Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    John Catmull's Avatar
    John Catmull Posts: 3, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Dec 3, 2008, 08:56 PM
    No Evolution
    Dear Sir,
    Any chance of finding answers to the following?

    10,000 years ago, were our insides basically the same as they are now? IE: One heart, 2 lungs, 2 kidneys, one liver etc.
    We know our brains and bodies are bigger, however, does the internal sameness extend back further and if it does, how far back does our internal sameness extend?
    Is there evidence to support that we were basically the same internally?
    160,000 years ago were the Herto hominids internally the same as present day homo saps?
    120,000,000 years has been bandied about by some experts as the time when humans began. Divide 120M by 10K and you have, 12,000 opportunities for an evolutionary change.
    IF a change can occur in 10,000 years.
    I have a almost more bones, muscles, cells, molecules, sub-systems, atoms, quanta, etc. than 12,000.
    True, some of the changes would have occurred concurrently, but still, there hasn't been enough time for evolution. If we began looking like people around 5,000,000 years ago, there's only 500 chances for change. Not enough time.

    Kind Regards,
    John
    FlyYakker's Avatar
    FlyYakker Posts: 378, Reputation: 41
    Full Member
     
    #2

    Dec 3, 2008, 09:25 PM

    I'm not at all sure what you are really asking, but... Partial answer: Cro-Magnon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Admittedly "Wiki" is not the final authority, but it's a place to start and there are references.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #3

    Dec 4, 2008, 07:37 AM

    I think it's pretty certain that people who lived 10,000 years ago were virtually identical anatomically to modern humans. And we really are no more intelligent than they were - same brain power in other words. Of course we have advantages of technology, medical care, and better nutrition.

    Same is most likely true of homosapiens going back several hundred thousand years, including Cro Magnon (who were the earliest "modern humans" in Europe).

    However, there are certainly major differences between humans and earlier hominids - Australopithecus, etc. or with neanderthals.

    I've never seen anyone claim that humans have been around for 120 million years - that's off by a factor of 100 at least. The dinosaurs have been extinct for "only" '65 million years, and at that time there were only a few relatively small mammals. It would be millions of years before humans appeared.

    Please clarify your last statement, regarding "500 chances for change" in 5,000,000 years - what does that mean?
    John Catmull's Avatar
    John Catmull Posts: 3, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #4

    Dec 10, 2008, 08:33 PM
    ebaines & FlyYakker & anyone else.
    Pale
    Johns answer to answers

    Re no evolution. What I was trying to say was, think of the appendix hanging there off the colon on the right side. Did it just appear? Was there a need for it? If so how did the body know it would be useful? In just that position where it could sometimes catch the odd bit of food that would definitely NOT be useful because it would start an infection.
    Whether it appeared quickly or slowly how was it's function, to lubricate the colon, ‘known’?
    So much for the simple little appendix.
    Let’s have a look at the eyeball. What came first? The lens or the cones and cylinders at the rear of the eyeball? Which ever came first, they were definitely not useful then, without the whole system. Cones and cylinders would not function without various frequencies coming in. When the cones, cylinders arrived, how was it decided which would react to what frequency, without the light getting in? OK. So the lens came first. Why was it kept? There was no use for it.
    Anyway, was it the correct shape for focusing, right from the start?
    OK. Say the whole ball arrived, intact, by magic. It just sits there. Can’t move. The six muscles haven’t yet arrived. Did just one muscle arrive and it was realized, somewhere, that 5 more would be handy?
    Evolution implies a purpose when there may be none.
    Evolutionary changes appear to be a series of accidents. How could parts of the inside of a bod know before that if it, for example, ate grains [10,000 years ago ] it's blood type would change from ‘O’ type to ‘A’ type and know that it would be a positive change? Was it a positive change?
    What was the advantage of ‘A’ over ‘O’? How many negative changes occurred before the positive change.
    I don't know - do you?
    John
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #5

    Dec 11, 2008, 02:33 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by John Catmull View Post
    What I was trying to say was, think of the appendix hanging there off the colon on the right side. Did it just appear? Was there a need for it?
    The appendix was there 10,000 years ago. I would have to look this up, but I'm reasonably sure the appendix is considered a "vestigial" organ. It has basically atrophied. Other animals have a larger version of this organ that harbors bacteria that aid in digesting things like grass.

    If so how did the body know it would be useful?
    The body does not "know" if something will be useful. Something is either useful, or it is not. Neither the body, nor the cells of the body have any capacity to look into the future. (I'm not being snarky here. Just straight talk.)

    In just that position where it could sometimes catch the odd bit of food that would definitely NOT be useful because it would start an infection.
    Yes. It is unfortunate for us that it can become infected. So can other things like ears, sinuses, etc. One major reason is that modern humans do not eat enough fiber. We evolved to eat much more. So we are adapted to a high fiber diet. Similarly, cows are adapted to eating grass and tend to become ill when they eat a high protein diet of grains only.

    Whether it appeared quickly or slowly how was it's function, to lubricate the colon, 'known'?
    I'm not aware of this idea. I don't think it lubricates the colon, but I don't know everything about this.

    Let's have a look at the eyeball. What came first? The lens or the cones and cylinders at the rear of the eyeball? Which ever came first, they were definitely not useful then, without the whole system. Cones and cylinders would not function without various frequencies coming in. When the cones, cylinders arrived, how was it decided which would react to what frequency, without the light getting in? OK. So the lens came first. Why was it kept? There was no use for it.
    Anyway, was it the correct shape for focusing, right from the start?
    OK. Say the whole ball arrived, intact, by magic. It just sits there. Can't move. The six muscles haven't yet arrived. Did just one muscle arrive and it was realized, somewhere, that 5 more would be handy?
    This is more questions than I can answer now. But basically, the eye has evolved over millions of years in lots of different organisms. Lots of very simple organisms possess cells that are sensitive to light, changes in light, different wavelengths, movement, etc. Once you have that, you can aim these light sensing cells by putting them in a slight pit. Then a simple lens may focus light onto the light sensing cells. A lens doesn't have to cast a perfect image in order to be useful. It just has to get more light onto the light sensitive cells. From there you can evolve sensitivity to different wavelengths of light and lenses that operate differently. Or you can evolve multiple lenses like flies have. So many ways to build a functional eye. We happened to end up with camera eyes.

    Evolution implies a purpose when there may be none.
    No. This is incorrect. Evolution is not purposeful.

    Evolutionary changes appear to be a series of accidents. How could parts of the inside of a bod know before that if it, for example, ate grains [10,000 years ago ] it's blood type would change from 'O' type to 'A' type and know that it would be a positive change? Was it a positive change?
    The body does not know ahead of time. The species does not know ahead of time. I am not aware that eating grains caused a change in blood type. But speaking more generally, a population of organisms exists. Let's say they run out of fruit, or they move away from where the fruit grows and can't go back. Whatever, they must now eat grains even though they are adapted to eating fruit. Many will become sick and die from disease from this diet to which they are not adapted. Sometimes the population will simply go extinct. But let's say it doesn't. Instead, a few of them are less sick because they have a gene variant that allows them to deal with grain a bit better than others in their group. So out of 50 couples, 20 die leaving no children, 20 die and leave one child, and 10 die and leave several. In the next generation, the 10 couples are over represented and their useful gene is now more common.

    That's selection. Selection mean those who can't cope with a new situation have fewer offspring than those who can.

    Evolution can go backward, too. In the next generation, all those kids decide to go back where the fruit grows. They migrate, eat better and the ones with the gene that helps deal with grain no longer have any advantage. So in the NEXT generation, they have no advantage and maybe even a disadvantage. The gene hangs around maybe and doesn't disappear. It's there if it's ever needed, but not so common. We have thousands of gene variants--like toolboxes full of tools that we don't know the use for until we suddenly need it and figure out how to use it.


    What was the advantage of 'A' over 'O'? How many negative changes occurred before the positive change.
    I can't tell you the adaptive value of A and O. Have you tried looking it up? But, remember, they are BOTH still around. So it's not like one is good, one bad.

    I don't know - do you?
    John
    I've told you as much as I can off the top of my head. Are you curious? Or are you a creationist trolling? If you are genuinely interested, look up "adaptive value" of A and O blood types.
    John Catmull's Avatar
    John Catmull Posts: 3, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #6

    Dec 14, 2008, 08:26 PM
    Biology Expert, Definitely NOT a creationist. Thanks for your info.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #7

    Dec 14, 2008, 11:55 PM

    You are welcome! No offense intended. And apologies if any taken. Can't always tell when people have huge numbers of questions that tend in a certain direction. Why do you come to want to know the answers to all these questions? They are interesting.

    This is a recent Scientific American article about blood types. I have not read it but assume it's accurate.

    Why do people have different blood types?: Scientific American
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #8

    Dec 15, 2008, 02:32 PM

    Regarding the question about the evolution of eyes - see:

    Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Many creationists try to use the argument that the eye is "irreducibly complex," and so must have sprung forth fully in tact, presumably by a divine creator. What this ignores is that the full range of complexity of eye structures and capability is evident in the fossil record (from simple light sensors to complex organs as in higher order animals today), and that this full range of complexity is evident in organisms today - which disproves the notion of irreducible complexity as it applies to eyes.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #9

    Dec 15, 2008, 03:29 PM

    Oh, nice! I hadn't seen that. I'll try to remember this when it comes up again.

    I wonder if anything can really be said to be "irreducibly complex." I can imagine things being irreducibly simple--say a seesaw or a simple screw mechanism. But is there anything whose parts could serve no purpose or function except altogether and in one arrangement?
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #10

    Dec 15, 2008, 03:45 PM

    There are very few things that are truly irreducibly complex. A seesaw is built from the components of a lever and center support,and both of these elements could have existed before the see-saw was envisioned. A screw mechanism shares the elements of a shaft and head from a nail, and the grooves are basically a ramp etched on the sides of the shaft. If these were biological elements - you can imagine that the
    "genes" for the screw mechanism could evolve from the combination of nail and ramp "proteins" to form a totally new mechanism.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #11

    Dec 15, 2008, 04:46 PM

    I agree. So I'm wondering is anything irreducibly complex?

    You say "very few things." Are you just being careful? Or can you think of a real object that you would accept as fitting that description? I can't. That doesn't mean there isn't one! I'm just wondering if the idea itself is as much of a problem as applying it to certain situations.
    Just17117's Avatar
    Just17117 Posts: 3, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #12

    Jun 21, 2010, 07:01 AM

    John

    I think some African tribes have taught us that evolution is a very flawed faith.

    No matter how much women may stretch their necks with rings, their children are not born with longer necks, or longer ears from wood rimgs in their lobes.

    Was it chinese or Japenese woment hat deformed their feet into tiny shoes? Has that made a difference?

    Most intelligent people like to simplify things down to a point that they can understand, e.g "Aaaa the eye was just a light sensitive cell" and so they fall into a very big pit of over-simplification.

    I know a few things about the human eye, and simple is one things it is not.

    Most people will remain comfortable that it was just 2 cells that developed identically while all others chose not to develop at all.

    Or that things all started to fall into place, a pupil, eye lids, lense, cornea, retina, nerves, muscles, skin, gel, millions of connections to the brain, binocular effect, color, etc.

    Science used to believe the universe did not have a beginning as it was simply impossible to believe it couse just happen.

    But when science proved the universe really did have a beginning, intelligent people found it easy to over-simplify and brush the beginning off as a simple big bang with no further discussion.

    I hate religion and I see evolution as a 200 year old religion with very very little to do with science.

    Evolution is to science what religion is to the bible.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #13

    Jun 21, 2010, 07:23 AM

    Why do you hate religion, Just17?

    Also, you are confusing some different ideas. The idea that deforming the body could lead to permanent change is a mechanism for evolution. This mechanism is commonly attributed to the French biologist Lamarck, who worked before Darwin. Darwin and Lamarck both hypothesized that species evolve, or change. Lamarck proposed a mechanism like the one you have debunked and Darwin proposed a quite different mechanism, called natural selection.

    For the most part, no one has believed in Lamarckian evolution for 100 years or so. So while it's great that you can see it wouldn't work, your argument doesn't say much about either (1) evolution and whether species have evolved and (2) the many mechanisms by which change occurs over long spans of time.

    Simply invoking, to paraphrase you, "I know what I know and I know the eye is not simple" is not a scientific argument. I could equally well say, "I know what I know, and it's not possible to fly to the moon." Well, I'd be essentially wrong.

    Whether evolution happened (and continues to happen) is a different question from HOW it happened--a mechanism.

    Biological evolution has very little to do with chemistry or physics, but understanding it is fundamental to understanding biology. In fact, I'd venture to say that if the pharmaceutical industry employed more organismal biologists (ecologists and evolutionary biologists) and 5% fewer chemists, they'd have more truly novel products in their drug development pipeline.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #14

    Jun 21, 2010, 07:36 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Just17117 View Post
    I think some African tribes have taught us that evolution is a very flawed faith.

    No matter how much women may stretch their necks with rings, their children are not born with longer necks, or longer ears from wood rimgs in their lobes.

    Was it chinese or Japenese woment hat deformed their feet into tiny shoes? Has that made a difference?
    I do not understand why you mention practices such as neck stretching or foot binding. One's DNA is not affected by actions that may be performed on the physical body, such as stretching the neck or binding the feet. If you lose a finger in an accident it does not cause your children to have one less finger! So how does this have any bearing on evolutionary processes?

    Quote Originally Posted by Just17117 View Post
    Evolution is to science what religion is to the bible.
    No. Evolution is a working theory that fits the observed facts of nature better than other explanations. If someone can provide a better explanation that fits observations in a better way, then that new theory will gain aceptance in the scientific community. Just in the past 50 years there have been hugely significant shifts in theory across many different fields - not just in cosmology as you mention, but also paleontology (the asteroid theory of dinosaur extinction), geology (plate tectonics), and atomic physics (quarks), to name a few. All of these theories were initially dismissed as being too fantastic, but as more evidence came to light they eventually became accepted. Clearly science is different than religion.
    Just17117's Avatar
    Just17117 Posts: 3, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #15

    Jun 21, 2010, 02:24 PM

    I will address all the questions later.

    I just wanted to jump in and clear the very last sentence up first.

    "Clearly science is different than religion."

    Yes it is.

    However you did not read what I said, or you are trying to twist the comment.

    I said Evolution is like Religion, I did not say Science is like Religion.

    I said, evolution is to science what religion is to the Bible.

    Evolutionists claim to follow science like religions claim to follow the Bible.

    Neither of them do as they claim, both of them are scams.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,129, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #16

    Jun 21, 2010, 02:40 PM

    I stand corrected - I had no intention of twisting your words. I should have written "clearly evolution is different than religion."

    This is a science forum, so there's no point in debating in this forum whether religions follow the bible or not. But as for your assertion that evolutionists do not follow the scientific method - please clarify.
    asking's Avatar
    asking Posts: 2,673, Reputation: 660
    Ultra Member
     
    #17

    Jun 21, 2010, 03:18 PM

    Evolutionary biology is a science in the same sense that genetics and geology are, but if there are specific reasons you have been led to believe it is different from other sciences, do expand on that. Do you include all of biology in that assessment?
    Just17117's Avatar
    Just17117 Posts: 3, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #18

    Jun 21, 2010, 09:32 PM

    Goodness me, I just noticed I opened a two year old discussion. I did not consider looking at the date of the discussion, I just assumed that as it was high on the discussion list it was recent.

    John probably doesn't even visit here any more.

    Sorry if I dragged up a discussion no one cares about.

    I also did not mean to bring the bible into it, it is just that if you do not believe in evolution you are labeled a creationist or religious nut and so I was just pre-empting what usually comes up in the discussion.

    BUT if you guys are interested: I consider Evolutionary biology to be a Pseudo Science and very different to Biology.

    Gore's Inconvenient Scam is also placed into the same box as far as I am concerned.

    There are very intelligent people on both sides of the discussion and there are hundreds of theories trying to fit the evolution faith into science.

    There is no way I can discuss the matter with either side as I am not smart enough.

    I am lazy, I like to sit back and make my judgement AFTER the scientists have come up with a fact they all agree on.

    Until that time, it is a simple matter of faith and choosing what side I would like to be on until a fact is decided on.

    To take sides is to go ahead of science.

    I weigh heavilly on the creation side do to the fact that there are ancient writings that modern science cannot prove wrong.

    To weigh on the side of evolution which has always been proven wrong time after time over the past 300 years is, to me anyway, a huge leap pf faith.

    I do not mind people choosing a side, but it is rather dishonest if they choose the side of evolution and say it is not a leap of faith.

    It is a far greater leap of faith for the very reason that there are no ancient writings that cannot be proved wrong but simply the simple sentence, "Evolution must be right"

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Evolution [ 9 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Why teach evolution? [ 31 Answers ]

I think Olivia Judson makes a really good case for why evolutionary theory should be taught in public school science curricula. What do you think? NOTE: I'm posting this in Biology instead of Religious Discussions for a reason. If you have a religious point to make on this topic, please...

Evolution anyone? [ 63 Answers ]

I have read bits and pieces on evolution and its theories. If someone could simplify it and tell me in a way the average person understands I would be grateful.:) Also how much of it has been proven without doubt and how much remains to be researched? Also if you could give examples of...

Evolution FAQs [ 6 Answers ]

I found a great web page that lists many of the questions people here ask about evolution. National Academy of Science Evolution FAQs from the National Academy book Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Science, Evolution, and Creationism Aren’t evolution and religion opposing ideas? ...

Evolution [ 2 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...


View more questions Search