evolution or not?

Luis G

<i><b>Problemator</b></i>
Staff member
water_180.jpg


In the sea, most of us are half-blind - but the Moken are king. This Southeast Asian tribe of sea gypsies can see twice as clearly underwater as Europeans, researchers have found.

The semi-nomadic Moken, who have settled on Thailand's Surin Islands, use their superior visual skills to dive for food on the ocean floor. It's not known whether the ability is learned or genetic.

Most of us see blurred images when we dive without goggles or a mask. The eye is adapted to air, and struggles to focus light under water. But Moken children can pick out small shells, clams and sea cucumbers at depths of three to four metres.

Moken children can distinguish underwater objects less than 1.5 millimetres wide; Europeans struggle to make out anything less than 3 mm across1, biologist Anna Gislén of Lund University, Sweden, and her colleagues found.

"They use the optics of the eye to the limits of what is [humanly] possible," says Gislén. The team compared the sub-aqua vision of native Moken and holidaying European kids, aged 7-14 years.

Complete article here
 
freako104 said:
evolution is a slow process
I'm not so certain that it has to be that slow. There are some theories that suggest an occasional leap.
 
Yes, it is slow, but this didn't happen in today's night. The tribe must be very old and most likely the ancestors of the tribe had the same ways of survival.
 
Evolution is not slow at all...At least not as slow as you would think. Second generation alcoholics increase the probability of bearing alcohlic prone offspring tremendously. I did a term paper on DNA encoding using an experiment in which the offspring of trained mice were more than three times faster at learning the same tasks as those of untrained mice. And that was just a single generation...
 
peppered moths! ever hear of that?
industrial pollution in england caused them to change from white to black very quickly, in order to blend in to the trees that were being darkened by the pollution.

*just learned that in eco-bio* :)
 
Squiggy said:
Evolution is not slow at all...At least not as slow as you would think. Second generation alcoholics increase the probability of bearing alcohlic prone offspring tremendously. I did a term paper on DNA encoding using an experiment in which the offspring of trained mice were more than three times faster at learning the same tasks as those of untrained mice. And that was just a single generation...
Except that your whole premise of Lamarkianism has essentially no data to support it. Every single experiment that I have read about (such as the one you described above) has had other more conventional explanations, or could be simply attributed to a breakdown of the scientific process. Besides, with decades of research into the mechanisms of genetics and reproduction, there isn't a single plausible explanation of how aquired characteristics could be passed on to offspring.

Not that I don't think evolution can occur rapidly... it very well may under selective pressure, but not by the means you propose.
 
Is the question really askin' for another vote for the theory of evolution............

Or isn't it more the acknowledgement of a interestin' human condition, which possibly devrives not from such a theory, but which, at any rate still seems remarkable?

I think even the most hardcore "creationist" would 'ave a difficult time of explainin' all the "hows" & "whys", but in the end, are those really the questions that bring us closer to the truth?

At any rate I think its a good question.:)
 
75renegade said:
I think even the most hardcore "creationist" would 'ave a difficult time of explainin' all the "hows" & "whys", but in the end, are those really the questions that bring us closer to the truth?
Yes.
 
outside looking in said:
75renegade said:
I think even the most hardcore "creationist" would 'ave a difficult time of explainin' all the "hows" & "whys", but in the end, are those really the questions that bring us closer to the truth?
Yes.

Ok out, why so?
 
I accept the definition that "the truth" is what constitutes the correct description of reality. Science is the process by which we search for that description. The how's and why's of phenomena are the essential building blocks of that description, and striving to answer those questions is the tool of our search.

Some may equate "the truth" with meaning. I don't. You discover "the truth" through science, and then decide what it means to you.
 
outside looking in said:
I accept the definition that "the truth" is what constitutes the correct description of reality. Science is the process by which we search for that description. The how's and why's of phenomena are the essential building blocks of that description, and striving to answer those questions is the tool of our search.

Some may equate "the truth" with meaning. I don't. You discover "the truth" through science, and then decide what it means to you.

"Correct description", by whose definition? Then, who made YOUR source "absolute"?

How is your, "reality" defined?

Do you believe there is such a concept as a "straight" line? (if so, why?) Can "science" prove it?

..............."building blocks" mus' be stable enough to bear the weight of their sub-structures.........

I feel these concepts lack the necessary "support"...........
 
Where did I use the term "absolute?" Science is the search for the truth, and if you want to toss out the information discovered during that search simply because we aren't at the end of the road, that's your perogative. I prefer to take a more logical and realistic approach to the world.
 
And out of curosity, I must ask... if you don't believe that close examination of our physical reality brings us close to the truth, just what do you suppose does? :retard4:
 
Those that ask "what" without "why" are potato-heads. Anyone can see that the television works or hear the telephone but the only people worth talking to are those that ask why about every damned little thing they come across in life.

Oh, and also those with big tits. :)
 
outside looking in said:
Where did I use the term "absolute?" Science is the search for the truth, and if you want to toss out the information discovered during that search simply because we aren't at the end of the road, that's your perogative. I prefer to take a more logical and realistic approach to the world.

I apologize Out, I think my above statements were made from a wrong perspective. Instead, I too agree that it IS the "hows" & "whys" that matter, in as much as they lead us to refine our perspectives about any topic of choice.

Actually, I think yer right, outside. We are not at the end of the road yet so, true enough, its in the asking of the questions, that I believe we move closer to the truth, I think yer approach is good!

Guess I need rethink my earlier postion, thanks for yer honesty!
:)
 
Finch studies showed marked differenced in beak size in direct corolation to the rainfall. Over a 20 year period.
 
Back
Top