If humans Evolved from Monkeys

Bacteria is evolving all the time. For resistance to various pennicilins and such.


Bugs evolve to resist pesticides. Weeds to resist lawn chemicals.

Lab rats have evolved and diversificied.



It is much less easier to observe in humans

 

This thread has evolved......................... into a pile of shit

 

How so? It looked like it was that way in the first place with people being entirely ignorant about basic biology. Your comment on the "missing link" problem doesn't help. Obviously you're someone who must think we need a documentary video recording of every minute of the life of a murderer before we convict them. If you want science to have an infallible, gapless record, then I hope you'd apply that to everything else worthy of such thorough scrutiny in life.

The post that response was for was also erroneous. We have quite a lot of documented evidence of new species coming about. The Victoria Lake fish biosphere being one off the top of my head. Of course, it seems some people wouldn't believe that evidence anyway, since the only way they'll accept evolution is if a dog transformed into a cat before their eyes. But since the thread starter thought we evolved from monkeys, I don't find that being as odd a test of evolution.

 

I'll agree with you on that, ivory tower wankage (theories building on other theories with out much testing) are annoying. Even more so in the sciences when you're doing research or overdue eassys and want a decent explaination of a theory and the evidence for it. More prevelant in political science though, but I digress...

On your earlier post, yes we know sweet F all hard evidence on the molecular mechansims of speciation, and plenty of ego clashing and self masturbation over which personally theory is "correct". However the "soft" evidence we have is, in my opinion, supportive of evolution. Admittedly it's piecemeal, but molecular homology is proving to be a rather useful tool in evolutionary biology.

Oh really? Mind explaining certain endogenous retrovirus sequences and other genetic markers? Also it's quite cute to see someone who is evidently well versed in science going on about "missing links", when anyone with knowledge of evolutionary theory should know about punctuated equilibrium and the associated gradualism models and the associated issues with fossilisation...

And this; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

And in the grand tradition of being a prick; sources, research papers and the like please. It's extremely annoying when some talks about the science not working, then claims personal knowledge and uses it to not bother with sources. Particularly the theory you mentioned concerning mitochondrial and chloroplast evolution. Being a post grad you should understand this... And yes, I can get access to most science journals etc.

Also, please feel free to give examples of these clashes you talk about, else one I fear is "over generalising" themselves.

And as for my own knowledge base, 3rd year uni, biochemistry and genetics, along with an evolutionary biology course last year.

A note on the idea of a "commen ancestor", it's Last universal commen
ancestor, if you know how to use google, then you have no excuse for
ignorance. There is also contained within this topic a whole mess of theories, may get around to discussing those if any one interested/wanting to be "educated"...

Cute, the ye old "Agenda!" theory. but one asks, how is science a "religion"? Yes religion has it's place in human societies, but religion in itself shouldn't just be accepted without questioning the biological roots of those commen features. Personally, those commen features speak more of biology than the "divine".
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And back on topic... Why? Simple answer, humanity is still changing, but there's general disagreement on whether it's genetic change, or phenotypic plasticity in response to the environment. And natural selection is still in force, though it is now affected by human civilisation, culture and economics as well as natural events.

 

What a great post, thankyou

 

excellent point, all to often entirely overlooked.

Perhaps the best refutation I have ever seen of opinionated, unsupported, psuedo-intellectual sophistries. thank you.


(a note in general to the "ivory tower" bashers, to bash said "towers" on the www is ludicrous in the extreme.)

sine cera

 

Evolution doesn't exist: Its just the flying spaghetti monster making alterations with his noodely appendage.

 

If you were to tell me that gravity does not exist it would probably throw something at you. Mostly because its a great way for me to annoy morons but also its experimental evidence of gravity (assuming the object takes some kind of curved path, relative to the Earths surface). Of course strictly speakin all i proved is that something around use beds the path of that object in the air, years of similar observations have led us to a theory of gravity or more recently general relativity. Infact to prove gravity would take in infinte number of experiments, to disprove it would take 1. This is called logical induction, its why not having any beliefs in the strictest sense is impossible, and its makes doing good sicence a pain.

Anyhoo this means that like religion, science can never prove that it is correct. In science there is a sliding scale, I would be incredible suprised if gravity turned out to be wrong, at least up to the scale of galaxies. I would very suprised if classical EM turned out to be wrong. I would be less suprised if the standard model of particles physics turned out to be wrong infact it almost certainly is. If superstring theory is correct I will very suprised. All the above are theories some very well defined others barely defined yet many ppl I speak to seem to treat them all on an equal footing. On this scale I would put Evolution between the standard model and superstring theory. I think it has been proven that there is something in evolution but nothing more. Proper science isnt about disproving religion or old wives tales, its about finding answers, if it proves theres a God, fine, whatever, its the method that makes it science not the outcome.

Now ill start bashing ID, im not a particularly good scientist i do prefer bashing ID to evolution if im totally hoenst. A theory should start with some sort of testable hypothesis. As far as I can tell ID is more a collection of philosophical ideas. It basically says that the development of life has been guided by a higher intelligence not by stochastic processes. As as far as ive been able to determine this is an experimental version of I say tomato, you say tomahto. There is no way ot telling the difference by experiment its purely how u choose to interpret the results. This can be extended to physics which is governed by a very few, very important numbers such as the fine structure constant, plancks constant, Hubbles constant and the charge on the electron. If any of these values were slightly different life would probably not exist, in most cases galaxies would not have formed. This is an example of an argument that supports both sides creationists say for something to be that perfect they must have been predetermined, others say if they werent that value we wouldnt be here to observe them so they have to be that value. This is called the Anthropic principle, there are 3 versions, with slight variations wiki for more.

Ill let you decide whether im saying that science is a religion, because ive never found a definition of religion im totally happy with.

 

I see no reason for humans to not be able adapt for whatever is thrown at them, unless it is beyond a humans physical limits.

 

the ones who dont adapt- die..... Smarter survive.
Fat tony- nice thoughts. thank you.

 

Theres no doubt we adapted or we wouldn't be here. But we sure as fuck never came from monkeys. We were, are and always was a separate species