 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30/11/2017 07:57, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 29-11-2017 16:28, Stephen wrote:
>> On 29/11/2017 15:22, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 29.11.2017 um 15:57 schrieb Stephen:
>>>> On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
>>>>> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
>>>>
>>>> Talking about head bangers. I just saw this. O_O
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane
>>>>
>>>
>>> Folks, don't try this at home ;)
>>>
>>
>> For those that are rich enough to do it. Please do. ;-)
>>
>
> Evolution in action ;-)
>
Got it in one. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Consider the degree of variation we have in the present day - everything from
pygmies to [the late] Andre the Giant. And all of these 10 billion people are
considered to be "the same species".
Then consider that there's supposed to be only a 2% difference in genetic
sequencing between "us" and the orangutans.
And from a medical / anatomical / pharmacological view, pigs are supposed to be
the closest to humans.
Even small changes in genetic makeup can have profound changes on morphology.
There are cascades of biochemical processes that amplify basic chemical signals.
That's why tiny amounts of hormones can do what they do - and over such a long
period of time. Anabolics, thyroid, etc.
Real life isn't a bunch of male Sprague-Dawley rats - it's a rich interplay
between genes and environment, and intellectual capability, and spiritual drive
to achieve.
Talk to anyone who's designed and helped administer a drug study, or taught
students, or trained people, or studied twins....
And look at what they're doing with green fluorescent protein and knocking out
chlorophyll in plants, and growing human tissue structures....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscape net> wrote:
> Consider the degree of variation we have in the present day - everything from
> pygmies to [the late] Andre the Giant. And all of these 10 billion people are
> considered to be "the same species".
> Then consider that there's supposed to be only a 2% difference in genetic
> sequencing between "us" and the orangutans.
> And from a medical / anatomical / pharmacological view, pigs are supposed to be
> the closest to humans.
Yep. When you put it that way... just always boggles my mind when I think of
things like the Darwinian mankind evolving drawing. Makes me wonder about why
everything that ever occurs can't somehow continue. But it's really the other
things like alligators and sharks that haven't changed much where it gets
weirder still, if evolving takes place. That's what I mean by sometimes there's
an end product, or so it seems, yet not the other multitude of steps along the
way.
This gets into my more elaborate thoughts about how "designed" life is,
nevermind the billions of years time scale involved-- or not, depending on your
outlook.
Either life is actually simple what form it takes, that meaning it's not like
creatures have special powers as imaginations by people can conjure up, since
everything exists within a niche of their environment. Just like if you were to
stir up a shovel full of ground into a bucket of water and let it settle, it
makes a layered sediment with a kind of form too.
Predestined, I guess is the word. Or is it something else? You see what I'm
saying, it gets complicated. Or is that only because people can think
differently than any other lifeform? Sometimes I wonder which it is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
Makes me wonder about why
> everything that ever occurs can't somehow continue. But it's really the other
> things like alligators and sharks that haven't changed much where it gets
> weirder still, if evolving takes place. That's what I mean by sometimes there's
> an end product, or so it seems, yet not the other multitude of steps along the
> way.
Well, with things like alligators, crocodiles, coelacanths, frilled sharks,
white sturgeon, alligator gar, paddlefish, etc. - there must not be any
environmental pressure to induce change. Evolution is survival of the fit -
which means there will be variation, but if that species is already optimized
for the environment that it inhabits, than any other mutation is a detriment - a
"devolution" of sorts.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 30.11.2017 um 21:04 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> "omniverse" <omn### [at] charternet> wrote:
> Makes me wonder about why
>> everything that ever occurs can't somehow continue. But it's really the other
>> things like alligators and sharks that haven't changed much where it gets
>> weirder still, if evolving takes place. That's what I mean by sometimes there's
>> an end product, or so it seems, yet not the other multitude of steps along the
>> way.
>
> Well, with things like alligators, crocodiles, coelacanths, frilled sharks,
> white sturgeon, alligator gar, paddlefish, etc. - there must not be any
> environmental pressure to induce change. Evolution is survival of the fit -
> which means there will be variation, but if that species is already optimized
> for the environment that it inhabits, than any other mutation is a detriment - a
> "devolution" of sorts.
Also, the fact that a species hasn't changed much in appearance doesn't
mean it didn't evolve. We can't see properties like immune system or
metabolism in the fossil records.
And then there seem to be "winning body plans", which keep coming up
again and again in different species, such as the "sabre toothed cat"
pattern, which was developed by different species (including some
distinctively non-feline ones) at different times.
For some reason none of the occupants of that ecological niche managed
to get a permanent foothold there; maybe that niche has a natural
tendency to collapse from time to time. But if such recurring niches for
particular body plans exist, it is reasonable there are other niches
that remain open virtually indefinitely; and in such cases, once a
species has established itself in that niche, it is reasonable to assume
that it will be able to continue to assert that niche -- not because it
remains unchanged, but because to the very contrary it continues to
change, namely by optimizing even more for that niche (with the body
plan being pretty much finalized comparatively quickly), thus staying
ahead of any other species that might happen to enter that niche.
The crocodiles' niche appears to be just such a permanent one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
