|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Don't get it (Re: Ape to Man - where did the hair go?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pbaylis Inactive Member |
These points tell us that man has sufficient intelligence to be extremely flexible, with just enough physical attribute to make a go of it and not be a sitting target. Maybe the discussion should turn to how man has become so intelligent. That would be interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
creationism/ist or creation/ist
The source of the problem here is that you are using a very loose definition of creationist. The typical definition in use is a person who is a literal believer in the bible version of creation. From dictionary.com: Creationism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
creationism n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible. There is just no way that either Einstein or Hawkins fit this definition, hence the response to your claim. Now if you go to wikipedia.comCreationism - Wikipedia You will find a spectrum of varieties of creationism, and listed there will be Deism - the best fit for Einsein and Hawkins from your statements - and notice that after mentioning deism once it is not included in any of the rest of the discusion (which is rather lengthy). Personally I don't consider Deism to be creationist and I don't consider "Theistic Evolution" to be creationist either, but what whould I know, eh (see sig)? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A masai warrior proves his bravery by hunting and killing a lion single handed with only a spear. Less adapted people feel they need guns?
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
pbaylis writes: How did they wear down their prey if they did not run them down? Humans couldn't chase or wear down much more than a chicken in their back yard. You seem to be missing the point that early humans did not rely solely on running their prey to exhaustion. Having able to walk upright and gaining the opposable thumb makes us perfect as gatherers. Again, do not try to compare us with the lion or the tiger. Early humans probably did not run their preys to exhaustion. They probably started out as gatherers and scavengers. Then, having the ability to communicate gave humans the advantage of group work to hunt animal.
Every animal has some appearance of being well-adapted to its environment. Humans show very little. If humans went bald as a heat regulating mechanism, their skin should show a more adapted quality. Such a drastic adaptation as loss of hair should be accompanied by some compensating adaptation to the now-exposed skin. Loudmouth already answered this issue with the following on post 58.
quote: I would like to add that many of the characteristics you see today in humans, and some are even called disadvantages, are due to mutations that were not disadvantagous enough to not allow the individuals to reproduce. The various genetic diseases you see today are due to errors in meiosis in the reproductive process. Some, such as hemophilia, are very recent mutations, recent enough that already advances in medicine and such have allowed these individuals to survive. Again, you fail to put into account our ability to think as an advantage over other animal.
When you see Masai Mara people on Discover Channel trekking across the open lion-infested Savannah accompanying their herds of cattle, does it look to you like they are well-adapted? They look like the proverbial fish out of water. They cannot run, cannot climb, cannot handle the heat or cold without clothing. If they cool off in the water, they get their tootsies wrinkled, they need water very often to prevent dehydration. If this was an evolution, it was a strange one. We just don't fit in. Obviously, these people have what they need right there in front of them to survive. Why should they be anything else if all they need to survive are what they have now?
Oh piss off, you pathetic little man. Discuss something or shove off.
pbaylis, please. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
One of the leading theories on the development and refinement of human thinking is that it benefited from runaway sexual selection.
Server Migration Notice
Sexual selection often creates an evolutionary positive-feedback loop that is highly sensitive to initial conditions. It therefore tends to produce extravagant traits that have high costs and complexity, yet these traits are often unique to one species, and absent in closely-related taxa. It sure helps to explain the difference between human and our nearest cousin. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You seem to be missing the point that early humans did not rely solely on running their prey to exhaustion. There are documented instances of people walking after deer, tracking them until the deer are too tired to run anymore. Tried to find on web, bu too many results. The story of Leakey may be embellishment (he did entertain reporters by skinning animals with the stone tools). we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
RAZD writes: There are documented instances of people walking after deer, tracking them until the deer are too tired to run anymore. Tried to find on web, bu too many results. When I was in social studies in high school, we learned about a tribe in nowadays Mexico that, through tradition, require all the men to be able to, or at least try their best, chase certain animal until the animal are exhausted. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and this is one edge that intelligence to track animals gave man in the battle for survival.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
Now let me get this straight. You accuse me of selective, out of context quoting. Then, you quote two unsourced sentence fragments (not even full sentences, mind you) as a refutation. Do you not see the flaw here?
Apart from that, RAZD pretty much covered it. If you call someone a creationist, you're saying something pretty damn specific. To call Einstein or Hawking a creationist is flat-out misleading. To try and move the goalposts by equating creationist and deist when you're caught out is just being weasely. And no one likes weasels. They smell bad, and they're always up to something shifty and unpleasant. Now, you're new here, so maybe I should cut you some slack. But I'm a jerk, so I won't. What I will do is tell you that shady half-truths (if even that) don't have a huge shelf-life around here. They're quickly pretty pounced on, and thrashed apart. Getting an attitude about a refuted point, rather than simply arguing back, is treated in pretty much the same manner. But if you manage to play it straight with us, you'll find we'll do the same. "As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?" -Holly
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Only elite runners even TRY to run 100K per day. It is not statistically worth considering from an evolutionary or adaptational standpoint. How do you think those elite runners got that way? Oh, I don't know - just a guess, here - maybe by running? Primitive man spends a lot less time on his ass in front of the computer, if you get my drift. We've developed a sedentary lifestyle and the bodies to match, but relatively few of us couldn't make the change - couldn't be what you refer to as "elite" - if all of a sudden, our lives depended on it. Oh, and one more thing - it would help us all stay on topic if you could pick a position and outline it clearly. As it is now your only position appears to be "whatever you say, that's wrong."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pbaylis Inactive Member |
We've diverged all over the place, but the main thrust of this thread was why man had to make such a drastic change as to lose his hair, when other hairy animals did not have to. It is a drastic change that took a relatively short time. If it was evolutionary, it is very surprising. Current theories just don't cut it.
Personally, I initially hit upon this topic as a way to help support my position that man did not evolve from a common ancestor, ape or otherwise, and that man was created exactly the way he is to exist in an accommodating climate without clothing. I do not disagree that man has "adapted" in various ways to meet the demands and requirements of being outside this accommodating environment. I don't feel that my position has been weakened. But I'm waiting for someone to dig up something worthwhile that will help us all understand. Dan and Cashfrog, get your shovels and tell me what you find. Looks like you need something constructive to do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The stops were very short indeed, a few minutes in a hour. His speed was greater than I can maintain for half an hour (and I'm in not bad shape though no runner). And 100 km in a day is well under what the really serious crazies do. You really don't know much about this.
The majority are hardly living the life that we evolved for. What you and I can do is not relavant to how we have evolved. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-28-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If it was evolutionary, it is very surprising. Current theories just don't cut it. To the contrary, it was asked and answered: Humans live in places where apes do not; i.e. places where hair is disadvantageous. Moreover, we didn't lose the hair, it's just that the individual hairs became smaller, finer, softer, and lighter. You tried to rebut this with something along the lines of "hair follicles aren't hair." This nonsensical reply doesn't even begin to represent an intelligent response, but when asked to expand, you resorted to insults and quote-mining instead. So the point still stands.
Looks like you need something constructive to do. Hrm, I think I'll stick with the points you have yet to rebut, thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 476 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
pbaylis writes: We've diverged all over the place, but the main thrust of this thread was why man had to make such a drastic change as to lose his hair, when other hairy animals did not have to. It is a drastic change that took a relatively short time. If it was evolutionary, it is very surprising. Current theories just don't cut it. Do us all a favor and study some more on this topic before you make such a statement. Just because you haven't been able to absorb information that Froggy and Danny presented doesn't mean that they don't make sense at all. So far, they have answered every question you posted on the subject. Now, you simply turned around and said they haven't said anything useful. You've just proven to us that you been approaching this with the "la la la I can't hear you" attitude all along. Either start posting specific questions and explain to us why you don't think our answers are valid or go away. The Laminator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why did the peacocks and scissortails diverge from other birds in the development of their tails? Why do similar monkeys have different color fur, particularly around the face (as in these lion tammarins, pictures from http://www.thewildones.org/Animals/tamarin.html)?
These are not survival attributes but mating attributes: sexual selection drives appearance factors. Included in those factors is the thickness of fur, or in the case of humans, thinness of hair. One need only look at fashion magazines to see why attractiveness is related to physical characteristics and thus to mating.
A contributing factor to why humans lost hair is because it was more appealing. The reason it was retained and embellished on the head is also because of sexual selection, which is still going on. Other reasons posited for hair in other locations is (1) for holding pheromones and (2) to help "lubricate" moving parts (rather than get blisters). One could also argue that the initial appeal is for healtier mates and that {thinner hair \ bare skin} is a true signal of health. Either way sexual selection is a player in the equation. Enjoy.
{changes by edit in yellow} [This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-28-2004] we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024