QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 12 2007, 04:20 PM)
Ok, before you waste everyone's time...go read up on "evolution"(btw that it the correct spelling)....
"Survival of the fittest" does not imply that the strongest survive.....that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard...
"fittest" does not apply to strongest, smartest, etc....but rather "what works better than the other guys". Darwin himself didn't use the term "survival of the fittest"....
You have a lot to learn, and I don't plan on teaching every ***** who has a web connection. Read educational websites before you start acting like an imbecile on here....
How did we survive?
How do chimps survive?
We traded big brains for powerful muscles....our brain uses a lot of energy..
Seriously...go read...and don't waste everyone's time
One too many today Puck? Hangover perhaps? Strong stuff ego bleatings.
Sarjeant Majors would run from you in the morning.;-)
Yes, read up on evolution, tis a great subject. Whilst Puck no doubt will brush up on his humane skills....growllllll
"Survival of the fittest" does not imply that the strongest survive.....that may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard...
"fittest" does not apply to strongest, smartest, etc....but rather "what works better than the other guys". Darwin himself didn't use the term "survival of the fittest"....
You have a lot to learn, and I don't plan on teaching every ***** who has a web connection. Read educational websites before you start acting like an imbecile on here....
How did we survive?
How do chimps survive?
We traded big brains for powerful muscles....our brain uses a lot of energy..
Seriously...go read...and don't waste everyone's time
One too many today Puck? Hangover perhaps? Strong stuff ego bleatings.
Sarjeant Majors would run from you in the morning.;-)
Yes, read up on evolution, tis a great subject. Whilst Puck no doubt will brush up on his humane skills....growllllll
QUOTE (gnimmelf+Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM)
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
You might want to have a read of this for now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
You might want to have a read of this for now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
In this essay, universal common descent alone is specifically considered and weighed against the scientific evidence. In general, separate "microevolutionary" theories are left unaddressed. Microevolutionary theories are gradualistic explanatory mechanisms that biologists use to account for the origin and evolution of macroevolutionary adaptations and variation. These mechanisms include such concepts as natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, neutral evolution, and theories of speciation. The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open.
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
Furthermore, because it is not part of evolutionary theory, abiogenesis also is not considered in this discussion of macroevolution: abiogenesis is an independent hypothesis. In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin. All scientific theories have their respective, specific explanatory domains; no scientific theory proposes to explain everything. Quantum mechanics does not explain the ultimate origin of particles and energy, even though nothing in that theory could work without particles and energy. Neither Newton's theory of universal gravitation nor the general theory of relativity attempt to explain the origin of matter or gravity, even though both theories would be meaningless without the a priori existence of gravity and matter. Similarly, universal common descent is restricted to the biological patterns found in the Earth's biota; it does not attempt to explain the ultimate origin of life.
QUOTE (gnimmelf+Aug 12 2007, 03:51 PM)
pucksucker... thanks for a warm welcome. don't stop spellchecking my posts, will ya?
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
We survived the same way other primates survived. As we gained intelligence (each bit of increase in intelligence is useful) we were able to change our survival tools. We lost strength, sure, but gained all types of things that are useful in return.
But, I can assure you, each time we lost something we gained something more useful in return. Those descendants which didn't gain something, very likely died.
mirrorman, what i was thinking about with the bottom of foodchain rant was, how did we survive until our intelligence and motorskills got up to par?
We survived the same way other primates survived. As we gained intelligence (each bit of increase in intelligence is useful) we were able to change our survival tools. We lost strength, sure, but gained all types of things that are useful in return.
But, I can assure you, each time we lost something we gained something more useful in return. Those descendants which didn't gain something, very likely died.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Aug 12 2007, 05:53 PM)
We survived the same way other primates survived. As we gained intelligence (each bit of increase in intelligence is useful) we were able to change our survival tools. We lost strength, sure, but gained all types of things that are useful in return.
But, I can assure you, each time we lost something we gained something more useful in return. Those descendants which didn't gain something, very likely died.
You are just making assumptions here.
But, I can assure you, each time we lost something we gained something more useful in return. Those descendants which didn't gain something, very likely died.
You are just making assumptions here.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.