why DID we evolve into humans?

quote:

---

There is another form of evolution. Sexual Selection. It is almost identical to Natural Selection but instead of selection by improved survivability, it involves selection by improved attraction to the opposite sex, and thus descendants.

---

I agree with you. I would add that sexual selection isn't independent of criteria for 'survivability', as you succinctly put it. The classic example of the peacock is a case in point. Sure, the peahen is attracted to males with showy plumage. What the plumage tells the female, however, is that this male is strong and agile enough to drag this tail around and avoid predators long enough to survive and mate, and that he can pass these superior genes on to her offspring. Along with the tail.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

Besides mark as far as evolution is concerned ever since the invention of booze sexual attractiveness is no longer a requirement.

Neither of above is "evolution". They are all learned behavior. To learn something, you must already be "evolved" with skill which makes it possible. Evolution is perfectly random as well as natural selection - you never know which set of skill will be necessary for future set of condition. If conditions are stable for some time, creatures with skills most suitable for those conditions prevail. But abrupt change of conditions, and they are history....And why are we humans? Because we have brains which can host memes...------------------
Life has no meaning but itself.

Hey All,
I was just wondering.... How do you all feel about the fact that mutations have not been proven to be beneficial. Information (such as DNA, etc.) can't be added through a natural mutation. Information can be shuffled around, and more often information is lost at the hands of a mutation... But never is information added. It seems that we are the opposite of evolution if anything. I mean, if we can't gain info, we can only lose, then our ancestors were probably much healthier and smarter and physically/mentally stronger. This would explain, to me anyway, why disease, obesity, and everything else is so much larger today than ever. Not to mention that life expectency was really bad a few generations back, but only modern science has caused it to rise to it's current levels. I mean, all of that stuff about health, etc. is just my thought that just came to me now, so try not to judge that too harshly, just popped into my head.... But I believe the mutation information to be true, and I'm sure you'll have something to say about it, but note that many evolution experts have even voiced those same points, but somehow still holding to the ToE.-------------------
Just coming back to add a couple things..... How do you explain how the very first form of life started? The life that started it all, every plant and animal on the planet.... How did life start from non-life?Also, a little side thing.... If Earth wasn't created, but was the result of a big bang, or whatever... Then where did the Universe come from... If that was from a really big bang..... Then where did the material that caused it come from. With there being nothing in existence, how does a big bang occur? Something had to be created somehow at some point, even if it was 100 Trillion years ago, NOTHING doesn't begat SOMETHING.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

Rabair, It was, over 50 years ago, & many times since.The Legerbergs made a clonal population of E.Coli, which they plated many times. They then plated the bacteria onto a penicillin infused substrate. Given that the bacteria were clonal, they should all have died. But isolated colonies flourished, indicating that a mutation had occurred in the intervening generations between the original individual bacteria & the colonies subjected to penicillin. This mutation was by definition beneficial.Lederberg, J., and Lederberg, E. M. (1952) "Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants." Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406.I do find it amazing that creationists still think there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation when such a thing was shown to occur over 50 years ago. What's that if it isn't new information?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Leon: Beyond being wrong about the demonstrated occurance of BENEFICIAL mutations, rabair only introduces confusion when he writes:
"How do you all feel about the fact that mutations have not been proven to be beneficial can't be added through a natural mutation."What in the world would an UN-natural mutation be?

Leon,
"What in the world would an UN-natural mutation be?" you ask?Come on now? Are you serious? Well being that natural would be something without outside influence, that would probably mean that Un-natural would include outside influence. Steroids, hormones, etc.... Hope that explains what I mean by natural.... but I don't really understand how that really matters to the issue posed?Also... I just went back and read your quote from my post.... And you know what, un-related to why you say it doesn't make sense, the quote really doesn't make sense. BUT MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE YOU MIS-QUOTED AND LEFT OUT A BIG PORTION, AND COMBINED PIECES FROM 2 SENTENCES! Everyone note Leon's mis-construing before taking him seriously.Everyone note
[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003][This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

Well Mark,
I will grant you the case you mention, as with a handful at best of other cases appear to have benefited by a random natural mutation. But you still avoided the scientific side... The fact that new information still isn't added during the mutation. That is simply not possible and doesn't happen. Just think logically, there is no way for information to naturally appear out of nowhere. Think about the deformed and mentally handicapped, etc.... They are missing information... But our extremely smart people don't have anything magically added. Here's a quick analogy I heard: You know when you see a computer that someone created. It clearly didn't evolve. Yet a computer we are still trillions of times more complex than the most advanced of computers. And just as we are unable to create anything more advanced than ourselves, so is the case for everything throughout history. Greater things don't ever come from lesser things.... Especially not naturally, because I again say, nothing is gained from natural mutations.... And more often then not there is a loss.------------
Oh, and Mark, I just went back and re-read your post again.... And I noticed that you imply that because of the penicillin the E. Coli mutated. This means one of two things. Either one, and this one I don't really buy and I'm sure you don't either, it may have benefited somehow from the penicillin. Again, I don't think that's it... The other option is that it adapted to avoid death from the penicillan, which shows adaptation and not natural selection mutation/evolution. Your theory is that these mutation were all totally random, and a non-adaptive thing. The reason you insist this is because creationists point out that if when we were just fish, or apes or whereever we came from, we would have just stayed that way because we were fine. But evolutionists say that's right, but we didn't mutate on purpose or to adapt to anything, it was just all random and by chance. So again I say, one of those 2 things I mentioned above probably happened to the E. Coli, probably the second one (adaptation.) But regardles.... You are still adding outside influence with the penicillin. This isn't natural.[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

You're using a definition of "information" that is irrelevant to biology and at odds with information theory.Adaptation and evolution don't require the kind of information that you're talking about. Therefore it doesn't matter whether or not new mutations can produce "information". After all DNA doesn't code for information, it codes for proteins. And mutations can and do produce new protiens. Eh? What do you mean by this? If you mean that the mentally handicapped tend to miss out on reading The New York Times, then yes, I guess they lack information. However if you're talking about genetic information, you may be interested to know that Down's Syndrome (for instance) is caused by an additional copy of one of their chromosomes. They don't lack information; they have more of it than they're supposed to, apparently. Ah, I see. The bacterium was smart enough to know exactly which new protiens to mutate to?Adaptation is natural selection. Some of the bacteria were born with mutations that allowed them to survive where their peers died. As a result they took over the population. Your statement shows a common misunderstanding about adaptation: Individuals don't adapt. Populations do. Well, they were. If they weren't, you'll have to show us the mechanism that allows bacteria to direct their own mutations. Again, you're making the same mistake. Individuals don't "decide" to adapt. They survive, or they die, based on what mutations they had when they were born. Only populations adapt. Penicillin is a natural product of certain types of mold. How do you think we discovered it? (Look it up.) Anyway there's no magic influence that's changing the nature of the mutations in the bacteria, just because you exposed them to greater concentrations than they usually find. It's still an environment, and whether it's a natural environment or not has nothing to do with how the population will adapt to live in it.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-06-2003]

For starters Crash, I wasn't referring in particular to DNA, I was just listing that as an easy way to explain information that is contained in us. Which I still stand by that no new information can be added as a result of a natural mutation.Now, haha, as for you NY Times comment? It seems that you're implying that you're missing information if you don't read the Times? The Times (as we saw this year), adds new (and untrue) information (just like your ToE). Unless I'm just mis-understanding what you're saying..... Anyway... Yes, I'm aware of Down's Sydrome, and I was hoping someone would bring that up, because as you say yourself, the ADDITIONAL or EXTRA thing they have is a COPY. A copy of information already there. Not brand new formed out of thin air. I think you get my point there....Number one I haven't seen any proof that it was new protiens that the bacterium mutated... Even your friend who brought up the study didn't mention the protiens... But the bottom line is, whatever your personal belief about adaptation, all your friends here don't believe that the ToE is based on any adaptation. You are going against what they say by saying that, because they say it is all random/natural. Everyone, even creationists know that there are slight adaptive things that species do, but the theory of evolution isn't based on adaptation what so ever. It is natural selection as you call it, and isn't because a species was trying to survive, but it just got lucky and did. Again let me point out, that a species (by ToE) survives by an impossible way of evolving by mutation which would need new information to be added in the mutation, which, again is not possible. And by the way, I wasn't implying that the bacterium adapted to the Penicillin... if you read what I said IN CONTEXT, I was listing to Mark what the two possibilities must have been based on the study, based on his implications.(as I read through your post again) I keep noticing you trying to tell me that the mutations where random, and you call for me to show that a species had a mechanism for directing their own mutation. I think my points are clear, and I don't believe that these mutations took place. MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT THESE MUTATIONS COULDN'T TAKE PLACE BECAUSE THEY WOULD TAKE NEW INFORMATION BEING ADDED NATURALLY WHICH ISN'T POSSIBLE. So for you to refute OUT OF CONTEXT quotes, is ridiculous. But I guess that is your easy way out. If you notice I was talking about Mark's example of the bacterium and the way he portrays it.... I can't even explain this because you are so out of the realm of .... anything... Just read my post(s) and see where you went wrong in quoting and responding. You might want to think it out next time instead of just picking out a sentence you don't like. I'm not trying to be a jerk though, I really want you to read them, and you'll see that you're trying to correct certain quotes that don't need correcting when they are taken in context. It's just annoying to have to respond to something that wasn't even needing to be pointed out.Again, I'm glad you pointed something out though.... That Penicillin is natural. I never implied that it wasn't... But I left that so because I knew as a last resort one of you would try to jump at that, however you ignore one thing. That is a very controlled environment, and you even admit it was in greater concentrations than usual. Then you are so bold as to say "..and whether it's a natural environement or not has nothing to do do with..." Again, yes it does. There weren't smoke stacks and polution and disease and everything we have today during the time of your ToE. And that poplulation adaptation is a cop out... I'll point out AGAIN (and again, and again), that your ToE, isn't evolution by adaptation. It's a random chance natural mutation. (Which again beneficial natural mutation, isn't a beneficial thing, information can only be moved, etc. and mostly info is just lost.) So anyway, again, based on your ToE, we would have never evolved from the very first form of life (had it not been by chance)... because we were just fine (again this is your theory) we didn't need to adapt because we were surviving fine in our environment... It is your contention that we just mutated naturally by chance.... I don't know if I'm getting through, but I gotta go for now.....[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-06-2003]

You've never made information, have you? I mean, really? If you had you would know that "originality is the art of concealing your sources." If copying information isn't making new information, and modifying information isn't making new information, guess what? There's no process that can result in new information, intelligent or non. So clearly your definition of "information" is at odds with any practical use of the term. How else could it have metabolized penecillin? All DNA codes for is protiens. If an effacious mutation occured, then new protiens were formed. It's pretty simple. You seem to have a real problem with the difference between an individual and a population. Natural selection happens to individuals. Adaptation happens to populations, and is caused by natural selection on individuals. This isn't hard to grasp. Why? Why does evolution require new information? Evolution requires new protiens, yes, but new protiens don't require new information, in the sense you're talking about. You have yet to explain why your definition of information is the least relevant to biology. Well, then how did a population of bacteria which lacked the ability to process penecillin - to such a degree that exposure to penicillin was immediately fatal - come to possess an ability to tolerate it? Remember there's not much in bacteria besides DNA and the cellular mechanisms to generate protiens. They don't have livers or other filtering organs. All they can do is make protiens from genetic templates.If they gained an ability they didn't have before, it came from new protiens that they didn't have before. If they have new protiens, it can only be because of mutation. Again, this isn't hard to grasp. It's not a cop out, it's just pointing out an error you keep making. Adaptation happens to populations. Not individuals.Evolution is the answer to the question "how do new species arise?" Species arise when they change a certain amount. How do they change? Through adaptation to their environment. How do they adapt? A process of natural selection favors individuals with mutations that are beneficial in their environment. ...which causes adaptation. Again, I don't see what's so hard to grasp about this, unless you don't understand the terms...

Ok, I've done so, and am beginning to get a better idea of what you're talking about.You're still making mistakes, though. Evolutionists do claim that mutation itself is random and un-directed. (That's why we call it "random mutation.") But natural selection is anything but random. Selection pressures are very specific and are driven by the environment. It's the combination of random mutation and very, very un-random natural selection that leads to adaptation.Mark isn't saying that the population didn't adapt to an environment of penicillin, because that's clearly what they did. What's he's saying is that the mutation that ultimately gave them the ability to deal with the penicillin was random. It just happened. It wasn't directed in any way. But once it happened, natural selection favored individuals with that mutation to the point that they took over the population. Hence, adaptation.Evolution says that populations will tend to adapt to their environment (or go extinct.) The mutations that will allow them to do so are random in origin. But the selection pressure that produces an adapted population is anything but random.

rabair, That depends on how you define information, doesn't it? If you define information in such a way as it can't arise without intelligent input, then you can't stand there & tell me DNA possesses information! DNA, very simply put, expresses phenotypes. How do you know that this was designed by an intelligence, in order to claim it is informative? After all, that random mutation can introduce new beneficial phenotypes isn't in doubt (I just gave you one of many examples). What makes you so sure that the rest of our phenotype wasn't introduced in the same way? It wouldn't involve information at all, according to you. In fact, you could go from a single amino acid to an oak tree in this way, & not have any information added! Ergo, DNA doesn't contain information if it arose via RM&NS, but does if it was designed. This is equivocation of the most dishonest kind.I have shown you how phenotypes change beneficially by random mutation, so it seems to me that the structure & function expressed by DNA can be changed, improved, & added to by mutation. If you wish to claim that this isn't new information, go for it, I'm not bothered one iota. All evolution requires is that genotypes & phenotypes are able to change for the better. They do. Whether there is a bunch of people who insist that this isn't new information is utterly irrelevant to evolutionary theory. False, it implies that the new genotype arose randomly before the penicillin was encountered, hence only a few individuals containing that mutation survive, the rest die. Only the individuals with the new genotype survive. Random mutation & natural selection in action. Can you believe there are creationists who deny the fact of natural selection?!Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Okay, I think you guys are actually taking the word "information" to literally, for lack of a word that is inclusive for everything contained in a life. So just set that aside... It's really not that relevent to the point. The point is as I've stated before SOMETHING can't come from NOTHING. It just doesn't happen. So the whole beginning is ridiculous first of all. Life starting from non-life. That is just so ridiculous. But again I point to the fact that nothing more advanced than something has ever been made by it. Like my example of a computer.... We're still like trillions of times more advanced than the most advanced computer. Naturally or un-naturally it's just not possible to create something that excedes the creator. I know that's not the most relevent, but I think it illistrates a good point.Anyway, back to it. Beneficial things haven't been shown to come from any natural mutations and nothing is gained... nor have you shown this with the E. Coli example. You haven't shown that it actually gained anything naturally. Not to mention, isn't it a HUGE coincidence that those E. Coli "mutated" before being introduced to the Penicillin.... Isn't that just a little convenient. I mean, without the bacterium knowing that it needed to adapt to penicillin, which you say it didn't decide to do anyway.... It just got lucky enough to mutate right before gettin in there? Come on. Again, I point out... You say these "mutations" don't occur with intent so it's totally random and lucky that these bacterium mutated something that allowed them to survive Penicillin... The very thing they were going to be placed with!? Whew, good thing that random mutation came along just in time to save them from the one thing they were being introduced to.Now, I'll give you this, I re-read what I've written, and I see how it came off that I didn't understand that the "mutation" was random, and that "natural selection" was not. I get what you're saying.... (in reference to that second post Crash) But again, I still point to the "SOMETHING can't come from NOTHING" statement I made. That is just common sense.Also, as you can tell I really don't buy that E. Coli study.... Especially because it was a study used to prove what it thinks it did prove. And as outlined above, highly un-likely that it just happened to mutate something that would allow it to survive the one thing it was going to be introduced to. Anyway, show me where this happens in humans, or mice or something. IT DOESN'T! Because again, you can't have new things added to something that didn't previously exist. It just doesn't happen. I like to use the "chance" analogy about the tornado going through a junk yard and assebling a jet... But this random (beneficial) mutation business isn't even left up to huge chance... It just can't happen.

Hey, sorry, I submitted the same post twice somehow, so I'm just editing this to remove the duplicate....[This message has been edited by rabair, 09-07-2003]