Babyhood to adulthood

[LuisDantas]

So it isn't a fact that human is a mammal, but it is a concept.
It isn't fact that earth is a planet, but it just a concept.

Do you have more nonsense to bring here.

You really should be more careful with your judgements, but I will ignore that for now.

Mammals and planets are indeed concepts. They are used to describe reality. That means that sometimes their applicability is questionable or innacurate, not that they are useless.

It is indeed a fact that humans are mammals, and that Earth is a planet.

If you can agree to that, maybe we can resume from there.

 

[FearGod]

Em. I thought you were trying to be rational. You are not qualified, by any means, to make such a statement. There is an abundunce of evidence available for review. You have not reviewed it. Your position is one of persistant ignorance, with a refusal to learn. To say that those who have examined the evidence must be stupid to follow where where it leads them, without examining the evidence that lead them there, would seem to be, what I will term, "Blind Ignorance," a refusal to examine the available information.

This would seem to be the 'stupid' position to me. Which is why I'm surprised by your emotional reaction to what so far has at least been presented as a rational attempt to understand and/or dispute.

My thoughts can not penetrate a brick wall.

My question doesn't depend on what books you memorized or read, but your ability to think deeply in the question which you didn't, as you know only few scientists have changed the world because they think but there are many as you just memorize science but doesn't think about it.

I can't penetrate your mind to explain to you how weird the question is and i don't blame you for not getting it since you memorize that evolution needs millions of years to shows up and such changes were tiny and gradual so parental care evolved from species that didn't posses it and the previous offsprings wasn't for a need for parental guidance, then when the offspring evolved to need the parental guidance then the adulthood evolved as well to care about the offspring, of course i am mocking here.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

My question doesn't depend on what books you memorized or read, but your ability to think deeply in the question which you didn't, as you know only few scientists have changed the world because they think but there are many as you just memorize science but doesn't think about it.

Scientist change the world because they spend years studying and learning what others before them have learned, then they build on that.

If you do not understand what has been built before you, then all you can do is add a covering of ignorance over the body of knowledge.

 

[FearGod]

You really should be more careful with your judgements, but I will ignore that for now.

Mammals and planets are indeed concepts. They are used to describe reality. That means that sometimes their applicability is questionable or innacurate, not that they are useless.

It is indeed a fact that humans are mammals, and that Earth is a planet.

If you can agree to that, maybe we can resume from there.

It is a fact that human is a mammal.
It is a concept that human is a mammal.

Both can works if you wish so.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I can't penetrate your mind to explain to you how weird the question is and i don't blame you for not getting it since you memorize that evolution needs millions of years to shows up and such changes were tiny and gradual so parental care evolved from species that didn't posses it and the previous offsprings wasn't for a need for parental guidance, then when the offspring evolved to need the parental guidance then the adulthood evolved as well to care about the offspring, of course i am mocking here.

You presume to judge my ability to think? I have learned concepts and facts. You do not seem to understand the differenct between concepts and facts.

Your argument is not based on facts, concepts, or thinking. Your argument is nothing more thatn "It makes no sense to FearGod, therefore it makes no sense."

You have not provided facts, concepts, or any thought other than incredulity.

 

[idav]

My question doesn't depend on what books you memorized or read, but your ability to think deeply in the question which you didn't, as you know only few scientists have changed the world because they think but there are many as you just memorize science but doesn't think about it.

I can't penetrate your mind to explain to you how weird the question is and i don't blame you for not getting it since you memorize that evolution needs millions of years to shows up and such changes were tiny and gradual so parental care evolved from species that didn't posses it and the previous offsprings wasn't for a need for parental guidance, then when the offspring evolved to need the parental guidance then the adulthood evolved as well to care about the offspring, of course i am mocking here.

Think of it this way. Take a million generations, each generation better or worse then its parents. By the time you reach generation one million the first one may not be suited for the offspring, or more suited depending on which way evolution went. Of course looking at one generation it is hard to fathom. Look at a million generations if you can fathom it.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is a fact that human is a mammal.
It is a concept that human is a mammal.

Both can works if you wish so.

Do you realize that you are asking us to protect your convictions by pretending to lack knowledge?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My question doesn't depend on what books you memorized or read, but your ability to think deeply in the question which you didn't, as you know only few scientists have changed the world because they think but there are many as you just memorize science but doesn't think about it.

I can't penetrate your mind to explain to you how weird the question is and i don't blame you for not getting it since you memorize that evolution needs millions of years to shows up and such changes were tiny and gradual so parental care evolved from species that didn't posses it and the previous offsprings wasn't for a need for parental guidance, then when the offspring evolved to need the parental guidance then the adulthood evolved as well to care about the offspring, of course i am mocking here.

Here you go:
Evolutionary psychology of parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is it that you constantly ask questions that could easily be answered by a quick google search? Why do you make absolutely no effort whatsoever to research these things before assuming they are some form of unanswerable question?

 

[FearGod]

Do you realize that you are asking us to protect your convictions by pretending to lack knowledge?

How that ?
Would you please elaborate ?

 

[FearGod]

You presume to judge my ability to think? I have learned concepts and facts. You do not seem to understand the differenct between concepts and facts.

Your argument is not based on facts, concepts, or thinking. Your argument is nothing more thatn "It makes no sense to FearGod, therefore it makes no sense."

You have not provided facts, concepts, or any thought other than incredulity.

Yes it makes sense to you but doesn't make sense to me, that conclusion is accepted, but showing that you know things as facts is what i reject.

It is up to you that you find it to be understood but claiming that you have the knowledge of how the offspring evolved to need the parental care and then accusing my opinion is due to lack of knowledge at that point i have to respond according to your style of thinking.

 

[LuisDantas]

Certainly.

Evolution isn't an ideological stance (at least when applied to biology). It has been tested time and again. It was found independently by Wallace before Darwin even made his mind about revealing it.

Scientists are, as Darwin himself put it, "not above the insignificance that is fame" (not the exact words). Were there significant doubts about the differentiation of Mammals from reptiles, someone would certainly give them voice.

But instead what we got were ever more sophisticated tools for studying lifeforms and ever more converging evidence indicating that Mammals have indeed developed from ancient reptiles. It is not really a controversy by now, not anymore than, say, that Vitamin C is useful to heal scurvy.

Yet for reasons not entirely clear you insist on doubting and claiming that we can't know. As it turns out, we can and we do.

 

[FearGod]

Here you go:
Evolutionary psychology of parenting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is it that you constantly ask questions that could easily be answered by a quick google search? Why do you make absolutely no effort whatsoever to research these things before assuming they are some form of unanswerable question?

Thank you for wasting my time.

How is that related to my question ?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thank you for wasting my time.

How is that related to my question ?

You mean, how is the evolution of parenting related to your question about how parenting evolved?

If that's not your question, you're obviously not communicating very well. Tell me, exactly is your question?

 

[viole]

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.

I suggest you re-evaluate your incredulity when you have reached the stage of adulthood.

Just kidding, of course

Ciao

- viole

 

[idav]

Yes it makes sense to you but doesn't make sense to me, that conclusion is accepted, but showing that you know things as facts is what i reject.

It is up to you that you find it to be understood but claiming that you have the knowledge of how the offspring evolved to need the parental care and then accusing my opinion is due to lack of knowledge at that point i have to respond according to your style of thinking.

Normally babies are suited more for their environment. Humans are not and spend more time in the womb and spend more time as a weak animal. Over time babies needed more and more nurturing to allow time for our brains to develop, which takes away from making the babies stronger faster. So the reason we need much nurturing is because of how our brains evolved, and is why we can not walk right out of the womb.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yes it makes sense to you but doesn't make sense to me, that conclusion is accepted, but showing that you know things as facts is what i reject.

It is up to you that you find it to be understood but claiming that you have the knowledge of how the offspring evolved to need the parental care and then accusing my opinion is due to lack of knowledge at that point i have to respond according to your style of thinking.

Oh irony, why hast thou cast thyself upon thyself.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Yes it makes sense to you but doesn't make sense to me, that conclusion is accepted, but showing that you know things as facts is what i reject.

It is up to you that you find it to be understood but claiming that you have the knowledge of how the offspring evolved to need the parental care and then accusing my opinion is due to lack of knowledge at that point i have to respond according to your style of thinking.

So, I say that a million facts lead me to my conclusion, and you should examine these facts, is why you feel justified in saying you have not examined the facts and reject the idea that I hold my beliefs based on facts?

You really should try to stop this thread before it gets away from your intentions and reveals you further as irrational.

 

[FearGod]

So, I say that a million facts lead me to my conclusion, and you should examine these facts, is why you feel justified in saying you have not examined the facts and reject the idea that I hold my beliefs based on facts?

You really should try to stop this thread before it gets away from your intentions and reveals you further as irrational.

You don't have facts.

Evolution of reptiles to mammals doesn't answer how the offsprings evolved to be dependent on their parents.

Evolution doesn't happen in one day night, so the offsprings wouldn't be dependent on their parents in one day night, so if we accept that the offspring were gradually dependents from 0 dependent to 100% dependent, then the question rises and which is what triggered it to go steadily in that direction and how it is favored by natural selection.

Natural selection is the process by which individuals with characteristics that are advantageous for reproduction in a specific environment leave more offspring in the next generation, thereby increasing the proportion of their genes in the population gene pool over time.

Read more: Natural Selection - Biology Encyclopedia - body, examples, human, process, organisms, life, specific, energy, bacteria
​

 

[LuisDantas]

You don't have facts.

He actually does.

Evolution of reptiles to mammals doesn't answer how the offsprings evolved to be dependent on their parents.

Which sort of answer can you conceive for such a question? It seems to me that several reasonable ones already exist, from "by luck of the draw" to "by things happening as they did", passing through "because they happened to speciate through environments that made such protection possible".

Evolution doesn't happen in one day night, so the offspring wouldn't be dependent on their parents in one day night,

Correct. It happened very gradually through a great many generations.

so if we accept that the offspring were gradually dependents from 0 dependent to 100% dependent,

I'm not sure those numbers are very objective in such a scenario, but let's ignore that for now.

then the question rises and which is what triggered it to go steadily in that direction and how it is favored by natural selection.

We don't know that it was steadily, although odds are good that it was at least in a general way.

It is conceivable that some specific generations or ranges of generations went the other way to a perceptible degree. Mutations are random, after all.

It is favored by natural selection among other reasons because it is more economical. Fish lack ways of effectively protecting their offspring, and they pay a price for that; they have to lay a lot of eggs just in order to ensure the next generation. That results in considerable losses. Reptiles and mammals have considerable better options, and there are advantages in protecting their offspring - for instance, it is a more effective use of their resources, and it also results in mutual protecting, further improving the odds of survival for the species.

Natural selection is the process by which individuals with characteristics that are advantageous for reproduction in a specific environment leave more offspring in the next generation, thereby increasing the proportion of their genes in the population gene pool over time.

That is not accurate. Leaving more offspring is not always by itself advantageous for natural selection. Having capabilities and behaviors that improve the odds of the offspring surviving and reproducing by their turn is. It just turns out that as we distanced from fish into becoming mammals our numbers of offspring actually diminished, because our survival and reproduction strategies did not benefit from larger generations.

 

[FearGod]

He actually does.

Can you bring some here, he said he got a million facts for answering the question.

Which sort of answer can you conceive for such a question? It seems to me that several reasonable ones already exist, from "by luck of the draw" to "by things happening as they did", passing through "because they happened to speciate through environments that made such protection possible".

Do you call the guess work as several reasonable answers !!!

We don't know that it was steadily, although odds are good that it was at least in a general way.

So what we know ?

It is conceivable that some specific generations or ranges of generations went the other way to a perceptible degree. Mutations are random, after all.

Yes we can guess that too.

It is favored by natural selection among other reasons because it is more economical. Fish lack ways of effectively protecting their offspring, and they pay a price for that; they have to lay a lot of eggs just in order to ensure the next generation. That results in considerable losses. Reptiles and mammals have considerable better options, and there are advantages in protecting their offspring - for instance, it is a more effective use of their resources, and it also results in mutual protecting, further improving the odds of survival for the species.

And how they survived for millions of years before gradually being able to protect and feed their offsprings

That is not accurate. Leaving more offspring is not always by itself advantageous for natural selection. Having capabilities and behaviors that improve the odds of the offspring surviving and reproducing by their turn is. It just turns out that as we distanced from fish into becoming mammals our numbers of offspring actually diminished, because our survival and reproduction strategies did not benefit from larger generations.

The definition of Natural selection isn't accurate !!

If the offspring isn't fit and not protected then it won't pass to the next generation, so once it is fit to their environment and well protected then more offspring of one specific species will pass to the next generation.

How that was wrong ?