Are we evolving?

[RyanLeeParis]

Are we evolving? I'm not sure. Let me check the Bible. At the beginning of the Bible, it says "let the waters team with living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." According to evolution; life first came from the water (correct me if I'm wrong). God, being timeless, could have known birds would evolve out of the water.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Are we evolving? I'm not sure.

http://www.paleoweb.net/pal-ges/bilder/evolution-poster.jpg

No magical mystical Bronze Aged Test needed to explain this one, the evidence is there to be seen.

 

[RyanLeeParis]

^ That looks stupid. It's about like saying a spoon turned into a fork and the fork turned into a dish.

 

[Tomk80]

I say this guy is pulling our leg.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

^ That looks stupid. It's about like saying a spoon turned into a fork and the fork turned into a dish.

If spoons, forks, and dishes were replicators, that may very well be the case. And since organisms are replicators...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I say this guy is pulling our leg.

I've seen him elsewhere alluding to a being a non-common-descent-ist. Oh the humanity

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

^ That looks stupid. It's about like saying a spoon turned into a fork and the fork turned into a dish.

No what is stupid is making up a magical mystical deity, whose complexity would be greater than anything we know of; to explain a less complex system, i.e. the universe.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Are we evolving? I'm not sure. Let me check the Bible.

Why? If the OP had asked "is every integer expressible as the sum of two primes?" would you say "I'm not sure. Let me check the Bible."?

At the beginning of the Bible, it says "let the waters team with living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." According to evolution; life first came from the water (correct me if I'm wrong). God, being timeless, could have known birds would evolve out of the water.

Uh, ok, so you're saying that the Bible might be compatible with the ToE? Fair enough, but then why the old creationist shtick about spoons and forks?

^ That looks stupid. It's about like saying a spoon turned into a fork and the fork turned into a dish.

And, since we're here... as has been pointed out, spoons et al are not biological replicators. But, even so, working with your analogy, it would be more accurate to say that a stick was turned into a fork in one instance and into a spoon in another; the first "fork" was a pointy stick and the first "spoon" was a flattened stick; the distinctive fork and spoon natures that we know today came out of this initial divergence. Actually, that would also explain why cutlery all employs the same basic pattern of stickness: common descent. Hmm, not such a bad analogy after all!

 

[mpok1519]

Do you have a source? I know I didn't look very hard to find a figure, but I did look.

"The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168). These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) "


http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/54069.php



Its closer to 98%.

 

[mpok1519]

lol

and yes, a fork can turn intoa spoon, and vice-vera; plates can infact become spoon and forks.

How? oh its simple; you take metal; melt it down, pour it into a molding cast of either spoon or fork shape (you can melt down a metal plate too, as well as forks, knives, spoons, etc).

Now, if forks can turn into spoons, how come animals can't change according to their enviornments? The spoon changed into a fork according to its enviornment(I was tired of a spoon and decided to make a fork, hence, I am apart of the spoon's enviornment).

wow this has got to be the dumbest argument I've ever made. lol

 

[Cassandra]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned because I didn't read the whole thread, but I believe that can continue to evolve, but that potential is limited by the fact that we can adapt our enironment instead of having to adapt to it.

I've always wondered how we would evolve if we were forced to adapt to our changing environments instead of being about to adapt our environments to suit us.

 

[mpok1519]

I think we're devolving physically, but technologically we're evolving.

 

[Gracchus]

I think we're devolving physically, but technologically we're evolving.

1. There is no such thing as "devolving".
2. Technology is not evolution.

Right now the huge human population allows for great genetic variation. Global climate change is going to cause a great dying, and that will mean huge selective pressures. Famine, war, and societal collapse will thin the herd. Those who need massive technological or social support simply won't make it.

 

[mpok1519]

you're right, there is no such thing as 'devolving', for devolution is the same thing as evolution; to say devolve is the same as saying evolve, only with different paths and trajectories.

by devolve, i mean evolve backwards, in a way.

But you are right; most scientists don't acknowledge the idea of devolution, for whichever path a species progresses(where we consider that path to be going forwards, backwards, left or right), its always the 'correct' path, and thus, is evolution.

and and the progression of technology itself isn't a good reflection of our evolutionary status, but, our technology is progressing along a metaphorical evolutionary chain.

ever read "Shadowrun" novels? theres alot of good eerily prophetic overtones; magic resurfaces, technology does 'magic' things, and humans begin to exhibit genetic variation to the point some people become dwarves, elves, trolls and orcs. Its like the future "Lord of the Rings". "Snowcrash" is also a good book that follows the lines of pot-apocalyptic America where government doesn't work, but rather corporations control the majority of sovereign nations, and infact become extraterritorial-soveriegn nations themselves..

 

[Bombila]

you're right, there is no such thing as 'devolving', for devolution is the same thing as evolution; to say devolve is the same as saying evolve, only with different paths and trajectories.

by devolve, i mean evolve backwards, in a way.

But you are right; most scientists don't acknowledge the idea of devolution, for whichever path a species progresses(where we consider that path to be going forwards, backwards, left or right), its always the 'correct' path, and thus, is evolution.

and and the progression of technology itself isn't a good reflection of our evolutionary status, but, our technology is progressing along a metaphorical evolutionary chain.

ever read "Shadowrun" novels? theres alot of good eerily prophetic overtones; magic resurfaces, technology does 'magic' things, and humans begin to exhibit genetic variation to the point some people become dwarves, elves, trolls and orcs. Its like the future "Lord of the Rings". "Snowcrash" is also a good book that follows the lines of pot-apocalyptic America where government doesn't work, but rather corporations control the majority of sovereign nations, and infact become extraterritorial-soveriegn nations themselves..

I may read these on your rec, since I like these sorts of fantasies - but their being pot-apocalyptic, really sold me. ;-p

 

[mpok1519]

pot apocalyptic. lol let there never be a pot apocalypse!!!

post apocalyptic....

 

[Vene]

I don't know, a novel about a pot-apocalypse might be pretty funny.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I'll participate in the Potocalypse. Might be fun. We'd need a loooot of gatorade though!