Darwin's theory

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.