|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Study of Intelligent Design Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7904 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: well there were some experiments that i was linked to that were several pages long and difficult to understand. werent pygmies a result of breeding rather than evolution? i dont know much about them. well its tolkien's world so tolkien can do whatever he wants :-). i havent read tolkien's books but i do play dungeons and dragons and it uses dwarves and so do a few other games, like utopia (games.swirve.com/utopia). so take your pick. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
Hm.. ok, I'm at a loss here, I missed quite a few posts, so what is it we are trying to prove happend, prove feasability, give evidence of, and whatever is up the sleves of you people now?
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7904 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
why humans arent drastically different than eachother. like the differences between humanoids in tolkien's books.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
The last other species of human was killed off thousands of years ago. And a few thousand years in a species with a generation span of a couple decades or so is not sufficient to cause speciation. Particularly when there isn't so much isolation between populations.
By the way, people would be unlikely to ever diverge like that in Middle Earth without complete isolation between populations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
Um bud Hom. sap. (i.e. homo sapiens) is human.....
So asking if hom. sap. has been around to become human is a bit of a silly question.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ok lets take the example of humans and orcs from Tolkiens books First there were humans then some big evil git (either Morgoth or Sauron can`t remember which) took some men and "twisted" them to form orcs IOW he *designed* orcs and took some material, men, and made them.... So if to form a new species takes design (as in Tolkiens work) how is it a valid argument to claim that because there is no such speciation of humans there must be design.... Surely in the (rather unlikely) case that Tolkiens work is a highly accurate portrayl of how speciation occurs the opposite conclusion would be far more logical..... (added by edit having thought about it some more I think Tolkien had orcs created fom elves and trolls from humans or something like that.... The basic proceedure remains the same though.) [This message has been edited by joz, 02-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: It occurred to me that I wasn't clear when I mention Pygmies. I meant Pygmy HUMANS.
http://www.historywiz.com/pygmies.htm "Indigenous peoples known as Pygmies live in the tropical rain forests of Central Africa, Southeast Asia, New Guinea, and the Philippines. They are the earliest known inhabitants of the Congo Basin in Africa and are estimated to number 150,000 to 300,000. The best-known tribe, the Mbuti or Bambuti, are the shortest of all human groups, averaging near 51 inches in height. Adults usually grow to be only three or four feet tall. In fact, their name, "Pygmy," is derived from the Greek word, pyme, which means "a cubit in height." " Pygmies are the result of evolution, as a response to the vagaries of their environment, & not selective breeding.
http://www.humanevolution.net/a/pygmy.html "In this scenario, small body size was specifically selected for in the pygmies in order to increase the amount of surface area available for heat loss via convection cooling. The unlikelihood of losing sufficient heat by this mechanism in the hot, humid rainforest has resulted in a shift toward the view that small size was selectively advantageous due to the absolutely (though not relatively) lower levels of heat production (e.g., Cavalli-Sforza, 1986; see also Lewin, 1991)." (Shea, B.T. & Bailey, R.C. (1996) Allometry and adaptation of body proportions and stature in African pygmies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 100(3): pp. 332)"
quote: The tallest humans are the Watusi tribe, & average 6' 5"The shortest are pygmies & average 4' 4" That is greater than the Elf Dwarf differential. Nor have I ever heard of black/yellow Elves or Dwarves. So, now I have shown that humans differ MORE amongst it's own races than elves & dwarves. YOU made a prediction of evolution, that humans should differ as much as elves & dwarves etc. As I have shown this to be MORE than true, would you now stand by your claim, & now regard morphological dissimilarity in separate populations of humans as evidence of evolution, rather than falsification? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2002] [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1500 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: We also have no substantiated evidence that life originated viaintelligent design. The arguments I have seen concerning intelligent design (and I'llleave abiogenesis out of the equation for now so that I can focus on the question at hand) seem to be saying little more than : "I can't believe that something so complex could have come aboutnaturally, so there must be a designer." Arguments also run to saying things like "Show me any complexform which was not designed." The former is simply an opinion (to which everyone is entitled), andceratinly not scientific or logical in any sense. The latter results in a cyclic argument whereby anything quoted ascomplex and NOT designed is claimed as the design of this IDer. Explanation and demonstrating a match with reality ARE differentI agree. There are many aspects of evolutionary theory which have not be refuted by eveidence, however. (In an aside I noticed another post in which you refer to not proving negatives ... as far as I am aware scientific method is NOT concerned with proving anything only in refuting current theories. The inference is that anything that cannot be refuted must be considered a reasonable explanation. Evolutionary theory has been around for some time, and seems to hold up pretty well). I would also like to understand HOW design is detected in bilogicalsystems (apart from the complexity == design thing).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
quote: A bit of care needs to be taken with the above - selective breeding, too, can be part of evolution. Evolution includes not only natural selection, but sexual selection, which is precisely about breeding - people choosing who to mate/breed with based on some perceived trait. This could very easily have been some part (small or large) of what contributed to the pygmy's current height.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Quite right, but the context was artificial selective breeding. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7904 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
if the pygmies had evolved/breeded for this then wouldnt every territory have a vastly different appearance, since a few populations didnt make major migrations, such as europeans. wouldnt indians have to have evolved for their new environment. i meant human pygmies too maybe it just came out wrong. how can evolution predict where human life will spring up? wouldnt there be several variations from the start. I mean if they'res a definite that humans came from around europe wouldnt they're be a chance that something similar to human would spring up?
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ever noticed that aboriginal peoples of regions with very strong direct sunlight tend to have darker skin? The fact is there are morphological differences between the human populations of geographical areas, your average Watusi looks quite different from your average caucasian.... When you say indians do you mean dots or feathers (or even west)? There were several variations from the start.... one word for you neanderthal (or homo hablis for that matter)......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7904 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
i meant native americans. i guess you might never be able to change my mind because there too many assumptions and guesses that have to made for the ToE to be proven.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Who is this in reply to? If you click the reply, or reply quote at the bottom of the message you're replying to, then the author of the message can see who has replied, & respond Gets confusing otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Fair question. The Pygmies evolved separately to other humans because they were geographically, & therefore sexually separated. Very little interbreeding took place between these populations, which allowed a divergence of physical form, in adapting to jungle/plains etc. Same as the tall Masai, Zulu, & Waputi, Europeans etc. The pygmies are probably different in that they quickly developed skills & knowledge for their existence in rain forest, & had no need to to come out. Other plains tribes were equally knowledgeable about their habitat, & had no need to exchange it for a jungle existance. The populations were sexually separate, gene flow ceased, & they were able to evolve separately.
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/humans.htm "Some types of DNA reveal genetic patterns that seemingly resulted from a recent African origin of our species, while others harbor signs of an older, multiregional origin. One type of DNA that favors a recent Out-of-Africa origin is mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Scientists have now succeeded in studying the entire sequence of the mtDNA molecule, in a worldwide sample of 53 people (Ingman, et al, 2000). As with previous mtDNA studies, this one found Africans to have the most diverse, and therefore the most ancient, mtDNA sequences. It also determined that African and non-African populations diverged not 100,000 years ago, as some other genetic studies have suggested, but as recently as 52,000 years ago. The results also indicated that after their split from Africans, non-Africans began expanding in population about 38,500 years ago." This study specifically places the most ancient human population in east Africa, on the basis that it has the most genetic variety. That is, a population that is in place for longer, accumulates more mutations. "Another study has focused on mtDNA variation in Europe and the Near East (Richards, et al, 2000), the former domain of Neanderthals. Researchers analyzed the mtDNA of more than 4,000 people from various European and Near Eastern populations. They found that 5 to 15 percent of the mtDNA pool of present-day Europeans could be traced back to the earliest part of the Upper Paleolithic period, some 45,000 years ago or earlier. They concluded that these earliest mtDNA sequences originated in early modern humans who colonized Europe, most likely from the Near East. Patterns in our mitochondrial DNA suggest that human populations grew greatly in size some time after modern humans had appeared, consistent with an expansion of modern humans out of Africa and across Eurasia.(Courtesy of Paolo Francalacci, Sezione di Antropologia, Dipartimento di Zoologia e Antropologia Biologica, Universit degli Studi di Sassari, Italy.) One of the most significant findings to come out of mtDNA studies is that non-Africans often show genetic signs of a severe reduction in population size, a "bottleneck," some time in the past, followed by a population expansion (Ingman, et al, 2000: 710-712). This bottleneck and expansion is presumed to have occurred when a branch of the early modern human population of Africa split off to form a small subpopulation, which then expanded in size as it spread out to colonize Eurasia. Some evidence from both mtDNA and nuclear DNA suggests that Africans also expanded in population in the past, either at the same general time as non-Africans (Zhivotovsky, et al, 2000), or earlier (Harpending, et al, 1993)." So genetic data places African migration to Europe, at about 45,000 (plus) years ago. The genetic bottleneck is important. Consider the varied African polulation, if you take a small sample & geographically separate them, their offspring will have the small samples genes & not the huge variety that is existant in the entire African population. So, practically the entire European population is descended from this small "bottleneck population", that migrated out of Africa & into Eurasia. This is called the founder effect.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_5.htm "It is also possible to find the results of the founder principle even though the original ancestors are unknown. For example, South and Central American Indians were nearly 100% type O for the ABO blood system. Since nothing in nature seems to strongly select for or against this trait, it is likely that most of these people are descended of a small band of closely related "founders" who also shared this blood type. They migrated into the region from the north, mostly by the end of the last Ice Age." So the Indian population that was ancestral to the south/central Americans were very small in numbers, so much so, that they are almost exclusively blood group O. Evolution doesn't predict humans would evolve. In fact, if the tape were rewound 3 billion years, & then allowed to run again, the chance of something human like is vanishingly small. Why? The random nature of mutation. There's nothing that says vertebrates as we know them would evolve at all! Scary thought. So, no, several types of modern humans (I say modern to differentiate from neanderthals)didn't need to "begin together", all that happened was a process of morphological divergance, from a common human ancestor, that genetic & fossil evidence places in Africa. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 02-07-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024