The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[Guest DWA]

Um...our species.  Evolution?  Saw the sabertooth, the tyrannosaur and the three-foot dragonfly...and won't mourn us a second neither.  Onward to more and more.  Technology is utterly part, parcel and tool of evolution; living beings do it.

 

Back on topic:  I'm not sure how those folks who don't see how this is relevant to sasquatch are missing the boat.  Scientists' objections to sasquatch - there is no this; there is no that; there is no the other...are all shot to pieces each time they get knocked on their butts by yet another thing they didn't expect...and should have.

 

Of course there is, guys and gals.  You just don't see it.  Again.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

^^ unless you've seen  a bigfoot you're talking yourself in circles again.

 

Yes, I just put the proof on you.

 

Or the evidence.

 

The very big mountain of very weak evidence.

[Guest Stan Norton]

One of the fascinating aspects of this debate is the failure of the so-called sceptics to acknowledge that the discipline of science is also subject to the whims and whimsies of cultural and social fads. The illusion that we have, in the postmodernist age, reached a final, reductionist reality is absurd. The uber rationalist viewpoint is as much a cultural construct as is the demonized superstitious or pseudoscientific one. I suggest reading up on the various ways in which nationality, politics and culture influence interpretations of human origins. You may be surprised.

[Guest LarryP]

One of the fascinating aspects of this debate is the failure of the so-called sceptics to acknowledge that the discipline of science is also subject to the whims and whimsies of cultural and social fads.

 

 

That is definitely a fact, Stan.

 

But the primary driver that effects the discipline of science is money.

[Guest LarryP]

You can really get into the weeds when trying to judge interspecies intelligence. "Intelligence" is in the eye of the beholder, which of course is always us. We will always ask how that animal measures up to the criteria we decide we'll use.

 

You want to talk adaptation and species longevity as a measure? Horseshoe crab, hands down, over humans. 

 

We also do not have a sufficient means of communication with ANY other species that might let us evaluate intelligence on anything approaching an accurate scale AND we choose to put "language" down as a key criteria. How is a mute animal genius to win, huh?   

 

 

 

 

Speaking of "language".

 

Watch this video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/how-smart-dolphins.html

[indiefoot]

One other take-away (as if it needed confirming): Everybody was schtupping everybody else, regardless of their differences. We are all mutts.

It may suggest that alcohol was involved earlier than previously thought, LOL

[norseman]

Um...our species. Evolution? Saw the sabertooth, the tyrannosaur and the three-foot dragonfly...and won't mourn us a second neither. Onward to more and more. Technology is utterly part, parcel and tool of evolution; living beings do it.

Back on topic: I'm not sure how those folks who don't see how this is relevant to sasquatch are missing the boat. Scientists' objections to sasquatch - there is no this; there is no that; there is no the other...are all shot to pieces each time they get knocked on their butts by yet another thing they didn't expect...and should have.

Of course there is, guys and gals. You just don't see it. Again.

Face palm

That's the whole point of the singularity.......AI stops being a tool of humans aka a living being, becomes self aware and acting in its own best interests.

But even now very few human inventions are actually human. Instead several super computers are running computations and coming up with solutions for better designs.

This is not on par with natural selection, such as a lion population increase or a reduction of forests that happens over long periods of time.

In fact to tie this back in to the subject, what evolutionary pressures are being placed on humans today? We cannot even apply this model anymore.

[Guest LarryP]

In fact to tie this back in to the subject, what evolutionary pressures are being placed on humans today? We cannot even apply this model anymore.

 

One word answer; water.

 

As in fresh potable drinking water.

[norseman]

Explain.

Humans cannot live more than a few days without water.

Edited December 7, 2013 by norseman

[dmaker]

Um...our species.  Evolution?  Saw the sabertooth, the tyrannosaur and the three-foot dragonfly...and won't mourn us a second neither.  Onward to more and more.  Technology is utterly part, parcel and tool of evolution; living beings do it.

 

Back on topic:  I'm not sure how those folks who don't see how this is relevant to sasquatch are missing the boat.  Scientists' objections to sasquatch - there is no this; there is no that; there is no the other...are all shot to pieces each time they get knocked on their butts by yet another thing they didn't expect...and should have.

 

Of course there is, guys and gals.  You just don't see it.  Again.

I disagree with your gloating here. I think it is misplaced. Science adjusts theories when new evidence is discovered. 

So, do you have some new Sasquatch evidence that science can use to reconsider its position on Bigfoot?  Maybe some dog hair? No?  Didn't think so.  Maybe you should give science a break for a day.

Edited December 7, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest LarryP]

Explain.

Humans cannot live more than a few days without water.

 

Evolutionary pressures?

[Guest Stan Norton]

Evolutionary processes rumble on as they ever have done. Our current state of technological advancement makes not one jot of difference. Human populations are and always will be subject to the same suite of factors as any other. Basic ecological principle.

[norseman]

Evolutionary processes rumble on as they ever have done. Our current state of technological advancement makes not one jot of difference. Human populations are and always will be subject to the same suite of factors as any other. Basic ecological principle.

It doesn't?

If I was born without legs 10000 years ago I would not have lived long enough to contribute to the gene pool.

In today's world iam a productive member of society that parks next to you at Microsoft in the handicap parking spot. I have a wife, kids and a dog............

Natural selection has been defanged.

[Guest DWA]

NO IT HASN'T.

 

You?  Nature.  Me?  Nature.  The DeLorean?  Nature.  Microsoft?  Nature.  Twitter?  Nature.

 

IT'S ALL NATURE, and all subject to natural selection.

 

Whatever happens to us...it will be the same forces at work that have been for the last five billion years.  It's our illusion that it's all about us.

[norseman]

Your using terms wrongly.

Just because all elements in the universe fall under the category of "nature", and "natural selection" has nature in the term? Does not mean that rocks are formed by natural selection. And it's just as ridiculous to assume that natural selection has produced an automobile.
 

Evolutionary pressures?

If you can show me where a human living in a drought can adapt to drink less water or resist microbes better than a human living in a non
Drought area and then pass these traits over to the next generation? You might be on to something.

Edited December 9, 2013 by WV FOOTER
Edit Quoted Preceding Post