|
^ Ida was apparently female. =P
+ Show Spoiler +Digital reconstructions of Ida's teeth reveal that she has unerupted molars in her jaw, indicating that she was about 8 months old, or the equivalent of a 9 year old human. The shape of Ida's teeth provides clues as to her diet; jagged molars would have allowed her to slice food, suggesting that she was a leaf and seed eater. This is confirmed by the remarkable preservation of her gut content. Furthermore the lack of a baculum (penis bone) means that the fossil was most likely female.
|
On May 21 2009 12:23 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:
If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static. Exactly! Hmmm Aegraen you seem to try really hard, but either you misunderstand or just haven't had the privy of such education. Open your mind and accept that Evolution is just such a massive topic with millions of species, and a practically infinite number of -possible- genes (please god let this not get into an argument on infinities and ect sigh I just mean a huge number PLEASE) EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC It is impossible to have a full grasp of evolutionary steps from the very first almost inorganic replicators to the stages of homo sapiens and homo evolutis. I'm surprised you haven't brought up the arguments of irreducible complexity, any of that creatist nonsense. Sigh, sorry... I'll be back in a few hours. This is tiresome
Your judgement is clouded in the fact that your preconceived notions lead you to believe I'm a creationist, because I am not lock and step with your exact beliefs. I do believe in evolution (however surprising that is to you), however there are so many unanswered questions, I don't put my indelible 'faith' into the science. Just because so far it is the only 'scientific theoram' to be proposed, doesn't mean that it is the only possible explanation. As you said, it is such a complex system....For me, there are far too many unanswered questions in relation to our existence. You see, evolution sets out to prove how we came to be, it hasn't satisfactorily answered that question for me because macro evolution has too many unanswered questions.
We have yet to witness, the 'evolution' of inter family species to such radically different states as found throughout eco systems around the world (case in point: fruit flies). Secondly, we have hugely eclipsed any known number of other species total populations throughout....what we know of, just in the last 100 years of human beings. You would think with a sample size of 7 BILLION, that we would have some advantageous mutagenic properties show up...yet all we see are one in tens of millions abnormalities that only serve to hinder...so, in a much smaller sample size, we are to believe that we went from rudimentary biped to homo sapien in the same environment, generally with the same predatory animals...
Those are the questions left unanswered. We can point to links, but we can't answer the why or how specifically, especially when given mathematics we should see advantageous mutagenic properties.
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species.
|
the reason there are so many unanswered questions is because your understanding of evolution/genetics is lacking to say the least.
|
On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:23 Motiva wrote:On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:
If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static. Exactly! Hmmm Aegraen you seem to try really hard, but either you misunderstand or just haven't had the privy of such education. Open your mind and accept that Evolution is just such a massive topic with millions of species, and a practically infinite number of -possible- genes (please god let this not get into an argument on infinities and ect sigh I just mean a huge number PLEASE) EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC It is impossible to have a full grasp of evolutionary steps from the very first almost inorganic replicators to the stages of homo sapiens and homo evolutis. I'm surprised you haven't brought up the arguments of irreducible complexity, any of that creatist nonsense. Sigh, sorry... I'll be back in a few hours. This is tiresome Your judgement is clouded in the fact that your preconceived notions lead you to believe I'm a creationist, because I am not lock and step with your exact beliefs. I do believe in evolution (however surprising that is to you), however there are so many unanswered questions, I don't put my indelible 'faith' into the science. Just because so far it is the only 'scientific theoram' to be proposed, doesn't mean that it is the only possible explanation. As you said, it is such a complex system....For me, there are far too many unanswered questions in relation to our existence. You see, evolution sets out to prove how we came to be, it hasn't satisfactorily answered that question for me because macro evolution has too many unanswered questions. We have yet to witness, the 'evolution' of inter family species to such radically different states as found throughout eco systems around the world (case in point: fruit flies). Secondly, we have hugely eclipsed any known number of other species total populations throughout....what we know of, just in the last 100 years of human beings. You would think with a sample size of 7 BILLION, that we would have some advantageous mutagenic properties show up...yet all we see are one in tens of millions abnormalities that only serve to hinder...so, in a much smaller sample size, we are to believe that we went from rudimentary biped to homo sapien in the same environment, generally with the same predatory animals... Those are the questions left unanswered. We can point to links, but we can't answer the why or how specifically, especially when given mathematics we should see advantageous mutagenic properties. And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species.
I'm on my way out, but I'd like to say quickly that I apologize for the creationist/irreducible complexity comment I made. It's really not my point, and is irrelevant. You have many convoluted questions and curiousities about the various posibilities in evolution, that's all good and dandy, but what do they have to do to debase the validity of the theory? Name any other theory that comes remotely close? At worst you are just arguing for the theory of evolution with more information, and some different information? What is your point? How does this do damage to the theory other than provide hope for even further understanding?
|
On May 21 2009 12:11 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself. I see. I find it funny how completely clueless you are. Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book?
hehe. Wikipedia as a source. And yes i have taken many bio and chem classes. I am in school for my NP degree. Clearly i lack all basic understanding of cellular, and homeostatic function of the body.
And no. wiki is just (as per usual) grazing the surface of muscles, so the layman can understand.
This:
Microanatomy
Muscle is mainly composed of muscle cells. Within the cells are myofibrils; myofibrils contain sarcomeres, which are composed of actin and myosin. Individual muscle fibres are surrounded by endomysium. Muscle fibers are bound together by perimysium into bundles called fascicles; the bundles are then grouped together to form muscle, which is enclosed in a sheath of epimysium. Muscle spindles are distributed throughout the muscles and provide sensory feedback information to the central nervous system.
Skeletal muscle is arranged in discrete muscles, an example of which is the biceps brachii. It is connected by tendons to processes of the skeleton. Cardiac muscle is similar to skeletal muscle in both composition and action, being comprised of myofibrils of sarcomeres, but anatomically different in that the muscle fibers are typically branched like a tree and connect to other cardiac muscle fibers through intercalcated discs, and form the appearance of a syncytium.
barely begins to describe the theoretical functioning of the muscle cell.
They don't go into any depth about the following: (i will try and give you a basic understanding- assuming that you haven't taken any chem/bio courses, and rely on wiki for 'reputable' information
For the layman:
Step 1: Acetylcholine released by axon of motor neuron crosses cleft and bind to receptor/ channels on motor end plate. (A nerve makes an action potential 'you telling your muscle to move' and a neruo transmitter acetylcholine is released from the nerve. [I will withhold all of the inter-axon hormones and chemicals because i don't want to confuse you.] then- nerotransmiter crosses a gab between the nerve and the muscle.) now-
Step 2: Action potential generated in response to binding of acetylcholine and subsequent end plate potential is propagated across surface membrane and down T tubules of the muscle cell. (Basically the signal propagated by the nerve is now traveling through the upper surface of a given muscle cell and it will eventually reach a literal tube. this tube will help the action potential propagate into-)
Step 3: The sarcoplasmic reticulum. This structure (which is located within the muscle cell is the the storage space for Ca2+. [that is calcium] Now because the action potential is still propagating, it will now traverse to the lateral sacs of the sarcoplasmic reticulum. then-
Step 4: Calcium ions released from the lateral sacs bind to troponin on actin filaments; this will lead to a tropomyosin being physically moved aside to uncover cross bridge binding sited on actin. (Now i realize this is probably getting confusing so let me try and explain. Now in the muscle cell there are things called Myofibril.
These myofibril [which are really nothing more than smaller and smaller versions of the muscle cell are comprised of the following] and A band, I band, and a Z line. Along with an area of said myofibril called the sacromere. Now the A band is comprised of a very thick filament protein called Myosin. And this is the 'mechanical' action of the muscle cell, that scientists 'think' is doing the pulling.
Now along the myosin/ A band is another string of proteins called actin. Actin when the binding site is removed, is the 'latch' that the myosin can pull off of, shortening the muscle- and causing a contracting. However the actin is normally blocked by tropomyosin. Now the reason this is so is to stop tetanus of the muscle. However carrying on- this blocking of the receptor site is only moved away in the presence of another molecule called troponin. [There that should give you a very very basic understanding of the simply sliding filament theory of muscles, now where was i?
Ohh yes-
Step 5: Myosin cross bridges attach to actin and bend, pulling actin filaments toward center of sarcomere; powered by energy provided by ATP (So once again we are back to the filiments [found inside of the sarcomere.] The myosin (presented with ATP) and because the Ca2+ ions have binding with the troponin have now taken the tropomyosin covering the actin / myosin binding sites, and allowed the myosin to 'grab hold'.
Step 6: Ca2+ is actively taken up by sarcoplasmic reticulum when there is no longer local action potential. (Basically, once the action potential goes away, or is not further reinforced from the neuron- Ca2+ is taken back from the troponin and the tropomyosin slides back into place covering the actin/myosin binding sites and (providing there is no more atp) the muscle will relax.
So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY
That is as quickly and as simply as i possibly could have written it for the pseudo intellectuals. Once again i would like to remind you that medical science has no idea how myosin coupled with ATP and the movement of entire protein molecules works at all. However i obviously have no idea what i am talking about- so once again! (Because science understands everything!)
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
|
On May 21 2009 13:12 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:11 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself. I see. I find it funny how completely clueless you are. Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book? hehe. Wikipedia as a source. And yes i have taken many bio and chem classes. I am in school for my NP degree. Clearly i lack all basic understanding of cellular, and homeostatic function of the body. And no. wiki is just (as per usual) grazing the surface of muscles, so the layman can understand. This: Microanatomy Muscle is mainly composed of muscle cells. Within the cells are myofibrils; myofibrils contain sarcomeres, which are composed of actin and myosin. Individual muscle fibres are surrounded by endomysium. Muscle fibers are bound together by perimysium into bundles called fascicles; the bundles are then grouped together to form muscle, which is enclosed in a sheath of epimysium. Muscle spindles are distributed throughout the muscles and provide sensory feedback information to the central nervous system. Skeletal muscle is arranged in discrete muscles, an example of which is the biceps brachii. It is connected by tendons to processes of the skeleton. Cardiac muscle is similar to skeletal muscle in both composition and action, being comprised of myofibrils of sarcomeres, but anatomically different in that the muscle fibers are typically branched like a tree and connect to other cardiac muscle fibers through intercalcated discs, and form the appearance of a syncytium. barely begins to describe the theoretical functioning of the muscle cell. They don't go into any depth about the following: (i will try and give you a basic understanding- assuming that you haven't taken any chem/bio courses, and rely on wiki for 'reputable' information For the layman: Step 1: Acetylcholine released by axon of motor neuron crosses cleft and bind to receptor/ channels on motor end plate. (A nerve makes an action potential 'you telling your muscle to move' and a neruo transmitter acetylcholine is released from the nerve. [I will withhold all of the inter-axon hormones and chemicals because i don't want to confuse you.] then- nerotransmiter crosses a gab between the nerve and the muscle.) now- Step 2: Action potential generated in response to binding of acetylcholine and subsequent end plate potential is propagated across surface membrane and down T tubules of the muscle cell. (Basically the signal propagated by the nerve is now traveling through the upper surface of a given muscle cell and it will eventually reach a literal tube. this tube will help the action potential propagate into-) Step 3: The sarcoplasmic reticulum. This structure (which is located within the muscle cell is the the storage space for Ca2+. [that is calcium] Now because the action potential is still propagating, it will now traverse to the lateral sacs of the sarcoplasmic reticulum. then- Step 4: Calcium ions released from the lateral sacs bind to troponin on actin filaments; this will lead to a tropomyosin being physically moved aside to uncover cross bridge binding sited on actin. (Now i realize this is probably getting confusing so let me try and explain. Now in the muscle cell there are things called Myofibril. These myofibril [which are really nothing more than smaller and smaller versions of the muscle cell are comprised of the following] and A band, I band, and a Z line. Along with an area of said myofibril called the sacromere. Now the A band is comprised of a very thick filament protein called Myosin. And this is the 'mechanical' action of the muscle cell, that scientists 'think' is doing the pulling. Now along the myosin/ A band is another string of proteins called actin. Actin when the binding site is removed, is the 'latch' that the myosin can pull off of, shortening the muscle- and causing a contracting. However the actin is normally blocked by tropomyosin. Now the reason this is so is to stop tetanus of the muscle. However carrying on- this blocking of the receptor site is only moved away in the presence of another molecule called troponin. [There that should give you a very very basic understanding of the simply sliding filament theory of muscles, now where was i? Ohh yes- Step 5: Myosin cross bridges attach to actin and bend, pulling actin filaments toward center of sarcomere; powered by energy provided by ATP (So once again we are back to the filiments [found inside of the sarcomere.] The myosin (presented with ATP) and because the Ca2+ ions have binding with the troponin have now taken the tropomyosin covering the actin / myosin binding sites, and allowed the myosin to 'grab hold'. Step 6: Ca2+ is actively taken up by sarcoplasmic reticulum when there is no longer local action potential. (Basically, once the action potential goes away, or is not further reinforced from the neuron- Ca2+ is taken back from the troponin and the tropomyosin slides back into place covering the actin/myosin binding sites and (providing there is no more atp) the muscle will relax. So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORYThat is as quickly and as simply as i possibly could have written it for the pseudo intellectuals. Once again i would like to remind you that medical science has no idea how myosin coupled with ATP and the movement of entire protein molecules works at all. However i obviously have no idea what i am talking about- so once again! (Because science understands everything!) I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3 So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Can you answer my reply to your first post?
Edit: Also, why have you underlined the word theory? What is this supposed to prove?
|
MURICA15980 Posts
LOL
I want to close this thread simply because the OP was absolutely shit. Posted a link and an inflammatory one liner. lol...
|
On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote:
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species.
Within our species? We've seen that. The sickle cell trait is an advantageous mutation in areas in which malaria is common and it spreads within the populations in those areas.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
read the article if you like. this was what happened a few million years before this fossil is thought to have lived. also read in there about the Azolla event. the theory about the warmest time in our earths history, and how we have evolved in what is known as an icehouse planet.
this has significance in light of the global warming debate. whether or not its "real" is insignificant. suppose we see the total melting of the ice cap, northern, this will signal a change is happening that is outside of the history of, apparently, our entire evolution as a species.
i wrote a short essay about the PETM, the Azolla event, and the warmer planet. if anyone wants a copy of it you can PM me.
|
I will agree with Aegraen that a lot of people who "believe" or "accept" in evolution have absolutely no understanding of anything beyond the basics.
Evolutiion is slightly probabilistic, e.g genetic drift, bottleneck effect, founder effect ,etc.
But Natural Selection is the main component of it.
and btw, the muscle microanatomy post is cool but its not so much in layman terms lol.
All I learned in my bio class was enzymatic pathway of muscle fibers and the histology, some nervous signaling but not too in depth since it's general bio. Well I'm still in bio 2 in college so.
|
Sure:
People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so?
You probably didn't even read my post  that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great!
Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know everything wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
edit: I am going to start a tally about how many wiki sources are cited in this conversation. It is going to be a fun game, before this becomes 404
|
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:23 Motiva wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:
If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. [/QUOTE]
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.[/QUOTE]
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species. [/QUOTE]
contradictory statement?
If I remember correctly a program on the science channel said that our brain's gene for the cerebral cortex was being expressed a lot more than our ancestors.
Here's some evidence so that you can read it yourself.
[url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5741/1662]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5741/1662[/url]
|
isnt it obvious enough that life has evolved from one cell organisms, in the ocean, to things like jellyfish and just gotten more and more complex.
sure- we could argue over the details, but really, isnt the overall pattern pretty obvious?
|
On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know everything wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed. edit: I am going to start a tally about how many wiki sources are cited in this conversation. It is going to be a fun game, before this becomes 404
Yeah that pesky observation. Damn that apple!
|
id like to see you debunk some wiki info sir, that could be your little project.
its not like its something totally out of your hands.
edit: i have also read a lot about corporate edits on wiki that make me cautious about its accuracy
|
On May 21 2009 13:26 Misrah wrote:Sure: People think they understand all. The pseudo- intellectuals believe that science has discovered most of everything that needs to be discovered. Except for those pesky black holes, quasars, up quarks, down quarks evolution ext- man understands all. And surely the highschool / college pseudo- intellectuals believe this to be true. However to truly understand such a complex thing as biology- surely we should grasp an understanding of the hear and now, and metabolic processes that are occurring today. Trying to extrapolate our limited understanding of the biological processes to conceive something along the lines of evolution? Propagated through genetic mutations is simply astounding. Astounding in the fact- that we know so very very little in the first place. Surely if we cannot figure out muscles (yet) then trying to understand the concepts behind the beginning of life are a bit out of our league. Don't you think so? You probably didn't even read my post that makes me sad. So much good stuff in there. Unlike the rest of the this theoretical debate. Conjecture is so great! Also- because i know this to be true: In the entire human experience, life has only come from life- so where is science going with this? I thought that you had to observe things for them to be scientifically accurate. But who am i kidding. You high school / college grads know every wiki tells you. I clearly am academically outclassed.
First of all, I did quickly read through your post and read a little on sliding filament theory myself. Coming into a thread and stating what you stated in a condescending manner doesn't help anyone. Why don't you address the people you aimed your comments at instead of making blanket claims that only piss people off?
I'm not naive enough to think that science has everything figured out. You learn this very early on if you have any desire for actually learning things yourself. It's annoying that you assume so much but mainly just sit on the sidelines of the debate and contribute nothing. Why am I a pseudo-intellectual?
It's so fucking stupid of you to think that because we can't know how muscles work for definite, then we can't apply logic and reasoning and science to other areas of biology. Which part, specifically, of sliding filament theory is being extrapolated to give evidence for evolution? Why is trying to understand evolution out of our league? Especially when we have lots of evidence for it and a general understanding of it.
I don't actually know what your aim is. To disprove evolution? To show that debating it is meaningless?
|
On May 21 2009 13:32 cUrsOr wrote:
id like to see you debunk some wiki info sir, that could be your little project.
its not like its something totally out of your hands.
edit: i have also read a lot about corporate edits on wiki that make me cautious about its accuracy
Finally. a forum based pseudo- intellectual debate connoisseur who doubts wiki's accuracy?
It is good to meet you sir!
|
CA10829 Posts
On May 21 2009 13:12 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 12:11 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself. I see. I find it funny how completely clueless you are. Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book? -snip- So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY-snip-
hehe i smiled when i read that post since i owned the midterm that covered that material in physio this past semester 
|
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 13:28 Rev0lution wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:53 Aegraen wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:23 Motiva wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 12:08 Mindcrime wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 21 2009 11:56 Aegraen wrote:
If we have a common ancestor and most fossils found in africa, how then if the environment stayed relatively the same did we evolve to the point where we are today. [/QUOTE]
Mutations, advantageous or otherwise, don't just stop occurring if the environment becomes relatively static.[/QUOTE]
And as you extol, evolution never stops. Why then in such an enormous sample size, have we not seen any evolution within our species. [/QUOTE]
contradictory statement?
If I remember correctly a program on the science channel said that our brain's gene for the cerebral cortex was being expressed a lot more than our ancestors.
Here's some evidence so that you can read it yourself.
[url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5741/1662]http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5741/1662[/url][/QUOTE]
Not contradictory. Homosapien is our species is it not? Our genetic lineage is from Africa is it not? Did Africa not stay relatively the same throughout our evolutionary 'processes'? What was contradictory? You saying it doesn't make it so. Have we not propagated throughout the world in every conceivable environment now? (there are still isolated tribes throughout the world) Why aren't there radical mutations that have been passed through our species? Did we hit a 'physical' evolutionary peak? If so, that breaks your evolution theory...see, the only place for humans to go from here, within the bounds of evolution, is up, progress, more power, more strength, more intelligence. I postulated earlier this! So, if evolution can be disadvantageous how come we only advance, never take steps back. Is it because we evolved our brain to a point where we manipulate evolution? Do we tell those with abnormalities they are not allowed to mate? Nope.
Math dictates that we should experience drastic genetic changes within a sample size of 7 billion and this is just this generations global population!
Do you understand how much 7 billion is. Every single mathematical probability is nearly 100% with this kind of sample size. Why is it that we are evolving at such a slow pace comparatively with population statistics (which if evolution is all about probability we should be evolving at a faster pace, should we not?), compared to our lineage.
|
On May 21 2009 13:38 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:12 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 12:11 TheFoReveRwaR wrote:On May 21 2009 12:05 Misrah wrote:
I feel like just re-posting this. I love debates <3
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself. I see. I find it funny how completely clueless you are. Modern science completely understands the mechanisms of muscles. What the fuck are you talking about? Fuck even wikipedia(which is extremely basic) completely explains how the work. Have you ever taken an organic biology or chemestry class? Every looked in a biology text book? -snip- So there my friend is the SLIDING MUSCLE FILAMENT THEORY-snip- hehe i smiled when i read that post since i owned the midterm that covered that material in physio this past semester
God i hated the muscle exam. But at least i remembered some of it XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
