Man from Monkey
I couldn't find an appropiate thread or category so I've placed this topic here. This has been spawn from noticing many of Kmguru's recent postings on Evolution and something I happened to watch the other night on the television.

From what I saw, humanity is suppose to have evolved from monkeys that swung around in tree tops many millions of years ago.

There was mentioning of the footprint evidence which is usually used in conjuction with the "Adam and Eve" theory (A theory of apelike creatures walking on their hind legs across what is known as africa to spread the first legs of our evolution.)

This reminded me of what theory I had heard of previously of how they stood on their hind legs because they were walking across a wasteland and the sun was high in the sky (being the equator), they stood so that they wouldn't have such a surface area to attract temperature, if they had been on all fours then they would have died from heat exhausting. (there was a whole mention of its use in conjuction with brain heat, and the ears of elephants being used as cooling radiators [spacing out the blood flow])

I realised something different though.

Perhaps Man's ancestory path never actually took us back to a monkey in a tree, but more likely a monkey that foraged around the ground below trees and shrubs, but only in danger would we scramble up a tree.

Since they would be earth bound and exist within a community they might have started to develop a survival tactic that certain desert/plains animals have, to stand on their hind legs and look around for danger.

This would mean crossing to a river surrounded by plains, many of these creatures would be standing tall to have a better view across the plains, and also be percieved as possible predators as larger than they actually are.

This could have occured to give us our upright position, since it's noted that creatures that roamed the earth developed stronger limbs that were develop of standing and they also became large since the ground could take their weight in comparison to creatures in the trees that would have limbs for holding onto branches and maintain a small and light size.

From my perception we aren't on a top branch without being scared up there ;)

I saw a very good show a few years back on The Discovery Channel that took a totally different approach then most.

The show looked at the unique characteristics we have and what seemed to share some of those traits.

They had some ideas that we most likely developed from a sea type of monkey, they made references to the way our hips are shaped and also about the shape of our nose along with the placement of our limbs.

The documentary is called Water babies.

It made a lot of good points about our body type. Why are we the only mammal that walks upright, it would seem to be more efficient to use 4 legs instead of 2, it made to many points to get into.

It would worth it to try and see it.

I really feel disappointed every time I hear nonsense like that of Peter/Peter has been on Discovery. There are some very (really) informative progrtams there, but then there is alsoi this crap.
Many cannot tell the difference.
I amnot going to get into details...
no
oh well
here is just one thing:
It made a lot of good points about our body type. Why are we the only mammal that walks upright, it would seem to be more efficient to use 4 legs instead of 2, it made to many points to get into.
Actually the most efficient manner of locomotion with legs (or leg like limbs) is the hopping that cangaroos do. Cangaroos are mammals. Cancaroos have a bipedal locomotion.
Really, the savanne ape-men theory is much better!

hope this helps.
Merlijn.

First off I would like to start my reply with another quote.

"Bite Me"

Secondly, your implication was not well received.

Thirdly, I can tell the easy form of locomotion for you would be me kicking your ass from point A to point B.

Lastly where did you get your doctorate in Human Evolution, or do you know the exact origins of man first hand?.

P.S Hows the job with DSC working out for you????

P.S.S There is a spell check at the end of the reply box.

Fight nice children

Stryderunknown

I've seen several different shows on this topic. But don't recall one that said that we originated from tree monkeys, just monkeys in general. The only thing I could think of that might suggest that we came from the trees is the evidence of an opposing digit (thumb) on the feet of the first bipedal monkeys. That might be the only thing that there basing our origins from the trees on. just speculation.
I do think your right about them basically being ground animals that used the trees for safe haven from predators.

Peter / Peter,
I have absolutely no hard feeling towards you, and I am not planning on changing that. Please understand, my problems are with Discovery. And I tried to point out that much of their programs are in fact quite good, but unfortunately they also broadcast some 'semi-science'. They look the same, they feel the same, they might even smell the same.
Because I happen to know something about this subject (true, I did not finish my Doctorate on the subject, because it interfered too much with my other study) I know for sure that the water monkey story can not be taken too seriously.

Patman,
Indeed, the opposing thumb originated from our ancestral tree slinging. The 'apes' (with whom we share ancestors) abandoned tree life and started walking with their knuckles on the ground and grew larger, and heavier so that tree slinging became a bit difficult.

P.S. Apologies for being a lousy typist. I do indeed not always use the spell check. I used to, until I saw so many write "I no" in stead of "I know" ;).

Merlijn

You might of missed what I mentioned in my first post, but I was questioning that we didn't evolve from tree-dwelling but more likely that we were on the land to start with. We might of used trees as a predator escape route and to collect fruit from the trees (thus the thumb).

I meniton that we probably were never suppose to be up a tree because of how the evolution of our feet has gone, and from the the prints in volcanic ash from our ancestory route.

(It made me imagine bipedal ape like creatures walking in a group, but using the standing upright to keep an eye out for food, water and predators across a plain.)

Of course you can continue to believe the other version of use evolving from the tree, but I think the version I put forwards actually makes sense when you look at how a Chimpanzees legs "Bow" to grip to tree trunks, while ours have evolved for standing and walking upon the ground.

One question for you, when you've finished doing your "studies" will you return to your Doctorate? (I would but thats my opinion)

Hi Stryderunknown,

No, I did not miss that part. I still believe the theory that we evolved from apes and apes came from tree-dwelling monkeys. I think our legs have become more straight because we have migrated from forests to savanna, where there are less trees to hide in. There it rewards to be well informed about the environment and thus it is handy to be able to look far. This is most easily done when standing/walking up right.

I do have a degree in cognitive psychology and human factors. Afterwards I did some work on human movement sciences. At the moment I am applying for a job as philosopher of science (In the Netherlands we have a somewhat strange academic order. The job would be very much like a PH.D. or D.Phil studentship).

I still can see how logically we could be the only animals on the planet to evolve a conscious brain, even if we have been here 5 million years were still only children compared with other creatures.

lol p/p just thought id let you know that their is no such thing as p.s.s. p.s. means : post script meaning after words. what would pss mean? "post script secondary"?

How about
P.S. = Post Script
P.(P.S.)S. = Post (Post Script) Script
:)

I don't know how the subject got onto Post Scripts, but you can have:

P.P.S. (Post Post Script)

I should really dig up that paper I wrote on Evolution in reply to someones post on another forum system.

I've got to break this into two posts for it's whole size, the following is the list of questions that were asked (Because someone thought Evolution was Science-fiction)

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
a. Whales evolve?
b. Sea horses evolve?
c. Bats evolve?
d. Eyes evolve?
e. Ears evolve?
f. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
i. The immune system or the need for it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. * How did thought evolve?

21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from what?

22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human?

26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

The following is my replies to the questions from the above post (Some of the ideas might have changed slightly, excuse spelling and grammar errors)

1: Space doesn't come from anywhere as it is void, there is nothing in it as such (apart from gases that are elements of chemicals of moving particles that intermingle in what you call space.) The universe is just called that because it has planetry bodies that are made from these chemiclas and their varying elements.

2: Matter comes from the intermingling of particles that in space create an atraction to each other, the more particles the more gravity and the more force it makes in creating a molecular structure.

3: There are no such things as universal laws (gravity etc), they are just like an Int in java, a value that can't be changed. Laws get made, broken and amended all the time.

4: As I mentioned Matter is very organised, it likes attracting more matter in space. (If you know your science you will know that atoms attract only a certain amount of other atoms to make molecules. Which is decided by the amount of electrons and protons within the grouped atoms. The reason for that is because of the elctrons negative charge and the protons positive.
If you looked at atoms as differing races, you would find that they all are compatible with some, more than others and sometimes they like having more than one partner. They can even be asexual.
If you looked from the small ot the large, you might just find that we are a portion of a fractal that extends to something as small and smaller than an atom.

(thus H2O = H[1e]x2 + O[8e] and something like Ammonia is NH3 = N[7e] + H[1e]x3)
The following numbers are the amount of electrons that are present within each shell and protons within the nuclei 2,8,20,28,50,82,126.

5: The energy that does the organising comes from the resonance of the molecules and atoms, the higher the amount of electrons within an atom the higher then energy, the higher the resonance and the higher the instability within it's flucuations. (And the need for cooling occurs otherwise it starts to superconduct neighbouring atoms)

6: life didn't come from dead matter, Matter is never dead, as it transform from state to state. So dead becomes decaying and to decay in itself isn't a death but a rebirth in a new form.

7,8: life learnt to reproduce because of radiation. For instance, the understanding of how the planet was formed is similar to that of a welding splatter, the sun in it's infancy had a sun spot, a heat erruption that jetisoned a globual of gases. these moved out from the sun and cooled (The sun continued fusion and fission and slowly decreased in volume.) these gases could bonded as the elements we know, although the crust cooled the molden interior stayed hot (and is still hot and will always be hot). The crust of the planet, it's very landplates cooled into rock form, and the rock themselves carry a magnetic essence that the whole sum of creates the poles and the land plate movements when the axis moves slightly.
The's solid landplates create gravity and the force that keeps the molte rock and mantel spinning within the earth and thats why it will always stay hot.
As for the life on the planet, the sun expanded and the earth drew closer, and volcanos errupted on the surface, the gases merged with the hydrogen and carbon-dioxide to create acid rain and the acids merged with certain types of chemicals forming compounds. These compounds create protein and then formulised life through radiation and chemical mergence and protein is cell substanence. The first bacteria then learnt how to assimulate itself by splitting it's cells while the first retro-virii was coded to mutate. (and even when you were in the womb, at your embryeo stage, you started as a reproduction of cells following the blue prints of DNA/RNA.)
Understand that retro-virii don't learn to change, they are changed via variables that are inputed into the host of the original code (radiation, food consumed, age, neighbouring other hosts and their touch, smell)

9: see 6 and then you will see that life reproduces for survival, in numbers it can continue it's reproduction and help feed itself. (in the old days people use to have large familys so they could pool together there incomes instead of starving through poverty and depression. Youll have to understand this as a top end of a fractal world.)

10: You mention English and Chinese words and that neither written language could create an exact copy (because the letter A doesn't exist in chinese as they write in words), but you have to understand that's like building 2 bricks, on e out of clay and another out of dung. They might both be the same size and shape, by they aren't the same elements. DNA doesn't create mutations on it's own, DNA is just a string of code that runs through a cell to tell it how to function and reproduce RNA, DNA can have mutations called retro-viruses which use RNA (Code made from DNA) to mutate cells. RNA is Ribonucleic acid (this will tie in with the mention of acid rain at answer 7,8.) DNA is Deoxyribonucleic acid (The deoxy- part gives the perception that the reason we need oxygen to breath is that our very DNA uses it up from the blood. thus we de-oxydise)

11: number 7,8 explain that our creator was our sun/Star in our solar system (Sol system), which created our planet through allowing some of its mass to move from the sun to another space, which created the earth, then proteins and bacteria and vegetation, and higher celled creatures right up to what you know and see now. As for a creator, don't believe the hype.

12: Natural selection occurs with the mutation of cells as mentioned in answer 10, and through the mentioning of the food cycle. Some animals that are preditory will live on another type of animal, which in turn lives on plants, that in turn live on a mixture of the dung and decay from both creatures and carbon-dioxide for photosynthesis. Natural selection (and demographers could prove this) also accounts for things that occur in the variables, a bush fire could kill the grasses and plants one year (and a number of creatures) that year the herbivores suffer starvation, and their numbers decrease for that but they also decrease as the preditors are still eating the same number.
The next year the Preditors have two options, starve from the lake of the herbivores they previously eat or begin eating other creatures (including some of themselves). There is also the point that diseases could occur that run from specie to specie, or a fruit of a plant might become toxic of climate changes.
The genome project explains that the genes within all life are similar (this is purely becaues there are only so many building blocks) but what is also the case is that the ancestors of all creatures have lived by eating other life forms that are made up of genes (and have RNA within them) this means that they assimulated something from what they ate and you assimulate something from what they ate.

13: I mention that insects developed extoskeletal structures from a high degree of radiation, that made their outer skin toughened. This would also explain reptile scales and fish scales through defracted light in water.
(In artificial insemination they use radiation to make cells generate from implanted RNA/DNA. So the animals RNA mutated from the shear amount of radiation and created a differing skin covering. As for hair, it is infact dead, it grows only below the surface of the skin at the root and is purely an output. Sometimes at the root it might split into two seperate roots and thus two hairs seem to appear from the same folical. This is what we supposedly had and still have to defeat radiation, because we sweat is the reason we have hair and not scales.)
As for why do we have senses, they've been developed over the years from our basic primitive need to survive. (you wouldn't survive too long if you were: deaf, blind, hand no sense of touch or smell or taste. You wouldn't know if you had wondered into the middle of the road, or tittering on the top of a building)

14: answered in 13.

15: To explain how long everything took to develop, understand that a small change has occured at every root within yours and everybody elses ancestry and those combined together have formulated yourself and all that you know.

16: Well I could example something that defys that and natural selection... Dolly the Cloned Sheep. Man made Dolly through tampering, but it did give a clue as to the amount of variables within natural selection as Dolly was the end product of a whole bunch of mutant embryeo's that didn't delevop properly.

17: Mimicry is purely down to survival (and to stop something being somebody elses meal.) There similarity to something else might be because they live on that particular plant and assimulate into itself the genes of that plant, or they are a cousin of that specie.

18: Perhaps our emotions are infact a portion of our development and that our senses (sight, hearing etc) were once emotions, after all emotions are from a state of conscious thought and sub-conscious development that overlays it. That's why you could be angry at something all day, or cry for no apparent reason. So our emotions have yet to be assigned to a sense.

19: Photo synthesis evolved from chemicals that were taken through smoke and convection into our atmosphere and then end up being assimulated into the leaves and the roots of a plant. (not that some assimilated stuff from he roots is the main reason for changes within a plant, like the mentioning of a once edible fruit turing toxic.)

20: Thought exists from the process of senses, and our primitive program that exists within our very cells. (take for instance when a foll is born from a mare [horses] why does it stand within a few hours and us humans take so long to learn to walk? I suppose you could time stretch the life span of a horse to that of a human, but it means that we should only take 24hrs to learn how to walk. Of course I believe it's down to the complexity of the creature, we continue to develop and do other things than what we would naturally have to do, like hunting and gathering. Of course if you look from a Darwinist point monkeys carry their young as they swing from tree tops, which means you wouldn't want to risk your young in trying to make them walk before they could crawl [and more so if your female from the incubation period])

21: see answer 19 and understand that dung from other creatures, and the decaying caracasses become assimilated into the plants through nutrients (and thats why the worm has such a high number of genes other than the fact that if it's cut in two it can act as two worms.)

22: I'm not an evolutionist, I'm just someone that juggles variables with a who bunch of methods.

23: My answer would be the same as it is today, "excuse me for souding foolish but what is one of them?"

24: yes, A fractal Omniverse.

25: answered in 7,8.

26: We didn't come from nothing, even space exists but is filled with something and it has never been void of everything.

[[[[<<<< I'd Like to thank the Oxford English Dictionary for definitions and John Gribbon for making this document possible>>>>]]]]

Stryderunknown,
Nice piece. Reminds me a bit of how I was several years ago. (I must be getting old, saying that hahaha)

23. The coelacanth is a fish. It's special since it's a lobe-finned fish. Lobe-finned fish were though to have become extinct some 75 million of years ago, but in 1939 they were discovered to still exist (well... descendants of the older version) near Madagascar at great depth and later were found on several other spots in the Indian Ocean. I believe one was even spotted near Australia.

24. here is something I do not know. "yes, A fractal Omniverse" Was that a prediction of macroevolution?

Ian Stewart's "Life's Other Secret: the new mathematics of the living world" is a very nice book on a related subject: self-organizing systems in biology. Easy to read, informative and sometimes even funny.
A lot of evolution can very (and I mean VERY) elegantly be explained by self-organizing systems. the problem however is that they on the brink of chaos, making predictions (nearly) impossible.

As a teacher once said:
Imagine you are God, and you have seven days to create a universe. How would you do that?
-Self-organizing systems has been the choice of God. And He even had a day left to rest a bit.

I did get caught on may last reply and I take the hit.

It still applies.

You people need to get away from the glow of your CRT's, and enjoy the sunshine.

You have way to much time to write half of this crap.

Get out and get a real job or somthing.

Whatever happened to the hunter?.

P.S. Boo

P.P.S. There was no spell check completed for this post.

What the hell is a fractal omniverse supposed to be?
I know what a fractal is, and I think I understand the concept of an "omniverse," but I'd like you to explain it please.

I'll expand on this since 2 people need to know :D (Perhaps writing something without a full explaination is just the ticket to cause interest :D)

The original Question I answered was:
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

I replied:
24: yes, A fractal Omniverse.


And as everybody has pointed out I haven't been very clear about what I meant.

When you look at macroevolution, you look at changes that don't occur one by one but in groupings of multiple significant changes (or eventuating a Significant change).

I looked at this point on an evolution spiral that worked similar to fractal ethics, that the changes occur constantly and can be seen evolving down the spiral. The universe of course isn't one singular spiral as it is like a fractal image of many different spirals that coelsce with each other to cause and evolutionary change.

This sort of patterning can be seen in many forms of life and physics.

I mentioned "Omniverse" meaning Multiple universes, because we might term our existance being in a "Universe" but in fact we are probably just stating our boundaries that we can see, but there are many unseen boundaries that are created through spacetime ripples and gravitation distortions that cause a multiple number of equally existant universes. (Some would just refine this into calling ita Multi-worlds state)

I placed the two together to just term how a fractal evolving multiverse exists and has proved macroevolution to be true.

Hope thats understandible for everyone :D

Wheee ....... is that a relief!!!!!!!!!!

At first I thought you were just spouting gobbly-gook :confused:

After your explanation I realize you're spouting pseudo-gobbly-gook :rolleyes:

Take care ;)

HA HA HA....... :D :D :D :D :D

Hey Stryder, have you seen the new "Plantet of the Apes?"

Its pretty thought provoking.......;)



bjl

Stryder are you shooting for a discussion or looking for a forum to describe your complete understanding of evolution?

I would suggest if you want discussion to break it down a bit. Personally I think molecular evolution is the most interesting as it gives all the potential for the evolution on our size scale. You seemed to over simplify that part a lot. It's where most of the complexity of how evolution actually acheives diversity comes in and there is a lot more to it than you said.

Cool topic and interesting comments though.

I like programming and CS too. writing a genetic algorithm gives interesting insights into the process.

The things I would briefly emphasize are these:

Reproduction is necessary because thermal effects necessitate mistakes. Nothing can remain ordered forever under these perterbations.

Reproduction in light of these mistakes creates new differently organised systems that sometimes work better and sometimes work worse.

If everything in an organism works and is necessary then there is no room for adding new function. So shit gets duplicated and broken so badly that it starts working with a new function.


the question then becomes what does it take to get reproducing order given the laws of physics and a bunch of atoms. (one might also wonder if the laws of physics evolved themselves and could have been different then they are. if so what sets of physical laws are stable and do most of them permit life?)

I originated this thread for discussion on evolution (And any point through out it's history), also any conclusions to how a chain reaction was started.

(also so that very long posting, stays on the internet in someone and sparks wondering thoughts and expanded explainations)

I suppose you could say this thread is in it's first Evolutionary stages, and peoples inputs an opinions will cause the interesting bits to be discussed and the bits that seem tedious, boring and droll disappear from discussion.

So feel free to "Evolve the thread".

I wasn't really questioning what you posted. There was a lot of good stuff there. I was just reacting to the fact that such a long post is hard to respond to as there are many different things one might want to say.

I'm sorry you responded to my reaction and not my ideas. Any response to them?

Scilosopher

I appologise I didn't reply to your responses content rather than reaction. You are right, my Post was long, and admittedly I should have broken it down piece by piece. (Of course each piece in their own rights would be a thread on their own)

So I'll respond to your content, At first its similar to my material (which sometimes people have to read three of four times to digest or get a clue as to what I'm trying to explain) from what I understand of your content, your speaking of a Molecular ballad.

I suppose you could speak of a Radioactive decay as a "De-evolutionary state", since when something becomes critical in a radioactive process, it can shake an electron or two loose, which in turn can cause a chain reaction to other atoms of that same chemistry.

In turn that means eventually you have a completely different set of materials (i.e. Es Einsteinium) of course Es is when those free floating electrons have been transposed to a material that is undergoing an unstable period, and with the electrons it stablises. (I can't remember for how long)

But then there are materials created that now lack a few electrons and are downscaled, But it would provide Two evolutionary paths created from a pure material base.

This could be called Evolution and De-evolution, although De-evolution means in this case your reverting to a lower Periodic position.

To look at a biological representation, take for instance man's Appendix, What ever task it once did, man no longer needs so it's "De-evolution" occurs where it regresses to a former state.

Of course that means that life revolves around Quid pro quo, where preportion of us is Evolving another preportion is following a De-evolutionary path.

I think it´s a bummer that we don´t use our feet as hands :(

stryder

You really like radioactive decay analogies, huh? (I've noticed you discussing it in a number of posts)

I would tend to differentiate evolutions of some process in time, like radioactive decay or whirls of turbulence in a laminar flow moving into a turbulent regime from biological evolution.

The key difference is the ability to replicate the order or information and have active growth. I suppose there may be dead systems like harmonic oscillation that spread info too though. Supposedly a room full of pendulum clocks will synchronize over time and that evolution has some similarities.

That's why I was stressing reproduction. It is at the heart of evolution. Any system that can reproduce itself with mistakes will evolve over time in a generative way (except of course if there are no other nearby options that can also reproduce in which case the mistakes are just destructive and not generative).

Any other system will simply evolve in the sense of changing over time. These evolutions are interesting too, and do also move through stages of varying degrees or order.

The important differences are certainly subtle and hard both to grasp and discuss (I keep wanting to make claims on the biological side and realizing they are not really founded). Both systems if not gaining energy (maybe in the form of work) from exterior sources will reach equilibrium and in essence die. The course of the change in time can continue to generate behavior not seen previously for indefinite periods of time.

But reproduction and the transfer of actual information that allows a more active role in finding energy and maintaining the order is certainly unique to life. As well as the tendency over time to diversify and generate alternate strategies to do so.

I just realized that another important thing to stress is the role of separation in life. Creating boundaries like the cell wall. The individual.

ok that was a bit long ... I'll follow my own advice and shut up.

Hi!
I'm quite interested in evolution.
Do you have any idea how the molecules form something like us?
I do not think you give a clear answer on many questions.
You always do not explain the hows in your questions or maybe just I can't understand it.

________________________________________________
Relax.................

Hi!
Also if I want to tell people about evolution, how should I declare it?
e.g. (anything wrong if I say it like this?)
Evolution is due to the competition between different species and the interaction between the species and the environment. For those which can adapted to the environment better, they will survive and reproduce and for those which are weaker, they will extinct. Mutations lead to offsprins with different characteristics and if the new characteristics are beneficial they will survive, otherwise they will die. This is the survival of the fittest.
:(

Unfortunately i cant believe in best possible guesses at this time so the whole evolution theory goes tits up when asked why are we the only species to evolve a conscious mind even though we've only been here a fraction of the time compared with other species?

Iv said before im not a religious nutter who wont accept that there might not be a heaven and hell just i think heaven and hell are more plausible then evolution after looking at current data.
For the record i dont believe there's a heaven or hell either.

Dreamsa

Nobody understands evolution and biology completely. We are beginning to understand biology and evolution much better, but only evolution in the context of the current state of affairs.

Nobody has a plausible beginning to life, though there are some interesting theories involving separation of self from nonself involving spontaneous formation of vesicles and membrane bilayers.

Your definition is basically correct, but I would also say that internal duplication of regions of DNA within the organism is important. A dnd explore new functions without depriving the organism of the useful function it has been filling.

Also, a single molecule is tough to improve through mutation alone. The analogy typically given is a bullet shot into a car engine is unlikely to make an improvement. That's why we have sex. You need a variety of workable versions of a given molecule that can be tested in lots of combinations. Some sets will have improved logic that benefit the system they're involved in.

It's interesting to note that all of the combinations of human genes possible cannot have been ever been tested. Using a conservative estimate of 30,000genes with 2 versions of each, the possible number of combinations is 2^30,000 ~ 8x10^9030. I don't have a reasonable feel for how big the population was historically, but even at an average of a million which is likey to be a bit high it would take 8x10^9024 years ... that's a lot of years ... even at billions it would take 8x10^9021 years and that's probably longer than the universe is supposed to have been around (I don't have good estimates for that either).

Benji,

whoops didn't realize I posted a fragment first ... my browser ipped and took me to a page saying I couldn't post 2 messages in 30 seconds and then I finished the message (in more than thirty s) and posted it...

Benji,

I don't think anyone has ever shown that other mammals aren't conscious.

If an organims has a successful niche it definitely won't evolve something complicated like consciousness while being selected to remain well suited to that niche. Our niche was our ability to think and with what we're doing to the earth no other animal has a chance to reach the level we have.

Dolphins sound like they're pretty intelligent and social. Maybe being in the sea they have escaped more of our havoc and had a better chance.

I think mammals and many other animals are conscious but only we do not understand them.

Also I want to ask how are different organs evolved?

________________________________________________
scilosopher,
Therefore there are still many details involving life and
evolution still uncertain, right?
We are just starting to gain the knowledge then!;)

I would go even farther and say that all life is 'conscious' but most of it cannot
communicate with us because of our limited communication skills ... You know,
just verbal (or crude substitutes) for the most part.

Take care. ;)

Will there be one day that we can find out the way to communicate with other organisms, I think it's possible.
;)

With patience, you can communicate with quite a few ... though rather superficially.

Had a female pigeon that was great except that I could never get it through her little
skull that she shouldn't follow me into town. She'd fly along with me when I was on
my motorcycle. Great fun and talk about getting stares from the cagers coming from
the opposite direction.

Take care. ;)

She just fly along you and does not afraid of you?:)
__________________________________________________ __

Anyone can tell me about the evolution of our specialized organs?

Oldest son brought her home as a chick and I guess she just thought she was
one of the family. Made a great 'watch pigeon'. Her cage was at the top of the
second floor stairs and if anyone other than family went upstairs she'd have a fit.

Take care. ;)

7,8: life learnt to reproduce because of radiation. For instance, the understanding of how the planet was formed is similar to that of a welding splatter, the sun in it's infancy had a sun spot, a heat erruption that jetisoned a globual of gases. these moved out from the sun and cooled (The sun continued fusion and fission and slowly decreased in volume.) these gases could bonded as the elements we know, although the crust cooled the molden interior stayed hot (and is still hot and will always be hot). The crust of the planet, it's very landplates cooled into rock form, and the rock themselves carry a magnetic essence that the whole sum of creates the poles and the land plate movements when the axis moves slightly.

The planets were formed from the accretion disk that surrounded the infant Sun and which was also absorbing matter from this same disk. The theory that the planets were spun off the sun is no longer creditable.

The reason that the Earth is hot is due to radioactive decay of elements within it.

All elements, except Hydrogen some Helium and small quantities of Lithium and Beryllium (I think) which were formed at the time of the BB, are formed in supernova and thus were already in the accretion disk.

The magnetic poles are created from the iron core of the Earth spinning at a different rate than the outer layers thus forming a kind of dynamo.


I am open to correction on any of these points of course.

life learnt to reproduce because of radiation.

Can we say they learn to reproduce?:D
Just want to know.

The planets were formed from the accretion disk that surrounded the infant Sun and which was also absorbing matter from this same disk. The theory that the planets were spun off the sun is no longer creditable.

Can we solve the problem of the angular momentum of the Sun now?
:) :) :)
Merry X'mas!!!

Can we solve the problem of the angular momentum of the Sun now?

I don't know the problem you are referring to Dreamsa. Could you elaborate please?

A merry Christmas to you and your family too. :-)

Hi!
The problem is like this:
The sun is formed from a rotating mass of gases, the centre of the mass of gas formed the sun and around it formed the planets. If the situation is like this, the sun is rotating too slow now! As according to the theory, the sun should process most of the angular momentum of the system but not the planets, but now the situation is reversed.

The problem of angular momentum is roughly like this.
:)

Sorry, but I knock off problem solving during the holiday season :D

Take care and have a good one. ;)

Hi Dreamsa

Have a look at this site http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast121/lectures/lec15.html

It says that the most likely candidate for the descepency in the angular momentum is magnetic braking, although the problem still seems far from solved.

I read the link.
Magnetic braking may be the solution. Sometimes or later, the solution can be certain.
Let's go back to evolution:
Can anyone tell me about the evolution of organs?:)

________________________________________________
MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

A couple of links I like:

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evolution.html