conclusions.

I completely agree with that assessment. Modern science, for all it's uncovered, is still woefully inadequate to explain a great many things.

But we'll get it one of these days.

SpaceNut · 2005-08-17 07:34:51

But then again the chance events of the past that has tried to snuff out life on many ocassions could have also been the catalyst for lifes acidently.

C M Edwards · 2005-08-17 14:51:50

There seems to be an opinion floating around among non-religious people that religious people don't generally accept the fundamental claim of the evolution of species. I'd previously thought that charming opinion was limited only to fundamentalists. What an odd similarity between the two...

We clearly have a common ancestor with present day apes. Seventy percent of named species are parasites. The binding energy necessary to assemble complex organic molecules from scratch is also enough energy to completely denature them. We already have the power to control our own evolution (though Cobra's dreams of godhood might be slightly exaggerated). Evolution hasn't stopped. And I'm a religious person. These are all consistent statements.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-08-02 11:51:21

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#2 2005-08-03 03:14:20

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#3 2005-08-03 03:38:34

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#4 2005-08-03 04:10:28

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#5 2005-08-04 07:07:43

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#6 2005-08-05 09:47:36

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#7 2005-08-05 13:28:42

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#8 2005-08-05 17:57:30

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#9 2005-08-06 14:27:12

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#10 2005-08-15 05:38:27

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#11 2005-08-15 07:28:03

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#12 2005-08-15 11:46:10

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#13 2005-08-15 12:06:30

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#14 2005-08-15 12:25:02

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#15 2005-08-15 12:27:32

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#16 2005-08-15 14:10:28

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#17 2005-08-15 17:53:43

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#18 2005-08-17 05:38:29

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#19 2005-08-17 06:00:42

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#20 2005-08-17 06:30:50

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#21 2005-08-17 06:46:22

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#22 2005-08-17 07:05:22

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#23 2005-08-17 07:16:33

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#24 2005-08-17 07:34:51

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

#25 2005-08-17 14:51:50

Re: The Evolution of Evolution

Board footer