I've become a new born Christian; evolution is lies - Page 8 - Political Forum

Slartibartfas · #71 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

Well, i'll try not to pique what isn't your forte. The only problem i have with humans evolving from frugivores to omnivores is that it is a form of adaptation and not evolution. You see (from what i remember from Biology), Darwin's theory is that of evolution and it was Lamarck's theory that said we adapted to or surrounding environment, however, he was later proved wrong. So, maybe we were always omnivores but didn't realize it until after we dropped down from the trees. But then again, that would defeat the fact that, if we were naturally omnivores, we would naturally eat all foods and not just fruits.

A row of adoptions can be evolution. Adaptions take place all the time where life exists, humans hardly can be an exemption, its only that you have to consider the cultural development when it comes to humans more than with other animals.
I really can't follow your line of argumentation why it should not be possible to change from a frugivore to an omnivore or vice versa.

As I have said already before, I lack expertise in anthropology, but especially this issue should be one that has been quite extensively researched, as the skulls enable scientists to make quite good predictions about the nature of the food the early humans ate.

I am also not sure what you mean by "naturally".

Quote:

I'm a socialist now, not a commie, i'm much more tolerant

Lucky me

The Lying Dutchman · #72 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie_Harper

Evolution is proven true, there is no disputing that fact. But there's something about it, I have a difficult time swallowing that we all descended from pigeon excrement, and are all by-products of an explosion. I love myself a little too much to condition myself to believe that I am an accident. I clearly don't buy into the God of the bible, I would rather place my trust in a middle ground of some sort.

you find the thought disgusting, but that shouldnt be relevant for what you believe. it is a matter of taste that influences to much what you should see as facts. most people find the thought of their parents having sex disgusting, but it cannot be denied that we came from exactly this.

nbzek · #73 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 05:12 PM

this thread makes me want to punch a turtle

FRYandBENDER · #74 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nbzek

this thread makes me want to punch a turtle

Ha, well just make sure he doesn't look like this.

nbzek · #75 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 05:40 PM

Remember guys, God assigned special angels to come down to earth and plant those fossils deep in the ground to test our faith in him.

Kazikli Bey · #76 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzTeK

Hmm, didn't know that. I always thought Giraffe's long necks where a direct effect of evolution - due to a changed environment where food grew scarcer, they were "forced" to reach higher places to get their food and thus somehow, over hundreds of generations, the necks elongated.

Yeah, that's a form of Lamarck's theory, i never used to be able to differentiate between adaptation and evolution, so i had to learn the hard way.

Kazikli Bey · #77 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikado

Why shouldn't omnivorism (if that's the right word) be a product of Darwinian evolution? Many creatures can eat things other than their normal diet, only that they digest these other things less well, get mildly ill or whatever. If there's a genetic mutation that makes some in the species better adapted for the wider diet, and environmental conditions that make it harder to get the normal diet, then the onmivores will win out by natural selection, no?

That's entirely my point, it means that a certain selection of our ancestors had to be omnivores, or at the very least, suited to be omnivores, in order to survive and be termed 'the fittest' when they dropped down from the trees. Our genes don't change in order to adapt, and our genes are what determine us, now a genetic mutation may help but i consider that an anomaly, or else it means that we could all be descended from one person, like blue-eyed people.

mikado · #78 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazikli Bey

That's entirely my point, it means that a certain selection of our ancestors had to be omnivores, or at the very least, suited to be omnivores, in order to survive and be termed 'the fittest' when they dropped down from the trees. Our genes don't change in order to adapt, and our genes are what determine us, now a genetic mutation may help but i consider that an anomaly, or else it means that we could all be descended from one person, like blue-eyed people.

I'm not sure I see the problem. It wouldn't be necessary for any proto-human to be instantly all-omnivorous; only that those with a certain gene mutation would be getting better nutrition from the diet available to them by their circumstances. Darwinian selction then progressively weeds out those without. It doesn't have to be just one single gene - there may be a whole bunch that combine to determine digestion. Plus there's the presence of microbes in the gut of course. And to change diet it needs, I guess, not only digestion to change but also taste. So I think gradual shift is plausible.

Vandal · #79 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRYandBENDER

Ha, well just make sure he doesn't look like this.

Yeah. Alligator turtles have a tendancy not to give you your hand back.

Kazikli Bey · #80 (**permalink**) 03-11-2008, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

A row of adoptions can be evolution. Adaptions take place all the time where life exists, humans hardly can be an exemption, its only that you have to consider the cultural development when it comes to humans more than with other animals.
I really can't follow your line of argumentation why it should not be possible to change from a frugivore to an omnivore or vice versa.

I'm not saying that it is impossible, what i am wondering is how people can accept adaptation when that theory was discredited. But what i think people may mix up is natural selection anyway. You say adaptation occurs all the time, however it is more likely to be survival of the fittest.

The best example i can give is when fish that are better suited for warmer waters are suddenly put into water that is cooler then normal. Those fish with the genes to survive better in cooler waters will survive, whilst those that do not have the genes will not survive. As these fish give birth (if we assume that the only fish to procreate are those with the genes more suited to cooler waters) then the next generation of fish will be better suited to the cooler waters, except for those that get the dominate/ recessive gene that acclimatises them to warmer water.

However, that is a form of micro-evolution, survival of the fittest, and not adaptation over time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slartibartfas

As I have said already before, I lack expertise in anthropology, but especially this issue should be one that has been quite extensively researched, as the skulls enable scientists to make quite good predictions about the nature of the food the early humans ate.

I am also not sure what you mean by "naturally".

I lack the expertise too but that doesn't stop me from wondering (a basic knowledge in the field does this to me) how the evolution occurred from fruigovores to omnivores.