Redpill me on Evolution.
How come humans are more advanced than dogs for example and not other way around?
Why dogs stopped evolving at current stage, but 'humans' pushed further and become what we are now(conscious)?
Why do dogs even exist ?
How come there isn't only one specie but many ?
Other urls found in this thread:
nature.com
nature.com
en.wikipedia.org
latimes.com
phys.org
ghr.nlm.nih.gov
youtube.com
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
cell.com
en.wikipedia.org
newswise.com
twitter.com
I, too, would like to be redpilled
1. We somehow got the right button to smash. I think science isnt sure why
2. We do not allow dogs to evolve further
3. Because we wanted them to
The answer to your last question is "Adaption".
I wish i could go into detail, but my English is rather fucking broken
Dogs are still evolving.
And supposedly because we eat meat and learned to cook it giving us less time to eat it and more time learning other shit.
We are probably many because changes in environments means the same species probably can't live in the cold as it can in the hot and vice versa.
Because evolution is a jewish lie. Try to do research on the other side you'll be surprised!
>How come humans are more advanced than dogs for example and not other way around?
Luck, mostly.
At some point in history we hit the evolutionary jackpot and went from nigglets in the jungle to niggers in Africa... Now, off course I phrased it jokingly, but it's what actually happened, we were lucky.
>Why dogs stopped evolving at current stage, but 'humans' pushed further and become what we are now(conscious)?
Evolution takes centuries to happen. It usually implies the spreading of an advantage from your ancestors. In that regard we, Homo Sapiens-Sapiens, have a vastly greater advantange that the humans from 10,000 years ago. We have bigger brains and allegedly more cognitive capcities... but looking at today's niggers that is debatable.
>Why do dogs even exist?
Why the fuck wouldn't they? Evolution is not about the smartest, strongest, biggest motherfuckers around. It's about survival of the species.
>How come there isn't only one specie but many?
If your species can adapt to the environment fast enough you have an advantage over the species who don't or for whatever reason can't adapt.
This is the main reason why there is mass extinction throughtout all of the earth history. The planet keeps changing and humans are adapted to live nearly every place on the surface.
I'm pretty sure you're the type of person that can only consider maybe two thoughts at a time.
Dogs were created by humans, they wuz wolfz n shiet. Wolfs still exist because humans took only a few of them.
>more advanced
>stopped evolving
>pushed further to become conscious
It doesn't work like that. Evolution doesn't work as something to push further to become the 'ultimate thing' - conscious.
It works by evolving to adapt to a certain enviroment. Humans are not more evolved than dogs, they're simply adapted to do something else, with 'consciousness' as more or less a byproduct of that adaptation.
Dogs are evolving, they are from wolves and have been altered by humans for centuries.
>If your species can adapt to the environment fast enough you have an advantage over the species who don't or for whatever reason can't adapt.
That is also a reason why humans don't evolve anymore, we don't have to adapt, the enviorment has to adapt to us.
This is not completely true.
There are many Canidaes around the globe which includes a very vast number of species from which many of today's 'Dogs' descent.
Science is not sure how or why but many species took a symbiotic likeness of us and kept around for food, shelter and love.
There had been studies in which stray dogs that remain many hours with hunger priorize contact over other dogs or even humans over food. As is, they are hungry but when given the decission on food or play with another dog/human they prefer playing.
Broadly speaking, evolution is adaptation by natural selection. Variants that better adapted to the environment *at that particular time* become more common, because they have more surviving offspring; less well adapted variants become less common, because they have fewer surviving offspring. There is no such thing as one species being "more advanced" than another.
Dogs are actually a product of artificial (that is to say, human-directed) evolution, rather than natural selection. They have been bred to perform particular roles that we want them to perform. In principle, we could maybe breed superintelligent dogs, if we only bred the most intelligent ones. However, that would take thousands of years, if not tens of thousands, and so what would be the point?
Your last question is an interesting one. The probable answer is that it is not possible for one species to be successful at doing everything. You can't be successful at eating plants and being an active hunter at the same time, or be very large and be able to fly too...
Life will develop under specific circumstances. At very begining 'particles' (or whatever it was) were joining up with other particles to form more advanced particle and so on. Why ? Because they could. There was no purpose in that.
Circumstances, environmental factors and survival of the fittest. Keep in my it took millions of year for humans to dominate the earth. At one period in time there were multiple ape species living on this planet that had the potential to keep evolving into intelligent beings but homosapien was the more efficient animal. They harnessed the resources away from the other species and did not allow them to prosper. Whatever species has the right physiological advantages to adapt to changes more quickly survive. It is part lottery if you think about it.
So what the fuck does that mean that Chips are our ancestors ?
Truth be told, nobody is 100% sure if we are evolving anymore or not.
In some places birthing is getting harder because the new generations are getting bigger brains.... but on the other hand we have niggers, pajeets and other less rational races with their higher birthrates and mental stagnation, and since by the numbers they are a great percentage of the population then.... we are either getting dumber en masse or we are evolving intellectually.
Fucking retard
I imagine this as life developed in some 'soup/pond' of 'biological subscances' that allowed life to happen. And at some point some gooey creature crawled out of it on land and developed into us. But I dont understand how is there so many species of humans itself like...neanderthals or australopithecus etc..
Did you skipped biology?
We are not descendant of nigglet chimps. We are related to one another and have the same common ancestor but we evolved in different branches.
Also, there is a huge load of chimps species. We are all from the same taxonomic family but for whatever reason many of our ancestral species went extinct for us.... or by us.
Evolution is not a gradual march towards superiority. Reproductive fitness does not necessarily mean a smarter or stronger organism.
Because the planet is a huge bowl/pond. And there is a lot more that we don't know, mostly because it's harder to study ancient history without any written records. This is why you can only 'guess' what actually happened 10mil years ago at a specific place.
Even if your guess is right you still have a gargantuan amount of information to proccess because of the vast size of the planet.
We're all grown here locally, no evolution.
Shits always been the same
Evolution is constantly happening. The genes past from your mother and father to you, mixing together to create you, is evolution.
Let's take your example of whites getting smarter and blacks getting dumber. This shows that whites and blacks are slowing evolving in different directions that are required to survive better in their environments.
White in this instance is in an environment that has most people reproducing be intelligent and a high nutritional diet which allows for the bigger brains
People in malnourished countries where strength is valued far more than brains means that you're probably going to end up with the brains developing less since its not being focused on in reproduction and the malnourished doesn't allow for fully developed brains a lot of the time
OK, firstly you need to make a distinction between the origin of life, which occurred at least 4 billion years ago, from the origin of modern humans (Homo sapiens), which occurred much, much more recently - probably around 200-300 hundred thousand years ago.
In that vast expanse of time between the origin of life and the origin of humans, thousands of species have evolved, and then gone extinct or given rise to other species. Neanderthals are probably a side branch of the line leading to modern humans (although they did provide us with some genes), but some australopithecines are probably our direct ancestors. Don't imagine life as a "ladder" leading from the first cell to humans. Think of it as a huge branching tree, with humans just the tip of one small branch.
Ok I'll break this down the theory of evolution goes like this
>natural selection does not create NEW species
>natural selection only creates variation in current species
>mutations cause new species
Problems with this are
>mutations are always negative
>there needs to be a fucking large amount of failed intermediate species around to be true
>we are talking grotesque weird shit probably.
So there actually isn't real evidence for the theory of evolution as it's proposed.
Im not a creationist, per say. It appears that species literally appear out of thin air. Aliens, or some think angelic beings. Think enki and enlil. But that's where is gets crazy.
I wouldn't close it on whites only because most asians and even some african races are getting ahead intellectually, but this is farily accurate.
Evolution is mostly focused into specific areas and will always be present.
That is just nonsense from beginning to end - you don't know what you're talking about.
Reminder
>ad hominem is not an arguement
I was just using generic statements as my examples.
Although yes there is a disparity in between the average intelligence of each race, It's so small it's insignificantly different
Disciplines in science are controlled by the very few. If anyone has different theories they are dismissed by those in control. If anyone doubts this just take a look at how many Jews are at the top of each scientific discipline and you will see how they control scientific thought.
The whole thing is to discount religion. Most of the Jews at the top are atheist or agnostic. They don't even believe in their own God. It's easier to control atheists than to control someone who has a religious belief.
Do you motherfucker know what that is? I am doing ad hominem, he was calling you on your bullshit.
Actually scientists are required to publish any and all findings from experiments they do that are ethical and don't have the selection or the results tampered with.
OPs IMAGE IS BULLSHIT
Where are the creatures between the chimp and the man? Humans may have a common ancestry with monkeys, a relative 1 million years ago or something that looks nothing like either. However the the true reason for man being advanced is the Annunaki. Evolution does happen very slowly but not like the sudden genetic shift that happened with us.
OK, very well.
>mutations are always negative
Not true - the average human will have 30 or more novel mutations in them.
nature.com
Most mutations are neutral:
nature.com
And some mutations are clearly beneficial, for example a mutation that allows E. coli bacteria to grow on a novel food source (citrate) has been observed in the lab:
en.wikipedia.org
>there needs to be a fucking large amount of failed intermediate species around to be true
>we are talking grotesque weird shit probably.
Oh great another ignoramus that can't produce a counter argument.
Seriously, is there anyone else that has any points to throw in here?
Yes the human body repairs most mutations by DNA repair.
The most well known reprocussion of mutation is cancer, FYI
One study on Ecoli eating citrate doesn't make a theory of evolution.
>advanced question
There is no 'advanced'. What does 'advanced' mean? smarter? technology? etc. This is a cmmon misconception regarding evolution that things become more 'advanced' but that isn't necessarily true. There are fucking bugs that evolve annually but they don't become more 'advanced' or more 'complicated'.
>stopped evolving
Evolution comes in spurts mostly. There is no evolution unless something is forcing a species to undergo it. For example long haired dogs remain long haired unless something forces long haired dogs to die off (making more room for short haired dogs). That's why huge evolutionary leaps occurred after mass extinctions but don't happen randomly.
>Consciousness
Thisi s more a philosophical concept. What is consciousness? The ability to question what/who/why we are? We can't communicate with other species at a high intellectual level so we dont know if they also think of these things. It's unlikely they are capable of thinking of these questions with any real capacity but then again.. we havent answered these questions either.
>Dogs even exist
They fill a niche, like every other species. We co-evolved with them so where we go, they go. This is really common. Rats and roaches also co-evolved with us because we make a 'circle of life' if you will. Certain flies co-exist with cows etc. Life doesn't see individuals if you want to personify it. Life sees biomes or large, macro-scale areas.
>many species
Technically there are many species of human but we really dont like to think of it that way. Due to selective breeding from humans and dogs themselves there are different species. Honestly the term 'species' is really vague and something biologists use as a loose term for 'variation of X' when honestly it doesn't hold any real weight in some scenarios (like humans)
I'll answer more questions if necessary. Am geologist.
The human body repairs most mutations, yes, but not *all* of them. You said that mutations are always negative - I have shown you that this is untrue. Admit that you were wrong.
You do realise the term mutation means damaged DNA?
I checked and it doesn't mean evolution
One study of Ecoli does disprove the statement "mutations are always negative" though
The body repairs them and if it can't you get cancer, where am i wrong?
Yes. You're wrong. Red hair is a mutation
Are you about to tell me that red hair is not actually hair but instead a cancerous growth that kills people?
You are wrong for two reasons. Firstly, the body does not repair all mutations. By comparing the genome of a parent and a child, we can see that some mutations are not repaired, and are passed on to the offspring. This is indisputably correct. Secondly, only some mutations cause cancer (for example, mutations in tumour suppressor genes or cell-signalling genes). Many other mutations do not cause cancer. Again, this is indisputable for the reason I gave before: we can see mutations in parents that are passed onto their children, who aren't born with cancer.
Not all mutations = cancer. I'm not the guy you are arguing with but I'm wondering if you are trying to troll or you are vastly over simplifying the idea of 'mutation' which is just 'evolution'
Mutations just happen and they can be beneficial, detrimental or not even noticed and they happen all the time. The ones that have no visible effect can ultimately lead to other evolutionary spurts that may also be one of the three. Occasionally a cat may be born with extra long claws. They may help, they may not. If the cat dies off that evolution is dead until another cat received the same 'error' in DNA. I say 'error' because DNA isn't set in stone. Most of it is but the way life evolves is that it only needs to be 'good enough' to keep the lifeform functioning. 'errors' occur all the time. ALL THE TIME. That's why you were born with a small penis but your brother from the same dad and mom has a massive wang. The randomized DNa you two received lead to differences between you two but even if you two were exact twins, minor differences would exist simply due to something fucking up and copying the DNA improperly in that one little area.
"Half of the populations have evolved defects in DNA repair that have caused mutator phenotypes marked by elevated mutation rates."
Ok this ecoli study- the scientist could not isolate the gene or mutation responsible for its action on citrate. So there isn't really evidence here like you were proposing
>Finding a needle in a haystack
>Can't find it SO IT ISN'T ACTUALLY HAPPENING EVEN THOUGH IT IS HAPPENING BEFORE OUR EYES
kek
Shit dude you should search your statements before you shoot off
latimes.com
Redheads have a significantly higher risk of skin cancer
So where are the mutations creating new species? That was my original point
>"Half of the populations have evolved defects in DNA repair that have caused mutator phenotypes marked by elevated mutation rates."
What is your point? They have elevated mutation rates...and? It proves my point anyway that mutations are not always bad - the populations with higher mutation rates are still surviving.
>Ok this ecoli study- the scientist could not isolate the gene or mutation responsible for its action on citrate. So there isn't really evidence here like you were proposing
You really need to read the wikipedia page better - the exact mutation that caused it *is* known:
"The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones had duplication mutations of a 2933 base pair segment that were involved in the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem and resulted in two copies that were head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by altering the regulation in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. The new promoter activated the expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen was present, and thereby enabled aerobic growth on citrate."
Here is an example in butterflies:
phys.org
That occurs through hundreds of years of mutations and genetic selection.
ghr.nlm.nih.gov
Please don't tell me I need to read that for you.
"Hall's genetic analysis indicated the underlying mutation was complex, but he was ultimately unable to identify the precise changes or genes involved"
Read you wiki reference better yourself
But not anymore because we keep useless fucks alive forever now a days.
Thanks a nice link.
I think you all are missing the point
How the fuck is a mutation going to create something as intricate as an human eye? If you haven't studied anatomy I'll understand
you want to be redpilled on evolution? watch this documentary
youtube.com
Mutations aren't always negative you moron.
Take the antibiotic resistant bacteria. They have mutations within their species and some have now evolved to resist antibiotics.
Or you could take the giraffe, the short necked ones couldn't reach as much food but mutations lead to long neck giraffes which could read the food and in turn had more offspring.
Mutations aren't always negative.
I did - read the whole thing. The quote you give is talking about a paper written in *1982* - over 30 years ago!
Look at the section titled "Genomic analysis of the Cit+ trait and implications for evolutionary innovation" - this is about a paper in 2012 which *does* identify the exact mutation that caused the E. coli to be able to metabolise citrate. Once again, you're wrong.
Red hair is not cancer. Having whiter skin does increase the risk of cancer and red heads are predominately white skinned since the mutation of red hair first occurred in a white population and is not a dominate gene so it's hard for red hair to be reproduced especially with people that have black or brown hair which is far more dominate than red hair.
Just because there is a correlation does not mean that there is a causation. Red hair doesn't not give you cancer and red hair is not a cancer.
Whiter skin on the other hand does increase your chances but in the same case. White skin does not cause cancer. It's definitely a factor but there are many other variables
The ecoli already consume citrate under certain conditions, Jesus it's not like the ecoli grew legs
kek
You knob red hair is not a benefial mutation if it increases the risk of cancer
So their jews....but their not...???
That's some next level bullshit you've got going on there....
We that's not just one mutation. That's hundreds of mutations and a shit tone of evolution working together to get the best end result for the environment
This has to be bait
(((Evolution))) is a Masonic lie invented in 19th century and by a crazy Man and since then used and promoted by Jews
If Apes turned in to humans why do they still exist then? And why aren't they turning/evolving now? Because it's bullshit
It doesn't increase the risk. The fact that red heads all happen to be white is where that correlation comes from. White skin increases the risk of cancer
Aside from that I wasn't arguing that red hair wasn't a bad mutation. I was arguing that red hair is a mutation that is not cancer
You do know ecoli eat citrate already right?
But not under aerobic conditions. Here we have an unambiguous example of a beneficial mutation that allows E. coli to do something that it couldn't do before.
A mutation wont create a human eye. A mutation would lead to a 'proto' eye. There are many species with 'lesser' eyes that we can very clearly see (pun intended) how something similar to an eye would slowly become more and more complicated over millions of years. Perhaps a 'light sensor' was first, then it become a 'light sensor that differentiates 2 colors' etc. People mistake evolution to create ultra complex things like eyes or brains instantly like magic but usually it starts off as a much simpler device that is slowly built upon. It might not even have the same function until later. Feathers for example were probably for heat management but also caused drag so jumping fuckers could jump further and further and further etc until they could keep afloat for awhile then that eventually become flying. Human nails are practically worthless as claws so they are on the downswing. Humans dont need claws anymore so humans with shitty fucking claws are allowed to breed for a couple thousand years diluting the 'claw genes' if you want to be simple about it. It works both ways. Things can become 'more complicated' and others become 'less complicated'. Pinky toes are essentially vestigial.
A great example is also goosebumps. You get them from being cold AND from some faggot lightly caressing you. They were originally useful for fluffing ourselves up and looking more swoll and we actually were. The human body has adapted shitty old goosebumps and changed their purpose. Now we get goosebumps while we are cold AND when getting caressed. We can't 'lose' the last one.. its vestigial and it won't ever go away so our bodies adapt it to be useful in some other way.
I think you should review the evidence again.
"26% to 40% of melanoma patients are carriers of at least one R allele of the MC1R gene"
Well meme'd friend, well meme'd
That is variation within a species, not a new species being created. It's a mutated gene, it's not new genes being created
Yes apes can see in the dark very well and humans don't have that ability.
Sorry let me change it so it's not bait. 1 mutation and bam we went from 1 single celled organism right into a fully functional human being all just from that 1 little duplication the single celled organism did
Evolution is just the result of random genetic mutations giving organisms an edge on survival, so dogs were just unlucky. Or the things that eventually became humans were incredibly lucky. Dogs have been "evolving" through selective breeding done by humans, though it's not the same as evolution since it's not just naturally occurring. They do still have randomly occurring genetic mutations like every living thing, but since almost all dogs are domesticated there's not really any traits that will help them survive better. Dogs exist for the same reason literally any other living thing exists, because billions of years of genetic changes in organisms starting from single celled things eventually led to them existing. That is also why there are many species, some get significant random mutations and others don't but both may still be able to procreate for generations which allows for more significant mutations to occur and further divide the organisms
Here's a nice recent paper that gives numerous examples for the origin of new genes:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Here's a paper showing exactly which mutations occurred to cause different species of butterfly to evolve from a common ancestor:
Read some recent works on evolution.
Evolution is not "progress" with "stages." That is a Victorian notion, imposing "the Great Chain of Being" onto a scientific theory.
It's about survival/propagation of species.
>looking at today's niggers that's debatable
there are still tribes in Africa that haven't been exposed to like any other groups of people for tens of thousands of years, they are pretty far behind in terms of everything even compared to hood rat trash
Well it would start with phytoplankton that have light sensitive cells those cells would send signals to the nerves so it could move to the light. The phytoplankton would then get a semi-permiable cytoplasm which would allow it to consume other phytoplankton the light sensitive cells would then start to become more like 2 or 3 next to each other to tell where the other phytoplankton are. I will continue this on my computer
I hope this is bait, because you're embarrassingly paranoid and stupid if this is a legitimate post.
Mmm yeah well I could be wrong. So far it does seem to be a correlation though. Like how there was a study that as ice cream consumption went up, drownings increased as well.
That caused mass hysteria when it was announced and heaps of people tried to figure out why. This is where the whole "don't eat before going into the pool" idea comes from even though it's completely safe. The linking factor here is that in summer people eat more ice cream and swim more
I also have a bit of bias since I'm a red head and I don't want cancer haha
>666
FUCK OFF SATAN YOU AREN'T WELCOME HERE!
Do you have any studies from none single called organisms, because all of this focus on just them makes me think it is a feature of there makeup. Is there any evidence in animals or plants acquiring new genes
he said chips, we are all evolved from potatoes
The example I gave you is from butterflies. Butterflies are animals.
They could be single celled butterflies!!!
true
dont sweat it buddy. its one of the symptoms of autism
I know you're trolling, but I'll be nice - it was on Heliconius butterflies, which are not single-celled (nor are any butterflies, or any other animals):
havent dogs been eating cooked food for as long as us?
Ok I skimmed through it
It seems the flys had mutations (divergences) but didn't create a new species. Kinda my original point- mutations don't create new species
Great answer, so I'll just boost this
And certainly didn't create a new genus
Not sure how much was explained below but i'll just toss in how new species are formed:
1. Animal tribe exists.
2. Animal tribe expands to new terretory.
3. Animal tribes get isolated from each other either by choice or natural reasons like island formations (animal a finds more food on trees, stays there and repopulates a lot, showing each of their successors that food is on trees, on the other hand animal b finds more food on the ground, repopulates a lot and shows each of his successors that food is on the ground)
4. Mutation: Random mutations occur, a large portion do pretty much nothing, a small portion changes the animal somehow.
5. Selection: Animals whoes mutation proved beneficial for reproduction and food aquirance will eat and fuck more than others ultimately out-breeding the less adjusted animals of their own tribe. Animals which are very unajusted might even be expelled or killed by the tribe if they don't die by starvation all by themselves.
5.b Extinction (optional): Animals with enemies which they cannot defend against, or out breed their own casulty rates will get systematically wiped out. This happened a lot, humans were particularly willing to prove that.
6. Repeat step 4 and 5 a couple of thousands of years and the animals a and b forming the tribe a and b will have developed large enought genetical differences, that they are not compatible anymore being unable to produce procreative offspring.
Voila: You've got two different species.
You haven't understood it then. The authors looked at five different species, and showed which genes mutated to cause the divergence between the species. The fact that you haven't picked up that the paper is looking at multiple species shows that you haven't understood what you're reading.
This might be simpler for you:
newswise.com
with hybridisation, in a species complex of hundreds of similar microspecies, or in a ring species, the boundaries between closely related species become unclear. With butterflys this is certainly the case, enough difference to say species isn't really significant
Nice try with your bullshit hey
If I asked for mutations creating a new genus.... lol we still have 7 levels to go