1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Evolution

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by jsmoke, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,685

    Eyesight. Would not be able to function without specs.

    So I'd die my dna ends and so someone with good vision survives.
     
  2. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 6,886

    But why is your eyesight bad?

    And surely you would just evolve into someone who could manage with poor eyesight?
     
  3. nox_uk

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 12, 2006

    Posts: 626

    Evolution is over generations. Learning to deal with it (or inventing spectacles) is what would need to happen in this instance.
     
  4. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 6,886

    But if it's over generations why do people have bad eyesight nowadays, surely many with bad eyesight survived 6000 years or so.
     
  5. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,685

    Because their is deviation. Animals who are born blind will die, deer ancestors have still been born but they don't survive.

    That's like saying if gays don't have children, why do gays still exist.
     
  6. nox_uk

    Hitman

    Joined: Sep 12, 2006

    Posts: 626

    And we are also living longer. Eyes deteriorate at a certain age for people - for me it was early 40's. 6000 years ago I doubt I would have reached that age... (Most likely beaten to death for a bad joke, but i'm not ruling out death by wild bore, or boar.)
     
  7. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 6,886


    Yes but there must be a reason why your eyes went bad genetically.
     
  8. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,685

    Apparently I have big eyes so because of that the focus point is in wrong place.
     
  9. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 6,886

    But why do you have big eyes, in other words a genetic mutation has happened somewhere done the line.
     
  10. hornetstinger

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 6, 2016

    Posts: 5,685

    Possibly from mother's side. Brother has good eyesight as does dad. Mum has bad eyes.
     
  11. jsmoke

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 17, 2012

    Posts: 6,886

    Point is that if you traced your ancestors back far enough then you would probably find no problems with the eyes. More likely some kind of inbreeding or close too has occured thus creating a mutation.

    So it becomes moral consequence rather than purely survival of the strongest if I'm correct.
     
  12. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,624

    Location: Cheshire

    This is utter nonsense mate. You have no idea what you are talking about. Read a book for goodness sake. You are referring to the earliest civilisation. Not the earliest homo sapien or the precursors of modern man. Birds, humans and fish are all the product of evolution by natural selection. Evolution is a proven theory.
     
  13. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,624

    Location: Cheshire

    Bad eye sight would be a selection pressure if you got eaten by predators or had fatal accidents. Less of a problem in modern society.

    There would be a genetic basis to some eye conditions and environment would contribute too. I expect it is not a pressure which is incompatible with life so it would be sustained within the gene population.

    What is amazing is to think that in order to read this sentence, every single one of your ancestors survived. All the way back.

    In addition some organisms evolved multiple pairs of eyes and dogs were evolved (bred) by artificial selection from wolves by man 15,000 to 6,000 years ago. It is fascinating.
     
  14. Angilion

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Dec 5, 2003

    Posts: 15,657

    Location: Just to the left of my PC

    That's only true if you make a more literal interpretation of the word "civilisation" and make living in cities, specifically in cities, a requirement. While that is the literal interpretation of "civilisation", it's not very relevant in terms of evolution.

    They do and we do. Natural selection always applies.

    A population may be perfectly adapted to specific circumstances and thus temporarily and locally not change, but natural selection still exists. Even if it acts to suppress change, it's still natural selection. So, for example, if a type of animal is perfectly adapted to a specific environment then natural selection might, for example, apply selection pressure against a change in colouration.

    There may be human selection on top because humans have been using evolution as a tool for many millenia and have been opposing natural selection by protecting certain plants and animals, sometimes even to the extent of sustaining ones that can't reproduce naturally, but natural selection always applies.

    I can pick up this pen and hold it off this desk...but gravity still applies to the pen. I'm circumventing the effect of gravity on the pen, but it's still there.
     
  15. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 61,130

    That isn't what I'm getting at I don't really have my head in the subject at all at the moment so probably not conveying what I mean clearly at all - the extinction aspect is only a side note to my point - the cause in this case being connected to rising evidence of events that previously weren't well supported by the known science. The events themselves having implications outside of the extinction event and connected into other areas of evolution. The problem being that these areas previously were anomalous and parts of the theory that might be a good fit if applied either side of them would breakdown when applied to them but that was often smoothed over, covered with contrived explanations or dismissed entirely in some manner - to actually acknowledge them would have raised a question over the whole theory. Now we can see that there are way more, way way more, potential supernova progenitors within effective range than had previously been known or supposed to be possible when before the evidence wasn't there to support that as a potential explanation - infact the opposite the evidence was against it.

    That intellectual dishonesty bothers me as it makes it hard to accept even mostly well supported theories - the same kind of problems can be seen with dark matter and climate change amongst other areas.

    EDIT: In general it isn't unusual in science and doesn't mean a theory is wrong where if you hold it up side by side with the evidence there isn't a neat fit what I'm complaining about is the way that is dealt with especially when it comes to some of the more controversial subjects.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2019
  16. jpod

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jun 16, 2011

    Posts: 1,624

    Location: Cheshire

    Dear Rroff

    I have no idea what you are referring too. It is too vague to attend to. The theory of evolution is proven, the mechanism is natural selection. The evidence is well documented within many scientific fronts/disciplines.

    The good thing about good science is that if you come along with a better theory and it it is tested and there is underpinning evidence then good scientists will change their opinions and bin evolution via natural selection.

    Until another theory with better evidence comes along the theory of evolution is now a fact like gravity.
     
  17. edscdk

    Soldato

    Joined: Jul 17, 2008

    Posts: 6,521

    You are aware that chickens did not pop into existence in one day?

    Chicken came first, chicken eveolved from non egg laying life..
     
  18. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,249

    You must read a book. But not all these filled with lies but the ones with the truth.
    Evolution exists but we are not product of it. Period.
     
  19. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 61,130

    Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution it isn't the mechanism.
     
  20. RDM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 1, 2007

    Posts: 19,987

    Which books? Do you have a list? I'm guessing that the Blind Watchmaker isn't on it?