Those crazy creationists

[Vagabond]

humans are still evolving or may evolve further; it's a moot point, some biologists think we are some think we are not.

 

Surely Cory, the "mechanism" for evolution is always there, but only if evolutionary pressures exist does evolution "happen", in the sense that we can detect some sort of change.

 

Some creatures, like the coelacanth, various sharks, and crocodiles have evolved very little over millions of years. This is because there is little evolutionary pressure on them - ie they are already successful in their lifestyle, having 1/ got it right first time and 2/ occupied a niche that has not changed very much.

 

One or two croc species have evolved to fill special niches (like the gharial) as have some sharks, but in the main, living crocs, sharks and coelacanths differ very little from their fossil forebears.

 

By contrast most land animals (including man) and plants have changed considerably from their fossil ancestors - climate change consequent upon continental drift is just ONE of the pressures that dictate "evolve or perish" (there are many others - ice ages, interglacials, volcanic outgassing etc etc)

 

Man is still capable of evolving, but thanks to technology (eg the NHS!) there is now little pressure on UK citizens to do so. One view of evolution is that it "eliminates the unfit and the unlucky" - that is not supposed to happen in our Nanny State.

[Vagabond]

sometimes it's best to hide and move slow to conserve energy that is the better strategy.

 

Yeh, hundreds of session carpers can't be wrong!

 

...and camou works ! It is rare for a carper to get eaten by a grizzly bear!

[corydoras]

Surely Cory, the "mechanism" for evolution is always there, but only if evolutionary pressures exist does evolution "happen", in the sense that we can detect some sort of change.

 

Some creatures, like the coelacanth, various sharks, and crocodiles have evolved very little over millions of years. This is because there is little evolutionary pressure on them - ie they are already successful in their lifestyle, having 1/ got it right first time and 2/ occupied a niche that has not changed very much.

 

One or two croc species have evolved to fill special niches (like the gharial) as have some sharks, but in the main, living crocs, sharks and coelacanths differ very little from their fossil forebears.

 

By contrast most land animals (including man) and plants have changed considerably from their fossil ancestors - climate change consequent upon continental drift is just ONE of the pressures that dictate "evolve or perish" (there are many others - ice ages, interglacials, volcanic outgassing etc etc)

 

Man is still capable of evolving, but thanks to technology (eg the NHS!) there is now little pressure on UK citizens to do so. One view of evolution is that it "eliminates the unfit and the unlucky" - that is not supposed to happen in our Nanny State.

Absolutely Vagabond. Man is still capable of evolving, or of going extinct. It's not just ancient eukaryotes like your examples that have remained unchanged for millions of years. Many prokaryotes and archaea have existed unchanged for billions of years, because there are no pressures on them to evolve.

 

Evolution can take place at extremely rapid pace when the evolutionary pressure is high.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...-evolution.html

[Jim Roper]

Can somebody explain how travelling at great speed slows/stops the aging process? Elapsed time is elapsed time, no matter what/whose units are used.

 

Read 'Gods of Air and Darkness' by Richard Mooney for other ideas. A bit dated though!

[chesters1]

does this mean every racing driver outlives every traction engine driver?

 

if time isnt a constant why isnt 2pm c2pm? ,how can foreigners be ahead of us time wise if time (ok the man made version of it) starts at the meridian line? x oclock starts at greenwhich thus everyone is behind that in time,its impossible to time travel so going to france and finding your an hour ahead of where you were is crap

 

the only time time is misused is in celebrations ,just because something finished on a certain day a century before does not mean today's date is the same ,where did the leap years go?

so "today" 100 years ago in a sentence cannot exist IE today 120 years ago X died is a lie! it didn't and going further back gets the gregorian effect.

to a women losing 5 years comes with age so time is even more shifty in a womans case.

 

lastly why do natives without jobs or timescales need watches ? i spotted a native in a prog about err natives wearing a watch why? will he die earlier if he knows what time it is?.

should watches show sunrise midday and sunset only ? after all 99.9% of the things on earth do fine without one "time" (as we use it now) only became important when the railways came now they are so expensive we cannot use them are watches redundant?

Edited August 10, 2009 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Can somebody explain how travelling at great speed slows/stops the aging process? Elapsed time is elapsed time, no matter what/whose units are used.

 

Read 'Gods of Air and Darkness' by Richard Mooney for other ideas. A bit dated though!

does this mean every racing driver outlives every traction engine driver?

 

if time isnt a constant why isnt 2pm c2pm? ,how can foreigners be ahead of us time wise if time (ok the man made version of it) starts at the meridian line? x oclock starts at greenwhich thus everyone is behind that in time,its impossible to time travel so going to france and finding your an hour ahead of where you were is crap

 

the only time time is misused is in celebrations ,just because something finished on a certain day a century before does not mean today's date is the same ,where did the leap years go?

so "today" 100 years ago in a sentence cannot exist IE today 120 years ago X died is a lie! it didn't and going further back gets the gregorian effect.

to a women losing 5 years comes with age so time is even more shifty in a womans case.

 

lastly why do natives without jobs or timescales need watches ? i spotted a native in a prog about err natives wearing a watch why? will he die earlier if he knows what time it is?.

should watches show sunrise midday and sunset only ? after all 99.9% of the things on earth do fine without one "time" (as we use it now) only became important when the railways came now they are so expensive we cannot use them are watches redundant?

Just for chesters and Jim Roper

 

Time Dilation in a nutshell.

Edited August 10, 2009 by corydoras

[Leon Roskilly]

Just for chesters and Jim Roper

 

Time Dilation in a nutshell.

 

 

It gets even weirder within quantum mechanics where the temporal link between cause and effect no longer holds true!

[chesters1]

its a theory

whilst clocks may appear to be slower than the other one it compares to whats to say the other isn't faster ? ,when both (the slower clock or the faster one) cannot be judged accurate the "proof" has no basis so its a theory.

Einsteins brains wasn't that he was a clever scientist just that his theories are so hard to prove or disprove he wasn't a "law" maker or a liar in his life time

my theory is Einstein was houdini in reverse

 

on theory was quantum shell theory disproved or not

 

 

theres masses of "theories" that have been disproved now yet had "scientists" nodding in agreement then theres probably more being nodded at now than in the future.

 

you cannot prove anything 100% so why harken to mere theory? ,time is mans way of strangling itself nothing more ,first you have to decide what time your using and how its worked out and its relevance to the use your putting it to

Edited August 10, 2009 by chesters1

[Leon Roskilly]

its a theory

 

 

 

Not some half-baked idea, but confirmed by experiment and observation.

 

Unfortunatley, to really understand it, you need to understand the mathmatics.

 

(Mathmetics seem to be the natural language of the universe, which itself raises some interesting philosophical issues!)

 

Even more unfortunately very few people (definitely including me) really understand the language of mathmetics, and without that understanding it is almost impossible to really get your head around the concepts embodied in the theories, especially when those concepts are so counter-intuitive to beings living on the scale where only Newtonian physics seem to have validity.

 

The fact that we are now moving into a world where quantum computing is possible, does seem to indicate that quantum mechanics is real.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[chesters1]

Not some half-baked idea, but confirmed by experiment and observation.

 

Unfortunatley, to really understand it, you need to understand the mathmatics.

 

(Mathmetics seem to be the natural language of the universe, which itself raises some interesting philosophical issues!)

 

Even more unfortunately very few people (definitely including me) really understand the language of mathmetics, and without that understanding it is almost impossible to really get your head around the concepts embodied in the theories, especially when those concepts are so counter-intuitive to beings living on the scale where only Newtonian physics seem to have validity.

then why isnt it a law?