Re: Treeees!!!
If I may, but aren't we missing an important point, that plants and animals are somewhat different. To compare a Lilly with a Human and to argue that one can not evolve in one way because the other doesn't, is like comparing two disimilar systems. I think the difference between the two is almost an arguement
for evolution. Simply that plants are rooted and stuck for their lifetime in one spot and animals are capable of moving to a better environment as they need. Both have evolved and flourished, but in vastly different ways..
Plantlife deserves our respect, they are a more pure form of life for our Earth and coexist with it in a much more direct and symbiotic manner. Our job here is simply to pass on our DNA, something that plant life is making a much better job of. The tortoise has always won..
I would also argue that plant life is a lot older than animal life. What are the chances of the Earth starting with an Oxygen atmosphere after a violent and firey start. Is there any other method of producing oxygen than plants as they convert
clorophyll, this is a chemical reaction, a process that would have been going on long before any animal life started to process gases via lung or gill !
To dismiss
Darwin as quakery is wrong, his work is not some idea he just came up with one day... He made a valid point in that all life he viewed evolves to fit to its' environment, the more a lifeform adapts to its' environment the more successful it will be. There are examples of this and good examples of diversity in the system, also anomolies in physical isolation ie.
Australia (why doesn't tha platypus count ? Did someone invent it) and the
Galapagos Islands. Also sharks and many reptiles, why have they not changed for millenia ? They are at their peak for their environment.
Not to say that they won't be evolving in a more subtle way, maybe once we reach this point evolution takes a different direction toward intelligence. If the phsical form is almost at perfection the only room left for evolution is in outsmarting the opposition..which includes us.
I would agree that the accepted theory is not the whole picture, IMO there can be some learning carried down in evolution, I would be interested to see if anyone is trying to discover if learning can be carried forward in DNA, if we can change our DNA to 'fix' us is there a reason our bodies don't change our DNA as something is learnt, the greater the depth of learning the greater the imprint on our DNA, this may even take generations before any noticable 'natural tendencies' in un-trained offspring (purely speculative on my behalf)
Instinct in animals may be a good example, it is just called instinct and left at that, what does it actually entail and how is it carried over generations ? Ok, Certain aspects like breathing and body functions are built deep into the core brain structures, but this alone suggests an early primitive brain that has been built upon as our needs have changed and evolved. As the physical body evolves so does it's motor control and navigation, upgrades to the CPU, the brain ! A study of rabbits in headlights might be a good experiment, have they evolved to ignore cars to any extent ?
Mutation is also an inevitabilty due to the amount of radiation pouring down onto our planet, cells will be hit, damage is done during reproduction. Though this does suggest that mutation is happening at a generational level which would require some continuation of the mutation to further generations. This would argue for a more 'dynamic' DNA, providing I am understanding
evolutional mutation correctly..
This may also imply that to raise our exposure to the natural levels of radiation should have an effect. Microwave ovens, and their mini brother the mobile phone, may be even encasing ourselves in large artificial grids of powerful electricity and motors. All suppliers of extra electromagnetic energy in our surrounding.
How much can we push it before we start 'blowing fuses' in evolution, to do so would start an unforgiving decline in our stock. Dangers in the system exist, reduction of the gene pool for one. If it is such a perfectly designed system, so to be impossible to arrive naturally, why does it show traits of weakness ?
Surely if there are bad conditions that are hereditary such as a weak heart or sickle cell then there must also be good traits that continue ? In same families you are not always guaranteed to suffer from the same conditions as previous generations. Is that not evolutionary mutation in one generation ?. They are even starting to argue that we are predisposed to violence or alcoholism and other 'social conditions' because of our genes..
Have read a lot of references to 'Junk' DNA that does nothing, once again we are told the minimum, science behind closed doors, they have their research funding to keep hold of I guess. Whole stretches of DNA are dismissed as irrelevant. I think not, nature is anything but wasteful ! It that were the maps for detailed frontal lobe structure we wouldn't have found it yet anyway...
If things didn't evolve where did they come from, I would like to hear arguements for an alternative that doesn't involve some unknown outside influence...
I think one key point stopping the evolution arguement is some misgotten sentimentality that we are special or better in some way then the other life we share this planet with. People don't like to think we evolved from monkeys (who actually says this, real scientists ?). I also think this is a fallicy.
Man evolved from an earlier man, monkeys evolved from earlier monkeys. Neandethal man was another different but more closely similar species, still no more homo sapien than the monkey is though. At some point they died out, maybe it was our first war. Their craniums were too small to hold a brain as large as ours and we won that particular race because circumstance dictated, we probably had crude explosive by then..
Why are we here ? because we are ! My God is the Universe, the Earth and the environment that gave me life. Why is it being desecrated ?
