Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

The evolution of man started 3.5 BILLION years ago -

Did they use Stephen Hawking's time machine to establish that?

Physicists are soooo wayyyy behind the times!

DNA has its own time machine ... Mutation rate = m/(nT)

[where:
m = observed base-substitution mutations
n = sites analyzed
T = generations ]

In other words, average mutation rate for eukaryotes = ~ 2.2 x 10-9 mutations per base pair per year

[Get Real!]

Oracle, please help me understand… am I to believe that Miltiades (as a totally random example) is the result of 3.5 billion years of “improved humanoid” versions???

[Paphitis]

If it took 3.5 billion years of “evolution” to result in a Paphitis, a Kouroupetos, a Yialoser, a Miltiades, and a Sotos, then this horrible slow thing has to be stopped immediately!

I so want my money back!


Oh my tummy…

For the love of God, someone turn this thing off!

Like I said, you live in your own little world.

You even thought Innarsat was a Satellite for crying out loud. Sorry, but it is my poor tummy that hurts!

Do you live in the Centre if the Universe?

[Paphitis]

Oracle, please help me understand… am I to believe that Miltiades (as a totally random example) is the result of 3.5 billion years of “improved humanoid” versions???

I must admit that you buck the trend a bit!

Therefore, you're the prime example of how evolution might be a crock of shit!

[bill cobbett]

The evolution of man started 3.5 BILLION years ago -

Did they use Stephen Hawking's time machine to establish that?

Physicists are soooo wayyyy behind the times!

DNA has its own time machine ... Mutation rate = m/(nT)

[where:
m = observed base-substitution mutations
n = sites analyzed
T = generations ]

In other words, average mutation rate for eukaryotes = ~ 2.2 x 10-9 mutations per base pair per year

Yes, fair enough our "g"IG, but for human evolution, other things have to be added, things outside biology, things that go a way to explain the pretty rapid pace of human evolution (over say, the past 1-3 million years) and that's things such as cultural evolution (things such as speech, tools, extended social groupings etc) and increasing ability to control environment.

[GreekIslandGirl]

The evolution of man started 3.5 BILLION years ago -

Did they use Stephen Hawking's time machine to establish that?

Physicists are soooo wayyyy behind the times!

DNA has its own time machine ... Mutation rate = m/(nT)

[where:
m = observed base-substitution mutations
n = sites analyzed
T = generations ]

In other words, average mutation rate for eukaryotes = ~ 2.2 x 10-9 mutations per base pair per year

Yes, fair enough our "g"IG, but for human evolution, other things have to be added, things outside biology, things that go a way to explain the pretty rapid pace of human evolution (over say, the past 1-3 million years) and that's things such as cultural evolution (things such as speech, tools, extended social groupings etc) and increasing ability to control environment.

For sure, there is more than the change in our DNA during evolution to consider. And I mentioned this as part of our continuity in civilisation with relics from the past whilst posting to Pyro.

Even so, cultural evolution, an aspect of behaviour/ethology, isn't unique to humans as we are not the only social creatures. We are, however, unique in regressing to anachronistic habits such as worshiping the sorts of religions posed in this thread.

[Pyrpolizer]

GIG, how do you explain the fact that only one species developed (through evolution) to our human intelligence?
I mean if everything happened through evolution by pure chance then hundreds of mammals should of until today grow similar to our intelligence isn't it?

Also is it true that within evolution each species is normally divided by nature to lots of other sub-species?
What happened to our own human sub-species?

[GreekIslandGirl]

GIG, how do you explain the fact that only one species developed (through evolution) to our human intelligence?
I mean if everything happened through evolution by pure chance then hundreds of mammals should of until today grow similar to our intelligence isn't it?

Also is it true that within evolution each species is normally divided by nature to lots of other sub-species?
What happened to our own human sub-species?

The problem with us and our "intelligence" is that we are good at killing off competitors - so, goodbye Neanderthals and goodbye Cro Magnon man (two of our recent cousins). We do, however, still have other close relatives like Chimps which share 96% DNA similarity (more than 99% in some specific genes). We are so close, we can pass diseases to each other .... like HIV

[bill cobbett]

GIG, how do you explain the fact that only one species developed (through evolution) to our human intelligence?
I mean if everything happened through evolution by pure chance then hundreds of mammals should of until today grow similar to our intelligence isn't it?

Also is it true that within evolution each species is normally divided by nature to lots of other sub-species?
What happened to our own human sub-species?

The problem with us and our "intelligence" is that we are good at killing off competitors - so, goodbye Neanderthals and goodbye Cro Magnon man (two of our recent cousins). We do, however, still have other close relatives like Chimps which share 96% DNA similarity (more than 99% in some specific genes). We are so close, we can pass diseases to each other .... like HIV

Arghhhhhhhhh... !!! "Mind your classifications g"IG, you're showing your age, the title Cro Magnon has fallen from favour, the term now is Early Modern Humans, so "Cro Magnons" are us... homo sapiens sapiens.

[Pyrpolizer]

GIG, how do you explain the fact that only one species developed (through evolution) to our human intelligence?
I mean if everything happened through evolution by pure chance then hundreds of mammals should of until today grow similar to our intelligence isn't it?

Also is it true that within evolution each species is normally divided by nature to lots of other sub-species?
What happened to our own human sub-species?

The problem with us and our "intelligence" is that we are good at killing off competitors - so, goodbye Neanderthals and goodbye Cro Magnon man (two of our recent cousins). We do, however, still have other close relatives like Chimps which share 96% DNA similarity (more than 99% in some specific genes). We are so close, we can pass diseases to each other .... like HIV

Actually that's an assumption GIG.In reality we don't know how the Neanderthals who lived all over Europe finally disappeared, it could be from climatic changes. As for the Cro Magnon they were never extincted, we are actually their decedents.

Regardless that's not what I meant. I meant, why there in nature are hundreds of genetically different say cats, dogs, horses etc of about the same intelligence, whereas there are no genetically different humanoids of about the same intelligence?
The excuse that the specific type from which we descended was the deadliest creature on planet, and could eradicate any competitors right from the start, could not be true for remote areas, like Australia for example.
So where are they?