12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVery large groups. The earliest examples of "writing" that have been found are trade records, and the need to record trade was probably the driving force.
therefore are you saying that for hundreds of thousands of years humans had the capacity to write things down, but rather chose not to or had no necessity to?, anyone else buy this? and actually i do not think that your argument is very strong, for we are gregarious by nature and taking the time speculated upon, large groups would have readily existed, for how many would you need? next try please!
So we're talking large towns here. Which means you need agriculture. For a long time humans were essentially nomadic. Agriculture only developed over the last 10,000 years.
Until that happened - we had the capacity, but there was nothing to drive people to invent writtten language. So there was no "choose". How can you choose to do or not do something you've never come across?
Not that this has much to do with evolution, of course.
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou use the word 'design', but put it within 'quotation marks', so I let it pass. But remember that any argument implying an intelligent designer, I will dismiss totally. I have the right to do so, because we are in the Science Forum.
yes but one must also understand that DNA is 'designed', to resist these random changes! for as it has been stated elsewhere in the spirituality forum for example, enzymes are produced to continually repair any genetic damage and in the case of significant damage to DNA molecules there is induced an emergency response in which increased quantities of ...[text shortened]... nearly as complex as a living organism, and randomly poke around inside with a soldering iron.
Yes, DNA doesn't change too much, because if it does, the individual cannot survvive at all. DNA is robust, but not to 100%. Reapirs are done on a regular basis, but there are differences between individuals within the same population as well of differences between parents and children in the DNA. Without this any specie would be vulnerable to changes in its environment.
If you poke around within your computer with a screwdriver, we're not talking biology, and therefore not evolution. It's not a functional experiment. Let's stay on topic.
May I have a confirmation that you are with me this far?
12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by mtthwok, so it is now established that humans had the capacity for an unspecified and undetermined period of time, and there was simply no necessity to exercise this capacity. i can dig that.
Very large groups. The earliest examples of "writing" that have been found are trade records, and the need to record trade was probably the driving force.
So we're talking large towns here. Which means you need agriculture. For a long time humans were essentially nomadic. Agriculture only developed over the last 10,000 years.
Until that happened - thing you've never come across?
Not that this has much to do with evolution, of course.
12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasbeam me up captain! i am with you.
You use the word 'design', but put it within 'quotation marks', so I let it pass. But remember that any argument implying an intelligent designer, I will dismiss totally. I have the right to do so, because we are in the Science Forum.
Yes, DNA doesn't change too much, because if it does, the individual cannot survvive at all. DNA is robust, but not to riment. Let's stay on topic.
May I have a confirmation that you are with me this far?
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAlright, we have agreed on this so far:
beam me up captain! i am with you.
(1) Every individual in the same specie has not identical DNA.
(2) DNA changes from generation to generation. Very slightly, not in any way sudden big jumps.
Right?
Let's say that one population is divided in two sub-populations. They have no genetical contact with eachother. This happens in nature now and then. A flock of animals migrates from one island to another, is an example. So right after the split the two populations are fairly the same, and the two populations live in separate habitats.
What will happen if the environment differs from the two locations? Slowly, like tens or even hundreds of thousands of years, to make a noticable difference? Will the two populations still be fairly the same genetically?
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasno i would imagine that there shall be variations. (sorry for delay i was pre occupied with fixing something)
Alright, we have agreed on this so far:
(1) Every individual in the same specie has not identical DNA.
(2) DNA changes from generation to generation. Very slightly, not in any way sudden big jumps.
Right?
Let's say that one population is divided in two sub-populations. They have no genetical contact with eachother. This happens in nature now and the ...[text shortened]... to make a noticable difference? Will the two populations still be fairly the same genetically?
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCan you in the same manner imagine that over time the variations are going to be larger and larger? And over an sufficiently long time span the species in one population would change so much that we can, with our eyes, differ them apart?
no i would imagine that there shall be variations. (sorry for delay i was pre occupied with fixing something)
(No problems with delays, as long it is not a reason to avoid the discussion altogether.)
12 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasif what you are referring to is such a total metamorphosis so as to be unrecognisable, that i doubt that it is probable for the reasons stated previously, not to mention the destructive nature of mutations. Although if i use my imagination i could verily imagine almost anything. However what you say has credence, for we are able to determine that there is diversity among species, even among humans, thus we have the tall men and pygmies.
Can you in the same manner imagine that over time the variations are going to be larger and larger? And over an sufficiently long time span the species in one population would change so much that we can, with our eyes, differ them apart?
(No problems with delays, as long it is not a reason to avoid the discussion altogether.)
12 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo no, not any total metamorphosis. Definitly not making a rat out of an elephant. this is not a part of what's really happen in the nature. We are not talking about any destructive mutations either. They will just be gone and disappear. We are talking about qualities, not even bad or good qualities, but just changes in qualities. Nothing more.
if what you are referring to is such a total metamorphosis so as to be unrecognisable, that i doubt that it is probable for the reasons stated previously, not to mention the destructive nature of mutations. Although if i use my imagination i could verily imagine almost anything. However what you say has credence, for we are able to determine that there is diversity among species, even among humans, thus we have the tall men and pygmies.
You're talking about pygmies and tall men. I'm not ready to go into specifics yet, I'm talking generalities.
So changes over time is okay with you? Two populations that are isolated over long time periods are changing independantly?
I think we have a good discussion now. With mutual respect for eachother. No name calling, no knives in backs. I like it, do you like it?
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasactually its kind of weird, this civility, normally we creationists are subject to all manner of abuse, as you are aware and develop a siege mentality, even now i am waiting for the portcullis to drop , the draw bridge to shudder close and the cannonballs to start flying! but yes, its a pleasant surprise, however i draw no conclusions as such, for evaluations take time and reflection, although it is a surprise for me to learn that you term this process, 'evolution', for what we are observing is not 'evolution', as i have understood your belief to be, but simply diversity. it seems to me that you are 'interpreting', this process as being one and the same as 'evolution', even as Darwin did with his famous finches.
No no, not any total metamorphosis. Definitly not making a rat out of an elephant. this is not a part of what's really happen in the nature. We are not talking about any destructive mutations either. They will just be gone and disappear. We are talking about qualities, not even bad or good qualities, but just changes in qualities. Nothing more.
You're ...[text shortened]... utual respect for eachother. No name calling, no knives in backs. I like it, do you like it?
12 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, the evolution part comes later. What this is all about is that species actually can change over time. Spontaneously. With no cause, nor direction. Brown cows will have white spots, rabbits can be a bit larger, human can have blue eyes or can develope ability to eat some food that the other population cannot, and so on. But still no evolution a la Darwin.
actually its kind of weird, this civility, normally we creationists are subject to all manner of abuse, as you are aware and develop a siege mentality, even now i am waiting for the portcullis to drop , the draw bridge to shudder close and the cannonballs to start flying! but yes, its a pleasant surprise, however i draw no conclusions as such, for ev ...[text shortened]... ss as being one and the same as 'evolution', even as Darwin did with his famous finches.
I'm not here to persuade you out of creationism. Just to show that (*what I'm talking about*) is plausible. A theory that actually can be considered as a thought experiment.
If you want to, you can in an equal method give me a lesson in Intelligent Design. With mutual respect, of course. You like?