NationStates Jolt Archive

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

Because evolution doesn't think ahead. Changes are made semi-randomly and if they help the organism out they tend to be passed along. Evolution doesn't have a guiding intelligence that thinks "Hmm, that opposable thumb thing combined with that high intelligence thing seems to be kind of usefull. Let's tack them onto everything.".

And we could benefit from even higher intelligence, yet we are not any smarter than we are! On top of that, it's yet to be seen if we're a successful species - bilogically speaking we aren't old kids.

Remember: By imagining a perfect doughnut in your finger, you don't bring it into existence.

Brain takes a lot of energy to operate, and it's anti-survival to waste energy.

We're born absolutely helpless, because our cranial capacity is so large we have to be born early or we'd not be able to be born. As any woman who's had a kid can tell you it's a hell of a time getting the brat out. The only way we survive is in packs. Popular theory has it that this is why women have no way of advertising when they're fertile, to get males to stick around in an effort to ensure that we're the fathers.


We're not the most elegantly evolved creatures around. For that you'd have to look at an anthill. It's like distributed computing, each ant itself is nothing, easily killed and of limited ability, but get 100,000 of them together and they can move mountains. They don't have to waste energy thinking, it's all done via chemical signals. Incredible little creatures. Humans aren't the pinnacle of evolution, we're just a side road.

One cannot confuse our own ideals with the goals of evolution. The goal of evolution is survival. Many species are very specialized and well designed to fill a certain niche and don't need to go beyond that.

Humans, though, are generalists. We don't have a specific niche to fill we fill all niches. As such, we need to be very adaptable, far faster than mere biological evolution would permit us to be. Instead we adapt our behaviors in extremely short time spans.

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

First, our particular advantages aren't good for all situations. A whale may have a similar bone structure to the hand in its fin, but the fin serves it much better.

Second, evolution isn't directed by will or towards a desired outcome. Even if a creature knew it needed to be smarter, willing that change does no more to develop intelligence than a giraffe wanting to reach the leaves on a tree can make its neck grow longer.

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

Not beneficial. Advantageous. Creatures that develop a particular trait that makes them more likely to survive and reproduce than those without that trait are more likely to pass on that trait to their offspring. Over generations, that trait develops. A fish, for instance, isn't just born with hands one day and immediately starts clubbing other fish with a lobster claw so it can get all the fish chicks for itself. Over time, the tendency toward stronger, more versatile and prehensile fins would have to provide it with a marked advantage in survival. Otherwise, that trait will not develop.

So imagine that shallow seas become landlocked by plate tectonics and as those seas become shallower and the environment changes, the ability to leave the water for short periods of time carries with it survival advantages. Soon, over generations, fish that can survive out of water outbreed those that can't in that environment. But in a more stable environment and deeper seas, that same ability would carry little if any benefit. Therefor, it won't express to any great extent.

Need drives evolution.

other apes have opposable thumbs, and even opposable big-toes. apes, racoons, pandas, opossums, koalas all have opposable thumbs. evidence for sentient intelligence in other animals exists as well.

So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

Other animals may have developed opposable thumbs or intelligence and have since died out without leaving fossile evidence. There are, of course, other hominids that did develop these things and are no longer around, such as Neanderthals.

And maybe some animals are evolving intelligence and opposable thumbs, but then they will have to compete with us, and we will probably drive them to extinction.

Brain takes a lot of energy to operate, and it's anti-survival to waste energy.

We're born absolutely helpless, because our cranial capacity is so large we have to be born early or we'd not be able to be born. As any woman who's had a kid can tell you it's a hell of a time getting the brat out. The only way we survive is in packs. Popular theory has it that this is why women have no way of advertising when they're fertile, to get males to stick around in an effort to ensure that we're the fathers.


We're not the most elegantly evolved creatures around. For that you'd have to look at an anthill. It's like distributed computing, each ant itself is nothing, easily killed and of limited ability, but get 100,000 of them together and they can move mountains. They don't have to waste energy thinking, it's all done via chemical signals. Incredible little creatures. Humans aren't the pinnacle of evolution, we're just a side road.

Everything is a side road. Only the last living thing stemming from a particular life creation event (Such as the beginning of life on earth) could be called the pinnacle of evolution for that particular "big family". Or the one who has been around the most, or the one who gave birth to most different species, or...

Come to think of it, evolution kind of has no pinnacle whatsoever.

the Amoebozoa laughs at the silly monkeys who think that there somehow superior before going about its business of kicking ass and running the world

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?
Because they don't need to. Evolution works in order to ensure survival, and that doesn't always involve higher intelligence, especially when that ecological niche has already been filled (by us). If a species evolves into a state where it has filled an ecological niche and survives well, they will not evolve much further unless their circumstances change.

Intelligence is just one way of surviving - other creatures are otherwise adapted in different forms.

Other animals may have developed opposable thumbs or intelligence and have since died out without leaving fossile evidence. There are, of course, other hominids that did develop these things and are no longer around, such as Neanderthals.

And maybe some animals are evolving intelligence and opposable thumbs, but then they will have to compete with us, and we will probably drive them to extinction.

good point

by the evolution they will come into to competition in that field with us

and as we are the more advanced in that field, we would win

a shark would have alot to gain by being amphibious
but that would put into competition with land predators
which it would surely lose because the land predators are adapted in that field
and because of this the land sharks would never have children and the genes would never pass on
defeating the purpose of the mutation


I think i answered my question

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

Evolution doesn't make things perfect, it makes them adequate.

being successful in evolution generally means producing the most offspring.

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

Because sentient intelligence, and the opposable thumb are WAY overrated

The way things are, we already have humans killing each other over religion and skin color and other idiotic reasons. I fear that if (say) we had to share the world with intelligent lizards, things would be even worse.

evolution does not have a path. Evolution does not have a goal. Evolution does not have an end result.

Evolution is only the idea that mutations occur, those mutations can be favorable, and those with favorable mutations are more likely to survive and produce offspring who, themselves, have this mutation.

That's it.

It does NOT mean that "animals will develop intelligence because intelligence is useful in helping them survive". Evolution is about how favorable mutations are more likely to be passed on.

But the mutation still has to OCCUR first. So the answer of your question of "why has evolution not produced smarter animals" is simple:

The mutation that would result in higher intelligence either

1) has not occured to be passed on;
2) was not passed on frequently enough to take hold, or;
3) was not sufficient for that species to still remain alive

Evolution doesn't say WHICH beneficial mutations will occur, or that, once occured, they WILL be passed. It says only that beneficial mutations are more likely to be passed on.

So true. Imagine that a certain chromosome has two types of genes: the strong X type and the weak x type. Those with XX are strong creatures, those with Xx are fairly weak, and those with xx are so weak that they die within minutes of birth.

Now imagine that ALL of the population has Xx (weak) for that chromosome. When they breed, they'll have these four types:

XX (strong)
Xx (weak)
xX (weak)
xx (dead)

The fourth type, however, won't be around to breed its x chromosomes! As a result, the population has gone from 100% weak to 67% weak and 33% strong. As they continue to have more generations, eventually they'll be virtually all XX, with only a few Xx remaining. Don't believe me? Note that originally ALL humans were lactose-intolerant, but lactose tolerance was one of those chance mutations that was quite beneficial. These days (a mere 6,000-6,5000 or so years later), a good half of all humans are lactose-tolerant.

Obviously not all cases are this clear-cut, but...

So true. Imagine that a certain chromosome has two types of genes: the strong X type and the weak x type. Those with XX are strong creatures, those with Xx are fairly weak, and those with xx are so weak that they die within minutes of birth.

Now imagine that ALL of the population has Xx (weak) for that chromosome. When they breed, they'll have these four types:

XX (strong)
Xx (weak)
xX (weak)
xx (dead)

The fourth type, however, won't be around to breed its x chromosomes! As a result, the population has gone from 100% weak to 67% weak and 33% strong. As they continue to have more generations, eventually they'll be virtually all XX, with only a few Xx remaining. Don't believe me? Note that originally ALL humans were lactose-intolerant, but lactose tolerance was one of those chance mutations that was quite beneficial. These days (a mere 6,000-6,5000 or so years later), a good half of all humans are lactose-tolerant.

Obviously not all cases are this clear-cut, but...

Don't forget about the even more clear case of Sickle-cell Anemia and Malaria.

For sickle-cell anemia, definitely. For malaria, I thought it was a disease transmitted by mosquitos.

On a side note, I did a little fiddleing wiht OpenOffice, assuming generation 0 has everyone start with Xx and that breedings are 100% chance -- yes, I know that on earth people tend to breed with the same or similar ethnicity, but...

If it's a harmless gene (such as blond hair vs black hair), within one generation it's 50% Xx and 25% each XX and xx. Within seven it's stabilized at 44.25% Xx and 27.88% each XX and xx. Yes, those don't total exactly 100% because of rounding, but...

With the killer version, however, generation 1 has a 25% mortality rate. By generation 2 XX and Xx are equal (42.86% each, with the remaining 14.29% dying to xx), and by generatyoon 6 slightly over 90% has XX. At generation 18, it rounds up to 100% XX -- quicker than I expected, to be honest. Atma's data:

Gen XX Xx xx
0 0 100 0
1 25 50 25
2 42.86 42.86 14.29
3 58.33 33.33 8.33
4 72.04 23.66 4.3
5 82.94 15.19 1.88
6 90.41 8.9 0.69
7 94.9 4.88 0.22
8 97.37 2.56 0.06
9 98.67 1.32 0.02
10 99.33 0.67 0
11 99.66 0.34 0
12 99.83 0.17 0
13 99.92 0.08 0
14 99.96 0.04 0
15 99.98 0.02 0
16 99.99 0.01 0
17 99.99 0.01 0
18 100 0 0

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure.
I'm reasonably sure that the entire class Aves would not in fact benefit from having hands like ours.

But they already have opposable talons.

I generally believe in Evolution.

That qualifier is one problem.

Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.

Organisms evolve away from what is less beneficial.

There is no systematic progress to evolution.

But they already have opposable talons.

Some do. Many do not.

It's true, I'm not a bird watcher, but even semi-opposable talons are quite useful in perching. Just compare standing on a couple bricks to holding said bricks in your hands!

So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?

We're hardly the only creature sith opposable thumbs. Many small primates feature opposable thumbs.

This thread makes me want to play SPORE

It's true, I'm not a bird watcher, but even semi-opposable talons are quite useful in perching. Just compare standing on a couple bricks to holding said bricks in your hands!

Not all birds perch. And even then, it's not opposable thumbs. It's an opposable hallux. A thumb is on the hand. As such, it'd be useless for birds. Those that fly would be unable to. Those that swim would find it far more difficult to. Those that run would have no use for it and thus waste energy.

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

So you're asking why humans aren't the only living things on the face of the planet? Use your head for juuuust a second...

For sickle-cell anemia, definitely. For malaria, I thought it was a disease transmitted by mosquitos.


Eh... I was alluding to the relationship between those with sickle-cell anemia whom live in prominent malaria environment. Sickle-cell anemia, pretty much anywhere else, is detrimental, however in the tropics, where malaria is widespread, it is actually a life saver. Reason being that it deprives the parasites of nutrients taken from the blood. As well, in these areas, sickle-cell anemia is actually found in a much higher proportion of the population than elsewhere.


On a side note, I did a little fiddleing wiht OpenOffice, assuming generation 0 has everyone start with Xx and that breedings are 100% chance -- yes, I know that on earth people tend to breed with the same or similar ethnicity, but...

If it's a harmless gene (such as blond hair vs black hair), within one generation it's 50% Xx and 25% each XX and xx. Within seven it's stabilized at 44.25% Xx and 27.88% each XX and xx. Yes, those don't total exactly 100% because of rounding, but...

With the killer version, however, generation 1 has a 25% mortality rate. By generation 2 XX and Xx are equal (42.86% each, with the remaining 14.29% dying to xx), and by generatyoon 6 slightly over 90% has XX. At generation 18, it rounds up to 100% XX -- quicker than I expected, to be honest. Atma's data:

Gen XX Xx xx
0 0 100 0
1 25 50 25
2 42.86 42.86 14.29
3 58.33 33.33 8.33
4 72.04 23.66 4.3
5 82.94 15.19 1.88
6 90.41 8.9 0.69
7 94.9 4.88 0.22
8 97.37 2.56 0.06
9 98.67 1.32 0.02
10 99.33 0.67 0
11 99.66 0.34 0
12 99.83 0.17 0
13 99.92 0.08 0
14 99.96 0.04 0
15 99.98 0.02 0
16 99.99 0.01 0
17 99.99 0.01 0
18 100 0 0

18 generations for a single trait to take hold, that is pretty quick(Of course, this is an ideal model, and there are many factors involved, but it's still a quick mutation).

Clearly, this demonstates that Darwin was a satanist and homosexual, discrediting his theories once and for all, and proving that God did indeed create the world and all living things within one calendar week.

I'm not a biologist either. But for those who fly, it'd be nice to be able to swoop down and grab something without having a 90% chance of dropping it within the next three seconds.

Animals have things that we don't that help them survive, they have claws, thick fur, fangs, speed, night vision, and wepons like poisin, we have fragile fingernail, and a little tufts of fur on our heads and reletivley slow reaction times, so we need out intelegence.

By the way, there was also the Neander-Tal wich was like Homo-Sapiens(us), only they went extinct.

Animals have things that we don't that help them survive, they have claws, thick fur, fangs, speed, night vision, and wepons like poisin, we have fragile fingernail, and a little tufts of fur on our heads and reletivley slow reaction times, so we need out intelegence.

By the way, there was also the Neander-Tal wich was like Homo-Sapiens(us), only they went extinct.

Dude, what if we had poison claws and night vision? That would be so sweet.

Because evolution doesn't think ahead. Changes are made semi-randomly and if they help the organism out they tend to be passed along. Evolution doesn't have a guiding intelligence that thinks "Hmm, that opposable thumb thing combined with that high intelligence thing seems to be kind of usefull. Let's tack them onto everything.".

Exactly.

Though there is one species well on its way to being somewhat identical, at least in terms of sentience and opposable thumbage: chimpanzees. With another 100,000 or so years, they will probably be fully sentient on our current level.

I thought apes had thumbs and sometimes have been observed using tools.

I thought apes had thumbs and sometimes have been observed using tools.
Chimps and orangutangs, yes on both thumbs and tools. Gorillas, yes on thumbs, maybe on tools (Depends upon your idea of tool).

Actually we're finding that tool usage is a lot more common than previously though (Ravens and crows for example), which really calls into question how we define being intelligent.

This thread makes me want to play SPORE


this thread makes me want to try and breed an army of super mutants...

:mp5:

If it worked that way, we would not only have great intellect and opposable thumbs, but giant wings, armor-like hide, lethal claws, prehensile tails, gills, and we could probably breathe fire and move things using the power of our minds.

Man, I wish evolution worked that way.

The way things are, we already have humans killing each other over religion and skin color and other idiotic reasons. I fear that if (say) we had to share the world with intelligent lizards, things would be even worse.

Though infinitely more awesome. I want to know an intelligent lizard.

This thread makes me want to play SPORE

everyone wants to play spore whether they read this thread or not.

why cant we have a little time warp so we can all play it NOW?

everyone wants to play spore whether they read this thread or not.

why cant we have a little time warp so we can all play it NOW?

And they're apparently porting it to the DS. So I'll be able to play it without having to upgrade my computer! Yay being a cheapass!

Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?
Because then we'd have an oversaturation of anthropomorphic animals, and nobody wants that (well, the furries do, but nobody wants them either). Animals evolve to fulfill certain niches, and as long as there are humans, then any other animal that tried to evolve to fill the niche of intelligent tool-users would enter into direct conflict with us. There is a reason why neanderthals aren't around any more.

Because then we'd have an oversaturation of anthropomorphic animals, and nobody wants that (well, the furries do, but nobody wants them either). Animals evolve to fulfill certain niches, and as long as there are humans, then any other animal that tried to evolve to fill the niche of intelligent tool-users would enter into direct conflict with us. There is a reason why neanderthals aren't around any more.

Jesus Christ. Has there been some unholy melding of Il Ruffino and H N?

Aye, it's likely our ancestors killed off neanderthal, and likely neanderthal killed off Cro Magnon, and that Cro Magnon killed off its predecessor, or some natural disaster did.

Because then we'd have an oversaturation of anthropomorphic animals, and nobody wants that (well, the furries do, but nobody wants them either).

You win the thread.

woooohoooo!

i have a ds!

Awesome, me too! I wonder what sort of online multiplayer capability it has...

And they're apparently porting it to the DS. So I'll be able to play it without having to upgrade my computer! Yay being a cheapass!

woooohoooo!

i have a ds!

Awesome, me too! I wonder what sort of online multiplayer capability it has...

we'll find out when it comes out!

where is my time warp, dammit!

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

We could benefit from flight. Why don't we have it? Because you can't get there from here. You have to get there from somewhere else.

Evolution isn't about what traits would be good if you had them. It's about what traits that you've got will help your kids who have a bit more of them.

e.g. You stick a bunch of birds on an island and they all have delicate beaks for eating worms and slugs. This island only has two categories of food a: soft-bodied animals, like bugs, slugs, and worms, and b: very hard shelled organisms like shellfish and nuts. Those birds will never evolve the powerful beaks needed to eat nuts, even though it would be a huge advantage to double their food supply. Any bird who tries will only injure itself, making it a trait that gets selected against. But if this island had a bunch of intermediate hardness foods introduced, like grains, snails, and reptiles, then all sorts of beaks could evolve.

Many animals could benefit from our hand, but most the shapes in between what we've got, and what they've got now would be less effective than what they've got. So they keep what they've got. A cheetah's foot is perfectly fashioned for gaining traction on the African plains. If they were to start being born with vestigial human fingers they'd get clumsy and starve.

As for intelligence, well, how much does intelligence boost a human's chance at reproducing?

Intelligence requires a lot of energy in order for the brain to keep working properly, and for a smaller or less dominant species a highly developed brain would not be advantageous for its survival.

If anything, it seems like the opposable thumb played the crucial role in intelligence, since it enabled us to gain an advantage over other species and increase our supply of food and nutrients to nourish our brains. In turn, of course, intelligence also enhanced the effectiveness of our opposable thumbs, and both of them played a role in developing technology. That created the self-improvement loop that continues today.

Those birds will never evolve the powerful beaks needed to eat nuts, even though it would be a huge advantage to double their food supply. Any bird who tries will only injure itself, making it a trait that gets selected against.

On that basis we would never have left the oceans.

Say for example the birds discovered the trick of picking up the hard shelled creatures and dropping them from a great height onto rocks below - then a moderately powerful beak would be a distinct advantage, and the more powerful the beak (within limits) the greater the benefit.

I'm thinking eagles and tortoises here.

On page 2 there was a post that said something that really stuck out to me.

It's not really whether or not a mutation is beneficial, or mildly advantageous. It's mostly just whether or not it's harmful.

A not-harmful trait will get passed along just as easily as one that is beneficial/advantageous.

Jesus Christ. Has there been some unholy melding of Il Ruffino and H N?

Aye, it's likely our ancestors killed off neanderthal, and likely neanderthal killed off Cro Magnon, and that Cro Magnon killed off its predecessor, or some natural disaster did.

Actually there is an ongoing debate that interbreeding might have had a hand as well......

http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Skull-From-Romania-Points-to-an-Interbreeding-With-Neanderthals-44528.shtml

On that basis we would never have left the oceans.
Why not? We already had simple lungs.

I'm thinking eagles and tortoises here.
That doesn't happen outside of Aesop. Eagles aren't strong enough to pick up a tortoise and drop it.

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

Heh the easy answer would be we are not, and they have.

Why not? We already had simple lungs.


That doesn't happen outside of Aesop. Eagles aren't strong enough to pick up a tortoise and drop it.

But there is good eatin' on one of them if you can get the shell off!:D

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure.

Wrong.

This has been another edition of Simple Solutions To Silly Questions.

For sickle-cell anemia, definitely. For malaria, I thought it was a disease transmitted by mosquitos.

Um...the genetic mutation that causes sickle-cell anemia creates a very high immunity to malaria. Notice how almost all the people who suffer from sickle-cell anemia are from african, rather than say european or asian decent?

Where does one find malaria?

For sickle-cell anemia, definitely. For malaria, I thought it was a disease transmitted by mosquitos.

If you're interested in more information about sickle cell anemia and malaria, read this post. If not, skip it. :D

From a Sickle Cell information site:

"Sickle cell anemia affects hemoglobin (a protein found in red blood cells that helps carry oxygen throughout the body).

Red blood cells with normal hemoglobin (HbA) move easily through the bloodstream, delivering oxygen to all of the cells of the body. Normal red blood cells are shaped like doughnuts with the centers partially scooped out and are soft and flexible.

Sickle cell anemia occurs when an abnormal form of hemoglobin (HbS) is produced. HbS molecules tend to clump together, making red blood cells sticky, stiff, and more fragile, and causing them to form into a curved, sickle shape. Red blood cells containing HbS can go back and forth between being shaped normally and being sickle shaped until they eventually become sickle shaped permanently. Instead of moving through the bloodstream easily, these sickle cells can clog blood vessels and deprive the body's tissues and organs of the oxygen they need to stay healthy."

People who have sickle cell anemia inherited TWO sickle cell genes (one from each parent). There are also people who carry one sickle cell gene, which is called having a sickle cell trait. These individuals will not actually express the disease, but they can pass the gene on to their children.

The interesting thing is that carriers of the sickle cell gene (the people with only one copy of the gene) will have SOME sickle-shaped red blood cells mixed in with their normal blood cells. The malaria parasite spends part of its life cycle in red blood cells, and cells with the sickle-cell-affected hemoglobin are not hospitable for the malaria to live and reproduce in.

So individuals who have two copies of the sickle cell gene get sickle cell anemia (which is bad). However, individuals with ONE copy of the gene are actually more likely to thrive in environments where the malaria parasite is found.

Intelligence is not a predicate for survival.

Most organisms that have been wildly successful for millions of years have been little more than a ganglion on legs.

Um...the genetic mutation that causes sickle-cell anemia creates a very high immunity to malaria. Notice how almost all the people who suffer from sickle-cell anemia are from african, rather than say european or asian decent?

Where does one find malaria?


Ummmm Asia?

Ummmm Asia?
Incidence of sickle cell anemia varies across populations, and is directly correlated with the prevalence of malaria. The most likely carriers and sickle-cell patients are people with recent ancestry in malaria-stricken areas, such as Africa, the Mediterranean, India and the Middle East.

So yes, Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe are all possible locations.

And we could benefit from even higher intelligence, yet we are not any smarter than we are! I completely disagree..

Higher intelligence usually predates eugenics, psychopathy and ultimately bigger & better guns to kill other people.

We need more empathy, caring about other humans, than competitive - I deserve more because I'm better and they deserve less because they are not as good - intelligence: First wisdom, then intelligence.

edit:
Besides ants and cockroaches rule the world, not us. :-)

That doesn't happen outside of Aesop. Eagles aren't strong enough to pick up a tortoise and drop it.

Without getting into sparrows and coconuts here, nonetheless it is possible for birds to lift and drop small shellfish in order to smash them and get at the gooey goodness inside - the Herring Gull being a prime example of this actual behaviour.

Anyhoo, was the size of the airlifted tortoises ever specifed in my earlier post? They don't hatch fully grown, you know.

I completely disagree..

Higher intelligence usually predates eugenics, psychopathy and ultimately bigger & better guns to kill other people.

We need more empathy, caring about other humans, than competitive - I deserve more because I'm better and they deserve less because they are not as good - intelligence: First wisdom, then intelligence.

edit:
Besides ants and cockroaches rule the world, not us. :-)

Thats a great dream, but surley inteligence begets wisdom, not the other way around?

Without getting into sparrows and coconuts here, nonetheless it is possible for birds to lift and drop small shellfish in order to smash them and get at the gooey goodness inside - the Herring Gull being a prime example of this actual behaviour.

Anyhoo, was the size of the airlifted tortoises ever specifed in my earlier post? They don't hatch fully grown, you know.

African or European?

*Evolves*

I generally believe in Evolution.
I have one question that just dawned on me yesterday.

No matter where a creature is or what situation its in, The organism could benefit from our intelligence and our hand structure. Organisms evolve into whats beneficial to them.
So why are we the only creature with opposable thumbs and sentient intelligence?
Why don't they evolve hands and sentient intelligence?

orangutans, chimpanzees, possums, pandas and a few others all have opposable thumbs.

and many creatures are sentient as they are able to feel. I think what your refering to is sapience, at act with judgement. considering mans abililty to make long term decisions, its arguable whether we have it

*Evolves*

Time for a Pokemon joke.

What?! Gravlen is evolving!

...

...

...

Congratulations! Your Gravlen evolved into a Lunatic Goofballs!

Just shoot me now...

Time for a Pokemon joke.

What?! Gravlen is evolving!

...

...

...

Congratulations! Your Gravlen evolved into a Lunatic Goofballs!

Just shoot me now...

NO! Now there are two of them! /wrists.

It's because evolution is wrong. I think it was Darwin who said that if someone could show him one organism that produced something that it did not benefit from would prove evolution wrong. Well there's the dandelion. It produces nectar but it doesn't need bees and the like to carry around its seeds. So there you go.

but of course all evolutionists are able to find loopholes so they'd probably say "well the dandelion evolved so it used to need nectar but now it doesn't" but then why would they keep their nectar making things? It's a waste.

I take it you were born without an appendix?

It's because evolution is wrong. I think it was Darwin who said that if someone could show him one organism that produced something that it did not benefit from would prove evolution wrong. Well there's the dandelion. It produces nectar but it doesn't need bees and the like to carry around its seeds. So there you go.

but of course all evolutionists are able to find loopholes so they'd probably say "well the dandelion evolved so it used to need nectar but now it doesn't" but then why would they keep their nectar making things? It's a waste.

Thats a great dream, but surley inteligence begets wisdom, not the other way around?I'm not sure, consider all the social animals out there: How many actively seek to kill and enslave other members of the same race? Are penguins trying to invent better ways to kill other penguins?

Also, geniuses might consider some necessary, usually practical, tasks as too menial for them - say, cooking, farming, child-care or even the absent minded professor phenomenon where tying shoelaces is 'too irrelevant' - better left for the "lower class humans". Now consider if everyone was more "intelligent": Who would care for the elderly, sick or provide food for the society when everyone wants to be an executive, a scientist or somesuch because less physical labour and less danger to self is intuitively better? Would they breed - with their better brains & technology - inherently inferior human species for labour? What's the harm in enslaving & breeding 'lesser people' for everyday tasks when they're not as 'good' as we?

I would also think that vast majority of inventions are made by people with only slightly or moderately above average intelligence (IQ of 110-130) because they're capable of teamwork (see wiki article on genius) and might be tempted to try out 'idiotic & untested' solutions. Heck, even Einstein didn't have IQ much above 140...nowhere near the level of what most people think of when they want 'higher intelligence humans'.

It's because evolution is wrong. I think it was Darwin who said that if someone could show him one organism that produced something that it did not benefit from would prove evolution wrong. Well there's the dandelion. It produces nectar but it doesn't need bees and the like to carry around its seeds. So there you go.

but of course all evolutionists are able to find loopholes so they'd probably say "well the dandelion evolved so it used to need nectar but now it doesn't" but then why would they keep their nectar making things? It's a waste.
Yes, dandelions do need bees for fertilisation. It's how they transfer pollen from the anther of one plant to the stigma to the other. They only use the wind for seed dispersal once fertilisation has occurred.

Can I clear up any other factual inaccuracies for you?

It's because evolution is wrong. I think it was Darwin who said that if someone could show him one organism that produced something that it did not benefit from would prove evolution wrong.

Really? you think so? Care to prove that?

Well there's the dandelion. It produces nectar but it doesn't need bees and the like to carry around its seeds. So there you go.

Actually, bees are needed in the polination of dandelions, the wind only carries fertilized seeds. So your example is wrong, but even if it were right, you still fail because

but of course all evolutionists are able to find loopholes so they'd probably say "well the dandelion evolved so it used to need nectar but now it doesn't" but then why would they keep their nectar making things? It's a waste.

um...that's not a loophole, that's common sense. Useful mutations are more likely to be passed on. Harmful mutations are less likely to be passed on.

Neutral mutations are neutral, and neither help nor hinder the species, so there is no reason for it to be selected out. To whit, your appendix. That little thing inside your abdominal cavity that serves no purpose now.

Although I love how creationists define evolution as something it most assuredly is NOT, and then try to "come up with examples" of why evolution is wrong, based on their improper definition. Then when someone comes along and tells them "no, that's crap", they try to shout loophole. Unfortunatly, you don't get to disprove a theory by changing its definition then arguing why that definition is wrong.

I can say you're not a man, and then try to prove it indicate you don't have a vagina, and then shout how you're trying to squeeze through a loophole when you point out that the absence of a vagina does not mean you are not a man, given that men, in fact, don't have vaginas.

I could do that, but then I'd be be as silly as you're being.

If you truly want to argue evolution, you better find some better creationist material. Where ever you got that from is obviously crap.

It's because evolution is wrong. I think it was Darwin who said that if someone could show him one organism that produced something that it did not benefit from would prove evolution wrong.

Hmmmm?

I think you are going to offer a linky for the reference.

Mutations are not always beneficial......

I think you are going to offer a linky for the reference.

Regardless, finding an error in Darwin does not disprove evolution. I thought that would be fairly obvious, Caliphigio, no?

It's because evolution is wrong.

Possibly. Unfortunately we currently have no alternative hypothesis which even comes close to the usefullness and factual accuracy of the theory of evolution.
You may have noticed that creationists and ID proponents tend to attack evolution instead of promoting the qualities of their own ideas for exactly this reason.

Yes, dandelions do need bees for fertilisation. It's how they transfer pollen from the anther of one plant to the stigma to the other. They only use the wind for seed dispersal once fertilisation has occurred.

Nope. Dandelions are asexual. They clone themselves. Although I don't think they have any nectar, just a flower that lasts for a few days.

Nope. Dandelions are asexual. They clone themselves. Although I don't think they have any nectar, just a flower that lasts for a few days.

Clouding the issue somewhat - both sexual and asexual kinds exist.