Reply With Quote
Data is needed to assess how to best adapt. We have this thing called cognition that helps us analyze results to reach conclusions.
What do they need data for? Either we adapt or we die.
Data is needed to assess how to best adapt. We have this thing called cognition that helps us analyze results to reach conclusions.
For decades the consensus view—among the public as well as the world’s preeminent biologists—has been that human evolution is over. Since modern sapiensemerged 50,000 years ago, “natural selection has almost become irrelevant” to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proclaimed. “There have been no biological changes. Everything we’ve called culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.”
Looks like we are ed.
What's the point you're trying to make?
I don't even know.
The school texts books.
By passing Biology and Science you advance to the next level.How is it helping the human race?
That he's still extremely salty over a thread Leetonidas posted almost a week ago
Guessed kinda right.
Has to do with differing amount of chromosomes in both humans (pairs of 23) and primates (pairs of 24). Pairs of chromosomes gotta link up as a zygote forms and begins to undergo the initial rounds of mitosis.
There's also a problem with post-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanisms.
Dude it's the science!I don't even know.
Science, !
You might add another Jew to the list, Black.
And there was another comedian who died not long ago who used to tell it like it is but I forgot his name.
I'm kinda not a Black fan - just seems a bit forced - IMO -
and are thinking of Sam Kinison? That was a long time ago though...
Recently - Richard Jeni - I thought he was pretty good.
Evolution /= technological advancement or higher IQ.
Case in point: "Shouldn't they of evolved their own fur by now?"
Otherwise I agree. If Eskimos don't grow fur soon, I might can the entire evolution facade.
Carlin
No, he was in a couple of movies. He was tall, white, and bald.
YES, George Carlin!
- MISCONCEPTION: Humans can't negatively impact ecosystems, because species will just evolve what they need to survive.
CORRECTION: As described in the misconception above, natural selection does not automatically provide organisms with the traits they "need" to survive. Of course, some species may possess traits that allow them to thrive under conditions of environmental change caused by humans and so may be selected for, but others may not and so may go extinct. If a population or species doesn't happen to have the right kinds of genetic variation, it will not evolve in response to the environmental changes wrought by humans, whether those changes are caused by pollutants, climate change, habitat encroachment, or other factors. For example, as climate change causes the Arctic sea ice to thin and break up earlier and earlier, polar bears are finding it more difficult to obtain food. If polar bear populations don't have the genetic variation that would allow some individuals to take advantage of hunting opportunities that are not dependent on sea ice, they could go extinct in the wild.
- MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.
CORRECTION: When we hear about altruism in nature (e.g., dolphins spending energy to support a sick individual, or a meerkat calling to warn others of an approaching predator, even though this puts the alarm sounder at extra risk), it's tempting to think that those behaviors arose through natural selection that favors the survival of the species — that natural selection promotes behaviors that are good for the species as a whole, even if they are risky or detrimental for individuals in the population. However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).
So what's the evolutionary explanation for altruism if it's not for the good of the species? There are many ways that such behaviors can evolve. For example, if altruistic acts are "repaid" at other times, this sort of behavior may be favored by natural selection. Similarly, if altruistic behavior increases the survival and reproduction of an individual's kin (who are also likely to carry altruistic genes), this behavior can spread through a population via natural selection. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic.
Advanced students of evolutionary biology may be interested to know that selection can act at different levels and that, in some cir stances, species-level or group-level selection may occur. However, it's important to remember that, even in this case, selection has no foresight and is not "aiming" at any outcome; it is simply favoring the reproducing units that are best at leaving copies of themselves in the next generation. To learn more about levels of selection, visit our side trip on this topic.
- MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.
CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.
- MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.
CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.
- MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection produces organisms perfectly suited to their environments.
CORRECTION: Natural selection is not all-powerful. There are many reasons that natural selection cannot produce "perfectly-engineered" traits. For example, living things are made up of traits resulting from a complicated set of trade-offs — changing one feature for the better may mean changing another for the worse (e.g., a bird with the "perfect" tail plumage to attract mates maybe be particularly vulnerable to predators because of its long tail). And of course, because organisms have arisen through complex evolutionary histories (not a design process), their future evolution is often constrained by traits they have already evolved. For example, even if it were advantageous for an insect to grow in some way other than molting, this switch simply could not happen because molting is embedded in the genetic makeup of insects at many levels. To learn more about the limitations of natural selection, visit our module on misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation.
- MISCONCEPTION: All traits of organisms are adaptations.
CORRECTION: Because living things have so many impressive adaptations (incredible camouflage, sneaky means of catching prey, flowers that attract just the right pollinators, etc.), it's easy to assume that all features of organisms must be adaptive in some way — to notice something about an organism and automatically wonder, "Now, what's that for?" While some traits are adaptive, it's important to keep in mind that many traits are not adaptations at all. Some may be the chance results of history. For example, the base sequence GGC codes for the amino acid glycine simply because that's the way it happened to start out — and that's the way we inherited it from our common ancestor. There is nothing special about the relationship between GGC and glycine. It's just a historical accident that stuck around. Others traits may be by-products of another characteristic. For example, the color of blood is not adaptive. There's no reason that having red blood is any better than having green blood or blue blood. Blood's redness is a by-product of its chemistry, which causes it to reflect red light. The chemistry of blood may be an adaptation, but blood's color is not an adaptation. To read more about explanations for traits that are not adaptive, visit our module on misconceptions about natural selection and adaptation. To learn more about what traits are adaptations, visit another page in the same module.
Yeah, it's not even funny or humorous at this point, just getting old tbh and bringing down the overall quality of the club. I almost feel bad for making that thread now because of what I unknowingly unleashed on the forum. Can't we just get back to some good ol JudynTX threads about favorite brands of mayonnaise or Trill posting about the white devil? There is really nothing that needs to be said on the subject anymore when the facts aren't even read or researched and the whole why are monkeys still here thing being brought up despite countless posts correcting that and even videos posted explaining the lineage that are passed over. Either way, not interested anymore tbhThat he's still extremely salty over a thread Leetonidas posted almost a week ago
I used to like Black tbh but his whole screaming everything and angry face shaking got annoying quickly
Seems like a bunch of bull , what the is the point then? Didn't Darwin's finches supposedly evolve to be able to eat different foods when it was scarce?
Why does their need to be a point? Only theists think everything is done for a reason. For them it sucks to be faced with the reality that their existence is a chance occurrence. It flies in the face of how important their religion makes them out to be in the grand scheme of the universe.
So then why do scientist spend tons of hours researching all of this when in the end nothing matters?
Agreed.... it's like talking to a brick wall, Jeebo iaz is simply either unwilling or too re ed to get it, tbh....
Everything matters. That's why scientists spend night and day seeking the answer for something. That's the purpose of research.
Oh and if all living things are the same then why are the lives of humans more valued than that of animals? Am I gonna get life in prison for killing a deer or a duck?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
