₦airaland Forum

Why did the title make me kiss my teeth

bqlekan:
Thanks.. maybe I should look deeper, but most of these theories have been disproved (Darwinism). No scientifical/laboratory test evidence supporting this for the past 150 years. I suppose we are still evolving?.

Well like you said, lets watch how this unfolds.. for me, I won't believe in evolution until it is perfect.

Who lied to you? I honestly can not see how you could believe this unless you have been lied to repeatedly. What even is "Darwinism"? Charles Darwin didn't coin evolution, nor was he the only person responsible for explaining it - far from it. Evidence for evolution was already observed by scholars up to a hundred or more years before him - Darwin only discovered one of the most important mechanisms driving the process - natural selection, or the tendency nature (physical surroundings, availability of nutrients, predation, etc) has to allow only the individuals most adapt to survive in a particular environment to reproduce, eventually leading to genetically distinct species arising from different selective pressures. Discoveries that were made after Darwin's time, like Mendelian genetics and the discovery of DNA, backed evolution even more strongly, and provided more systematic and detailed methods of measuring evolutionary processes. DNA, inheritence, mutation, amongst many other vital aspects of biology, simply would not make sense if evolution were not occuring.

Not only are there massive amounts of research supporting evolution (and I do mean MASSIVE. for example, every single one of the top 10 schools in the world - the likes of Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, etc - has an evolutionary biology department that goes through millions of dollars in funding per year), but the numbers are growing almost daily. Any peer-reviewed journal that deals with medicine, ecology, or genetics will have hundreds of thousands of hits for conclusive research done on evolution within the past decade alone (pubmed journal: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=evolution. over 429,000 hits). Understanding evolution is vital to ANY biologist, especially molecular geneticists, pathologists, and people who work in species conservation.

Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistence? Hundreds, if not thousands of trials in the lab have shown definitively that bacteria are constantly evolving in rapid rates - which is why new antibiotics have to be produced almost every year to compensate for their new cellular capabilities that allow them to evade the medicines we used to use. In fact, microbial evolution is such a major threat that biologists and physicians agree that it could spell the end of humanity if we aren't able to keep up.

1) Man evolved from a common ancestor as today's monkey, so monkeys today aren't our progenitors, they are our cousins
2) That species B evolved from species A does not imply the end of species A. It could just mean species A's transition into B was an evolutionarily expedient course in a given environment.

Watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdddbYILel0

Does your question justice.

cloudgoddess:
Who lied to you? I honestly can not see how you could believe this unless you have been lied to repeatedly. What even is "Darwinism"? Charles Darwin didn't coin evolution, nor was he the only person responsible for explaining it - far from it. Evidence for evolution was already observed by scholars up to a hundred or more years before him - Darwin only discovered one of the most important mechanisms driving the process - natural selection, or the tendency nature (physical surroundings, availability of nutrients, predation, etc) has to allow only the individuals most adapt to survive in a particular environment to reproduce, eventually leading to genetically distinct species arising from different selective pressures. Discoveries that were made after Darwin's time, like Mendelian genetics and the discovery of DNA, backed evolution even more strongly, and provided more systematic and detailed methods of measuring evolutionary processes. DNA, inheritence, mutation, amongst many other vital aspects of biology, simply would not make sense if evolution were not occuring.

Not only are there massive amounts of research supporting evolution (and I do mean MASSIVE. for example, every single one of the top 10 schools in the world - the likes of Princeton, Harvard, Oxford, etc - has an evolutionary biology department that goes through millions of dollars in funding per year), but the numbers are growing almost daily. Any peer-reviewed journal that deals with medicine, ecology, or genetics will have hundreds of thousands of hits for conclusive research done on evolution within the past decade alone (pubmed journal: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=evolution. over 429,000 hits). Understanding evolution is vital to ANY biologist, especially molecular geneticists, pathologists, and people who work in species conservation.

Have you ever heard of antibiotic resistence? Hundreds, if not thousands of trials in the lab have shown definitively that bacteria are constantly evolving in rapid rates - which is why new antibiotics have to be produced almost every year to compensate for their new cellular capabilities that allow them to evade the medicines we used to use. In fact, microbial evolution is such a major threat that biologists and physicians agree that it could spell the end of humanity if we aren't able to keep up.

Lol, I will reply you pretty soon on this

KingEbukasBlog:
Noticed you've been missing in action . Hope sir that you are alright

I'm cool bro, just busy lately, I will try and make time here, at the very least once a month. Thank you my friend

Homo-erects were the natural genetic structure and parents of today's homo-sapiens.

Homo-eructs act on instincts(e.g monkeys,baboons etc),while homo-sapiens are generally known as "the thinking man" or "modern man" whose genetic structure got upgraded to be inquisitive.

It is possible for monkeys of today to become more intelligent. The clues are there in our movie(planet of the ape). Domesticating them can also enhance and give a gradual upgrade to monkeys. The body structure can also be enhanced by cross breeding them with a bit advanced and similar humanoid.

We can apply the same with domesticated dogs. In our society,man dogs have been trained to lead the blind and deaf,and they often carry out this task perfectly.

The reason we still have monkeys today is because evolution is very slow they are a reminder of what we could have been like without an upgrade.

vooks:
I'm cool bro, just busy lately, I will try and make time here, at the very least once a month. Thank you my friend

Thank God . No problem sir

ifenes:
Homo-erects were the natural genetic structure and parents of today's homo-sapiens.

You've made many misleading statements which betray your poor grasp of the subject. I'll address them so as not to confuse people.

Homo-eructs act on instincts(e.g monkeys,baboons etc),while homo-sapiens are generally known as "the thinking man" or "modern man" whose genetic structure got upgraded to be inquisitive.

What do you mean by the emboldened? Homo erectus were proficient manufacturers of sophisticated tools. This means they had the ability to think and abstractify possible applications of the tools they made. Of course we are far more sophisticated thinkers, but it's ignorant to claim they acted solely on instincts. Even more fatal is your assumption that other primates aren't capable of thought. That's very presumptuous, arrogant and certainly ignorant. You simply have no evidence to justify such an assertion. In fact, if you've read about many of the experiments done on rhesus monkeys and other primates, you'll find consistently, that they are also capable of abstract thoughts. Also, the word "upgrade" is nothing short of smug, as it suggests an inherent hierarchical superiority of humans because of their inquisitiveness. First, the notion that only humans are inquisitive is wrong. In fact, cats, dogs, mice, birds, pretty much all animals with some complex form of neural network have varying degrees of inquisitiveness. This trait has helped humans survive, no doubt, but humans are by no means the most successful living organisms. Many bacteria species are more efficient and successful than we are...and they don't even have brains!

It is possible for monkeys of today to become more intelligent. The clues are there in our movie(planet of the ape). Domesticating them can also enhance and give a gradual upgrade to monkeys. The body structure can also be enhanced by cross breeding them with a bit advanced and similar humanoid.

Planet of the apes is purely fictional, and contains no clue as to how modern monkeys can become more intelligent. But yes, domestication and generations of artificial selective breeding can be used to enhance particular traits like intelligence, such as has been the case with dogs, like you mentioned below:

We can apply the same with domesticated dogs. In our society,man dogs have been trained to lead the blind and deaf,and they often carry out this task perfectly.

The reason we still have monkeys today is because evolution is very slow they are a reminder of what we could have been like without an upgrade.

This statement is preposterous in more ways than one.
First, the reason we still have monkeys today is not because evolution is slow, that is an absurd excuse which can be used justify any combination of biological probabilities, including the most bizarre ones. For example, the reason we don't have bird-man today is because evolution is slow, or the reason we don't have talking potatoes is because evolution is slow. I could go on and on, but as you have seen, such a statement is pointless because it is unfalsifiable, thus no different than the dogmatic deductions of religionists!
The reason we still have monkeys today is because they are evolutionarily equipped to thrive in their present environment. The moment that changes, they'll extinct, leaving only the monkeys with advantageous mutations to survive in a different form. Same applies to humans.

And no! Monkeys aren't a reminder of what we could have been like without your phony "upgrade", any more than we are a reminder to them of what they could have been like if nature suffered upon them, the misfortune of your so-called upgrade.

AgentOfAllah:
You've made many misleading statements which betray your poor grasp of the subject. I'll address them so as not to confuse people.


What do you mean by the emboldened? Homo erectus were proficient manufacturers of sophisticated tools. This means they had the ability to think and abstractify possible applications of the tools they made. Of course we are far more sophisticated thinkers, but it's ignorant to claim they acted solely on instincts. Even more fatal is your assumption that other primates aren't capable of thought. That's very presumptuous, arrogant and certainly ignorant. You simply have no evidence to justify such an assertion. In fact, if you've read about many of the experiments done on rhesus monkeys and other primates, you'll find consistently, that they are also capable of abstract thoughts. Also, the word "upgrade" is nothing short of smug, as it suggests an inherent hierarchical superiority of humans because of their inquisitiveness. First, the notion that only humans are inquisitive is wrong. In fact, cats, dogs, mice, birds, pretty much all animals with some complex form of neural network have varying degrees of inquisitiveness. This trait has helped humans survive, no doubt, but humans are by no means the most successful living organisms. Many bacteria species are more efficient and successful than we are...and they don't even have brains!

Planet of the apes is purely fictional, and contains no clue as to how modern monkeys can become more intelligent. But yes, domestication and generations of artificial selective breeding can be used to enhance particular traits like intelligence, such as has been the case with dogs, like you mentioned below:



This statement is preposterous in more ways than one.
First, the reason we still have monkeys today is not because evolution is slow, that is an absurd excuse which can be used justify any combination of biological probabilities, including the most bizarre ones. For example, the reason we don't have bird-man today is because evolution is slow, or the reason we don't have talking potatoes is because evolution is slow. I could go on and on, but as you have seen, such a statement is pointless because it is unfalsifiable, thus no different than the dogmatic deductions of religionists!
The reason we still have monkeys today is because they are evolutionarily equipped to thrive in their present environment. The moment that changes, they'll extinct, leaving only the monkeys with advantageous mutations to survive in a different form. Same applies to humans.

And no! Monkeys aren't a reminder of what we could have been like without your phony "upgrade", any more than we are a reminder to them of what they could have been like if nature suffered upon them, the misfortune of your so-called upgrade.

I can see you are a good student of your science class. I wish humans can sometimes reason beyond what science write in a book. When I said upgrade I meant an ability to invent artificial means to survive in a severely harsh environment,the ability to use the internet and look into the stars and wonder how they got there. Also the ability to wonder and ask how they got on the planet.

There is a huge gap also between thinking humans. Those who hold onto what they were taught and those who find out more meaning to what is yet to be taught.

Monkeys will eventually go extinct due to their inability to think like humans unless an upgrade happens to them too

I would have expected a curious human like yourself to ask what I meant by "upgrade",but you clearly didn't

Expect humans to grow wings in the nearest future. rubbish...

ifenes:
I can see you are a good student of your science class. I wish humans can sometimes reason beyond what science write in a book.

Religion is a spectacular testament to the fact that humans have always reasoned beyond science. I was presumptuous to think you were making a scientific argument. My bad!

When I said upgrade I meant an ability to invent artificial means to survive in a severely harsh environment,the ability to use the internet and look into the stars and wonder how they got there. Also the ability to wonder and ask how they got on the planet.

Humans aren't the only creatures with the ability to use artificial inventions to survive harsh environments. How do you think birds nest? By defecating? No doubt, humans are the most sophisticated tool makers. This is not the same as being the only creatures capable of making tools! I am not sure why you think humans are the only creatures who wonder how they or the stars got where they are. Surely, you've successfully communicated with other creatures for you to make such a sweeping claim??

There is a huge gap also between thinking humans. Those who hold onto what they were taught and those who find out more meaning to what is yet to be taught.

It is one thing to ponder and come up with postulations about why things may be the way they are. It is another to subject your postulations to scientific scrutiny and pass them off as facts. So feel free to attribute whatever meanings you wish to attribute to existing facts, but don't conflate your opinions with science. Science deals with facts, not the meanings behind them.

Monkeys will eventually go extinct due to their inability to think like humans unless an upgrade happens to them too

I would have expected a curious human like yourself to ask what I meant by "upgrade",but you clearly didn't

Lol, I find the presumptuous arrogance with which you make such grand statements rather amusing. I think I know why you're overestimating the reach of human ingenuity: It's been a while (by human standard) since earth experienced a cataclysmic event that resulted in mass extinctions, and this is where your false sense of security derives. Maybe we've been able to build tools which give us slight advantages over our primate cousins from average magnitude earthquakes, short-lived famines/floods and a few other natural disaster, but these disasters are numerically and potently an inconsequential part of the motley assortment of other natural forces conspiring to wipe living things out of existence. It only takes a 7 km diameter comet to collide with earth to prove that the human intelligence which you give too much credit isn't that much of an advantage over monkeys. Presently though, there is simply no evidence in support of your claim that monkeys are likely to go into extinction if they don't develop human-like brains. This is just an opinion. Humans and many species of monkeys are marked as LEAST CONCERN species by the IUCN, a body I'm willing to wager knows far more about extinction trends than you and I. In fact, many creatures presently thrive better than humans without any brains at all.

AgentOfAllah:
Religion is a spectacular testament to the fact that humans have always reasoned beyond science. I was presumptuous to think you were making a scientific argument. My bad!

Humans aren't the only creatures with the ability to use artificial inventions to survive harsh environments. How do you think birds nest? By defecating? No doubt, humans are the most sophisticated tool makers. This is not the same as being the only creatures capable of making tools! I am not sure why you think humans are the only creatures who wonder how they or the stars got where they are. Surely, you've successfully communicated with other creatures for you to make such a sweeping claim??

It is one thing to ponder and come up with postulations about why things may be the way they are. It is another to subject your postulations to scientific scrutiny and pass them off as facts. So feel free to attribute whatever meanings you wish to attribute to existing facts, but don't conflate your opinions with science. Science deals with facts, not the meanings behind them.


Lol, I find the presumptuous arrogance with which you make such grand statements rather amusing. I think I know why you're overestimating the reach of human ingenuity: It's been a while (by human standard) since earth experienced a cataclysmic event that resulted in mass extinctions, and this is where your false sense of security derives. Maybe we've been able to build tools which give us slight advantages over our primate cousins from average magnitude earthquakes, short-lived famines/floods and a few other natural disaster, but these disasters are numerically and potently an inconsequential part of the motley assortment of other natural forces conspiring to wipe living things out of existence. It only takes a 7 km diameter comet to collide with earth to prove that the human intelligence which you give too much credit isn't that much of an advantage over monkeys. Presently though, there is simply no evidence in support of your claim that monkeys are likely to go into extinction if they don't develop human-like brains. This is just an opinion. Humans and many species of monkeys are marked as LEAST CONCERN species by the IUCN, a body I'm willing to wager knows far more about extinction trends than you and I. In fact, many creatures presently thrive better than humans without any brains at all.

Hold tight what you strongly believe in as long as it works for you. Knowledge is endless,doesn't end with in science books. You are a student,I am a teacher.

ifenes:
Hold tight what you strongly believe in as long as it works for you. Knowledge is endless,doesn't end with in science books.

Yes, knowledge is endless, but there's a distinction between what is known and what is speculated. You'll do well to know the difference Mr. Upgraded. It's not enough to regurgitate platitudes when confronted with facts.

You are a student,I am a teacher.

And I'll remain a student for life because there's still much to be learned. That said, if you're truly a teacher, I'm genuinely concerned about what you teach your students, which is why I'm pleased not to be one of them!

bqlekan:
Lol, I will reply you pretty soon on this

how fa?

mendelian:
how fa?

M good o