100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Where did Humans come from? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Natural selection is just the mechanism that leads to adaptation/speciation and, while there are things about the process that we still do not understand, the framework has an overwhelming body of evidence to support it. The notion that evolution occurs isn't disputed by leading biologists, so that might not be the aspect on which to focus for your book.
A couple of areas that are yet major mysteries are abiogenesis (i.e., origin of life on Earth) and the Cambrian explosion (i.e., relatively short period -- 20 to 25 million years long -- in which major diversification of life took place). Because these are genuine mysteries, you can take the story in basically any creative direction you like without worrying about explaining away established scientific models. You could, for example, have an alien race seed the planet with life to produce a specific outcome, or you could interject a divine hand in the Cambrian era -- whatever you like. Another fascination is that human DNA has been discovered to contain bacterial genes, which could be a launching pad for your book if you wanted to explain humans as being genetically engineered from other animals. As for Charles Darwin, even if he were racist it would have said nothing about the validity of the evolutionary model. There is, however, an ongoing ad hominem attack against him with the intention of discrediting him and his ideas and any science that has built upon his initial findings. Here's a bit of information separating fact from fiction that you may find interesting: [http://www.revcom.us/a/156/creationist_big_lie-en.html] Regardless, I recommend reading a whole lot of biology texts from scientists who work in evolutionary study and belong to the academy of sciences -- i.e., people actively involved in the study of genetics and heredity and evolutionary science. The more you know and understand about these processes, the better you'll be able to weave a tale within that context, making your story more foundational and believable. Good luck in your writing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you mean,your Hypothesis?  I use the term loosely, not the scientific version of the word, layman's terms. I don't even mean Theory or Hypothesis. I meant to say it's more of an idea. A story I came up with. Picking, and prodding on the semantics of my word usage proves nothing. This is a random forum with strangers not a scientific publication. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The word consciousness comes from two Latin words: con .. meaning with; and scio .. to know; and means literally ..That with which we know... The state of being aware .. the condition of perceiving ... the ability to respond to stimuli .. the faculty of recognising contacts, and the power to synchronise vibration. What we know of atoms . They are governed by the power of attraction . .. In response to stimuli . Thus it could be argued that a chemical reaction in itself demonstrates a juvenile level of consciousness. Go.. Go atoms .. Laughing :. What level of consciousness does the egg and sperm have .. an embryo .. a baby .. a child .. human consciousness matures over time and life begins with a chemical reaction at the cellular level .. whether alien or otherwise  I spoke to my sperm and they said they have always had a guilty conscious that they never found an opportunity to meet your eggs. They're jokes folks!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My mum told me a stalk flys around spring time and drops a baby in the cot.
When I asked mum why has the lady got a big stomach. She said because she has a bun in the oven. Wow I was thinking of a big bread bun cooking inside. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously though, adaptive evolution takes thousands of years. Maybe in the next four or five hundred humans will see their simian cousins come into their own.
All it takes is one genetic mutation to initiate the transformation. Then we will all forget about racial divides and unite to become become "specists". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 reminds me of the old joke about sperm taking the scenic route past the oesophagus :  oesophagus! You Kiwi birds spell funny! It's cute! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reminds me of the old joke about sperm taking the scenic route past the oesophagus : oesophagus! You Kiwi birds spell funny! It's cute! And you love us   We know |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I created them many thousand yrs back. Lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reminds me of the old joke about sperm taking the scenic route past the oesophagus : oesophagus! You Kiwi birds spell funny! It's cute! And you love us We know That settles it...I'm moving to New Zealand and studying the evolution of the Kiwi woman. For a book. Mostly a picture book. Well, more like a magazine. A picture magazine. Of women. From New Zealand. For people to read, or look at, rather. Mainly men. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Op could live to be 250 and not read half of the texts from 30years ago til present.
Dat, 1st of all the flat earth thought was just that, nothing else. You can't even posit that it was a hypothesis because it was an uneducated guess. No one found the end of the earth, they just thought there was one until explorers and navigators Proved there was no edge. Humans have not traveled faster than the speed of light so that hypothesis hasn't been proven false. All light travels through gas, on earth. Which gas it's traveling through can change or we can create a vacuum in a lab. That point goes towards the fact that there is bad science. Disinformation created by people who want you to believe a detergent can remove any stain when we all know that shirt will never be the same or that a natural unprocessed plant is dangerous and addictive. Yes question everything. Much of what we were taught in school is wrong or incomplete - his-story. As for the anecdote of someone being 'raised by wolves' that's not what I meant. Here's the distinction and what allows for the change. 1. favorable or attractive mutations 2. Change in climate or food source(s) It's conditional. One without the other fizzles out through natural selection. IF there is a lack or loss of a food source then the species goes extinct. If the species can find a new food source (specialization) then they become a subspecies or separate species. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reminds me of the old joke about sperm taking the scenic route past the oesophagus : oesophagus! You Kiwi birds spell funny! It's cute! And you love us We know That settles it...I'm moving to New Zealand and studying the evolution of the Kiwi woman. For a book. Mostly a picture book. Well, more like a magazine. A picture magazine. Of women. From New Zealand. For people to read, or look at, rather. Mainly men. If you can work us out you will be rich and famous Yea rite! good luck Bro. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you mean,your Hypothesis? I use the term loosely, not the scientific version of the word, layman's terms. I don't even mean Theory or Hypothesis. I meant to say it's more of an idea. A story I came up with. Picking, and prodding on the semantics of my word usage proves nothing. This is a random forum with strangers not a scientific publication. My response wasn't targeting you so no offense. That being said, this goes along with what I was telling datwasntme. Again, not personal. You are definitely not the first person to think about or carry out authoring a book about semi-scientific themes in other than scientific means. If that's what you want to do you can take that up with a publisher. Good things can be bad for us. Pseudoscience (fake) is unfounded unproven and counterproductive. If you don't want to use the language or principles of science don't write a book about a scientific subject. Again don't take this personal, it's not meant as an insult. Most of the reason people 'fear' science is because of bad science. They don't know the conditions the experiments are conducted under but they base their beliefs on the findings or ignore all science altogether. Ex. 37 fire extinguishers fail every month. Where? Worldwide? Fail how? Were they all made by the same company? Were they inspected and charged fully? Knowing that they weren't inspected gives us the information we all need to be and FEEL safe. HUGE credit to Blondie for giving us the root explanation of consciousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you mean,your Hypothesis? I use the term loosely, not the scientific version of the word, layman's terms. I don't even mean Theory or Hypothesis. I meant to say it's more of an idea. A story I came up with. Picking, and prodding on the semantics of my word usage proves nothing. This is a random forum with strangers not a scientific publication. There are different types of science fiction. I read a lot in my younger days. The "hard science" fiction generally was of better quality than the "soft" or fantasy type. Hard science fiction requires a lot of research to get the facts to blend into the fiction. How much science fiction have you read and who were the authors? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where did humans come from? The human genome studies show that human DNA is 97% of that of the chimpanzee. Meaning, our DNA stock comes from a common 'link' that also raised the laziest, chattering species on earth who enjoyed living as 'troops of monkeys' and by the way are mainly vegetarians - (meaning they had plenty of time to observe the world around them). Rule 1 (for evolution): Laziness is a prerequisite for intelligence Which then raises the question: why didn't competitive intelligence evolve from among the other simians: the gorillas, the baboons.. Because they had nothing to fear? Imagine if they had, would they have gathered stones? rained them on intruders? No, their size and 'anger' blurred any such 'evolutionary' need for 'thinking'. Rule 2: Some fear to raise the level of consciousness Or from the 'link' that raised the bears: slothful, powerful, vegetarian; rushes on two feet when roused..? Ok, because they preferred to live 'alone' in territories - wasted time grubbing around for the long winter... hmm. Rule 3: Communal living Why leave out the cats? Was it because they littered every 3 months? Which begs the question, has evolution got among its rules - a minimum gestation period? Rule 4: Longer Gestation period If that was so the elephant 600+ days should 'rule' in intelligence. They didn't because their intelligence evolved a multi-functional nose and noses as we know don't have stubs to evolve fingers from? So their natural energy locked into manipulating their noses in newer ways? Rule 5: No twigging noses and ears Here's the distinction and what allows for the change. 1. favorable or attractive mutations 2. Change in climate or food source(s) Rule no 7: Growing food resources - breeding egg laying birds In my opinion, the term 'mutation' is not the exact word we would want to use where evolving intelligence; but there is possibility that certain cross-breeding occurred among 'the simians'. So Rule No 8: "favorable or attractive mutations" ... my nephew when he started asking questions. Why do humans have to cook our food? I think it's all weird and right now I'm writing my own sci-fi novel to explain it all. I think "cooking" cannot be underrated. Overcoming the fear of 'fire' for warmth, cooking & extended life. Rule No 9: Overcoming fear - fire for warmth & security Rule no 10: The invention of "Cooking", the switch from raw eggs to boiled eggs; newer recipes, demanding more from intelligence and more.. that's summarizing from what's already said so far. Maybe another 60 to 50 such rules (include 10 that cannot be supported) and you got a book but.. The "hard science" fiction generally was of better quality than the "soft" or fantasy type. Hard science fiction requires a lot of research to get the facts to blend into the fiction. Adding to what Metal has said, good fiction is rare these days. Should not surprise that some of them were authored by scientists but the better ones were by those who gave fantastic interpretations to their work: Michael Crichton comes to mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where did humans come from? The human genome studies show that human DNA is 97% of that of the chimpanzee. Meaning, our DNA stock comes from a common 'link' that also raised the laziest, chattering species on earth who enjoyed living as 'troops of monkeys' and by the way are mainly vegetarians - (meaning they had plenty of time to observe the world around them). Rule 1 (for evolution): Laziness is a prerequisite for intelligence Which then raises the question: why didn't competitive intelligence evolve from among the other simians: the gorillas, the baboons.. Because they had nothing to fear? Imagine if they had, would they have gathered stones? rained them on intruders? No, their size and 'anger' blurred any such 'evolutionary' need for 'thinking'. Rule 2: Some fear to raise the level of consciousness Or from the 'link' that raised the bears: slothful, powerful, vegetarian; rushes on two feet when roused..? Ok, because they preferred to live 'alone' in territories - wasted time grubbing around for the long winter... hmm. Rule 3: Communal living Why leave out the cats? Was it because they littered every 3 months? Which begs the question, has evolution got among its rules - a minimum gestation period? Rule 4: Longer Gestation period If that was so the elephant 600+ days should 'rule' in intelligence. They didn't because their intelligence evolved a multi-functional nose and noses as we know don't have stubs to evolve fingers from? So their natural energy locked into manipulating their noses in newer ways? Rule 5: No twigging noses and ears Here's the distinction and what allows for the change. 1. favorable or attractive mutations 2. Change in climate or food source(s) Rule no 7: Growing food resources - breeding egg laying birds In my opinion, the term 'mutation' is not the exact word we would want to use where evolving intelligence; but there is possibility that certain cross-breeding occurred among 'the simians'. So Rule No 8: "favorable or attractive mutations" ... my nephew when he started asking questions. Why do humans have to cook our food? I think it's all weird and right now I'm writing my own sci-fi novel to explain it all. I think "cooking" cannot be underrated. Overcoming the fear of 'fire' for warmth, cooking & extended life. Rule No 9: Overcoming fear - fire for warmth & security Rule no 10: The invention of "Cooking", the switch from raw eggs to boiled eggs; newer recipes, demanding more from intelligence and more.. that's summarizing from what's already said so far. Maybe another 60 to 50 such rules (include 10 that cannot be supported) and you got a book but.. The "hard science" fiction generally was of better quality than the "soft" or fantasy type. Hard science fiction requires a lot of research to get the facts to blend into the fiction. Adding to what Metal has said, good fiction is rare these days. Should not surprise that some of them were authored by scientists but the better ones were by those who gave fantastic interpretations to their work: Michael Crichton comes to mind. Obviously, science has changed in the past century. Science fiction has change along with it. On the one hand, there are infinitely more directions to go using the new insights of alien worlds, other dimensions, and DNA manipulation. It takes an author much more time to get up to speed on the subject. However, great writing can work around the science with good storytelling and interesting plot. Robert Heinlein was always one of my favorites. His novels focused on unique concepts but had great characters. Some of his works, such a Starship Troopers which was made into a movie a few years ago, show great insight into our political problems of today. Larry Niven wrote lots of books around his incredible novel "Ringworld" which used hard science to create fantastic worlds, aliens, and events. I read several of the books and they are truly some of the best. Ursula K. La Guin was another great author but she pretty much ignored the hard science and went the fantasy route. Riding dragons was her "thing". H. G. Wells wrote fantastic science fiction before there was very much science. Harry Harrison was also one of my favorites with his "Stainless Steel Rat" series. It was more action/adventure than anything else but very entertaining. Isaac Asimov would be another of the "greats" with the "Foundation Series" where he created a universe different human thinking. His "I Robot" series, to me, used less imagination but defined even today's standards of robotics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Wells & Asimov are legendary.
Wells with his political / social realism of the times; inspiring even in the re-reading. And thanks for the other names. Will certainly look them up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, Wells & Asimov are legendary. Wells with his political / social realism of the times; inspiring even in the re-reading. And thanks for the other names. Will certainly look them up. While you are at it, look up Philip K. Dick. He was one of the best of the best! His novels have made great movies. His writing makes you think. From Wiki: In addition to 44 published novels, Dick wrote approximately 121 short stories, most of which appeared in science fiction magazines during his lifetime.[5] Although Dick spent most of his career as a writer in near-poverty,[6] eleven popular films based on his works have been produced, including Blade Runner, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Paycheck, Next, Screamers, The Adjustment Bureau and Impostor. In 2005, Time magazine named Ubik one of the hundred greatest English-language novels published since 1923.[7] In 2007, Dick became the first science fiction writer to be included in The Library of America series.[8][9][10][11] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't read every post but have you ever watched the film lucy? It goes on to mention that humans use 10% of their overall brain capacity and all other animals barely reach 3%. With what we have accomplished due to our sheer significant intelligence imagine what would happen if we increased beyond 10%. Imagine what would happen if you increased the size of the brain and then increased it to 100%. We could achieve so much more if we weren't wasting our time scratching the surface of everything and ignored laws about playing god and actually begun to excel ourselves. We need to enhance beyond our current evolutionary state. We have got to our current state through necessity but have since stalled as life is too easy that there is nothing that is going to stimulate us to evolve further. We need to force ourselves to evolve further and to a degree we have done with our knowledge in technology and science but we need to evolve us and not the things around us. Our species is very adaptable because unlike most we change our surroundings to suit us as opposed to finding suitable surroundings. We could be so much more but might never be. We'll always be frightened of taking the next step for fear of our own extinction but if that is what it takes to create human version 2.0 then I believe its a step in the right direction. Besides it might give us a reason to evolve again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was just thinking about the upright, hairless, weird look of Humans compared to all other animals found on earth. I was also watching animals of the wild with my nephew when he started asking questions. Why do humans have to cook our food? I think it's all weird and right now I'm writing my own sci-fi novel to explain it all. As humans we don't have to cook our food. I've known people who have eaten entirely raw food diets for many years. One reason we cook our foods is because it has become part of our culture to do so. We also get to eat a wider variety of foods by cooking it. Some foods are made more safe by cooking. We also use cooking to break down some less digestible foods and make it more digestible. The last sentence may be most related to your point: Humans have been cooking food so long, we may have evolved to be _less_ able to digest certain raw foods than our closest primate relatives. But we haven't reached the point of being dependent on cooking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe Darwin. I believe in Natural Selection, that's just common sense but evolution is very flawed. Also Darwin was a racist, and used his theory to prove that the white man was more evolved than others. I damn sure can't believe in that. To people who straight stick to science, my question is how do a bunch of molecules create consciousness? And if Evolution was true why aren't there any other species that evolved to the level of laptops and cellphones? Just us Human's huh?? If you stick straight to science, then you stick straight to the fact that evolution is real. Evolution is the reason we have such a diversity of species on this planet. Rejecting evolution because you disagree with Darwin on some other topic is foolish. The truth of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. |
|
|
|
|
