Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
Inyan

Evolution just a theory or real?

Recommended Posts

We have a thread for a flat earth and a thread for climate change. The obvious was missing. Here is the thread for those who question the theory of evolution. Coming soon, the thread for those who question gravity. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate your just trying to bring out the crazy's for entertainment value. I love it.

I'll bite. In my opinion there is no sane debate left in the premise it self (I also think there should be mandatory psych evaluation for public office), all that's left to do is refine the theory with things like Parallel Gene Transfer, which shows viruses moving DNA between species. In human evolution we just need to tie down who all our ancestors were. We already know that most if not all races out side of Africa have neanderthal DNA, at least South East Asians contain denissovan DNA, while Melanesian and Indigenous Australians contain similar DNA that points to yet another unidentified ancestor, as does negroid genes. I personally think there will be many more discoveries in the near future. Did you know that the earliest human bones, discovered in Briton, with viable DNA, shows the individual had brown skin, dark hair and blue eyes. A combination previously thought to be impossible. I wonder what the Neo-Nazis make of that?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheddar man?  i dont know what nazis have to say about it but i can tell you what a white person (who is :o proud of his white ancestors) thinks

 

But first, there is an obvious large-scale attempt underway to "blackwash" european history and this story is probably part of it.  

 

Cheddar man is the oldest complete skeleton, other remains are dated many thousands of years older.

 

Now its almost as though journalists dont publish scientific findings properly.  i can at least find a paywalled site previewing the following "that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human"

 

my this devolved quickly ;)  no hard feelings.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSFgH1DW1nzd-xrkE7GMrs

 

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol.  Edited that post many times, came out pretty weird.  Didnt know what I was trying to say or achieve exactly and there was no need to get into all that shit really, i cant help myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh mate white skin must have come from somewhere (neanderthal maybe), as someone constantly battling skin cancer I'm having problems coming up with any evolutionary advantage (suggestions anyone). As for not being able to tell skin colour from genetics, there are many genes linked to skin pigment. Probably the most important being SLC24A5 which is present in pretty much all white skinned people. another interesting one is MFSD12 which is strongly linked to the production of melanin, one mutation causes very dark skin, while another causes the skin condition Vitiligo, in combination with other genes it can cause white skin. With so many different genes at play, I agree it's hard to know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things they talk about a lot in documentaries about Darwin and popular books about evolutionary theory is the process of Darwin's own research, and his delay then eventual publication and publicising of the theory. The story goes that beginning in late 1831 Darwin was aboard the HMS Beagle on a survey voyage around parts of the coast of America. Darwin was on board as a passenger, rather than a surveyor or naturalist, but his intention was to collect specimens and further his knowledge of natural history. As the Beagle worked its way up and down the coastlines of the southern tip of America Darwin spent weeks or months working ashore. When the ship reached Brazil Darwin got truly psyched, shooting 80 birds in a single morning, on one occasion. He collected everything of interest he could get his hands on, living, recently dead, and fossilised, got bummed out by seeing slavery in action, and began thinking about the similarities and differences between species across time and geographies.

 

When he arrived home in 1836 Darwin enlisted the help of naturalists to describe and classify his specimens. He spent years editing a five volume work on the zoology of the Beagle's voyage and writing a book on its geology. At this time it was generally and strongly believed that species were fixed, although the idea of species' transmutation had been proposed by some. Since at least 1837, he was putting together the bigger picture of these detailed studies. He speculated that races of creatures must alter to fit the changing conditions in the world. Convinced that species were not fixed, but changed over time, he studied the fossil record and present day specimens, paying attention to features like nonfunctional leg bones in snakes and nonfunctional wings on birds. When his zoologist mate John Gould told him that the Galapagos birds he'd thought were completely different species were actually all finches, he realised this could be an example of descent with modification. That the birds came from different islands got him thinking about how environmental conditions must play a role in this modification, their different shaped beaks being better suited to their different diets. He sought the mechanism behind the modifications.

 

He knew that farmers could create new varieties of cattle and plants by selectively breeding them, and he extrapolated that it might be possible that over a very long period of time such varieties, cut of from their parent populations as they are on islands, could form new species that had become so different that they could no longer interbreed. Charlie D started getting around to livestock shows and pigeon racing events, even got himself his own set of pigeons so that he could study the breeding process first hand. By 1838 his notebooks show that he had already figured out that species did evolve, and he wanted a better idea of why and how they did it. His interest was roused by things like that in a little of black dogs there was often a brown one or two, or that in a clutch of pigeon squabs there'd be those with wider or narrower wings. 

 

Darwin read Malthus, who had applied the idea naturalists had noted about plants and animals having far more offspring or producing far more seed that could survive because of the resources available to them. Combining the idea of competition for resourced, with variation in groups of young, with those variations sometimes being advantageous or disadvantageous in terms of the plant or animal's ecological niche, Darwin started to put it all together. The ones that have an advantage in the competition for resources or in avoiding an early death, were more likely to make it to reproduction age, to reproduce, and to produce offspring with similarly advantageous traits. Over many generations, these variations would manifest as standard characteristics. Natural selection was the mechanism Daz had been looking for.

 

In 1842 he wrote a 35 page summary of his idea. The argument was based on the at-least multi-million year history of the earth, the mutability of species, variations between geographically isolated groups, the changing environmental conditions of the earth and the specificities of environments in different locations, intergenerational variation within species and varieties, the heritability of traits, the fact that only some of each generation of offspring survive long enough to reproduce. He expanded it to 231 pages of the next couple of years. In the first part of the longer work he described how natural selection works, in the second part he provided arguments for and against the theory. 

 

For almost 20 years after writing the ideas down Darwin sat on them. He knew that Victorian society viewed ideas about natural laws as an affront to God's Law, and having thought of going into the seminary prior to his voyage on the Beagle he knew pretty well where the bible stood on the idea of species. Public figures had already expressed serious disapproval over the idea of natural laws. Alfred Lord Tennyson wrote a poem called "In Memoriam" about being cut up by the idea that we are natural creatures emerging from a set of physical processes. Darwin's wife Emma had written him a letter about her fear that they would be separated for eternity when he got barred from heaven for thinking he knew better than the bible. He wanted the theory to be watertight before he released it to the world. He wanted more appropriate credentials. He wanted more evidence.

 

He wrote a four volume work on barnacles and got some cred, and by 1856 his mates had convinced him it was time to publish the work on descent with modification through natural selection. After working on the book for a couple of years Darwin got a manuscript in the mail from a bloke called Alfred Russel Wallace, who was a champion in his own right. He published on the possibility of life on other planets, and was a mad tripper, writing that "man consists essentially of a spiritual nature or mind intimately associated with a spiritual body or soul, by of which are developed in and by means of a material organism", and "matter is essentially force, and nothing but force; that matter, as properly understood, does not exist, and is, in fact, philosophically inconceivable". He proved the curvature of the earth to a flat-earther who then cheated him out of the money offered for such a proof. He was a proponent of the equality and civility he found in indigenous societies he met with on his travels, and attacked industrial Britain's social and moral organisation on this basis. He was vocally critical of the institution of privately owned land (which had replaced the commons in Britain), and also about the accumulation of great amounts of wealth by individuals. He was skeptical about some claims made about vaccinations, suspected dangers of vaccination were being covered up by the medical establishment, and argued that a reduction in smallpox owed to improvements in hygiene and sanitation at a time when germ theory was in its infancy. He was against globalised trade and imperialism. You might remember his (claimed) ancestor William Wallace from Braveheart. Wallace was a radical who started his own explorations in naturalism already subscribed to the theory of the transmutation of species. Wallace wanted to amass evidence for the hypothesis he'd read in Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a book published anonymously that speculated that everything in existence was not fixed since creation, but had earlier forms. In the same vein as Darwin's reflections on finch modification being selected for by different islands' geographies, Wallace had written about things like variation among groups of animals being due to biogeographical barriers. While Darwin had been wringing his hands about his theory of modification by descent, Wallace had been in the field amassing evidence about the same questions, how and why do variances lead to speciation, and why do species die out over time. Wallace came to the same conclusions Darwin had about ecological pressures regulating evolutionary change.

 

Wallace sent an article to Darwin in 1958, asking that he read it and pass it on if he thought it worthy of publication. Darwin found that it read like a summary of the book he was working on, and had been thinking about for 20 years. He sought advice from a distinguished geologist, and they made a plan to present Darwin's and Wallace's research to the Linnean Society. Darwin, who still felt a long way off the book he wanted to write, quickly re-wrote his research into a shorter (though still over 400 pages) manuscript and published it. It argued that species change over time to fit their ecological niche, and that the mechanism for this was natural selection. The book covered many species, living and extinct, and studiously tried to avoid the question of humans, no doubt to soften the blow to the status quo who found the idea of human evolution a personal insult and an affront to religious doctrine. Many prominent members of the clergy reacted as anticipated, rejecting the idea that life could exist without a creator (a point Darwin and Wallace disagreed on). That the book highlighted the perceived cruelty of a nature that produces an abundance in conditions that cannot support it was also a difficult point for those who believed in a benevolent god. Even some private supporters of Darwin did not give their public support, and so added weight against the new theory. 

 

In the debates that followed, slick-talking members of the clergy like Samuel "Soapy Sam" Wilberforce attacked the theory with appeals to emotion rather than criticisms of the science, and won many over with this approach. Wilberforce himself is the progenitor of an anti-evolution argument still heard today, asking his opponent Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley) in a public debate whether the ape in Huxley's family tree was on his mother's or father's side. Huxley responded that he'd rather have an ape ancestor than be a man of considerable influence who used his gifts to introduce ridicule to what should have been a scientific debate. The audience went wild and a woman fainted to demonstrate her approval, as was the style of the time.

 

Huxley tagged Joe Hooker into the ring, and Hooker eviscerated Soapy Sam for having come to the debate without having read or understood the book. He then defended the claims of Darwin's book on the basis of their scientific merits. The debate ended and was discussed and remembered, at the time, more for its emotion and insults than for its science. Evolutionary theory aside, some things never change.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@crop white skin is speculated to have been an evolutionary response to less sunny climates and our need to produce vitamin D. Doesn't seem to have been necessary in Oz :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hashslingr, great post. I'm glad you spoke of Wallace, the man doesn't get enough credit, while he didn't have Darwin's connections, he certainly did far more field work. Given the timing, I personally would not be surprised if Darwin's rewrite plagiarised Wallace. Evolutionary theory was around before these two, Lamarckism in particular is interesting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If evolution is real, then how come we don't have chimps giving birth to men today? Where are the missing links? Where are the so called crockoducks?Has anyone ever seen a bull-sheep?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Inyan said:

Where are the missing links?

LOL to funny! Mate if ya looking for an instant change of species like the fella in the second film, then you are looking for a biblical style miracle, good luck finding proof of that. If you want a crockoduck or missing link: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to get into transitional fosils, there's heaps, probably two of the most famous:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

i dont know what nazis have to say about it but i can tell you what a white person (who is :o proud of his white ancestors) thinks

 

one neo-fascist triggered so far :) 

 

from what I can tell , TI, you dont have anything to say, you are just annoyed by the FACT that the original Homo sapiens is a nigga. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I corrected crop who innocently repeated a hype article.  quite a few articles going around now downplaying the original claim.  Hey, im not an expert obviously (or a fascist).  I just recognise cultural marxist nonsense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few animals that's I've come across that seem to have devolved or maybe something else that I haven't thought of. Moray eels have a primative venom duct. A groove in their teeth very similar to a ghuihla monster. And it's used to deliver an enzyme that seems to only break down red corpuscles in mammals. So how has that happened? It's almost like a snake has devolved. Although morays are in fossil record right back to way back when.  Many modern snakes also have venom that's basically an enzyme that messes with mammals red blood cells. But I don't think your average moray would ever encounter enough mammals to evolve that direction. If they have had this for thousands of years why haven't they lost it? Enzymes take a bit of energy to produce. So why hasn't that disappeared through the ages? Another one is birchirs place in the evolution of labaryth organs. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, El Presidente Hillbillios said:

There are a few animals that's I've come across that seem to have devolved or maybe something else that I haven't thought of. Moray eels have a primative venom duct. A groove in their teeth very similar to a ghuihla monster. And it's used to deliver an enzyme that seems to only break down red corpuscles in mammals. So how has that happened? It's almost like a snake has devolved. Although morays are in fossil record right back to way back when.  Many modern snakes also have venom that's basically an enzyme that messes with mammals red blood cells. But I don't think your average moray would ever encounter enough mammals to evolve that direction. If they have had this for thousands of years why haven't they lost it? Enzymes take a bit of energy to produce. So why hasn't that disappeared through the ages? Another one is birchirs place in the evolution of labaryth organs. 

 

Evolution is simply descent with modification. Evolution makes no claim as to the direction of the modification.

 

Now to your question, how does descent with modification occur?

 

Genetic differences are heritable. Genetic differences are passed to the next generation or they are not.

 

Mutations over time, gene flow from one organism to the next, genetic drift (isolation of a group), and natural selection over 3.8+- years makes up the large changes you so often see which are labeled macroevolution.

 

 Think of a cacti species that has a white flower like Trichocereus pachanoi. A different species may have a red flower. If those two breed intentionally or by accident you are going to have a potential transfer of genes should viable fertile seed arise. This is an easily observed case of descent with modification.

 

 Now, you may have a new color (red) introduced into one species and white introduced into the other species after several generations breeding back to either species. Alternately, you may have the isolation of this new mixed species whereby it becomes isolated from either parent enough to allow for a new species to evolve over time. Sometimes when two species interact through interbreeding novel phenotypes arise that did not exist in either species originally. Such is the case with Brugmansia candida phenotypes with a double flower. Brugmansia candida is actually a hybrid of Brugmansia aurea x Brugmansia versicolor. Interstingly enough, only 1 flower out of several thousand will have this double phenotype when the two pure species are bred together. However, once the double phenotype has reared its head it is easily passed to future progeny.

 

Genes may naturally mutate and in fact they do. Chromosome crossover may occur as well. Now, as these changes pile up over time they may accrue enough changes that breeding with one of the original populations from which a species originated from is no longer an option via pollen incompatibility, stigma incompatibility, bloom times do not coincide, etc.

 

As this unique population of Trichocereus pachanoi hybrid with red flowers progresses over time it may develop a large population in the wild of red flowered T. pachanoi. Genetic drift has occurred as white flowers cease to pop up in this population.

 

Changes in DNA sequence through mutations may accrue giving rise to novel genetic combinations and new phenotypes as well. Most importantly perhaps is that mutations do not have to be advantageous. They can occur and have no positive or negative effect or the opposite can occur. If the offspring by chance should survive and pass along those new mutations or traits then they have the chance of continuing to exist and may get shuffled in with other new mutations and result in novel phenotypes over time. While not all changes are as drastic as that 1 in several thousand seedling that occurs when you breed a B. aurea with a B. versicolor… changes do occur.

 

Shuffling of genes occurs when two plants or animals reproduce with one another. This shuffling of genes is another source of new combinations of novel phenotypes. The shuffling that occurs between two different species for instance may allow for a very large interchange of novel phenotypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I vote Devolution!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 8:25 AM, ThunderIdeal said:

Cheddar man?  i dont know what nazis have to say about it but i can tell you what a white person (who is :o proud of his white ancestors) thinks

 

But first, there is an obvious large-scale attempt underway to "blackwash" european history and this story is probably part of it.  

 

Cheddar man is the oldest complete skeleton, other remains are dated many thousands of years older.

 

Now its almost as though journalists dont publish scientific findings properly.  i can at least find a paywalled site previewing the following "that’s what dozens of news stories published this month – including our own – stated as fact. But one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is less certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human"

 

my this devolved quickly ;)  no hard feelings.  

 

1519317631128.jpg

 

 

Eh?

 

I am from europe, tell me more about this blackwash of our history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha.  What is that snow gorilla thing?

 

Oh, stuff like this mainly, theres lots more but i could only find this.  BBC definitely the main culprit.  What a joke britain is now

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcEwQFXCVgRBrnasMUKpp

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/03/2018 at 6:32 PM, El Presidente Hillbillios said:

Moray eels have a primative venom duct.

Mate, morays are such cool, fascinating critters. I want to learn more about this enzyme, can you point me in the right direction. With morays being fish and snakes reptiles, I doubt it is devolution, more likely convergent evolution. Why they haven't lost it, is interesting. There may be some purpose for the enzyme we have not yet found, or the gene responsible may be linked to another trait. For instance I know some morays produce a toxic skins mucus which makes them less palatable as well as binding and protecting their burrows. Could this be genetically linked to their venom gland? Morays have an alien style second jaw, made necessary to overcome the lack of suction caused by their mouth structure. Could the venom gland be an aborted, or even a still evolving, alternative solution to that problem?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 11:23 AM, ThunderIdeal said:

Haha.  What is that snow gorilla thing?

 

Oh, stuff like this mainly, theres lots more but i could only find this.  BBC definitely the main culprit.  What a joke britain is now

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcEwQFXCVgRBrnasMUKpp

 

 

 

This is just to appeal to black people so they will tune in, and these are amusement TV shows.

 

Except the black roman soldier, but thats real. Only it may seem weird cause history if washed any color it is in fact white/pink?

 

:P

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a clear misunderstanding here... "

Devolutionde-evolution, or backward evolution is the notion that species can revert to supposedly more primitive forms over time.

The concept is related to the idea that evolution has a purpose (teleology) and is progressive (orthogenesis), for example that feet might be better than hooves or lungs than gills. However, evolutionary biology makes no such assumptions, and natural selection shapes adaptations with no foreknowledge of any kind. It is possible for small changes such as in the frequency of a single gene to be reversed by chance or selection, but this is no different from the normal course of evolution."

 

Evolutionary biology does not make these assumptions...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientism is the new religion, All the work of satan to deceive and lead man away from our true creator, satan wants to keep us here and not enter the kingdom, the bible says four corners of earth, the earth is flat and gravity is just density, WAKE TFU  before it's to late, time is short, let jesus in your heart now or go to the pit for eternity with your lord satan and the best thing you will have to look forward to there is hitler, pul pot and jimi hendrix will gang bang you at 4pm every wednesday.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As i heard paul stamets say "a theory is a hypothesis thats supported by evidence" so the answer to the question is yes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×