evolution
-
wad if i told you Mr Sabertooth Tiger went extinct before he even passed on his genes to modern lions and tigers and cats? what then?Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Ask Mr Sabertooth Tiger of Ice Age.
He's their great grand papa. -
still got other kinds of cats what.Originally posted by starblue:wad if i told you Mr Sabertooth Tiger went extinct before he even passed on his genes to modern lions and tigers and cats? what then? -
Note I said:Great Grand Papa.Originally posted by starblue:wad if i told you Mr Sabertooth Tiger went extinct before he even passed on his genes to modern lions and tigers and cats? what then? -
Where should i start, I only know in general. Because all living things is fighting for its survival n to pass down a stronger genes. So to increase the chances of thier offpsprings survival in this ever changing environment.Originally posted by starblue:"survival of the fittest" always comes up when people are discussing about natural selection. mind sharing what you guys understand about this? in fact, what do you guys understand about natural selection??
For us humans , instead of adapting to eh environment , we change the environment to suit us.
In the end , the FITTEST survive , except for us humans who are way smarter than that , we dont use the big muscles but the brains because we change the environment. But are we supposed to change the environemnt while the animals n other lifeforms try to adapt to our change ? hmmm...
mmmm....
Well it will be a long discussion. interesting discussion. he he -
i see... anyway, the other time u say u got something to say about this topic but it would be very long to type. maybe u can just type and post lah, and i see wad u have to say.Originally posted by BadzMaro:Where should i start, I only know in general. Because all living things is fighting for its survival n to pass down a stronger genes. So to increase the chances of thier offpsprings survival in this ever changing environment.
For us humans , instead of adapting to eh environment , we change the environment to suit us.
In the end , the FITTEST survive , except for us humans who are way smarter than that , we dont use the big muscles but the brains because we change the environment. But are we supposed to change the environemnt while the animals n other lifeforms try to adapt to our change ? hmmm...
mmmm....
Well it will be a long discussion. interesting discussion. he he
it seems that not many people here are interested in this discussion hor??
-
Humans do adapt to their environment:Originally posted by BadzMaro:Where should i start, I only know in general. Because all living things is fighting for its survival n to pass down a stronger genes. So to increase the chances of thier offpsprings survival in this ever changing environment.
For us humans , instead of adapting to eh environment , we change the environment to suit us.
In the end , the FITTEST survive , except for us humans who are way smarter than that , we dont use the big muscles but the brains because we change the environment. But are we supposed to change the environemnt while the animals n other lifeforms try to adapt to our change ? hmmm...
mmmm....
Well it will be a long discussion. interesting discussion. he he
Take for example, darker skin for those living in tropical/desert areas,
metabolic adaptation for those living in artic areas to live primary off animal protein. -
that is minor. That is down to the genetics..Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Humans do adapt to their environment:
Take for example, darker skin for those living in tropical/desert areas,
metabolic adaptation for those living in artic areas to live primary off animal protein.
i am talking clothes , heater , big dome in the artic that is summer all day long inside.
Space stations with oxygen n anti-gravitational devices..
k k.. some are still yet to be done.. but soon~ he he -
Its very long.. cause in order for ppl to understand u have to type out in detail.. n the thought of it just scares me. Thast why normally, when i try to explain thinsg , i just give out important parts n thats when ppl misunderstand because they dont know how i got the answer and why i have come to that conclusion.. i thought reports in work is enough.. he he..now forum also. LOL i dont mind la.. but just needs time to type out.Originally posted by starblue:i see... anyway, the other time u say u got something to say about this topic but it would be very long to type. maybe u can just type and post lah, and i see wad u have to say.
it seems that not many people here are interested in this discussion hor?? 
Ppl dont talk about it because they either dont know much about evolution , or maybe religion , n stuff. So depends if u want it in scientific analogy of the evolution or just want inputs on what they think abuot evolution lo. To agree or disagree in Darwins theory of evolution is like debating on where life itself comes from. Bacteria from outerspace ? or God. hehe~ -
Originally posted by starblue:
You haven't said why you think this statement is inherently flawed.
[b]
when people say, "humans evolved from apes", what do you people think about this?? if i were to tell you that this phrasing is inherently flawed, what would you think about the evolution of humans as a species?
b]indeed, for mutations to play a role in evolution, it is imperative that "advantagous" mutations occur in genes that will be passed down to the children, that is, the mutation must occur in an individual's gametes (egg cell or sperm cell's genetic makeup). considering the fact that the average male produces millions of sperm cells a day (which means, a super duper high rate of proliferation), do you think that mutations are still too rare to occur in the gonads?
Oh no, there are plenty of mutations, but only a small number of those may give a survival advantage. But it does not matter that there are millions of spermatozoa in the testis, only one can fertilize an egg. What are chances that a mutation that confers a survival advantage is present in that particlar spermatozoa?
The human female releases only one egg each month, and once pregnant, is rendered anovulatory until the cessation of lactation. In a life time, how many offspring can she bear? Not many. If she indeed gives birth to a child who carries a 'good' mutation, what are the chances that she can give birth another child with this survival advantage? Not likely....given that in her reproductive life she is unlikely to bear more than 20 children.
The female is the limiting factor. The male can impregnante numerous females almost throughout his life after puberty. The number of offspring possible is limited by the finite number of eggs his mate possesses.
Unlike spermatozoa which are produced continuously through life, the eggs in a female are fixed at birth. If you get pregnant at 40, your eggs are actually 40 years old and that's why pregnancy is less likely with age. It is also true that these eggs acquire mutations with increasing maternal age and that most of these mutations are deleterious...accounting for a higher miscarriage rate with increasing age of the mother.
If we add to that the cultural norms that limit a man to only one mate and the effect of late marriages and a dropping fertility rate, I think further evolution of man is going to be rather slow.
There is another issue. For evolution to work, you need genetic variation accorded by mutation etc, but you also need pressure for natural selection. The white moths in England almost disappeared in the Industrial Revolution because all the buildings were black with soot, making it easy for the the white moths to be spotted and eaten by the birds. That's a selection pressure. If a white moth acquires a mutation that turns it darker and given the right selection pressure, it is more likely to survive and passed on its genes. Its white brothers diminish in number and become extinct if the selection pressure is strong enough. This sort of incremental changes build up over long periods of time and perhaps the changes may become big enough to constitute a new species...even genus maybe? That takes longer if the selection pressure is weak and if the reproduction rate is low.
In human society, we artifically reduce the selection pressure. We bring heating to the house, so those with thin fat layers survive. We use arrows to shoot deer, so even the congenital dwarf is not worse off than the fastest man. The 'weaker' genes get transmitted as well. This is right and to be expected in a humane, civilized society but without this selection pressure, why would there be further evolution? There may be increased diversity, but without natural selection, there's no evolution, is there?
Darwin thought that adaptation to a changing environment will lead to natural selection and therefore persistence of successful adaptive traits. I believe that happens. But not for man...cos' instead of adapting to a changing environment, we have been adapting our environment to suit us. I would have thought it will be other species that are under tremendous selection pressure imposed by us. Evolution, if it occurs, is going to happen in other species much faster than it will in humans. -
Yup , Oxford have explained in GREAT DETAIL..
bravo man.. i wouldve died typing trying to explain it.. LOL!
Did u guys read about Global Warming by Al Gore in , Inconvenient Truth ? a German company gave us the video to watch. It was interesting. -
Hmmm its been awhile since I posted anything, but this topic does pique my interest abit.
Man I believe are evolving, not physically but more mentally. Since we have achieve the ability to manipulate our surroundings, we therefore has move beyond the point to evolve physically. I envision a day where the majority of humankind will have psychic powers or great mental capacity.
Perhaps Man's greatest ability is the power to actually cause evolution on other beings. (quite Godlike eh) Examples are dogs while descended from wolves but evolved to the point where they are so different in appearance and temperament. Another more recent example would be the Ragdoll cat (info mainly for Starblue) which has been selectively bred for the docile and non-aggresive nature. The Ragdoll would probably have died out if let to their own devices since it is not equipped to survive in the natural world.
But I don't believe Man is in anyway slowing down in our evolutionary path. We are just transcending from one evolutionary form to another.
So Sayeth The Great One -
NICE!Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Oh no, there are plenty of mutations, but only a small number of those may give a survival advantage. But it does not matter that there are millions of spermatozoa in the testis, only one can fertilize an egg. What are chances that a mutation that confers a survival advantage is present in that particlar spermatozoa?
The human female releases only one egg each month, and once pregnant, is rendered anovulatory until the cessation of lactation. In a life time, how many offspring can she bear? Not many. If she indeed gives birth to a child who carries a 'good' mutation, what are the chances that she can give birth another child with this survival advantage? Not likely....given that in her reproductive life she is unlikely to bear more than 20 children.
The female is the limiting factor. The male can impregnante numerous females almost throughout his life after puberty. The number of offspring possible is limited by the finite number of eggs his mate possesses.
Unlike spermatozoa which are produced continuously through life, the eggs in a female are fixed at birth. If you get pregnant at 40, your eggs are actually 40 years old and that's why pregnancy is less likely with age. It is also true that these eggs acquire mutations with increasing maternal age and that most of these mutations are deleterious...accounting for a higher miscarriage rate with increasing age of the mother.
If we add to that the cultural norms that limit a man to only one mate and the effect of late marriages and a dropping fertility rate, I think further evolution of man is going to be rather slow.
There is another issue. For evolution to work, you need genetic variation accorded by mutation etc, but you also need pressure for natural selection. The white moths in England almost disappeared in the Industrial Revolution because all the buildings were black with soot, making it easy for the the white moths to be spotted and eaten by the birds. That's a selection pressure. If a white moth acquires a mutation that turns it darker and given the right selection pressure, it is more likely to survive and passed on its genes. Its white brothers diminish in number and become extinct if the selection pressure is strong enough. This sort of incremental changes build up over long periods of time and perhaps the changes may become big enough to constitute a new species...even genus maybe? That takes longer if the selection pressure is weak and if the reproduction rate is low.
In human society, we artifically reduce the selection pressure. We bring heating to the house, so those with thin fat layers survive. We use arrows to shoot deer, so even the congenital dwarf is not worse off than the fastest man. The 'weaker' genes get transmitted as well. This is right and to be expected in a humane, civilized society but without this selection pressure, why would there be further evolution? There may be increased diversity, but without natural selection, there's no evolution, is there?
Darwin thought that adaptation to a changing environment will lead to natural selection and therefore persistence of successful adaptive traits. I believe that happens. But not for man...cos' instead of adapting to a changing environment, we have been adapting our environment to suit us. I would have thought it will be other species that are under tremendous selection pressure imposed by us. Evolution, if it occurs, is going to happen in other species much faster than it will in humans.
-
two issues here. the first one being limitation of human reproduction. while it is true that any advantageous mutations may find it difficult to be THE ONE making a baby, you have to consider how our species is rather populous in nature. there are so many of us making babies all over the globe. if numbers count very significantly in evolution rates, then what of whales and elephants?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:The female is the limiting factor. The male can impregnante numerous females almost throughout his life after puberty. The number of offspring possible is limited by the finite number of eggs his mate possesses.
If we add to that the cultural norms that limit a man to only one mate and the effect of late marriages and a dropping fertility rate, I think further evolution of man is going to be rather slow.
In human society, we artifically reduce the selection pressure. We bring heating to the house, so those with thin fat layers survive. We use arrows to shoot deer, so even the congenital dwarf is not worse off than the fastest man. The 'weaker' genes get transmitted as well. This is right and to be expected in a humane, civilized society but without this selection pressure, why would there be further evolution? There may be increased diversity, but without natural selection, there's no evolution, is there?
Darwin thought that adaptation to a changing environment will lead to natural selection and therefore persistence of successful adaptive traits. I believe that happens. But not for man...cos' instead of adapting to a changing environment, we have been adapting our environment to suit us. I would have thought it will be other species that are under tremendous selection pressure imposed by us. Evolution, if it occurs, is going to happen in other species much faster than it will in humans.
second issue. it is rather shallow to think of human evolution being limited due to "removal of selection pressure". while it is true that a dwarf man can still get his meat as well as a tall guy by means of technology, this is but one part of "natural selection". have you forgotten about the other very crucial aspect, "sexual selection"? surviving is one thing. being able to pass down your genes to the next generation is another. will a short man (despite being able to provide for the family) be selected against by females relative to a tall man? that is the question we have to ask.
if there is still that selection pressure, then one component that drives evolution is still in running. -
humans did not evolve FROM apes. more accurately, humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor. from that single ancestor, two branches diverged from each other so much that now they are no longer able to interbreed. going further back, the human-chimp ancestor and the gorilla had a common ancestor, from which the two branched. etc etc.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by starblue:
[b]
when people say, "humans evolved from apes", what do you people think about this?? if i were to tell you that this phrasing is inherently flawed, what would you think about the evolution of humans as a species?
b]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You haven't said why you think this statement is inherently flawed.
that is why there are still humans, chimps, gorillas and all the other monkeys. the only thing that "disappeared" are the "ancestors", which, for our evolutionary purposes, are mere re-constructions for evolutionary events.
i hope i am clear on this.... let me know if anyone still dun understand. -
Originally posted by Great_One:Hmmm its been awhile since I posted anything, but this topic does pique my interest abit.
Man I believe are evolving, not physically but more mentally. Since we have achieve the ability to manipulate our surroundings, we therefore has move beyond the point to evolve physically. I envision a day where the majority of humankind will have psychic powers or great mental capacity.
Perhaps Man's greatest ability is the power to actually cause evolution on other beings. (quite Godlike eh) Examples are dogs while descended from wolves but evolved to the point where they are so different in appearance and temperament. Another more recent example would be the Ragdoll cat (info mainly for Starblue) which has been selectively bred for the docile and non-aggresive nature. The Ragdoll would probably have died out if let to their own devices since it is not equipped to survive in the natural world.
But I don't believe Man is in anyway slowing down in our evolutionary path. We are just transcending from one evolutionary form to another.
actually, Man don't CAUSE evolution in other animals. Man merely ACCELERATE evolution. in evolution, there is something called the selection coefficient. say if a bacterium has gene A, it can produce 11 individuals while a bacterium without it can only produce 10 individuals. then gene A is said to have a selection coefficient of 0.1. the higher the coefficient, the faster it will be selected for/against.
since in artificial selection (where humans decide that the fattest pig or the cow producing the most milk gets to breed) humans alter selection coefficient such that a trait becomes 1-0 (if got trait, reproduce; if no trait, dun get to reproduce at all), evolution is skewed heavily in favor of the trait with coefficient of 1.
so yah....
as for the "humans are turning to evolve mentally rather than physically", that is one whole issue for debate and discussion. 
So Sayeth The Great One -
Damn ! its the great one!Originally posted by Great_One:Hmmm its been awhile since I posted anything, but this topic does pique my interest abit.
Man I believe are evolving, not physically but more mentally. Since we have achieve the ability to manipulate our surroundings, we therefore has move beyond the point to evolve physically. I envision a day where the majority of humankind will have psychic powers or great mental capacity.
Perhaps Man's greatest ability is the power to actually cause evolution on other beings. (quite Godlike eh) Examples are dogs while descended from wolves but evolved to the point where they are so different in appearance and temperament. Another more recent example would be the Ragdoll cat (info mainly for Starblue) which has been selectively bred for the docile and non-aggresive nature. The Ragdoll would probably have died out if let to their own devices since it is not equipped to survive in the natural world.
But I don't believe Man is in anyway slowing down in our evolutionary path. We are just transcending from one evolutionary form to another.
So Sayeth The Great One -
Have u watched Idiocracy ?Originally posted by starblue:
the stupid will outbreed the smart. as we protect th weak and hinders the survival of the fittest... he he -
Hmmm perhaps 'cause' wasn't the right choice of word. I think intefere would be more appropriate. Whatever it is, Man have the ability to steer the path of evolution and with it comes great responsibility.
Unfortunately I think we are doing a real sucky job at it. Haha
Great One