If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Economist)   Evolution taught humans to stand upright to see over the savannah...except we started standing upright before the savannah came about. You win this round Creationism. But just wait until we talk about the appendix   (economist.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, evolution, savannahs, creationisms, grasslands  
•       •       •

6815 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2013 at 8:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-20 09:14:51 AM  

nmemkha: jaggspb: nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?

I get a kick out of those people that say yes this particular story is an allegory but Jesus soooooo definitely walked on water for realz!!!!eleventy

A first hand account of an event is far different than a fable. Surely you can spot key differences in the two narratives.


very true so was Jesus nonchalant about it or was he all "hold my wine and watch this" when you witnessed him doing that?
 
2013-02-20 09:15:59 AM  
We evolved to stand up so that we could do things with our hands while we walked, such as using primitive iPhones.
d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net
 
2013-02-20 09:16:37 AM  

sudo give me more cowbell: I think the point is that they were already so well spread out that they were in the grasslands anyway. Sometimes evolution takes a while, and I think the article was right in supposing that perhaps early humans just failed to take advantage of the evolutionary niche for a while. After a few million years, the right kind of adaptation started to take shape. Mutation is, after all, random.


That was exactly my point.
 
2013-02-20 09:16:42 AM  

gadian: Slackfumasta: How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

I didn't tell the story, I don't know.  His angels apparently sucked too, given the rebellion and all.  Maybe the guy isn't handy with the tools.

proteus_b: Adam and Eve were not Jewish... Abraham was the first Jew.

It was either a Jewish mom joke or a joke about the ex wife sexing up the kids.


To be fair, God was sick that day and couldn't attend "How to recognize and stop potential angel rebellions" lecture
 
2013-02-20 09:17:45 AM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-02-20 09:18:47 AM  
Yeah so some animals stand upright to seem more intimidating and larger when threatened. Trick a predator into backing down. Maybe our ancestors just decided upright at all times is better?
 
2013-02-20 09:19:36 AM  
Slackfumasta:

How could God possibly have 'failed' creations?

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-20 09:26:57 AM  

Rizhail: The climatic change she observed was already known about. It was the reason people suspected forests had given way to savannah. But, contrary to that suspicion, Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested, so the idea that people were constrained to walk upright by the disappearance of the forests is wrong."


Perhaps they ones that had a small predisposition to walk upright could see there was something on the other side of the road, so they crossed it and had a nice meal.  Having a full tummy made the mommas happy, and then we all know they are more likely to do the deed if you feed them.  So the upright ones, like many new immigrants, bred like crazy.
 
2013-02-20 09:29:04 AM  

Ostman: Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.


This.  We didn't evolve opposable thumbs for the purpose of using tools. Tool use was the effect, not the cause.
 
2013-02-20 09:30:43 AM  

Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?


Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.
 
2013-02-20 09:32:33 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: Rizhail: The climatic change she observed was already known about. It was the reason people suspected forests had given way to savannah. But, contrary to that suspicion, Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested, so the idea that people were constrained to walk upright by the disappearance of the forests is wrong."

Perhaps they ones that had a small predisposition to walk upright could see there was something on the other side of the road, so they crossed it and had a nice meal.  Having a full tummy made the mommas happy, and then we all know they are more likely to do the deed if you feed them.  So the upright ones, like many new immigrants, bred like crazy.


So you are saying that early humans were like chickens...crossing the road to see what was on the other side...until they stood up and didn't need to cross to see.  Wait...where did the roads come from?
 
2013-02-20 09:35:04 AM  

gadian: kitsuneymg: Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?

I actually heard all this from a Rabbi and I still don't know if he was just yanking my chain with most of what he was saying.  He was just summarizing some different interpretations of the origins of humanity.  I don't know anything about the Christian take on any of it or if any of it was ever an "official" part of any religion.  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.


How can Mary be immaculately conceived?  If so, what is the point,  God could just have made Jesus immaculately conceived?

If she was immaculately conceived, why would she die, if she did not, what happened to her?
 
2013-02-20 09:35:24 AM  
I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.
 
2013-02-20 09:36:54 AM  

Nutsac_Jim: gadian: kitsuneymg: Which sects of Christianity actually still have the bit about Lilith in their holy book? I know it's not in most protestant texts. Do Catholics have it?

I actually heard all this from a Rabbi and I still don't know if he was just yanking my chain with most of what he was saying.  He was just summarizing some different interpretations of the origins of humanity.  I don't know anything about the Christian take on any of it or if any of it was ever an "official" part of any religion.  He did also say that no one ever seriously suggested Christ was immaculately conceived until many centuries after his death.

How can Mary be immaculately conceived?  If so, what is the point,  God could just have made Jesus immaculately conceived?

If she was immaculately conceived, why would she die, if she did not, what happened to her?


Dunno about her conception - I think it was supposed to be the old and dirty way, but didn't she ascend to heaven in her physical form?
 
2013-02-20 09:37:52 AM  

gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.


One word:  tail gloves.  Or maybe we'd call them socks.
 
2013-02-20 09:38:13 AM  

I_C_Weener: Son of Thunder: You got it backwards, subbo. TFA is saying that the grasslands were there first.

The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!


CSB: I was born without one. I am evolved.
 
2013-02-20 09:39:18 AM  

I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.


Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?
 
2013-02-20 09:40:47 AM  

mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.


They're only opposing theories if you worship a god too dumb and shortsighted to use an elegant, long-term tool like evolution to shape creation.
 
2013-02-20 09:43:34 AM  

gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?


Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.
 
2013-02-20 09:44:26 AM  

gadian: I'm just peeved that evolution never saw fit to bestow upon us prehensile tails.  Not for any weird yiffing sort of reason, but I've always thought have a prehensile tail would be awesome.


That, or gills.

Supplemental gills would rock, and it's not like we don't have them in the womb.

Be tough on the scuba manufacturers, of course...
 
2013-02-20 09:44:49 AM  

I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!


I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.
 
2013-02-20 09:46:01 AM  

kerryclendenon: Remember, disproving one theory of evolution of man does not prove creationism, as this still happened millions of years ago.  So before the trolls go wild, or the dnrtfas spout off - the fact that the humanoids standing happened and was not correlated with the Savannah doesn't mean man was created out of dust and magic 6000 years ago.


Yeah, proving Creationism would take explaining why God created the entire universe as a massive fraud to fool his own creations as an excuse to torture them for infinity if they believed what they saw. If you are a Creationist, it is hard to not see the God you are worshiping as an evil and devious entity that is just toying with us, and therefore much more in line with the way the Devil is described than the attributes used to describe God.
 
2013-02-20 09:47:01 AM  

I_C_Weener: gadian: I_C_Weener: One word: tail gloves. Or maybe we'd call them socks.

Do you think we'd have to tuck them in and be ashamed of them?

Only if they were used for sexual purposes.  Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Is that a tail in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?
 
2013-02-20 09:47:06 AM  

I_C_Weener: Only if they were used for sexual purposes. Like getting a taily instead of a handy from a prostitute.


Heh, okay, "taily" made me giggle like a 4th grader.
 
2013-02-20 09:48:06 AM  

mechgreg: I_C_Weener: The point still stands. The appendix is where we put this nonsense to rest!

I would say the widsom teeth are where we put this nonsense to rest. I mean why the hell did I (and millions of other people) have these completely useless molars in the back of my mouth when my jaw wasn't even big enough to let them grow in probably. And why do some people not have them? Unless of course our ancestors from a long long time ago had bigger jaws, and needed those extra teeth because they didn't really have a whole lot of choices in what they ate (and needed extra teeth as back up since they didn't have dentists and losing molars could be a bigger problem). And then of course as we evolved our jaw got smaller but in some people the number of teeth hasn't evolved yet.


And instead of people dying from tooth/jaw infections, we fix it now and they get to live and have offspring, thereby NOT removing the extra teeth genes from the gene pool.
 
2013-02-20 09:48:29 AM  

fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.


Almost, but not quite chemically identical. Search for "Kinetic isotope effect" and "Isotopic signature in plants", also "C3 carbon fixation" and "C4 carbon fixation"
 
2013-02-20 09:48:33 AM  

Jake Havechek: Much like the Crucifixion. There is not a detailed account about that, but Christians in 14th century Europe ginned up the tale in order to blame the Jews for the Black Plague.


Crucifixion ain't no fiction. So-called Chosen frozen, apology made to whomever pleases, still they got me like Jesus. I'd rather sing, bring, think, reminisce 'bout a brother while I'm in sync.
 
2013-02-20 09:49:27 AM  

xria: Yeah, proving Creationism would take explaining why God created the entire universe as a massive fraud to fool his own creations as an excuse to torture them for infinity if they believed what they saw. If you are a Creationist, it is hard to not see the God you are worshiping as an evil and devious entity that is just toying with us, and therefore much more in line with the way the Devil is described than the attributes used to describe God.


That and his creations without an ounce of free will decided to rebel against his decisions.  How does one screw up that badly?
 
2013-02-20 09:50:36 AM  
One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.
 
2013-02-20 09:55:33 AM  
Time Begins?  says who?
www.gentilsalaud.com
 
2013-02-20 09:58:28 AM  

dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.


That theory also explains our weak sense of smell, not needed as much with an aquatic lifestyle...
 
2013-02-20 09:59:36 AM  

clane: Time Begins?  says who?
[www.gentilsalaud.com image 768x710]


Time requires the existence of mass which implies the existence of space.  The big bang, as the theory goes, was the origin of mass and space and time.
 
2013-02-20 10:00:52 AM  
The real question is: when did headline trolls like subby evolve? Did they predate Fark? The Gutenberg press? Cave paintings?
 
2013-02-20 10:02:50 AM  

clane: Time Begins?  says who?
[www.gentilsalaud.com image 768x710]


Time magazine. Says so right there in the lower-right corner!
 
2013-02-20 10:06:58 AM  

justinguarini4ever: I did not know about this grassland theory. I always assumed that early hominids were scared into walking upright by a time-traveling Charlton Heston.


there is a severe lack of cheston pics with lol captions.  therefore, i could not answer your funny with a funny.
 
2013-02-20 10:07:34 AM  

dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.


This theory has been discredited, much to the displeasure of its very loud and butthurt proponents. Lots of those "fact" such as fat distribution are misinterpretations. See  http://www.aquaticape.org/
 
2013-02-20 10:08:19 AM  

stonicus: dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.

That theory also explains our weak sense of smell, not needed as much with an aquatic lifestyle...


I'm pretty sure our weak sense of smell is from natural selection.  If you weren't able to smell how awful everyone else smelled living in a one-room cave 24-7, then you were more likely to have sex with one of them, which in turn keeps your genes alive.  The picky smell sensitive people went outside and got eaten before they could have sex.

I should be a scientist.
 
2013-02-20 10:09:05 AM  

Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet


NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.
 
2013-02-20 10:10:21 AM  

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.


Considering how retarded the human race actually is, I think we can accept this as fact.
 
2013-02-20 10:12:06 AM  

gadian: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Not a Jesus freak, but I think that the story goes that Adam and Eve had many, many children who all married each other.  I've also heard contradictory stories saying that there was a land of God's failed creations where Adam's first wife went off to live and that that's where the outside blood came from in the kid's marriages.  Obviously, no self-respecting Jewish mother would let her kids marry from God's rubbish bin, but there you go.



The Island of Misfit Toys does exist!!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-MDSKoMptZt0/TtcTlmxW-PI/AAAAAAAAJEw/4Ug5eUP L etI/s1600/island+of+misfit+toys+charlie+in+a+box.jpg">
 
2013-02-20 10:14:16 AM  

mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.


the scientific method is a test of a hypothesis.   it has no basis in faith.  faith involves what you cannot prove, only what you believe without proof.
 
2013-02-20 10:14:43 AM  

stonicus: dennysgod: One interesting theory was this: We had a aquatic past.

Humans are the only primate with blubber, a thin layer of fat attached to the skin (and I'm not talking about the too many cheeseburger kinda fat). The only other mammals to have this are those that live all, or most of the time in water, otters, sea-lions dolphins, etc. Also most of these water living mammals have their hips tilted more vertically, like ours do, to make them more streamline for swimming, ours we now use to walk upright. So the theory goes is that at some point in our evolution we took to the shallows and lived a semi-aquatic life style. Other evidence for this is our larger brains, seafood is rich in protein, brain food. Also our noses stick out and are not flat like our chimpanzee cousins which works great at diverting water away from the nostrils when diving. Plus when they mapped out the hair follicles they are arrange to be hydrodynamic.

That theory also explains our weak sense of smell, not needed as much with an aquatic lifestyle...


Sharks beg to differ.
 
2013-02-20 10:15:12 AM  

NJR_ZA: fredklein: Erix: fredklein: FTFA: "Plants in rainforests tend to discriminate against ¹³C. Those in modern African grasslands are less selective and ¹³C is thus more abundant in their molecules."

Um...

Um?

Isotopes are chemically identical, so plants would not be able to differentiate between them.

Almost, but not quite chemically identical. Search for "Kinetic isotope effect" and "Isotopic signature in plants", also "C3 carbon fixation" and "C4 carbon fixation"


Huh. You learn something new everyday.
 
2013-02-20 10:16:01 AM  

spentmiles: Human beings are so egocentric.  Hell, we even believed that the sun revolved around us.  And even at this point, many people still can't believe that there's intelligent life out there.  We're the most important, smartest, most adaptive, awesome creatures the universe has ever seen.

Want to hear the tiniest little laugh ever?  Tell a horseshoe crab how awesome you are.  It's been around for 445 million years.  Doesn't make the 200,000 years that homo sapiens have walked the earth seem that impressive does it?  And if you want to go back to earlier forms of humanoid, go ahead.  It still doesn't amount to much.

And so, with our tremendous knowledge and experience, we assume that walking on two legs is the evolutionary forward pass.  Wrong!  Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the majority of mammals move about on four legs?  And the fossil records taken from mud imprints indicate that around 2.3 million years ago the homo habilis (one of the earliest human forms) actually hoped around on one leg.  These early creatures could be knocked over by a strong breeze.  They couldn't outrun anything.  As a species, they were doomed to failure.

Then came the homo erectus, the first two legged human-like mammal.  Two legs proved superior to one, but they were still no match for their four legged predators.  The four legged animals were more stable, stronger, faster, and smarter.  Why smarter?  They had more complete diets because they were apex predators.  Humans were mostly living off scraps and unprocessed grains at that point - not exactly brain boosters.

Then came the asteroid impact that triggered the massive volcanic eruptions.  The two legged creatures that were able to climb trees were able to escape the lava.  The four legged creatures were not.  That simple good-luck twist of fate moved human beings up the evolutionary ladder, but we're still on a path to evolve into four legged creatures.

Think about how much more you sit than your grandparents did.  Sitt ...


I actually wasted 30 precious irreplaceable seconds of my life reading this.

Like Pocket Ninja, but nowhere near as clever or funny.
 
2013-02-20 10:16:53 AM  
All these theories portend to the fact no one really knows anything - creationistas or evolutionistas. It is evident that there are those people inhabiting any particular time in history who think they 'KNOW' exactly as things are, when in fact nothing is really known. Both sides are mostly made up of inventinistas..Their need for certainty is merely a warm blanket they wrap themselves in; assurance that things are 'OK'. And of course the masses climb under the blanket too. Herd mentality.

/Now, would you please pass the parmesan and can I have some more of that delicious bordello too.
 
2013-02-20 10:17:30 AM  

nmemkha: Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!

Its an allegory genius. Dumb Christians of the Sky Wizarding World are smart enough to figure that out, so what does that say about you?


This is why I have you favorited.
 
2013-02-20 10:20:52 AM  

talulahgosh: mrinfoguy: The scientific method demands that cause and effect is observable and repeatable.
Sorry evolutionists, but faith is what binds believers and non believers together. We just have faith in opposing theory's.

the scientific method is a test of a hypothesis.   it has no basis in faith.  faith involves what you cannot prove, only what you believe without proof.


Scientific method requires faith that the universe is causal at all times.
 
2013-02-20 10:26:42 AM  

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Ostman: Baryogenesis: To her surprise, they (grasslands) seem to have been there even 12m years ago
Dr Feakins has shown that early humanity's east African homeland was never heavily forested

Subby can't read.

Anyway, I remember reading something about walking upright being an adaption to free up the use of hands/arms for carrying food and children.

Not exactly. The adaptation wasn't intended to do anything before it happened. Natural selection just favoured those that had it, in that particular climate and time, and it became the norm after those without the adaptation died out as they couldn't effectively compete. Or, alternatively, they branched off into a different species after migrating to another area.
I know it seems like a small nitpick, but I think it's fairly important.

/No matter what Star Trek might have said, evolution isn't on a pre-determined path with certain milestones along the way.
//Also, disclaimer, I'm not a scientician. I just play one on the internet

NOT a small nitpick and is VERY important. It's the difference between evolution as "random mutation that ends up being passed along because those with the mutation survive better" and "evolution as response to environment (i.e.: Lamarkism). HUGE difference.

However, the concept of random mutation DOES raise an interesting question. Presumably any random mutation would appear in one and only one member of the species. To think otherwise would be to strain the laws of probability. With only one individual, doesn't that raise some of the same questions as those asked about Adam and Eve's children?

Answer me that, Darwinists!

/For the record, I'm a huge believer in Darwinian Evolution.
//But the above question does bother me.


Not necessarily. Genes turn off and on over the course of your life. So let's say someone gets a random mutation but it doesn't express itself. For all intents and purposes this person is just like every other. They breed, their progeny inherit the trait. This goes on for X number of generations and spreads through a portion of the gene pool. Then, for whatever reason (right grouping of chromosomes, new environmental factors etc) the mutant gene turns on. Now a whole subset of people express the adaptation that has lain dormant in the population. If that subset is large enough, it won't suffer inbreeding even if they have a significant advantage from this "new" mutation.

/I hope that answers your question
//I am not a biologist
 
2013-02-20 10:31:11 AM  

Jake Havechek: If Adam and Eve only had 2 kids, both boys, and one killed the other, where did all the humans come from?

Answer me that, Jesus freaks!


They had more than two kids and yes Cain married his sister.
 
2013-02-20 10:34:58 AM  
It wasn't because of the grass, it was because of our thumbs.

The more we started using our thumbs, the less we wanted to walk on our hands.
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report