基因

Dalvm

"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，大猿和黑猿幾乎沒有甚麼明顯的變化，而人類已經進化成智人。
再過4000萬年大猿和黑猿也不會進化成智人。

Why? 進化論會不會有些解不懂的地方?

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。）

抽刀斷水

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？

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。

抽刀斷水

回復 5# beebeechan


    唔係好明你想帶出乜野訊息。

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.

dye

a) What do you mean "no change to primate"?  We ARE the change, and we ARE primate.

b) Evolution will continue and is continuing.  As the environment change (including human factors, competition), so will be species that "fit" into it.  All the author need to do is wait for another few million year before concluding.

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, whether they evolve to become homo sapien is not important in evolution.

--------------
Please begin with Evolution 101 again.

dye

回復 4# 抽刀斷水

In strict term, there is no "better" in evolution.  You probably "better adapted".  The question then raise the question of where in the "wild" you are referring to?

With or without education, human is better at co-operation, planning on future.  Walking upright is also advantageous in traveling long distance on grassland.  It is better at spotting food or enemy on grassland.  All of these will work to our advantage in the certain part of the wild, and useless in other part of the wild.

So in another word, we will probably fare terribly in the jungle compare to a gorrila.  However, we will be quite better adapted on grassland.  We will probably fare horrible alone.  However, we will be exceptional if we are in group.

Does that answer your question?
----------------
PS.  If I remember correctly, our brain did get a tiny bit larger after civilisation.  The limiting factor of human brain is birth.  Also, as our diet change, some of us has become more lactose tolerant (we can drink milk as an adult!).  So we HAVE changed!

抽刀斷水

我有乳糖不耐，係咪代表我未夠文明？

我聽過人直立後，頭就可大些重些，當然也是受出生限制啦。

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!

dye

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.  Otherwise, the elephant should be the wiser)  

Evolution has no goal, does not mean it is random.  Snow flakes has no goal, yet it is not random.  Pattern can form due to natural process.  Human is just a particular pattern, like a particular shape of snowflakes.   (Homo sapian is not the only intelligence ever exist on earth, the others has just gone extinct)

We do walk upright and they generally don't.  It is quite advantageous in certain environment.  I never said it is the sole factor that distinguish us from them.  (You never get over the idea that human is just another species, do you?)

There are some environment on earth that has not change much to pressure an evolution.  Obviously, you forget the salamander that HAS changed.

Species change by MUTATION AND SELECTION.  Now you get a lighter skin color?  Evolution built on ancertor, it is not a puff from design.  As long as the species manage to survive, it does not need to be perfect!

Go back to evolution 101 IN UNIVERSITY

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

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.