[QUOTE=FRDE]
While I am at it, I strongly suspect that there is something more than pure natural selection at work
the nearest I can call it is ‘Natural Adaption’
I would not be at all surprized if our environment tinkered with our DNA
[/QUOTE]
What you’re saying sounds like Lamarckism, where, for example, mice with their tails cut off should give birth to tail-less mice. It’s been pretty roundly debunked because, well, for one reason, the mice have tails, even if their parents’ tails were cut off.
But maybe you meant something else, in which case, do go on.
My favourite is something from a book called ‘The Monkey Puzzle’ written by a pair of scientists whose speciality is unconnected with the area.
They postulated that we are immature gorillas
Anyway, their gem was:
Anyone who thinks that Neanderthal Man died out, needs to take a trip on the New York subway.
[/QUOTE]
Cro-Magnon man is us. So what about him?
And we are, in a sense, immature gorillas. There’s a whole buttload (technical term, there) of neoteny involved with modern humanity. A lot of our physical features are similar to juvenile features of the other great apes. (Interestingly, we also select for neoteny in our domestic animals…a lot of domestic dog behavior is puppy behavior for canines in the wild).
[QUOTE=jayjay]
(Interestingly, we also select for neoteny in our domestic animals…a lot of domestic dog behavior is puppy behavior for canines in the wild).
[/QUOTE]
And we drown cats after they’re done being kittens.
[QUOTE=Interest]
Truth is truth - if it was true yesterday then it would be true today - if we are in the midst of evolution then we would see the chaos of “natural selection” today.
[/QUOTE]
And you don’t? Try watching a few nature shows in which slow gazelles get eaten by fast lions.
[QUOTE=Interest]
I’ve seen enough to disagree with the assumption that all the ideas that surround and support the theory of evolution may not point to evolution at all.
[/QUOTE]
'Round these here parts, yer gonna last 'bout as long as a mouse at a cat convention.
[QUOTE=Interest]
ITruth is truth - if it was true yesterday then it would be true today - if we are in the midst of evolution then we would see the chaos of “natural selection” today.
[/QUOTE]
Snakes have vestigial legs. Here’s a pic. Pretty chaotic, huh?
Humans have wisdom teeth, tailbones and an appendix that used to come in handy but we don’t need any longer. The reason why we have lower back pain and that childbirth is so painful (and sometimes dangerous) to humans is that we evolved to stad upright so quickly that our pelvis didn’t have time to properly adapt.
Let’s just put it this way: If there was a Creator with a “master plan”, he or she is an idiot. Why did the “Creator” give the panda the most ineffecient digestive system of any creature? Why did blind Mexican cave fish get eyes? (While they’re still in egg-form, their eyes begin to degenerate and a flap of skin grows over them.) Why do the ostrich and other flightless birds have wings?
[QUOTE=FRDE]
I would not be at all surprized if our environment tinkered with our DNA
[/QUOTE]
It does. Mutagens, be they chemicals or cosmic rays, tinker with our DNA all the time. Sometimes the mutations cause cancer but mostly they don’t do much. However, when a mutation occurs in an egg or sperm cell it can result in a creature better able to function in its environment. On the other hand, most of those mutations either don’t do much or leave the creature less able to function in its environment, often to the point of killing it outright. So yes, our environment directly tinkers with our DNA while at the same time providing the crucible in which its tinkerings are tested.
[QUOTE=dropzone]
It does. Mutagens, be they chemicals or cosmic rays, tinker with our DNA all the time. Sometimes the mutations cause cancer but mostly they don’t do much. However, when a mutation occurs in an egg or sperm cell it can result in a creature better able to function in its environment. On the other hand, most of those mutations either don’t do much or leave the creature less able to function in its environment, often to the point of killing it outright. So yes, our environment directly tinkers with our DNA while at the same time providing the crucible in which its tinkerings are tested.
[/QUOTE]
I have a feeling that FRDE was meaning that environments tinkered with DNA in some sort of directly constructive way, rather than in a way that still required selection, although I might be reading too much into the post.
[QUOTE=Skald the Rhymer]
Untrue. We in the Evil Community don’t LOVE anything, except for the suffering of innocents and Papa John’s Pizza.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget the souls of our victims ! They go great with pizza.
[QUOTE=MEBuckner]
You’re asking for the “missing link” between humans and amoebas? Do you really think anyone is claiming that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a human being?!? I suppose the amoeba divided, and on the one hand, you had an amoeba, and on the other hand, you had a person.
[/QUOTE]
No, if you examine the paragraph closely, he is saying that scientists claim that one day poof! an amoeba turned into a creature he calls “B,” then one day poof! this B creature turned into man.
And since we don’t have any evidence of this “B” creature, the whole concept of evolution is therefore without any evidence.
My opinion is that to not believe evolution is real, you have to be ignorant of what its actual claims are. It’s pretty rare to come across someone who actually understands evolution and still disagrees that it happened.
[QUOTE=Mangetout]
I have a feeling that FRDE was meaning that environments tinkered with DNA in some sort of directly constructive way, rather than in a way that still required selection, although I might be reading too much into the post.
[/QUOTE]
Yes - normally when I stumble on something obvious, I get a hunch first
My hunch is that somehow the DNA is influenced by the environment
The ideal research would be to take a large number of nubile Scandanavian females to a remote Hilton in the tropics