Human evolution from a scientific stantpoint - Scientific debate, not a religious one

[blanka09]

To honest with ya, I'd have preferred the topic on the theory of relativity.. :biggrin: More to do with Physics than Biology.. blah!

Anywho, you want main facts on evolution.. here goes nothing.. :biggrin:

I'm not really in a good mood to brainstorm since it's like 2:39 am here.. so I'll start from the section on natural selection.
Darwin (the father of evolution.. *cough*) himself stated that

For instance a vast number of eggs or seeds are annually devoured, and these could be modified through natural selection only if they varied in some manner which protected them from their enemies. Yet many of these eggs or seeds would perhaps, if not destroyed, have yielded individuals better adapted to their conditions of life than any of these which happened to survive

This cuts short what he was trying to say in his theory of evolution.. the survival of the fittest. Now I have argued in a somewhat objective manner because of my belief, on this topic in the past.. but I'll try and put that in check for now.... key word: for now

Anyway, Darwin here is trying to give us a fulcrum to which the present species of nowadays exist. There were those that existed in the past that had the same look, genetic code and what have you.. but due to the "natural" things that happen in this earth.. such as attack by preditors, or natural disasters, some have gone exinct.. But to those who have survive, have yielded offsprings whether plants or animals that have been well equiped to withstand the ever changing surroundings they face.. Thus, they are the fittest.. and have survived.

Darwin also states that:

yet of those which do survive, the best adapted individuals, supposing that there is any variability in favourable direction, will tend to propagate their kind in larger numbers than the less well adapted

Thus you can see the origin of new species.. while those who didn't develop well enough to survive die out and go extinct.. Those that were well equipped, grew and form the new generation so to say.

Now to the origin of man. I really enjoyed your theory on the origin of man... Good charts too :biggrin:
But this is what I want to know.. According to science, there is infact no doubt that you are correct.. but tell me something.. if our brains are going to evolve further what do you see the human race turning into 2.5 million years from now... if the sun can still keep its cool till that time?

If in fact we are evolving at a slow pace, then there should be a sorta change that would have occured to us across the years.. as far as I'm concerned.. sceince and technology are the only evidences available.. but I'm curious to know what lies ahead of the human race.. What are the limits to our thoughts, that extra capability of our mind.... The thought of that intrigues me.. and I'd like someone to give me a good info..if infact you have one that is ...

without flaw...

Now on a side note,

So yes, you're absolutely correct. Evolution is carried forward by genetic mutation. However, you're incorrect that it only starts with one member of a specie or population. It begins with a GROUP of animals in a population.

That was Joe's arguement about Viper's theory (or wherever he got it from) on evolution being carried by mutation.. which is in fact true.. but define what you mean by a group. If in fact a group mutates in such a way, that in fact, helps them to survive the seemingly present "forces" that cause them to adapt, where did that group come from. Thus I think Viper may be correct on the mere fact that an individual out of a group starts/mutates/gets the basic trait and then passes this to its offspring. These traits become dormant instead of staying recessive.. and thus a new species is born. Say hello to my little friend! :biggrin:

Finally...

All hail the cockroach

If in fact.. they can survive radiation, then maybe we should hail them.. lol.. riight :biggrin:



Edited By blanka09 on Mar. 23 2004 at 03:01