30 Mar 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“....I am asking for Scientific evidence of it having evolved that WAY. ...” (my emphasis)
Of course,I know that the two hemisphere brain exists in humans. I am asking for Scientific evidence of it having evolved that way.
...as opposed to evolving what other “WAY”? with three hemispheres? With one hemisphere?
I have already pointed out to you the proof for evolution so the fact that we evolved is an established fact.
Therefore, that logically implies that every part of our anatomy evolved and therefore our brains, being part of our anatomy, must have evolved.
Therefore IF the brain had just one hemispheres then, GIVEN that we know that, logically, the brain must have evolved, that is evidence that it evolved that particular way.
And, IF the brain had two hemispheres (which is correct) then, GIVEN that we know that, logically, the brain must have evolved, that is evidence that it evolved that particular way.
And IF the brain had three hemispheres then, GIVEN that we know that, logically, the brain must have evolved, that is evidence that it evolved that particular way.
And.......so on.
In other words, I don't have to show evidence that only just shows that the brain evolved specifically with two hemispheres in particular to prove that is the way it evolved; I just have to show evidence that living things and therefore we evolved and then merely point out that our brains have two hemispheres and from these two facts we can DEDUCE that our brains evolved to have two hemispheres.
30 Mar 11
Originally posted by galveston75I again refer you to my first post in this thread, wherein a link was given to a well-researched and referenced scientific paper explaining how this came about. Here's the first sentence as a taster:
Well my original question about the electric eel has not been answered with any proof or even a resonable guess as to how this could have "somhow just evolved".
But instead the usual attacks come to us who know it's not a fact in the slightest degree. Those attacks come only to deflect the fact that they cannot give any proof and cling to guesses.
http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/fact/retreat.htm
"This article provides an abbreviated account of an unfamiliar sensory system well developed in certain families of fishes and present in simpler form in a few amphibians and mammals."
There is no proof of course - this evolution having taken some millions of years to occur precluded direct observation - but then, neither is there any proof of your 'god did it' position.
04 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI am simply asking for evidence to show that human brain evolved into a brain of two hemispheres each with specialised functions. How is the specialisation of functions between the two hemispheres is an adaptive feature? Why in spite of specialised functions,any one of the two hemispheres can take up functions of the other one,in case of any damage to the other one ? Will it not nullify why the brain evolved into two hemispheres to begin with ?
“....I am asking for Scientific evidence of it having evolved that WAY. ...” (my emphasis)
...as opposed to evolving what other “WAY”? with three hemispheres? With one hemisphere?
I have already pointed out to you the proof for evolution so the fact that we evolved is an established fact.
Therefore, that logically implies that every part of our ...[text shortened]... spheres and from these two facts we can DEDUCE that our brains evolved to have two hemispheres.
09 Apr 11
Surely ape to man is more than one little mutation. Yet both man and ape walk the earth. Logically any interim species would be able to survive just as the ape. Why did the species (plural) in between go extinct?
That's what boggles my mind about evolution. Sometimes I think people mix natural selection (which makes perfect sense) with evolution (which acts like a religion insomuch as you are mocked by the believers for questioning it)
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by galveston75Our understanding of the world has expanded greatly beyond what is written in the bible. You would do well to leave room for 'clarification' of what is written in the Bible. You don't have to read too far before you get to the part where God separates the waters above (the SKY) from the waters below (the sea). Taken literally the sky would be a big ocean and we should put our boats in it. Taken with more modern understanding we realize that this is not the case, although as a metaphor it still makes sense.
Because evolution contradicts the Bible and God's explination of creation. You can't have both or some diluted mixture of the two.
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by Darax The GoodAny interim species could survive, and did survive. One of two things happen to species over time:
Surely ape to man is more than one little mutation. Yet both man and ape walk the earth. Logically any interim species would be able to survive just as the ape. Why did the species (plural) in between go extinct?
1. They die out.
2. They evolve.
The mistake you are making is assuming that a change of species is a sudden step like thing in which one species splits into two new species, the original and a new one. In reality, a species evolves ie it changes over time. In some cases it splits into two new species (neither of which is really the original).
So, in our ancestry, there are species that evolved into the various apes we see today (including man) and there are some branches that died out.
The other mistake you made was to assume that a species that is surviving at one point in time will continue to be able to survive. The environment is constantly changing, so a species ability to survive may also change.
Sometimes I think people mix natural selection (which makes perfect sense) with evolution (which acts like a religion insomuch as you are mocked by the believers for questioning it)
You will be mocked if your display ignorance yet pretend to be knowledgeable. If you merely ask 'how does that work' or even say ' that doesn't make sense to me' then nobody will mock you. If you however say 'that cant possibly work because I know better', then you are liable to be mocked - especially if your 'better' is clearly false.
Of course the people who get mocked the most are those that say:
1. The Bible implies creation.
2. Evolution implies no creation.
3. Therefore the two cannot coexist.
4. Therefore whatever lie I make up to prove evolution wrong is justified as it protects my religion.
09 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is a third thing that could happen to a species-it continues. The propensity to survive is so strongly ingrained in us and the apes that it makes sense that any interim species would have similar drives and should still be hanging around. Perhaps we killed our inferior predecessors. Or we were able to cross breed. I wonder how many generations it would take to get 4 billion of us.
Any interim species could survive, and did survive. One of two things happen to species over time:
1. They die out.
2. They evolve.
The mistake you are making is assuming that a change of species is a sudden step like thing in which one species splits into two new species, the original and a new one. In reality, a species evolves ie it changes over tim ...[text shortened]... hatever lie I make up to prove evolution wrong is justified as it protects my religion.
I can't see any reason why evolution and creation have to be at odds. Sometimes I wonder if people are just looking for a reason to argue.
And I'm not talking about being mocked on a forum, but the ridicule that you'll see in the media. Bill Maher (who I enjoy) likes to liken the 'do you believe in evolution' question to 'do you have a brain'. I consider that to be a poor evaluation.
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThis is a good one. Where are the so called transitional species? The lobster slowing developing wings? should be an in between species in the fossil record.
No problem with adaptation and some mutation. It is
Macroevolution that reports that a lobster can turn into
a fruit fly that I would like to see.
Manny
10 Apr 11
Originally posted by Darax The GoodNot so. Everything that survives, evolves. It is inevitable.
There is a third thing that could happen to a species-it continues.
The propensity to survive is so strongly ingrained in us and the apes that it makes sense that any interim species would have similar drives and should still be hanging around.
What a load of nonsense. Next you will tell me that we don't need to preserve the gorilla or chimpanzees habitat because their 'propensity to survive' will guarantee their survival.
The desire to survive and the ability to do so are two very different things.
Perhaps we killed our inferior predecessors.
Once again, it would not be predecessors, it would be cousins. When a species splits, one branch is not the predecessor.
And how do you judge them inferior? I believe the Neanderthals were superior to us in a number of aspects, but not others. How does one add those up?
I wonder how many generations it would take to get 4 billion of us.
Not very many, but it could easily be worked out. It all depends on survival rates. The reason we have 4 billion now is because we have such good health care.
I can't see any reason why evolution and creation have to be at odds. Sometimes I wonder if people are just looking for a reason to argue.
No, they do see reasons why they have to be at adds, and those reasons are very very serious for them.
And I'm not talking about being mocked on a forum, but the ridicule that you'll see in the media. Bill Maher (who I enjoy) likes to liken the 'do you believe in evolution' question to 'do you have a brain'. I consider that to be a poor evaluation.
Well mocking in the media is done by a whole range of people for a whole host of reasons. As for the above comment, it is not reasonable.
I would liken 'do you understand evolution' to 'do you have a good education', but I fully realize that there are a few, well educated, intelligent people who understand evolution but do not accept it for religious reasons. However, in all my discussions on the matter, I have so far found every opponent of evolution does not understand it (which is not necessarily their fault).
10 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI like your argument here. Self styled skeptics are incapable of being satisfied by evidence to the point of wilful stupidity.
I can't see any reason why evolution and creation have to be at odds. Sometimes I wonder if people are just looking for a reason to argue.
No, they do see reasons why they have to be at adds, and those reasons are very very serious for them.
And I'm not talking about being mocked on a forum, but the ridicule that you'll see in the media. Bil opponent of evolution does not understand it (which is not necessarily their fault).
One benefit of the Theory of Evolution is that it is not only internally consistent, and supported by countless examples, but also consistent with other well founded fields of scientific knowledge. For a simple example, Darwin relied on new theories about geology to provide the time-scales required for evolution to take place, apart from countless fossilised examples. Taken together we could see why we find fossilised fish at the top of mountains for instance, alongside forgotten sea creatures that we can still place in the evolutionary tree. Genetics was a whole new field of science emerging after Darwin, which supports and improves the Theory of Evolution - for example demonstrating not only a mechanism for random mutation but also a timescale in which it might arise, plus of course not only fossilised evidence but also the survival within genes of genetic patterns for other, earlier species. So on outwards - each field of scientific knowledge supports, informs and sometimes imrpoves upon the other.
One problem in for instance Intelligent Design theory is that it steps outside of this broad, mutually reinforcing body of knowledge to introduce magical steps for which our only account is a religious one, not only unsupported but conflicting with what we have established in other fields.
There is no good reason to neglect the religious experiences of so many sincere people - there is a place for them in our understanding of humanity - but there is no justification for their religious beliefs being employed to damage and confuse our achievements in understanding the world nor for deliberately training their children to be stupid and wrong, which I see as a form of child abuse. Their myths are not informative about the natural world - only about human history, culture and feelings. When they make strident claims to explain the natural world in opposition to reason, they are no longer in the category of sincere believers because their obtuseness is wilful.
10 Apr 11
Point being if you want to throw out evolution you have to throw out geology, chemistry, genetics, the whole package hangs together, you even have to throw out mathematics. (My daughter's partner is a mathematician and working on the evolution and spread of the flue virus entirely using mathematical tools.)
11 Apr 11
Originally posted by Darax The GoodWhy ape to man?
Surely ape to man is more than one little mutation. Yet both man and ape walk the earth. Logically any interim species would be able to survive just as the ape. Why did the species (plural) in between go extinct?
That's what boggles my mind about evolution. Sometimes I think people mix natural selection (which makes perfect sense) with evolu ...[text shortened]... ion (which acts like a religion insomuch as you are mocked by the believers for questioning it)
There's no evidence that humans came later than other existing apes, so it's quite possible that we evolved before other existing apes, or that they evolved from our line. In fact, some scientists have argued just such a tranistion that would put chimpanzees and gorillas as descendents from a human line.
I'm not arguing this specifically myself, but the assumption that we humans are some endpoint fo evolution is erroneous.
As for in between species, this suggests that evolution is some sort of digital process - with discrete separable species. The reality is probably much messier with continuums of species and sub species and breeds.
As far as questioning evolution, there's no problem with that - science is built around questions and all theories and explanatory frameworks are (and should be) up for grabs. But simply claiming it's wrong because you don't like the implications won't cut it. Claiming it's wrong because some fairy/god says otherwise won't cut it. Claiming it's wrong without offering either evidence or a viable, scientific alternative won't cut it ...
11 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionWe are apes and our ancestors were apes. "Great apes" to be exact.
Why ape to man?
There's no evidence that humans came later than other existing apes,
Actually its not about evidence, it is a fact that all living things in existence today came later than their ancestors. Even if there were animals 2 million years ago that were similar to the present day Chimpanzees, they would not be the same as the Chimpanzees of today. There is always genetic drift in all species. Some important genes may remain static over long periods, but there is always some change in other parts of the genome.
The problem then is to decide whether to call our ancestors human or not, and what to base that decision on.
so it's quite possible that we evolved before other existing apes, or that they evolved from our line. In fact, some scientists have argued just such a tranistion that would put chimpanzees and gorillas as descendents from a human line.
I don't understand that? How can a common ancestor be labeled as belonging to one family line and not another? Humans and Chimpanzees (or any other life form for that matter) are descended from a common ancestor. Up until the split in the family tree, it is a common family line shared by both species, neither solely their line nor ours. It doesn't make sense to ask if something evolved from our line.
Wikipedia has a family tree. Do you know if it is disputed? I would think that modern DNA testing would make it obvious what the relationships are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae
As for in between species, this suggests that evolution is some sort of digital process - with discrete separable species. The reality is probably much messier with continuums of species and sub species and breeds.
Not probably - definitely.
11 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThere are more duplicated organs than the brain - lungs, kidneys etc - so it is not necessary to argue that the brain evolved in duplicate in order to serve two sets of specialised functions, merely that the brain, having two hemispheres organically, assigned some functions specifically to one side rather than the other. There is often no particular reason why one side or the other should have their special role - it is just how things turned out. Eyes are duplicated and although they are functionally identical this permits additional benefits compared with a single eye. They did not evolve as a pair in order to permit stereoscopic vision - nothing evolves in order to do anything at all - but this did mean they were more likely to persist.
I am simply asking for evidence to show that human brain evolved into a brain of two hemispheres each with specialised functions. How is the specialisation of functions between the two hemispheres is an adaptive feature? Why in spite of specialised functions,any one of the two hemispheres can take up functions of the other one,in case of any damage to the other one ? Will it not nullify why the brain evolved into two hemispheres to begin with ?
The simplest survival benefit of duplicate organs in general is that creatures can survive catastrophic harm to one of them, hence our ability to be living organ donors. There is not a problem to solve and the questioning is empty.
Of course since we are constructed from two strands of DNA, duplication is also not a very odd thing to find and it will persist when it offers survival benefits. Triplication might be more surprising and I am not sure we have any of that.