Evolution or Intelligent design ?
-
Peace Student of Allah.
Thank you once more for the vast information about evolution.
I am not after proving anything to anyone.
However the truth is not as simple as accept what Scientists say, just because they claim they are experts in their field. History has shown that mistakes are made for various reasons. Scientists themselves disagree with each other,for exampleQuote by Robert Locke
I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal...
HE GOES ON TO ADD
Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."I read with interest what you are writing. But I do not accept that the Scientists that I quote are ignorant, creationists and that all the facts exist only on the side of your argument..
The field of DNA and Quantum Physics is still young and there are many researchers still working on their evidence.
WATCH THIS SPACE..
Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind's tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it's just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.
Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.
Anther "pasting "of information fo you , my ignorance is pushing me to look at both sides of the arguments,or like you have put it ,there may be other arguments to consider.
For me it is not over for sure.
Peace to you
-
Changes happened in small gene mutation (for cell based being) which you said "it's not that interesting".
I just told you what might happened in one generation, now imagine what changes can happened in 10 generations, and then 100 generations and then 1000 generations and then 10,000 generations and then 100,000 generations.Salaam,
Can you give an example.
"Disaster", meteoric impact, radiation, climate change happened more often than what human perceived it was to be and it cannot yet be fully predicted. Example Few days ago a snow fell in middle east (egypt, palestine/israel, syria etc..), people get freaked out, everyone think that 'the end is near' / 'sign from God' etc.. Actually it was a normality few thousand years ago. We are entering yet another period of changes in planetary climate.
We do know that human and their hominid ancestor has faced 'near extinction' quite numerous times.
This event is among the example
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theoryHappened around 70,000 years ago and could drive hominid population to very minimum amount.
Coincidentally we see pattern of 'rapid homo sapiens' expansion after 70,000 BP. Rock paintings, stone carvings, remnant of jewelery, all are dated after 70,000 BP.And who shall come up as 'the survivor' for future 'near extinction' event is very hard to guess.
That's why it's very hard to accurately predict 'future evolution' of any being (not only human).RED That's why I think it is better to exclude these kind of things when one wants to set up a basis theory.
I think a basis theory should exclude all external things, a sort of best scenario theory.
I know in practice it has no value but see it like most physics formulas.Let's take another example, let's assume human find a way to terraform Mars. (At present time we do know that there's a presence of ice, snow thus water in mars), and then they colonize Mars. The "evolution path" of human on Mars and human on Earth shall be different. Human on mars probably shall grow bigger and taller than human on Earth due to Mars lower gravity than earth. Yet the virus and bacteria can also evolve to be more deadly than Earth
But can the people on earth still identify them as humans after x generations. What do you think?
Yes definitely, 'wheat' / 'rice' for example is a 'recent introduction', most probably did not exist during dinosaur period.
http//www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.htmlthank you, I will take a look at it
So far the absolute winner is Virus, they evolve faster than everyone else
They can adapt to extreme condition, such as no oxygen, high or low temperature and no sunlight.I think you are talking here about the fastest specie not "race".
In this case the question would be if there are viruses who evolve faster then other viruses?It depends on what do you mean by 'our forefather'.
If it's "The Most Recent Common Ancestor" of every human still living today, then definitely it's "Sub-Saharan African".Current Non Sub-Saharan Africans (Caucasian, Asian etc..) is a product of a hybrid between Homo Sapiens with other Hominid (e.g. Homo Neanderthal, Homo Denisovans etc..)
http//www.ted.com/talks/svante_paeaebo_dna_clues_to_our_inner_neanderthal.html
https//genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/
Salam / Peace
RED thank you!!! this is what I was asking for.
I assume they have found some bones and skulls.
To what race of today are the bones skulls they found most similar to?
Still to Sub-Saharan Africans or maybe some other race or maybe they are so different that nothing can be concluded?Salaam and thx for your patience answering stupid questions
Bender -
Shalom Aleikhem Bender,
Don't worry, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people. Just kidding.
Salaam SoA,
RED remember this phrase
Yes, every species is subject to evolution.
If you understood what the theory of evolution is, you wouldn't have asked this question.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
You do have an understanding of mutations, right?
yes I have AN understanding yes
There can be neutral mutations, favorable mutations and harmful mutations. Lets say that your parents had 6 children including you. None of you guys are the exact copy of either of your parents. On top of that, you guys only look a bit similar, but not same. The differences that you guys have can turn out to be favorable for all or some of you when it comes to survival and therefore reproducing and giving birth to the next generation. Mutations can give rise to traits that can be effect the evolution of a species. There is also natural selection. Here is a simple way to understand it
Imagine that you have a lot of deer and tigers. Lets imagine a simple scenario where a tiger is chasing these deer to eat them. On average, the slowest ones will end up being eaten more than the fastest ones. This has the effect of giving the faster bunch of deer more chance of survival thus reproduction. So the next generation will have more fast running deer compared to last generation. This is also true for from the point of view of the tigers. The ones that are the worst at hunting deer will have the lowest chance of survival thus leaving less offspring behind. Therefore the next generation of these tigers will have more of the "winners" compared to losers. So these deer and tigers will evolve parallel to each other.
That is just one example of natural selection improving a trait of a species without anyone having to do it for them. Now, when it comes to natural selection, there can be a lot of different environmental pressures. A change in weather can favor a specific type within a species to live over another type within the same species. There are so many things in the environment that can change over time. These changes will end up being favorable for some types and harmful for some. Depending on these, only the types that are fit for their environment gets to be happy and carry on their business.
So, having said that, now it should be easy for you to see why nobody can tell you what ANY species will look like after a 100,000 years. To say that, we have to know what selection pressures the species will undergo in the next 100,000 years. We don't know what specific mutations will take place in the reproduction process. Because of that reason, we can not tell you what they will look like.But how far will such mutations go . if we have a time machine and we travel 1 million years in the future are we still going to recognize them as tiger and deer and human or will they have changed so dramatically that we can not recognize them as such? Remember there are no stupid questions.
For that to happen you have to isolate the group. For example, move one group to Europe and the other group to Africa and don't let them interbreed. Stop gene flow within these two groups.
the question was not how.
Yes, human beings are also subject to laws of nature, thus undergo evolution like all other animals.
To ask what race is the most evolved is not a smart thing to do.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
This question assumes that natural selection and mutations have a "GOAL" in mind. That simply is not the case. A human being is not "more evolved" than a Tarantula. There is no set goal. Where in the process of natural selection and mutations did you see any goals? Every animal is at their most evolved state at a given time.
The question did not assume anything the question was asking a question.
Now, we can talk about "most evolved" with respect to whatever thing YOU AND I set as a goal.
You must know about melanin and skin pigmentation and how that protects people from harmful radiation in certain parts of the earth. So near the equator, where the earth receives a lot of radiation, a white person can be considered to have a less fit skin than a brown/black person. Different races and people from different parts of the world are often immune to unique sets of harmful things. It all depends on where their bloodline is from and where they grew up. When it comes to lets say Malaria, you will find that due to the ancestors of a group evolving under situation where they had to combat Malaria, they have better resistance and tolerance for Malaria compared to another group who's ancestors never faced Malaria. This is not to say that one group is more evolved than another. They are all fit for the specific niches they evolved in.
So, please drop that garbage idea of "more evolved" or "less evolved" from your head.
You assume for me some garbage idea, and then you tell me to drop it hmm
Unless you are seriously suggesting that evolution works with plans for making specific things in the future.
I was just simply asking some questions, not suggesting anything. But unfortunately you concentrate to much on assuming things about me.
Which is not the case. I know where you were probably trying to go with this. If I had to guess, I'd guess that you would have brought up racism. Which is sad. Sad because we all already accept that there are people better looking than us, stronger than us, richer than us, but we never say that "THEREFORE THIS JUSTIFIES MISTREATMENT". Somehow, the same people who understand this can't understand that knowing that one group may have some form of physical advantage over the other is not a justification for discrimination.
No SoA, your assuming is not correct.
If you like to know why I am asking this you could just simply ask.
Looks to me better then wasting your time with assuming something false so that you can refute it yourself.If one is that worried about racism coming out of evolution, allow me to tell you this
E= mc^2
Let me assume that you weigh 70 KG. Now let me assume that I have a 70 KG bag of Bullsht. Using that equation I can show that assuming a theoretical conversion with 100% efficiency, you and that bag of shit will give out the same amount of energy. Or one can also point out that you and Bullsht is made up of atoms, quarks, etc. Basically the same thing. Now, knowing this, do you think it is justified for me to treat you like shit? So you already understand that how you treat someone has nothing to do with your scientific understanding of reality. Otherwise I feel obliged to ask you if you feel justified in mistreating anyone that you perceive as poor, physically weaker, relatively worse looking than you?
Was this really necessary?
Anyway I learned that there are more ways how to misuse E= mc^2If you want to learn more about evolution, Google is your friend. You can even buy and read books for better in-depth understanding. There are thousands of video materials available on youtube explaining basic principles and ideas.
Sorry for this lousy post. Didn't get the time to make a proper post.
Peace
-------------- Student of Allahthank you for your advice handshake
Salaam,
Bender -
Shalom Aleikhem Bender,
RED remember this phrase
Lol. That was a line from SouthPark. I just didn't want to let the opportunity go. P So I HAD TO say it.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
Yup, now you will keep reminding me of it, won't you? -\
yes I have AN understanding yes
good
But how far will such mutations go . if we have a time machine and we travel 1 million years in the future are we still going to recognize them as tiger and deer and human or will they have changed so dramatically that we can not recognize them as such? Remember there are no stupid questions.
- We don't have limits for mutation.
- Given that you have the tools to screen their genetic information and study their DNA, you will be able to identify them. However, it is not necessary that time will change their looks or functions much. This is because of the fact that as long as they are fit for their environment, there is no reason for a mass extinction. However, some of them might branch off to a new species over time. Thats given that you keep them isolated.
the question was not how.
I explained how so that I do not mislead you into thinking that you will get 2 significantly different variant within the same species. So my answer answers your question as "YES" and added the details to explain the qualifiers. Without the qualifiers, the answer is NO. Without forcing them to experience significantly different environmental factors and genetic isolation, the answer will be NO. I hope you understand now why I wrote what I wrote instead of just answering with either YES or NO.
Do you remember when you said this Don't worry, there are no stupid questions
lol, damn it, its only a matter of time before you sue me for ever having said that. P
The question did not assume anything the question was asking a question.
May be you didn't assume anything at all, you just asked a random question out of nowhere for the sake of it. But in general, we do make a lot of assumptions while saying things or asking questions. Your question relies on the assumption that there is an objective "more/less" evolved state. Without assuming that, you could not have asked which race is more evolved.
You assume for me some garbage idea, and then you tell me to drop it hmm
I was just simply asking some questions, not suggesting anything. But unfortunately you concentrate to much on assuming things about me.If I have done so, let me take this opportunity to apologize. It was wrong of me to assume that your question has the same motives as countless anti-evolution people's questions. If you didn't have that in mind, I am sorry for assuming that and I do apologize.
Having said that, let me explain why I made that mistake. Just so that you have a better understanding of where I am coming from. I have to face anti-evolution people who often rely on either demonizing Darwin or trying to imply that evolution=justification for racism. But believe me, I have never come across a single person who framed everything the way you did, leading up to the "more/less evolved" question, who did not end up demonizing evolution saying that it is justification for discrimination based on differences. But as I've said before, I do apologize for my mistake. I wouldn't have done that if it wasn't for your series of questions being identical to theirs.
No SoA, your assuming is not correct.
If you like to know why I am asking this you could just simply ask.
Looks to me better then wasting your time with assuming something false so that you can refute it yourself.Please read what I've wrote above for my apology.
Was this really necessary?
Anyway I learned that there are more ways how to misuse E= mc^2Given that I was wrong on the assumption, no, it wasn't necessary. But I am glad that you've at least learned how to abuse that equation. P
thank you for your advice handshake
You are always welcome. handshake
Now that all the questions are answered, can you please tell me where you were going with this or if you were just randomly asking that sequence of question for informative purpose?
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
I reject equating Evolution = Darwin. Darwin was nto the first, not by any stretch , to think or pur forward evolution, and he did philosofically promote something worth demonizing. He has been pushed down our throats as the ultimate in science, and he was not such a things. There ar emany worthy scientists, who have no had the chance to be pushed down anybody's throats.
And, for God's sake, when are we going to have enough of divinizing Darwin for a thing he just used and not discover and at that used it worse than many. His theorys, to hold any water today, have had to be indeed watered down.
So please, talk about evolution, but do not equate it with darling Darwin. They are not synonims and it is an afront to scientists who dedicated their lives to science and some times died in utter misery.
Darwin is the best illustration not of the survival of the fitest that he supposedly upheld, but of the survival of the one with the best advertising department.
Salaam
-
I reject equating Evolution = Darwin. Darwin was nto the first, not by any stretch , to think or pur forward evolution, and he did philosofically promote something worth demonizing. He has been pushed down our throats as the ultimate in science, and he was not such a things. There ar emany worthy scientists, who have no had the chance to be pushed down anybody's throats.
And, for God's sake, when are we going to have enough of divinizing Darwin for a thing he just used and not discover and at that used it worse than many. His theorys, to hold any water today, have had to be indeed watered down.
So please, talk about evolution, but do not equate it with darling Darwin. They are not synonims and it is an afront to scientists who dedicated their lives to science and some times died in utter misery.
Darwin is the best illustration not of the survival of the fitest that he supposedly upheld, but of the survival of the one with the best advertising department.
Salaam
As it was Darwin who first proposed the Theory of Evolution . . . so, he did discover it. And there was no one else before him.
-
RED That's why I think it is better to exclude these kind of things when one wants to set up a basis theory.
I think a basis theory should exclude all external things, a sort of best scenario theory.
I know in practice it has no value but see it like most physics formulas.We cannot exclude things, because it's tightly correlated.
It's more complex than trying to came up with 'mathematical model' to predict future economy or future price of a share in stock market (Which nobody has came up with either). Too many parameters involved and we haven't discovered all of the parameters.We haven't even came up with Mathematical model to predict earth's climate behavior.
But can the people on earth still identify them as humans after x generations. What do you think?
People on Mars will definitely be claiming their own 'social identity', We Are MARTIANS and not EARTHLINGS.
Following the same pattern we see on Earth...After X Generations from today on Earth, people will speak new language, english become archaic and evolved to become something new. The word "human" might be comprehended with different meanings, just like the word islam today.
Evolution also happen at unprecedented rate on human's culture, tradition/religion and language. Much faster than human's biological evolution.
I think you are talking here about the fastest specie not "race".
In this case the question would be if there are viruses who evolve faster then other viruses?Unknown at the moment, feel free to do your own research and experiment by comparing different type of viruses.
RED thank you!!! this is what I was asking for.
I assume they have found some bones and skulls.
To what race of today are the bones skulls they found most similar to?
Still to Sub-Saharan Africans or maybe some other race or maybe they are so different that nothing can be concluded?You seem to mus-interpreted the result.
They have distracted and analyze the DNA of Neanderthal and Denisovan and compare the DNA sequences with DNA samples from human still living today around the earth.The results was Non Sub-Saharan African carries the DNA of Neanderthal and Denisovan.
And they found no trace of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA on today's sub-saharan African.The conclusion is Today's Non Sub-Saharan African is the result of a mixing / copulating of Homo Sapiens with Neanderthal and/or Denisovan.
Thus today Sub-Saharan African can claim that they're the "Purest Race" due to the nonexistence of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA within their gene.
Whether it's something good or bad, it depends, most of the Neanderthal and Denisovan gene being inherited within today's Non-Subsaharan African consist of genes which regulate "Antibody" / human resistance to disease. To put it in other words Non-Sub Saharan African have higher resistance to variety of diseases compared to Subsaharan African.
Salam / Peace
-
But how far will such mutations go . if we have a time machine and we travel 1 million years in the future are we still going to recognize them as tiger and deer and human or will they have changed so dramatically that we can not recognize them as such? Remember there are no stupid questions.
Or there will be no more human or tiger on earth, and earth as a planet has become uninhabitable.
Evolution also happened on planet, solar system, galaxies and this universe.