At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Location: Fort Worth; but my heart is in Cleveland!!
Posts: 238
Evoloution theory?
I'm not too sure where to post this ridiculous question I've been thinking about. Biology is my best guess. There is a theory that humans evolved from apes. (I myself am a Catholic, and don't belive this theory, but that's besides the point) If this is so, why are there still apes? I know it sounds so stupid and there's probably an easy logical explanation, but I never claimed to be a genius Just something I wonder from time to time.
I was just wondering,
has the "tail bone" or coccyx been found in many humans from the past?
I mean where the whole skeleton is not found, has only the coccyx ever been found?
I was just wondering,
has the "tail bone" or coccyx been found in many humans from the past?
I mean where the whole skeleton is not found, has only the coccyx ever been found?
Just curious...
I'm wondering why you would expect to see such a thing?
I personally see no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to macro, and by believing that one happens, we must conclude that the other does too.
Considering mice and man have DNA 97% the same meaning in the millions of years that animals like mice have been around there has only been a 3% change seems like a pretty minor change. The fundies will never concede that point though.
The Americans arent evolving to take into account changes in the abundance of food in their environment, they still have the primative "eat as much high fat food as you can" mentality. But really it's not evidence against it, as the fat americans are having less children and dying earlier, leaving the more fit ones to survive. But it hasnt been long enough to see if there are any effects here. Our medicine interupts evolution, making humans a tricky thing to study the evolution of.
I personally see no difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro leads to macro, and by believing that one happens, we must conclude that the other does too.
There are plenty of things that we have that are vestigial, muscles to move our ears? (some people can move their ears, others can't, because it's a useless trait and we are no longer selected for it). Same with our sense of smell. These things we used in prehistory, but now have no use for because predators are such a small threat so they are diminishing. Surely god would not let these things diminish, in case we needed them in future? Right?
Our sense of smell is linked to taste. Ask anyone with a cold how anything tastes.
Also our sense of smell is interconnected with memory and emotion, thus the perfume industry. There are studies showing a correlation between a loss of smelll and neuropsychiatric illnesses like alzheimer's and schizophrenia.
So the sense of smell is far from vestigial or useless.
The sense of smell isn't useless, a sense of smell like a blood hound is. I think what Cap was referring to was some data I remember seeing(don't remember where) That either speculated or had evidence(again don't remember the article that well) that humans once had a much better sense of smell and that moving into large groups and starting to farm, we lost our keen sense of smell because it wasn't needed for survival
Our sense of smell is linked to taste. Ask anyone with a cold how anything tastes.
Also our sense of smell is interconnected with memory and emotion, thus the perfume industry. There are studies showing a correlation between a loss of smelll and neuropsychiatric illnesses like alzheimer's and schizophrenia.
So the sense of smell is far from vestigial or useless.
Grace and peace
michaelb has what i meant, it isnt exactly vestigial, but we just don't use it anymore. We don't encounter rotting food enough for the smell part of taste to be selected for.
You're right that there are uses for smell, i never claimed there wasn't, just that it's no longer a life or death situation, and that there is evidence that it is diminishing because it's no longer being selected for.
Something doesn't have to be useless for it to be energetically inefficient.
michaelb has what i meant, it isnt exactly vestigial, but we just don't use it anymore. We don't encounter rotting food enough for the smell part of taste to be selected for.
You're right that there are uses for smell, i never claimed there wasn't, just that it's no longer a life or death situation, and that there is evidence that it is diminishing because it's no longer being selected for.
Something doesn't have to be useless for it to be energetically inefficient.
Is it possible that at the rate humans are depending on electronic gadgets like computers to do all the brainwork,
then could we be already "killing" parts of our brain?
Is it possible that at the rate humans are depending on electronic gadgets like computers to do all the brainwork,
then could we be already "killing" parts of our brain?
I would imagine that we are getting smarter, because electronics are taking the place of physical labor, not mental labor.
Just something I wonder from time to time.
Linear Mode
