695 replies to this topic

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 11 September 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

I was with you up until the last few sentences... Then you crossed the line into my field. Bring it on. What's so "crappy" about evolutionary biology? (I'll redirect you to the thread "Evolution... really?" in Spirituality .vs. Skepticism: http://www.unexplain...opic=232905&hl=)

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

[The_Spartan]

Harsh,

Is there any evidence for 'devolution"??

[Harsh86_Patel]

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

[docyabut2]

There are a few stone age settlements found under the waters before the sea levels rose.but not thing I would say was a great or a advanced civilization.



http://www.livescien...sh-channel.html

Edited by docyabut2, 11 September 2012 - 02:45 PM.

[Abramelin]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 September 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 September 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

Cremo himself:

As I have mentioned in several of my works, I am a kind of creationist, a kind of anti-evolutionist, but a rare one—some have called me a Hindu creationist, others a Vedic creationist, still others a Krishna creationist. I accept all of these designations. My work as an historian is indeed influenced by the historical texts of ancient Indian, the Puranas, which tell of a human presence on this planet going back hundreds of millions of years, to the very beginnings of the earth’s history.

http://www.mcremo.com/rutot.html

[docyabut2]

Cremo is a joke:)

[Swede]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 September 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

As is apparent from your own contributions, you have been sadly influenced by the long-ago discredited Michael Cremo.

To address just one of your above "points" - The evolutionary development of the "eye" has taken many forms.

You may wish to peruse the following paper:

http://wwworm.biolog...4/gehring02.pdf

.

[kmt_sesh]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 September 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

It's already been pointed out by several other posters why no one ought to take Cremo seriously. Real-world, legitimate historical and scientific research will point you in the proper direction.

For instance: decrease in longevity? No. The average person in the Bronze Age lived to be around 35 years old. And this is if you were lucky enough to survive childhood. At least 30% of all children did not reach five years of age, and infant mortality was frightening (probably around 20% of all pregnancies ended in spontaneous miscarriage). This is why, all over the Mediterranean world, girls were often married off as soon as they experienced their first menstruation—this means girls as young as twelve were often married, and having babies within a year's time. They would continue to have babies their entire lives because they well knew many of their children would not live.

Decrease in physical strength? How exactly is such a thing measured? How can one prove this? It's too subjective to be taken seriously, but consider that the average man 3,000 years ago rarely grew taller than about 5'3"; for women an average height was around 4'10". These ancients were not big, intimidating people. What they accomplished was certainly impressive, but one has to balance such things with real-world evidence.

Descent from spiritualism to materialism? Here I cannot argue with you. However, it has little to no effect on the development or evolution of mankind. There's both good and bad in religion, as there is in all things. Religion has often been used as a blunt weapon to keep people in their places. I should think we all prefer the way things are today to the days when the Catholic Church ruled all of Europe and stymied intellectual and scientific pursuits for centuries. I'm actually not trying to demean Catholicism (I was raised Roman Catholic and do not consider myself an atheist). I am only stating a fact.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 September 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

Since you are a evolutionary biologist i would like to pose a question to you ........how did the human eye including the optic nerve and the vision interpreting section of the brain evolve,also how did the complex endocrine system involve.............where are the intermediate phases( or can there be any according to natural selectrion and survival of the fittest)..............and please don't give me the spontaneous evolution crap as then you might as well be a creationist..

The "camera" eye, which is present in all mammals, reptiles, and birds, is the product of a long chain of intermediate forms. For instance, the beginning of the chain was most probably something along the lines of a simple compound of photosensitive cells; the next stage would have involved the patch of cells enlarging, and forming a concave indentation, which would allow for better perception of the angle of light and colour; the next stages would involve the deepening and advancement of this concave hollow of cells; at some point, a mucus or otherwise semi-fluid substance would have eventually filled this concave area, allowing for greater clarity still. It's all a very long and complex process, and it's a bit difficult to describe in lay terms. The following video gives a visual example, so it might be easier to understand:

[Arbitran]

The_Spartan, on 11 September 2012 - 01:21 PM, said:

Harsh,

Is there any evidence for 'devolution"??

Well, to be frank, "devolution" is really the same as evolution. Whether features are developing or receding, it's all evolution.

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 11 September 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Decrease in the longevity of humans,decrease in physical strength, can be taken as few examples of devolution also descent from a spiritual to a materialistic existence can probably also be termed as devolution (as suggested by cremo).

Decrease is physical strength is very easily explained when one notes that in civilized countries, one no longer has to walk everywhere or haul heavy loads on a daily basis, as our ancestors did. As for an alleged decrease in longevity, the opposite is in fact correct; the average human lifespan through history has been 30-40 years. Modern hygiene, agriculture, and medicine have ensured that we live much longer today than in times past.

[DieChecker]

Arbitran, on 12 September 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Decrease is physical strength is very easily explained when one notes that in civilized countries, one no longer has to walk everywhere or haul heavy loads on a daily basis, as our ancestors did. As for an alleged decrease in longevity, the opposite is in fact correct; the average human lifespan through history has been 30-40 years. Modern hygiene, agriculture, and medicine have ensured that we live much longer today than in times past.

I agree.

I'd add that there is no point in human history where we were physically weaker, but otherwise the same as we are now. Thus it is not de-evolution to a more ancient form, but evolution (or perhaps unintentional genetic selection, much like domestication) that is due to our use of technology. It takes more energy to be stronger, so if we don't need the strength due to technology the weaker form will actually be the more efficient and likely to survive.

Same with bad eyesight. There is no time in the ancient past were humans all had bad eyesight, so the fact more and more humans have bad eyesight is a result of our use of technology (Specifically eyeglasses) that compensate, so that good eyesight is not necessary. And thus bad eyesight cesses to be a negative trait and continues to be passed on.

[Arbitran]

Abramelin, on 11 September 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Cremo himself:

As I have mentioned in several of my works, I am a kind of creationist, a kind of anti-evolutionist, but a rare one—some have called me a Hindu creationist, others a Vedic creationist, still others a Krishna creationist. I accept all of these designations. My work as an historian is indeed influenced by the historical texts of ancient Indian, the Puranas, which tell of a human presence on this planet going back hundreds of millions of years, to the very beginnings of the earth’s history.

http://www.mcremo.com/rutot.html

To be fair, as a Hindu myself, I can say that Cremo is a bit of a nut... I mean, human presence going back hundreds of millions of years in the Puranas? Hogwash. His interpretations are very, very radical. Fortunately most of us are more sensible. Granted, some people don't much care for hearing us talk about the devas, asuras, etc. as extraterrestrials, but either way... They may or may not exist, and I don't claim to know for sure whether or not they do. The texts are very intriguing, and, if true, incredible awe-inspiring and groundbreaking. The most plausible alternative explanation (and a perfectly valid one) is that the texts are a sort of ancient "science fiction". Which is possible. I will note that the culture which is capable of writing science fiction must have reasonably-sophisticated science, but I'll let that wait for another time...

Edited by Arbitran, 12 September 2012 - 07:57 AM.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Swede, on 12 September 2012 - 12:32 AM, said:

As is apparent from your own contributions, you have been sadly influenced by the long-ago discredited Michael Cremo.

To address just one of your above "points" - The evolutionary development of the "eye" has taken many forms.

You may wish to peruse the following paper:

http://wwworm.biolog...4/gehring02.pdf

.

Sadly this paper is not helpful at all to my query since it is a study of the existing genes which control the development of various eye types,what i am talking about is the gradual evolution of  this gene in the first place.Showing how a certain thing works is not always a testament on how it has biologically evolved.I am aware that there are various eye types in nature but what i am questioning is how do you explain the gradual evolution of the first eye type (or the proto eye) or the gene for the same.Variations and selective expression and addition and substraction of nucleotide sequences through mutation and natural selection are possible only after a prototype is evolved.
Explainig the gradual evolution of the eye is one of the biggest debacle experienced by most 'evolutionists' and hence they had to come up with the concept of spontaneous evolution.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 12 September 2012 - 03:01 AM, said:

Decrease is physical strength is very easily explained when one notes that in civilized countries, one no longer has to walk everywhere or haul heavy loads on a daily basis, as our ancestors did. As for an alleged decrease in longevity, the opposite is in fact correct; the average human lifespan through history has been 30-40 years. Modern hygiene, agriculture, and medicine have ensured that we live much longer today than in times past.

Still could be something that you could consider as physical devolution.Since i was asked for a proof which one could relate to hence i brought it up.When i talk of longevity i am not talking about death brought about by external factors directly.You are assuming that hygeine and medicine are modern concepts.