How is it so many creatures sharing the same space ...

Page 1 of 3 [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

17 Jan 2015, 12:24 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I wonder if we all have a pair of ancestors way back, that found something in a rain forest that altered the fur gene in their dna and ingested it. Everyone born after them lacked the full fur effect.


Prolly a fruit- from a tree. The female claimed that a snake recommended it.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

17 Jan 2015, 7:43 pm

ANA read the "Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins it is a bit of a slog, but by the end of it you will understand a great deal more about evolution. For a quicker insight look up a get a handle on what is know as an Evolutionary Stable Strategy ESS and Evolutionary Game Theory EGT

One thing to realise with Homo sapiens we are a very recent addition to the world and our physical and mental capability has allowed us to create tools that permit our existence in areas where we are not otherwise suited. It would seem far stranger if there were only a few types of animals as this would mean that many many areas were left unexploited. Evolution works by undirected adaptation that for some reason gives the individual an advantage over the others. Even encumberances have been shown to to be a viable ESS as it shows a prospective partner that even with such an encumberance the individual has managed to survive and must therefore be a good mate Handicap Principle

Take the niche example, say look at a forest, there are mini niches all over the place not only in the levels of a tree, but within areas of the tree, in holes, at the base, in different shadings and other camouflage. As one animal evolves to take advantage of these niches another may adapt or die out to cope with it. Even with your example of the Savanah there are multitudes of different micro niches and this leads to complexity.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

22 Jan 2015, 10:20 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I wonder if we all have a pair of ancestors way back, or possibly a tribe, when humans were scarcer and in one location, that found something in a rain forest that altered the fur gene in their dna and ingested it. Everyone born after them lacked the full fur effect.

No. That's not how it works. Producing fur is expensive in terms of protein. If an animal can get away without it, they save that much nutrition for other things, giving it a reproductive advantage. So, the gene that produced the less furry animals, becomes more numerous in the gene pool compared to the furry ones. Read a book or something. Dawkins is a good suggestion.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

23 Jan 2015, 12:05 am

Besides space, there is the time thing. While most of this stuff is new, around here we have creatures that show up as fossils in Montana. The alligator is one of the last dinosaurs, and some of our turtles run five foot, with a triple row of spikes down the back. We have an old lung fish that is unchanged in 350 million years, but so are bees and ants.

Our nearest relatives, chimps and bonobos, seem unchanged in the five million years since we left.

What besides humans and maybe dogs evolves at such a pace? Even dogs take many forms, but humans all look alike.

Chinese seemed small, but feed them they grow, but feed as much as you want, there have never been an eight foot people. But starving or stuffed, they still behave like people.

While we can claim a common ancestor with Pan, five million years ago, there is really no record of modern humans before 125,000 years ago.

A likely path, neonatal chimps, we look like their babies, who have little fur. We are the species who never grew up.

Along with getting stuck with the baby face, we got stuck in the early learning phase. Most species have a learning phase, rarely does it last two years in the big hunters. Another point of childishness for us.

In the background of all the other life on earth, we are some weird mutants.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jan 2015, 12:10 am

AspE wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I wonder if we all have a pair of ancestors way back, or possibly a tribe, when humans were scarcer and in one location, that found something in a rain forest that altered the fur gene in their dna and ingested it. Everyone born after them lacked the full fur effect.

No. That's not how it works. Producing fur is expensive in terms of protein. If an animal can get away without it, they save that much nutrition for other things, giving it a reproductive advantage. So, the gene that produced the less furry animals, becomes more numerous in the gene pool compared to the furry ones. Read a book or something. Dawkins is a good suggestion.

If that's true, seems like fur would be the exception when actually we are the exception, not the other way around. Most mammals do not get by without their fur so to just lose most of it is a rare thing indeed. Even among other primates it's plentiful.

Take a look at certain breeds of dogs and cats, hairless because we bred for that trait. If these animals bred without us choosing the parents, there would be very little, if any, hairless pups or kittens in litters. Nature doesn't favor furlessness in mammals.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2015, 12:35 am

Ana I have a question for you. You seem to have a great thirst to understand, yet it would appear that you are not prepared to learn from others who have studied the subject in detail. By this I do not mean myself rather those whose research I have read. In you initial post you say"People tend to look at Theory Of Evolution in a very general, simplistic way, but when you really consider it, it seems so far fetched" the opposite is true. When you discard the simplistic concept and explore the subject deeply it all makes a great deal of sense. Its a fact that evolutionary biology makes so much sense as a scientific theory that it repeatedly makes predictions that are then shown to be true. So my question to you is; given your clear desire for understanding why do you appear to not seek answers f and accept the evidence from those who have researched the subject?


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jan 2015, 12:38 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Ana I have a question for you. You seem to have a great thirst to understand, yet it would appear that you are not prepared to learn from others who have studied the subject in detail. By this I do not mean myself rather those whose research I have read. In you initial post you say"People tend to look at Theory Of Evolution in a very general, simplistic way, but when you really consider it, it seems so far fetched" the opposite is true. When you discard the simplistic concept and explore the subject deeply it all makes a great deal of sense. Its a fact that evolutionary biology makes so much sense as a scientific theory that it repeatedly makes predictions that are then shown to be true. So my question to you is; given your clear desire for understanding why do you appear to not seek answers f and accept the evidence from those who have researched the subject?

Because I know humans make mistakes and it often feels like they are only seeing half the picture when they think they are seeing it all.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2015, 3:41 am

Ana the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the theory makes predictions which are backed by findings in the natural world, medicine uses evolutionary theory to produce new drugs. No scientist would ever claim that we know everything there is to know about evolution, same as no scientist worth the label would make that claim about anything.

It is one thing to be sceptical when you have invested time and thought looking into a theory, learning how we know what we know, discovering the nature of the as yet unsolved mysteries, and understanding any opposing or competing hypotheses within a theory. It is something altogether different and reprehensible to have a very simplistic understanding of a subject and then announce "hey we often get things wrong so I am going to be sceptical about it.

As far as anything in science can be called a "fact" evolution can, but as I alluded to there are many areas that we are not fully sure on, such as gene selection and punctuated equilibrium. Ie the row between Dawkins and Gould.

LIke I have said do some reading, quite a lot of reading, and you will have a far greater understanding of the principles involved.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jan 2015, 3:47 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Ana the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, the theory makes predictions which are backed by findings in the natural world, medicine uses evolutionary theory to produce new drugs. No scientist would ever claim that we know everything there is to know about evolution, same as no scientist worth the label would make that claim about anything.

It is one thing to be sceptical when you have invested time and thought looking into a theory, learning how we know what we know, discovering the nature of the as yet unsolved mysteries, and understanding any opposing or competing hypotheses within a theory. It is something altogether different and reprehensible to have a very simplistic understanding of a subject and then announce "hey we often get things wrong so I am going to be sceptical about it.

As far as anything in science can be called a "fact" evolution can, but as I alluded to there are many areas that we are not fully sure on, such as gene selection and punctuated equilibrium. Ie the row between Dawkins and Gould.

LIke I have said do some reading, quite a lot of reading, and you will have a far greater understanding of the principles involved.


Look at the many layers is all I ask.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jan 2015, 3:58 am

I do, at least that is, from a rationa,l evidence based point of view. But it would appear that at least on this subject, you have not given the science more than a cursory glance. If you are going to criticise a theory and question its findings don't you think you should at least have a grasp on the theory you are disparaging. Evolutionary theory is not some thought bubble, it has been in the making for some 200 years and since the time of Darwin and Wallace has survived every attempt to falsify it. Rather than being falsified it has grown and grown, consistently predicting the existence of fossils before they have been found. Not only this but we see it in action. Look up the London underground mosquito as an example of speciation in progress.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

23 Jan 2015, 8:19 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
Ana I have a question for you. You seem to have a great thirst to understand, yet it would appear that you are not prepared to learn from others who have studied the subject in detail. By this I do not mean myself rather those whose research I have read. In you initial post you say"People tend to look at Theory Of Evolution in a very general, simplistic way, but when you really consider it, it seems so far fetched" the opposite is true. When you discard the simplistic concept and explore the subject deeply it all makes a great deal of sense. Its a fact that evolutionary biology makes so much sense as a scientific theory that it repeatedly makes predictions that are then shown to be true. So my question to you is; given your clear desire for understanding why do you appear to not seek answers f and accept the evidence from those who have researched the subject?


Thats a good point.

Ana: why do you accuse "people" of doing something that you know darn well that "people" don't do? That being "taking evolution in a simplistic way"?

There ARE "people"(in the lay public) who do do that (take evolution in a simplistic way), and talk about the comic strip character Alley Opp as being "the missing link" - and that sort of simplistic pop culture stuff.

But you are talking about scientists "taking evolution in a simplistic way". And scientist who study the fields in question do NOT do that.

Also- why are you constantly looking for explanations for things that have obvious explanations?

"Why are there so many creatures [apparently you meant TYPES of creatures- not numbers of creatures] sharing the same place at once?" Its called "biodiversity". And there is no mystery as to why evolution would create biodiversity. Creatures compete, become specialized, this creates more niches, which in turn more creates opportunities for more creatures to move into those niches, which creates more competition, and more niches, creating more specialization, and so forth. Where is the mystery?



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

23 Jan 2015, 10:49 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
If that's true, seems like fur would be the exception when actually we are the exception, not the other way around. Most mammals do not get by without their fur so to just lose most of it is a rare thing indeed. Even among other primates it's plentiful.

Take a look at certain breeds of dogs and cats, hairless because we bred for that trait. If these animals bred without us choosing the parents, there would be very little, if any, hairless pups or kittens in litters. Nature doesn't favor furlessness in mammals.

There is a difference between fur and hair. Primates don't have fur, they have hair. Nature can favor less furry mammals if they live in a region where it doesn't get cold. Domestic cats come from a desert region where it can get very cold at night. I would wager that even early humans had learned to find shelter in caves and to build huts. Having less hair is also an advantage in terms of parasites, it's easier to find them. As we pointed out, many mammals have no fur also, hippos, elephants, whales, primates. Once humans discovered fire, there was little point in having hair, and quite a disadvantage. I bet at the same time we learned about fire, we also learned how to use the fur of animals to cover ourselves, making having our own hair largely obsolete. Early hominids were probably much hairier.

And if you haven't noticed, some humans are still very hairy. Humans also have an altered diet compared to most primates, we eat far more meat. Fat is high in calories, making it easier to sustain body heat in the cold. My dad had a native American friend who wore shorts and thin moccasins throughout the Michigan winter. Apparently we can adapt quite well to the cold as long as we are intelligent enough to sustain a high calorie diet.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jan 2015, 11:37 am

naturalplastic wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Ana I have a question for you. You seem to have a great thirst to understand, yet it would appear that you are not prepared to learn from others who have studied the subject in detail. By this I do not mean myself rather those whose research I have read. In you initial post you say"People tend to look at Theory Of Evolution in a very general, simplistic way, but when you really consider it, it seems so far fetched" the opposite is true. When you discard the simplistic concept and explore the subject deeply it all makes a great deal of sense. Its a fact that evolutionary biology makes so much sense as a scientific theory that it repeatedly makes predictions that are then shown to be true. So my question to you is; given your clear desire for understanding why do you appear to not seek answers f and accept the evidence from those who have researched the subject?


Thats a good point.

Ana: why do you accuse "people" of doing something that you know darn well that "people" don't do? That being "taking evolution in a simplistic way"?

There ARE "people"(in the lay public) who do do that (take evolution in a simplistic way), and talk about the comic strip character Alley Opp as being "the missing link" - and that sort of simplistic pop culture stuff.

But you are talking about scientists "taking evolution in a simplistic way". And scientist who study the fields in question do NOT do that.

Also- why are you constantly looking for explanations for things that have obvious explanations?

"Why are there so many creatures [apparently you meant TYPES of creatures- not numbers of creatures] sharing the same place at once?" Its called "biodiversity". And there is no mystery as to why evolution would create biodiversity. Creatures compete, become specialized, this creates more niches, which in turn more creates opportunities for more creatures to move into those niches, which creates more competition, and more niches, creating more specialization, and so forth. Where is the mystery?

Hey if people can dispute man made climate change, I certainly have the right to dispute Theory of Evolution. I am not science-by-convenience. I don't just accept it because it is easy and molds to what I want in my life. It's easy to discount something like man made climate change because it will impact the way we live our daily lives and most of us do not want any restrictions so we reject that science. It's far easier to go along with Theory of Evolution because it's no skin off anyone's nose to accept it. Won't alter a thing about their daily lives. Won't inconvenience them in the slightest.

Science-By-Convenience.

Well maybe there's a genetic component? Evolution-By-Convenience.



aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

23 Jan 2015, 11:47 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Ana I have a question for you. You seem to have a great thirst to understand, yet it would appear that you are not prepared to learn from others who have studied the subject in detail. By this I do not mean myself rather those whose research I have read. In you initial post you say"People tend to look at Theory Of Evolution in a very general, simplistic way, but when you really consider it, it seems so far fetched" the opposite is true. When you discard the simplistic concept and explore the subject deeply it all makes a great deal of sense. Its a fact that evolutionary biology makes so much sense as a scientific theory that it repeatedly makes predictions that are then shown to be true. So my question to you is; given your clear desire for understanding why do you appear to not seek answers f and accept the evidence from those who have researched the subject?


Thats a good point.

Ana: why do you accuse "people" of doing something that you know darn well that "people" don't do? That being "taking evolution in a simplistic way"?

There ARE "people"(in the lay public) who do do that (take evolution in a simplistic way), and talk about the comic strip character Alley Opp as being "the missing link" - and that sort of simplistic pop culture stuff.

But you are talking about scientists "taking evolution in a simplistic way". And scientist who study the fields in question do NOT do that.

Also- why are you constantly looking for explanations for things that have obvious explanations?

"Why are there so many creatures [apparently you meant TYPES of creatures- not numbers of creatures] sharing the same place at once?" Its called "biodiversity". And there is no mystery as to why evolution would create biodiversity. Creatures compete, become specialized, this creates more niches, which in turn more creates opportunities for more creatures to move into those niches, which creates more competition, and more niches, creating more specialization, and so forth. Where is the mystery?

Hey if people can dispute man made climate change, I certainly have the right to dispute Theory of Evolution. I am not science-by-convenience. I don't just accept it because it is easy and molds to what I want in my life. It's easy to discount something like man made climate change because it will impact the way we live our daily lives and most of us do not want any restrictions so we reject that science. It's far easier to go along with Theory of Evolution because it's no skin off anyone's nose to accept it. Won't alter a thing about their daily lives. Won't inconvenience them in the slightest.

Science-By-Convenience.

Well maybe there's a genetic component? Evolution-By-Convenience.


There's definitely IS epigenetics, and that REAL IDENTIFIED SCIENTIFIC THINGY FOR ANIMAL CHANGE, most definitely can make amazing changes in animals, including humans, in JUST ONE LIFETIME. :)

THE POWER of change is locked in our DNA, just waiting to be unpacked and utilized for those who adapt to the challenges that unpack the DNA and make epigenetic miracles possible in JUST ONE LIFETIME.

AND YEAH, of course, I have the proof of it in my own life, irrefutably so, IN REAL LIFE PHOTOS. :)

AND YES, THERE is negative epigenetics, as well.

One need look no further than an overall sedentary population to see the sometimes terrifying results of THAT.

And sure in this world there is MORE NEGATIVE EPIGENETICS than positive epigenetics AT PLAY simply as MODERN culture, overall, is an environmental stimulus THAT IS FUNCTIONALLY DISABLING FOR HUMANS, in epigenetic way.

And yes, there are literally thousands of examples available for purview all around us everyday, in the failing humanity all around 'us', if one gets out, and LOOKS far enough. :)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,879
Location: temperate zone

23 Jan 2015, 11:49 am

@Ana

Huh?

So....

What you're saying is:

You're not being illogical out of greed.

You're being illogical just for the sake of being illogical.

So that makes it more logical!

Thats....unique logic!



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

23 Jan 2015, 11:52 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Huh?

So....

What you're saying is:

You're not being illogical out of greed.

You're being illogical just for the sake of being illogical.

So that makes it more logical!

Thats....unique logic!



No, I am saying people will reject science when it says stuff that will inconvenience them too much. All of a sudden, all this science is meaningless and wrong and scientists don't know what they are talking about. Or, it's a matter of the science being polluted by industry and politicians, thus it's incorrect. All the scientists and everyone else made it up as a big hoax. But why would they? Tell me why someone would make it up when it is easier to just give in and say to people, do whatever you want? That's always the easiest way. So, why sit there and make up an elaborate Man-Made-Climate-Change story? There are better ways to get people to buy windmills and solar panels, like, telling them they won't have to keep handing over money each month to the local electric company, for one.



Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 23 Jan 2015, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.