evolution of humans
Jerry Story
ancestors that ate meat:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml
What's with that?
Samudra
It would first be necessary to prove the (present) theory of evolution
correct. A feat which has not yet been accomplished.
If you are interested in the problems with the orthodox evolution
theory I suggest you try the works of Michael Cremo
(http://www.mcremo.com/) for example.
This man has challenged and refuted, using hard facts, the (orthodox)
theory of evolution.
Laurie
"Samudra" <b12b...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:9cc537a0.0311...@posting.google.com...
> jst...@edmc.net (Jerry Story) wrote in message
news:<4fdac879.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > There seems to be some evidence that we come from a long line of
> > ancestors that ate meat:
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml
> > What's with that?
>
> It would first be necessary to prove the (present) theory of evolution
> correct. A feat which has not yet been accomplished.
flawed; some serious issues, commonly ignored, being:
1> imprecise, and conveniently-flexible, "definitions" -- e.g. there
are several competing "definitions" for even the most basic concepts, like
"species", "natural selection", "reproductive advantage", "adapt", etc. If
the fundamental words/concepts are elastic in definition, then no meaningful
discussion may take place and the field must be seen as more of an exercise
in creative writing than legitimate science.
2> no mechanisms of "natural selection" are ever given; that is, no
detailed explanations of HOW, say, an increase (or decrease) of 0.1 mm in
body part size confers the critically-important "reproductive advantage"
that is necessary for any specific "beneficial" mutation to dominate the
species' gene pool. Thus, "natural selection" must be taken on faith, and
that makes the Theory of Evolution a religion, certainly not a science.
For instance, we are expected to believe that giraffes' long necks were
"selected for" because of food shortages at lower vegetation levels such
that the adults with the longest necks were able to reach higher vegetation,
thus were well fed and passed on the long necks to their offspring.
Convincing, huh? Only until one asks just what the juveniles were eating IF
only the longest-necked adults could reach food.
3> taxonomy is based on the ancient Linnean model of classification
based on gross anatomy, instead of genetics,
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/linnaeus.html
4> no experiments may be made, and reproducible experiments are the
basis of the real sciences,
5> the Theory of Evolution is not "falsifiable",
6> the ToE is based on an infinitesimal amount of data; that is, it
tries to explain the totality of Life with an absurdly-small amount of
fragmentary data, partial skeletons, bone chips, ...,
7> within the evolutionary community, there is raging controversy on
even the most fundamental concepts; that is, they don't even agree among
themselves,
8> as Cremo points out, data that does not support the ToE has been
systematically ignored by the orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, Cremo offers ancient religious texts as an alternative
view of the origins of humans, while Zecharia Sitchin takes a more rational
approach by translating ancient historical texts in his series of books,
starting with The 12th Planet.
A little intro to the scientific method:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
The main problem with Billings' beyond veg site (a name he stole from
one of my articles - http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm) is that
it -refers- to science, in order to -appear- scientific, yet its true
purpose is to trick gullible people into coming to false conclusions that
support Billings' personal belief system and repeated personal dietary
failures.
E.g., the extensive data that indicates that our ancestors ate flesh is
used to imply that somehow, never explained, we "adapted" or "evolved" to do
so in some evolutionary sense, which is absolutely not true. He, and most
anthro-apologists that tout the false human omnivore model, simply ignore
the profound difference between culture (things humans do exclusive of our
instincts) and nature (our inherent biochemistry, physiology, and
instincts). IF humans had "evolved" to consume animal flesh, we would have
also evolved both the physical and biochemical tools, and the instincts, all
of which are absolutely necessary to do so properly, yet we have NONE of
these.
Critiques of anthro-apologist style lies about evolution at:
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/instinctotherapy.htm
Laurie
Jerry Story
> are several competing "definitions" for even the most basic concepts, like
> "species", "natural selection", "reproductive advantage", "adapt", etc. If
> the fundamental words/concepts are elastic in definition, then no meaningful
> discussion may take place and the field must be seen as more of an exercise
> in creative writing than legitimate science.
I have no background in biology but I will take a layman's crack at
these.
species:
Rule 1. If a male individual and a female individual can produce an
offspring between them that itself can reproduce, then these two
individuals are the same species.
Rule 2. If one individual is a parent of another individual, then both
are the same species. (This rule runs into a problem when one species
evolves into another species by a long chain of individuals.)
natural selection:
Two rabbits, one can run faster than the other. The faster rabbit has
the greater probability of escaping from the wolf, and therefore of
surviving to reproduce. Or color. The whiter rabbit in winter has the
greater probability of hiding from the wolf, and therefore of
surviving to reproduce. This is called "natural selection" because
"nature selects" (so to speak) the faster rabbit or the whiter rabbit.
If humans did it, it would be called "artificial selection". Race
horses are artificially selected for their speed and stamina.
reproductive advantage:
a. producing a bigger litter
b. producing a litter more frequently
c. higher probability of the young surviving
d. higher probability of finding a mate
adapt:
This is usually done by natural selection. Sometimes by artificial
selection.
-- Jerry Story
Jerry Story
> detailed explanations of HOW, say, an increase (or decrease) of 0.1 mm in
> body part size confers the critically-important "reproductive advantage"
> that is necessary for any specific "beneficial" mutation to dominate the
> species' gene pool. Thus, "natural selection" must be taken on faith, and
> that makes the Theory of Evolution a religion, certainly not a science.
> For instance, we are expected to believe that giraffes' long necks were
> "selected for" because of food shortages at lower vegetation levels such
> that the adults with the longest necks were able to reach higher vegetation,
> thus were well fed and passed on the long necks to their offspring.
> Convincing, huh? Only until one asks just what the juveniles were eating IF
> only the longest-necked adults could reach food.
I will take a layman's crack that this.
The 0.1 mm increase or decrease body part size advantage:
This increases the probability of survival by 0.000001 %, which of
course is very small. But small as this is, it very slightly increases
the population of those that have this tiny advantage compared with
those that don't. This tiny gain in population ratio 1.000001 raised
to the power of some millions of generations becomes significant.
The giraffe's long neck:
The adults eat the high vegetation instead of the low vegetation. This
leaves more low vegetation for the youngsters and therefore they have
a greater chance of surviving. Those giraffes with shorter necks ate
too much of the lower vegetation and didn't leave enough for the
youngsters.
The long neck of the giraffe might also be used to see lions farther
away, sneaking in the grass. Lions might attack the youngsters.
-- Jerry Story
K D B
> jst...@edmc.net (Jerry Story) wrote in message news:<4fdac879.03112...@posting.google.com>...
> > There seems to be some evidence that we come from a long line of
> > ancestors that ate meat:
> >
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1c.shtml
> >
> > What's with that?
>
> It would first be necessary to prove the (present) theory of evolution
> correct. A feat which has not yet been accomplished.
It never will be because you cannot "prove" a scientific theory.
You clearly have no understanding of science.
> If you are interested in the problems with the orthodox evolution
> theory I suggest you try the works of Michael Cremo
> (http://www.mcremo.com/) for example.
> This man has challenged and refuted, using hard facts, the (orthodox)
> theory of evolution.
His 'beliefs' are about as scientific as creationism.
Kevin
K D B
> > 1> imprecise, and conveniently-flexible, "definitions" -- e.g. there
> > are several competing "definitions" for even the most basic concepts, like
> > "species", "natural selection", "reproductive advantage", "adapt", etc. If
> > the fundamental words/concepts are elastic in definition, then no meaningful
> > discussion may take place and the field must be seen as more of an exercise
> > in creative writing than legitimate science.
>
> I have no background in biology but I will take a layman's crack at
> these.
>
> species:
> Rule 1. If a male individual and a female individual can produce an
> offspring between them that itself can reproduce, then these two
> individuals are the same species.
Counterexample: any two of the following three species can
interbreed and produce fertile offspring: American Bison/ bos indicus
(Brahman and related breeds of domestic cattle)/ bos taurus (all other
breeds of domestic cattle). Also, any two of the following can also
breed and produce fertile offspring : domestic dog/ timber wolf/
coyote. There are literally hundreds of counterexamples but this will
suffice. The word "species" has little real meaning. It would be
simpler if there were universal acceptance of this 'rule'. The
problem, however, is it overlooks genetic differences unrelated to
reproductivity.
> Rule 2. If one individual is a parent of another individual, then both
> are the same species.
A wolf/coyote hybrid cannot be two species. It's only one animal.
Kevin
Laurie
"Jerry Story" <jst...@edmc.net> wrote in message
news:4fdac879.03113...@posting.google.com...
> > 2> no mechanisms of "natural selection" are ever given;
> The 0.1 mm increase or decrease body part size advantage:
> This increases the probability of survival by 0.000001 %, which of
> course is very small. But small as this is, it very slightly increases
> the population of those that have this tiny advantage compared with
> those that don't. This tiny gain in population ratio 1.000001 raised
> to the power of some millions of generations becomes significant.
My point remains that the -mechanism-, the details of the HOW any
"reproductive advantage" is created by infinitesimal physical changes is not
given. This is just conveniently assumed, as you did.
Further, any "reproductive advantage" must occur in integral numbers,
i.e. a whole being; obviously, one pair can not produce 16.00002 offspring
over their active reproductive period, while the majority of the population
produce 16.0000.
The issues is not "survivability"; the claim is that "beneficial"
mutations confer a "reproductive advantage". Most species have a limited
reproductive period and physical survival beyond that does not produce more
offspring.
How does a change of 0.1 mm in body part size produce more offspring,
even if it is a dominant trait? I can't think of any mechanism, and
apparently the fans of the ToE can not either, since such explanations are
remarkably absent in the evolutionary literature.
> The giraffe's long neck:
> The adults eat the high vegetation instead of the low vegetation. This
> leaves more low vegetation for the youngsters and therefore they have
> a greater chance of surviving.
If the young had abundant food, then there would be no advantage for the
longer-necked individuals, so the trait would not come to dominate the
species. The driving force is an alleged "reproductive advantage", not
surviving.
> Those giraffes with shorter necks ate
> too much of the lower vegetation and didn't leave enough for the
> youngsters.
So, the young all died out and the species went extinct?
Here, you are assuming different populations of long necks separate from
short necks, but remember the difference in neck length is distributed along
a short bell curve in the whole population.
> The long neck of the giraffe might also be used to see lions farther
> away, sneaking in the grass. Lions might attack the youngsters.
Lions tend to eat the young and the old, since they are slower and
easier to catch. They do not choose them by length of neck. It is also
doubtful that a increased length of neck of, say, 1/4" would give any
individual animal any advantage.
Laurie