Theory of Evolution.

Timsup2nothin · Mar 25, 2015

I was kind fumbling with the innate business.

It seems like if it were really innate it wouldn't be so hard to slow down that meaning and structure machinery...

On the other hand, maybe the mystical state is the life state before the machinery gets started, which would make it innate...

And, yes, that was the meaning and structure machinery trying to process that which it cannot...

Oooooookay then...

Birdjaguar · Mar 26, 2015

Could both be innate and working together and against one another?

Timsup2nothin · Mar 26, 2015

Birdjaguar said:
Could both be innate and working together and against one another?

Could be. I think one is innate (the one I initially said was not :blush:

) and the other just unavoidable. I suspect babies are just living, and aren't on the meaning maker treadmill until something puts them on it. But I can't say I remember being a baby so that is conjecture.

Birdjaguar · Mar 27, 2015

Timsup2nothin said:
Could be. I think one is innate (the one I initially said was not ) and the other just unavoidable. I suspect babies are just living, and aren't on the meaning maker treadmill until something puts them on it. But I can't say I remember being a baby so that is conjecture.

But as soon as a baby recognizes that there are things outside of it, it begins to try to make sense of its world. Get it organized. At the same time it begins to bond with those around it in a very emotional way.

Timsup2nothin · Mar 27, 2015

Birdjaguar said:
But as soon as a baby recognizes that there are things outside of it, it begins to try to make sense of its world. Get it organized. At the same time it begins to bond with those around it in a very emotional way.

Are you sure? Isn't there a stretch were they just live with it? Like I said, I certainly don't remember, and even though I had three kids to raise I can't say that any of them told me. But it seems like that effort to make sense of the world and get it organized wouldn't start until some recognition came along that was shaped like 'this doesn't make sense'. There has to be some need to take on the task of getting it organized...a moment of realization that it isn't organized.

I tell myself all the time that it may not seem organized to me, but maybe it is...and if it isn't then organizing it is really not my job. I think there may have been a time I didn't have to tell myself that, because I just knew it. But I can't guess how I came to forget it.

Terxpahseyton · Mar 31, 2015

hobbsyoyo said:
I don't really think so. As it relates to only brain-growth, there may be no other instances quite like it. But there are plenty of examples of very rapid evolutionary change in the fossil record. The whole Cambrian explosion practically came out of nowhere and in a short time, nearly all the major forms (not necessarily types) of life that exist today sprang up overnight geologically. Not to mention all of the weird forms that popped up in that same blink of an eye only to later go completely extinct.

Just now stumbled upon your response and I doubt you will ever read the one I have for you. Nevertheless, let me say it was an interesting response. How solid are you on the assertion that the time frame of human cranial development is not that exceptional as an evolutionary development of organ tissue? Got any numbers? Would love to hear them.
However, even if you were absolutely right on organ tissue, I'd still maintain that cranial development as seen in humans is not just unparalleled in its reach but in its development pace. Which still poses the question what made the human brain so special.

peter grimes · May 9, 2015

I favor the sexual selection explanation for our rapid brain growth. We see that happen in all sorts of species, no reason to think it can't explain our big "sudden" brains. It's important to remember, though, that sudden here means geologically sudden. It still took a couple million years to go from average primate brain size to what we have now. And other great apes were also getting bigger brains, but not at the rate we were. We're not that special, basically.

As for the Cambrian Explosion, it's kind of a misnomer. It appears as a discontinuity in the fossil record, but it wasn't so sudden necessarily. As we find more and older fossil beds, we're seeing that a lot of the lineages that appeared 'suddenly' had gone through a typical evolutionary time-frame. It's just that when the first discoveries were made they appeared to come out of nowhere, so to speak.

classical_hero said:
For this scenario to happen you need a thinner atmosphere so that the meteor won't burn up in the atmosphere, but a thin atmosphere mean not enough ozone to protect the life from harmful radiation for the sun and elsewhere in the universe. Bit f a catch 22 situation.

I highly doubt the panspermia hypothesis. There's no reason to think life didn't start here from natural chemical processes. And there are several ways it could have happened, we just don't know yet which one is most likely.

warpus · May 14, 2015

The thing with panspermia is that we've already documented stuff flying through space with microbes on it.. (I think.. right?) .. We also know that matter travels between planets and even solar systems (i.e. Mars meteor found in Antarctica, etc.) but we've never yet documented life coming into being via some sort of chemical interaction.

This tells me that it is possibly likely that life only arises on certain planets, but ends up on far more of them via a panspermia-like distribution. I suppose the real question is how many of those planets it ends up thriving on.. but.. either way it's impossible to say how life ended up on this planet either way - whether it originated here or not. Impossible for now I mean.

Timsup2nothin · May 14, 2015

warpus said:
The thing with panspermia is that we've already documented stuff flying through space with microbes on it.. (I think.. right?) .. We also know that matter travels between planets and even solar systems (i.e. Mars meteor found in Antarctica, etc.) but we've never yet documented life coming into being via some sort of chemical interaction.

This tells me that it is possibly likely that life only arises on certain planets, but ends up on far more of them via a panspermia-like distribution. I suppose the real question is how many of those planets it ends up thriving on.. but.. either way it's impossible to say how life ended up on this planet either way - whether it originated here or not. Impossible for now I mean.

Probably always. No matter how far back you can trace "the first life" you will run into the "no evidence of absence" problem. Your "first life" will always potentially be the product of some previous as yet unknown life, which could in turn have had either origin.

warpus · May 15, 2015

Well, there's got to be at least one source of life. There's probably a lot more independent cases of it arising from non-life. I'm not sure what you mean by "no evidence of absence problem" though.

Timsup2nothin · May 15, 2015

warpus said:
Well, there's got to be at least one source of life. There's probably a lot more independent cases of it arising from non-life. I'm not sure what you mean by "no evidence of absence problem" though.

It's a nearly universal logic problem.

What started "spontaneous combustion"? Well, near as we can make out nothing started it, that's why we call it "spontaneous." But can you show that there wasn't some cause that you just aren't seeing? Of course not. No evidence can show that the potential cause, which is unknown, is absent.

Spontaneous rise of life is the same thing. It's here, all of a sudden, and there is no evidence that it came from somewhere else. Okay, but does that lack of evidence actually prove that it didn't come from somewhere else? No. There may have been an unknown mechanism at work, and there may in fact be a veritable mountain of evidence left behind by that mechanism that we see nothing in at all because we are unaware of the mechanism in the first place. Again, the most we can say is that no known mechanism can account for the life being transported there, so the best we can tell it originated there.

Birdjaguar · May 17, 2015

Timsup2nothin said:
It's a nearly universal logic problem.

What started "spontaneous combustion"? Well, near as we can make out nothing started it, that's why we call it "spontaneous." But can you show that there wasn't some cause that you just aren't seeing? Of course not. No evidence can show that the potential cause, which is unknown, is absent.

Spontaneous rise of life is the same thing. It's here, all of a sudden, and there is no evidence that it came from somewhere else. Okay, but does that lack of evidence actually prove that it didn't come from somewhere else? No. There may have been an unknown mechanism at work, and there may in fact be a veritable mountain of evidence left behind by that mechanism that we see nothing in at all because we are unaware of the mechanism in the first place. Again, the most we can say is that no known mechanism can account for the life being transported there, so the best we can tell it originated there.

"Spontaneous" is just a way to say we don't know without saying "magic".

bhavv · Jul 12, 2015

One thing I regret is that when I went to university, I didn't realize how huge a topic evolution was, and would continue to become in the world.

In the second year, there was an optional module titled 'Human Evolution'. I looked at it and thought it would be something junk to study so I didn't take it.

Oh how wrong I was.

Kyriakos · Jul 14, 2015

Well, to have some sort of tie, even one inherently open to become more distinct, does not by itself mean that the A and B 'tied' thus renders B something more tied (inherently more, not in some particular context) to A than any non-B would in the same bounded progression.
Ie, in english:

To say that apes are tied to humans does not mean they are themselves tied; it means they have some common ancestor. Yes, but so does any ten digit number and any nine trillion-digit number: they both follow from iteration of adding '1'.
The two numbers themselves do not share an actual crucial connection out of particular context (eg in specific hypothesis you can tie them far more), but always share a common basis.

bhavv · Jul 17, 2015

I'm pretty sure that the 99% genetic similarity between chimpanzees and humans means they are somehow tied.

But then bananas are 70% genetically similar to humans, genes are just bizzare.

Or just 50%:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/humans-share-50-dna-bananas-2482139

My genetics lecturer had said 70%, probably different research papers.

Were 70% similar to slugs though, and 97% similar to orangatans, but 98% similar to mice?

Silly DNA, you make no sense!

Agent327 · Jul 17, 2015

Presupposing common descent, it makes perfect sense. Since all life has DNA.

This, however, makes no sense at all:

Kyriakos said:
To say that apes are tied to humans does not mean they are themselves tied; it means they have some common ancestor. Yes, but so does any ten digit number and any nine trillion-digit number: they both follow from iteration of adding '1'.

DNA is not digits, so a very bad comparison. (They aren't even anything close to digits. Interestingly, digits themselves do have DNA. So there you go.)

bhavv · Jul 17, 2015

Id just dismiss that as philolsophy trying to take on science. Just not happening.

We are all 50% banana.

Kyriakos · Jul 19, 2015

Agent327 said:
Presupposing common descent, it makes perfect sense. Since all life has DNA.

This, however, makes no sense at all:

DNA is not digits, so a very bad comparison. (They aren't even anything close to digits. Interestingly, digits themselves do have DNA. So there you go.)

A little math would go a long way, eg parallelisms are inherently never to follow a 1 to 1 link to the object paralleled

bhavv · Jul 19, 2015

No, it absolutely wouldn't. Math has nothing to do with DNA.

djcollin · Jul 24, 2015

Evolution is a lie... I won't get into all the other scientific (falsely so-called) ideas we're told. :eek:

Theory of Evolution.

Deity

Hanafubuki

Deity

Hanafubuki

Deity

Nobody

...

In pork I trust

Deity

In pork I trust

Deity

Hanafubuki

Glorious World Dictator

Creator

Glorious World Dictator

Observer

Glorious World Dictator

Creator

Glorious World Dictator

Chieftain

Similar threads