• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Opinion Community Meta GAF |ON| Gaf on Gaf

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
3,244
4,570
660
Czech Republic
You don't ask me that. You tell me what makes you believe that we were monkeys before becoming humans :)
I don't know, I've heard the theory and I think that behaviour of apes are somewhat comparable to humans and well, sounds pretty plausible to me, especially with prehistorical findings of bones and skeletons, how they had head shaped more like apes, etc. I don't know what to believe, but it sounds plausible to me : )
 

Mista

Dragonslayer
Nov 21, 2014
18,630
31,018
1,360
I don't know, I've heard the theory and I think that behaviour of apes are somewhat comparable to humans and well, sounds pretty plausible to me, especially with prehistorical findings of bones and skeletons, how they had head shaped more like apes, etc. I don't know what to believe, but it sounds plausible to me : )
To each their own, I always believe that. But when it comes to logic and sense, this whole "theory" is laughable
 

M1chl

Gold Member
Dec 25, 2019
3,244
4,570
660
Czech Republic
To each their own, I always believe that. But when it comes to logic and sense, this whole "theory" is laughable
Well that's why it's "theory", I think it's the most plausible of all other "theories" or truths. Because in this case we can start about, how started life on earth and that's a whole another rabitt hole.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mista

hariseldon

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2018
6,123
12,415
770
Yes communities of masturbators sharing and discussing the things they masturbate to are probably enjoying themselves (though even this area of forum discussion is often rife with disagreement - you're gross you like feet (you are by the way), "thicc" is beautiful wait no that isn't actually thicc that's just disgusting....)

I'm just saying it skeeves me out being in those environments. I'm not going to pretend I don't crank one out now and then, but I do it shamefully and get back to life, certainly don't really have much to discuss on the matter with other dudes, or have any interest in helping to grease their wheels. I've perused reddit now and then for some....reading material, and I just find it funny when people hang out in these places and comment and are like high fiving eachother about how hot something is (implicit messaging is "dude this is so awesome to beat off to")
Nobody's masturbating, sometimes it just brightens your day to see a really attractive young lady, just as it would be to see a fantastic piece of art or a really gorgeous car. Sometimes seeing something beautiful just gives you a lift.
 
Nov 5, 2016
23,807
45,549
1,135
One Big Room, Full Of Bad Bitches
Nobody's masturbating, sometimes it just brightens your day to see a really attractive young lady, just as it would be to see a fantastic piece of art or a really gorgeous car. Sometimes seeing something beautiful just gives you a lift.
That's why I always peep at thicc_girls_are_teh_best thicc_girls_are_teh_best 's avatar

damn son

 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
5,965
8,894
515
I don’t know in which world you’re living in mate because this is not true and this whole “humans were monkeys” theory is dogshit m😂
You're right, they weren't monkeys, they were chimpanzees.

Are you suggesting that the theory of evolution is wrong?
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
5,965
8,894
515
There's not scrap, I want to hear his side and why he said with such confidence that evolutionary theory is "dogshit".

If he can present a counter-theory to Darwin's, I am more than happy to read it.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,026
4,488
610
The critiques of Darwin have remained mostly unchanged for more than 100 years; namely, that the Theory ironically does not describe, at all, the Origin of Species, but rather describes small changes within a given species which occur over time. Evolution as a Theory does not account for obvious periods where the fossil record wildly differs from the evolutionary timeline on a number of creatures. This does not mean that the entire Theory must be tossed out, but it does show that the Theory is not an all-encompassing explanation of life on Earth, as is the current scientific dogma.

Evolution as a Theory is fine for explaining refinements within a species, which may eventually "stack up" via Natural Selection to such a level that a creature is unable to produce fertile offspring with the original population (lions, tigers), but it does not explain sudden, radical shifts between species that take place rapidly in the fossil record, often displaying the formation of organs and features that could not have come to be via the glacial pace required for natural selection (A child is not born with a fully formed new organ that the parent did not have, for example). Again, the Theory need not be tossed out for this, but the current dogma around it makes it nearly impossible to discuss the flaws within the Theory.

The Theory of Evolution also does not present a plausible explanation for the original creation of life. Abiogenesis is less plausible, even at face value, and requires just as much suspension of disbelief than the idea of life originating outside of the Earth itself, or than an initial creation of life by a higher power (insert your favorite flavor).
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
5,965
8,894
515
Yeah a stupid theory that will never make sense to me mate
My issue is that you approach a theory as though it was written by a five year old in 10 minutes.

It wasn't. When Darwin released his theory he was laughed at, mocked and called evil by the Church. To this day its still the best explanation as to how we went from nothing, to us. By best I mean most critiqued, studied and cross examined. No other theory joins as many dots, answers so many questions and is observable as this.

If there are counter-arguments please present them, I like to learn and broaden my horizon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
5,965
8,894
515
The critiques of Darwin have remained mostly unchanged for more than 100 years; namely, that the Theory ironically does not describe, at all, the Origin of Species, but rather describes small changes within a given species which occur over time. Evolution as a Theory does not account for obvious periods where the fossil record wildly differs from the evolutionary timeline on a number of creatures. This does not mean that the entire Theory must be tossed out, but it does show that the Theory is not an all-encompassing explanation of life on Earth, as is the current scientific dogma.

Evolution as a Theory is fine for explaining refinements within a species, which may eventually "stack up" via Natural Selection to such a level that a creature is unable to produce fertile offspring with the original population (lions, tigers), but it does not explain sudden, radical shifts between species that take place rapidly in the fossil record, often displaying the formation of organs and features that could not have come to be via the glacial pace required for natural selection (A child is not born with a fully formed new organ that the parent did not have, for example). Again, the Theory need not be tossed out for this, but the current dogma around it makes it nearly impossible to discuss the flaws within the Theory.

The Theory of Evolution also does not present a plausible explanation for the original creation of life. Abiogenesis is less plausible, even at face value, and requires just as much suspension of disbelief than the idea of life originating outside of the Earth itself, or than an initial creation of life by a higher power (insert your favorite flavor).
Scientists widely believe in the theory of panspermia, that life didn't originate on this planet, we were just a perfect incubator.

There are some holes in the theory and some crazy coincidences, like two separate land masses having identically evolved creatures that never met.

We can't always rely on fossils, they only give us a snapshot of what we think is correct. Hell, they keep pushing back the earliest date for the first hominids because they find new fossils all the time.
 

Mista

Dragonslayer
Nov 21, 2014
18,630
31,018
1,360
My issue is that you approach a theory as though it was written by a five year old in 10 minutes.

It wasn't. When Darwin released his theory he was laughed at, mocked and called evil by the Church. To this day its still the best explanation as to how we went from nothing, to us. By best I mean most critiqued, studied and cross examined. No other theory joins as many dots, answers so many questions and is observable as this.

If there are counter-arguments please present them, I like to learn and broaden my horizon.
Oh so a theory in your book makes the thing real by default or what exactly?

We sharing chromosomes with chimpanzees doesn't make us chimpanzees thousands of years ago

My counter argument is that I believe in god and as we all know the first two to be born were Adam and Eve

They were born humans and not chimpanzees. I don't give a shit what a scientist say when I have a bigger confirmation
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Nymphae

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
41,179
9,952
1,730
Best Coast
Evolution as a Theory does not account for obvious periods where the fossil record wildly differs from the evolutionary timeline on a number of creatures.
but it does not explain sudden, radical shifts between species that take place rapidly in the fossil record, often displaying the formation of organs and features that could not have come to be via the glacial pace required for natural selection (A child is not born with a fully formed new organ that the parent did not have, for example).
Do you have examples of those?
 

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
5,965
8,894
515
Oh so a theory in your book makes the thing real by default or what exactly?

We sharing chromosomes with chimpanzees doesn't make us chimpanzees thousands of years ago

My counter argument is that I believe in god and as we all know the first two to be born were Adam and Eve

They were born humans and not chimpanzees. I don't give a shit what a scientist say when I have a bigger confirmation
A theory in a book, proven with scientific, observable evidence that answers more questions than any other theory, makes it pretty good in my eyes.

No, it makes us chimpanzees millions of years ago.

If you believe in creationism, which a lot of people do, I won't mock or ignore that theory because I have no proof either way whether it's correct or not...

However... You come across as deeply offended that another idea exists, that you know more than anyone else. It's not true, none of us know for sure, we can only look at the observable evidence.

Adam and Eve could have been twins born of the 'missing link' (the link between primates and homo Sapiens). That would make them the first humans. Hell, they could have been put here by a higher power, that doesn't mean we haven't evolved in the 70,000 years we've been knocking about.

If you have bigger confirmation, please share. If you have another source for the theory of how we got here, please share.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haxan7

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,026
4,488
610
Do you have examples of those?
Sure!

1. It's been debated to death by many people, but the timeline for the evolution of modern whales doesn't match, at all, the evolutionary timeline required for the observed changes as presented. It points toward whales not having evolved as presented. Instead they get shoehorned into the timeline. That's not the only example; there are many more that you can read up on.

2. Are you asking for specific examples of creatures which are supposed to have rapidly evolved organs and features via natural selection, or asking for a definition of Natural Selection? I can give either. My point is that there are creatures that can be easily be pointed to which could not have arisen in the timeline due to Natural Selection, and thus, other forces must have been at play.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Nymphae

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
41,179
9,952
1,730
Best Coast
2. Are you asking for specific examples of creatures which are supposed to have rapidly evolved organs and features via natural selection, or asking for a definition of Natural Selection? I can give either. My point is that there are creatures that can be easily be pointed to which could not have arisen in the timeline due to Natural Selection, and thus, other forces must have been at play.
I'm asking for an example of an anomaly in the fossil record that is analogous to a child being born with a fully formed organ that the parent did not have.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
41,179
9,952
1,730
Best Coast
1. It's been debated to death by many people, but the timeline for the evolution of modern whales doesn't match, at all, the evolutionary timeline required for the observed changes as presented. It points toward whales not having evolved as presented. Instead they get shoehorned into the timeline. That's not the only example; there are many more that you can read up on.
How do you know that the timeline doesn't match at all? If you look at the fossil record for the evolution of whales, there doesn't seem to be any discrepancy.


Evolution as a Theory does not account for obvious periods where the fossil record wildly differs from the evolutionary timeline on a number of creatures.
How is that the case when the fossil record of whales and their ancestors is the evidence that informs the evolutionary timeline?

This is all built on decades of research as well. If there is a discrepancy in the data, (and with whales, there was a lot of missing data) then we acknowledge what we don't know and keep looking for more data.

For more than a century, our knowledge of the whale fossil record was so sparse that no one could be certain what the ancestors of whales looked like. Now the tide has turned. In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record. These ancestral creatures were stranger than anyone ever expected. There was no straight-line march of terrestrial mammals leading up to fully aquatic whales, but an evolutionary riot of amphibious cetaceans that walked and swam along rivers, estuaries and the coasts of prehistoric Asia. As strange as modern whales are, their fossil predecessors were even stranger.
Ultimately it comes down to, "well, that seems too short", but you have to go where the data points you, until you find other data that shows otherwise. As the presenter here says,


But still, let’s just pause to appreciate the fact that it took less than 20 million years -- about the evolutionary equivalent of a lunch break! -- for this entire, astonishing transition to take place.
It's an observation about the remarkable speed that evolution can occur, because it did happen, so what's left to explore is the details of that more. Being shoehorned into the timeline is not necessarily a relevant conclusion from the data.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,026
4,488
610
I'm asking for an example of an anomaly in the fossil record that is analogous to a child being born with a fully formed organ that the parent did not have.
Sure. It's been argued ad nauseam, but whenever someone points to, say, the evolution of a fully-functional wing attributed to a creature which is supposed to have evolved from a bipedal creature into a flighted creature, it usually gets explained via creating reasons why a species would evolve and hold onto a useless or near-useless vestigial wing for the thousands or millions of years required for the vestigial wing to become a fully-functional wing, all the while evolving a slightly more efficient wing every generation (all the while said vestigial wing provides no boon for the creature). Or a more convoluted explanation that boils down to "Creature A begat Creatures B and C, which evolved in different directions, who then boned and voila Creature D was created, which got wings by combining B and C". Darwin himself brought it up in his time as a potential way to disprove his ideas.

Here's an interesting article laying out a bunch of reasons why scientists think sudden evolutions could occur within species:


These types of explanations can be applied to a wide variety of species, and are not explained by Natural Selection alone. The Mantis Shrimp and the Parrot are other creatures which require significant explanation and theorycrafting to explain their unique features.

Here's another article covering several other things that shouldn't happen via Natural Selection:

 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
41,179
9,952
1,730
Best Coast
It's been argued ad nauseam, but whenever someone points to, say, the evolution of a fully-functional wing attributed to a creature which is supposed to have evolved from a bipedal creature into a flighted creature, it usually gets explained via creating reasons why a species would evolve and hold onto a useless or near-useless vestigial wing for the thousands or millions of years required for the vestigial wing to become a fully-functional wing, all the while evolving a slightly more efficient wing every generation (all the while said vestigial wing provides no boon for the creature).
That doesn't seem so far fetched of a concept to me.

 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,026
4,488
610
How do you know that the timeline doesn't match at all? If you look at the fossil record for the evolution of whales, there doesn't seem to be any discrepancy.



How is that the case when the fossil record of whales and their ancestors is the evidence that informs the evolutionary timeline?

This is all built on decades of research as well. If there is a discrepancy in the data, (and with whales, there was a lot of missing data) then we acknowledge what we don't know and keep looking for more data.



Ultimately it comes down to, "well, that seems too short", but you have to go where the data points you, until you find other data that shows otherwise. As the presenter here says,



It's an observation about the remarkable speed that evolution can occur, because it did happen, so what's left to explore is the details of that more. Being shoehorned into the timeline is not necessarily a relevant conclusion from the data.
If it seems too short in regards to other species, then Natural Selection cannot be used to explain the evolution of whales. If the data points toward the proposed timeline of whales being too short for Natural Selection to have created them, then they were not created that way. Do you not agree?
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
41,179
9,952
1,730
Best Coast
If it seems too short in regards to other species, then Natural Selection cannot be used to explain the evolution of whales.
1. Even if it "seems" to short, that doesn't mean it is too short.
2. Natural selection can still totally be used to explain the process of the evolution of whales. These land mammals, over time adapted more and more to an increasingly aquatic habitat.

If the data points toward the proposed timeline of whales being too short for Natural Selection to have created them, then they were not created that way. Do you not agree?
The data doesn't point towards the timeline being too short. The data from the fossil record is what is used to construct that timeline in the first place.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,026
4,488
610
That doesn't seem so far fetched of a concept to me.

Your video doesn't seem to disagree with anything I posted. The evolution of the patagium in the squirrel would have had to have existed for hundreds or thousands of generations before it granted the squirrel any evolutionary advantage. Natural Selection would not account for that.

1. Even if it "seems" to short, that doesn't mean it is too short.
2. Natural selection can still totally be used to explain the process of the evolution of whales. These land mammals, over time adapted more and more to an increasingly aquatic habitat.


The data doesn't point towards the timeline being too short. The data from the fossil record is what is used to construct that timeline in the first place.
Natural Selection does not work if it varies drastically and unexplainably between species. It requires small changes take place, repeatedly across large numbers of generations. Each small change must grant the bearer an advantage, to ensure that more of their children survive than those of the unchanged individuals within the species. Thus a species which has a generation every 30 years cannot evolve faster than a species which has a generation every 3 months.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Nymphae

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
41,179
9,952
1,730
Best Coast
Your video doesn't seem to disagree with anything I posted. The evolution of the patagium in the squirrel would have had to have existed for hundreds or thousands of generations before it granted the squirrel any evolutionary advantage. Natural Selection would not account for that.
Yeah it does.

It's been argued ad nauseam, but whenever someone points to, say, the evolution of a fully-functional wing attributed to a creature which is supposed to have evolved from a bipedal creature into a flighted creature, it usually gets explained via creating reasons why a species would evolve and hold onto a useless or near-useless vestigial wing for the thousands or millions of years required for the vestigial wing to become a fully-functional wing, all the while evolving a slightly more efficient wing every generation (all the while said vestigial wing provides no boon for the creature).
This is a reason why a species would hold onto a vestigial wing - because it helps the species propagate, and/or it doesn't hurt them.

What you then said as a followup is basically, "Okay, but how did the squirrel get to where it is NOW?"

The answer to that would be, "Presumably, by a similar process".

The evolution of the patagium in the squirrel would have had to have existed for hundreds or thousands of generations
Flaps of skin. Are they that uncommon to mammals? Not really. Consider this.

For some reason, a given population of squirrels has a very slight amount of extra skin between their limbs, probably due to some random mutation. It doesn't give them an evolutionary advantage, but it doesn't hurt them either, so the trait persists over time.

Eventually, over time, over enough generations and mutations, some squirrels have slightly larger flaps, and some have slightly smaller flaps, all within a given distribution of genetic probability. None of this matters because it still doesn't affect the survivability of squirrels or the passing on of their genes.

Until it does.

Maybe some squirrels eventually see large flaps as sexually desirable and thus squirrels with bigger flaps are more likely to mate (e.g. peacocks).
Maybe some squirrels are better able to keep themselves cool due to more blood vessels in their flaps exposed to the air like a radiator, and thus more of them survive and mate (e.g. Asian vs African elephants)
Maybe the larger flaps confer some sort of slight boost in jumping and gliding ability, and thus more of them survive and mate (e.g. flying squirrels)

Whatever the reason, there was some evolutionary pressure for the flaps to get bigger and bigger, because that's what happened. Just because you don't know or can't imagine what the reason was, doesn't mean there wasn't a reason.

before it granted the squirrel any evolutionary advantage.
That doesn't matter. As long as there is no pressure to kill that trait from a population, then it will still persist and change too. There is both positive and negative selective pressure.

Natural Selection would not account for that.
Yes it does. If some unique trait makes a certain segment of a population breed more successfully and pass on its genes, then that trait will be passed on. If having the trait means you're less likely to live or mate, then that trait dies out. It happens. This is an observed phenomenon. A trait that is present in modern flying squirrels didn't always necessarily have to have fit the use that it holds today. Like I explained earlier, there are many possible reasons why a flap of skin might turn out to be useful, which would lead to selective pressure to make it bigger, which leads to those squirrels eventually using it for other purposes like gliding, at which point there are more selective pressures applied to that specific use too.