Babyhood to adulthood

[adi2d]

What? Lol.

May I ask where you live?



You should visit Europe.




Man's freedom, too. They sell teir bodies without any problem whatsoever, too.



So, either you must marry your one night stand or go to jail.

Correct?

Ciao

- viole

Not to brag but in my younger days I would have been in jail

:yes:

 

[Sapiens]

Every human have to pass the stage of babyhood before reaching the stage of adulthood, so rationally speaking an adult human or an adult animal have first to grow as a baby, and the baby needs someone to feed him in order to grow to the stage of childhood and then to adulthood.

For me it seems impossible that an adult can be the product of evolution.

Whats your view ? how can it be explained other than the need for a ready pre- existence of adult male and female.

Sorry but that demonstrates true ignorance of both evolution and basic biology.

Wiki: In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dgirl1986]

Sorry but that demonstrates true ignorance of both evolution and basic biology.

Wiki: In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Im glad you posted this. I didnt know where to start lol

 

[Sapiens]

Im glad you posted this. I didnt know where to start lol

It was one of the first topics covered in my animal behavior course. If I recall correctly, the lecture was delivered by Richard Dawkins (that was back when he was junior faculty at Berkeley).

 

[FearGod]

Sorry but that demonstrates true ignorance of both evolution and basic biology.

Wiki: In ecology, r/K selection theory relates to the selection of combinations of traits in an organism that trade off between quantity and quality of offspring. The focus upon either increased quantity of offspring at the expense of individual parental investment, or reduced quantity of offspring with a corresponding increased parental investment, varies widely, seemingly to promote success in particular environments.

r/K selection theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is if Human was always human, but that wasn't the case, so this theory to me is rubbish.

 

[Sapiens]

That is if Human was always human, but that wasn't the case, so this theory to me is rubbish.

No one really cares about bronze age beliefs. The reality is that humans are extreme K strategists. In fact K strategy goes hand in glove with being a mammal since the definition of being a mammal involves the provision of mother's milk and thus parental care. So let's stop creating meaningless staw-men.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is if Human was always human, but that wasn't the case, so this theory to me is rubbish.

That is something I attempted to explain to you pages ago without that terminology. It is definitely not something that makes sense only when talking about humans.

 

[FearGod]

No one really cares about bronze age beliefs. The reality is that humans are extreme K strategists. In fact K strategy goes hand in glove with being a mammal since the definition of being a mammal involves the provision of mother's milk and thus parental care. So let's stop creating meaningless staw-men.

Mammal were r-selection before being k-selection.

I was talking about how humans evolved to care about their children when they weren't and how they survived to adulthood without parental care, evolution is speaking about changes that takes hundreds of thousands of years whereas the species may extinct within few years, imagine that mammals didn't realize that their offsprings need their care then they'll go extinct.

It is up to you that you don't believe in God but that isn't a reason to believe in the nonsense.

 

[Sapiens]

Mammal were r-selection before being k-selection.

I was talking about horw humans evolved to care about their children when they weren't and how they survived to adulthood without parental care, evolution is speaking about changes that takes hundreds of thousands of years whereas the species may extinct within few years, imagine that mammals didn't realize that their offsprings need their care then they'll go extinct.

It is up to you that you don't believe in God but that isn't a reason to believe in the nonsense.

Such abject twaddle. Humans have always been extreme K strategists, their parental care instincts and requirements have evolved little, if at all. Put your straw-man to bed.

 

[FearGod]

Such abject twaddle. Humans have always been extreme K strategists, their parental care instincts and requirements have evolved little, if at all. Put your straw-man to bed.

You blindly believe that such things happened and that for unknown reasons fishes (mostly R selected species) evolved to Humans (K selected species)

 

[Sapiens]

You blindly believe that such things happened and that for unknown reasons fishes (mostly R selected species) evolved to Humans (K selected species)

Hardly blindly, and clearly not a priori as in your case. The hard evidence for the evolution of primates from fish is, for one with even a cursory education in the facts, a well blazed, clear trail.

For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

The left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) branches from the left vagus nerve near the heart, and the right RLN braches off a bit further up from the right vagus nerve. The left RLN loops under the ductus arteriosus, and right RLN loops under the right subclavian artery. They both then travel up into the neck to innervate the larynx and its surrounding muscles. Both of these recurrent paths are quite inefficient in mammals; adding over a foot of unnecessary length to the human left RLN. This is especially true in giraffes, where the added length is absurd—more than fourteen signal-slowing, energy inefficient feet are added to the left RLN alone. This data doesn’t fit the model of creation, as it would be easier and more beneficial to simply branch the RLNs off higher on the vagus nerve and avoid arterial looping completely. The evolutionary model, however, is a precise fit; especially when one considers fish anatomy. In fish, several branches extend from the vagus nerve, each looping around arterial arches that connect the dorsal and ventral aorta between each gill slit (Ridley, 2004, p.281-282; Berry & Hallam, 1989, p.83). This is powerful evidence that mammals and fish share ancestry, that the RLNs and ductus arteriosus are remnants of the vagus nerve branches and sixth arterial arch in those ancestors, and that the configuration in mammals is a vestige resulting from decent with modification.

For example: gonads.

The gonads of sharks, other fish, and even humans develop in same place—the chest. This works well for sharks, since they stay there, but in human males, the gonads need to travel all the way down into the scrotum to keep cool. This causes an unnecessary looping of the spermatic cord, which causes a weakness in there body wall, leaving them prone to developing a hernia (Shubin, 2009, p.64-66). This is consistent with decent, with modification, from an ancestor we share with modern fish

For example: phrenic nerves .

The path of the human phrenic nerves begins at the base of the skull, and goes through the body cavity to the diaphragm. This is an efficient path to amphibians’ gills, which are in the neck, but is an inefficient path to the diaphragm, in humans. The irritation of these nerves—made likely by their placement—can cause problems with breathing, including hiccups (Shubin, 2009, p.66-67); a reflexive vestige.

With thanks to: Vestigial Evidence - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

 

[FearGod]

Hardly blindly, and clearly not a priori as in your case. The hard evidence for the evolution of primates from fish is, for one with even a cursory education in the facts, a well blazed, clear trail.

For example, the recurrent laryngeal nerve.

The left recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) branches from the left vagus nerve near the heart, and the right RLN braches off a bit further up from the right vagus nerve. The left RLN loops under the ductus arteriosus, and right RLN loops under the right subclavian artery. They both then travel up into the neck to innervate the larynx and its surrounding muscles. Both of these recurrent paths are quite inefficient in mammals; adding over a foot of unnecessary length to the human left RLN. This is especially true in giraffes, where the added length is absurd—more than fourteen signal-slowing, energy inefficient feet are added to the left RLN alone. This data doesn’t fit the model of creation, as it would be easier and more beneficial to simply branch the RLNs off higher on the vagus nerve and avoid arterial looping completely. The evolutionary model, however, is a precise fit; especially when one considers fish anatomy. In fish, several branches extend from the vagus nerve, each looping around arterial arches that connect the dorsal and ventral aorta between each gill slit (Ridley, 2004, p.281-282; Berry & Hallam, 1989, p.83). This is powerful evidence that mammals and fish share ancestry, that the RLNs and ductus arteriosus are remnants of the vagus nerve branches and sixth arterial arch in those ancestors, and that the configuration in mammals is a vestige resulting from decent with modification.

For example: gonads.

The gonads of sharks, other fish, and even humans develop in same place—the chest. This works well for sharks, since they stay there, but in human males, the gonads need to travel all the way down into the scrotum to keep cool. This causes an unnecessary looping of the spermatic cord, which causes a weakness in there body wall, leaving them prone to developing a hernia (Shubin, 2009, p.64-66). This is consistent with decent, with modification, from an ancestor we share with modern fish

For example: phrenic nerves .

The path of the human phrenic nerves begins at the base of the skull, and goes through the body cavity to the diaphragm. This is an efficient path to amphibians’ gills, which are in the neck, but is an inefficient path to the diaphragm, in humans. The irritation of these nerves—made likely by their placement—can cause problems with breathing, including hiccups (Shubin, 2009, p.66-67); a reflexive vestige.

With thanks to: Vestigial Evidence - Evidence for the Evolutionary Model

That doesn't explain how and why fish evolved to Humans.

Islam as religion agrees that life evolved from water and it was designed by the creator.

ARE, THEN, they who are bent on denying the truth not aware that the heavens and the earth were [once] one single entity, which We then parted asunder? – and [that] We made out of water every living thing? Will they not, then, [begin to] believe?(21:30)

 

[LuisDantas]

FearGod, are you bothered that we lack any idea about how fish evolved into mammals, or rather that we do not?

 

[FearGod]

FearGod, are you bothered that we lack any idea about how fish evolved into mammals, or rather that we do not?

Yes we don't know what happened exactly that made the fish to evolve eventually to Humans, believing that it just happened to be so without a pre-design and as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection is a blind faith which doesn't make sense to me as much as God doesn't make sense to you

 

[McBell]

Yes we don't know what happened exactly that made the fish to evolve eventually to Humans, believing that it just happened to be so without a pre-design and as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection is a blind faith which doesn't make sense to me as much as God doesn't make sense to you

The failing is in your inability to accept even the possibility things can happen without your god.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes we don't know what happened exactly that made the fish to evolve eventually to Humans, believing that it just happened to be so without a pre-design and as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection is a blind faith which doesn't make sense to me as much as God doesn't make sense to you

That is difficult to understand.

If it is blind faith that bothers you, why do you oppose studying the fossils and other evidence for evolution?

If the findings do not support the idea of an intentional design (as they indeed do not), how is that anyone's fault but of those who assume that there is one?

For that matter, how is the lack of evidence of intentional design in any way, shape or form evidence against the existence of God? Just because we see no need to assume a Creator God it does not follow that there is none.

Also, just a few posts ago you said:

That doesn't explain how and why fish evolved to Humans.

And now you seem to find it somehow wrong that we tried and found out at least the general outlines of how.

To further confuse the issue, your very next sentence was:

Islam as religion agrees that life evolved from water and it was designed by the creator.

So, which is it? Is it wrong to attempt to learn how life evolved, or is it not? Does the Quran agree that it did and even where from, or does it not?

Is there any path of action that does not involve swearing the Quran as our guide and yet is still acceptable for Muslims?

At times it is hard to avoid the feeling that you are just afraid that we may somehow (or in many different ways) simply find out that we do not need the Quran.

 

[Sapiens]

Yes we don't know what happened exactly that made the fish to evolve eventually to Humans, believing that it just happened to be so without a pre-design and as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection is a blind faith which doesn't make sense to me as much as God doesn't make sense to you

But we do know, "what happened exactly that made the fish to evolve eventually to Humans," ... it is called, "open niche space."

No one cares if it makes sense to you, no once cares if a god more sense to you, the reality is that the data is there, and sense can be made of it. I provided three very clear examples that strongly indicate our fish heritage that strongly contradict any suggestion of design. Evolution from fish to human is the only a sensible reconstruction given the data, "God must have done it" is an argument from ignorance that ignores the realities.

 

[FearGod]

That is difficult to understand.

If it is blind faith that bothers you, why do you oppose studying the fossils and other evidence for evolution?

I don't oppose studying the fossils and to understand how life began and evolved on earth.

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.(29:20)

If the findings do not support the idea of an intentional design (as they indeed do not), how is that anyone's fault but of those who assume that there is one?

So findings supports randomness and chances, but that doesn't make sense to me.

For that matter, how is the lack of evidence of intentional design in any way, shape or form evidence against the existence of God? Just because we see no need to assume a Creator God it does not follow that there is none.

I don't believe that randomness can produce such wonderful universe, for me there should be someone behind it that possess supernatural power.

And now you seem to find it somehow wrong that we tried and found out at least the general outlines of how.

To further confuse the issue, your very next sentence was:

So, which is it? Is it wrong to attempt to learn how life evolved, or is it not? Does the Quran agree that it did and even where from, or does it not?

No it isn't wrong to learn how life evolved.

Your Lord is Free of all wants; (He is) the Lord of Mercy. If He wants, He can wipe you out, and have another people _ whomever He wants _ succeed you, just as He raised you from the genes of a different nation.(6:133)

Is there any path of action that does not involve swearing the Quran as our guide and yet is still acceptable for Muslims?

As an evidence that there is a creator, speaking about myself of course.

At times it is hard to avoid the feeling that you are just afraid that we may somehow (or in many different ways) simply find out that we do not need the Quran.

No i ain't afraid that you find the quran useless, you are free and the others about your own opinions about the quran

 

[FearGod]

But we do know, "what happened exactly that made the fish to evolve eventually to Humans," ... it is called, "open niche space."

No one cares if it makes sense to you, no once cares if a god more sense to you, the reality is that the data is there, and sense can be made of it. I provided three very clear examples that strongly indicate our fish heritage that strongly contradict any suggestion of design. Evolution from fish to human is the only a sensible reconstruction given the data, "God must have done it" is an argument from ignorance that ignores the realities.

Adaptation won't change one kind to another new kind, only ignorant may believe so.

Do you really know what happened exactly which made fishes to evolve to humans.

 

[Sapiens]

Adaptation won't change one kind to another new kind, only ignorant may believe so.

Do you really know what happened exactly which made fishes to evolve to humans.

Natural selection has already and demonstrably changed one species into another, one species into a new genus, one species into a new family, one species into new order, new class, phyla, kingdom, domain, etc. I assume one or more of these covers "kinds."

I already told you what "made" fish into humans, open niche space.

I also provided three clear anatomical changes that make no sense except when an evolutionary view is applied to them. Do you care to sally forth with alternative explanations or do you lack the anatomical expertise?