What was God's part in the Vadoma tribe?
This adaptation has advantages in a jungle environment and disadvantages pretty much anywhere else. Left to themselves in the jungle, could this have become the dominant variant for the tribe?
Couple of "Human Evolution" Questions (Seriously), If I May...
by AGuest 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AGuest
Aw dang - you guys are going to force me to comment (dang!... and peace to you all!). First, dear Daddy-O... thank you for your response! The fallacy in your syllogism is that Wells Fargo is a bank. While financial institutions may INCLUDE banks, there's nothing that says it is limited to banks. Thus, Wells Fargo could be a different kind of financial institution, for example a credit union or S&L, etc.
So, hugs and smooches back to YOU, my dear, dear sparkle-ly friend... and I am very glad to see you posting!
Also, THANK you for your reference to "adaptation" instead of "evolution." I realize that some consider them one and the same thing. I do not. I believe ALL living things must adapt to their various physical environments (AND... at some point, the promised non-physical environment). One example is me, from southern Cali to northern Cali (which was a bear!)... and Sacto to the Bay Area. I am absolutely CERTAIN my body has experienced changes... adaptations... as a result of both. But I also believe that if you move a living thing from one environment to another, most of them somehow will adapt. Yes, that adaption may be physical changes, but it doesn't mean genus changes.
Indeed, I believe that if you take, say, a mountain lion (felid) from the mountainous region to, say, the desert... it will adapt so as to survive in the desert. BUT... it will still be a [kind of] lion. A desert dwelling species of lion, yes, but a lion. Or perhaps at one time it needed to bring down a mammoth... versus now, when only needs to bring down a wildebeast. And perhaps over time it will eat straw (which IS the prophecy). So, perhaps its teeth have ADAPTED so that it no longer needs long saber-teeth. And perhaps they will ADAPT further so that "canines" aren't needed at all.
BUT... it is STILL a lion (okay, tiger, whatever, but felid). It will not... even in a million years... "evolve" to become a cud-chewing camel... some other saber-toothed non-felid animal... or any other "kind"... so as to be able to survive in a waterless region where there's no meat but only vegetation. It will simply adapt but STILL remain a kind of felid... that can survive in a waterless region... and/or only on vegetables.
I submit that that is exactly the same thing as to humans losing wisdom teeth... and that it's NOT because we eat less vegetation, which is not entirely true, but largely true of the WESTERNIZED world, as most of the "eastern" world lives on vegetables and very small amounts of meat). The lessening need is due to the manner in which we cook and process food. The food we eat today is MUCH softer, both meat and vegetation... AND bread. All are usually fresher on a more regular basis (and more/better cooked), versus dried/old/stale (which it usually was due to the lack of storage/refrigeration). Dried/old/stale food is MUCH harder to chew. But the loss of wisdom teeth does not "prove" that we are evolving into yet another kind. We would STILL be humans... homo sapiens sapiens... just perhaps without an initial 32 teeth (since they had to remove mine, I can't see the big deal, anyway). Heck, at the rate food is being processed NOW... we might end up losing more than the wisdoms!
So, that (adaptation) does not prove, to me, that we all "evolved", either from one common physical life form, or even lower life forms... that such "evolution" was merely the result of a need to adapt.
Now, dear EP (peace to you, as well!), I have to disagree with your assessment of a professor, at least as to my experience at 3 different universities. My experience is that most professors actually want their students to "get it" and will come down off their high "academic" horses to ensure that, even spending time outside of the classroom, if necessary, to help a student understand. True, some probably cannot overcome their high-mindedness but I found that to be the exception, truly. I did have a couple/few professors whose point of view I didn't see, get, or agree with. I don;t recall ANY being condescending to me... or getting "frustrated" when I asked sincere questions (at least, as far as I could tell). Some even said, "You know, I never looked at it that way - let's talk more!") Not that I interjected my "spiritual" understanding in the manner I do here, but I did often use it to ask questions that made professors consider things they had not, before.
But now that you mention it and I think of it I did have one professor step over the line with me. And it was my Critical Thinking professor at Cal State Sacto - LOLOLOL! He had given an assignment which I finished; unfortunately, some of the other students (who were half my age) did not. So, as he was going through the class and getting "upset" because it seemed like no one took him seriously, he began to berate students. Hmmmmm. Unfortunately, he was on a roll and "forgot" himself when he go to me. When I made my reply he called himself berating me. Ummmmmm... no. I told him, in front of the entire class, that he was out of line, that I was not a child, and that his tone and comments were absolutely unacceptable... and unprofessional. He stopped dead in his tracks... and asked me to read my comments again. I did. And he not only profusely apologized... yes, in front of the class... but said he had misunderstood me. He had, because he was SO caught up in his tirade on the other students. From that point on, the gentleman always... ALWAYS... addressed me respectfully... AND would give attention to what I said (vs. jumping to conclusion because of what he THOUGHT I said/meant because he was lumping me in with others. Like so many do here.) We ended up becoming pretty good friends AND having some pretty good disussions, both in class AND outside. I have not seen/spoken to him in years, but I can't imagine that we wouldn't resume our friendship if I ever returned to Sacto.
Okay, that's it for the comments. Back to reading. Please... continue...
Thank you all and peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
AGuest
Okay, one more:
What was God's part in the Vadoma tribe?
That's like asking what was God's part in insanity resulting from in-breeding, dear BlackSheep (peace to you!). The condition is genetic, the result of deficiencies/anomalies in the physical body. Which is due to things like gene mutation due to in-breeding, malnutrition, environmental contaminants, or other environmental factors. It is not the result of the tribe needing to adapt to the jungle (Seriously? That smacks of the whole offensive notion of comparing tribal African people who learned to navigate the jungle... because they LIVE there... to being directly related to monkeys). The tribe has managed to overcome their disability (of COURSE they have!) and adapt their physical condition TO their environment, so as to use it to their advantage. You know, like people with no legs who learn to run marathons.
Now, if they lived in/on/near the ocean, I might be inclined to think they HAD adapted to their environment... with their feet somehow evolving to enable them to, well, what... swim with the dolphins? Fish better? Get ready to procreate with killer whales in, say, 500,000 years?
Seriously, dear one... not sure what your point was with this one. See no difference than if you'd shown me a colony of lepers. Surely, you don't believe THEY evolved to be lepers?
Peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
PSacramento
Are we still evolving?
In a micro way, yes.
We are living longer, and fighting off diseases better ( though nature does tend to throw us a few curve balls to keep us on our feet, just was we tend to do the same to ourselves via the damage to our environment), in terms if physical prowess, we are stronger, running faster, and longer and jumping higher and further.
In terms of brain capacity we are as creative as ever, if not more so, though not in all categories it seems.
Will we evolve to breathe underwater? fly?, probably not, LOL !
Will we evolve to deal with the environmental factors that are happening? yes, which is consistence with how God created us, to be able to deal with all that "life" throws are way.
While "natural selection" is not as bigger a factor as it used to be ( survival of the fittest is rarely an issue nowadays outside the body being fit enought to survive) like TD point out, there are other issues driving our "evolution".
The main one being the environment of course, the other being our lifestyles.
-
simon17
Just a few thoughts on human evolution: While still ongoing, clearly, there are some mitigating factors. The nature and ability of the human species to value each human life does slow down evolution in the "survival of the fittest" sense. In our world, all people (no matter how bad their genes or how unfit for survival they may be), all people are entitled to the same rights, protections, and potential to procreate. It actually might be argued that the most successful, intelligent, etc people in the world are less likely to produce many offspring than others, due to their pure dedication to their jobs/profession/etc.
Also, evolution works quickest when populations become isolated, allowing their gene pools to diverge separately. With the global community, most races, nationalities, etc are having their genes continually mixed with all others. So that will slow things down as well.
Also, since humans are becoming in such control of things like genetic engineering, health care, and on and on, the changes we make to ourselves are going to be more pronounced than what nature would try to do over, say, a million years.
-
james_woods
Read this month's Discover magazine.
An article there reveals that about 1 to 4% of current human DNA is shared with Neanderthal and another Neanderthal-like near-human species.
It also reveals that the "hobbitt" species actually co-existed with humans up until about 40,000 years ago.
-
Farkel
shel,
: First, dear Daddy-O... thank you for your response! The fallacy in your syllogism is that Wells Fargo is a bank. While financial institutions may INCLUDE banks, there's nothing that says it is limited to banks. Thus, Wells Fargo could be a different kind of financial institution, for example a credit union or S&L, etc.
Bingo! Ten years ago you would have NEVER seen that logical fallacy! I'm so proud of you, and almost consider myself your mentor, or at least a driving force to goad you into logical thought! You owe me some Mexican Food on Newport Avenue in OB, girl!
The fallacy (being technical) is called the "undistributed middle". "Fiancial Institutions" were not defined in the argument. Wells Fargo could have easily been a Credit Union, or a Savings and Loan, because they are ALL "Financial Institutions". But every knows that Wells Fargo is a bank. Therein lies the deception. The argument was "logical", but it was not "sound" because everyone knows Wells Fargo is a bank.
I hereby give you a ticket to my world, Shel: logic is the first test to sniff out the bullshit. Faith is all the rest.
Hugs!
Farkel
-
Farkel
shel,
: One example is me, from southern Cali to northern Cali (which was a bear!)... and Sacto to the Bay Area. I am absolutely CERTAIN my body has experienced changes... adaptations... as a result of both. But I also believe that if you move a living thing from one environment to another, most of them somehow will adapt. Yes, that adaption may be physical changes, but it doesn't mean genus changes.
These things take eons, not decades, not centuries, not even a millenia or two, but eons.
You really need to bone up on the research that has already been done and don't rely on idiots like me to help you out.
Farkel
Lunch when you get well and are in my town, dear? My treat!
-
EntirelyPossible
I have to disagree with your assessment of a professor, at least as to my experience at 3 different universities.
I teach lots of classes. If a student says to me "explain how this file re-direction works, but don't get technical", I would tell him that he needs to understand file systems, soft links, hard links, redirection, stub files, metadata. If he then responds with "just tell me in laymans terms, I don't need to understand all of that", I am done with him. He doesn't want to learn, he wants a soundbite. That was my point. Your example was about a professor yelling at students that are struggling. Struggling is NOT at ALL the same as what I was talking about.
Using the word "adaptation" is a distinction without a difference. Adaptation is one of the driving factors in evolution. It's like saying "I believe in fax machines but not that a computer can generate graphics". They are the same thing.
Here's an example. Lake Nicuaragua. Many many years ago a geological change isolated a portion of the sea, causing it to become a lake. Over time, the sea water became freshwater. The sawfish, sharks and tuna. As the water changed, the fish evolved in order to survive in that environment, so much so that they now cannot interbreed with their saltwater kin, indeed, neither can even survive in the others environment. You can call it adaptation, and you are correct. They changed in response to evironemental pressures. That's EXACTLY what evolution is.
As a population becomes isolated, as in your lion example, over the millions of years, and it evolves due to environemental pressures, it changes so much, one or two at a time, that gradually, it becomes a wholly and distinct animal so different that the population it evolved from that they cannot interbreed any longer. It adapated and adapted and adapted until it was something completely different. It certainly could evolve into a camel like cud eating creature. I am not sure why you so strongly protest since you already said it could "adapt" to eating vegetation and lose it's canines.
That you equate adaptation and changes with your body and adaptation as it relates to evolution shows that you still don't want to learn. Here is lesson one. Evolution deals with populations. It is a false comparison to use ANY individual animal or plant with examples like "my body adapts, but I am still human, therefore adaptation isn't evolution" or "a dog will never give birth to a cat, therefore evolution is false."
In the context of evolution, adaptation deals with many changes in populations over many generations, NOT changes in a single individual. Think of it this way. I can look at your bank account and say "my last paycheck didn't put a million dollars in my account, therefore I have never made a million dollars." If I look at ALL of my paychecks over time, then I most certainly HAVE made a million dollars.
-
thetrueone
A new study has found that we humans are actually physically evolving at an increasing rate. We're not talking about cultural evolutionhere. We're talking about physical mutations.
For decades the conensus view - among the public as well as the world's preeminent biologists - has been that human evolution is over. Since modern Homo sapiens emerged 50,000 years ago, "natural selection has almost become irrelevant" to us, the influential Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proclaimed. "There have been no biological changes. Everything we've called culture and civilization we've built with the same body andbrain." This view has become so entrenched that it is practically doctrine.
So to suggest that humans have undergone an evolutionary makeover from Stone Age times to the present is nothing short of blasphemous. Yet a team of researchers have done just that. They find an abundance of recent adaptive mutations etched in the human genome; even more shocking, these mutations seem to be piling up faster and even faster, like an avalanche. Over the past 10,000 years, their data show, human evolution has occurred a hundred times more quickly than in any other period in our species' history.
The new adaptations, some 2,000 in total, are not limited to the well-recognized differences among ethnic groups in superficial traits such as skinand eye color. The mutations relate to the brain, immunity to pathogens, sperm production, and bones - in short, virtually every aspect of our functioning.
Why might evolution be picking up speed? What could be fueling the trend? "Well, there's a lot more people on the planet in recent times. In a population you dont have to wait so long for the rare mutation that boosts brain function or does something else desirable." Says John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin at Madison and Gregory Cochan, a physicist and adjust professor of anthropology at the University of Utah.
Ten thousand years ago, there were fewer than 10 million people on Earth. That figure soared to 200 million by the time of the Roman Empire. Since around 1500 the global population has been rising exponentially, with the total now surpassing 6.7 billion. Since mutations are the fodder on which natural selection acts, it stands to reason that evolution might happen more quickly as our numbers surge. Cochran notes, "Darwin himself emphasized the importance of maintaining a large herd for selecting favorable traits."
Perhaps the most incendiary aspect of the fast-evolution research is the evidence that the brain may be evolving just as quickly as the rest of the body. Some genes that appear to have been recently selected influence the function and development of the brain. Other fast-changing genes - roughly 100 - are associated with neurotransmitters, including serotonin, glutamate (involved in general arousal), and dopamine. According to estimates, fully 40 percent of these neurotransmitter genes have been selected in the past 50,000 years, with the majority emerging in just the past 10,000 years.