BumFluff

recently, can't remember what site I read it on, but there was an article concernign some recent findings about the evolution of eyes and some fossils they have discovered.

I'd completely agree that clothing did have some sort of effect on ancient man to have lost their fur but I highly doubt it was the precursor to it. Most likely man began losing his fur, began moving northward where it is cooler and clothing use began to increase (or perhaps began spending most of their time in lakes and rivers to cool down?). However I personally believe that overheating of the body due to the change of environment in that area was the major change that lead to it. Actually they could all have occurred simultaneously. I think the question to ask at this point is 'why were they overheating?'. I'm fairly certain that the climate change wouldn't have been the only reason because, as you said, there are still animals in that area that have fur covering their body even today. Most likely a lifestyle change occurred at the same time. Now what kind of lifestyle change would have to occur to a creature to have such a vast effect, most likely due to the change in climate?

Desertification has well been known to be occuring in Africa for some time. News Search for Desertification of Africa and recent evidence, though I can't recall where I read it, supports the theory that ancient man lived on the border between the jungle environment and the desert environment.

I doubt that the wearing of clothing would be the only reason why man's ancestors lost their fur. I believe it has been stated earlier in this thread that the further north you go the more clothing people wear. Heck near the equator the woman and men are almost naked even today. Do you think that a animal covered in fur would even consider wearing some sort of coat? They would easily overheat.

That's a good point. However regardless if we lost our hair because of AAH or we lost it due to cooling we would still need to carry the water with us or migrate to where the water was. That's why I think that our ancestors were nomadic. They scavenged and hunted for food, storing which they could, until they had to move on when the water sources began to dry up and the desert began to overtake them. Why would man have lost their hair because they were partly aquatic and what prompted them to become partly aquatic? Why would we have lost that aquatic ability? The only reasons I could think of why man would become partly aquatic is to get food, fishing without rods, or to get away from predators.

If they went through the same environmental evolutionary trends then yeah I think we do. I highly doubt that if an evolutionary change occurred in one small portion of a population that it wouldn't spread to other members of exactly the same population. I believe that is one of the foundations of the evolutionary theory. Therefore they must have been in different populations more likely in different types of environments.

I'm trying to understand what theories could lead to man becoming bipedal and apes not to. Every theory I've read does in no way describe why one group became bipedal and the other didn't. One of the major contributing factors, in my opinion and as stated above, is that desertification at that time attributed to it significantly.

And that is exactly what I said. But what environmental factors would cause one group to become bipedal while the other not to?

You seem to be saying that bipedalism grew of chance. No I don't believe evolution has an all out purpose. Evolution doesn't work to achieve an ultimate goal. It works as with little evolutionary steps through sexual, natural or ecological selection. Bipedalism took a long time to occur, it didn't occur overnight. You misunderstand what I'm saying. What I am saying is that, because of the environmental impact, our ancestors needed to adapt to their surroundings which would eventually lead to bipedalism. Desertification of Africa didn't occur overnight. There wasn't some great God in the sky that said "Let it be!". It took a long long time and humans were adapting to this over a long period of time. The local optimization functions are the reason, in the theory I posted, why one group remained apes and the other group evolved into humans. I've been reading theory after theory of why bipedalism occurred in humans but I have not read anything stating why one group of ancestor evolved one way while the other evolved the other way. What do you propose is the 'correct' theory of why this occurred?

I don't know why we continue to argue about this. I have stated that comparing mans ancestors of yesteryear, after the separation of man and apes, are in no means comparable to the apes of today. They went through different evolutionary trends. Which is pretty factual if we in fact did come from one common ancestor, as I believe. Stating that there is no way that ancient man would want to carry food to their place of residence because the apes of today don't is like saying all our mammalian ancestors must have run and jumped off cliffs to their deaths because lemurs do it today. I've also explained why this separation took place in my opinion. Because of their different areas of habitation.

I completely agree that pre-human intelligence was, most likely, perfectly capable of making clothing. What do you think is more likely though: Prehistoric man began wearing clothing because they were cold and wanted to stay warm or prehistoric man began wearing clothing as a means of showing their rank in society much as Darwin's savages did. Do you think that clothing came before or after man became bipedal? And where does bipedalism fit into the evolution from ancestor to man? I think it comes from me surfing so many forums and arguing again and again why there are still monkeys around today. It's just one of my pet peeves that has grown stronger and stronger with each argument I have with someone stating the contrary. However what I was trying to get at with my original argument of "we are not apes" was that we are not directly linked to modern apes. They are not in the same line of lineage as us and they went through different evolutionary trends than modern man did. Arguing that modern apes do not carry food in their hands today is in no way proof that ancient man, after being separated from prehistoric ape, did not carry food in their hands as a means of storage. My argument is that ancient man separated from apes because apes lived in an area that didn't go through desertification at that time while ancient man did, then forcing them to forage and scavenge for food which then forced them to become bipedal. something prehistoric apes didn't have to do.

I am aware that he didn't say in his posts directly that we are descended from apes however it was what was implied than as is what you are implying now. I am not religious. I am aware that man and apes are of the same family. However continuing to say that 'man descended from apes' drives the theists to continue to ask the argument later in your post. I think it better to state 'Man and apes are descendants of the same ancestor' than say 'man descended from apes' because as long as we continue with this statement the longer the ignorance of the statement will continue to effect those that are unknowledgable on the subject and they will continue to ask, out of ignorance, 'If we are descended from monkeys why are there still monkeys?'

I enjoy reading astronomy magazine and a few others. Basically if I see a science magazine at the store I'll usually get it regardless of what it's called. One website that I have not seen mentioned here yet is physorg.com Much the same as sciencedaily but with several different stories and different takes on those stories.

We are not descended from apes. We descended from the same ancestor as apes have. (Which I am sure you are aware of since I have been reading this forum for quite some time now.) If the food sources were beginning to dry up due to desertification and less vegetation you don't think that early man, with his superior knowledge, would have stored some away to eat later much as mammals of lesser intelligence are doing even today? I'm aware the hairlessness part isn't knew. I actually have been reading many websites on this topic and the hairless loss due to cooling is the most accepted throughout. Another belief I have is that ancient man began wearing clothes, not because he wanted warmth, but because it was more of a status symbol. When traveling in packs one of the members of that pack would be the leader and they would be wearing the clothing or markings to signify as such. Eventually, as it began getting colder, man began wearing more clothing to keep warm. Archeological discoveries dealing with clothing turned up first I believe at most 10,000 years ago. (As I believe has been stated earlier in this thread or in another dealing with much the same thing.) However I do believe that man has been wearing clothing for quite a lot longer than that.

I actually made a post on anopther site the other day dealing with this exact thing. I actually might have got the original idea from this website. Here it is: "I've recently been thinking about this a lot recently and have come up with a likely scenario that lead towards the separation from man and apes. Recent geological evidence has shown that millions of years ago Africa began turning from a lush jungle area to a desert climate through desertification and that areas between different jungle environments were separated by vast stretches of savanna. It is my belief (Although I'm fairly certain this has been proposed before) that our ancient mammalian ancestors lived on the borders of these jungle/savanna wildernesses. To forage and hunt for food they needed to travel outside of the safety of the jungle, both armed with weapons such as sticks or clubs and in packs, to gather what they needed. Having a weapon in one hand and a pile of food in the other didn't really allow for movement on all fours. They needed to walk bipedally back to the safety of the jungle. Eventually their bipedalism grew enabling them to carry more food as well as enabling them to protect themselves better. With bipedalism becoming more common it allowed our ancestors to free up their hands which would then provide them the means of more tool use, better tools and subsequently bigger brains. The question of how we lost our body hair is one that I agree with the experts on. We lost it because with the more active lifestyle of foraging and hunting for food on the savanna caused our ancestors to overheat. When our bodies adapted to this more active lifestyle it resulted in the loss of hair as means of cooling. Why do some animals still grow hair in that part of the world you ask? My answer is that the animals that do grow hair use it as a means of protection from the Sun. The animals that live in that part of the world are built for short bursts of speed in order to catch their prey (Or if they are herbivores they spend most of their time merely standing around eating plants). They wouldn't overheat they way our ancestors, who weren't built for running long distances on the savanna, did because they don't have to work as hard to travel such vast distances. The loss of body hair would lead then directly into the darkening of the flesh that formerly laid underneath the hair due to the protection of radiation from the Sun. It is a commonly held belief that the whitening of the skin for certain races occurred because of the amount of UV radiation from the sun at more northern climates. My belief is that while this is only partly true it is nowhere near the whole story. If it was merely due to UV radiation from the sun then chances are that the northern population would still be dark skinned because there would be no reason at all why the skin would become lighter. Dark skin is a better protection for radiation from the sun. Proof is in the fact that the darker skinned you are the less of a chance you have of getting cancer due to the Suns radiation and in effect less of a chance in the radiation from the Sun causing genetic alterations. On the other hand it is a well known fact that our bodies metabolize vitamin D through certain types of radiation they take in from the Sun. Dark skinned people in northern climates have a greater chance of having vitamin D deficiency because of the less direct sunlight than in equatorial climates. This is the reason why milk and other products are often fortified with vitamin D. It is my belief that human flesh began whitening because protection from the Suns radiation was not needed in more northerly climates as well as the amount of Vitamin D lighter skin could take in." I'm wondering if anyone sees any flaws in this argument?

Ceres was once known as a planet before they discovered that there was an asteroid belt. If we go by what you say Pluto should actually be the tenth planet and whatever planet this thread mentions should be the twelfth planet. Or maybe the thirteenth or fourteenth.

It shows itself in the rock. Here is a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080529141404.htm

I don't think when people say "information canot be destroyed" they were talking about information written on a piece of paper or something you thought about yesterday. I think what they are talking about is on the quantum level is it not? Regardless... everyone has a different belief in what ghosts are or what makes a ghost. One possibility I posted on another forum is perhaps all matter in a specific spot reacts to energy around it. If there is enough energy (I'm talking about the electric currents inside your brain when you think) that energy will flow and be stored in that particular form of matter. At specific times that information is played back from that particular piece of matter. Another thought I had about a year ago is this. I pictures time like a ribbon that was folded over and over ontop of itself. Every once in awhile along that ribbon it's depth lessons so much that another part of the ribbon seeps through and the matter within that ribbon of time momentarily shows itself to that ribbon whos depth lessened. Anyways I'm probably making very little sense to everyone and after reading my post I'm making very little sense to myself so I think I'll just stop here for now.

I found this section of your blurb eye opening: given the lattice of shroendingers cat

I was looking for information regarding this subject after reading this post and came across this http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_matter.html which states that baryonic matter is very different than dark matter as dark matter is also known as non-baryonic matter.

I've read that the water the was formerly on Mars had too much salinity to create life. Giving the amount of Salt in the water how low would the temperature have to fall in order for it to freeze? I know that salty water on Earth needs to fall far below the temperature of what normal unsalinated water would freeze at.

Chances are if we find life in other Solar Systems those lives would have evolved independantly. The possibility that a living organism being transported from one planet in one solar system to another planet in another solarsytem is so remote I don't even have the words to describe how remote the chances are. It has absolutely nothing to do with how often a living microbe is transported via asteroid from a planet, it has more to do with the distance between the planets and how unlikely it is that an asteroid would travel millions of miles across space only to crash into another planet orbiting some distant star and have that still living organism begin to adapt and breed in it's new surroundings. The possibilities of life originating within our solar system and being spread out, still within oru solar system is more likely but it is still a long shot.

If clues of the existence of life on the bodies within our solar system that may be able to support it besides Earth, namely under the surface of Mars and under the ice sheets of Europa, are found to support or to once have supported life I'm fairly certain that there are quite a lot more possibilities of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Until we discover what exactly makes a lifeform and under what specific conditions a lifeform can exist I think that anyone saying one way or the other is merely a guess. If life can form 4.5 billion years ago on Earth under those harsh conditions and if life can live near the heat ducts of the ocean it can survive almost anywhere. Living microbes have also been tested and have been found to be able to survive in the extreme cold of space. All animals need is some type of little shove to get going and they can easily adapt to their surroundings. To think that life couldn't evolve aside from how it evolved on Earth is just ludicrous. I'm actually reading a book right now that deals with exactly this sort of thing. It states that non-Earth like life is probably very abundant in the universe. When people speak about how there is probably very few worlds with life on it they probably mean Earth-like life.

The cyclic universe theory (big crunch) has continued to be updated as new discoveries are being made. Dark energy is thought by those that support this theory to be a type of energy that will eventually diminish and gravity will take over beginning the big crunch. Another theory, spelt something like ekpyrote, theorizes that two branes (part of string or M-theory) will eventually coalesce and the cyclic universe will begin over again.

If the universe were 4d we could still see the 3d shape of the 4d object. Taking your example a 2d person would be able to see a 3d object along the plane on whnich it exists. As that 3d object moves through the plane the 2d vision of the object would change for the viewer until it completely evaporated. The evaporation for the 2d viewer would take place when the 3d object passes completely through the 2d plane.