Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by will_ebert, Jun 23, 2002.
Welcome to sciforums, Sixdays.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Human beings were never a very common organism until the agricultural revoultion.
Back before Lucy there likly was never more than a half-million of any given hominid species. We also lived in dry places. Fossils usually need sediment to form.
Thats why hominid fossils are so rare..
ok i know about the revolutions in that time..but i've no clue to the whloe fossil bit so i will take your words on it..
Fossils usually need sediment to form.
<font color=red>The flood of Noah would create the perfect environment for fossil formation. </font>
Late as usual
I came late to this thread, but there is not much I can say about the subject and, of course, there is not much scientific basis or references I could give. I think evolution happens very, very slowly, and I don´t think it is due to a response for adapting to the environment and survival. I think there are other factors involved, as apparently birds evolved from dinosaurs in some hundred million years, but other species (as scorpions and other insects) did not evolve much.
The evolution of the human species <b>was too fast as to have "natural" causes.</b> I think somebody went tampering with our ancestor's DNA to produce our Homo Sapiens. Take the case of Cromagnon and Nanderthal men: both were contemporary, but Cromagnon were much more advanced than the brutish Neanderthal, and the change (if it was a natural change) was too fast --not more than 20 or 30.000 years.
There is still a lot we have to learn about evolution.
"I think there are other factors involved, as apparently birds evolved from dinosaurs in some hundred million years, but other species (as scorpions and other insects) did not evolve much."
You are entirely correct in saying that evolution doesn't happen in reponse to a "need" to adapt. However, the above quote has a few misconceptions. Evolution has no bias; humans are just as evolved as scorpions. Scorpions did evolve into many different species, however, the original scoripion was suited to its environment mostly as much as it is to todays environment. Therefore, that species survived. Other branch offs of scorpions formed as you can see with the different species of scorpion, and other species not considered scorpions that had a scorpion as its ancestor.
Something more intelligent is not "more evolved" than anything else. Everything on this planet most likely evolved from one single bacterium. If by more evolved you mean a bigger change from the original, then that would be true. But many things that "evolved more" died because the "new" DNA code was not suited to the environment or really for any reason, even a freak accident can kill someone ans therefore stop their DNA pattern from being passed on.
"The evolution of the human species was too fast as to have "natural" causes. I think somebody went tampering with our ancestor's DNA to produce our Homo Sapiens. "
You're going to have a tough time convincing anyone of that. Aliens? Why bother? It just so happens that, if you do the math, you will find that the "rate of evolution" needs not be quick at all to produce things such as humans and any other creature under the sun.
Re: Late as usual
This only raises the question, well how did the aliens achieve intelligence then? Assuming for a moment this did happen then it was by an intelligent extraterrestial who evolved somewhere else. This answer only pushes the question one stage further back.
Last I heard Neandarthals where contemporaneous of Homo Agustus. Homo Sapiens evolved from Agustus and we out competed the Neandarthals by virtue of a greater ability to adapt the environment.
BTW, Neandarthals where not 'brutish'. This is a common misconception pushed by many authors over the years. If you look at the common image of Neandarthal they show a hunched, hairy figure lumbering along with claw like hands. The first Neandarthal skeleton, on which the image is based, was an elderly person with advanced arthritis. Modern depictions show Neandarthal as perfectly upright, slightly hairier with a larger brain pan and nose. They where superbly adapted to the environment they lived.
That’s right. But I also wonder why we find scorpions are found in totally different environments as the Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle and prairies and sabanas.
As evolution goes from the simplest to the more complex, I would say everything started not with a bacteria, or even a virus, but from a aminoacid molecule or a protein in the “primordial soup”. However, I still think that a “more intelligent” form of life is “more evolved” than a bacteria or a cockroach. More complex forms of life evolve to perfection, or “bettering” (as you see I agree that evolution exists), but there is a price to pay there. Organically, more complex forms are weaker (the human species is an example, we are not as resistant to radioactivity as scorpions and cockroaches) or to some chemicals, although the human species is not harmed by chemicals that rapidly kill insects (DDT is an example).
Of course, but it not detract the question that there could have been “gene tampering” by somebody in ancient times.
Then, as I said, both were contemporary (they lived in the same span of history), although Neanderthal came first by some hundred of thousand of years. What I meant is that the evolution of Neanderthal was <b>not as fast</b> as that of Cro-Magnon. Both species had completely different traits and physical conformation, specially in their skulls: Neanderthal skulls are more ape like, prognatism, recessed foreheads, etc, while Cro-Magnon fossils show a skull conformation almost identical to present Caucasian man.
From which species Cro-Magnon evolved, and why his evolution was so fast? Neanderthal were superbly adapted to their environment, as gorillas and other apes are adapted to theirs. Why the evolution of Neanderthal stopped, or better still, why it was so slow, as compared with the Cro-Magnon?.
We should differentiate between “evolution” –slow changes in morphology, something undeniable, and “abrupt” changes, surely due to mutation. There are many factors that can induce mutation in the genes and DNA, as radioactivity, cosmic rays, chemical imbalances, excess of some chemicals in the food or the environment.
But, of course, I have not intention of convincing anyone about the “DNA tampering” made by “aliens”. Archeology and Paleontology still are at they “diapers stage”, although I reckon they are making some good progress with the advent of new technologies as Cesium dating for non-organic fossils and artifacts.
There are some strange things (unexplained by conventional science) as the ancient and lost civilization in the high Andes, about 60 million years ago, as depicted in the now famous “Ocucaje library of stones”, perhaps better known as the “<b>Ica stones</b>”. I read the first accounts of these strange stones in the early 70s, as I was in Lima, Perú, starting a filming expedition to the Amazon jungle. I went then to Arequipa, and later to Ica, where I met Dr. Cabrera D’Arquea M.D., the man that was studying the stones –purely in an amateurish way, that ultimately led him to become a well respected investigator in this ancient civilization.
These stones were analyzed at the University of Bonn and found (by measuring the hardness –in Brinner or Rockwell units- of the surface and the carvings of the originals, comparing them with some “fakes” provided) that the carvings are about 60 million years old. This is, the surface of the carvings are as hard as the surface of the stone, showing a “weathering” due to exposition to the atmosphere, that does not appear in the fake stones. In the fakes, the surface of the carvings are harder than the stone surface, showing there was no weathering, so the carvings in the fakes are recent.
In short, as you must surely know by now, these collection of carved stones depict extremely strange stories, as men fighting against dinosaurs, heart and brain transplants, flying machines, men looking through telescopes, etc. What’s amazing, is that these stones tell about a medical technique used now for hearth transplants: blood transfusion to the patient from a pregnant woman. As you know, pregnant women produces an anti-rejection hormone that prevents the patient’s antibodies to reject the transplanted organ. And the scientists who developed this technique took it from the Ica stones.
As I said, we have a lot to learn if we keep investigating our planet’s history.
not sure if i believe in evolution. i definitely believe in God. but whether he used evolution as his method of dispersing life, i dont know. i think on the whole i dont believe evolution. there hasnt been enough time since the beginning of the universe Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i definitely believe in God. but whether he used evolution as his method of dispersing life, i dont know. i think on the whole i dont believe evolution. there hasnt been enough time since the beginning of the universe
It appears you don't know the first thing about evolution. You might want to consider reading up a bit to better understand it so that your responses aren't so silly.
"But I also wonder why we find scorpions are found in totally different environments as the Sahara desert, the Amazon jungle and prairies and sabanas."
Why are humans found in totally different environments such as the sahara desert, the amazon jungle, and prairies and savannas? Not to be blunt, but its called migration. If the species can survive in many different places and they can get there, they will live there.
"Organically, more complex forms are weaker (the human species is an example, we are not as resistant to radioactivity as scorpions and cockroaches) or to some chemicals, although the human species is not harmed by chemicals that rapidly kill insects (DDT is an example). "
Your example proves the first statement here to be a misnomer. species are only different. Difference is the key, not better or worse. If a mutant species can survive it most likely will live on to produce more of its same type and, evenutally, more mutants. Humans may be more succeptable to radiation, but bugs are killed by DDT. It is just coinciedence. Radiation kills humans better than it kills bugs, big deal. As for the DDT, we use that because it has more effect on bugs than humans. No species can be labeled as "weaker" than another. We all survive because we are more or less equally strong for our environment.
That stuff about the stones is pretty interesting. I tried for a bit to find any contradictory evidence or people refuting it as a hoax, and I didn't find anything, even though most of the sites say many people consider it a hoax.
"there hasnt been enough time since the beginning of the universe "
Really? Do you have any idea how much time 20 billion years is? In just one million years, There can be 10,000 generations of humans IF EACH HUMAN LIVED 100 YEARS!! This give plenty of generations for things like bacteria that reproduce daily. Not enough time my ass.
in what way!!!??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! i meant god could have just started life and let it develop on its own i.e. evolution.
It is clear to see that in the scheme of things here on Earth, that things are constantly changing. On what terms to we define evolution? One can see that when we as humans are taken from a cold winter atmosphere and subjected to a hot sunny desert enviornment we adapt and evolve to new conditions...Consisting of a change in diet...Leaving open an area to new diseases and infections thus changes the structures and appearances of our bodies...And evidence most seen would be a drastic change in skin color...THIS ALL COULD BE CATAGORIZED AS EVOLUTION BEFORE OUR EYES! and this is most likely what accured on the evolutionary chain with past history...And who is to say what humans will look like in the far future?
Take for example TECHNOLOGY! Science, industry, Modern Skyscraper Buildings, Medicines...Could this all not be considered Evolution?
This however does not exclude G-D in any way! Evolution is the FULL MANESFESTATION OF SOMETHING THAT IS ALIVE!...Our cells age untill they malfunction and the physical body dies. In the same respect is all life forms, the Earth and all Stars...The energy changes form and than life if born again...
EVOLUTION AND G-D GO HAND IN HAND AND ARE ONE AND THE SAME!
what about the contamination threoy?
Evolution is a change in reproductive material of a population.
It just may have been the contamination theory that has evolved us into what we are today!
It has been proven that several thousand years ago there was more oxygen in the air. They had discovered this in trapped air pockets in anchient Amber.
Now considering that, the less oxygen and contaminants we have in the air now is causing us to breath harder thus, exspanding our lungs, making for bigger brains. Yikes, are we the Aliens of the future??? What would we have to look like physically to exsist for long periods of time in space???
It could be a simple virus or bacteria that is evolving us for adaptation. This very virus could alter our DNA and Chromosomes permanantly!
It is also known that high doses of vitamins can also alter ones DNA.
So lets take all this into consideration...
Re: John McNeil
Awesome post Adam. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Could"? Wow! I guess he could have done just that. Conversely, life may have come into being when pixie dust mixed with unicorn farts. Or, prhaps, the Sumerian myths are correct. Then there's some tale about a turtle, but I've never really found it to be very compelling. Finally, of course, there's always that silly story pushed by the YHWH crowd - they've been such pompous bastards ever since they got that Pagan Emperor's endorsment.
So many options. So little reason.
"God" is neither a theory nor an answer - it's a place holder awaiting both.
the problem with the intelligent design theory is that it doesn't do anything for science. It just tries to prick holes in the theory of evolution, without providing a viable theory itself that can generate scientific questions, experiments, subtheories etc.
therefore it is pointless to assume this position
Separate names with a comma.