The undefined laws of evolution.

Alright some are going to have a fit about this one, but this is how I see it so please don’t post if you’re just going to bash. I already know I am likely just retarded ok.

First off I firmly believe in evolution, but I do not agree with many assertions that are so widely accepted. I personally think that Intelligent design fits better than beneficial mutations and natural selection, well to some extent at least.

Now I do not think that someone above is poking his finger around and guiding the development of life, but I think maybe all life contains a type of blue print which basically would contain all possible adaptations for a given environment. Basically an ameba may well contain the blue print for building a human or any other life form that has ever existed. Given the right environment and time you may well end up with an identical species etc.

I am not going to go into detail about why I feel this way other than to say, I notice some subtle things particularly some adaptations that seem to be suited to Human relationships with past predators that enable a quick and less painful death. Humans have undoubtedly had a relationship with large carnivorous cats for a long time, as such the Human throat structure seems perfectly adapted to this relationship. The human throat structure is very weak in fact I have heard from many sources that about the same force involved with squashing an aluminum can collapse a human wind pipe which will very quickly result in death. This is definitely better than being eaten alive, but seems like something that would be a little more robust using the accepted notions on evolution. There are many of these subtle relationships and the one above is just an example.

It’s just what I see in the world around me. Maybe I am retarded, but who is to say how the world is really made.

Now to the heart of the post!

I also see certain laws in place that well dictate our behavior. I am seeking your input to gather a list of these laws.

Please just humor me.

1. This has to do with the mad cow like disease that humans and other mammals will suffer from if they actively practice cannibalism and consume the brains of their own species. For example humans can consume the brains of any creature for any given amount of time and not suffer from the illness (So long as the animal consumed is not infected.). If humans engage in continued cannibalism and consume the brains of their victims they are affected by this aliment every time. The same holds true for most mammals.

So Law #1 is no cannibalism.

Can you provide any other laws like this?



[edit on 20-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

So Law #1 is no cannibalism.

Repealed.

Anyway, 'no cannibalism' isn't a 'law of evolution', it's a special case of a well-known law of survival: 'don't eat things that disagree with you.'

Originally posted by Astyanax

So Law #1 is no cannibalism.

Repealed.

Anyway, 'no cannibalism' isn't a 'law of evolution', it's a special case of a well-known law of survival: 'don't eat things that disagree with you.'

It’s an evolutionary road block.

It’s a conundrum very different from eating poison etc. Why can we eat the brains of any other creature even those closely related to us and not suffer from this ailment?

If we eat the brains from our own species we develop this ailment which is in all cases fatal. It’s like an evolutionary block, a cannibalistic species that is affected by this is doomed to extinction.

It fits well with some of those adaptations which seem to serve no purpose except to lessen suffering. Why would nature care if we suffered during death?

There are a million arguments to be made here, just read about what happens in the brain when a person is drowning. The response is submissive, and puts the victim in a pain free state of euphoria.



[edit on 20-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
It’s an evolutionary road block.

How do you reach that conclusion? Have animals that practise cannibalism stopped evolving? Do you understand what evolution means? Better look it up, just to be sure. Here's a good site.

Why can we eat the brains of any other creature even those closely related to us and not suffer from this ailment?

We can, can we? Link.

It fits well with some of those adaptations which seem to serve no purpose except to lessen suffering. Why would nature care if we suffered during death?

Can you provide an example of such an adaptation that cannot also be interpreted as having selective value to a living organism? I'd be curious to see one.

Just read about what happens in the brain when a person is drowning. The response is submissive, and puts the victim in a pain free state of euphoria.

I suppose this is what you're referring to? Just the brain going through its shutdown routine. Any feelings of contentment or wonder are just epiphenomena.

reply to post by Astyanax


Some would say yes that some higher mammals have become extinct because of cannibalism. Not all creatures are susceptible, just higher mammals.
anthropology.net...

Without going into great detail as to what many deem to be a the source of spongiform encephalopathy’s. Other mammals who have this disease can spread the disease. What’s of interest is that people and other mammals will develop this disorder simply by the continued act of cannibalism.

This was an isolated tribe not subjected to any known source of spongiform encephalopathy’s
www.organicconsumers.org...
This article is about Kuru. It is the disease the islanders suffered from and doesn’t leave a lot to the imagination.
emedicine.medscape.com...

It is said Mad Cow developed as a result of feeding sheep parts to sheep that were then used in cattle feed.
www.nytimes.com...


I have gotten some feedback about drowning from drowning victims themselves. The only real problem with the shutdown idea is that the effect is near instantaneous and occurs as soon as the lungs fill.

There are many adaptations which make the human animal unfit to survive. The very weak throat structure was just an example of a possible relationship between ancient humans and big cats that if true would serve the big cat and have no selective value for the human. I am looking for others input, I don’t purport to know any answers I just had a thought one night and I am exploring that notion.



[edit on 21-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]

Did you read your own link? The author disagrees with your hypothesis!

The rest of the information you quote is not unknown to people who pay attention to what goes on in the world. You have simply misunderstood it and are misapplying it to the argument.

I'm sorry, my friend, but this is too much like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm off.

[edit on 22/5/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Yes well your sagacity is a little out of place here anyway. I have tried to make a point not to get to involved with debating this idea. You know, a good district attorney could try and convict a ham sandwich of murder. This point could be debated all day long as could anything of this nature. This post in particular is not meant for that purpose.

I was just looking for others inputs about what may constitute an enigma of sorts. I am sure if you got over yourself a bit and realized no one is trying to disprove the accepted hypothesis you would see some yourself. You seem intelligent, and there are plenty of things that just do not make a lot of sense.

Lactase increases in the modern human. Lactase makes it possible to break down lactose. I understand that it was due to people drinking more milk, but why did this come to pass. This change was speculated to have happened over a very short time. This was not a question of natural selection. It was clearly an ingrained response.

Without really digging I cannot find the information I saw on some TV show many years ago. However it was clear that cannibalism by its self can result in cases of spongiform encephalopathy’s. Is it some kind of ingrained response?

Wisdom teeth are without a doubt a result of a smaller jaw than our ancestors. Most anyone you ask will say that we will evolve out of our wisdom teeth but I have yet to hear a good reason as to why. More and more people are being born with only two, as are those born with none. It doesn’t appear to be hereditary either, but rather it's a response to a smaller jaw.


[edit on 22-5-2009 by Donkey_Dean]