by Elsewhere 47 Replies latest jw friends
Frank,
the universe of the universes universe. couldn't that be life too??? I like to speculate.
I concentrate on the kind of "life" am familiar with
"universe"? "speculate"? i have eunogh problems trying to figure out where i am standing, not fall and "boling water"..
If I read Prof. Hawking right, God is finite....
I already know that (god-entity) doesn't give a rat's arse.
Frankie, you're turning me into an agnostic.... I still believe in mysticism, but ...
Hugs
Brenda
Then of course there is always the string theory
Else, please post the link that supports your math.
I think the math should be self-evident. What I'd like to see is the source for the figures.
SNG
why design a coat and wearing it when there is no need for it in the first place? we had thick skin didn't we?
A critical aspect of evolution is that there is no concept of the "ideal organism." Organisms are less or more fit based on their current environment. If the environment changes, an organism that was very fit yesterday may find itself quite unfit today.
Before we had the tools and means to manipulate our world, a thick coat and skin would obviously have been biological advantages. But now that we have created the technology to more or less completely control the surroundings in which we live, those things have become superfluous. It is no longer a survival advantage to have a gigantic hairy coat. In fact, it may be a hindrance to reproduction. (Ladies?)
As to your call on my use of the word "probably" to describe whether or not humans actually had thicker skins and coats, I concede that I don't personally have any evidence on that. I'm going to have to appeal to Abaddon or funkyderek or someone to bail me out on this one. Are you out there? :-)
SNG
SEA,
It is strange that ALL humans decided to ger rid of the "thick skin" (just ONE example),
More surprising when even today you find humans that keep their millenary traditions, refusing to change and adopt modern confort and "toys", but NONE is keeping their traditional (?) "thick skin"
they survived with a low infant survival rate and most people dying no much longer after that, (age 40 max?)
Well, you admit it - we survived. We were and still are animals though:
All the recent trappings of civilisation that you imagine we cannot live without a re a recent and modern invention and even now something that very few on the planet have.
Yes, believe it or not there are people who manage to survive without a rowenta jug kettle, a utility company providing water, an iPod and an SUV. They have higher birthrates than we do but higher infant mortality too.
You can see it happening right now, you don't have to "suppose" anything you can see it on TV.
It is strange that ALL humans decided to ger rid of the "thick skin" (just ONE example),
Imagine the following scenario. A vast population of antelope covers the African continent. Life is stable. Then one day a major environmental change occurs. Let's say the climate drastically begins to change. One of the bad things about large populations is that they interbreed. So if one individual antenlope is born with extra ability to survive, it will probably reproduce with a "normal" antelope, thereby dulling the effects of its biological advantage. It is therefore very difficult for new features to develop in large popluations.
Now, somewhere on the African continent, there are small isolated groups of antelope, perhaps 10 animals to a group. These groups are better breeding grounds - if you will - for new biologicaly features, because there is a smaller reinforcement pool. Also, if the isolated group is related, the new feature has an even better chance of taking hold. So in one of these small groups, the group is able to adapt to the new environment over the course of many generation (of course), whereas the mainline population was not able to change.
Now, this new version of antelope is able to flourish, and when it comes out from isolation, it is much more fit than the old antelope. So it eventually takes over the entire continent.
With regard to humans, it's not that 6 billion humans magically adapted at the same time. A very small group adapted, and then became dominant so that we now cover the earth.
More surprising when even today you find humans that keep their millenary traditions, refusing to change and adopt modern confort and "toys", but NONE is keeping their traditional (?) "thick skin"
Well, biological evolution doesn't have anything to do with choice. It is not a conscious decision, and it doesn't happen within the lifespan of a single creature. Even if someone wanted to keep their traditional thick skin, it isn't something they could request to do.
SNG
Seattle
Are you planning to write an speculative book?
Some of the word you use are
"Imagine",
"Let's say the climate drastically begins to",
"probably reproduce"
"A very small group adapted,"
To me "probably" means "based on availble evidence'" which in this cases you have not provided, .
With regard to humans, it's not that 6 billion humans magically adapted at the same time. A very small group adapted, and then became dominant so that we now cover the earth.
ok but during the mean time go and get some evidence, at least to prove that female humans had an agenda againts thick skin and finally prevailed. Without evidence, your theory makes sense, as most current HUMAN females do not even like facial hair.
the burden of proof belong to you, didn't you already ask for help in that regard?
the fact is that many like me do not have a need or reason to think contrary to what it is being shown (thin skin) in real time.
