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.
Cats might kill mice but they rarely kill other cats because most higher level species have found it's counter productive to kill others in thier species. Unless of course they give you a reason to do so.
Cats might kill mice but they rarely kill other cats because most higher level species have found it's counter productive to kill others in thier species. Unless of course they give you a reason to do so.
Some cats do kill other cats(I do not know how common this is)
I have seen tom cats kill the kittens of the female cat it is pursuing to mate.
And I have also seen female cats killing their kittens too.
From what I know bigger cats like lions etc fight each other when pursuing mates too.
I am not sure if they kill during these fights.
There must be reasons as you said for these killings,but it does happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
Could you really have chosen to kill or not to kill 10000 years ago? Could you survive like many tribes in africa do if you chose not to kill or eat anythign gotten from killing? Even in winter when only other animals are able to exploit the gains of the earth? It's only our technology that enables people to survive as vegitarian now a days, as little as 10000 years ago or less, you would have had no such choice. It's not about free will.
Cap,
I am not vegetarian.
Far from it I love meat products.
And I am allowed to kill animals for food.
michaelb is right, animals (humans included) do not want to further their species. They want to further their genes. That's how evolution works.
I never said you were vegetarian, I was merely questioning whether, if you were a vegetarian (ie you wanted to avoid killing, excercising your free will as "given by god"), it would be a possibility for you to survive with no modern technology (farming techniques).
michaelb is right, animals (humans included) do not want to further their species. They want to further their genes. That's how evolution works.
I never said you were vegetarian, I was merely questioning whether, if you were a vegetarian (ie you wanted to avoid killing, excercising your free will as "given by god"), it would be a possibility for you to survive with no modern technology (farming techniques).
Do not get me wrong, I am not totally against the evolution theory just some parts of it is confusing and has not really made me a total believer in the whole process.
I am still waiting for what science discovers next on this theory.
I am not against technological advancements as such,but I still appreciate those who cannot afford technology and still use the old methods of farming.
We still use the old painless method of slaughtering animals(cows,sheep etc) for food.
Cap,michealb,
You have to explain a bit more on that, "not furthering the species but the gene"?
Basically every animal(humans too) has the desire to make sure that it has off spring and that those off spring do well. Which places your off spring at a higher level than other peoples off spring. Which is why people make sure their own children are fed and clothed but aren't going to sacrifice their own child's well fare for some one else's even if it would be a great help to someone else child but only minor injury to their child(generally there are certain exceptions but generally this is true). At the same time though you want to make sure that others in your species are around because you will need some of them later. To do that you need to either have total control over them like a lion does over his pride or you need to have an understanding with your neighbors that you won't hurt their kids if they don't hurt yours(the human approach). In short others of your kind are important but your kids(or genes) are more important.
Um. I've been out with the flu. ( A virus was using my cells to make LOTS more viruses. But my immune system prevailed, lucky for me.) I'm not sure exactly what the discussion is about (evolution? free will?), but I'll address a couple of things that seem that came up.
I agree that individuls do not work for the good of whole species. That's a misunderstanding of evolution that was taught by K-12 teachers in the 60s and 70s. It was never right. (Biologists didn't say that.) But saying that it's all driven by individual genes is wrong too. (And unfortunately, some biologists who are not evolutionary biologists do sometimes say that.) Natural selection operates on individuals and populations. Richard Dawkins was making a good point with his "Selfish Gene" book. But people shouldn't literally think that a human being (or a fish or a tree) is just a gene's way of making another gene. There's a lot more to life and evolution than that!
Also, some people here were talking earlier as if natural selection was something that could be turned on and off or wasn't operating on humans anymore--since we've reduced the death rate among children (something I'd hope we'd be glad about). You can't turn off evolution by natural selection. It's here to stay. (And you can't make our entire species dumber by "allowing" some people to breed whom you don't happen to like or who don't happen to have gone to Harvard. There are 6.6 billion of us, mostly extremely smart primates, a healthy amount of genetic diversity. As a species, we have nothing to worry about in terms of "bad genes.")
If lots of individuals of a certain type die off (lets say, all the foxes with white tails), then you get fewer of those in the next generation. Or if people with green eyes have .0002% more children than people blue eyes, then, over a long time, the green eyes will gradually increase in numbers relative to the blue eyes (all other things being equal, which they almost never are!). Even if every person had exactly the same number of children and their children had the same number of children, that doesn't mean evolution has stopped. It means that selection is selecting for sameness ("stabilizing selection"). It's "saying" "Don't change a thing."
Evolutionary theory includes the idea of "stasis," very little change over long periods of time. For example, horseshoe crabs look about the same as the ones that lived more than 300 million years ago. In other words, they've hardly changed at all in all that time because your basic horseshoe crab model is just fine and changes haven't given any of them any advantage in all that time. Which is pretty cool to think about.
Finally, evolution can happen slowly or very fast. Biologists used to think it had to be really slow, but that's not always true. In Galapagos finches, for example, changes in beak size can happen in just a few years when dry weather forces them to switch to eating different bigger or smaller seeds. In fact, the evolve back and forth--bigger beaks, smaller, bigger. You can't predict which way they'll end up. In some plants, a new species can appear in just one year. Some insects that specialize on fruits can form a whole new species just by switching from apples to pears, or some other fruit. Once they start breeding on the new fruit, they gradually become different from their ancestors still living and dying on apples....There are many different kinds of evolution.
Asking
At the same time though you want to make sure that others in your species are around because you will need some of them later. To do that you need to either have total control over them like a lion does over his pride or you need to have an understanding with your neighbors that you won't hurt their kids if they don't hurt yours(the human approach). In short others of your kind are important but your kids(or genes) are more important.
Hi MichealB. I agree. Evolution and ecology are full of examples of cooperation. E.g., vampire bats share blood meals with total strangers (other bats they aren't related to) because they know that they can count on another bat doing the same for them if they have a bad night hunting. "Tit for tat" in game theory.
One thing I wanted to say here though is that lions are not in "total control" of a pride of lionesses. If anything, the males are totally dependent on female lions to catch food, because a male lion is often too slow to catch enough to eat. On their own, males sometimes starve to death. (I have a friend who studies African lions.) A male in a pride uses his large size to push his mates and cubs off a kill so he can get something to eat. But the females do virtually all the hunting and I doubt they would put up with the male if they didn't want to. The male's job is to chase off other male lions, which will kill all his cubs and take over his (lucrative!) pride if he doesn't fight to keep his place.
Asking
Also, some people here were talking earlier as if natural selection was something that could be turned on and off or wasn't operating on humans anymore--since we've reduced the death rate among children (something I'd hope we'd be glad about). You can't turn off evolution by natural selection. It's here to stay. (And you can't make our entire species dumber by "allowing" some people to breed whom you don't happen to like or who don't happen to have gone to Harvard. There are 6.6 billion of us, mostly extremely smart primates, a healthy amount of genetic diversity. As a species, we have nothing to worry about in terms of "bad genes.")
The difference between us and horseshoe crabs is birth control. Birth control has given us a safe and easy way to prevent pregnancy. This has given an advantage to the bottom end of the bell curve by increasing the number of offspring they have and decreasing the offspring of those at the higher end of the curve. Even a 1% increase in birth rate in people at the bottom end of the bell curve could spell disaster for our species.
Just something I wonder from time to time.
Linear Mode
