Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,787 Year: 4,044/9,624 Month: 915/974 Week: 242/286 Day: 3/46 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intermediates
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 8 of 52 (540825)
12-29-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AndrewPD
12-29-2009 9:25 AM


So to get to this stage yould have to be able to survive as a human with half an eye, half a liver, stubby fingers.
Stubby fingers, perhaps. But your primate ancestors did not have "half a liver" or "half an eye".
Have you really never seen a monkey?
An amoeba can survive but not half man half monkey.
Then all those fossils are what? Chopped liver?
On a David Attenborough programme on evolution they managed to give two living examples of the thing you'd expect to see. A bird with claws on it's wings and the Duck billed platypus.
And everything else that lives or has ever lived, but that's a large subject.
I can't read to much into deformed and reconstructed skulls personally. If a species goes extinct like the dodo it doesn't tend to leave ancestors.
My great-grandparents are all dead, and yet they have left descendants. Me, for example.
If a creature with shorter fingers, less conscious awareness and a different digestive system could survive what would lead to its eradication?
There's this thing called "natural selection", you should really learn about it.
In the example I gave of breathing in water I wasn't talking about individual evolution but pointing out that developing a "beneficial trait" doesn't make previous adaptions less beneficial ...
They are less beneficial by comparison.
You may find a biology textbook useful at this point. We shouldn't have to spoonfeed you the basics.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AndrewPD, posted 12-29-2009 9:25 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 52 (540953)
12-30-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AndrewPD
12-29-2009 10:30 PM


Just a brief point before I go to bed. Would you consider a giraffe with a shorter neck, neanderthal man, prehistoric horse etc as aesthetically pleasing as the current variation?
They don't have to be aesthetically pleasing to me, just sexually attractive to each other.
One problem I have with intermediates is that they are rarely/never aesthetically pleasing ...
That's a matter of taste. And a peculiar one. You find three-toed horses and short-necked giraffes ugly? Why?
... thats partly what I mean by half formed.
And yet while you condemn them as "half-formed", you are baffled as to why they were replaced by creatures that you presumably regard as fully-formed.
Your misconceptions seem inconsistent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AndrewPD, posted 12-29-2009 10:30 PM AndrewPD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-30-2009 5:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 25 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2009 11:15 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 52 (541142)
12-31-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AndrewPD
12-31-2009 11:15 AM


Yes aesthetics and subjective taste is controversial. But if you took a sample average I am sure that you'd find people thought a butterfly was generally attractive and a moth less so.
Apparently one of the reasons we find people attractive is because of signs of fertility.
So if we find a deformed human unattractive it is because they don't look fully functional.
So:
(1) Are moths less functional then butterflies?
(2) You argument is still self-contradictory. On the one hand you claim that intermediates are uglier than modern species. Then you equate ugliness with poorer functionality. And then you wonder why intermediates were superceeded by modern forms. Well, if your premises were correct, you'd have supplied your own answer to that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2009 11:15 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 311 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 52 (541144)
12-31-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by AndrewPD
12-31-2009 11:24 AM


Re: steps in understanding
What I am saying here is that the ancestors of humans had to be healthy enough to survive long enough to produce, so why would they die out at all?
Because they couldn't compete with us.
The vacuum-tube computer had to be useful or no-one would have built one. So why is no-one building them today, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by AndrewPD, posted 12-31-2009 11:24 AM AndrewPD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024