beebeechan

"約4000萬年前，與人類基因最相似的大猿, 黑猿開始分開，
各自進化。
奇怪是經過4000萬年，漫長的歲月，大 ...
Dalvm 發表於 2011/11/9 21:50

因為一批上錯車，。
一些去左迪士尼，　一些去左東涌

beebeechan

"約4000萬年前，與人類基因最相似的大猿, 黑猿開始分開，
各自進化。
奇怪是經過4000萬年，漫長的歲月，大 ...
Dalvm 發表於 2011/11/9 21:50

佢地話，　因為猿，　黑猩猩呀已經進化到完滿階段，　與環境達到平衡，　唔需要再有進化來維持物種存活喎。

（不過，　佢地唔記得左人類與猿，　都是生活在相若的環境下。）

beebeechan

好奇一問：如果人一出生在野外，沒有接受教育，那麼在野外能比大猿和黑猿更優越麼？ ...
抽刀斷水 發表於 2011/11/9 22:46

好奇一答：
在人類未都市化，　未工業化，　未農業化，未有教育前，　人既外貌已經同猿很不同了，　人既樣貌生理也沒有因為受教育而同以前既人唔同左。

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan


    唔係好明你想帶出乜野訊息。
抽刀斷水 發表於 2011/11/10 09:57

哈....出巾占太多
我都唔記我本來想講乜
當我無講過野哩.

beebeechan

回復  抽刀斷水

In strict term, there is no "better" in evolution.  You probably "better adapted".  ...

PS.  If I remember correctly, our brain did get a tiny bit larger after civilisation.  
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 15:08

Is it also a 'misconception' that species with a larger brain means  'wiser' and "better adapted"?

beebeechan

回復  抽刀斷水
Walking upright is also advantageous in traveling long distance on grassland.

dye 發表於 2011/11/10 15:08

What makes homo sapien stand out from other primates is not because homo sapien walked upright some hundred million years ago.
Homo sapien is different from other primates because homo sapien is 'wise'.

beebeechan

b) Evolution will continue and is continuing.
.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

I do not agree.

以下是三種生物的化石與現今生存的後裔比較

最古的植物化石 (羊齒草) 同今日的羊齒草無咩唔同喎?
有咩演化?
那羊齒草化石在三千萬前, 三千萬年這麼久都未有顯注的演化.
理由可在?

If evolution is 'continuing', there should be observable changes to the species. 30 million  years is not a long time, but it isn't short either.

beebeechan

As the environment change (including human factors, competition), so will be species that "fit" into it.
.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

I do not agree.

If species "fit" into the environment, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else.

If species "fit" into the environment, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

beebeechan

c) There is no GOAL in evolution.  Human is not the goal.  (Obviously, the fall into evolution misconception again)  In the end, primate just evolve to be DIFFERENT primate

dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

You are trying to say that evolution is a 'no goal' and a 'random' thing. This contradicts strongly with the most fundamental concept in science: that the nature and the universe have patterns, rules and laws. Things would not have happened randomly as they have appeared.

beebeechan

Please begin with Evolution 101 again.
.
dye 發表於 2011/11/10 14:59

Good. Why don't we  go back to Introduction to the Beginning and Fundamental study of Evolution 101 .........TOGETHER!

beebeechan

Where do we begin?
And now we are calling the specie thata create nuclear weapon to capable of destroying the planet acouple of times "wiser"  (I never said a larger brain wiser.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19

As you have said:
If I remember correctly, our brain did get a tiny bit larger after civilisation.


Then how do you explain why homo sapien develops larger brain, if that large brain is not to make the species probably "better adapted" and "fix into" its living environment.

If it only happened by chance, then why not primates could have developed wings so that they could fly between trees. It would be a 'better fit' to survive in the jungle than a larger brain.

beebeechan

(Homo sapian is not the only intelligence ever exist on earth, the others has just gone extinct)

Tell me what that intelligent speices called?

beebeechan

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19
There are some environment on earth that has not change much to pressure an evolution.  

You made me lol!! a lot.

Then tell me which environment on earth did not have undergone great environment changes when the meteorite hit the earth causing the dinosaurs and many species to extinct.

beebeechan

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 07:19
Species change by MUTATION

While you are on your Evolution 101 course , you forget about the Logic 101.
You can get rich by winning a lottery, but buying a lottery does not necessary make you rich.

Evolution may start with mutation but not all mutation would lead to species evolution.
Mutation will not make a fish to become a dog.

Evolution is big change in phenotype.

beebeechan

回復  抽刀斷水
Walking upright is also advantageous in traveling long distance on grassland.  It is better at spotting food or enemy on grassland.

dye 發表於 2011/11/10 15:08

If that is the reason, I rather prefer to evolve to have one more pair of limbs so that I can flee faster from enemy or to chase my brunch.

beebeechan

A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:26

I dont know how much time you would think is enough for living species to evolve.

On my example above, the fern kept its structure and shape for 300 million years with no significant changes.
Do you think the evolution of species from a single cell to the complex live species we see on earth today can be completed within the earth's history of 4.5 billion years?
If that is the case, some species must have evoloved in fanstatic speed,like this:

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
I think talking to you is a waste of time.  Other who are interest can read the page and decide for themselves.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:41

If you feel you cannot convince me with your stupid arguments, then  you are free to go.
You are never on the hook.

As long as you stop sending out bullshits, things gonna get quiet and peaceful here.


I　forgot......you are welcome to come back with your Evolution 303!

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
b) Junk DNA, copying for the sake of copying.  As long as it do enough harm.  Most of DNA is just, junk.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:41

You just called them junks simple because you have no idea what these DNA sequences are for?

beebeechan

A fish CAN evolve to be a totally different creature, given enough environment pressure, time, and mutation.  Least you forget, dogs are evolved from wolf.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:26

Evolutionists claim that man has evolved from an ape-like ancestor over 6 million years; therefore if we allow an average of 10 years for each generation, then there would have been 600,000 generations. Every generation would have to have a genetic change of 200 base pairs  to turn an ape into a man.

We know that a 200 base pairs changes would make the son look very different from his parents. We don't see any of this happening today.

I don't know how many base pairs have to change in each generation for a fish to become a dog, and this must be completed within 4.5 billion years.

beebeechan

回復  beebeechan
Most of DNA is just, junk.

dye 發表於 2011/11/11 12:41

Evolutionists say that homo sapiens and apes have common ancestor because their DNA is 90% identical.
Well, they do not take into account the 90% so called "junk DNA" in the whole DNA sequence which human  being at this stage has no idea what they mean.
In that case, the claim that "they have a common ancestor because of the 90% DNA matches" is just bullshit!! You have no idea the rest of the ＂Ｙes, just junk DNA" sequences (90% of the total) are doing! "You don't know" does not mean they are functionless and play no part at all.