Questions about Evolution (yoinked from different thread...)

midlandsmissus

Mod Note:
Evolution questions (and more) moved from Beruthial's 'dilemma' thread.
Dades


Also, and I'm not being smart, these are questions I would like to hear view points on:

Why do we still have an appendix?

Why do we not have fur? - We are not suitbale to our climate

Why do women have periods? Evolution is supposed to be bettering traits that aid survival. Bleeding copius amounts for five days would attract predators no? Also, could the womb lining not just build up WHEN the egg is fertilised, is seems SO badly organised the way it is!

Why are so many born with serious defects, when evolution is meant to mean that genes which hinder survival become rarer?

Why is childbirth so dangerous, it would result in alot of deaths if not for the medical intervention we have now? Evolution is meant to ensure strength of reproduction.

Thanks!

robindch

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do we still have an appendix?

Coz appendices don't really influence our reproductive success one way or the other (though some research suggests it might).

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do we not have fur?

Coz we evolved in the tropics and haven't had time to develop fur. In its absence, we kill wolves, mammoths or create nylon instead.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why do women have periods?

Some biologists suggest that it's more energy efficient to keep up a cycle of dispose and regrow, rather than to maintain a continuously ready (or quick-start-ready) endometrium. Still an open question, but the answer has nothing to do with predators.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why are so many born with serious defects, when evolution is meant to mean that genes which hinder survival become rarer?

Actually, very few are born with serious defects -- I think the figure is something like one in a thousand.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is childbirth so dangerous, it would result in alot of deaths if not for the medical intervention we have now? Evolution is meant to ensure strength of reproduction.

Up to very recently it did result in a lot of deaths (maternal death is almost unheard of now in this country, though it's still around 2% per child in places like Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and others (see here). While infant mortality, on the other hand, has declined to around 3 per thousand, from around ten times that fifty years ago (see here).

Evolution doesn't care whether lots of mums and kids die, so long as a sufficient number don't. See r/K selection theory for more details on the grisly calculus of different reproductive strategies.

midlandsmissus

robindch wrote: »

Coz appendices don't really influence our reproductive success one way or the other (though some research suggests it might)

.Coz we evolved in the tropics and haven't had time to develop fur. In its absence, we kill wolves, mammoths or create nylon instead.

Haven't had time? How long should it take? How come nearly all other species have fur, (adapting to their environment), except for us?


Some biologists suggest that it's more energy efficient to keep up a cycle of dispose and regrow, rather than to maintain a continuously ready (or quick-start-ready) endometrium. Still an open question, but the answer has nothing to do with predators.

How can dispose and regrow even possibly consume less energy, than an endometrium that would say change say 3 - 4 times over a lifetime to accomodate a fertilised egg?

Also I'm sure as a man you can't realise possibly how much a woman bleeds. Without pads etc. there would literally be a river of blood running down my legs for 5 days. To evolution, how can this possibly be good for survival? E.g. if I was out in nature, Hmm I'm leaving a trail of blood behind me...?

Actually, very few are born with serious defects -- I think the figure is something like one in a thousand.

Why have genes not evolved so far to say, wipe out the possibility of down syndrome?

Up to very recently it did result in a lot of deaths (maternal death is almost unheard of now in this country, though it's still around 2% per child in places like Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and others (see here[/url). While infant mortality, on the other hand, has declined to around 3 per thousand, from around ten times that fifty years ago (see here).

Maternal death is unheard of now in this country due to advances in medicine, not advances in evolution.

Evolution doesn't care whether lots of mums and kids die, so long as a sufficient number don't. See r/K selection theory for more details on the grisly calculus of different reproductive strategies.

Really? But why design it that way in the first place? Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Haven't had time? How long should it take? How come nearly all other species have fur, (adapting to their environment), except for us?

We evolved away from fur because we lived in a hot area. Then some of us migrated to colder climates but by then we had the ability to make clothing from furs and construct shelter so we never needed to grow it back.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Also I'm sure as a man you can't realise possibly how much a woman bleeds. Without pads etc. there would literally be a river of blood running down my legs for 5 days. To evolution, how can this possibly be good for survival? E.g. if I was out in nature, Hmm I'm leaving a trail of blood behind me...?

Women lose a few tablespoons of blood during a normal period, at most. What some people presume is blood is tissue and fluid and this amounts to a maximum of 40-30ml a day on the heaviest days. 100-150mls of fluid would make up an entire period, including pieces of tissue.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

We evolved away from fur because we lived in a hot area. Then some of us migrated to colder climates but by then we had the ability to make clothing from furs and construct shelter so we never needed to grow it back.

So if because, our use of clothes to fend off the cold is the reason we don't grow fur, why did we lose fur in a hot climate, when we presumably used cold drinks,and cold baths to cool ourselves down? We evolved in one climate and not the other?



Women lose a few tablespoons of blood during a normal period, at most. What some people presume is blood is tissue and fluid and this amounts to a maximum of 40-30ml a day on the heaviest days. 100-150mls of fluid would make up an entire period, including pieces of tissue.

I'm not saying I presume it's all blood. I do know the above, as every woman does. It's not relevant in this context. There would be a mixture including blood, tissue and fluid, for 5 days.

Your last part is relevant as we are talking about quantity.

Where are you quoting that last figure from? It's laughable. It would have to be an average found in some study, at best. A study on how many women? How can it aply to all women so?
Definitely not correct in my case and in alot of other girls I know' cases. One girl at work told me she soaks through three pads in an hour on her period. 150mls total, really?

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I think it's a very good question. Why would a common ancestor evolve into both apes and humans, when it could have just evolved into humans?

There seems to be some misunderstanding here in regards to evolution. You describe it in a manner which leads me to believe you imagine there is some authorship or plan for evolution.

Supported by your next post.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Evolution is supposed to...
evolution is meant to...
Evolution is meant to...

Thanks!

Evolution is supposed to or meant to do nothing.

If some creator was guiding the process of evolution then, yes, a lot of biological traits, speciations... etc would probably make more sense from a design point of view. But as evolution isn't guided or controlled we are left with a lot of useless vestigial structures, inefficient legacy traits... etc. Unlike a human designer, evolution has no foresight.

Also, why is there still Monkeys? Come on, you can answer that for yourself.

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Really? But why design it that way in the first place? Why is there still an extreme amount of pain, when over the years scientific advances such as epidurals, should tell nature that pain is not needed in childbirth and is a hindrance?

Wait....wait....are you questioning evolution or intelligent design? All your questions seem to be saying "it's not a very good design then, is it?" You're right. It's not. It's not a design at all.

midlandsmissus

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

There seems to be some misunderstanding here in regards to evolution. You describe it in a manner which leads me to believe you imagine there is some authorship or plan for evolution.

Supported by your next post.



Evolution is supposed to or meant to do nothing.

If some creator was guiding the process of evolution then, yes, a lot of biological traits, speciations... etc would probably make more sense from a design point of view. But as evolution isn't guided or controlled we are left with a lot of useless vestigial structures, inefficient legacy traits... etc. Unlike a human designer, evolution has no foresight.

Also, why is there still Monkeys? Come on, you can answer that for yourself.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I see from this thread that people get annoyed to hear the "why do apes still exist so" question, but surely you should be happy to hear people asking questions? How else are you meant to learn except for asking questions?

I don't think there's meant to be a plan for evolution. I just don't understand. I thought evolution was about adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, and devoloping for the better.


"Why is there still apes"...hmm well for me to better try and figure out an answer for this, you'll have to tell me wht climate and location was our common ancestor meant to have been in?

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Where are you quoting that last figure from? It's laughable. It would have to be an average found in some study, at best. A study on how many women? How can it aply to all women so?
Definitely not correct in my case and in alot of other girls I know' cases. One girl at work told me she soaks through three pads in an hour on her period. 150mls total, really?

When you use a pad you have no idea whatsoever how much fluid you pass. Try using a Mooncup. It holds 15ml and only needs to be changed every 12 hours. Even on your heaviest day you won't fill it 3 times. (If you are losing more than that you need to see a doctor - urgently.) After the heaviest time you will barely fill 1 cup a day. If you fill more than 10 cups in one period you have a medical problem, so yes seriously, no more than 150ml in one period.

midlandsmissus

strobe wrote: »

Wait....wait....are you questioning evolution or intelligent design? All your questions seem to be saying "it's not a very good design then, is it?" You're right. It's not. It's not a design at all.

Alright I should have phrased it - why is it still that crappy system then?

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

When you use a pad you have no idea whatsoever how much fluid you pass. Try using a Mooncup. It holds 15ml and only needs to be changed every 12 hours. Even on your heaviest day you won't fill it 3 times. (If you are losing more than that you need to see a doctor - urgently.) After the heaviest time you will barely fill 1 cup a day. If you fill more than 10 cups in one period you have a medical problem, so yes seriously, no more than 150ml in one period.

I'm sorry iguana but you are wrong in my case and several other cases. I HAVE been to see the doctor, as they have they, and we were just told that they were "heavy periods", and were "common".

It's frightening the amount I bleed. For example if I get my period over night and I'm not expecting it, the sheets will be saturated. Again, my doctor told me alot of women just have extremely heavy periods.

I guess it's alot easier to accept evolution as a man, when I as a woman, just wonder why so many random unneccesary cruelties are inflicted on women.

ColmDawson

It's important to remember that evolution is not to be expected to have made us into some perfect species. Only traits that make us more likely to reproduce will be taken on. After reproduction, evolution 'doesn't care'. As a result, it'd be completely possible for us to evolve a trait that helps us reproduce when we're young, but also makes us likely to die at sixty years old instead of eighty.

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I guess it's alot easier to accept evolution as a man,

Please don't presume to speak for women. I've been having periods for half of my life, I've been pregnant, I've miscarried, and none of that has made me question evolution even slightly.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm sorry iguana but you are wrong in my case and several other cases. I HAVE been to see the doctor, as they have they, and we were just told that they were "heavy periods", and were "common".

It's frightening the amount I bleed. For example if I get my period over night and I'm not expecting it, the sheets will be saturated. Again, my doctor told me alot of women just have extremely heavy periods.

Find a better doctor and insist on being taken seriously. You are being fobbed off, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO LOSE SO MUCH FLUID MONTHLY. It could be symptomatic of a bigger problem and needs to be investigated. It could easily be something as simple as a hormone imbalance which can be corrected with the correct birth control pill or it could possibly be more serious but you won't know until you have it properly investigated.

A lot of doctors fob women off when they have problems with their periods, it's a backward attitude but sadly very common. Don't take "it's normal" as an answer as what you describe is not. At the very least you should think about getting a mooncup and measuring what you lose each month and what way you lose it (ie, all on certain days - consistently over the week). If you are losing more than 150-200ml get a doctor to run the proper tests. (Try reading this article, obviously you can't know what is wrong from that but it might give you some information you can arm yourself with before going back to your doctor. http://womenshealth.about.com/od/abnormalbleeding/a/causemenorrhagi.htm )

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Alright I should have phrased it - why is it still that crappy system then?

What's crappy about it? Mammals haven't gone extinct yet. Job done as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution isn't magic. It can't do anything just for convenience sake. Passing a little human out of your body is going to hurt. But unless it prevents new humans being born, evolution will have no effect whatsoever on it. It just doesn't work like that.

Here's a really straight forward and easy to understand explanation of evolution, if you are interested.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution.htm

iguana

ColmDawson wrote: »

As a result, it'd be completely possible for us to evolve a trait that helps us reproduce when we're young, but also makes us likely to die at sixty years old instead of eighty.

In fact there aren't there only three species which have a significant lifespan after childbearing age. Humans and two types of whale, Killer and Pilot.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

Please don't presume to speak for women. I've been having periods for half of my life, I've been pregnant, I've miscarried, and none of that has made me question evolution even slightly.



Find a better doctor and insist on being taken seriously. You are being fobbed off, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO LOSE SO MUCH FLUID MONTHLY. It could be symptomatic of a bigger problem and needs to be investigated. It could easily be something as simple as a hormone imbalance which can be corrected with the correct birth control pill or it could possibly be more serious but you won't know until you have it properly investigated.

A lot of doctors fob women off when they have problems with their periods, it's a backward attitude but sadly very common. Don't take "it's normal" as an answer as what you describe is not. At the very least you should think about getting a mooncup and measuring what you lose each month and what way you lose it (ie, all on certain days - consistently over the week). If you are losing more than 150-200ml get a doctor to run the proper tests.

But Iguana they did send me for tests and found nothing wrong. I'm just wondering how do you know it is not normal? Because I know a girl at work who is the exact same as me, has been for all the ultrasound tests, and again nothing is wrong.

I would say what you have said to me back to you, "please don't presume to speak for women", when determining what is normal and what is not for periods.

How would you know? From my own experience women vary drastically, some have very heavy and some have very light periods.

midlandsmissus

strobe wrote: »

What's crappy about it? Mammals haven't gone extinct yet. Job done as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution isn't magic. It can't do anything just for convenience sake. Passing a little human out of your body is going to hurt. But unless it prevents new humans being born, evolution will have no effect whatsoever on it. It just doesn't work like that.

Here's a really straight forward and easy to understand explanation of evolution, if you are interested.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Would you explain to me more about intelligent design? I just always seem to be thinking "why the hell is it this way, it all seems so cruel, badly organised and inefficient". It actually really frustrates me, mainly aspects to do with being a woman.

E.g. why do we have a hymen? More pain for us?

Goduznt Xzst

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I thought evolution was about adapting to environment, survival of the fittest, and devoloping for the better.

But "better" is subjective. If a creature survives that is all that matters. If it lives a life of torturous pain and agony, but manages to easily survive and procreate then it will probably stay that way for a long time.

Even if 90% of that species dies with each successive generation, the species may still never change.

Evolution doesn't care how well you survive, or how efficiently you survive, these are human requirements. You either survive or you don't. Adapt or don't.

Monkeys still exist because our common ancestors didn't all reside in one large group and undergo the same conditions. Some evolved down a path that eventual led to their extinction, some evolved to better suit a life in a treed environment, others evolved to better suit a life in a plain/savannah environment (the lineage that led to us) even then, it is hypothesized, that our brains only developed to it's current abilities due to being put under constant stress from frequent and sudden climate change. These conditions could easily of killed us off and we could of went the way of the neanderthals, but we adapted and survived.

midlandsmissus

iguana wrote: »

Please don't presume to speak for women. I've been having periods for half of my life, I've been pregnant, I've miscarried, and none of that has made me question evolution even slightly.



Find a better doctor and insist on being taken seriously. You are being fobbed off, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO LOSE SO MUCH FLUID MONTHLY. It could be symptomatic of a bigger problem and needs to be investigated. It could easily be something as simple as a hormone imbalance which can be corrected with the correct birth control pill or it could possibly be more serious but you won't know until you have it properly investigated.

A lot of doctors fob women off when they have problems with their periods, it's a backward attitude but sadly very common. Don't take "it's normal" as an answer as what you describe is not. At the very least you should think about getting a mooncup and measuring what you lose each month and what way you lose it (ie, all on certain days - consistently over the week). If you are losing more than 150-200ml get a doctor to run the proper tests. (Try reading this article, obviously you can't know what is wrong from that but it might give you some information you can arm yourself with before going back to your doctor. http://womenshealth.about.com/od/abnormalbleeding/a/causemenorrhagi.htm )

ps. I'm sorry to hear about your miscarriage.

Galvasean

Didn't go out of my way to explain to you about our common ancestor in that After Hours thread?
Didn't I post a link on your profile to make sure you wouldn't miss it?
Didn't I say feel free to ask more questions?

*sob*

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't go out of my way to explain to you about our common ancestor in that After Hours thread?
Didn't I post a link on your profile to make sure you wouldn't miss it?
Didn't I say feel free to ask more questions?

*sob*

You must forgive me, I actually forgot until theis thread reared it's head!

Thanks for the effort.

/goes off to read link now

Galvasean

Speaking of Attenbourough, his new series First Life (which chronicles the earliest stages of life on Earth - might be beneficial to the OP) is doing the rounds on TV at the moment. You can buy the DVD and (hardcover, fully illustrated) book on Amazon for about €30, which is agreat deal because the book alone is €27 in Eason.

iguana

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I'm sorry iguana but you are wrong in my case and several other cases. I HAVE been to see the doctor, as they have they, and we were just told that they were "heavy periods", and were "common".

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But Iguana they did send me for tests and found nothing wrong. I'm just wondering how do you know it is not normal?

Which one is the lie?:rolleyes:

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would say what you have said to me back to you, "please don't presume to speak for women", when determining what is normal and what is not for periods.

There is a big difference between claiming that having periods makes women ridiculously foolish about science and biology and knowing what is a normal amount of fluid to pass during a period and that passing more than that is very possibly a problem.

ETA; My period is 120-150ml at the moment. That is actually considered heavy, 80-100ml is normal. the reason why a period heavier than 150ml is likely to be a symptom of a problem is that the vast majority of our uterine lining and tissue is reabsorbed back into the body. If your period is heavier than that it means you aren't reabsorbing the tissue you should be. The reason why humans have a "bleed" is most likely because our foetuses require so much lining our bodies can't reabsorb it all so we get rid of the excess. I'm not kidding, I'm not trying to be smart or sarky or to freak you out. If you are losing as much as you think you are it is unlikely that there isn't something causing that excess loss. And that something should be diagnosed and treated. And doctors in this country are notorious for not taking menstrual issues seriously. On the otherhand many women believe they are excessively heavy until they start using a menstrual cup and actually see what they lose and are surprised at how little it really is.

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You must forgive me, I actually forgot until theis thread reared it's head!

Thanks for the effort.

/goes off to read link now

Yay!

If you've any follow ups might as well post 'em here. Think that After Hours thread is dead n' buried.

strobe

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Would you explain to me more about intelligent design? I just always seem to be thinking "why the hell is it this way, it all seems so cruel, badly organised and inefficient". It actually really frustrates me, mainly aspects to do with being a woman.

E.g. why do we have a hymen? More pain for us?

Yeah well, what I was getting at was, the fact that is seems so "badly organised and inefficient" would be an argument against life being designed (intelligently by an omnipotent being) rather than an argument against it having evolved, which is just a series of accidents that work, or sometimes don't, pretty much. If the accidents that work either don't interfere with you reproducing or improve the chance of you reproducing then there will be more of those genes around because you will have more kids and so they will pass them on to more of their own kids. If they do interfere with the chance of you reproducing then those genes are less likely to get passed on through reproduction, obviously, so a lot of the time will disappear from the gene pool.

Why would a creator (particularly and omnipotent one) design these things that either offer no advantage or even provide a disadvantage? Would anyone design a car with too much weight on the right side if they knew it would make it crash more often?

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't go out of my way to explain to you about our common ancestor in that After Hours thread?
Didn't I post a link on your profile to make sure you wouldn't miss it?
Didn't I say feel free to ask more questions?

*sob*

Would you believe I did actually miss that on the thread altogether, it was that fast moving.

Thanks for a nice detailed answer.

What other species have common ancestors?

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

What other species have common ancestors?

well, it could well be the case that every species has the same common ancestor if you go back far enough.

A quick example, all modern birds' (everything from sparrows to ostriches to penguons) common ancestor is Archaeopteryx, or at the very least something very much like it.

Not sure if that's the sort of example you're looking for?

midlandsmissus

Thank you Iguana, After your edit, I can see you are trying to be helpful, I can assure you I have had tests though. Nothing was found to be wrong after an ultrasound.

I was getting periods every 2 weeks for a stage in my teens aswell, and they just put me on the pill for it. Maybe you're right and they just don't take it very seriously in this country. Maybe I should go back.

P.S Galvasean haha, girly things and dinosaurs in the same thread, what a thread!

Galvasean

Less talk about private girly stuff, MOAR monkies and dinosaurs! :pac:

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

well, it could well be the case that every species has the same common ancestor if you go back far enough.

A quick example, all modern birds' (everything from sparrows to ostriches to penguons) common ancestor is Archaeopteryx, or at the very least something very much like it.

Not sure if that's the sort of example you're looking for?

So is it that everyhing develops differently really due to it's environment? I can't think of the right questions to ask. Can you just tell me some other usefull things about evolution?

iguana

strobe wrote: »

Why would a creator (particularly and omnipotent one) design these things that either offer no advantage or even provide a disadvantage? Would anyone design a car with too much weight on the right side if they knew it would make it crash more often?

To punish us for that greedy, disobedient Eve woman who's apple eating was so heinous all her female descendants must suffer.:(