1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Question about the theory of evolution in here

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Zip, 27 May 2006.

  1. Zip

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jun 2005

    Posts: 20,224

    Location: Australia

    I have a question about it :)

    If evolution is changing for the better and growing and gaining new abilities that help our survival then why cant we grow arms and legs back?

    If we came from the chain of animals or how ever it goes we would have gone though the yabbie, lobster and crab stage and as you know they can all grow back there limbs if they loose them.

    So why did evolution choose to leave out that ability?
    It seems like a very good ability to have to help stay alive.
    So why cant we if the evolution theory is correct?
     
  2. Moredhel

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 May 2004

    Posts: 4,786

    Location: Gloucester

    Our limbs are incredibly complex compared to the limbs of say a lizard. Our bone structure and muscles are far more complicated, so perhaps growing them back just isn't feasable.

    No mamal can do it that I can think of, I've only ever heard of saurian creatures being able to do it.
     
  3. Mr Mag00

    Hitman

    Joined: 23 Mar 2006

    Posts: 960

    they are not mammals! can they grow themback!?
     
  4. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: 26 Jan 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    There's nothing to say that we are from evolutionary chain as crabs and lobsters - it's not a linear progression.

    Also, it's wrong to think that evolution says that we're "getting better". Evolution is a process of completely random mutations - for better or worse. The pressure of natural selection tends to favour the useful mutations and not favour the harmful ones, but that's only a statistical prediction - it doesn't always have to happen that way. Evolution hasn't "left out" any abilities. Some of them just haven't been selected yet!

    Also remember that our limbs are both significantly larger and significantly more complicated than a crab's limbs, and the energy required to regrow one would be huge.
     
  5. Zip

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jun 2005

    Posts: 20,224

    Location: Australia

    I still would have thought that if evolution is real it would have worked out away to grow them back evenm if it was complex.
     
  6. Gilly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 95,526

    Location: I'm back baby!

    What do you mean 'if' evolution is real?


    I wonder how many crabs lose limbs compared to humans losing limbs. I wonder how easy crabs find adapting with the loss of a limb compared to humans.

    I would say it is likely that to survive they have to be able to regrow limbs as it is far more likely they're going to lose another. I wouldn't say it was the same for a human.
     
  7. Tru

    Mobster

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,959

    Location: OcUK Peoples Champion

    Are you suggesting evolution is an illusion or a myth?
     
  8. Arcade Fire

    Banned

    Joined: 26 Jan 2005

    Posts: 5,426

    Location: Cambridge

    No, you don't understand. Evolution doesn't "work out" anything. It's not a sentient process; it's completely random.

    It could be that in the past, mutations which led to partial regrowth of mammalian limbs were around, but were proved to be unfavourable and so were never 'selected'. If you think about it, the chances of a primate losing a limb are massively lower than the chances of a crab or a lizard losing a limb, so even if there was a monkey somewhere who could partially regrow its limbs, it would probably never matter because that monkey would most likely go its whole life without ever needing to grow an arm back.
     
  9. Zip

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jun 2005

    Posts: 20,224

    Location: Australia

    I am saying people choose to believe different things in life.
    Some believe evolution and some believe creation or what ever else
     
  10. jim5000

    Hitman

    Joined: 24 Mar 2006

    Posts: 923

    Location: UK

    Thing is, humans dont lose their arms and legs often enough to evolve growing them back. Early humans would of died of blood loss pretty soon after losing a limb anyway
     
  11. Jonny69

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 3 May 2004

    Posts: 17,669

    Location: Kapitalist Republik of Surrey

    I have another interesting theory about evolution. Todays society is able to support genetic defects and modern medicine/surgery can fix deformations. This basically means that a large proportion of the society wears glasses or can live with a permanent illness that would previously led to an early death.

    Many of these defects are passed on to siblings thus we are almost experiencing a backward trend in evolution. Could this mean the human race is in fact becoming weaker as time goes on?
     
  12. Gilly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 95,526

    Location: I'm back baby!

    Do you have evidence of this?

    Most religious bods I know understand evolution and what it has done for us. Even the most devout christians I know don't try to argue against evolution.
     
  13. Mr Mag00

    Hitman

    Joined: 23 Mar 2006

    Posts: 960

    maybe that why they have 8, they have evolved to be able to survive with 7 or 6!. As stated it is a system based on mutation.wnat to read uponit i suggest you read 'song of the dodo' by daviv quammen,interesting and humourous look at island biogeography,eveolution and darwin etc. As for evolution is it true,good grief dont start me on creationism GRRRR:)
     
  14. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Nov 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    I believe to God and evolution, God created everything, nature included, and nature took over the evolution process. Of course if you believe otherwise you don't really need evidence, you don't need evidence to believe.
     
  15. benjo plz.

    Capodecina

    Joined: 15 Jan 2004

    Posts: 14,208

    Location: Hall

    Nah evolution hasn't worked that well... I mean wtf are toes for? ;)
     
  16. Hickin

    Associate

    Joined: 15 Apr 2006

    Posts: 60

    Location: Scotland

    I've always thought this type of human intervention kinda goes against evolution, certanly natural selection i.e. 'only the stong will survive'.
     
  17. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Nov 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    No, even the most stupid, uncapabe of doing anything person can give something to our society and civilisation. That's the difference between us and the animal kingdom.

    Sucking on them.
     
  18. PinkPig

    Mobster

    Joined: 7 Jun 2004

    Posts: 3,541

    He's suggestion that it's a "theory", which is exactly what it is. Very few scientists claim to be certain about the topic. The idea of natural selection is fairly undisputed - ie. that those who are "stronger" will survive and be able to breed more than those who are not - but the suggestion that dramatic changes in species have come about through random mutations is still very much disputed. Even fairly recent newspaper reports claiming to "prove the theory of evolution" have typically only given (very strong) evidence for natural selection (ie. kill lots of rats with rat poison and you will end up with more rats that can cope with it - this isn't evidence of random mutations, it's evidence that, having killed all of the rats that can't survive the poison, those few (who already existed) who can survive the poison are able to multiply more successfully.

    Indeed, modern human society effectively negates natural selection to some extent - even the weakest and most disabled of us are often able to reproduce and aren't subject to attack from predators, say. Heartless though it sounds to say it, the result is that genetic defects that might otherwise have been removed in one generation remain for much longer.

    The suggestion that "if evolution was real then we would be able to grow our arms back" is a very unusual one as opposition for evolution. Our limbs are so enormously complicated that even someone who entirely believes that mutations have resulted in dramatic changes in species (ie. the thoery of evolution) probably wouldn't expect it to be possible. Enormously impressive attributes in certain creatures that seems unlikely to have come about through mutation are usually seen as an arguement against evolution rather than in favour of it.

    The Theory of Evolution is just that - a theory. (edit: Well, I'm over-emphasising this - it's a "theory" in the scientific sense of what most / many scientists believe to be the closest model of the truth. As with just about everything in science, it seems very likely that scientific opinion will continue to change) The actual evidence infavour of it is less than many people would imagine. (not to say it's not strong, but neither is it indisputable)

    I would be enormously surprised if that were true. Very few people would argue against natural selection, or indeed that some features of certain similar species are caused by mutations and then survival of the fittest, but there's a reason why it's a "theory" of evolution.
     
    Last edited: 27 May 2006
  19. Zip

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Jun 2005

    Posts: 20,224

    Location: Australia

    I understand and believe it to a certain extant. Such as the process of the strongest genes taking advantage when they are past down to create the most healthiest person possible.
    But i don't believe that we came from monkeys or other animals.

    Does that make sense or was it too vague?
    I would try explain it better but im half asleep :o
     
  20. Gilly

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 95,526

    Location: I'm back baby!

    I don't believe in god at all, but I have a question for you.

    If god created everything, why would anything need to evolve? And if god created everything, how has anything evolved at all, given that he created everything?