Do you accept the theory of evolution? - Part 1

[jadtechnic]

i can the accept the theory of evolution in fact I have known a few prople in my time who have evolved into apes before my eyes !

 

[NateHevens]

I'm not arguing that. I even mentioned a cephalopod alien (or cephalopod-like, if you want to be accurate). I also mentioned manipulation, in the other thread, so, I'm well aware of that.

But here's my question to you, since you're the resident evolutionary biologist, why did we "come first"? Why has no one come before us?

Just a fluke? Got lucky? Something unique about apes?

Yes, it was a fluke. Absent the comet and climate change that fundamentally changed the earth and basically wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, I'd be willing to bet that apes never would have evolved. The earth was largely tropical back then. It was prime space for reptiles to over-evolve, and we got the dinosaurs.

Sure, eventually, the climate would have changed, probably away from the tropical climate, but it took a major impetus and an immediate natural change to give mammals the opening they needed to take over.

So yes, it was a fluke. Chance, accident, lottery... whatever you want to call it, it was totally and completely a fluke.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I'm not arguing that. I even mentioned a cephalopod alien (or cephalopod-like, if you want to be accurate). I also mentioned manipulation, in the other thread, so, I'm well aware of that.

Then why the apparent obsession with the humanoid morphology? That doesn't make sense.

But here's my question to you, since you're the resident evolutionary biologist, why did we "come first"? Why has no one come before us?

Just a fluke? Got lucky? Something unique about apes?

Because the combination of:

1) Large brains

2) The ability to communicate in a complex fashion

and

3) The ability to use tools and manipulate our environment

...hasn't come about in other animals, at least not in the way it has in humans.*

Are you asking because you're genuinely curious, or because you're trying to make a point? I have a feeling I know where you're going with this, and there are some serious problems with this line of reasoning, some of which have already been thoroughly addressed in this thread.

*This is a simplification, by the way.

 

[Hawkingbird]

I didn't know you're a biologist Evo.

 

[Thundercrack85]

So in other words, you deduce that reptiles (or reptile-like, so Doctor Evo doesn't get me on that) will evolve into intelligent beings capable of mastering spaceflight like we have in our absence... essentially based on the fact that we have. Considering the way the world works, there could be quite a few times where the reptiles won out, and the mammals wore out. Constant climate change, asteroids, planet cooling and all that.

My point (or obsession as you put it, Doctor) about humanoid morphology is that it works (in context of space-faring species). You will see it again elsewhere, under similar conditions to Earth (which should be fairly common). Maybe other forms work, but I've seen no evidence for it (and you have none). I don't rule it out, but, one we know, the other we don't.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I didn't know you're a biologist Evo.

He's also a mean astrophysicist.

 

[Breogan]

Big question is; did Sleestaks and Gorns have feathers?

 

[Doctor Evo]

So in other words, you deduce that reptiles (or reptile-like, so Doctor Evo doesn't get me on that) will evolve into intelligent beings capable of mastering spaceflight like we have in our absence... essentially based on the fact that we have. Considering the way the world works, there could be quite a few times where the reptiles won out, and the mammals wore out. Constant climate change, asteroids, planet cooling and all that.

Who said that?

My point (or obsession as you put it, Doctor) about humanoid morphology is that it works (in context of space-faring species).

Yet you acknowledge that there are potentially many other forms which could be capable of space travel as well.

You will see it again elsewhere, under similar conditions to Earth (which should be fairly common).

You haven't supported this assertion once during this entire discussion. I've already explained why we can't (or shouldn't) make this assumption.

Maybe other forms work, but I've seen no evidence for it (and you have none). I don't rule it out, but, one we know, the other we don't.

Already addressed why this reasoning is flawed. Don't want to do it yet again.

 

[Doctor Evo]

He's also a mean astrophysicist.

No, but this term I did end up working for a guy who dabbles in astrobiology.

 

[NateHevens]

So in other words, you deduce that reptiles (or reptile-like, so Doctor Evo doesn't get me on that) will evolve into intelligent beings capable of mastering spaceflight like we have in our absence... essentially based on the fact that we have. Considering the way the world works, there could be quite a few times where the reptiles won out, and the mammals wore out. Constant climate change, asteroids, planet cooling and all that.

My point (or obsession as you put it, Doctor) about humanoid morphology is that it works (in context of space-faring species). You will see it again elsewhere, under similar conditions to Earth (which should be fairly common). Maybe other forms work, but I've seen no evidence for it (and you have none). I don't rule it out, but, one we know, the other we don't.

No... my point is that there is no reason to rule it out.

Seriously.. stop being anthropocentric. We got here first by chance. That doesn't make us inevitable.

Just lucky.

We won the cosmic lottery on planet earth. It really is that simple.

 

[Hawkingbird]

Are we really debating we descend from reptiles?

Okay, I guess you have to keep your mind...open....?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Are we really debating we descend from reptiles?

Okay, I guess you have to keep your mind...open....?

We did evolve from reptiles (so did birds). There are a lot of mammal-like reptiles most people have never seen. Some of them are quite freaky.

The debate is if reptiles with human-like intelligence could emerge in humanity's absence.

 

[Edguy]

Are we really debating we descend from reptiles?

Okay, I guess you have to keep your mind...open....?

American ignorance continues to baffle me..

About the "debate" of reptiles evolving into intelligent life; they did, didn't they? They just evolved away from our definition of reptile..

 

[Doctor Evo]

Are we really debating we descend from reptiles?

Okay, I guess you have to keep your mind...open....?

Look up "therapsids" (or "therapsida").

Also, if you really want your mind blown, consider the fact that we're still technically considered fish.

 

[JAK®]

Also, if you really want your mind blown, consider the fact that we're still technically considered fish.

That's because there's no true biological definition of fish. Many animals that are considered to be fish are as biologically distinct as dogs are to cats.

 

[Doctor Evo]

That's because there's no true biological definition of fish. Many animals that are considered to be fish are as biologically distinct as dogs are to cats.

It has more to do with monophyly and paraphyly.

 

[The Infernal]

It has more to do with monophyly and paraphyly.

Who needs to go to university? I can just Google each one of your posts and learn for myself.

 

[Lighthouse]

OMG, are we actually having real scientific arguments discussed here?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Who needs to go to university? I can just Google each one of your posts and learn for myself.

But who will teach you how to love?

 

[The Infernal]

But who will teach you how to love?

That's a good question.

 

[childeroland]

Are we really debating we descend from reptiles?

Okay, I guess you have to keep your mind...open....?

Aminotes split off into sauropsids (dinosaurs, birds, reptiles), and synapsids, (mammals). From synapsids come eupelycosaurs, from eupelycosaurs come Sphenacodontians, from which come therapsids, and from there you get mammals.

 

[The Infernal]

Aminotes split off into sauropsids (dinosaurs, birds, reptiles), and synapsids, (mammals). From synapsids come eupelycosaurs, from eupelycosaurs come Sphenacodontians, from which come therapsids, and from there you get mammals.

Dem bones, dem bones....

 

[Doctor Evo]

Aminotes split off into sauropsids (dinosaurs, birds, reptiles), and synapsids, (mammals).

Eh...

 

[childeroland]

Sauropsids (Sauropsida) include all existing reptiles (and birds) and their fossil ancestors. What am I missing?

 

[Doctor Evo]

Sauropsids (Sauropsida) include all existing reptiles (and birds) and their fossil ancestors. What am I missing?

The word "existing" (or "extant").