There was a section in one of my paleobiology lectures called 'historical
contingency' and it basically asks the question, 'if evolution could be
rewound and started again would animals turn out the same?' So i was
sondering what evolutionary differences people would like to see in
animals? I for one would like to see the male sexual organs looking
slightly more attractive than a 'the last chicken on the shelf'. What
d'you think?
____________________
Sticupus
Fanatic
Posts: 254 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 14/12/2004 at 02:02 AM
"I for one would like to see the male sexual organs looking slightly more
attractive than a 'the last chicken on the shelf'."
"Like male genitalia... I was thinking that they should be more colourful.
And should definately be in a less vulnerable position, maybe with a
retractable shell or something."
First a little background on myself. I'm a gay male. I am the authroity on
cock, and to let you know, self-loathing gets you nowhere.
I have a pretty penis as well. No old meat look about it. Maybe that is due
to the fact that I am not circumcised. This gives me advantages that you
claim mother nature has short changed you.
To begin, I have color. My glans is lavender when flacid, and the inside of
my prepuce is pink. My meatus can become a deep red when erect and my glans
changes color depending on my arousal. It can be a light purple turning to
a deep red purple*. That's just obvious color, I have several different
subtle shifts in skin tone throughout where it developed in the womb,
creating my remus.
And the prepuce IS a retractable shell that protects the head. It protects
the real sensitive and vulnerable part of male genitalia. It shouldn't be
exposed to light, dry air, and the awful scratchy fabric inside of your
BVDs.
Also mother nature gave you a pretty nicely shaped head. Appreciate it.
If left alone, the penis is an amazing organ that does it task quite well.
Keep in mind, while we don't have flashy blue scrotums like mandrils, the
human penis is actually adapted to feel good, and not as much to look
good... I still love them.
*(by the way there is no study on the erotic value in glans color change
during foreplay. maybe because this color change is lost due to
circumcision, thus lack of interest or awareness that this color shift
happens as a normal part of a male's arousal)
____________________ The OBOLISK is Divine.
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 13/12/2004 at 07:50 AM
quote:Did mono just have an
argument. I’m confused about that just happened there.
Pale-face: I'm confused about your statement; there are a number of ways to
read it. If you are asking if I was being combative, then the answer is
"no". If you are sarcastically asking if I presented a connected series of
statements designed to reach a proposition, then the answer is "Go fuck
yourself". If you are asking if there was a problem, then the answer is "I
was afraid that I had given NFI the impression that he wasn't discussing
things well and wanted to let him know that this wasn't the case".
Hope that clears things up!
~M.
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 13/12/2004 at 07:44 AM
W0rmW00d: RE: Quadrapedalism:
Great ape locomotion is classified as quadrapedalism (this covers Gorillas,
Chimpanzees, Orangutans and Bonobos) and it is why I specifically called it
"chimpanzee quadrapedalism". If we redefine our terms and say that THAT is
the "intermediate phase" and there is nothing between it and human
bipedalism, we are saying the same thing.
RE: Peat Bogs and the Lonely People Who Inhabit Them: 3,000 years is a drop
in the bucket in geological terms (but, Christ, pick a number and it is a
drop in the bucket in "geological terms"), but it represents 150
generations worth of human development. If gradualism is true, then change
occurs constantly and 150 generations is more than sufficient to produce
macro as well as micro changes. I posit that no such change takes
place.
RE: The Littlest Piggie: I've not heard that the little toe is on the way
out and that it serves a function in balance and walking. Of course, this
is the computer age, so entire limbs may well be on the way out.
~M.
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 13/12/2004 at 07:38 AM
Posting problems again (still)... so I'll have to keep my answers brief and
not let how homocidally pissed off it makes me to retype things three and
four times show through in my responses...
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
pale-face
Fanatic
Posts: 478 Registered: 22/9/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 12/12/2004 at 10:10 PM
Did mono just have an argument. I’m confused about that just happened
there.
____________________ fucking classy.
W0rmW00d
Fanatic
Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 12/12/2004 at 08:43 AM
Mono, with the bipedal quadrupedal argument are gorrillas and such not a
classic example of an intermediate stage? They can perform fully bipedally,
but also travel virtually quardupedally over either short or long distances
(i forget which, it could even be for acceleration or something) can't
they?
I know that this is one specific example rather than a general rule, which
is what is probably needed in the evolutionary argument, but i think it is
relevant.
With regards to the peat bog man: Is three thousand years not a pretty
short time in evolutionary terms? Also, though I am far from beleiving that
humans are the final evolutionary step towards which all change has been
heading forever (that would make each newly born baby the new culmination
of science; something their parents may beleive but not my precise point of
view), is it not possible that with our toolmaking abilities we have
somewhat surpassed the need for drastic evolution? Because we can now
survive virtually any standard climate, situation or whatever, and because
the individual has now been subsumed into the whole (society?) there is no
longer any significantly helpful adaptation. Also, genetic differences are
seen as bad rather than good in humans, we are after all made in God's
image, so a toe less is WRONG goddamnit [sarcasm, in case anyone thought I
had suddenly found religion]. The little toe has been on its way out for a
while I once read (i forget where unfortunately) and our damnable species
has been getting taller and weaker. I feel that this is where human
evolution is headed because of the ease with which we live. We may end up
destroying ourselves, or ending up like HG Wells' martians, just one big
motherloving hand with a brain in it, having surpassed all need for
physical ability.
Just my quite ill-informed opinion. I lost real interest in studying
biology a few years back and all the knowledge that is left is from my four
year past biology lessons and what I have gleaned from general seeing
things.
____________________ Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 12/12/2004 at 04:49 AM
NIF: "And here i bow out, foot in mouth... "
NOT AT ALL! We are discussing theory, nothing more, and neither of us is
expert enough to be conclusive. We are dealing in probabilities (which is
all I ever do). I am not the final authority here, I am only presenting
things as I see them. I made the mistake of saying that "no serious
academic believes that" in response to something... I immediately regretted
having done it, not only because what I was refuting was, in fact,
partially true as I understand it, but for personal reasons as well.
Flash back to a classroom in which I suggested to my archaeology professor
that the Bering Strait hypothesis might not account entirely for the
peopling of the Americas... and that people might have migrated earlier
than is generally accepted and from places like Europe, Africa and
Polynesia. I outlined how this might have been done and the evidence I saw
for the idea. His response was to ridicule me in front of the class and
the entire basis for his ridicule was that "no serious academic believes
that".
Three months later the entirety of what I had suggested was the cover story
for Newsweek magazine. I felt slightly vindicated, but still very angry.
If you have reasons to support your ideas and conclusions, share them. Do
not be bound by dogmatic thinking. If people disagree, consider the
likelihood of the case you are presenting and the reasons you have reached
the conclusions you have... but DO NOT be intimidated simply because
somebody else is perceived as a "higher authority" than yourself.
Goes for everyone.
~M.
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
nostalgiaforinfinity
Occasional Poster
Posts: 33 Registered: 5/12/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 07:31 PM
And here i bow out, foot in mouth. Just hope i knew enough to pass my
paleobiology exam. Next time mono I'll ask you for a tutorial
beforehand. Though i think i'll be sticking to the hard stuff from now on.
Biology gets me down. It's just too.... squishy.
____________________
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 07:18 PM
W0rmW00d: Unfortunately, intermediate stages are often more of a problem
than a solution. The bipedalism debate springs to my mind. I forget the
precise numbers here, but the argument runs basically as follows:
Chimpanzee quadrapedalism is something like 40% efficient for travelling
long distances like the African savannahs where bipedalism is thought to
have arisen. Modern human bipedalism is closer to 80% efficient for
covering those same distances. Easy top imagine making the leap, right?
Unfortunately, an intermediate form between the two brings down the
efficiency rating to closer to 16%. Presuming that there is no divine
guiding hand here who has an interest in taking a loss for a long term
investment, there is absolutely no reason the species should have survived
that interim stage. The numbers favour the original quadrapeds, and they
should have out-competed those organisms who were on their way to
bipedalism. The only solution is that there was no interim stage and the
bipeds won out.
Incidentally, your croc scenario illustrates punctuated equilibrium fairly
well. I agree with it.
~M.
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 07:12 PM
Starlight: I was also making a blanket statement about the cloaca issue in
order to dispel further confusion. A cloaca is a simpler structure than a
separate and discrete waste removal/reproductive system, and can therefore
be described as more "primitive" if you look at it merely chronologically.
I wanted to step away from the idea of "forward" and "backward" because too
many people lose themselves in the implied value judgement of the terms.
As for humans with cloacae, this is not atavistic or recessive, nor is it
even a true cloaca; it is a birth defect. Similar structures arise in
nature all the time entirely independently of one another (the squid's eye
is the classic example) and it is for this reason that organisms can not be
reliably placed into a taxonomy based upon their phenotypes alone. We
humans like to fall back into hierarchical patterns of thinking when we use
shorthand terminology, and this leads us to chase down "straight lines" and
"missing links" that do not, necessarily, exist...
*fingers crossed before I continue...*
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 07:06 PM
I should also add (as I did three fucking times earlier) that while I
acknowledge that phyletic gradualism does and must occur, I must mainatain
that the net effect of micro changes upon a population over time is nil as
long as environmental factors remain stable. All other things being equal,
a representative of Homo sapiens sapiens who lay in a peat bog for
three thousand years is genetically identical to the guy standing next to
you waiting for the bus to arrive.
*submitting again before moving on to the next part...*
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 07:02 PM
NFI: " Isn't it more likely that evolution is explained by the cohesion
of both models? "
Actually, it is not only more likely, it is necessary for that to be the
case. I very harshly (and unfairly) downplayed the rôle of phyletic
gradualism because it leads to more misunderstandings about evolution than
it clears up, even though it is a chief mechanism of it. We could devote
more memory than this site has to offer dispelling myths and
misunderstandings regarding evolution, even though it is really not a
particularly difficult concept. While most people grasp the most basic of
the basics, they miss the larger picture so badly that "evolution" as it is
understood by the Great Unwashed is no more a product of scientific thought
than creationsism. The theory of evolution is one of the best case studies
for a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
Now... I'll submit this part before retyping the whole thing in one
sitting. *fingers crossed... you fucking bastard of a site*
~M.
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 06:57 PM
Wolf's Note: Writing this for the third fucking time. I am
getting damned sick of writing and writing and then losing everything
because the fucking site decides I am no longer logged in...
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."
W0rmW00d
Fanatic
Posts: 355 Registered: 5/8/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 11/12/2004 at 11:53 AM
With regards to the intermediate stages problem, could it not be that a
dominant strain mutation such as, for example vestigial fleshy flaps
between arms and body became gradually more prolific but had, at the time,
no significant advantages or disadvantages until some strains of the
mutation allowed ruidmentary gliding which could be an advantage and it
developed from there?
With regards to crocs, change seems to be unneccesary in this case. The
only ever significant threat to them has been mankind and we have
unfortunately happened far too fast for an evolutionary step to become
useful in many cases. They have had no real natural predators for millennia
and while others around them may have needed to change there has never been
a change significantly advantageous enough to create a distinct new genus.
____________________ Eritis sicut Deus scientes bonum et malum.
And the third angel sounded, and a troll army did descend upon the world.
Starlight
Extreme Fanatic
Posts: 618 Registered: 27/9/2002 Status: Offline
posted on 10/12/2004 at 07:19 PM
quote:
Your question is still linear and deterministic. Nothing in nature is
"forward" or "backward"... it just is
quote: Punctuated equilibrium,
on the other hand, explains why the crocodile hasn't evolved a second in
the past ten million years while organisms around it have changed
drastically or disappeared altogether. It is because evolution happens
fairly quickly when it happens at all.
quote: Nature does not produce
neat and tidy lines for the benefit of paleontologists; Nature produces
shapr and rapid changes for the benefit of the organisms under her
auspices.
I, for the most part, subscribe to the same theory. What I was trying to
point out with the cloaca situation is that at some point some person (or
group of people) might have needed a cloaca for a certain type of living
condition. So when it was no longer needed, did it then turn into a
recessive gene that could pop out at a later time or was it simply a
defective/mutated gene that caused a freak occurance for no reason. I
realize I used the term step rather than implying a leap or quick
occurance, but that is actually what I was getting at. I don't subscribe
the the "in between" type steps of evolution. They are unnecessary and
don't serve any real purpose in my opinion. I do think some changes are
less openly obvious than others, but nonetheless they are a leap rather
than an in between stage of any sort.
____________________ "When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before." ~Mae West
pale-face
Fanatic
Posts: 478 Registered: 22/9/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 10/12/2004 at 07:14 PM
quote:any decent knock could
cause fatal internal hemorrhaging.
good call mono. i didnt really think if that.
____________________ fucking classy.
nostalgiaforinfinity
Occasional Poster
Posts: 33 Registered: 5/12/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 10/12/2004 at 03:02 PM
P.s Geologists, by their very nature, are not 'real academics'. We just
enjoy runting about the countryside hammering at the odd rock, so you'll
have to excuse my poor debating skills. Also i loathed palaeobiology, so I
don't know why I'm bothering with this at all. Interesting though...
____________________
nostalgiaforinfinity
Occasional Poster
Posts: 33 Registered: 5/12/2004 Status: Offline
posted on 10/12/2004 at 02:52 PM
Isn't it more likely that evolution is explained by the cohesion of both
models? it iis naive to believe that intermediate stages of morphology
have never existed. Obviously the changes would have to be very rapid, in
the geological blink of an eye, to avoid dead ending, but it is hard to
believe that a terrestrial dinosaur lay an egg which then hatched into a
fully fledged, feathered aerial dinosaur. Sparsity in the fossil record of
intermediate forms could easily be explained by relatively rapid evolution
if it needs explanation at all. The FR currently consists of 250,00
species. There are around 2 million known species in the world today
(although a lot of these are insects and we dont like insects) so really
the FR is more gap than record and such intermediate forms would be easily
lost. Of course such rapid changes would appear as stepwise functions and
so punctuated equilibrium can provide a useful model for macro evolution,
changes in body plan etc but should not be regarded as 'complete'. On the
other hand micro evolution is very obviously an example of phyletuc
gradualism, there are plenty of examples of this, hominid evolution would
probably be cited as the most obvious but the list iis endless (very long
anyway).
____________________
Monolycus
Fanatic
Posts: 580 Registered: 31/12/1969 Status: Offline
posted on 10/12/2004 at 02:10 PM
Darwin himself was the first to use "gaps in the fossil record" to
apologetically explain the absence of intermediate forms, but it is far
more likely that they simply never existed in the first place. A
determinsit needs intermediate forms because they view evolution as a
continual and gradual process towards a divinely inspired goal, but this
turns evolution into nothing more than very patient creationism.
Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, explains why the crocodile
hasn't evolved a second in the past ten million years while organisms
around it have changed drastically or disappeared altogether. It is
because evolution happens fairly quickly when it happens at all.
Very simply, intermediate forms don't make any sense and I don't know of
any real academics who still believe in them. As NFI already illustrated,
an intermediate form between a flightless organism and a flying bird would
place that organism into a selective disadvantage until "birdhood" was
achieved. If selective environmental pressures guide evolution, then no
evolution would be possible at all under these circumstances. How
advantageous is it to be half an angler fish or to almost, but not quite,
have a prehensile tail? These forms would go extinct under the tenets of
phyletic gradualism before they were "finished". Nature does not produce
neat and tidy lines for the benefit of paleontologists; Nature produces
shapr and rapid changes for the benefit of the organisms under her
auspices.
~M
____________________ "I believe that woman is planning to shoot me again."