Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: an0n on March 24, 2004, 05:54:54 pm
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=541&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20040324/ap_on_he_me/the_human_gene
Just another inch of rope for the noose of the creationist morons.
-
This is not a good day for Liberator. I on the other hand, really don't care. I'm a firm believeer in evolution, simply becuase it makes more sense than any other theaory proposed, and if the plethora of facts has so far not convinced you, then I doubt this is going to.
-
"The mutation would have reduced the Darwinian fitness of those individuals," said anthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University. "It only would've become fixed if it coincided with mutations that reduced tooth size, jaw size and increased brain size. What are the chances of that?"
-
Actually, since you seem to have your mind made up already, I'm going to let this slide, it's ludicrous of course, but I'm just not in the mood.
Just don't talk about me behind my back.
-
odds are that we started makeing tools and then one of them had this mutation, the tool usage alowed him to survive, and then brain growth made his line more predomenant.
and now that Liberators gone, I'm going to call him a big peice of poo
-
I heard that!;)
-
Ever consider God the ultimate genetic engineer? Personally I have no problems with the intent of the bible or historical facts that certain events occured. Though I am not ignorant enough to ignore scientific facts of what may or may not have happened. Human development is one of those issues. Consider this for a second, no matter what type of life develops on a world eventually one form gains dominance and advances. Unless destroyed by internal or external forces it will continue to evolve to it's predetermined limit. Since God is infinite could it be that all races are made in the image of God (since God cannot be captured in any one form or aspect, at least in our puny Human imaginations/intellect).
Disturbing thought but Carl the Shivan is just another child of God... (a naughty one however) :D
He he just remembered that scene in Alien Ressurection when the caccooned scientist is like admiring Ripley's "daughter".. "What a beautiful little butterfly....Wait no! (crunch)!" :lol:
-
Owned
-
Always interesting to read this research. Pre-human evolution is a fascinating field of study, if I were good at the science of it all I'm sure I'd be researching the same stuff.
The fact that they can link it to genes and look back along the lineage is fascinating. What'd be even more interesting to to find out what traits seem to have been played up in humans in the last 1000 years...we're getting taller (likely food oriented) but there's probably other subtle changes that go on...especially with more genetic mixing.
-
The only changes to the Human genome in the last 1000 years have most likely been purely a case of numbers (IE, more ginger people genes) rather than mutations and such.
The Human race hasn't really changed much in the past 6,000 years. I mean, look at the cases of 'feral' children. If you take away our technology we are, for all intents and purposes, no different from any Ancient Egyptian society.
-
Except we won't get invaded by the Romans. Or atleast, I don't intend do, I don't know about the rest of you.
-
Also the low genetic diversity as a species as a whole puts some kinks into further development.
Afterall, there's less genetic diversity in the whole human race than there is in a litter of kittens.
Pretty scary considering all of the racist bull**** people pull off as it is...
-
Originally posted by Ace
Also the low genetic diversity as a species as a whole puts some kinks into further development.
Afterall, there's less genetic diversity in the whole human race than there is in a litter of kittens.
Pretty scary considering all of the racist bull**** people pull off as it is...
Yeah, I find that intensely interesting. I wonder how that works, supposing that humans and animals developed under the same circumstances.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Yeah, I find that intensely interesting. I wonder how that works, supposing that humans and animals developed under the same circumstances.
:ahum: Humans are animals :p
With the genome project and the studying of certain genes, diversity, etc. it's been figured out that most of the early homo sapiens population except for a few thousand in the southern tip of Africa were killed off. (this is also backed up by the fossil record, artifacts, etc.) One theory is how at about the same time there were some violent volanic eruptions marked by chemical traces in the soil, etc. etc.
Humanity managed to spread rather quickly from the brink of extinction, and with warring, exploration, etc. there hasn't been a lot of isolation between the various regions where humans live on the planet. Plus a few thousand years doesn't lead to a lot of change in a population even if they were totally isolated.
Anyways, there's quite a few articles on the subject.
Of course you could take the tact that we're all magic faries cast down from the shining kingdom and king nuzzuflulh planted all of this as evidence to hide the truth otherwise we'd regain our wings and sprinkle him with fairy dust. :p
-
Originally posted by Ace
:ahum: Humans are animals :p
Naturally, I was taking the view that Humans are higher and in notable ways distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. ;)
I do quite subscribe to the theory of early man separating themselves off from each other due to war, exploration, desire for expansion - something that the animal kingdom seems to lack. Very interesting, all of this.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Yeah, I find that intensely interesting. I wonder how that works, supposing that humans and animals developed under the same circumstances.
The current theory (and there seems to be a lot of supporting evidence for it) was that humankind was nearly wiped out by the Toba supervolcano eruption 75,000 years ago.
Basically they think that the eruption wiped out humanity until there were only 1000 or so of us left.
Studies of mitochondrial DNA seem to support this. The profile isn't pyramid shaped (i.e every one developed from a small group of people) Instead the shape is more like an hourglass. Humanity evolved and diversified then there was a bottleneck and then it diversified again. That's why we're all so similar.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Studies of mitochondrial DNA seem to support this. The profile isn't pyramid shaped (i.e every one developed from a small group of people) Instead the shape is more like an hourglass. Humanity evolved and diversified then there was a bottleneck and then it diversified again. That's why we're all so similar.
That interests me, but you can explain how they reached that conclusion from "mitochondrial DNA"? Or point me to some good sources. :)
-
The source I'm using is an episode of the BBC Horizon science programme about supervolcanos. I could point you at the transcript but it's a pretty long document
I did manage to find another site which has just the relavent part though here (http://www.davidpbrown.co.uk/nota-bene/dna.html)
-
Originally posted by an0n
The only changes to the Human genome in the last 1000 years have most likely been purely a case of numbers (IE, more ginger people genes) rather than mutations and such.
The Human race hasn't really changed much in the past 6,000 years. I mean, look at the cases of 'feral' children. If you take away our technology we are, for all intents and purposes, no different from any Ancient Egyptian society.
I thought ginger people were getting less numerous, actually. (?)
I think human evolution has really went towards evolution of behaviour and intelligence, anyways...... although i wonder what the nearly-inevitable loss of the ozone layer will cause.
-
cancer for all?
-
Go Raelians :nervous:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think human evolution has really went towards evolution of behaviour and intelligence, anyways......
I doubt that is as true now. While I deplore social darwinism they do have a point in that by protecting the inferior we do allow their genes to propogate. And since stupid people tend to breed more quickly than smart ones there is quite a pull towards stupidity becoming a more common trait.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
I doubt that is as true now. While I deplore social darwinism they do have a point in that by protecting the inferior we do allow their genes to propogate. And since stupid people tend to breed more quickly than smart ones there is quite a pull towards stupidity becoming a more common trait.
Ah, but that's cos the smart people know to hide until after the nukes fly :nod:
-
/*digs hole*/
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Ah, but that's cos the smart people know to hide until after the nukes fly :nod:
but where? nuclear bunkers are quite expensive, you know....
When the nukes start to fly, the best i can hope for that they either pass over Europe in it's entirety, or that they it me strait on the noggin', rather a quick fireball then cancer/accute radiation disease.
-
With the proper environment, anyone (excluding the ones with a serious and real mental handicap) has the potential to be what you would consider smart. True, if both your parents are very smart, the chances of you actually having a larger mental capacity than most if there (read: being a genius). So, if you get the right mix, there is such a thing as "smart" genes, but there is not such a thing as "dumb" genes. Its just the environment that the people were brought up in.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
*some quote trying to discredit the article*
The chances of many of the evolutionary changes that led to the species that exist today are vanishingly small, true. But that is really because there are an unlimited number of paths that evolution can take. The chance of any one path being taken is VERY small, but one of them is bound to be taken. If we were to set the clock back two billion years and let evolution run its course from microbes to men again, there would be NO telling what would be there at the end of the 2,000,000,000-year period.
Ever consider God the ultimate genetic engineer?
Then he ought to be fired. A lot of human features are far inferior to those of other animals and are only there because of the evolutionary line we sprung from. For example, a bipedal posture is far less efficient than a quadrupedal posture and bipedal movement is slower than quadrupedal movement. The only reason we have two legs is because the creatures we evolved from had only four limbs and two of them had to be converted into arms to allow prehumans to carry objects and use tools for extended periods of time. Four legs and two arms would be a much better design.
Another piece of evidence for your supposed deity being a ****ty engineer is our eyeballs. The nerves in our eyes are arranged backwards. That's why we have a blind spot. Squid have properly "wired" eyes and thus lack a blind spot. Too bad we can't get squidlike eyeballs with the visual acuity of birds of prey because we didn't come from the evolutionary path that led to squid or the one that led to raptors.:p
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Naturally, I was taking the view that Humans are higher and in notable ways distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom. ;)
Humans aren't that special, their brains are just extremely refined. We have four or five times the intelligence of even the most intelligent primates and cetaceans and a far greater sense of self-awareness. Chimpanzees are also self-aware, thinking creatures, just not to the extent that we are. There used to be several species, which were hominid primates just like humans, which also had very high intelligence and advanced self-awareness. Don't expect to find one because they either died out naturally or another hominid species wiped them out. In fact, that's what happened to Neanderthals: we killed them all.:D
-
I got a question.
Why does your brain have to be big to be smart?:confused:
As I understood it, it depends on you neurons or something like that. I'm just saying we don't know how smart a small brain could be.
-
actually, a larger brain mass connects to a lower IQ.
-
Pfft. IQ is not really an indicator or overall intelligence, since we can't even really agree on the definition of the word. Einstein was intelligent in math, but I'm pretty sure he couldn't write a book to save his life. On thr other hand, Tolkein (or say, Douglas Adams) was great at writing, but I'm assuming crap in physics.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
actually, a larger brain mass connects to a lower IQ.
Then why, in the evolution of hominids, has brain size vastly increased at the expense of stuff like large teeth and jaws?
-
kasperl: i doubt the validity of that statement
as for larger brains - to make a processing unit faster one of the following must be done
1) more ciruits
2) faster circuits
you can only do 1 with humans - which requires increased brain mass since we cannot shrink the circuit size
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
In fact, that's what happened to Neanderthals: we killed them all.:D
In fact, it's very likely Neanderthals weren't wiped out as a result of human intent. What is more likley is that they were outcompeted for resources and retreated into ever smaller territories. Once the Homo s. Neanderthalensis populations in these regions got isolated from other populations of Neanderthals their demise was guaranteed. No premeditation is likely.
BTW, there is still the discussion wether or not Neanderthals and Homo s. s. interbred. I don't know how long that discussion has been going on (think it's at least 20-30 years) but it seems it'll go on for a while yet.
You have to keep in mind that we're speaking about small populations. Less than a 100.000 for Neanderthals and Sapiens Sapiens combinded iirc. (in the region that is: Europe, North-Africa, Middle-East and parts of Russia/Caucasus).
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Originally posted by Goober5000
*some quote trying to discredit the article*
[/b]
Woolie - that quote was FROM the article. :lol:Four legs and two arms would be a much better design.
What, like centaurs? How flexible do they look? All those joints would get in the way.The nerves in our eyes are arranged backwards.
Because if they were arranged frontwards, they would burn out after several years' exposure to light. Since they're arranged backwards, they can be replenished. Otherwise humans would go blind before middle age.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
What, like centaurs? How flexible do they look? All those joints would get in the way.
4 legs does actually make more sense (more stability, faster). Centaurs, however, are just poorly designed. Insufficient air intake and all that. Of course, the only way we would have 6 limbs is if our ancestors had 6 limbs, and our amphibian forebears only had 4.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Woolie - that quote was FROM the article. :lol:What, like centaurs? How flexible do they look? All those joints would get in the way.
Nah, more like Pierson's Puppeteers :)
*Realises Goober is a potential threat, puts an engine on his planet and flies out of the galaxy. Then he remembers the universe is eventually going to be torn apart by negative energy and panics!*
-
Ace: :wtf:
I'm curious. How would you guys design a four-legged, two-armed human? :)
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Ace: :wtf:
I take it you never read Ringworld or any of Niven's stuff with the Pupeteers :p
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
Woolie - that quote was FROM the article. :lol:
It seemed like you were trying to discredit the point of the article.
What, like centaurs? How flexible do they look? All those joints would get in the way.
No. Centaurs are a terrible design, especially with that big curve in their back where it goes from vertical to horizontal (where would you put the muscles holding the front part of the creature up?). Something more like a quadrupedal Shivan might be better.
Because if they were arranged frontwards, they would burn out after several years' exposure to light. Since they're arranged backwards, they can be replenished. Otherwise humans would go blind before middle age.
Hmmm. I never knew that. But there's still the fact that we don't have hawk-like vision because we didn't come from the same evolutionary branch as birds of prey. But wait--when nerves are destroyed by untreated diabetes or macular degeneration, they don't grow back. Why not?
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Then why, in the evolution of hominids, has brain size vastly increased at the expense of stuff like large teeth and jaws?
It hasn't always. Neanderthals had bigger brains than we do. (admittedly they were larger and therefore needed bigger brains to keep track of the bigger body).
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
It seemed like you were trying to discredit the point of the article.
I was merely indicating that the article wasn't as conclusive as people were making it out to be.Something more like a quadrupedal Shivan might be better.
With two additional limbs for arms, then. So that's six limbs total. But the only places we see six-limbed creatures are insects, crustaceans, and other small animals. I'd think that the extra mass, wiring, plumbing, and infrastructure needed to support two extra joints isn't worth the small extra benefit.But wait--when nerves are destroyed by untreated diabetes or macular degeneration, they don't grow back. Why not?
Because that destroys a large part of the nerve. Degradation of the eye's photoreceptors due to UV light exposure occurs one cell at a time, so the body can easily keep up with that. It's a very specific type of decay that happens in a predictable way. But the body can't regenerate an entire nerve.
-
Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Humans aren't that special, their brains are just extremely refined...
Let me rephrase. I was taking the Christian view. :)
-
Why haven't we discussed the Darwinian effectiveness of boobs yet? Cause that'd be nice.
-
Originally posted by jdjtcagle
I got a question.
Why does your brain have to be big to be smart?:confused:
As I understood it, it depends on you neurons or something like that. I'm just saying we don't know how smart a small brain could be.
One of the main things that seperates us from animals, is meyelin.
All of our nerve cells are coated in it, animal's aren't. It allows for faster transfer of signals than non-meyelinated cells do.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
but where? nuclear bunkers are quite expensive, you know....
When the nukes start to fly, the best i can hope for that they either pass over Europe in it's entirety, or that they it me strait on the noggin', rather a quick fireball then cancer/accute radiation disease.
Oh i assure you, they won't miss Europe. Russians preprogrammed targets include every country in the world bar there's, to ensure another superpower doesn't spring up after the big nuclear war. Quite, insane.
-
I doubt that our target list was ever that all-inclusive!:eek:
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Let me rephrase. I was taking the Christian view. :)
You mean the fundamentalist Christian view. A lot of Christians (and Muslims, and Buddhists, etc. etc.) don't have any big issues trying to console religion and science :)
God just made humans animals with ubersized brains.
...or perhaps I'm just bluntly polluting you with LIBERAL PROPIGANDER!!!!1111oneoneone
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Why haven't we discussed the Darwinian effectiveness of boobs yet? Cause that'd be nice.
Get on ICQ, hoe.
-
This is quite interesting. Kepp up the posting.
-
Originally posted by Ace
You mean the fundamentalist Christian view. A lot of Christians (and Muslims, and Buddhists, etc. etc.) don't have any big issues trying to console religion and science :)
God just made humans animals with ubersized brains.
...or perhaps I'm just bluntly polluting you with LIBERAL PROPIGANDER!!!!1111oneoneone
You can take this and do with it what you will.
God created each creature to master it's enviroment in it's own way, from the smallest bacteria to the largest whale.
His purpose in creating Man, was two-fold(perhaps more, but this is an empirical statement)
1. We are here to master the World and shepherd it.(this is a simplistic statement, but perhaps the most perfect truth of the existence of man)
Genesis 1:28-30 NIV
Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food.
2. He wanted someone to relate with him on a level greater than that of a pet or a servant. Even Angels are but servants to God, we won't argue whether they have souls or not. Mankind are his beloved children, all 6 billion of us.
-
then why won't he show himself?
-
Because we're grounded and have been sent to our collective room :p
-
I'll point it out once more, just incase someone goes off on a rant: The bible states that God is not all-seeing or all-knowing. I cite Sodom as an example.
God was like "Dude, what's all this **** I keep hearing about them faggots and whores? Surely it can't be that bad" so he sends some Angels down to check it out and they're all "God, you seriously need to let us **** some people up. They're having sex with sheep and kids and **** down there. It's like 21st Century Japan, for **** sake!" so God's all "Urgh. Fine. I haven't smotten anyone in a while. i suppose this is as good a time as any to instill some fear in those little monkeys".
I should write a Bible For Dummies.
-
Originally posted by Ace
You mean the fundamentalist Christian view. A lot of Christians (and Muslims, and Buddhists, etc. etc.) don't have any big issues trying to console religion and science :)
God just made humans animals with ubersized brains.
...or perhaps I'm just bluntly polluting you with LIBERAL PROPIGANDER!!!!1111oneoneone
As a side note, I used to think the theory of evolution as a means for God to create mankind was really cool and solved many problems. Then I realised that survival of the fittest presupposed death, which (according to the Bible) was not introduced into the world until well after man existed. :nervous:
-
Bah, Christianity is a pile of crap.
The only religions with any basis in fact are Buddhism and Taoism.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Bah, Christianity is a pile of crap.
The only religions with any basis in fact are Buddhism and Taoism.
What's your basis for saying that?
-
The fact that 90% of the crap you get told is 'Gods law' completely contradicts what the Bible says.
And by extension Judaism is the same.
Hinduism is far too complex for any divine being to put up with.
Sikh's believe wrapping a towel round your head and not shaving is a sign of your devotion to God.
Islam....don't even get me started on Islam.
Or Catholicism for that matter. Those bastards have killed more people over the years than the Nazi's, AIDS and Cancer combined.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'll point it out once more, just incase someone goes off on a rant: The bible states that God is not all-seeing or all-knowing.
No it doesn't. What's wrong with sending minions to take care of some of your work? God may limit himself for whatever reason, but he's not limited by any external agent.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
As a side note, I used to think the theory of evolution as a means for God to create mankind was really cool and solved many problems. Then I realised that survival of the fittest presupposed death, which (according to the Bible) was not introduced into the world until well after man existed. :nervous:
Of course, if you believe in evolution, you have to reject the beginning of Genesis anyway, negating your entire problem. If the begining of Genesis (the Adam and Eve section) is removed from the equation, there is no problem with evolution being the way God created mankind. The Adam and Eve section can't be more than symbolic anyway.
-
exept for the fact that evolution requires non involvement for it to be evolution. (otherwise it's selective breeding, ie domestication)
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'll point it out once more, just incase someone goes off on a rant: The bible states that God is not all-seeing or all-knowing. I cite Sodom as an example.
God was like "Dude, what's all this **** I keep hearing about them faggots and whores? Surely it can't be that bad" so he sends some Angels down to check it out and they're all "God, you seriously need to let us **** some people up. They're having sex with sheep and kids and **** down there. It's like 21st Century Japan, for **** sake!" so God's all "Urgh. Fine. I haven't smotten anyone in a while. i suppose this is as good a time as any to instill some fear in those little monkeys".
The reason God didn't destroy Sodom until he did was because:
A. He needed Lot
B. It's like when a dog takes a dump in your yard, you shout at the dog to stop and getonouttahere, but he doesn't till he's done with his business. Once he's gone, you tolerate it mostly because it's easier to do so, until you step in it. Then being a vengeful person, you hunt down and kill the dog. This is where the analogy breaks down, God didn't get in trouble from the police for wiping Sodom of the face of the Earth, but you will go to jail for killing Joe Bob's prize coon hound.
I should write a Bible For Dummies.
Please do, it's been a while since a moron has been dealt with for blasphemy and I think it would be funny to watch your flesh get eaten off by Leprosy.:lol:
-
I don't go into a phycopathic rage when I step in dog crap...
-
You're not God, who set down a very specific set of accepted behaviors and then watch as every single one of the was violated in some way or another.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Please do, it's been a while since a moron has been dealt with for blasphemy and I think it would be funny to watch your flesh get eaten off by Leprosy.:lol:
SILENCE! The Golden Hordes of the Leper-Khans shall crush you heathen! SUBMIT to the one TRUE book: "The Bible for Dummies, Despot an0n Version (DAV)"
Those not blessed by the holy mark of God, leprosy are unclean!
-
:roflmfao:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
B. It's like when a dog takes a dump in your yard, you shout at the dog to stop and getonouttahere, but he doesn't till he's done with his business. Once he's gone, you tolerate it mostly because it's easier to do so, until you step in it. Then being a vengeful person, you hunt down and kill the dog. This is where the analogy breaks down, God didn't get in trouble from the police for wiping Sodom of the face of the Earth, but you will go to jail for killing Joe Bob's prize coon hound.
:wtf:
that would be quote-worthy if it werent so long.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
No it doesn't. What's wrong with sending minions to take care of some of your work? God may limit himself for whatever reason, but he's not limited by any external agent.
If I chose not to learn C++, I can't write programs in C++. Regardless of my ability to learn.
And then there's the little matter that if he's purposely ignoring things despite the fact that Satan is 'coming to and fro across the earth', then he ain't exactly the smartest God in the heavens.
-
That could just make him overly apathetic.
-
God is hardly apathetic, just very exacting. He is perfect after all.
-
If he's so perfect, why does he let bad things happen?
-
I will hereby stop another thread from turning into a religion bashing topic, by posting a picture of Elisha Cuthbert.
(http://www.volny.cz/heesh/pictures/2/elisha.jpg)
-
Well, that there is enough to convince me God exists.
-
Thank you, sir,
-
*demands more pics*
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Why haven't we discussed the Darwinian effectiveness of boobs yet? Cause that'd be nice.
Well it's a fair point. They provide an effective way for humans to feed thier very young offspring, and as a sexual organ stimulate humans during intercourse, and also provide a subject for social discussion between men at the pub and groups of women in every day life ;).
I love science.
*goes back to learning about how to use a Mutex.*
-
*laughs hysterically* Liberator actually think's his imaginary friend in the sky will give us leprosy for blaspheme?! ROTFL -- THEN I SHOULD HAVE HAD IT EONS AGO
You need mental help
-
Anothing one bites the dust.