Illogicallylogical

Evolving against better judgement

Recommended Posts

is it possible that we are the only specie on the planet that contrive all of its nutrition it needs to survive from a single source of food. I didn't think that evolution made sustaining life more difficult to achieve from ones natural habitat. Hence " natural selection".

 

And is it likely that our species evolved into an intelect so rapidly. I don't recall any other specie that has evisenced such a rate of change of any kind as quickly as it is thought humans evolved from neandeothol. One minute cavemen with no language known, the next minute we are a civilized population with asolid founsation in mathematics, cosmology, and structural engineering. Samarian accounts were chalked up as being mythological, but without understanding the background of events that happened among an also unknown cultural belief structure, there is no way any written /carved word should be dismissed as just storytellin'. A carving takes a lot of effort and a lot of effort isn't takin on something that means nothing valueable to the author.

 

So I ponder these things I may wander...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're claiming we survive on one food source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible that we are the only specie on the planet that contrive all of its nutrition it needs to survive from a single source of food.

 

 

We don't do that. There might be some simple plants or insects that only feed on one thing, but it would be faulty unusual.

 

 

 

And is it likely that our species evolved into an intelect so rapidly.

 

We can't know how likely it is as we only have one example to look at.

 

 

 

I don't recall any other specie that has evisenced such a rate of change of any kind as quickly as it is thought humans evolved from neandeothol. One minute cavemen with no language known, the next minute we are a civilized population with asolid founsation in mathematics, cosmology, and structural engineering.

 

It took millions of years, not two minutes. (And humans didn't evolve from Neandertals.)

 

 

 

Samarian accounts were chalked up as being mythological

 

Samarian?

 

Accounts of what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible that we are the only specie on the planet that contrive all of its nutrition it needs to survive from a single source of food.

Do you mean McDonald's?

 

 

I didn't think that evolution made sustaining life more difficult to achieve from ones natural habitat. Hence " natural selection".

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

 

 

And is it likely that our species evolved into an intelect so rapidly. I don't recall any other specie that has evisenced such a rate of change of any kind as quickly as it is thought humans evolved from neandeothol.

 

As has been pointed out by Strange, we didn't evolve from Neanderthals. There is every reason to think that they also had language and were of comparable intellect. (Certainly there brains were as large, or larger than ours.)

 

There are many examples in the fossil record of rapid changes in organisms. I don't believe the evolution of human intelligence is especially remarkable as far as its timing is concerned. Do you have evidence that it is, rather than just a feeling based on your own lack of information?

 

 

A carving takes a lot of effort and a lot of effort isn't takin on something that means nothing valueable to the author.

Have you seen the effort expended by Bower bird's? Do you feel that represents less effort than a primitive human carving?

 

 

By the way, welcome to the forum. Be aware that the critical questioning you are receiving is not hostile, but just normal modus operandi for a science forum. If your ideas are sound you will be able to address the criticism. If your ideas are flawed, you will learn from the criticism. Everybody wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One minute cavemen with no language known, the next minute we are a civilized population with asolid founsation in mathematics, cosmology, and structural engineering.

Mathematics, cosmology and structural engineering are not products of biological evolution. Homo sapiens hasn't significantly evolved between living in caves and building computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We don't do that. There might be some simple plants or insects that only feed on one thing, but it would be faulty unusual.

 

 

We can't know how likely it is as we only have one example to look at.

 

 

It took millions of years, not two minutes. (And humans didn't evolve from Neandertals.)

 

 

Samarian?

 

Accounts of what?

What I mean to say is, humans can't find the nutrition to sustain them in life from a single source such as a cow or horse can from grass, or like fish that eat other fish. Humans need vitamins and proteins from several different sources to maintain their health. And I have not found a single source of nutrition that comes close to meeting that criteria for humans. Honey being the closest I think. I'm not saying that animals don't derive their nutrition from different sources, I'm just saying that if pinned down to one source everything but humans have a choice that will keep them healthy.

 

The cuneiform carvings that are the oldest known written language are the accounts of which I was referring.

 

Do you mean McDonald's?

 

 

I have no idea what you mean by this statement.

 

 

As has been pointed out by Strange, we didn't evolve from Neanderthals. There is every reason to think that they also had language and were of comparable intellect. (Certainly there brains were as large, or larger than ours.)

 

There are many examples in the fossil record of rapid changes in organisms. I don't believe the evolution of human intelligence is especially remarkable as far as its timing is concerned. Do you have evidence that it is, rather than just a feeling based on your own lack of information?

 

 

Have you seen the effort expended by Bower bird's? Do you feel that represents less effort than a primitive human carving?

 

 

By the way, welcome to the forum. Be aware that the critical questioning you are receiving is not hostile, but just normal modus operandi for a science forum. If your ideas are sound you will be able to address the criticism. If your ideas are flawed, you will learn from the criticism. Everybody wins.

My statement was referring to the process of natural selection. If we have evolved from simpler beings that had more readily available source of nutrition, it stands to reason that the evolutionary process would not deny humans of the simplicity in gaining nutritional sustenance in place of a more complex and difficult manner than their evolutionary predecessors had. Rapid changes in fossil records only reflect an adaptation of simplicity. To evolve into a more complex creature that in turn needs more to survive takes ,as Strange says, millions of years. Not to mention the conditions that require it do so. There is no evidence in the fossil records that humans had to evolve in such ways. And if there was some underlying condition that might have existed to initiate such a change, then why aren't there evidence of other creatures adapting to those conditions? ... and maybe there are and I just don't know about them.

 

Bower birds are not telling a story or divulging information in the way that those quote unquote primitive people were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean to say is, humans can't find the nutrition to sustain them in life from a single source such as a cow or horse can from grass, or like fish that eat other fish. Humans need vitamins and proteins from several different sources to maintain their health. And I have not found a single source of nutrition that comes close to meeting that criteria for humans. Honey being the closest I think. I'm not saying that animals don't derive their nutrition from different sources, I'm just saying that if pinned down to one source everything but humans have a choice that will keep them healthy.

 

 

OK. That appears to be the complete opposite of what you said before.

 

Are you now saying that you think humans are unique in requiring a diverse diet? That does not appear to be true. Some human populations (e.g. hunter-gatherers) subsist on a very narrow range of foods, probably similar to the diets of their primate neighbours.

 

 

The cuneiform carvings that are the oldest known written language are the accounts of which I was referring.

 

Accounts of what? And how is it relevant to evolution? Those writings were created by modern humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean to say is, humans can't find the nutrition to sustain them in life from a single source such as a cow or horse can from grass, or like fish that eat other fish. Humans need vitamins and proteins from several different sources to maintain their health. And I have not found a single source of nutrition that comes close to meeting that criteria for humans.

 

Rice is virtually a complete balanced diet I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't. Most prominently vitamin deficiencies are associated with a rice diet that has insufficiently supplemented with other food sources (most notably vitamin A). This finding was one of the rationales to create a fortified rice strain ("golden rice"). I am not sure whether there are studies with a rice-exclusive diet, but any deficiencies are likely to be more pronounced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We don't do that. There might be some simple plants or insects that only feed on one thing, but it would be faulty unusual.

 

 

We can't know how likely it is as we only have one example to look at.

 

 

It took millions of years, not two minutes. (And humans didn't evolve from Neandertals.)

 

 

Samarian?

 

Accounts of what?

 

We do not have any clear evidence of a pre-cursor to Homosapiens. And Homosapiens only appears to have been around some 200,000 years in which time he has gone from an animal to landing on the moon and sending a spacecraft outside of the solar system. The single largest step in mental development was writing.

 

That seems to me to be a pretty rapid mental evolution.

 

Northern Europeans have signs of Neanderthal DNA in them suggesting that there was some interbreeding.

Edited by RiceAWay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do not have any clear evidence of a pre-cursor to Homosapiens.

Really? So, you feel that the remains of Austrolopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis etc. are .....? Figments of the imagination? Misclassified primates? Hoaxes?

 

 

And Homosapiens only appears to have been around some 200,000 years in which time he has gone from an animal to landing on the moon and sending a spacecraft outside of the solar system.

While the distinction between animal and human is better placed in colloquial exchanges than one on science, anthropologists would not agree with youe description of our earlier ancestors as animals.

 

 

The single largest step in mental development was writing.

Citation required.

 

 

That seems to me to be a pretty rapid mental evolution.

You seem to be confusing cultural and technical evolution, with genetic evolution.

 

 

Northern Europeans have signs of Neanderthal DNA in them suggesting that there was some interbreeding.

And J.J. Abrams disappointed many viewers of Lost with the weak ending. So what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? So, you feel that the remains of Austrolopithecus afarensis, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Homo antecessor, Homo heidelbergensis etc. are .....? Figments of the imagination? Misclassified primates? Hoaxes?

 

 

While the distinction between animal and human is better placed in colloquial exchanges than one on science, anthropologists would not agree with youe description of our earlier ancestors as animals.

 

 

Citation required.

 

 

You seem to be confusing cultural and technical evolution, with genetic evolution.

 

 

And J.J. Abrams disappointed many viewers of Lost with the weak ending. So what?

 

1. It is my understanding that the most likely precursor was Homo heidelbergensis except he was in the wrong area at the wrong time. So be aware that "most probable" is not the same as "is".

 

2. Unless the so far discovered suspected precursors could manufacture and use tools they were no more human than a Chimp.

 

3. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html I would like to know why widely known science requires a citation for people such as yourself? Anyone on a science forum arguing should have the ability to look things up like this for themselves.

 

4. Why do you find it somehow instructive to talk about comic books?

 

Rice is virtually a complete balanced diet I believe.

 

Rice can be grown only in a very narrow climate pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. So there is evidence for human ancestors after all.

 

2. So yo think crows are more human than chimps?

 

3. That doesn't provide any evidence that writing was the single largest step in mental development. Also, if that were true it would make writing (a largely mechanical skill) a bigger leap than the development of language. That seems implausible. So citation still needed.

 

4. I guess he was using sarcasm to highlight the irrelevance of your comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. It is my understanding that the most likely precursor was Homo heidelbergensis except he was in the wrong area at the wrong time. So be aware that "most probable" is not the same as "is".

 

2. Unless the so far discovered suspected precursors could manufacture and use tools they were no more human than a Chimp.

 

3. https://phys.org/news/2016-02-neanderthal-dna-subtle-significant-impact.html I would like to know why widely known science requires a citation for people such as yourself? Anyone on a science forum arguing should have the ability to look things up like this for themselves.

 

4. Why do you find it somehow instructive to talk about comic books?

 

Rice can be grown only in a very narrow climate pattern.

1. Do you want to take another stab at answering the question? There are multiple ancestors of humans, since we have a linear progression extending back to the beginning. Are you asserting that the species and genera I mentioned are not part of that progression?

 

2.You don't get to make up your own definitions of human. Well, you can make them up, but they are going to be ignored by anyone with a knowledge of the subject.

 

3. Anyone on a science forum making an argument that is contrary to the current consensus should be prepared to provide citations. If they wish to be considered serious and polite they should offer those citations from the outset: they should not need to be asked.

 

Now, do you wish to provide a citation for your assertion that "The single largest step in mental development was writing." There is zero reference in the link you provided to writing. There is not even a reference to language. And this time, how about a proper citation, not a journalist's interpretation of the original research.

 

4. You posted a total non-sequitur. I responded in kind. Do you wish now to explain what the hell you were talking about in relation to the Neanderthal DNA? Very few dispute this, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the various claims you have made in your post.

 

5. Do you intend to address your confusion between genetic evolution and cultural/technological evolution? Or do you prefer to sweep that under the carpet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We do not have any clear evidence of a pre-cursor to Homosapiens. And Homosapiens only appears to have been around some 200,000 years in which time he has gone from an animal to landing on the moon and sending a spacecraft outside of the solar system. The single largest step in mental development was writing.

Homosapiens are able to communicate in an advanced sort of way. Our language can be bilateral, meaning that simply changing around the order of the words, it can change the meaning. Other animals have the ability to communicate usually, from barks that mean danger to howls that mean they see something. It's actually quite interesting. Either way, imagine 200,000 years ago, being one of the first generations to be able to fully grasp and talk bilaterally.

Obviously, this would have taken a while but with mental strength varying between person to person today, you can assume it varied back then too. Some people would have been able to talk in what ever language they used, allowing them to communicate information, and more easily teach other people things. Over the course of a few thousand years, you're a lot more advanced using traps to hunt, and having very good hunting techniques. More and more advancement would be added on for every generation, and when writing was invented, that drastically increased our ability to communicate and learn on a large scale. Over more and more generations, almost every useful advancement spread around the world. Additionally, humans organized. This increased communication even more. So much went into that. So it wasn't a mental evolution over 200,000 years, it was simply everything that was learned over 200,000 years.

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