The Evolutionary Hotseat

[Zag]

1. we went through a semi-aquatic phase
-- Oh please. Dumber than dumb. ... Or MAYBE that explains the layer of fat around my middle! I might have to get more open-minded on this one, and eat more pie.

2. we lost it when we lived on the savannah
-- Lots of mammals live on the savannah. They all have fur.

3. parasites (lice, etc)
-- Not buying it. Again, there'd be more bald creature about if that were the case.

I'm pretty darn atheistic myself, but if you're looking for the hand of God in evolution, you've got a pretty compelling argument right there.

(Though I think that Heisenberg has found the best scientific argument for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent Creator. After all, the only way for an omniscient being to create creatures with free will is to make the core of their intelligence something that is fundamentally unknowable. Otherwise, he'd already know the outcome.)

[Chuck]

If parasites were a big problem then the use of clothing should have been selected against since the sharing of clothing would have allowed the parasites to spread from person to person more easily.

[Zag]

I came up with an interesting evolutionary puzzle a few minutes ago.

Name a species which lost its reproductive organs in a mutation. The new sub-species has been very successful, as a result.

[Zag]

Nobody? The answer is: HERE

[Poisonium]

Isn't there a tree in New Zealand that's 50.000 years old? And cannot reproduce?
_________________
I tried apt-get install lifebut it only returned E: Couldn't find package life

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Nsof]

maybe already posted: The Darwin Awards

[Chuck]

[MTGAP]

[Chuck]

Are we really playing God or are they using us as reproductive organs?

[MTGAP]

[MTGAP]

[Zag]

[Chuck]

YouTube Evolution Cartoon

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Jack_Ian]

[MTGAP]

[GH]

It's not immediately obvious to me that Intelligent Design is not a reasonable theory that correlates with observable evidence.

[Antrax]

That's not surprising - it was built with the known evidence in mind, and is in fact updated whenever new evidence surfaces (The "irreducible complexity" argument has been moved off the eye, which has since been explained, to some protein folding thing). It doesn't offer any refutable predictions (or really, any predictions at all), and thus it is not scientific, that's the only problem with it.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick!

[Zag]

[extropalopakettle]

I.D., as I've seen it expressed, depends on alleged failures or weaknesses in the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution allegedly fails to explain something, and that then is taken to be evidence for an intelligent creator. So, we've taken something complex and in need of explanation (life), and have posited the existence of something (an intelligent creator) also in need of an explanation. If evolution's failure to explain some aspect of natural life points to it having been created by an intelligence, then wouldn't I.D.s failure to explain the existence of that intelligence similarly point to the existence of a second intelligence which created the first? But it seems an implicit assumption of I.D. is that the creator doesn't need to be explained, and can be used to explain anything. Why then have any scientific theories about anything? Why not just invoke the same magical explanation for everything? Would that be less reasonable?

[Samadhi]

I think this youtube pretty well sums it up: Skewed views of science
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

I just borrowed The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins from the library. A quick look at the index shows

[Quailman]

[Chuck]

I guess. They sound the same when they speak.

[casinopete*]

Kakapo?

[Chuck]

[Mr Nigma]

Expelled: No Intellgence Allowed
_________________
Freedom is not free

[Samadhi]

I used to respect Ben Stein but that movie made me readjust my opinion of him.
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between.

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Chuck]

[Zag]

While I appreciate the humor, I thought I'd get back to the actual point of this thread.

I just heard on some science program, probably Nova, that humans (that is, homo sapiens) have existed for only 200,000 years. A quick check on wikipedia confirms this, and I even found this cool graphic showing when and where all the major species of genus homo lived.



So, 200,000 years is only 8-10 thousand generations. In evolutionary terms, that's nothing, I thought. And yet, look at the impressive diversity of humans, from Pygmies to Inuit to Asian to Caucasian to the Australian aborigines. Does anyone else find this to be incredible?

Second question: Of all the non-aquatic mammals, there's only one without hair covering its body: homo sapiens. (With the ridiculous exception of some hairless dog and cat breeds, but they are just freaks.) Is this tied to intelligence somehow? Did, for instance, the lack of hair on the first mutants who were missing that gene force them to get smart quick or freeze? (Don't try to claim that it is a positive evolutionary step and mumble something about parasites unless you are ready to explain why no other species has made the same step.)

I'm fond of thinking that the hairlessness was the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is, it is the origin of that story -- perhaps the first generation that was hairless actually did think that it was because of something Mom ate.

[Chuck]

Maybe the need for body hair disappeared when clothing was invented. But then that might increase parasite problems as clothing is shared and inherited.

We apparently didn't evolve much in the last 200,000 years. The question is how long did it take Homo rhodesiensis to become us?