The Advent of Man and Others

[questor]

If evolution occurred as a somewhat ordered event of the original slime ball becoming all life as we know it and proceeded as the survival of the fittest, when and how did man arrive? As far as is known, neither he nor the ape were present at the last of the age of the dinosaur. The earliest bipedal being seems to be no more than 6 million years old, with no known predecessors. It's almost as if he just suddenly appeared with no ancestors. but with a full load of human genes. Then, about 10,000 years ago, the ape-like Neaderthal decides to die off leaving the field to Cro Magnon. During that time and up to now, the ape decides to forego any particular evolutionary improvement while man surged ahead to build the Empire State building. Where was Cro Magnon hiding while Neanderthal was abundant? How did he spring forth with all his smart genes while Neaderthal was still ape like? If man split off from the ape, they have had the same amount of time to evolve. The ape still walks on his knuckles and lives in the jungle while man sometimes

begats an Einstein. Do you think the turtle at one time had no shell? Then he said-''too many predators are eating me'', so I think I'll grow a shell for protection. If this is the case, why didn't other soft bodied animals do the same? The same for birds, small unprotected animals, they were being eaten,so they decided to grow wings. This smacks of evolution upon demand. Too bad man can't pull off a stunt like that. It makes one wonder how evolution really works, because new genetic material had to be created to allow for this.

[Tormod]

I am struggling to find a question, point or anything at all to discuss in your post.

 

Simply because we don't know the exact origin of bipedalism doesn't mean it didn't happen?

 

Here's a link to an interesting page which explains why there are many theories about this:

NOVA | Family That Walks on All Fours | Origins of Bipedalism | PBS

[questor]

My post is meant to discuss possible holes in Darwin's theory. In the case of man, it seems odd to me that a critter like a cockroach could be over a hundred million years old and still be a cockroach, while in a paltry 6 million years man has evolved from a small beast which may or may not have been bipedal to his current physical condition. Also, it seems odd there is no fossil

record showing an immediate ancestor to modern man although there are many that point to the Neanderthal. Modern man seems to have sprung from the earth about 40,000 years ago. Apes, which supposedly shared a common ancestor with man have had the same 6 million years to evolve, but they still swing from trees. Darwin theorises that evolution proceeded from the need to develop certain characteristics to succeed in the environment. It seems that some of these characteristics would be very valuable for a diverse group of animals. Man could certainly benefit from a a pair of wings. If a large creature like a dinosaur could develop into a bird, why couldn't man develop wings? Man could have used some protection against predators and other men, why wouldn't a turtle shell prove useful? It seems like one could argue that evolution proceeds by some grand plan or by demand, otherwise why don't all fish have the same shape or defense mechanisms since their environment is the same? If they started out from a common ancestor with a given DNA, there would have to be a huge number of favorable genetic changes to produce what lives today. And all this exists with the fact there have been at least two major global kill-offs which greatly shortens the time period in which all evolution has taken place.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

My post is meant to discuss possible holes in Darwin's theory. In the case of man, it seems odd to me that a critter like a cockroach could be over a hundred million years old and still be a cockroach, while in a paltry 6 million years man has evolved from a small beast which may or may not have been bipedal to his current physical condition. Also, it seems odd there is no fossil

record showing an immediate ancestor to modern man although there are many that point to the Neanderthal. Modern man seems to have sprung from the earth about 40,000 years ago. Apes, which supposedly shared a common ancestor with man have had the same 6 million years to evolve, but they still swing from trees. Darwin theorises that evolution proceeded from the need to develop certain characteristics to succeed in the environment. It seems that some of these characteristics would be very valuable for a diverse group of animals. Man could certainly benefit from a a pair of wings. If a large creature like a dinosaur could develop into a bird, why couldn't man develop wings? Man could have used some protection against predators and other men, why wouldn't a turtle shell prove useful? It seems like one could argue that evolution proceeds by some grand plan or by demand, otherwise why don't all fish have the same shape or defense mechanisms since their environment is the same? If they started out from a common ancestor with a given DNA, there would have to be a huge number of favorable genetic changes to produce what lives today. And all this exists with the fact there have been at least two major global kill-offs which greatly shortens the time period in which all evolution has taken place.

 

For that matter why no adequate cold weather related evolved traits?

Mankind has endured at least a couple of ice ages as well as many winters. Why then are we so suceptable to the cold?

 

More on point...there are a great umber of species out there waiting to be discovered now, and odds are that there are just as many that are now extinct that haven't been found. We simply havent found the "missing link" yet. Sadly on the other hand we may have found and dismissed it because it didn't "fit" the mental picture of what our ancesters would have looked like.

 

The unfortunate traits of humanity are arrogence and vanity.

Which sadly tend to affect how we approach this particularly difficult subject.

 

Looking at prehistoric humans (neanderthal etc.) I see no real differences. So our brains might be bigger and we may have less hair (for the most part) we really aren't all that different. A better question is what came before them.

[mynah]

The earliest bipedal being seems to be no more than 6 million years old, with no known predecessors. It's almost as if he just suddenly appeared with no ancestors. but with a full load of human genes.

 

A number of predecessors have been found, but the fossils we know are just a fraction of the species that have ever been alive - just as it would be impossible to dig up the bones of every human ever buried. Very special circumstances - such as sudden mudslides - best suit fossil preservation.

 

The ape still walks on his knuckles and lives in the jungle while man sometimes begats an Einstein.

In deep jungle, being a long-armed ape that swings through trees may be more advantageous than being Einstein. That's what evolution is all about - different strokes for different folks, according to demand.

 

If a large creature like a dinosaur could develop into a bird, why couldn't man develop wings? Man could have used some protection against predators and other men, why wouldn't a turtle shell prove useful?

Man has done pretty well without them. Keep in mind that each positive feature has to be measured up against its evolutionary cost. Would you have preferred a shell to a brain that allowed your species to construct a protective house?

[Tormod]

If a large creature like a dinosaur could develop into a bird, why couldn't man develop wings?

 

If you want to discuss evolution it might help to understand what it is. Your statement is pretty much what it isn't.

[questor]

Am I missing something here?

 

The Evolution of Birds

 

''Introduction to the Evolution of Birds

 

Chapter 1: Shared Characters - Birds and Reptiles

Birds are descended from reptilian ancestors. They arose nearly 200 million years ago, during the Mesozoic, the age of dinosaurs. In fact, birds are probably the closest living relatives of the dinosaurs! Chapter 1 shows the characteristics that birds and reptiles share.

Chapter 2: Unique Avian Characters

Despite their similarities to reptiles, birds are unique in a number of respects; their bodies have been shaped by the requirements for flight. This is why they are placed in a distinct class, Aves, within the Phylum Chordata. We present some of the major differences between birds and other vertebrates in Chapter 2 ''.

[mynah]

The specialised dinosaurs we humans prefer to call birds co-existed with other dinosaurs - and may still have done so were it not for an unfortunate meeting between earth and a ball of rock that sent many species (not all dinosaurs) into oblivion. There was not one early lineage of birds, but many, of which all except the one ancestral to modern birds died out sooner or later. Among the early transitional forms were feathered dinosaurs without wings, bird-like animals that had wings, but muzzles rather than bills, birds so well adapted to a marine life that they may have spent their entire life in water, etc.

 

Don't know what your problem is, but one of the commonest mistakes people make with evolution is thinking that an ancestral lineage has to disappear once it has given rise to a new lineage. In fact, it may produce a number of branches, some of which are bound to last longer than others.

[InfiniteNow]

I shared this link in another thread earlier because it really is so good.

 

Please watch this. There are five, and all are worth your time. Many of your basic questions and misunderstandings will be resolved as a result should you choose to act on this suggestion.

 

RichardDawkins.net

[questor]

I appreciate very much the link to Dawkins. I have read much about him, but never anything by him. I have now read the first chapter of '' The God Delusion '' and i can see

why he is such a staunch atheist--he has confused God and Religion with a creator. It

is quite easy and accurate to say there is no God as is described in religions created by man. It is another large jump of mind to say the universe occurred by chance. That would mean that gravity, electromagnetism,light, dark matter, spin, nuclear forces, life, and all physical laws happened by some unbelievable coincidence and has no meaning. If there was an event called the Big Bang or any other one-time event in the universe, there had to be a cause. This cause would obviously be supernatural in that it has only occurred once. So if an event ocurred by cause, the cause would be supernatural would it not? It doesn't matter the name that is attached to it. Thanks again, I'll read more Dawkins, he's an excellent writer.

[InfiniteNow]

I appreciate very much the link to Dawkins. I have read much about him, but never anything by him.

<...>

Thanks again, I'll read more Dawkins, he's an excellent writer.

 

I'm very glad to have found common ground with you there. The beauty about RichardDawkins.net"]the link I shared above is you can watch it, and you don't even have to read. More than being a good writer, I think he is a wonderful teacher.

 

 

 

 

A nod to CraigD, who is also a very wonderful teacher. :hihi: