The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?  (Read 8249 times)

Offline Aiden009

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« on: 28/05/2009 20:34:45 »
So, I'm confused  ???
What do you believe in when it comes to how we became how we are today? I find it really hard to believe both the creation theory or the evolution theory. They both seem to have many problems and errors to them.
I have 2 main questions relating to the evolution theory, these are...

1. Where did mammals come from? apparently we all evolved from fish right? we slowly evolved limbs eventually walked on land and became who we are today. But fish are fish, reptiles are reptiles. What made the process of being a mammal come about?

2. Did evolution process restart after the dinosaurs became extinct? Something big happened that wiped out the dinosaurs and pretty much all life on earth right? then after a long time (not sure how long) did evolution begin again? only this time it happened differently? Dinosaurs were around for about 180 million years and didn't really evolve a great deal, and yet from the last of the dinosaurs to now (about 60 million years) life has evolved so much and humans have become so advanced. WHY?
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 08:12:16 by chris »


 

Ethos

  • Guest
Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #1 on: 28/05/2009 21:09:13 »
So, I'm confused  ???
What do you believe in when it comes to how we became how we are today? I find it really hard to believe both the creation theory or the evolution theory. They both seem to have many problems and errors to them.
Maybe they both play a role in our present state of existence? The science behind evolution is well documented but there are many facts still missing. As for the creation side of the question, I find it very attractive to imagine that somewhere along the timeline of evolution, human developement was manipulated by a higher intelligence. But please don't ask me for proof, I don't have any.........Ethos
« Last Edit: 30/05/2009 21:18:34 by Ethos »
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #2 on: 30/05/2009 11:19:36 »
There have been many mass extinctions, the greatest being at the end of the Permian age. But it is the dinosaur extinction which we seem to regard as the most important, for some reason. Perhaps for no other reason than the fascination we have in the dinosaurs.

After a mass extinction, evolution does not restart. It never did stop in the first place. But it could well be that the scope for evolution is given a boost at such a time, due to the favourable conditions of environmental changes, lack of competition and one hell of a lot more space to do it in.

Evolution runs at different paces for different species under different conditions.
 

Offline glovesforfoxes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
  • Matthew 6:21
    • View Profile
Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #3 on: 03/06/2009 18:06:40 »
To the OP:

You can't really criticise evolutionary theory or creationism without thoroughly understanding them first. Without wanting to become too sidetracked in the whole creationism (or whatever popular modern religious guess at how we came to be) vs evolution debate, I really have to say that the evidence for evolutionary theory is just as excellent as the evidence that the Earth is round, rather than flat. Creationism has zero evidence to support it and no hypotheses that are testable. From a scientist's perspective, this makes evolution a much better theory to believe in.

The best way for you to make up your mind about the two is by learning about both evolution and creationism. In the case of evolution, you can ask a scientist (preferably a biologist, and even more preferably an evolutionary biologist) that you know in real life and you can have an indepth discussion with them about the evidence that supports evolutionary theory. It's important to know that evolution is both a fact and a theory, and that these two ideas are very different to each other. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain why evolutionary fact has come about. The reason evolution is a fact is that it is observed, and can be easily observed in the laboratory, by anybody and they must undeniably come to the same conclusion that evolution (or adaptation) has occured. Another alternative is to borrow a book from the library or buy one. I hear that "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne is a good, solid introduction into the theory and fact of evolution. Creationists have a variety of resources too, and no doubt you can find a good book on Amazon or in your local library that details what creatonists say and believe (I honestly am no expert in this area).

Also, please note that evolutionary theory and creationism desire to explain different phenomenon; evolution explains change over time, while creationism explains why we came about originally. The scientific equivalent to creationism is abiogenesis, which is a science that is definitely in it's infancy and does not yet have a theory which satisfactorily explains how life arose, and few experiments have been conducted in the field. It is a difficult scientific area to study, as we are obviously much further on in time than the first organism or group of organisms that existed on the Earth.

Here are a few web resources that may help answer to your questions.

Mammal evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/mammals/Evolution.shtml
One factor that may have contributed, or been the main reason to/of mammalian evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0930_050930_mammal_oxygen.html

A short explanation of evolution:
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html

One factor contributing to mammalian evolution:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/0930_050930_mammal_oxygen.html
 

Offline Randy Flamethrower

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #4 on: 08/06/2016 11:59:53 »
This is the one topic I too have pondered, I grew up and evolutionist but now am at a crossroads, I find evolution hard to believe now due to lack of evidence in its favour. Micro evolution exists where species adapt to their surroundings but its a huge leap to believe a species can evolve into a completely different species - a simple example, are we to believe that an arachnid, a lion and an earthworm all evolved from the same original species?  Look at insects - they have not one thing in common with a fish yet both evolved from the same gene pool?
 Life according to science started in the sea - in a so called primeval soup where miraculously, inanimate matter became life, then somewhere along the line a water breathing 'fish'? mutated to breath air too and luckily it wasn't in the middle of the pacific but right near land where it also had the urge to leave the water - a place where it should instinctively not want to leave. Once it had had beached itself on the land (we've seen fish when landed struggle then die as they can't move) it also luckily was 'washed back' I assume? All was not lost though because this one mutation survived against the odds and bred, then as if that wasn't enough it developed body parts which although were a backward step in 'evolution' for swimming (its natural habitat) as luck would have it they were great for land.  What about breathing - surely being able to breath both in water and in air is an evolutionary step forward rather than switching from water to air so why lose the ability to breath both in a survival of the fittest scenario, why can't seals, whales dolphins etc breath in water or breath both for that matter? Surely if evolution is to be believed and these are mammals which re-entered the sea after finding land wasn't all its cracked up to be, then why didn't any of them go back to the better 'gills' system rather than having to hold their breath? After all genetic throwbacks have been observed in the animal kingdom, surely if we are to believe fish developed lungs then why should't we believe that the process can be reversed?  How does a fish adapting to land, changing its whole physical structure to become a mammal then, when it is completely adapted to life on land start swimming in the water as an evolutionary step forward?
Darwin himself said ''"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - From a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2)'' 
Science still has not proved anything with fact - just theory, how life itself first came about is pure speculation, people who see themselves as higher thinkers promote life happening by accident and think they know exactly how, yet scoff at the idea of an intelligence far superior to them being able to create this feat, even though scientifically the odds of far more advanced species than us existing in the universe is quite high.
There are so many unanswered questions yet evolution is put forward practically as fact. A giraffe has special valves in the jugular veins to stop the blood pressure in its head going to high when it bends down causing it to pass out - at what point did this appear? I assume just as the animal 'evolved a long enough neck to start collapsing every time it bent to take a drink of water?
What I am saying is in cases of animals with very unique physical attributes there had to be several mutations at once which all developed to compliment and function together - the best example of this is the Flagellum, this is a fascinating bacteria which basically has a fully functioning natural rotary motor with identifiable working parts which cannot function or have any purpose without the other parts and to propose they happened naturally, accidentally and at the same time is a huge leap of faith. Obviously I am just scratching the surface but in essence I believe that micro evolution and the ability to adapt is accurate and is proven by Darwin after his visit to Galapagos and his discovery of the various different Finches (13 I believe and he brought 9 back) but they are still all Finches and there is nothing to suggest they will evolve into parrots, pterodactyls or bats - one species always stays the same species, the so called proof of transitional species with fossil evidence still leaves a lot to be desired in my opinion.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #5 on: 09/06/2016 11:47:17 »
Creationism is symbolically connected to the aspect of the evolution, associated with the formation of modern human consciousness. In tradition, God is spirit, not matter. The change was in spirit; neural software, not in the hardware; genetics. This is why the time scale of Creation coordinates with the stabilization of civilization; 6-10K year ago. The change needed for civilization required a new mindset that could override the instincts of pre-human man. This was connected to free will and choice. Free will and choice is connected to making choices apart from the instincts of the DNA.

If you look at humans today, compared humans from caveman times, we have come a long way in terms of cultural change; stone tools to computers. This can't be accounted for by genetic changes. These changes were connected to an advancement in human consciousness apart from genetic instincts.

If you went to different places in the world, human DNA is pretty much the same everywhere; beyond small genetic differences, yet there are first and fourth world humans and cultures; wide range of behavior differences. This has little to do with internal genetics. It is based more on external cultural inductions associated with consciousness; connected to free will and choice. The poor countries don't offer many of the choices that first world cultures offer. If they immigrate, within a generation transformation can occur.
 

As far as evolution, the main problem with evolution is biology does not yet make provisions for the fact that water is the copartner of life. No protein can work without water, therefore enzymes and genetic change cannot occur without water. When a main variable is left out of any analysis, things appear random. Randomness, added to evolution, is an illusion of consciousness and not a statement of reality. Many people sense something is wrong.

Let me give you an example of the random illusion.  Gravity is based on mass and distance. Using these two variables, motion follow rational laws. Newton and Einstein were part of the Age of Reason. Say we did to know about mass. Instead we assume gravity was only based on distance. The gravity would now appear more empirical and more random, since there is no second variable to account for a wide range of variability.

Evolution is in the same boat, unable to offer a rational explanations for transitions between species. This is because they leave out a key variable. This makes it rely on a type of middle ages whim of the gods approach; random. The middle age alchemists thought you could turn lead into gold. Evolution like alchemy, turn lead worms into dinosaur gold, using a pre-age of reason approach.

The remedy is they need to look at creationism; mind over matter, and learn to calibrate their minds, so they minds is not altering matter into something it is not. The most important tool of science is the human mind, yet there is no rule in science that this tools needs to be calibrated properly.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #6 on: 09/06/2016 21:02:04 »
If you trace the genealogy of the bible back to Adam, the time stamp corresponds closely to an important invention. This invention is written language, which was invented about 3200 BC.  Written language played a pivotal role in terms of altering the natural brain and became the platform for willpower and free choice. We take this invention for granted, but it had profound implications for the brain of natural man.

As a way of an example, say you had to go to school, at a time when there are no text books and no note taking. You are required to learn from only listening and remembering, with no written materials to take home to study. The first problem is, each person in the lecture hall would remember the lecture in different ways.  While the passage of time will result in these memories fading and/or being transformed by the imagination. We may need to depend on each other, and those who appear most self assured. But that is not always reliable. Even today, with books and notes, after final exams, there is a huge memory dump. The brain prefers to stay fluid and not be full of stone.

Before the invention of writing, the natural brain will learn by watching and listening, based on the filter connected to one's unique perception and experience. From this beginner, we would forget/modify the past, until, once again there are natural instincts remaining. Once writing was invented; In the beginning was the Word, there was a way to create a perpetual memory and meeting of the minds; needs of civilization, that could override the  eraser of natural instinct. With this more permanent information capacitance, came new choices, from which good and bad habits begin to form.

The pre-humans; before permanent civilization, showed signs of starting civilization, but these did not last. They were creative and inventive but without writing, once the inventors and leaders passed on, there were no consistent study materials to maintain forward progress in the next generation. The natural brain will forget and/or transform memory until instinct returns. The DNA is very conservative and is not chemically transformed, easily, just by learning. But with writing, there was a way to learn the same thing, anew, and find a balance with the natural eraser.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2016 21:05:36 by puppypower »
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #7 on: 09/06/2016 21:17:08 »
In my opinion the universe has not existed long enough for the unimaginably huge complex DNA molecule to evolve from rock, to put it crudely !
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #8 on: 09/06/2016 22:49:21 »
Quote from: Randy Flamethrower
Look at insects - they have not one thing in common with a fish yet both evolved from the same gene pool?
Fish and insects share a common DNA design, and have many genes in common.

That commonality of gene pool across species is what makes the mouse, a small fruit fly (Drosophila) and a small fish (Zebrafish) very useful tools in studying human genetics.
 

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1285
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #9 on: 09/06/2016 23:24:44 »
Quote from: Randy Flamethrower
Look at insects - they have not one thing in common with a fish yet both evolved from the same gene pool?
Fish and insects share a common DNA design, and have many genes in common.

That commonality of gene pool across species is what makes the mouse, a small fruit fly (Drosophila) and a small fish (Zebrafish) very useful tools in studying human genetics.

Same designer same basic pattern maybe?
 

Offline saspinski

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Engineer
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #10 on: 09/06/2016 23:59:05 »
One of the difficulties of accepting evolutionism is its association with inert materialism. It is hard to imagine how by pure chance inert matter could transform itself in a complex stuff as the world of life.

But there are some simple physical facts that are also not understandable if we are attached to a concept of inert matter as the basic fabric of being.
Water poured in a communicating vessel will go up at the other end. If we think of water as being formed by molecules, and molecules being just very small pieces of matter, how to explain that it can go up against gravity? If instead of water, we place very fine powder, it will not go up at the other end, no matter how fine we mill it. It can only be understood when we accept that molecules are not inert but moves, and that movement is a property of matter, while not evident at a macroscopic level.

Life is a form that "moving matter" can assume, and replicating DNA, and heart beating organisms are one of its forms, just as molecules.
Evolution can be understood as the way that life "goes up", being able to become more complex as time goes by, what at a first glance is so strange as water climbing in a communicating vessel.

   
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8130
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #11 on: 10/06/2016 02:34:08 »
... How does a fish adapting to land ...
First it becomes a mud-skipper ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLh4ODMBGJE
 
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #12 on: 10/06/2016 13:14:15 »
2. Did evolution process restart after the dinosaurs became extinct?
I suggest that evolution never really stopped, overall.
- When living with viruses and bacteria, it is a case of evolve or perish.
- It goes the other way, too - if you perish (as most of the dinosaurs did), you stop evolving.

What it means is that:
  • the huge dinosaurs that dominate the imaginations of little children could not cope with the sudden change in conditions, and became extinct.
  • some of the smaller creatures that survived (like bacteria, insects, reptiles, the feathered dinosaurs and small mammals) subsequently spread out to fill many other niches.
  • some of the slower metabolism semi-aquatic creatures like turtles and crocodiles that survived the mass extinction have carried on with apparently few changes to their skeleton (although genetic changes don't preserve so well)
  • Many kinds of sea life continued - unlike some earlier extinctions which severely impacted marine life.

So I suggest that evolution just continued, but with a different set of constraints, a different set of creatures thrived.
« Last Edit: 10/06/2016 13:29:29 by evan_au »
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Evolution Vs Creationism Vs ?
« Reply #13 on: 10/06/2016 13:29:07 »
One of the difficulties of accepting evolutionism is its association with inert materialism. It is hard to imagine how by pure chance inert matter could transform itself in a complex stuff as the world of life.

But there are some simple physical facts that are also not understandable if we are attached to a concept of inert matter as the basic fabric of being.
Water poured in a communicating vessel will go up at the other end. If we think of water as being formed by molecules, and molecules being just very small pieces of matter, how to explain that it can go up against gravity? If instead of water, we place very fine powder, it will not go up at the other end, no matter how fine we mill it. It can only be understood when we accept that molecules are not inert but moves, and that movement is a property of matter, while not evident at a macroscopic level.

Life is a form that "moving matter" can assume, and replicating DNA, and heart beating organisms are one of its forms, just as molecules.
Evolution can be understood as the way that life "goes up", being able to become more complex as time goes by, what at a first glance is so strange as water climbing in a communicating vessel.

Experiments have demonstrated that no protein will work properly without water. No other solvent can be substituted for water, to get proteins to work properly. If we dehydrate yeast life stops, if we add water it begins again. If we add any other solvent it stays inanimate. This is not due to chance. It is because life evolved in water, with water the source of a chemical selection process. Proteins were selected to work in water. Their structures are designed with water in mind.

Darwin's theory of Natural selection describes a macro scale selection process; optimization based on fitness. Water leads a chemical selection process, at the nano-scale, where chemical fitness means optimized to water.

The DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. This means it contains the most chemically bound molecules of water. The most hydrated means it sort of becomes one with the water; low potential with the water. DNA was not a random coincidence, but it was a chemical goal from day one; reaches the bottom of an energy curve.

Experiments that were designed to denature proteins; break down their 3-D shapes, discovered that proteins are held together with a binding energy equivalent of only 2-3 hydrogen bonds. Because of this, it was and may still be assumed, protein folding is defined by statistics, due to thermal energy in the water able to supply enough energy to overcome this weak binding. But experiments have shown that proteins will fold with exact folds, without statistical variations. There is still no statistical expansion for this even though this is well documented. The statistical approach to life is more of a philosophical assumption, and not grounded in fact.

Quote
It has been known since the early work of Kauzmann (1959) and Tanford (1968) on the thermodynamics and kinetics of protein denaturation, that proteins are not very stable. In thermodynamic terms, the stabilities lie in the range 20 60 kJ/mol. However, H-bond energies are quoted also in the range 12 38 kJ/mol (Fersht, 1999). Comparing these figures, one is struck by their apparent incongruity they mean that protein stability relies on a few H-bonds. It is even conceivable that some H-bonds are more stable than small proteins. For example, Finney (1982) gives the stability of lysozyme and ribonuclease as equivalent to 4 H-bonds each. One naturally asks, how can a molecule containing thousands of atoms be held together by a few H-bonds? I am not saying that these figures are wrong, but rather that another energetic mechanism for protein stability has to be found one that has not been detected by classical methods.
One is reminded here of the problem of protein folding. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Watterson, 1997), that problem also arises from applying classical theories, since they predict an average, not a unique fold. That these questions remain unsolved still today after 50 years of intense research effort, highlights a two-fold failing of statistical methods: firstly, they did not predict the existence of a stable folded state, and secondly, once given as an experimental fact, they cannot explain it.

The above quotes Watterson.

The exact folds of protein are induced by water. The water can bind to the protein surfaces and is able to cage in the protein and prevent statistics from having any impact. Life is about order, with water the source of that order. Random is a philosophy not a statement of fact. Evolution that makes use of the random approach should be considered suspect, even if this is the tradition. It is time for predictive biology to rise above alchemy.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #14 on: 11/06/2016 21:27:29 »
Over 50 years ago, observations about the exact folding of proteins, challenged the statistical assumptions behind biology and evolution, still used in most areas of the life sciences. The fact that nothing changed in 50 years, in terms of a transitional downgrading of the statistical philosophy, can be attributed to three things.

A statistical approach still has practical use for the needs of applied science; money and power. It can still successfully be used to mass produce the discovery of new medicines and goods in the lucrative medical market place. Statistics, are loved by politicians and marketers since it can used for flash in the pan and can be used to successfully appease the needs of regulatory concerns. It is flavorful fudge, where something can be good today but bad tomorrow, allowing a dynamic marketplace.

Thirdly, which is the most important, the transition within philosophy did not occur because that was no suitable replacement alternative, that could compete with the utility of the statistical approach. It is was like the horse and buggy was shown to be obsolete and needed to be replaced. However, nobody had yet to make the first successful automobile. Commerce and transportation needed to go on, faithfully served by the statical horse and buggy.

As technical platform improved over the past 50 years, the connections between water and life have evolved as the replacement alternative. However, there are still technical difficulties due to need to investigate water, in situ, under living conditions. With the water interface you can't just use the blind fold and black box approach, or else you only went horizontally and not vertically. The standard is much higher; open box and no blindfold, leading to very difficult technical challenges.

This is a good point, in time, where education needs to begin teaching why something disproved a half a century ago is still is kept on science life support. It is still the best tool for the applied life sciences. But they also need to inspire a new vision of future, by showing what might be. That is what I have been trying to do.
« Last Edit: 11/06/2016 22:03:31 by puppypower »
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3821
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #15 on: 11/06/2016 23:53:47 »
I feel that discussion of "creationism" and god have no place in a scientific forum
 

Offline evan_au

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4120
  • Thanked: 245 times
    • View Profile
Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #16 on: 12/06/2016 08:24:13 »
Quote from: syhprum
I feel that discussion of "creationism" and god have no place in a scientific forum
I respect your feeling of concern.
Does that mean that you would rather go into a church and discuss it there?

Personally, I think that this is set of topics which have caused upset, anger and frustration for centuries. This angst has happened partly because people have not sat down to patiently discuss it, to try and understand the position of other people (and why they believe it), and try to resolve their differences, based on evidence.

I am glad that people can feel safe to come to a science forum, and ask questions about science, and how it relates to religious beliefs. To have their questions treated with respect - and try to answer them as far as we are able with today's state of knowledge.

It does not mean that we will be able to answer everything. Or that if someone did have a complete answer to these genuine questions, that most of us would be able to understand it, let alone verify it for ourselves.

I think in most cases, people will just agree to disagree, in the end. But hopefully, they will have seen some evidence that they had not seen before, and will come away with some understanding of other viewpoints that they did not have before.

So I would encourage people to ask all science-related questions on this forum.
If some of those questions make you uncomfortable, you don't have to read those threads.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #17 on: 12/06/2016 13:50:02 »
Humans are the only species of animals on earth that practices the behavior we call religion. Religion is a part of evolution. Going into denial or trying to hide one's head in the sand, is not scientific. Religion has a connection to free will and choice, which is quite new to evolution and is only displayed by human animals.

For the sake of argument, say God was not real, but purely imaginary; atheist premise. What would be the practical value of this, in terms of evolution since it appears to have had selective advantage for thousands of years. For one thing, it causes one to live in an alternate reality, that is detached from sensory reality and nature. Religion set the stage for will power and choice apart from natural instinctive sensory cause and affect, by means of this sensory disconnect. The persistence of religion shows this behavior has natural selection. There was/is a selective advantage in not being fully grounded, in sensory reality. This allows one to better see the future. The future cannot be seen with the eyes, since it is not yet tangible in reality. The future is imaginary until it happens, or until one figures out the patterns; sun rises each day.

The pyramids of Egypt existed in alternate reality; imagination, before they appeared in tangible reality. Those who were stuck in the here and now, would never know of such things and deny their reality. They only see them after the fact, with a gap of darkness between. The ability to see light in the darkness of the gap, allowed selective advantage.

To me this is the most fascinating part of evolution. It was when the natural selection of evolution branched off and gave one of its critters, the ability to be part of the selection process. Human breed plants and animals based on our own human selection criteria. This change required that the humans first detach from the natural cause and affect of instinctive sensory reality. It then required an alternate reality filter of the mind, that could dam the flow of natural neural energy for will power and choice.

Adam symbolizes the beginning of a neural change connected to a second center of consciousness forming that could make choices apart from instinct, via the imagination. Consciousness is more than the sum of its genetic parts, just as AI is would be more than the sum of its programs and hardware.

The primary center of consciousness, common to all animals; natural and instinct, had become more than the sum of its parts in the pre-humans, to where it could support a secondary center. While the secondary had the potential to evolve the primary, by minimizing instinctive potential, via culture; reliable food sources. This made the secondary, stronger, etc.

Much of the bible describes how the secondary formed and began to harm the primary. Religion is about optimizing the primary, by placing limits on the will power and choices of the secondary. This allows the inner self set point to rise. If the inner self set point could rise to the level it was before the secondary evolved, but with the secondary still in place, the phase of the brain changes and a new operating system appears. This is symbolized as the second Adam; return to paradise.
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #18 on: 29/06/2016 03:29:55 »
Evolution never stopped. The minds of part of the population ossified OR never asked "WHAT IF....". Evolution is proven and has been documented in short-lived  single celled animals. And in other organisms.

See my signature, below.

Jim

« Last Edit: 29/06/2016 04:33:05 by JimBob »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Did evolution recommence after the dinosaurs?
« Reply #18 on: 29/06/2016 03:29:55 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums