Conquer Club

TheProwler wrote:Let me ask this: Has science explained how a species (call it Species A) in one isolated area of the world, over a long period of time, evolved into another species (i.e. they could no longer reproduce with their ancestors, Species A) called homo sapien, while in another isolated area of the world, species A has evolved into the same species, homo sapien? I mean, way back in prehistoric times, before we were traveling across the oceans, how did homo sapiens manage to evolve on different continents?

We didn't. We originated in Africa, and spread throughout the world from there.

Timminz wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Let me ask this: Has science explained how a species (call it Species A) in one isolated area of the world, over a long period of time, evolved into another species (i.e. they could no longer reproduce with their ancestors, Species A) called homo sapien, while in another isolated area of the world, species A has evolved into the same species, homo sapien? I mean, way back in prehistoric times, before we were traveling across the oceans, how did homo sapiens manage to evolve on different continents?

We didn't. We originated in Africa, and spread throughout the world from there.

Were Cro Magna and Neanderthal different species, or just different races? (I don't know.)

Same genus. Different species.

TheProwler wrote:Does it take a gorilla more energy to maintain his superior muscular strength than it takes us to maintain our weaker strength? I'm talking about 30 pounds of gorilla muscle being about seven times as powerful as our 30 pounds of muscle. If we are both just sitting around picking our noses, do they somehow burn more energy? Again, given an equivalent amount of muscle mass.

But we aren't both just sitting around picking our noses. I don't know what you do with your day, but I am rarely foraging in the jungle for food. Conversely, there probably aren't many gorillas (a few perhaps) posting in this forum on a daily basis.

Sorry, can somebody please explain the significance of gorillas to me? Humans didn't evolve from gorillas. You might as well be asking why we can't fly? What advantages can there possibly be in not being able to fly? Or why can't we see in the dark? Or spit poison at our enemies?

There are lots of traits that other animals have that we don't have that would be cool. Obviously there is a cost to all those traits as well as benefits and obviously evolution doesn't have foresight to be able to control the direction of evolution to give us the best possible abilities at everything.

owheelj wrote:Sorry, can somebody please explain the significance of gorillas to me? Humans didn't evolve from gorillas.

The pound-for-pound strength of prehistoric "man" has been likened to that of a gorilla. So the gorilla is just being used as a measuring stick of how much the power of our muscle mass has supposedly become less efficient through evolution.

owheelj wrote:Sorry, can somebody please explain the significance of gorillas to me? Humans didn't evolve from gorillas. You might as well be asking why we can't fly? What advantages can there possibly be in not being able to fly? Or why can't we see in the dark? Or spit poison at our enemies?

There are lots of traits that other animals have that we don't have that would be cool. Obviously there is a cost to all those traits as well as benefits and obviously evolution doesn't have foresight to be able to control the direction of evolution to give us the best possible abilities at everything.

Prowler's contention is that at one time human muscles were as powerful and efficient as gorilla muscles, but now a gorilla's muscles are about 7 times more efficient than a human's (BTW, Prowler, can we get a source on this? Where did you dig up this stat?). And this, he claims, is not consistent with evolution because our muscles shouldn't be "devolving".

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Does it take a gorilla more energy to maintain his superior muscular strength than it takes us to maintain our weaker strength? I'm talking about 30 pounds of gorilla muscle being about seven times as powerful as our 30 pounds of muscle. If we are both just sitting around picking our noses, do they somehow burn more energy? Again, given an equivalent amount of muscle mass.

But we aren't both just sitting around picking our noses. I don't know what you do with your day, but I am rarely foraging in the jungle for food. Conversely, there probably aren't many gorillas (a few perhaps) posting in this forum on a daily basis.

Gorillas born in captivity are given their food and just sit around for most of the day. They play and shit, but don't need to forage for food in the jungle.

Yet, pound-for-pound, they are still much stronger than us. Physiologically, their muscles are much more efficient than ours. Without the exercise that "wild" gorillas get. Natural selection doesn't explain why we lost our strength. Especially in the times before the Industrial Revolution. Being a strong mofo would have helped ensure your survival.

Timminz wrote:Same genus. Different species.

Hmmm....I think it is quite possible that Cro-Magnon man was the result of a genetic mutation of Neanderthal man. A newer, better model. And he eventually wiped the old model out.

I wonder what a few tweaks to our chromosomes might make us into. Homo sapien killers, maybe?

TheProwler wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Does it take a gorilla more energy to maintain his superior muscular strength than it takes us to maintain our weaker strength? I'm talking about 30 pounds of gorilla muscle being about seven times as powerful as our 30 pounds of muscle. If we are both just sitting around picking our noses, do they somehow burn more energy? Again, given an equivalent amount of muscle mass.

But we aren't both just sitting around picking our noses. I don't know what you do with your day, but I am rarely foraging in the jungle for food. Conversely, there probably aren't many gorillas (a few perhaps) posting in this forum on a daily basis.

Gorillas born in captivity are given their food and just sit around for most of the day. They play and shit, but don't need to forage for food in the jungle.

Yet, pound-for-pound, they are still much stronger than us. Physiologically, their muscles are much more efficient than ours. Without the exercise that "wild" gorillas get. Natural selection doesn't explain why we lost our strength. Especially in the times before the Industrial Revolution. Being a strong mofo would have helped ensure your survival.

One single animal removed from it's normal context does not suddenly change its entire physiology (a physiology developed over thousands of generations foraging in the jungle). That's absurd.

1. Can you please provide an academic source that indicates humans evolved from something as strong as gorillas.

2. Assuming you are correct, who can run faster, a gorilla or a human? There are numerous reasons why losing muscle strength may be to our evolutionary advantage.

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Does it take a gorilla more energy to maintain his superior muscular strength than it takes us to maintain our weaker strength? I'm talking about 30 pounds of gorilla muscle being about seven times as powerful as our 30 pounds of muscle. If we are both just sitting around picking our noses, do they somehow burn more energy? Again, given an equivalent amount of muscle mass.

But we aren't both just sitting around picking our noses. I don't know what you do with your day, but I am rarely foraging in the jungle for food. Conversely, there probably aren't many gorillas (a few perhaps) posting in this forum on a daily basis.

Gorillas born in captivity are given their food and just sit around for most of the day. They play and shit, but don't need to forage for food in the jungle.

Yet, pound-for-pound, they are still much stronger than us. Physiologically, their muscles are much more efficient than ours. Without the exercise that "wild" gorillas get. Natural selection doesn't explain why we lost our strength. Especially in the times before the Industrial Revolution. Being a strong mofo would have helped ensure your survival.

One single animal removed from it's normal context does not suddenly change its entire physiology (a physiology developed over thousands of generations foraging in the jungle). That's absurd.

It seemed like you were implying that gorillas are stronger because, on an individual basis, they get more exercise.

How does Natural Selection account for our lose of strength? The strong survive, not the weak. I know this saying doesn't mean "physical strength". But in every civilization, there were a few smart people making the decisions and the bast majority of people did the grunt work. The physically strong people killed the weak people.

Unless, of course, it was a physically weak species that killed a physically strong species. But where did this physically weak (and mentally strong) species come from? They would have been clubbed to death in most of our history. It's as if this mentally strong species just came out of nowhere. Almost as if they were created over a very short period of time and had a window of opportunity to take over.

Nobody has any proof that this did not happen.

Take a few minutes and check this stuff out: http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

Does this give us some indications of generic engineers from a far away place? Let's not discount the scientific finding of archaeologists.

owheelj wrote:1. Can you please provide an academic source that indicates humans evolved from something as strong as gorillas.

2. Assuming you are correct, who can run faster, a gorilla or a human? There are numerous reasons why losing muscle strength may be to our evolutionary advantage.

1. I read it in a textbook. It's packed away in my closet and my scanner is broken, so you'll just have to trust me.

2. A gorilla can outrun a human.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_can_a_gorilla_run

That's faster than our top sprinters.

Plus they can climb trees and throw bananas at you.

TheProwler wrote:2. A gorilla can outrun a human.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_can_a_gorilla_run

That's faster than our top sprinters.

Plus they can climb trees and throw bananas at you.

False.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/14/cx_mh_ ... print.html

Human sprinters can outrun gorillas, and what about over a long distance? Who can ran a marathon faster?

Gorillas can run at speed in excess of 20 mph and can reach a top speed of 25 mph when needed.

Current runners already are touching the limits of what can be accomplished with the bodies nature gave them. "We're very close to the edge," says Peter Weyand, an assistant professor at Rice University. He says record-setting sprinters such as Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey hit top speeds of as much as 27 miles per hour

owheelj wrote:

TheProwler wrote:2. A gorilla can outrun a human.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_can_a_gorilla_run

That's faster than our top sprinters.

Plus they can climb trees and throw bananas at you.

False.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/14/cx_mh_ ... print.html

Human sprinters can outrun gorillas, and what about over a long distance? Who can ran a marathon faster?

Gorillas can run at speed in excess of 20 mph and can reach a top speed of 25 mph when needed.

Current runners already are touching the limits of what can be accomplished with the bodies nature gave them. "We're very close to the edge," says Peter Weyand, an assistant professor at Rice University. He says record-setting sprinters such as Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey hit top speeds of as much as 27 miles per hour

I can "run" faster because I can drive a mother effing car. Suck it gorillas!

TheProwler wrote:Sorry PLAYER, I just don't have the time to read all that. Someone else (elsewhere) has presented a clear explanation of how macroevolution would come about. With a lost less words. No offense, it's just that I don't see any indication that anyone is willing to discuss any new ideas.

I don't think the loss of physiological efficiency of our muscle mass can be explained with evolution. Maybe it can. But I'd like a summary. A fairly short summary.

funny, you would rather read 10 short posts than one long one.. whatever.

But you are under a GROSS misconception. Evolution does not always result in improvements. Even when it does, one area might improve, others might not alter at all and still other factors might be failures, though not enough to kill.

... and your failure to fully understand is WHY the long post was necessary. Some concepts take more than 2 sentences to fully explain.

Second, strength is not our benefit, intelligence is.. EVEN IN HIGHLY DEMANDING societies.. I answered this above, but if you cannot be bothered to read it, why should I repeat.

TheProwler wrote:Let me ask this: Has science explained how a species (call it Species A) in one isolated area of the world, over a long period of time, evolved into another species (i.e. they could no longer reproduce with their ancestors, Species A) called homo sapien, while in another isolated area of the world, species A has evolved into the same species, homo sapien? I mean, way back in prehistoric times, before we were traveling across the oceans, how did homo sapiens manage to evolve on different continents?

All the continents were joined at one time. In addition, are many theories of sea travel. The Americas may have been settled around 10,000 years ago (Clovis first theories), Across the ice shelf and perhaps also from the ocean. They may have been settled from Europe earlier OR even far earlier, from New Zealand (a less popular theory). At any rate, there were multiple migrations.

TheProwler wrote:Why do people discount the notion that an earlier species could be used as a "blueprint" to create a new species through alterations to DNA - alterations made by "Creators"? Heck, we are experimenting with altering genetic code - why do we think that this couldn't have happened in the past by "someone" to create certain species?

We don't.. that's what evolution is.

TheProwler wrote:Everyone seems to think the discussion (argument) between evolution and creation is limited to "Purely evolution" versus "Purely creation". Anyone that discusses creation seems to limit their thoughts to creation all performed in a 6 day period. Couldn't the Bible's version of creation just be one of the, possibly many, occurrences of genetic code alteration to produce a new, better species? Couldn't the story of creating Adam and Eve just be symbolic of a six-day procedure in which an ape/human-like creature was genetically altered to create homo sapiens?

Genetically altered ... is a stretch, both for Christianity AND science.

However, Evolution has never excluded the Bible (some scientists try to), but Creationist define this as a Chrsitian/correct versus Evolution/majority of science is wrong.

TheProwler wrote:Was it really me complaining about a long post?

only other people's

TheProwler wrote:

Timminz wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Let me ask this: Has science explained how a species (call it Species A) in one isolated area of the world, over a long period of time, evolved into another species (i.e. they could no longer reproduce with their ancestors, Species A) called homo sapien, while in another isolated area of the world, species A has evolved into the same species, homo sapien? I mean, way back in prehistoric times, before we were traveling across the oceans, how did homo sapiens manage to evolve on different continents?

We didn't. We originated in Africa, and spread throughout the world from there.

Were Cro Magna and Neanderthal different species, or just different races? (I don't know.)

We did not descend from Neanderthals. It was an evolutionary "side chain". We are related, but more as "cousins". Cro Magna and Neanderthal co-existed for a long time and may have mated, but it is unkown and highly controversial. Why and how we interacted is debated. There were other "hominid-like" species on Earth also. I don't know exactly how many, when or where they appeared. Neandarthals is one of the most famous, but was not the only one.

owheelj wrote:

TheProwler wrote:2. A gorilla can outrun a human.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_can_a_gorilla_run

That's faster than our top sprinters.

Plus they can climb trees and throw bananas at you.

False.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/14/cx_mh_ ... print.html

Human sprinters can outrun gorillas, and what about over a long distance? Who can ran a marathon faster?

Gorillas can run at speed in excess of 20 mph and can reach a top speed of 25 mph when needed.

Current runners already are touching the limits of what can be accomplished with the bodies nature gave them. "We're very close to the edge," says Peter Weyand, an assistant professor at Rice University. He says record-setting sprinters such as Michael Johnson and Donovan Bailey hit top speeds of as much as 27 miles per hour

Haha! You pick, like, 2 dudes throughout history that can run greater than 25 miles per hour. By the way, if they actually hit 27 miles per hour for more than one step, it was for less than 3 steps. Other experts have said they haven't hit 25 miles per hour.

But it is all silly - average gorillas can run 25 miles per hour. They didn't line up all the gorillas in the world and have a race. Average men run much slower than average gorillas. So your point is invalid.

I feel tunnel vision creeping in....

BTW, most humans couldn't run a marathon if their life depended on it. This really is going off on a meaningless tangent just because you didn't get the answer you wanted...

PLAYER57832 wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Why do people discount the notion that an earlier species could be used as a "blueprint" to create a new species through alterations to DNA - alterations made by "Creators"? Heck, we are experimenting with altering genetic code - why do we think that this couldn't have happened in the past by "someone" to create certain species?

We don't.. that's what evolution is.

This one made me laugh.

It is really funny how humans are so smug, thinking they know things that are more speculative than proven fact.

TheProwler wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:

StiffMittens wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Does it take a gorilla more energy to maintain his superior muscular strength than it takes us to maintain our weaker strength? I'm talking about 30 pounds of gorilla muscle being about seven times as powerful as our 30 pounds of muscle. If we are both just sitting around picking our noses, do they somehow burn more energy? Again, given an equivalent amount of muscle mass.

But we aren't both just sitting around picking our noses. I don't know what you do with your day, but I am rarely foraging in the jungle for food. Conversely, there probably aren't many gorillas (a few perhaps) posting in this forum on a daily basis.

Gorillas born in captivity are given their food and just sit around for most of the day. They play and shit, but don't need to forage for food in the jungle.

Yet, pound-for-pound, they are still much stronger than us. Physiologically, their muscles are much more efficient than ours. Without the exercise that "wild" gorillas get. Natural selection doesn't explain why we lost our strength. Especially in the times before the Industrial Revolution. Being a strong mofo would have helped ensure your survival.

One single animal removed from it's normal context does not suddenly change its entire physiology (a physiology developed over thousands of generations foraging in the jungle). That's absurd.

It seemed like you were implying that gorillas are stronger because, on an individual basis, they get more exercise.

How does Natural Selection account for our lose of strength? The strong survive, not the weak. I know this saying doesn't mean "physical strength". But in every civilization, there were a few smart people making the decisions and the bast majority of people did the grunt work. The physically strong people killed the weak people.

Unless, of course, it was a physically weak species that killed a physically strong species.

I split your paragraph because you really pose 2 separate questions.

1. you completely misunderstand evolution. The idea that the strongest always survive is just not true, for all sorts of reasons. I already said that increased body mass also tends to mean more food needed, which is a direct negative in many situations.

2. Brains really DO out-do brawn, even in primitive, difficult situations. The physically weak might kill the strong in direct confrontation, but the smarter folks tended to avoid direct confrontation for that reason.

TheProwler wrote: But where did this physically weak (and mentally strong) species come from? They would have been clubbed to death in most of our history. It's as if this mentally strong species just came out of nowhere. Almost as if they were created over a very short period of time and had a window of opportunity to take over.

Nobody has any proof that this did not happen.

It could have. And God could have instituted the change that made us truly human. In fact, this last is pretty much what most Christians who accept Evolution believe happened.

In either case, science just does not give an answer. There is no proof against it, so it is possible, but you won't find many credible scientists putting it forward as a scientific theory because the evidence that exists is far too inconclusive and "shakey". They might discuss it over beer, but it won't be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TheProwler wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Why do people discount the notion that an earlier species could be used as a "blueprint" to create a new species through alterations to DNA - alterations made by "Creators"? Heck, we are experimenting with altering genetic code - why do we think that this couldn't have happened in the past by "someone" to create certain species?

We don't.. that's what evolution is.

This one made me laugh.

It is really funny how humans are so smug, thinking they know things that are more speculative than proven fact.

Fine.. you "got me." What I should have said was "this is is one possibile explanation for what evolution might be."


now come on .. how about looking at what we really say?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Everyone seems to think the discussion (argument) between evolution and creation is limited to "Purely evolution" versus "Purely creation". Anyone that discusses creation seems to limit their thoughts to creation all performed in a 6 day period. Couldn't the Bible's version of creation just be one of the, possibly many, occurrences of genetic code alteration to produce a new, better species? Couldn't the story of creating Adam and Eve just be symbolic of a six-day procedure in which an ape/human-like creature was genetically altered to create homo sapiens?

Genetically altered ... is a stretch, both for Christianity AND science.

Haha! That's the second good laugh.

Humans haven't been able to travel past their moon, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

PLAYER57832 wrote:1. you completely misunderstand evolution. The idea that the strongest always survive is just not true, for all sorts of reasons. I already said that increased body mass also tends to mean more food needed, which is a direct negative in many situations.

You keep saying body mass. I am talking about equivalent body mass. Really, at least I come out and say it when I don't read your post. If you read mine, at least try to understand it. I speak with very simple words for a reason.

TheProwler wrote:Take a few minutes and check this stuff out: http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

Does this give us some indications of generic engineers from a far away place? Let's not discount the scientific finding of archaeologists.

PLAYER, don't try to bury the facts.

TheProwler wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

TheProwler wrote:Everyone seems to think the discussion (argument) between evolution and creation is limited to "Purely evolution" versus "Purely creation". Anyone that discusses creation seems to limit their thoughts to creation all performed in a 6 day period. Couldn't the Bible's version of creation just be one of the, possibly many, occurrences of genetic code alteration to produce a new, better species? Couldn't the story of creating Adam and Eve just be symbolic of a six-day procedure in which an ape/human-like creature was genetically altered to create homo sapiens?

Genetically altered ... is a stretch, both for Christianity AND science.

Haha! That's the second good laugh.

Humans haven't been able to travel past their moon, yet they think they have the universe figured out. So smug. So overconfident.

No, rather it is more in the definition of both Science and Christianity.

Science requires proof. Other ideas are possible, open for speculation, but you won't see serious journal articles out side of pure speculation (and journals tend to not publish pure speculations) proposing that we got to be where we are because aliens came and altered our genes.

Christianity actually does have some suggestions of this, but again, it just is generally dismissed by Biblical scholars as a likely possibility.

And I was quite specific in stating my limitations. In no way did I say this was the "universe figured out" or a conclusion of all humanity.

If you want to discuss, fine, but this is pure trolling.