|
On May 21 2009 14:05 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 13:59 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:56 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 13:53 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 13:50 Mindcrime wrote:On May 21 2009 13:38 Aegraen wrote: 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. Are people who are stronger or more intelligent than average more likely to breed successfully pass on their genes? Nope. Sadly not in this day and age. but- Bring on genetic engineering!!!!! I can't wait to have a 200 iq with a sexy body. i am going to freeze myself until i can achieve that. lol We will be cyborgs before that ever happens. that would be just as cool. Ghost in the shell anyone? I for one would love to have a cyber brain <3 But if you replace your brain are you still Misrah 
I don't care. I would be the first in line! Image! a super fast, super smart, web surfing brain? I would kill for one of those.
|
On May 21 2009 14:13 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations. Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time.
This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way.
|
I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding:
sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts..
|
On May 21 2009 14:17 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 14:13 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations. Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time. This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way. Very true, its usually silent/nonsense/disruptive. Very rarely will a mutation lead to xray vision or something sweet.
|
On May 21 2009 14:22 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 14:17 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 14:13 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations. Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time. This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way. Very true, its usually silent/nonsense/disruptive. Very rarely will a mutation lead to xray vision or something sweet.
Then why do so many different species have so many different capabilities?
Vipers - Heat Dolphins - Sonar Bats - Echolocation (ok, you can argue this is sonar/radar)
etc. I'm stoked to become superman though! Splice me with some owl/hawk vision
|
Another question. How come crocs and gators have remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years? Is there a point where you hit evolutionary peak? Seems to go against evolution, however.
Crocs and Gators are curious to study for evolution. Probability over 100+ million years would dictate the species would change.
|
On May 21 2009 14:37 Aegraen wrote: Another question. How come crocs and gators have remained relatively unchanged for hundreds of millions of years? Is there a point where you hit evolutionary peak? Seems to go against evolution, however.
Crocs and Gators are curious to study for evolution. Probability over 100+ million years would dictate the species would change.
Some species leap ahead others stay behind, maybe the crocs evolved by in subtle ways like being smaller and consuming less energy
|
On May 21 2009 14:32 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 14:22 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 14:17 Misrah wrote:On May 21 2009 14:13 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 14:03 Misrah wrote: The whole problem with mutations is that, the body (lets use your body for an example) hates mutations. I mean it really hates them. When a cell is dividing, and something goes wrong- it will kill itself. Now cancer- is simply a mutation, that has not killed itself, and has propigated- and as you all know will eventually kill you.
When a virus infects you- it inserts its DNA/RNA into your cell, mutating it into a virus production factory. (once again the mutation is bad- and normally your body will kill it off.)
Your zygote/baby has a mutation- most of the time, it will miss carriage or kill itself.
It's just the nature of the beast. the living body simply does not like mutations. Plenty of things can go wrong in a cell without it killing itself. Silent mutations, point mutations, LINE/SINE insertion... this shit happens all the time. This is true. I was just trying to make the point that most of the time, a mutation is not something that the body likes, and or is beneficial in any way. Very true, its usually silent/nonsense/disruptive. Very rarely will a mutation lead to xray vision or something sweet. Then why do so many different species have so many different capabilities? Vipers - Heat Dolphins - Sonar Bats - Echolocation (ok, you can argue this is sonar/radar) etc. I'm stoked to become superman though! Splice me with some owl/hawk vision  I would have to say probably cause "very rarely" ends up happening in 200 million years, coupled with the idea that these things happen multiple times every cell division.
|
Crocs have stayed as an apex predator forever, and the territories they have lived in have stayed pretty stable, and their prey have not managed to evade them. They have no reason to change, and so they don't change.
At least that's the idea that I'm getting.
|
On May 21 2009 14:52 koreasilver wrote: Crocs have stayed as an apex predator forever, and the territories they have lived in have stayed pretty stable, and their prey have not managed to evade them. They have no reason to change, and so they don't change.
At least that's the idea that I'm getting.
same for humans. the only threat to man is his own mind.
|
|
|
United States5770 Posts
On May 20 2009 19:33 shimmy wrote: This is awesome news, creationists can finally go fuck themselves. Google even changed their logo :D
Creationists could go fuck themselves well before this was discovered
DINOSAURS LIVED IN PEACE WITH HUMANS JUST LIKE IN THE FLINTSTONES DURRRRRR
|
Is Aegraen trolling you kids again?
|
On May 21 2009 14:22 fight_or_flight wrote:I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding: sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts.. That old ladder representation is misleading and out of date because it looks like Apes stopped evolving, whilst we continued.
This is a bit closer, but obviously still crap:
In reality we aren't descended from any modern day Ape.... we just share a common ancestor. This Lemur-Monkey is possibly a direct descendant of humans.
The fossil is the link between other mammals and apes. It's a special fossil because it's so well preserved but the article does over hype its significance.
The "missing link" you may have heard of is just Creationists spreading mis-information.
|
On May 21 2009 15:43 Klive5ive wrote: The "missing link" you may have heard of is just Creationists spreading mis-information. Plus it was the second sentence of the article in the OP...
Anyway, are there any other fossils which are suspected "direct ancestors"?
|
On May 21 2009 13:51 Misrah wrote:Thank god we won out in the end 
If we didn't we would have T Rex flying f-14 like that one pic that was posted somewhere on TL :D
|
On May 21 2009 14:22 fight_or_flight wrote:I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding: sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts..
It would be more like this fossil would be one of the first species to split from the ape lineage.
Like the 2nd drawing someone posted and putting the "missing link" near that split on the human side. The thing that really interests me the most is where it was found. Germany? We have fossils with the same kind of primitive condition (maybe more advanced because they were less lemur like?) but they are all in Africa so not only could the immense age of this fossil be important but the location is just out to left field. This can still be a really good find, but for all the wrong reasons that the article hyped it hah. I really want to see the analysis on this thing and I hope it is published soon. Somehow I think that since Paleo is kind of an ego driven field so I would not be surprised to see a lot of people initially attack the crap out of it because it could potentially could revolutionize early theory. We will see how it holds up once the rest of the scientific community gets to study it.
|
holy shit sensationalist reporting
"could finally confirm Charles Darwin's theory of evolution"
rofl learn how theories develop, fucken reporters
|
On May 21 2009 15:54 Slaughter)BiO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 14:22 fight_or_flight wrote:I don't understand why this is being hyped up so much, or how it is the missing link between humans and apes. Could someone explain it to me? This is my understanding: sorry the thread is too long to read, especially with so many long argumentative posts.. It would be more like this fossil would be one of the first species to split from the ape lineage. Like the 2nd drawing someone posted and putting the "missing link" near that split on the human side. I don't think you've understood it.
I found some diagrams that might help people understand.
|
On May 21 2009 15:47 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 15:43 Klive5ive wrote: The "missing link" you may have heard of is just Creationists spreading mis-information. Plus it was the second sentence of the article in the OP... Anyway, are there any other fossils which are suspected "direct ancestors"? So using the first diagram any fossil of H.Sapiens, H.erectus, H.habilis, Australopiths, forest apes would be suspected direct ancestors. But this new fossil is older than all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|