Proof of evolution that you can find on your body

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2016, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't know which one you are talking about.

But the general answer would be we all evolved.

I am talking about man that lives in the bush and Jungle where a strong sense of hearing is more important than keen sight. Why did they loose this directional hearing trait along with man the evolved in developed societies? Hell I'd imagine a tail would still be handy in some environments

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I am talking about man that lives in the bush and Jungle where a strong sense of hearing is more important than keen sight. Why did they loose this directional hearing trait along with man the evolved in developed societies? Hell I'd imagine a tail would still be handy in some environments

Because even in these primitive cultures men use their thought process more than their hearing ability to survive.  It became more important to use tools, speak, and work in coordinated groups in order to survive than to just rely on good hearing.

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2016, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because even in these primitive cultures men use their thought process more than their hearing ability to survive.  It became more important to use tools, speak, and work in coordinated groups in order to survive than to just rely on good hearing.

So the standard answer is: "They don't really need it"? Lions hunt in packs and work in coordinated groups.

[GMDino]

(03-20-2016, 11:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I am talking about man that lives in the bush and Jungle where a strong sense of hearing is more important than keen sight. Why did they loose this directional hearing trait along with man the evolved in developed societies? Hell I'd imagine a tail would still be handy in some environments

Well, again that might take a study.  But it is totally within the realm of possibility and science that those people DO have better hearing.

But again there may be no need for the ability to move their ears due to the shape and function of the human ear.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Lions hunt in packs and work in coordinated groups.

And they get killed by people who can not move their ears.

[GMDino]

(03-20-2016, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And they get killed by people who can not move their ears.

[jfkbengals]

(03-20-2016, 12:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the standard answer is: "They don't really need it"? Lions hunt in packs and work in coordinated groups.

As do humans...




Suppose, if you will, that the human body and brain are at the maximum that can be processed between voluntary muscle movement, involuntary actions (heart beat, etc.), and reasoning at the same instant.

We could add moving our ears back into the equation, but would have to remove something else in order to do so.  Would we want to remove the muscles around our eyes and have to move our whole heads, like an owl, in order to see things?

As it stands now, my brain can deduce the source of a sound spatially without turning either my ears or my head, so I'd prefer to be able to rotate my eyes to increase my visual acuity.

What about dropping the opposable thumbs and going back to 5 fingers that move along the same path?  I think that would be a bad idea.

There is honestly not one function of my body that I would give up to allow having ears that can rotate.  In essence, you were correct.  We don't need them.

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2016, 02:29 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: There is honestly not one function of my body that I would give up to allow having ears that can rotate.  In essence, you were correct.  We don't need them.

First of all, it is a large assumption to suggest we use 100% of our brains, Of Course we don't use only 10% as portrayed in movies, but the are studies that show redundancy in many parts off our brain.

Secondly the retort remains unchanged. You suggest you don't need it because you live in a environment that makes this feature not very essential to your survival. This is not true for all humans; yet all humans evolved out of this trait. If you lived in such an environment would you give up your ability to enjoy poetry in favor of enhanced hearing?  

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2016, 01:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And they get killed by people who can not move their ears.

..and man gets killed by them as well. I'm not sure what your point is other that man survives due to his ability to reason. Nothing explains why someone that lives in an environment where directional hearing would be beneficial lost this ability, so that they could solve algebra. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(03-20-2016, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and man gets killed by them as well. I'm not sure what your point is other that man survives due to his ability to reason. Nothing explains why someone that lives in an environment where directional hearing would be beneficial lost this ability, so that they could solve algebra. 

Natural selection. Maybe the ones with the ability to move their ears were more primative and less smart. When it came time to fight for breeding rights the ones who picked up a rock or stick and beat that ass got the woman. Or if the females had a choice maybe they preferred the ones without the weird ears.

There are random mutations in many different species. A little bit of radiation from the sun can change DNA. If the mutation is beneficial there is a better chance it gets passed on. Or maybe it could be a weird mutation that serves no purpose but it gets passed on anyway.


 

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 03:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ..and man gets killed by them as well. I'm not sure what your point is other that man survives due to his ability to reason. Nothing explains why someone that lives in an environment where directional hearing would be beneficial lost this ability, so that they could solve algebra. 

There are physiological limits to the size of the human brain.  It has to do with everything from cooling to the size of the birth canal.  

Our cognitive reasoning portions of the brain are huge.  If we were to be dependent on directional hearing that would take up more brain power and take away from other abilities.

Over time the men who were smarter survived more often than they guys who depended on moving ears.

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2016, 05:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There are physiological limits to the size of the human brain.  It has to do with everything from cooling to the size of the birth canal.  

Our cognitive reasoning portions of the brain are huge.  If we were to be dependent on directional hearing that would take up more brain power and take away from other abilities.

Over time the men who were smarter survived more often than they guys who depended on moving ears.

But the article suggested our brain still triggers us to move the ears. They just aren't there anymore. So by the article it has nothing to do with the limitations of the brain. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-20-2016, 04:12 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Natural selection. Maybe the ones with the ability to move their ears were more primative and less smart. When it came time to fight for breeding rights the ones who picked up a rock or stick and beat that ass got the woman. Or if the females had a choice maybe they preferred the ones without the weird ears.

There are random mutations in many different species. A little bit of radiation from the sun can change DNA. If the mutation is beneficial there is a better chance it gets passed on. Or maybe it could be a weird mutation that serves no purpose but it gets passed on anyway.


 

So you are saying a smarter species of man made extinct a directional eared species of man; Not that man evolved out of directional ears?

[Sovereign Nation]

Blast from the past:

I don't think humans are related to primates....

Other than the guy who corrected me can anyone else name him? He goes by a new name on this board.

As to the OP. I don't see this as proof of anything. Bfine is bringing up a very solid point of how even though we humans have lived all over the world in different environments we have all "evolved" the same.

[GMDino]

(03-20-2016, 06:20 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Blast from the past:

I don't think humans are related to primates....

Other than the guy who corrected me can anyone else name him?  He goes by a new name on this board.

As to the OP.  I don't see this as proof of anything.  Bfine is bringing up a very solid point of how even though we humans have lived all over the world in different environments we have all "evolved" the same.

And I showed an scientific example of how we have not "all evolved the same".

Your belief =/= facts.  Sorry.

[Sovereign Nation]

(03-20-2016, 06:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I showed an scientific example of how we have not "all evolved the same".

Your belief =/= facts.  Sorry.

Why be sorry?

Your belief =/= facts either.  So no need to be sorry.

Your video shows examples?  Must of missed them.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 05:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But the article suggested our brain still triggers us to move the ears. They just aren't there anymore. So by the article it has nothing to do with the limitations of the brain. 

In order for the signal to be strong enough there would need to be more of the brain used.  The simple signal to move the ears is not all that is required.  There needs to be additional brain space used to analyze the information based on the moving ears.

If you want to have a serious discussion on this why not go do a little research on the difference between human and animal brains.  I get kind of tired of being your teacher.  Or perhaps you could ask some more legit questions.

[GMDino]

(03-20-2016, 06:41 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Why be sorry?

Your belief =/= facts either.  So no need to be sorry.

Your video shows examples?  Must of missed them.

...sigh...

I shared a link in response to one of Larry's question.  Feel free to read and educated yourself on it.


We share an ancient ancestor.  I suppose that can be spun into "we did not evolve from primates" but not "we are not related to primates".

We are.

But I'm sure you have lots of proof that we are not that you will share.

Have fun with that.

[fredtoast]

(03-20-2016, 06:20 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: even though we humans have lived all over the world in different environments we have all "evolved" the same.

If we are all "the same" then why are you so obsessed with preserving the purity of the white race?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2016, 06:20 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Blast from the past:

I don't think humans are related to primates....

Hahaha, this is indisputable fact.  You said this on the old board and it was just as intellectually contemptible then.  It's like saying that water isn't composed of hydrogen and oxygen.  

Quote:Other than the guy who corrected me can anyone else name him?  He goes by a new name on this board.

As to the OP.  I don't see this as proof of anything.  Bfine is bringing up a very solid point of how even though we humans have lived all over the world in different environments we have all "evolved" the same.

I'll play, I've got some time to kill before dinner.  We didn't all "evolve" the same.  Why are their ethnic differences?  Why are Sub-Saharan Africans dark skinned with curly hair?  Why are "Oriental" Asians of different appearance than Asians of Indian or Arabic descent?  Why are Caucasians the only ethnicity that routinely exhibit eye colors other than brown and hair colors other than black?  Why do American Indians have different ethnic features than Aboriginal Australians?  The evidence of genetic difference is visually apparent, yet all of these ethnic groups can "interbreed" and produce viable offspring.  

You stated that we all "evolved the same" when the differences couldn't be more visually apparent.  You essentially provided the point that defeats your own argument.  No mean feat.