Everything has evolved

1. 0

   Baileybearposted 14 years ago

   gone from a primative, simple form to more complex...some things are lost...nothing is the same as it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 10000 years ago.
   
   Things that have evolved include:
   
   music
   language
   religion
   science
   culture
   technology
   knowledge
   art
   society
   living creatures
   
   do you agree?
   Is there anything that doesn't evolve?

   replyreport
   1. 87

      WryLiltposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Sex. On the whole, I don't think it evolves. Sure people try a few different ways or have it more or less or with different amounts of people... but on the whole it stays the same.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         paradigmsearchposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         WryLit, I had no idea...

         replyreport
      2. 92

         thooghunposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The functional act of sex may not, however I think the culture that surrounds it has
         
         And by extention alot of the behavioural norms that encompass it as well. Yesterday's taboos are today's trends, and to some degree vice-versa.

         replyreport
      3. 0

         Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         ah..but has sex evolved too?  ie people do it for pleasure, not just for reproduction....

         replyreport
         1. 59

            couturepopcafeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            It may not evolve overall but it has its own evolutionary cycle.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      paradigmsearchposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Good post.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I think changed would be a better word choice.  Evolve implies complexity, which is subjective.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         couturepopcafeposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Evolution is complex but how is evolution subjective?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I will answer your question in two parts.  First, the subjective I referred to was with respect to the categories posted by the OP, not evolution itself.  You have re-stated my point that evolution is complex, but the degree of complexity (if any at all) of the categories posted by the OP are subjective to opinion, so changed is a better word choice in IMO.  Second, evolution itself is subjective, because not everyone believes in evolution.
            
            Ex.
            
            Has music really evolved? or has it just changed?
            
            or in context of evolution:
            
            Is music today really more complex?  Or were the original versions more complex?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               music has evolved - look at the evolution of musical instruments for a start.  Then musical theories, musical styles etc.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  That is all subjective to opinion.  One could argue that styles of prior eras were more complex than the styles of today.  It comes down to personal taste not "evolution"

                  replyreport
   4. 0

      Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      well that's true.  everything you just listed has evolved; except for humans, as we still haven't evolved since our earlier cromag years.  In fact, on the most basic cellular and dna level, our dna doesn't match up with neanderthal man at all. In fact, there was this one study on how a scientist took the dna of all species and broke them down to the most basic cellular level, and they all came out the same.  Regardless if the dna came from a plant, a bird, mammal or whatever, on the most basic cellular level they were all the same; even neanderthals.  here's the kicker here, modern man, which is us, our dna didn't match the others on the most cellular basic level.  therefore, there's no definitive proof that we even evolved from neanderthals at all. 
      
      Hence, why you always hear the phrase, "missing link", as scientists who try to prove Darwin's theory can't seem to find it.  Am I saying it's divine intervention?  No, but it's possible.  I also think it's possible aliens might have tampered with our dna cellular structure, and that's why we can't find the missing link.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         We started from dust, or in the case of great human wisdom left handed amino acids.
         
         http://www.science20.com/news_releases/ … obiologist
         
         http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecul … gy_04.html
         
         Genesis
         
         {2:7} And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Daniel J Breretonposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, we started from dust...star dust, that is.  All things were ince packed together in a singularity which exploded to form the universe as we know it.  Then, slowly, atoms and molecules in the universe interacted to form organic matter.  Finally, quite recently, humans grew out of the evolution of life on earth.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you, except for the evolution part, all by the hand of GOD.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  So your god isn't smart enough to design in evolution?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     ediggityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Sure he is, I just don't believe that's what happened.

                     replyreport
      2. 0

         sandra rinckposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It's NOT possible to find the missing link because everything is linked.
         
         One anti-evolutionist might say, well then how come all humans and monkeys share only 98% DNA but all humans are differer by 1%?
         
         Where I would then say, because you dill hole, we are evolving each individually and as a species. There are NO missing links.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Your right.  Everything on this planet is linked in some way or another, and have a natural equilibrium with the environment itself.  Versus us, we just populate an area until we use up every natural resource, then repopulate to another area.  Kind of like a virus if you stop to think about it.  Have you ever stopped to wonder...WHY that is?  I know I have...have you?

            replyreport
      3. 59

         John Holdenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Neither is there definitive proof that we didn't.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Your right.  There is no definitive proof of that either, but that doesn't necessarily make my theory and opinion any less logical or rational than yours.

            replyreport
      4. 88

         wildernessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         How can you say humans haven't evolved?  Consider:
         
         A good look at suits of armor, clothing, furniture, etc. from the middle ages and it becomes immediately obvious that we are bigger than we used to be.  It's called evolution.
         
         More and more people never develop wisdom teeth, and those that do often can't carry them - the modern jawbone is too small.  It's called evolution.
         
         If memory serves me right, the first recorded case of hemophilia was one of England's queens - it is not that uncommon now.  It's called evolution.
         
         None of these are the radical changes that everyone thinks of when considering evolution, but it's only been a few thousand years instead of the millions normally required for large changes.  We're changing, all right, albeit slowly.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Well you do bring up a lot of valid points there, and I must admit to my own shame, I didn't remember some of the points you alluded to, until you reminded me.  However, that still doesn't prove we evolved from Neanderthals though, as the jury is still out on that one. 
            
            No, I'm not some religious nut that's pushing religion down anyone throats, and claiming its divine intervention, as there's no definitive proof of that either, but all I'm saying is we have to look at ALL the facts here before we can claim anything for certain.

            replyreport
      5. 82

         Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You are very, very confused in this area.
         
         We are just like every other living thing. Our DNA  is not mysteriously different.  There is no need to involve gods or aliens.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

            really? I'm confused?  No offense Pcunix, but I have yet to talk to ANY scientist or see any scientific documentary where it definitely says there is a link between Neanderthals and Modern man on a DNA cellular level.  Unless you can cite EXACT sources and references, then I stand by my own convictions.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Humans and Neanderthals were different species. But - we shared a common ancestor and there is evidence that we interbred. Certainly we did not evolve from Neanderthals - what makes you think we did?
               
               http://www.time.com/time/health/article … 68,00.html
               http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 … some-of-us
               http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Well Mark, I never thought that we did evolve from Neanderthals, as I was just trying to make a point that we never did as well with some of the other atheists here that believe we did.  Don't get me wrong, I do believe that everyone has a right to formulate their own views on life, but I was just stating biologically there's been no definitive proof to show we evolved from Neanderthals.  As there's even evidence right now showing that Cromags existed alongside Neanderthals if I'm not mistaken. 
                  
                  I'll definitely check out the links later Mark. I appreciate you posting them up.  I would do it now, but I have to be at class in about 10 minutes, so I probably won't have time right now, but thanks though.  I'll definitely check it out later.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     What has a lack of belief in an Invisible Super Being got to with with understanding human evolution?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        I never said it did, as those are two totally different subjects entirely.  I was just trying to make a point that's all.  I apologize if I didn't make that clearer enough.

                        replyreport
                  2. 88

                     wildernessposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     You are correct - cro-magnan man lived side by side with neanderthal, and was probably instrumental in their demise.  As Mark says there is some evidence of interbreeding as well.  In that sense we are their descendents, but it a very weak link and not enough to call it evolution.
                     
                     Rather, neanderthal and cromagnan (our most immediate ancestor) came from the same ancestor long, long ago.  The evolutionary tree branched off, with neanderthal moving north into Europe while the ancestors of cromagnan stayed south for a long time before moving North as well and met up with neanderthal.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Baileybearposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        our species of human have been instrumental in many species demise - look at all the animals facing extinction thanks to humans ripping out their habitats, eating them all etc

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Stevennix2001posted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Well after reading the links, it does offer difinitive proof that there was inbreeding between Neanderthals and Cromags, which no offense, I already knew.  I don't want to sound like a smart a**, but I'm just saying this is already information I knew about before reading the links.  However, although there was inbreeding, there's still no evidence to show that we ever did evolve from Neanderthals though initially, as the rest of the articles offer up a lot of well thought out theories, but no results.  Therefore, you really can't say that the earliest ancestry of Cromags evolved from Neanderthals, as there's still no defining proof of that.
                        
                        @mark knowles
                        
                        Although I do appreciate you providing the links mark but sadly, it doesn't offer the answer i was looking for.  Sorry, but I do appreciate you helping me out though.  Thanks.

                        replyreport
   5. 59

      Shahid Bukhariposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Things, and Ideas ... only Exist ... as a Transience ... describable as the Living Human's Awareness, in Being.
      
      What we Read ... is the written Record ... of someone's Awareness ...
      
      What we see, as Relics, are the past ... when we look up at the sky ... we see what there was ... not what there is.
      
      The Structures, we behold in the Present ... is Human effort ... Physically Described.
      
      Thus, there is no such thing as Evolution ... it is either the Written, or the Described ... we relate to ... in a Logical Sequence.
      
      Humans, Exist, in a Transience ... called Life.

      replyreport
   6. 56

      FlyGermposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      A quick scan of this thread ... I didn't see what I'm about to post:
      
      To be sure things have changed over time.  However most of the change I see mentioned has to do with cultural changes rather than actual genetic changes.  Humans have changed, genetically, very little within recorded human history and arguably have changed little over the last 100,000 years.
      
      Evolution *by Natural Selection* usually takes place on much vaster time-scales.  This doesn't invalidate the idea but it proposes two answers.
      
      1) No, the things you list are not due to genetic change
      2) Yes, the things you list are due to cultural change which is also subject to similar algorithmic processes akin to Natural Selection but with different units of analysis.

      replyreport
2. 60

   f_hruzposted 14 years ago

   The real process of evolution is only performed by natural forces. Reproductive processes evolved along with the diversification of life on earth.
   
   Natural evolution continues on our planet as part of cosmic evolution.
   
   Humans evolved as one life form among many. As we learned to cope with our natural environment, we developed various cultures and different languages, some advanced societies, learned quite a lot about astonomy and mathematics at their cultural high points before fading away.
   
   Technological developments are not part natural evolution, nore are the results of human involvement in biological developments

   replyreport
3. 78

   psycheskinnerposted 14 years ago

   I don;t think 'evole' implies become more complex.  A virus is very simple, but highly evolved.  And some species like crocodiles have been almost exactly the same since the time of the dinosaurs.

   replyreport
   1. 92

      thooghunposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      "A virus is very simple, but highly evolved"
      
      Well put, I hadn't thought of it that way, what an apt comparison. I'm going to steal that one

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Shahid Bukhariposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Do you believe ... Things live ... or Exist, in an Evolution ... beyond the Existential "Moment" of our Awareness ?

      replyreport
4. 60

   Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

   lol I can say it because it isn't true but lets use alliterations to prove it.  If you look in our past as civilization, there isn't a vice that hasn't existed in other nations that were destroyed by this and that.  There isn't an art or subject of scholarly writ  That hasn't been discussed and ruminated over by other civilizations, western or not.  Banked highways have been found in south America to note that speed has been considered before.  There are drawings on temple walls that attest to some form of power to make light other then fire.   I have even seen pictures of flying craft in the carvings of "ancient culture."  There are things we have gotten better at then has ever been done before but perhaps we are limited in knowing that everything we have done hasn't been done before by the very nature of this planet and its core.  You cannot prove nor can any other that there hasn't been life here the way it is now.  By the very presence of Gold, this planet speaks of ages and perhaps a melting and renewing from once before where life perhaps existed as it does  now but such processes have started anew.  I like the idea of cycle.  For that is all it is I feel.

   replyreport
5. 60

   Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

   and yet we reason where the apes do not and no other animal comes even close.  Your purported wisdom as wacky as your hair.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      More confusion.  Other animals do reason.  Not as cleverly as we do, but reasoning is not unique to us.  In fact, NOTHING is unique to us.   We do many things far better than any other animal, but we have no claim to great uniqueness other than as a matter of degree.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

   I said nothing of aliens only the possible presence of tech before its time.  You were jumping to conclusion and I capitalized Gold.  Dyslexia doesn't due for one who wishes to debunk another.

   replyreport
7. 60

   Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

   Do you have a degree in animal telepathy as well? You can train animals to do many things that mimic reason, even communicate but not to reason.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      All you need to do is type "reasoning monkeys" into Google to learn that this has nothing to do with "training". 
      
      But that would violate your world view, so don't bother.

      replyreport
8. 82

   Pcunixposted 14 years ago

   You might also Google "Portia labiata" for a non-primate example.

   replyreport
9. 71

   maven101posted 14 years ago

   Evolution is not progress, evolution is change that is channeled in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing when the change occurs. Is a polar bear better than a termite? They would each die trying to live in the others environment. A termite can't kill a polar bear, but there are far more termites in the world, and they have lived far longer than polar bears.
   
   Perhaps the question should be " Are we devolving as a species ? " ...Larry

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution most definitely does not imply improvement, merely response to environment. 
      
      This is something commonly misunderstood by the anti-evolution crowds, so I am happy you mentioned it.

      replyreport
10. 60

    Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

    Maybe I should refine the concept of reasoning.  Searching for food, even if someone complicates matters a little is something an infant can do as well.  I would expect those with no self control and complete submission to their needs to share characteristics of situational problem solving related to survival.  Heaven knows otters use tools of sorts to do what they do and open shells.  I defy you or anyone else to provide the world with an ape who is capable of reasoning in matters not attached to survival.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You should read the ASL conversations that researchers have had with apes.   
       
       No, they aren't as smart as we are.  But many of us aren't as smart as the rest of us, either, right?  I could easily point you at people who regularly post in these forums who seem incapable of reasoning or at least do it far less well than others.
       
       We are not special.  Our DNA is not mysterious.  We're just another kind of ape.

       replyreport
11. 60

    Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

    Heaven knows that in one research study only one out of four monkeys could do the experiment put to them but none of the experiments reach to the level of what you and I are capable of doing in this discussion.  Provide me with an ape capable of delivering your witty responses to this understanding what they are saying and I will relent.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Pcunixposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Again:  a matter of degree.   A car traveling at 40 MPH is still moving, even though one traveling at 90 will leave it far behind.
       
       Apes reason.  So do other animals. We are not unique except in degree.

       replyreport
12. 60

    Jaggedfrostposted 14 years ago

    Then we as a race of humanity have exceeded that as we do not coexist in our environment but abuse and exploit it or do whatever else we wish with it.  Animals do not do that.  Odd.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Of course they do. Your observational skills seem somewhat impaired by your irrational beliefs. A simple observation of almost any animal population will show they grow and eat until their dominant food source becomes compromised, and when it does, the animal that relies on the food source starves and their population shrinks. No co-existence necessary. Nature takes care of business.
       
       All animals do it - when food is abundant, the population grows, when food is scarce, it shrinks. We have simply developed technology that has - so far - allowed us to over ride this normal boom and bust. But when we go bust - we will do so in a big way, because this is one big boom. I am with Douglas Adams - coming down from the trees was a big mistake.

       replyreport