Darwin's theory

Defender OF Faith

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

Well.....
Welcome to boards!

kowloon

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

That would be your problem right there.

Fuzzytrooper

Skylinehead wrote: »

Of course you can!

Well I couldn't before! Diddlediddledidledooo.

smcgiff

Fuzzytrooper wrote: »

Well I couldn't before! Diddlediddledidledooo.

Still implies ability prior to the statement, so the joke doesn't quite work

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

I dont think you understood what he's trying to say

GreeBo wrote: »

Well you are now assuming that a hay man and a gay woman have sex, which kinda goes against being gay.

In evolutionary/biological viewpoint they are not "gay".

I'm not saying that they would be gay because both their parents are gay, Im saying "if homosexuality was a persistent/pervasive trait" then it would eventually happen. If being gay was a benefit then more and more people would become gay. If its not a benefit then, as the original poster said, it can be viewed as a disorder. Its not a benefit to the individual organism so it will die out.

You're right, I don't.

I don't think he does either.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

I think its a pretty obvious question to be honest.
If Darwin "means" that only beneficial traits for an organism survive, then is homosexuality beneficial? Or is it a natural disorder that doesn't benefit the organism?
You can get into interesting things like if its beneficial for the community does it survive even if its not beneficial for the individual organism?
But then that opens up things like, if its beneficial for the community and the community supports the individual organism then perhaps thats beneficial for the organism.

Its very complex and interesting

Ask the Ants.

floggg

GreeBo wrote: »

Indeed I do....not sure of the point you are trying to make though.

The diseases that prevent reproduction are not inherited though, or at least not for more than one generation.

You don't understand genetics too well. Admittedly neither do I, but I know it's quite possible to have ave recessive genes, genes that only increase the likelihood of x occurring or that onky result in x I'm certain circumstances or combinations.

folan

floggg wrote: »

Ask the Ants.

What has Adam Ants band got to do with anything?

Fuzzytrooper

smcgiff wrote: »

Still implies ability prior to the statement, so the joke doesn't quite work

Help me Dr Zeas

Gbear

smcgiff wrote: »

They would most likely react by pointing out the theory that there are benefits in having close family non breeding individuals when rearing offspring.

Also, failing that, if there were several beneficial, each of which conferred an evolutionary advantage, but combined made you gay, then so long as the positive impact of the individual genes on procreation outweighed the negative impact of a % of those with the genes not procreating at all, the genes could survive.

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

You really don't understand procreation, evolution or homosexuality.

Nobody "becomes" gay. You are or you aren't.

Or your bisexual, in which case you are and you aren't.

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

As has been pointed out, if you don't understand how genetics and inheritance works it's difficult to debate with you.

SaveOurLyric

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

smcgiff

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

That's the only part of your paragraph that I agree with.

SaveOurLyric

GreeBo wrote: »

I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay.
Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

If being a queen bee was a useful pervasive trait then all bees would be queen bees. Or would they ?

Lord Trollington

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

SaveOurLyric

smcgiff wrote: »

That's the only part of your paragraph that I agree with.

Yeah, me too. And they are more or less convincing, but some from the evolution side of things do try to pick holes in their research. But a little more time will clinch the case definitively for creationism.

GreeBo

floggg wrote: »

Ask the Ants.

Ants come from a single queen, so a queen that has both gay and straight offspring could benefit her give.

floggg wrote: »

You're right, I don't.

I don't think he does either.

The problem seems to be your interpretation of "more people would become gay"
You have decide it means people switching from straight to gay. Since this is a thread about evolution, I assumed you would understand that "more people" means more of the population over time, offspring, children, yunno evolution.
My mistake, I'll dumb it down next time, for the less evolved amongst us.

Cianmcliam

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

I assume you mean to our level of intelligence? Because they don't need to. The human brain is extremely hungry for energy and when all you need to do is find food, a partner and avoid death then some basic intelligence and sound instincts are all you really need. Extra brain power would bring little benefit and you would need to hugely increase your food intake just to support it.

Humans live in large social groups of non-relatives, which means they must learn to live with and trust people not related to them. To do this you need an extremely good memory for how others treat you or people they come in contact with. You also need a much higher level of intelligence to work out the motives of others so that you can ferret out potential cheaters or dangerous individuals before they can do you harm. Cheaters and dangerous folk need to evolve counter-measures against cheater detection so humans became locked in an intelligence arms race with ourselves.

endacl

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

I cannot believe I registered, just to answer this question.

Firstly, humans are apes. Homo Sapiens are a member of the Homo Genus, and by virtue of that - we are apes.

Secondly - Asking the question why apes still exist if humans came from apes is like asking: "Why do Europeans still exist if Americans came from Europeans?" or like asking "Why does Irish still exist of Scottish Gaelic evolved from Irish?"

Humans evolved from apes and are apes. The last common ancestor of chimps and humans lived about 6 million years ago. This means that 6 million years ago, a population of apes diverged and spawned two new family-lines. One of those lines eventually resulted in Australopithecines which found an advantage to being able to walk on 2 legs. Fast forward some times, and the homo genus arrived. Members of the Homo family started off primitive, but over time - their brain size increased, and their ability to control their environment increased.

The other line resulted in a number of apes, including which were Chimpanzees and Bonobos, and probably a number of other apes which are now extinct.

How do we know that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? By simply analyzing our DNA, we can see that we share a remarkable amount of information. We are genetically closer than mice are to rats.

We also know we are related to apes and monkeys for this very same reason. One example is the pseudogene GLO. This is a dysfunctional gene which no longer works. Any species with it can no longer synthesize vitamin C on their own, and are forced to obtain it from diet. This pseudogene is shared across all apes and monkeys in the exact same manner. This could only have happened if we shared a common ancestor. (Bats and guinea pigs have also lost this ability, but it is expressed differently).

There is absolutely no question that humans evolved from apes, and that humans are apes. It's not even up for debate by anyone educated on basic biology.

Welcome. I admire your intent, but be warned, you may end up tearing your hair out. The question has been addressed many times in many ways by many posters, to no avail. Check out the 'Origin of Specious Nonsense' thread for a lesson in futility.

There are none so blind as will not see, etc...

realweirdo

We did evolve pretty quickly to be fair.

Crocadiles look the same as they did 100 million years ago I'd imagine. Ditto similar creatures. Apes and monkeys are at the same stage as they were a hundred thousand years ago I'd say.

It's strange how some animals, mammals, etc evolve fast, while others evolve extremely slowly. It's possibly related to environments, who your prey and predators are.

Roger Hassenforder

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

You're just biased!
we're just at one end of a evolutionary lineage. we're not the pinnacle.

if we lived in cold water we'd be crap.
if we lived in hydrothermal vents, we'd be crap as well.

we're just very well adapted for what we do, where we do it.
there are other species with better hearing, better eyesight, can fly better, can swim better, are stronger, faster, but none as adaptable.

isn't it great that the earth isn't too hot or too cold? kinda just right...

smcgiff

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

Humans did. :-)

Then there were the likes of the Neanderthal, but they couldn't compete with humans and were either subsumed into modern humans or failed to compete with humans (for the same resources).

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If being a queen bee was a useful pervasive trait then all bees would be queen bees. Or would they ?

No, I don't think so for the same reason as all humans wouldn't become gay, a hive has evolved because it functions best with one queen. Being a queen is good for the queen, but not the hive, if they are all queens then the hive dies and that trait isn't passed on.

Nodin

GreeBo wrote: »

Where did I say people became gay?
I said, numerous times now, if being gay was a useful , pervasive trait then eventually everyone would be gay..

Simplistic tosh. Why can't a certain number within a population being gay have benefits for the population as a whole?

GreeBo wrote: »

Not naturally procreating doesn't seem like a useful trait for an organism, hence being gay can be seen as a disorder, from an evolutionary point of view, a dead end.

Yet here they are.

GreeBo

smcgiff wrote: »

As has been pointed out, if you don't understand how genetics and inheritance works it's difficult to debate with you.

And yet you still cannot form a post that argues against something I have posted.

Lord Trollington wrote: »

I've a question. Why has no species evolved to the level that humans have.

other than say...humans?

Cianmcliam

Nodin wrote: »

Simplistic tosh. Why can't a certain number within a population being gay have benefits for the population as a whole?

Because evolution doesn't work for the population as a whole, it works only on individuals (or a trait that becomes common in the whole group if you agree with the recent multi-level selection revival).
Traits that benefit the group at the expense of the individual are confined to species that live in groups of all brothers and sisters, not unrelated strangers who do not share genes.

PopePalpatine

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You make a good case for your belief that men are apes, but I think most people will still look at an ape and know, despite some of the fancy college science behind the theory, that it just cant be so. A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false (some claim to have done so already), showing that man was indeed created as we are - without any need for apes or Darwin.

Good old anti-intellectualism, where would we be without it? :rolleyes:

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

And yet you still cannot form a post that argues against something I have posted.

Worse than that. I'm under the misapprehension that I have been :pac:

GreeBo

Nodin wrote: »

Simplistic tosh. Why can't a certain number within a population being gay have benefits for the population as a whole?


Yet here they are.

Because how does a population pass on "some" people are gay for the good of the population? A hive with a single queen could as queens who have some gay offspring would likely have an offspring who also had some gay offspring, all assuming it's a trait that can be passed on.

Things survive between generations because it's useful, more of those with the useful trait survive.
I don't see how some being gay can be passed on?

Btw I don't see why the attitude is required, feel free to post without it.

GreeBo

smcgiff wrote: »

Worse than that. I'm under the misapprehension that I have been :pac:

Could you perhaps share the posts?
So far all I see is a misunderstanding regarding a post I made and then you launched into...well, tosh.

Nodin

GreeBo wrote: »

Because how does a population pass on "some" people are gay for the good of the population? A hive with a single queen could as queens who have some gay offspring would likely have an offspring who also had some gay offspring, all assuming it's a trait that can be passed on.

Things survive between generations because it's useful, more of those with the useful trait survive.
I don't see how some being gay can be passed on?

Where are the gay people in the population coming from then? Underwater bases?

GreeBo

Nodin wrote: »

Yet here they are.

Like an appendix for example?

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

A hive with a single queen could as queens who have some gay offspring would likely have an offspring who also had some gay offspring, all assuming it's a trait that can be passed on.

Speaking of hives. A queen will produce many worker bees that have ZERO chance of reproducing. They are asexual. And yet the Queen/Hive invests significant resources in their production. Yet, they have zero chance of reproducing themselves. Very similar to Homosexual humans.

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

Like an appendix for example?

Remind us again. What point are you trying to make?

Knasher

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

A lot of the work going on today in creationism will likely soon prove the man-ape idea to be false

The only "work" that creationists are trying to do nowadays is political, trying to get people onto school boards and push their nonsense into classrooms. Creationism as a hypothesis has absolutely no predictive power, and is therefore pointless. All they have ever done in a scientific sense is try and poke holes in evolution, and to date not a single hole has withstood closer examination.

Nodin

GreeBo wrote: »

Like an appendix for example?

How are gay people like an appendix?

Cianmcliam

smcgiff wrote: »

Speaking of hives. A queen will produce many worker bees that have ZERO chance of reproducing. They are asexual. And yet the Queen/Hive invests significant resources in their production. Yet, they have zero chance of reproducing themselves. Very similar to Homosexual humans.

Completely different, they all have the same genes so it doesn't matter which of them pass them on, only one set of genes can benefit. In humans we all have different sets of genes that need to make it through to the next generation to feature in the current population.

smcgiff

GreeBo wrote: »

Could you perhaps share the posts?
So far all I see is a misunderstanding regarding a post I made and then you launched into...well, tosh.

I explained to you pages ago how homosexual genes could be past on from generation to generation as they would be seen has having evolutionary benefit. I even mentioned a study.

GreeBo

Nodin wrote: »

Where are the gay people in the population coming from then? Underwater bases?

It's a common mutation, to use an unfortunate word.

There are lots of people born with genetic disorders, they are a trait that is not of benefit but sometimes gets passed on anyway.

Nodin

GreeBo wrote: »

It's a common mutation, to use an unfortunate word.

There are lots of people born with genetic disorders, they are a trait that is not of benefit but sometimes gets passed on anyway.

My, you're a charmer.

Turtwig

Whatever about apes still existing, I'm more confused by the lack of Ash's pikachu evolving. Fifteen+ bloody years!!

SaveOurLyric

Nodin wrote: »

Why can't a certain number within a population being gay have benefits for the population as a whole?

Why can't a certain number within a population being gay have neither benefits nor drawbacks for the population as a whole ?
Can Darwin explain conversion therapy ? I think not.

GreeBo

Nodin wrote: »

How are gay people like an appendix?

They don't necessarily do anything to increase the organisms chances of surviving and processing, which is the point of all organisms.
Yet, they exist.

smcgiff

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Completely different, they all have the same genes so it doesn't matter which of them pass them on, only one set of genes can benefit. In humans we all have different sets of genes that need to make it through to the next generation to feature in the current population.

None of the worker genes will pass on their exact genes similar to most homosexuals.

However, the workers' genes will be different to previous and future generations as they will have come from the queen and her consort. They will also help ensure the genes of their parents will pass on by working for the good of the hive.

Turtwig

GreeBo wrote: »

It's a common mutation, to use an unfortunate word.

There are lots of people born with genetic disorders, they are a trait that is not of benefit but sometimes gets passed on anyway.

Or there's a trade off in play. It's not about survival; it's about survival to reproduce and then it's only still a probability distribution. All sorts of traits can carry benefits and risks. Some, far more obvious and clear cut than others.

GreeBo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Why can't a certain number within a population being gay have neither benefits nor drawbacks for the population as a whole ?
Can Darwin explain conversion therapy ? I think not.

Because how can unrelated births pass on being gay to some offspring?

gladrags

There is of course the possibility that there are other animals,who are more intelligent than humans.

It's just that we are not aware of this.

We do not know that there is not!

Who was it that theorised that effectively,it is the Gene that

GreeBo

Nodin wrote: »

My, you're a charmer.

Oh I'm sorry, I understood we were having a debate.

gladrags

There is of course the possibility that there are other animals,who are more intelligent than humans.

It's just that we are not aware of this.

We do not know that there is not!

Who was it that theorised that effectively,it is the gene that is intelligent.

The human is merely the carrier.