Evolution - is it real?
Discussion
M5-911 said:
Castrol for a knave said:
M5-911 said:
The only interesting thing about Behe is his massive cognitive dissonance. Facinating to know how you have form such a strong opinion without even listening.
Wikipedia said:
Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design.
<...>
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.
'Nuff said.<...>
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published a statement repudiating Behe's views and intelligent design.
Ayahuasca said:
If human natural selection by attraction is a thing, how come there are still ugly people?
Because human sexual attraction is complicated. A lioness couldn't care less is a lion is empathetic, or kind, or good with cubs. She want's the biggest strongest lion, who will pass his big strong genes on to her cubs, to give them the best chance of survival. Human females are no doubt attracted by a six pack and a strong jaw line, but she wants a man who can help bring up a child for 18 years or more. So is he kind, is he well qualified, have a good job, ambitious? A woman might find an ugly bloke who volunteers as the same famine relief charity as she does more attractive than a good looking guy who runs past her on the way to the gym.
LimaDelta said:
Ayahuasca said:
If human natural selection by attraction is a thing, how come there are still ugly people?
Ugly breeds with ugly. Attractive breeds with attractive. That's how you end up with Morlocks and Eloi.Terminator X said:
simonrockman said:
It's not evolution which is the theory. The full title is "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection". So Evolution is a given it's the natural selection bit which was Darwin's theory, and that's been pretty conclusively proved.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
People seem to be getting taller each generation? Is that evolution?but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
I'd recommend this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/100-Year-Life-Living-Work...
It looks at the social consequences of us all living longer and essentially suggests three careers.
It looks at the social consequences of us all living longer and essentially suggests three careers.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Partly. Better nutrition combined with sexual selection. Most people think being tall is an attractive feature. Although of course some men prefer petite women, but not many women prefer short men. They may well have children with a short man, because other aspects of his looks or personality make up for it. Tom Cruise probably does ok for partners. But all things being equal, I would guess that more short men die childless than tall men. So the tall gene is passed on more frequently.
(This is just me postulating, I don't have any figures to back it up, before anyone asks)
Think it is almost all nutrition. You see it much more dramatically in Japan with the 'macdonalds generation'. Anecdote - my father grew some crazy amount (5 inches ISTR) during National Service, as it was the first time he got properly fed(This is just me postulating, I don't have any figures to back it up, before anyone asks)
wisbech said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Partly. Better nutrition combined with sexual selection. Most people think being tall is an attractive feature. Although of course some men prefer petite women, but not many women prefer short men. They may well have children with a short man, because other aspects of his looks or personality make up for it. Tom Cruise probably does ok for partners. But all things being equal, I would guess that more short men die childless than tall men. So the tall gene is passed on more frequently.
(This is just me postulating, I don't have any figures to back it up, before anyone asks)
Think it is almost all nutrition. You see it much more dramatically in Japan with the 'macdonalds generation'. Anecdote - my father grew some crazy amount (5 inches ISTR) during National Service, as it was the first time he got properly fed(This is just me postulating, I don't have any figures to back it up, before anyone asks)
M5-911 said:
Castrol for a knave said:
M5-911 said:
The only interesting thing about Behe is his massive cognitive dissonance. Facinating to know how you have form such a strong opinion without even listening.
king cold. otolith said:
Terminator X said:
simonrockman said:
It's not evolution which is the theory. The full title is "The Theory of Evolution by natural selection". So Evolution is a given it's the natural selection bit which was Darwin's theory, and that's been pretty conclusively proved.
but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
People seem to be getting taller each generation? Is that evolution?but, perhaps we've stopped evolving. Given that we can medically support all kinds of conditions that would have died out through natural selection the evolution may have slowed or even stopped.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
67Dino said:
For example, if you accept evolution occurs then you have to accept all living things look like they do by chance rather than design,
It's not really chance. Chance or accident isn't the best way of describing evolution. It isn't chance that the water in the puddle is exactly the same shape as the dip it sits in. The water has moulded itself to fit the available space. Evolution is a process that has driven different plants and animals to fit their particular niche. So it isn't chance that a specific species of bee fits perfectly into a particular type of flower that's unique to where that bee lives. Interestingly, where chance does of course play a key part is in the individual mutations that underly natural selection. But that wasn’t what I meant the first time. I’m just saying that to claw back a modicum of self esteem.
simonrockman said:
There is an article in the New Scientist Christmas issue asking why evolution hasn't happened in certain ways: No flying plants, it's never created the wheel and no vegetarian snakes (even though there are some non-meat-eating lizards).
What are the article's concusions?simonrockman said:
There is an article in the New Scientist Christmas issue asking why evolution hasn't happened in certain ways: No flying plants, it's never created the wheel and no vegetarian snakes (even though there are some non-meat-eating lizards).
Many plants make use of airborne transport.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff