Re: Couple questions for evolution experts

In message <s1582554ptit4eq6u9l2nedhgpf5h2snu7@xxxxxxx>, Phatty Boombatty <phatty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 09:21:31 -0700 (PDT), "Bob T." <bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jun 1, 9:04 am, Phatty Boombatty <pha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 01:08:46 -0700 (PDT), eri...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>On May 31, 4:57 pm, Phatty Boombatty <pha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I've been wondering about a couple of things, hopefully someone here
>> can answer these questions with well-researched and well-reasoned
>> responses.

>> ASSUMPTION: Mankind (homo sapiens sapiens) evolved from early
>> primates, the same evolutionary line as chimps and apes.

>> QUESTIONS:

>> 1. Human brain size and therefore cranial size increased as a result
>> of our evolutionary increase in intelligence. Why, while this long
>> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal
>> not evolve to accomodate this increasing cranial size? Human women
>> appear to be the only mammals who experience excruciating pain during
>> childbirth. If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, why
>> is there so much pain and not a larger birth canal?

>> 2. Continuing with the theme... it seems that just about every animal
>> (mammals at least) have evolved a sense of when the female ovulation
>> cycle is occuring, so that fertility is guaranteed. The male of the
>> species senses the heat cycle, mates with the female, and a child or
>> children are conceived. Why is it such a guessing game with humans?
>> Sure, we can gauge the female cycle with some accuracy, based on her
>> regularity, but if it were beneficial for the survival of the human
>> species to "know" when the female was in heat and fertile, why would
>> we have not evolved this sense, in the same way that most of the
>> animal kingdom has?

>> 3. Considering we evolved from early primates, and all other primates
>> we know of are virtually covered with hair or fur (in fact, just about
>> every other land mammal on the planet is covered with hair, fur, or
>> "armor"), why was it beneficial for the survival of the species for us
>> to "lose" this hair, thereby exposing our very sensitive skin to the
>> very same elements as our ancestors? Before you argue that humans
>> started living in shelter and didn't NEED this hair, consider the
>> multitudes of animals who spend a great deal of their time in some
>> kind of hole or other shelter, or who are nocturnal and spend most of
>> their waking time in the cool of the night - they still have hair.
>> Just because we didn't need it necessarily any longer (which could
>> still be argued against, considering we still burn when exposed to the
>> sun, etc.), doesn't mean that evolution would deem this protective
>> body covering "unneccessary" and begin the long process of eliminating
>> it from our genetic makeup.

>> I'm looking forward to your answers. I am by no means a creationist,
>> but evolution in the case of human beings just does not seem to add
>> up. Humans seem ill-suited for life on planet Earth, and in fact, seem
>> to be the only species which the Earth could do without, or at least,
>> do BETTER without.

>> Thanks!

>Your questions are interesting, and the answers so far are also
>interesting.  Yet you seem to think that the three issues you've
>brought up represent some kind of problem for evolution and are part
>of what leads you to believe that something "doesn't add up".  I'm
>particularly puzzled by your statement that humans seem ill-suited for
>life on Earth.  Does the fact that we're now well over 6 billion
>strong and have been living on every continent except Antarctica for
>thousands of years not impress you at all?  How can you say we're ill-
>suited when we're clearly very well-suited.

Well, we are the only species on earth whose "evolution" has brought
our own species and every other living thing to the brink of
destruction. That hardly seems like evolution and/or "survival of the
fittest" to me.

Evolution is a physical process - it has no psychic powers. Take the
dodo bird for example - it had no natural predators on its small
island home, so it gradually lost the ability to fly. This proved
disastrous when humans arrived and brought predatory animals with
them.

I have no problem with a bird losing an unneeded ability over millions
of years. I have a problem with a bird morphing into a lobster, or a
lizard turning into a rabbit, or any other mutation which somehow
creates a species with an entirely different genetic makeup.

Out of curiosity, who do you think expects to see a mutation which somehow creates a species with an entirely different genetic makeup? While some single mutations (genome duplication) can - and have been observed to - create new species, the new species can hardly be said to have an entirely different genetic makeup.

I have a
problem with humans for millions of years living in caves and then in
the short span of a few thousand years, splitting the atom.

But you haven't explicated what your problem with this is. It seems to me that it is perfectly explicable by humanity passing a threshold that enabled us to accumulate cultural capital. This threshold may well have been the increase of population following on the adoption of agriculture.

Nor have you explained the relevance of you having this problem to the topic of evolution. Regardless of whether evolution is a fact, humans "lived in caves" for millions of years (but anatomically modern humans have only been around for 150,000-200,000 years, and behaviourally modern humans for considerably less time), and then advanced to "splitting the atom" in the span of a few thousand years.

I have a
problem with species supposedly evolving into other species, because
evolution makes only the fittest survive, yet with those "lesser
evolved" species still surviving in abundance all over the planet.

The "chain of being" (aka the ladder fallacy) is an error. All those "lesser evolved species" (as you mistakenly call them) are not less evolved; they're adapted to different niches and environments. "If men evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys" is a classic piece of creationist nonsense that even many creationists realise is a ridiculously flawed argument.

Evolutionists can't let go of their lies, because they think the only
alternative - religion - is unthinkable.

And that shouldn't be a problem for you, because it's a falsehood. Many people are both religious and accept the factuality of common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection and other processes. Furthermore, many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives.

And creationists can't let go
of their lies because the result - the punishment of hell - is
unthinkable.

I also fail to see why you would think that.

We will only find the truth when we allow our illusions
to be shattered.

In your case when you abandon evolution denial.


Evolution is supposedly to ensure the survival of a
lifeform, but in our case, it only brings us closer to global extinction.

Evolution is not "supposed" to ensure anything of the sort. You seem
to have confused evolution, which is an unthinking physical process,
with some sort of supernatural force. If humans go extinct, evolution
will proceed as ever - but the idea that there is some sort of loving
God who takes care of us will be quite disproven, eh?

I never said anything about a "loving God" - in fact I stated quite
clearly that I am not a creationist.

Perhaps you would be wiser to state what you really are - what position you hold. You started this thread with "I've been wondering about a couple of things, hopefully someone here can answer these questions with well-researched and well-reasoned responses." As you've put the lie to that statement with the post to which I am responding you've lost the right to expect us to take your protestation that you are not a creationist at face value.

The religious idea of "god" holds
no interest to me. I am a seeker after Truth, but like so many things,
what passes for truth in these times are mostly just multiple lies.
You are given two choices, religion or science, and both arrogantly
think the other wrong, while both being mostly lies based on a small
kernel of truth. Both grasp at straws to make the world fit their
worldviews, and both believe in decades or centuries of lies just
being passed on again and again.

You are given at least four choices - religion and science, religion alone, science alone, or neither. A belief that you don't have to choose between religion and science can be found among both religious and non-religious persons, and both scientists and non-scientists.

But your claim - "I've been wondering about a couple of things, hopefully someone here can answer these questions with well-researched and well-reasoned responses." - turns out to have been dishonest. You have an agenda, and for some inexplicable reason thought asking those questions promoted that agenda. If you want to save your reputation you should make the case for your position, rather than throwing out insultingly phrased substance-less assertions.


>I think it would help to think about that when you're thinking about
>your three issues.  Does childbirth pain keep women from having
>children?  *Clearly* not.  

Of course the pain doesn't keep women from having children. But you
don't hear cats or dogs yelling, screaming and pushing when they have
babies. Cows and horses just stand there and let the thing drop. But
human women must FORCE the huge-headed baby through the too-small
birth canal, causing great discomfort and pain (unless there's a great
deal of pharmaceutical help). Doesn't seem very "natural" to me.

Go back and re-read the answers you have already been given, your
misconceptions have already been answered.

Does not knowing when estrus occurs keep

>men from impregnating women?  *Clearly* not.

It most certainly keeps SOME men from impregnating SOME women. In
fact, it almost seems as though hidden ovulation is some kind of
programmed fail-safe to keep humans from overpopulating too quickly.
I've been married for 20 years, with countless thousands of sex acts
occurring. Yet I have only two children. And if we hadn't had sex on
those two occasions, we would probably be, like so many other couples,
childless.

 Has lack of hair been a

>problem for our survival?  *Clearly* not.

One could argue that the lack of "hairiness" (not a lack of hair, as
has been pointed out - although while there may be follicles
everywhere, I have no hair on my back or shoulders, and I'm pretty
sure chimps do) will contribute to our demise. Because we can't be
exposed to the elements, we must live and work indoors, under
artificial light, which keeps us from manufacturing Vitamin D, which
lessens our immunity, which causes us to suffer and die from disease
and sickness. And I wasn't saying it's been a problem for our
survival, I was questioning why it was evolutionarily beneficial for
us to lose our hair, while other primates (and all other mammals) have not.

This has already been answered as well - go back and re-read the
previous posts in this thread, paying close attention to the ones that
mention "running" and "heat".

Well, not to burst your intellectual bubble, but think of a few other
land mammals for a moment... cheetas, gazelles, kangaroos, horses... I
could go on... all of whom depend on the ability to run for their
survival. A cheetah must run for its every meal. Every prey must be
able to outrun its predator, and every predator must be able to catch
up to its prey, to maintain equilibrium - yet they all still have
hair/fur. Ultimately, skin covering is a method of protection, and for
humans to "evolve" to having LESS PROTECTION doesn't make sense.
Otherwise, every running land mammal would be nude.

You should try reading the responses you were given, for comprehension. Hairlessness is proposed to be an adaptation for *long distance* running - very few mammals are long distance runners. Cheetahs for example, can run for perhaps 100 yards, and then have to lay down and rest to recover.


- Bob T.

>There's nothing wrong with your questions.  They're interesting
>questions.  The problem is your (apparent) underlying assumption that
>humans need for things to be different.  That we somehow need more
>help.  It's self-evident that that is not the case.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


I've enjoyed reading many of the responses I've gotten from this
query. Some are very thought-provoking. It's funny, though, how
brainwashed some people can be - the mere fact that I'm bringing up
these questions has some people jumping to the conclusion that I'm a
religious nut.
It's not all that strange - there is a pattern of people pretending to be sincere questioners after truth turning out to be religious nuts, particularly when the questions are expressing skepticism as to how some trait could be the result of evolution. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you brought up the questions, but it now looks very likely that that conclusion was correct.

By the way, ad hominem arguments - "brainwashed" - are fallacious. So is "argument by assertion".

See - the two (false) choices - religion or science -
in the programmed mind you have to be one or the other.

Wasn't you that shortly beforehand claimed that acceptance of the factuality of evolution was an alternative to religion?
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Naturalistic Fallacy
    ... They are a part of Darwinian evolution. ... It is interesting to note that sometimes what we humans prefer to call the ... Few spots remain on earth that are ... ESCAPING each species' needing SOME kind of externality complex if it is to ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Temporal Learning
    ... >> be born with pre-wired knowledge about one's environment. ... I think that humans inherit of a lot less knowledge than they learn ... You can believe in the magic of evolution all you ... species to emerge, there must be a lot of opportunities for mutations. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Why Should Evolution be Taught as Science in Schools?
    ... how humans came to be and how we fit in the universe"... ... human prehistory and the origin of species does not mean that those ... Macro) evolution has been tested, ... logical that humans genetics would also most closely match primates. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • POTM: Re: Commentary: Thoughts on atheistic evolution and morality
    ... Macroevolution refers to one species changing into a completely ... but not "completely different," what sort of evolution would that be? ... If we humans are animals like any other - only more evolved - there ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... The male of the species senses the heat cycle, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... when exposed to the sun, etc.), doesn't mean that evolution ... religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)