Monkey trial

by moman 55 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rem

  seigs,

  You've got it - they evolved together. One example is how the chemical composition of the atmosphere changed by plants that released oxygen into the air. This completely changed the environment and the organisms had to adapt or die out (oxygen is actually quite poisonous for certain organisms). Other events changed the environment, such as Ice Ages, Meteor impacts, earth quakes, drought, etc. Of course, there are also an innumerable amount of microenvironments on the earth, from the oceans to the mountains to deserts, freshwater lakes, swamps, glaciers, forests, jungles, etc. Many of these environments only exist because of life (trees, microbes, insects, etc.)

  It almost seems to me like a positive feedback loop in which the more organisms there are in the earth, the more potential environments there are. This can also include simbiotic relationships and parasite/host relationships (which are kinda like environments in themselves).

  Natural Selection selects the most successful organism that exploit these environments which may lead to further environmental changes down the line.

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
• 

  Rex B13

  Hey Rem,
  You might like to take note that the famous 'ancestor' of ours used in the scopes trial as an example was a scientific yarn spun from a single tooth, a swine's tooth at that! LOL
  You might also enjoy the forty year farce of the Piltdown Man, who was a cobbled together skull....God has a sense of humor too, eh? It took scientists forty years to figure it out.
  Rex
• 

  larc

  Escargot,

  What you posted indicates that man, chimpanzes, and Neanderthals all evolved from a common ancestor. Chimps branched off first, followed by Neanderthals, followed by man. If you wish to use the fanciful term "Adam and Eve" for these very ancient ancestors, that's fine, but the whole essay you present does not disprove evolution.
• 

  siegswife

  Do evolutionists ever try to look into what may be next? If we were to consider the adverse affect man seems to have on his own environment, air and water pollution for example. Would natural selection dictate that humans and other animals would evolve to be able to exist in this altered environment (if it were to develop to an extreme degree)? Or are will it lead to the ultimate demise of our own species?

  To take this self destructiveness a little further, wouldn't self preservation be a result of natural selection? It seems that mankind as a whole doesn't seem to be too concerned about the detrimental affects some of their actions may have on the existence of our species.
  I don't really know how to say what I'm thinking. If we are the best of the natural selection, why are we so unconcerned on a subconscious level about our environment? We are dependent on it for our existence, yet we haven't seemed to evolved to the point of understanding that in a very basic way. Is that too befuddled? LOL
• 

  siegswife

  I have another question...regarding myths and legends. I know that evolution takes a long, long, time, but why aren't there any myths and legends that take us out of the trees? I know that sounds stupid, but it's the easiest way to put my question. Basically what I'm asking is why doesn't the legend line seem to have any remembrance of the line of evolution? Would there be no congnizance of the 'true' predecessors of modern man? When, how and why did/would it get lost?
• 

  rem

  Seigs,

  You are on the right track. I've heard differing theories on the continuing evolution of man. It seems that since we have so much control over our environment, Natural Selection isn't as powerful on us anymore. Sexual Selection and genetic drift will probably be more powerful in the long run for human evolution. This might not be a good thing though. I'm not sure.

  It is a good point you bring up that we don't seem to be as concerned about our future as we maybe should be. Actually it does not seem to contradict evolutionary theory, because evolution does not strategize. Evolution looks for immediate results, not long-term advantages. Evolution has no foresight.

  That's could explain why over 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Evolution only cares about the organism being good enough to reproduce - it doesn't care about longevity of the species. I've heard it said that a species usually never lasts longer than 10 million years or so and many die out much faster than that. Who knows how long we have until we branch off into multiple species and homo sapiens become extinct. Perhaps climactic changes will act as a catalyst for speciation, or maybe colonization of other planets? It's hard to say.

  Remember, as far as self-preservation is concerned, it only acts on one organism at a time. We are short-sighted, only caring about our own bodies and our children's bodies (from an evolutionary standpoint), so decisions we make now may not necessarily be the best long term decisions in terms of self-preservation of the whole population. (We'd rather burn coal now so we can live through the winter instead of wait and develop eco-friendly fuel sources).

  rem

  "We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain