There's no such thing as Arican or Native Americans

[Gloominary]

@Pedro I Rengel

I think scientists are just curious as to why such a randomly mutating chemical as dna would have such similar traits in specimens around the globe. Why such distinct groups with such similarities? What makes dna tick?

We know, for instance, that butterflies from different regions which have had no recent sexual contact will develop the same patterns on their wings if set upon the same place for enough generations. So similarities are not necessarily of inheritance. But it’s interesting that both groups of butterfly would change the same way!

How imaginable is it that two seperate genealogical lines would develop near hairless arms and feet and etc. separately? Specially in very different places? But these are the kinds of good questions that make for interesting science. The questions are far more pivotal than delluded scientists think.

I think the same goes for creation myths. It is an attempt to understand similarities between people that left to their own devices might easily kill and even torture eachother. There seems to be no direct explanation as to why they are similar or should cooperate in any way.

The Africa theory presents some interesting possibilities. For instance, after maybe hundreds of thousands of years of evolution in the same place with the same evolving lines around, is it not possible that for instance the knowledge of lions or bovine is embedded in the dna? In the form maybe of reaction types that affect the imagination, say?

Also Africa theory makes an interesting case for why we walk more instinctually than run. Why roaming does our souls good. Plainsmen at heart?

Nice post, it raises important questions.
If evolution is due to random mutations in DNA + natural selection, why do we see the same intraspecies and interspecies mutations independently popping up again and again?
Coincidence, or is there far more method to evolutions apparent madness than they suppose?

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

I’m still not sure what natural selection means. It doesn’t mean anything. Maybe evolution by survival makes sense. Animals and plants and other DNAs survive, but does something select them? That’s just Darwin’s Christianity kicking in.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

But animals do more than survive. If it was just survival we’d all still be bacteria, if that.

I don’t pretend to name a “law” of evolution. I just know evolution happens. And that DNA is a chemical that has reactions. Very multifarious, appearently.

Seems to be a very complex chemical. Like RNA but more.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

Mutations could be pperfectly random.

I like Dawkins because of the question he poses: what IS it that is selected?

Obviously nothing is selected and atomism is a mistake. But what is it that can be said to evolve? Life is the thing, but what is the movement? What is the dynamic of change?

Probably too big questions yet, I’m fine with call8ngbit evolution and studying its dynamics without knowing about some prime driving force.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

What is important? Is a better question. Then you’ll know what is worth knowing about evolution.

To me it is important to be healthy. So wondering how and why walking evolved can improve my understanding of such a healthy habit.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

And since I have wondered about it, other healthy options appear. Like the relationship between walking and running. The instinct to roam and the instinct to hunt or to escape.

So hunting instincts must lead to good health. And roaming ones.

For example, when I chase my dog around, I have fun and exercice my hunting instinct. She has fun and exercices her running instinct. Tho lately we have reversed it. She hunts me and I run.

Or when I track down a difficult piece of thinking.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

Or when my mind wanders, as it probably did for my plains ancestors as they roamed for hours on end.

[WendyDarling]

We know, for instance, that butterflies from different regions which have had no recent sexual contact will develop the same patterns on their wings if set upon the same place for enough generations. So similarities are not necessarily of inheritance. But it’s interesting that both groups of butterfly would change the same way!

What they eat there could have something to do with how they look, I sure know eating affects how we look.

[Pedro_I_Rengel (PZR)]

Well maybe, but if so only in a roundabout way. It is not individual butterflies on whic the patterns on the wings change, but rather each new generation of butterfly has a slightly different pattern, the ones that reproduce anyway, until only a specific pattern, different from the immigrant ancestor butterfly, exists. The same pattern appears in descendants of different genealogies of butterfly immigrants to the same place.

[WendyDarling]

Gloominary, hopefully I will have a chance to look at your suggested link. Too busy reading studies for the transexual thread to do much else now.

[Gloominary]

@WendyDarling

Gloominary, hopefully I will have a chance to look at your suggested link. Too busy reading studies for the transexual thread to do much else now.

No worries, yea hopefully you’ll have an opportunity to check out some of his videos at some point, I think his work will really resonate with you.

[Gloominary]

Maybe there’s more convergent evolution going on than random mutations in DNA + natural selection can account for.

And abiogenesis and both Abrahamic and mechanistic renditions of ex nihilo never sat well with me either.