If Darwin was correct

[Whaleboy]

Ditto Odin

Though it makes evolutionary sense to have some spare brain capacity for extreme situations, or situations that haven't been tested yet. The brain is a ridiculously complex organ, it's insane to think that our lack of understanding constitutes pro-creationist evidence.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by GePap
lots to do with learned behavior.

Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

Not all species have the ability to learn- and for many species it is irrelevant really. Besides, if anything, if every species could learn, that would arrest evolution.

Take rats: first of all, their huge success is cause by HUmans, as humans create environments conducive to rats and do it worldwide. Second, rats can eat alost anything, and are hardy- two things that by themselves allows them to live in large areas. More importantly, rats breed rapidly and frequently. In essence, rats are expendable- they multiply so quickly that even if the conditions change severely, a few random ones able to handle it will make it- and the rat species continues. HUmans are slow breeders, and not so expendable. We also are not as hardy as rats.

If humans could not learn, we would still be probalby a successful species in the plains of Africa, but would never have spread world-wide. BUt we would still have a niche. The fact is no species needs to learn to survive- that humans can learn is what has allowed us to break the boundaries of any other species.

[Whaleboy]

Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

Some species evolve to cope in variant environments, and they usually have either a larger cranial capacity, or numbers (i.e. insects) to cope. Others are specialised which relies on stable environments in which they can exploit an evolutionary niche, so it's not true that all animals have to learn.

[chequita guevara]

Consider this for a moment. If you used all 100% of your brain at the same time, every memory you had would be flooding into your mind at the same time. All of your muscles would be trying to contract at the same time, all of your endocrine glands would excreting, etc. Basically, you'd be having something akin to an epileptic seizure.

[Shogun Gunner]

My knowledge of how the brain works is taken from 1 hour documentaries on the Discovery channel and the odd medical journal article I read on the subject.

Bottom line. No one on earth has an deep, indepth knowledge of how the brain works.

It cracks me up watching the scientists demostrating an experiment on human subjects where they stimulate the senses of a human and watch what part of the brain lights up with electrical activity. It seems analogous to Edison testing the first lightbulb compared to today's development of laser technologies.

Creator? Evolution? It could be the same thing. There is one true story about how humans came to be, unfortunately, no one can prove "their truth."

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
St Leo! La Fayette! Mecator! Howdy guys!

Hi! Welcome back...

As for the evolution theory, that's a long story. I believe that we were created because human behavior is quite unique. For example, we cook (pre-process) food before eat. We worship divine beings. These are not required for us to survive yet we do them while no other species do.

First of all, the ability to cook or worship divine beings aren't hard-wired into us. They're not physical properties. Evolution theory has nothing to do with that whatsoever. As GePap says, it's a cultural thing. Humans happen to be able to think and communicate. We can pass on knowledge to our descendants without it having to be hard-wired in our DNA.

Secondly, just because some things aren't required for us to survive doesn't mean evolution should get rid of them. Evolution doesn't work like that.

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Exactly. If environment is in constant change, then the ability to LEARN should be utterly important for all species. As such, if a human adopts a rat, for example, then the rat should be able to learn something from the human. (Rat being one of several very successful species outnumbers human being, so natually it should be able to learn very quickly.) However training of rats so far yield limited results.

It isn't so much the ability to learn that is important but rather the ability to adapt, or just plain survive. Learning is one way to achieve it. Cockroaches know another way.

[Xin Yu]

I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. When a new language is popular, anybody who works in the area needs to learn it in order to find a good job. Cochroaches use machine language so they are not effected by the advancement of languages. Human beings learn fast so they keep up with the development. Other species stop at certain point and eventually can only survive in limited area where old languages are still being used.

If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think you really don't have a proper concept of evolution.

I'd have to agree because the original post displays no knowledge of natural selection or of what evolution says.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Xin Yu

If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

The above picture is so far from correct, it's rediculous.

[Shogun Gunner]

I don't understand why you keep mentioning "Learning" as a concept that initiates evolution.

Isn't evolution really more of a genetic mutation that serves a useful purpose that the organism, in question, has no conscious control over or even an awareness of the "mutation" and especially no understanding of the advantage.

Small genetic changes over several generations allowing for a new capability that provides a favorable advantage in the current environment. An environment which the organism has no control over and cannot predict future changes (i.e. ice age)?

So really, it's DNA mutation and opportunistic organisms exercising a new found advantage which they didn't plan for, don't understand, and mindlessly exercise over their less fortunate un-mutated brothers.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

HUmans are not the only species able to learn- many mammals and birds show the ability to be trained, and some show the ability to have knowledge passed down amonts generations, specially upper apes, like Chimpanzees.

I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. When a new language is popular, anybody who works in the area needs to learn it in order to find a good job. Cochroaches use machine language so they are not effected by the advancement of languages. Human beings learn fast so they keep up with the development. Other species stop at certain point and eventually can only survive in limited area where old languages are still being used.

The analogy is incorrect, because DNA is not a "language" in the way you imagine it. DNA is a long code that within it has information of the creation of proteins and hormones.

If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

The analogy unfortunately has nothing in common with the reality of the world.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

First, human beings aren't the only species with the ability to learn. Where did you get that idea? It's rubbish.

Primates learn pretty well. Just look up some studies on chimpanzees being taught language.

Humans can learn a lot, yes. But that's due to evolution--namely, increased brain size and improved function over millions of years of evolution.

Species do die out all the time from being unable to adapt, which seems to be what you're getting at. That's why 99.9% of the species of the world are currently extinct.

Humanity has been here for far less time than many other species. We'll see how far our learning potential carries us. Given our penchant for using our knowledge to build superweapons to kill everything, that might not be as long as we hop.

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
St Leo! La Fayette! Mecator! Howdy guys!

If you are a Chinese, let me tell you , never work under another Chinese!.

So now I'm enjoying an easy life.

Gave up civ long time ago.

1) I retired last year (65 years old, that's the rule in France).

2) If you are a Frenchman, let me tell you, never work under another Frenchman! (luckily, I have managed to be my own boss quite a while)

3) Easy life = glad to read that = just go on!

4) Too bad, but I can understand you. Personally I have so much free time and there are so many thrilling scenarios that I remain hooked.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I'd have to agree because the original post displays no knowledge of natural selection or of what evolution says.

Uh, you got me. I only learned the basic concept of evolution in primary school. Something like, via sudden change of genes, single cell --> multiple cells --> fish --> amphibious --> cold blooded --> mammals --> apes --> human, with somewhere a branch to birds. Also learned some quotes from Engels: 'labor stars from making tools' (something like that).

Sincerely, from my limited knowledge, this theory has a lot of problems (of course you can still defend it against any question I raised against it. In fact I think any theory can be defended by a group of clever people, for example the dream team who defended OJ. ) One single fact is enough to throw it away: Earth is the only planet with life in its affinity. Other planets and satellites, although not as good as the earth, some of them must at least still be good enough for a single-cell creature? So, I don't believe in evolution UNLESS there is evidence to show that other planets have certain kind of life forms.