Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Still Waters

13-Million-year-old ape skull discovered

31 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

8 hours ago, Trenix said:

I don't believe mutation is responsible for evolution whatsoever, if the theory is right that is. Adaptation is way more believable. I mean mutations are rare, they are usually not beneficial, you then have to rely on having that animal reproduce with that rare mutation, and you then have to hope that animal wouldn't die before it reproduces, you than have to hope it passes down to the offspring, I mean just so much probability that it just ridiculous.

 And what do you suppose causes the adaptation?  (Hint: It's the thing you don't believe in.)  You are correct about one thing.  Mutations are usually not beneficial (or harmful).  Those few that are harmful tend to not get passed along.  Those that are beneficial do tend to get passed along, because the individuals with the beneficial mutation tend to have better than average reproductive success.  BTW, mutations (random errors in DNA) are not really rare.  Every organism has them.  Even you.  Fortunately, most don't have any impact at all.  And speaking of probability, it's not ridiculous.  If you cared to work out the math, you'd see that it's not only plausible, but necessarily forced by the laws of probability.  Scientists can and do measure rates of random mutations.

At this point, all I can do is recommend reading up on the subject.  "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a great starting point that any reasonably intelligent lay person could understand.     

Edited by MisterMan
spelling
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Posted (edited)

15 hours ago, MisterMan said:

 And what do you suppose causes the adaptation?  (Hint: It's the thing you don't believe in.)  You are correct about one thing.  Mutations are usually not beneficial (or harmful).  Those few that are harmful tend to not get passed along.  Those that are beneficial do tend to get passed along, because the individuals with the beneficial mutation tend to have better than average reproductive success.  BTW, mutations (random errors in DNA) are not really rare.  Every organism has them.  Even you.  Fortunately, most don't have any impact at all.  And speaking of probability, it's not ridiculous.  If you cared to work out the math, you'd see that it's not only plausible, but necessarily forced by the laws of probability.  Scientists can and do measure rates of random mutations.

At this point, all I can do is recommend reading up on the subject.  "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a great starting point that any reasonably intelligent lay person could understand.     

Evolution through adaptation is believable. But evolution doesn't just end there, it takes in mutation, which is random rather than intentional. This excepts the idea of change of kind which there is no evidence of. This is why I say I believe in adaptation over evolution. I don't believe we evolve through randomness whatsoever. Both mutations, good or bad, can be both dominant or recessive. So you would think that a good mutation would be a dominant gene to further improve the organism, but that's not always true. An organism will adapt to it's environment, that's proven, and nothing is random about it. As for mutations being common, yeah you're right they are common. But most are insignificant, even with years and years, they will be replaced and will remain insignificant. I also believe that some people give mutation the credit for adaptation. When someone develops an immunity, that's not random, it was intentional. Mutation to me is an error, while adaptation is an intentional change by the organism.

I'm not saying I'm right with the way I think, but that's what I believe by doing my own research. Animals adapt, but they don't change entirely.

Edited by Trenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Mutations are random.  The survivability of each mutation is not random.  Gradual, cumulative change, through the buildup of mutations (selected naturally by survival (non-death) at each stage) make evolution happen. 

Please read a book.  You really should understand what the theory actually says before you attempt to argue against it.

 

Edited by MisterMan
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/12/2017 at 11:53 AM, MisterMan said:

I weep for the future.

Why? Because we choose to actually question "academia" vs blindly accepting everything "scientists" have to say about something. They have nothing to go on but this Thing happens to be a hominid so it MUST fit into our family tree? EVERY time an ancient hominid's remains are discovered (particularly in Africa) the initial claim is invariably "another human ancestor has been discovered" which for instance, Homoheidelbragensis was initially thought to be our ancestor but it took decades for them to retract that and settle on HHB being an example of independent evolution and only in later generations was it considered even a possibility that it cross-bred with human ancestors, and those progeny were not fertile anyway, like a mule for example. Not saying it is NOT an ancestor of ours but they'll have e to produce more evidence to convince me of their claims. So this brings me to another point. If HHB was very (and I mean VERY) close to modern man yet it doesn't find anywhere in OUR family tree, then where is HHB's ancestors? No links at all in that chain, which is perplexing. Makes one wonder if many of the remains that have been attributed to our lineage perhaps actually belong to HHB's. Just provoking thought here. No need to get nasty folks. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to get into the psychology of evolution consider for a moment that these species, kingdoms and etc. are all groups determined and named by humans. DNA doesn't have a kingdom segment, a phylum segment, a class segment and etc. This is human-determined nomenclature. A given specimen resembles to a group of human eyes another specimen and is placed into a family/genus based on the speculation and perspective of a group of people. There is no solid basis for this, and in fact these categorizations are subject to change depending on changes in the prevailing opinion. (Kingdom Monera comes to mind.) At the end of the day, we have a classification system based primarily on subjective resemblance and not on any concrete, unassailable data point. We now call what would have been sub-species from the perspective of Linnaeus distinct species, which enables us to trace the evolution of species of finch that are all still finches. Yet to engage in the same logic regarding humans would be sacrilege. Imagine labeling modern humans as homo sapiens negroides, homo sapiens mongoloides, homo sapiens caucasoides and etc. It would be preposterous, and yet to declare just as slight variations in other creatures as evidence of speciation is perfectly fine.

There is a cognitive dissonance in evolution, a supposition of incontrovertibility that is only defensible through circular reasoning.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/8/2017 at 3:33 AM, brizink said:

Why? Because we choose to actually question "academia" vs blindly accepting everything "scientists" have to say about something. They have nothing to go on but this Thing happens to be a hominid so it MUST fit into our family tree? EVERY time an ancient hominid's remains are discovered (particularly in Africa) the initial claim is invariably "another human ancestor has been discovered" which for instance, Homoheidelbragensis was initially thought to be our ancestor but it took decades for them to retract that and settle on HHB being an example of independent evolution and only in later generations was it considered even a possibility that it cross-bred with human ancestors, and those progeny were not fertile anyway, like a mule for example. Not saying it is NOT an ancestor of ours but they'll have e to produce more evidence to convince me of their claims. So this brings me to another point. If HHB was very (and I mean VERY) close to modern man yet it doesn't find anywhere in OUR family tree, then where is HHB's ancestors? No links at all in that chain, which is perplexing. Makes one wonder if many of the remains that have been attributed to our lineage perhaps actually belong to HHB's. Just provoking thought here. No need to get nasty folks. 

No, it's because you are uneducated on this specific topic and unwilling to learn. 

Further, you assume that your opinion has the same weight as 150 years of scientific research.

You have your preconception and, based on the exchanges on this forum, you have no intention nor interest in challenging it. 

That is close-mindeness (at best). 

 

That's why I guess he weeps. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.