The simple brilliance of Darwin's revelation

[Wuwei]

Evolution in action:

WASHINGTON — A hefty set of tusks is usually an advantage for elephants, allowing them to dig for water, strip bark for food and joust with other elephants. But during episodes of intense ivory poaching, those big incisors become a liability.​

​

Now researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks.​

Elephants have evolved to be tuskless because of ivory poaching, a study finds

Researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks.

www.npr.org

.

 

[Erinwltr]

I think he very well might have thought that. He even hypothesized about its advantages for tribes.

Just perusing some replys, here and there. That's some good shit right there, IN.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

His idea that agnosticism leads to atheism is one of the most stupid ideas I heard in my life.

Hmm, seems spot on.

 

[james bond]

Evolution in action:

WASHINGTON — A hefty set of tusks is usually an advantage for elephants, allowing them to dig for water, strip bark for food and joust with other elephants. But during episodes of intense ivory poaching, those big incisors become a liability.​

​

Now researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks.​

Elephants have evolved to be tuskless because of ivory poaching, a study finds

Researchers have pinpointed how years of civil war and poaching in Mozambique have led to a greater proportion of elephants that will never develop tusks.

www.npr.org

.

It natural selection created by you know who.

 

[zaangalewa]

Your complete misunderstanding of evolution.
Life has tended towards complication/building on existing but always mutating life, and the mutations are helpful are better adapted survive better.
They are absolutely related.
Without constant mutation there would be no evolution or adaptation. When species don't mutate/adapt fast enough to changing conditions they go extinct.

In Sollnhofen we found many fossils. A famous one was the first Archaeopterix for example. Very rare fossil. Masses of others got the funny German name "Pfeilschwanzkrebse" - only a German may speak out such a word. The English name is horseshoe crabs. Sounds also funny - and what can I say: They still exist. Crocodiles for example are also about 300 million years old. 400 million years not-evolution of horseshoe crabs are about 80% of the time since standard multicellular lifeforms exist at all.

My question now: What made they wrong? Did they not evolve so they were so stupid not to die out - while they were on the other side intelligent enough to survive the evolution of all others?

-----

PS: And a more interesting question: If they will die out now during our days of evolution and we would be the reason for: Who would make something wrong in this game of the thoughts? We - or the horseshoe crabs, who made since 400 million years nothing wrong in sense of evolution?

 

[zaangalewa]

How do you know he didn't?

Konrad Lorenz considered Darwin to be a forerunner of behavioral biology. The reason was to be found in The Descent of Man and chapter VIII of The Origin of Species, where Darwin provides an explanation of behavior through selection, stating that the same mechanisms explaining morphological changes also account for gradual improvements in instincts. He assessed the accuracy of his evolutionary theory by directly studying animal behavior, hence laying the foundations of behavioral research for the next century.

Darwin as a student of behavior

In The Expression of the Emotions, Charles Darwin documents evolutionary continuity between animals and humans, emphasizing the universality of expres…

www.sciencedirect.com

Konrad Lorenz had a terrible problem: his wonderful language. Once I read a book from him and I read and read and read and read and read and read and read and ... made an emergency break, because I suddenly understood that I did not understand what I read during the last 60 pages - although I agreed with everything what he said and felt very comfortable. But what had been my incomfortableness now? Very easy: What are genes doing? They produce proteins! So how for heavens sake are proteins able to be a cause for an instinctive behavior which is able to be a model for an evolutionary tree? ... I'm not sure wether anyone since the days of Konrad Lorenz ever really did understand what's happening there in a body. If someone eats a chicken ... will this one become chicken like? For sure not!

In context of this I made a philosophical ... "experiment" ... by thinking our brain is not an organ which thinks on the own but is 'only' a (biological) communicator with something what thinks. And indeed I was not able to see any difference between this two different realities. They (re-)act in the same way - what somehow also could explain what we are doing when we communicate with others: we let them think for us. With this hypothese it's much more easy to understand how proteins could build a communicator (also with themselves) and this could perhaps produce a concrete behavior.

 

[zaangalewa]

And also not surprising that, even still today, we gain and disperse scientific knowledge quite in spite of and in the face of opposition from religion. It was only a few years ago that the Vatican was saying condoms are worse than AIDS.

If you like to get a baby: use a condom. It fails in 14%. Experienced partners are able to reduce this to 3%.

But if you like to get aids then do analsex with normal condoms. Then you have nearly no chance to avoid to get aids. But if you like to be more sure to get aids then do the same with changing partners and as many chance acquaitances as possible.

I wait by the way still today that for example Kenia will buy for a billion dollars condoms every year and give it to everyone for free. But from white Catholics everyone seems to expect to give black Catholics condoms for free. Strange, isn't it?

Here in Germany for example about 2-3 condoms per year and inhabitant are sold. Not very much isn't it? So why has not every German aids?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you like to get a baby: use a condom. It fails in 14%. Experienced partners are able to reduce this to 3%.

But if you like to get aids then do analsex with normal condoms. Then you have nearly no chance to avoid to get aids. But if you like to be more sure to get aids then do the same with changing partners and as many chance acquaitances as possible.

I wait by the way still today that for example Kenia will buy for a billion dollars condoms every year and give it to everyone for free. But from white Catholics everyone seems to expect to give black Catholics condoms for free. Strange, isn't it?

Here in Germany for example about 2-3 condoms per year and inhabitant are sold. Not very much isn't it? So why has not every German aids?

You tell me.

 

[abu afak]

My question now: What made they wrong? Did they not evolve so they were so stupid not to die out - while they were on the other side intelligent enough to survive the evolution of all others?

PS: And a more interesting question: If they will die out now during our days of evolution and we would be the reason for: Who would make something wrong in this game of the thoughts? We - or the horseshoe crabs, who made since 400 million years nothing wrong in sense of evolution?

The original basic creature bony 'shell' was good for all comers since, obviously
Some traits may have indeed evolved despite similar/same appearance.
ie, perhaps they now produce twice the eggs/offspring, and their shells a bit thicker, etc.
But no obvious trait needed to change to suit the environment.

And of course they have evolved/adapted and have 4 Different species, not one. That is not only subspecies, but greater species among them.
Wiki:

Taxonomy​

Horseshoe crabs resemble crustaceans but belong to a separate subphylum of the arthropods, Chelicerata.[7] Horseshoe crabs are closely related to the extinct eurypterids (sea scorpions), which include some of the largest arthropods to have ever existed, and the two may be sister groups.[7][8] Other studies have placed eurypterids closer to the arachnids in a group called Merostomata.[9] The enigmatic Chasmataspidids are also thought to be closely related to the horseshoe crabs.[10] The earliest horseshoe crab fossils are found in strata from the Lower Ordovician period, roughly 480 million years ago.[5]​

​

The Limulidae are the only Recent family of the order Xiphosura, and contains all Four living species of Horseshoe crabs:[1][2]​

​

• Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, the mangrove horseshoe crab, found in South and Southeast Asia
• Limulus polyphemus, the Atlantic or American horseshoe crab, found along the Atlantic coast of the United States and the Southeast Gulf of Mexico
• Tachypleus gigas, the Indo-Pacific, Indonesian, Indian or southern horseshoe crab, found in South and Southeast Asia
• Tachypleus tridentatus, the Chinese, Japanese or tri-spine horseshoe crab, found in Southeast and East Asia

That covers all your questions which could have been answered by googling IF you were truly curious.

`

 

[zaangalewa]

You tell me.

?

 

[zaangalewa]

The original basic creature bony 'shell' was good for all comers since, obviously
Some traits may have indeed evolved despite similar/same appearance.
ie, perhaps they now produce twice the eggs/offspring, and their shells a bit thicker, etc.
But no obvious trait needed to change to suit the environment.

And of course they have evolved/adapted and have 4 Different species, not one. That is not only subspecies, but greater species among them.
Wiki:

Taxonomy​

Horseshoe crabs resemble crustaceans but belong to a separate subphylum of the arthropods, Chelicerata.[7] Horseshoe crabs are closely related to the extinct eurypterids (sea scorpions), which include some of the largest arthropods to have ever existed, and the two may be sister groups.[7][8] Other studies have placed eurypterids closer to the arachnids in a group called Merostomata.[9] The enigmatic Chasmataspidids are also thought to be closely related to the horseshoe crabs.[10] The earliest horseshoe crab fossils are found in strata from the Lower Ordovician period, roughly 480 million years ago.[5]​

​

The Limulidae are the only Recent family of the order Xiphosura, and contains all Four living species of Horseshoe crabs:[1][2]​

​

• Carcinoscorpius rotundicauda, the mangrove horseshoe crab, found in South and Southeast Asia
• Limulus polyphemus, the Atlantic or American horseshoe crab, found along the Atlantic coast of the United States and the Southeast Gulf of Mexico
• Tachypleus gigas, the Indo-Pacific, Indonesian, Indian or southern horseshoe crab, found in South and Southeast Asia
• Tachypleus tridentatus, the Chinese, Japanese or tri-spine horseshoe crab, found in Southeast and East Asia

That covers all your questions which could have been answered by googling IF you were truly curious.

`

?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

?

Your question. Answer it. Last sentence of your post.

 

[zaangalewa]

Your question. Answer it. Last sentence of your post.

You like to get an answer on a rhethorical question? ... What is in your head ? A gun?

 

[zaangalewa]

abu afak

Your concept of evolution seems to be wrong. Evolution has no plans - is not "teleological". Specially your idea

When species don't mutate/adapt fast enough to changing conditions they go extinct.

is very problematic beause millions of mutations are bad and only in very very few cases a mutation in the genotype is able to create a positive effect for the phenotype. So you should perhaps really try to find a good answer.

 

[abu afak]

abu afak

Your concept of evolution seems to be wrong. Evolution has no plans - is not "teleological". Specially your idea

is very problematic beause millions of mutations are bad and only in very very few cases a mutation in the genotype is able to create a positive effect for the phenotype. So you should perhaps really try to find a good answer.

What?
You have a language problem and a logic problem.
I never said it has a "plan".
Evo is hit and miss Mutation/errors with only the better ones left remaining to survive.
Said it 100 times.
I understand it completely while you are a know-nothing freak.
I explained why The Horseshoe survives and that it has split into FOUR Different species by the grace of separated populations.
The way almost all speciation starts.
First with small mutations/subspecies, gradually building wider as the populations spend thousands/millions of years separated, and mutating with the best better fitted to the knew area/geography having moved further away to fit it best.


you are an idiot, a mental defective, and you don't speak english well either
You are non-conversant for that and the reason you do not understand Evo 1% as well as I..
Bye.

`

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You like to get an answer on a rhethorical question? ... What is in your head ? A gun?

It was not rhetorical. You asked why Germans has less incidence of AIDS. Now answer your own question and stop wasting everyone's time.

 

[zaangalewa]

What?
You have a language problem and a logic problem.
I never said it has a "plan".
Evo is hit and miss Mutation/errors with only the better ones left remaining to survive.
Said it 100 times.
I understand it completely while you are a know-nothing freak.
I explained why The Horseshoe survives and that it has split into FOUR Different species by the grace of separated populations.
The way almost all speciation starts.
First with small mutations/subspecies, gradually building wider as the populations spend thousands/millions of years separated, and mutating with the best better fitted to the knew area/geography having moved further away to fit it best.


you are an idiot, a mental defective, and you don't speak english well either
You are non-conversant for that and the reason you do not understand Evo 1% as well as I..
Bye.

`

no comment

 

[zaangalewa]

It was not rhetorical. You asked why Germans has less incidence of AIDS.

I "asked" why nearly no use of condoms plays not any role for the spreading of aids in Germany. And I ask myselve why racists try to tell 'white' Catholics in Europe what they have to tell 'black' Catholics in Africa - although Catholics just simple speak from Catholic to Catholic.

Now answer your own question and stop wasting everyone's time.

no comment

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I "asked" why nearly no use of condoms plays not any role for the spreading of aids in Germany.

And I told you to answer your own question. Stop being a sissy. You tell us.

 

[zaangalewa]

And I told you to answer your own question. Stop being a sissy. You tell us.

no comment