Evolution

Can/Does evolution explain why we can see color, and smell things like roses?

It seems to me like evolution should have made the world black and white, and odorless except for things that represent danger such as smoke from a fire.

Most things that smell good, have absolutely nothing to do with it having edible or other value. The things that smell good seem to just smell good to us for our pleasure...

Your question is false.

You either smell both, or you smell neither.

Both bring a surprise reaction. If you are in your living roomand you smellroses, you notice and think, hey, that smells nice. If you smell fire, you think about what could be the cause. If no probably cause is found, you check it out.

Color is an adaptation used to warn predators of prey that are poisonous, prey that are not poisonous mimic this attribute to survive. Bright reds and oranges yell out, eat me at your own risk! Likewise some predators want to look more dangerous by mimicking a predator higher in the food chain. To be a black and white living creature in a world full of colorful vegetation would put like putting a huge target on your back while having colors that can blend into your surroundings can help you survive one day longer to have babies.

As for smell, many predators are carnivorous and have a keen sense of smell in order to detect proximity of prey so it might seem advantageous for prey to be odorless, but what's even better is for them to smell like rotten flesh or in the case of skunks an odor foul enough to disable predators. Again, in a world full of flowers that smell delicious to invite bees to come pollinate them (an example why evolution has kept smell) animals living within it being odorless would essentially stand out more than they would blend, and lose the camouflage war.

Roses and flowers are not threatening. The good smelling seasons in my food are not threatening. Why taste and smell anything that's not a threat? There's no reason to evolve this? It is illogical, as Spock would say

illogical is insisting on an argument without looking for the answer first

flowers use scent as a signal to pollinators that the nectar/pollen is ready for "harvest" .. it seems like an efficiently evolved mechanism to me

What's the best evidence for evolution? I've been arguing with my colleague, he doesn't believe in evolution.

How da hell does he not believe in evolution? We've evolved haven't we? We evolved into monsters lol.

Color is not really there. Well....

Over billions of years eyes evolved to help travel, hunt, evade better. etc etc
Colour then came to help animals select the right plants to eat and other food to eat. This helped as many plants and animals were poison. It is the difference in knowing when some fruits are ripe to eat and so on. Being able so see in color could be a life saving benefit. Hence why the eye developed better and better as time went on.
The brain and eyes invented color. There would be no color if there was no animals with eyes to see it.

Eyes send messages to the brain when light has entered them that bounces of different objects. Different objects/particles over billions of years have been given different looks/colors by the eye and has been stored to remember. Without eyes the universe would be a colourless world.

Hope that made sense.

Make him watch that and the whole series of Cosmos a space time odesssy by Niel Degrasse Tyson.

If he is still not convinced then he is a lost cause.

Just because humans dont eat roses does not mean millions of years ago one of our common ancestors didn't eat similar plants and things. Dont get mixed up with what we can and cannot eat today but rather over what our ancestors might have eaten over the last billions of years. The eye today is a culmination of billions of years of evolution tuned to what it is today.

The video explains it quite well for people that want to get started learning about it.

When I try to watch the video I get this message:
This video contains content from FOX, who has blockied it on copyright grounds.

Going to be hard to convince anyone with that video if you can't view it....I have gone to Youtube to view it and can't seem to find that exact one...link please...as this one leads to the message above as well.

Sorry foggy.

Its episode 2 of the series.

Cosmos A space time odyssey by Neil Degrasse.

I actually uploaded the clip myself as its not on YouTube to post it here. Youtube blocked it as its copyrighted.


Here is a link to the full documentary.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2a47b2_cosmos-a-space-time-odyssey-season-01-episode-02_school


If you have time I would watch the wold thing. Its very good.

The bit about vision starts at 21 mins I think.

After having subscribed to the Theory of Evolution for many years. Took it on blind faith that it had to be true and science would eventually prove it out as undoubtedly correct and institute it as a law. I now find the theory, and those proponents of it that have already ascribed the theory above reproach and claimed it as law, to fall short of that status. Plus that blind faith of it's proponents and their exhortations that anyone who doubts it truth as scientific heretics....lmao...Smacks too much like a religion then a scentific fact. Loaded with dogma and unproven assertions made from specualtive observations.

As beautiful a theory, and as intuitively obvious as it is to lead us to the truth....I prefer to believe in it as a theory and allow for dissent. Your friend has that right to not believe in it, just as I have a right to not beleive in certain religions.

Until someone can prove evolution as fact, I'll guess I'll have to remain as Richard Dawkin's once claimed, either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. lolol....Now that sounds like a southern baptist preacher talking about non believers....especially the wicked.....Let's keep it science and not create a religion out of it.

As it is Evolution has a lot of bad press due to fraud comitted by it's proponents to prove the theory in the past. Let's not give it's critics any more fuel to be ridiculed by it's opponents.

honestly i feel that this should be moved to general discussion, as the people who are likely to come here probably agree with evolution

but let us put it this way: species change, that is why you have a tendancy to look like your parents

Look at your parents for what buddy?

This ^ It's a shame that this theory is crammed down children's s throats at an early age (in school) and passed off as being factual, when it hasn't been proven.

Yes it has. Countless of time. Has gravity been proven? We have literally observed in our own lifetime genes changing to syuit better climates and environments. Not to mention all the fossils there are that are like a google maps history book of the shit by now.

Search for human ancestor species and you will find countless of NON human humanoids and we actually put al lot of them into extinction. Evolution has well gone beyond a theory by now. The ones that dont agree that have been shown the facts just don't understand it.

[image: cf.chucklesnetwork.com]

;)

It has only gone beyond a theory because it has been forced down our throats as truth.....anyone that disputes it, even if they can scientifically prove that, by Darwins own admission that, "if anyone can show that something can't be shown to be possible by continous, gradual, implemental changes over time, then the theory will breakdown"....Which Michael Behe explores in his book "Darwin's Black Box" with his concept of "irreducible complexity" and has shown using the flagellar motor as an example of just one thing that couldn't possible have evolved by such mechanisms that Darwin proposed. It appears his argument does exactly what Darwin feared...and shows the Theory breaks down at the molecular biochemical level.

Many molecular biochemist, genetecists, mathematicians have questioned Darwinian theory only to be disregarded, ignored, and even worse, lose their positions, ridiculed, defamed, and actually told to shut up....lol...the new High Priest now wear suit and ties and sit on boards of such organizations as the National Academy of Science.

The reality is, that at best evolution has only been shown to work on a micro-evolutionary level,(dogs stay dogs, bacteria stay bugs) and the gene mutation, that possibly changed the Finch's beak to better adapt it to drought conditions...ie stronger, larger, and more appropriately shaped to open the harder seed coats to give them an advantage to survive and thrive over the other finches is still speculation at best. Using the fossil record to prove evolution as fact has not worked....as much as I'd like to believe it does prove it, I realize anyone can draw lines and speculate this went to that....bottm line is it is just that, speculation.

The reality is, evolution has been accepted because as Thomas Huxley once said (approximately) " The Theory of evolution can never be proven, but it is so much better than what we have now". Huxley was often referred to in academia as "Darwin's bulldog" because of his vigorous and strong support of Darwin to further enhance the propagation of Darwin's ideas. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what Huxley meant when he said "better than what we have now". Darwin removed the need for a Creator. He knew, and maybe I am speculating, that Darwin's theory would make atheism acceptable socially and remove God from the equation....because that is the end result of the theory of evolution.

Wake up!!! You have been socially engineered!!!! hahahahaha... If this is pissing you off to read it, and you're now feeling agitated and upset....check out the concept of cognitive dissonance...Just possibly you will have to experience a lot more before you realize you have been molded and formed your whole life by such groups as the Tavistock Institute of human relations, and many other groups that exist tied to it that direct and propagate mass propaganda to mold us into what they deem desirable...this is not a theory but a fact. Do your own research, don't trust me. Learn to use something that has been dumbed down in all of us....critical thinking skills. :)

Lasky, it has been well known that if you can control the education of a nations children, you can control that nation. They have been doing it for centuries. The education system in the U.S. has been modeled after the Prussian education system, as has most of western europe. It has been criticized by some as bing used as a tool of the state to stifle critcal thinking, and used as a tool of socializing children to be obdient and unquestioning, and controlled.

Because of the hard work of Thomas Huxley, and other proponents of Darwinian theory it has become one of the core tenets of our basic science education foundation. For good or bad, that is just the way it is, and why now when anyone questions the validity of evolution as a hard science there is so much resistance to it. Darwin never even examined the Origin of life in his theory, only the origins of species....I know it's not as simple as that, but I feel if he were alive today he'd be hard pressed to be proud of what they have done with his theory. I don't think he ever meant to replace God, or the creative force, or energy that animates living creatures.....note the term creature....I use it here on purpose, as denotes it original purpose...to designate that life was created by some ways or means.

BTW, I am only a fan of Creation science because it at least acknowledges the intelligence of design that is so obvious when one studies life at it's molecular biochemical levels. It is the most complex machine in the universe, and DNA has more data stored in it than all the books ever written in history, in all the libraries in the world. Many atheist, after a life time of denying that God was necessary for creation, have recanted that belief in atheism, and at least acknowledged that some creative force was driving the process of evolution, and it could never have occurred by chance in some primordial soup as propsoed by Darwin in one of his letters to a colleague. The problem I think is the Term God is so easy to use to designate that animating force that so many find it distasteful to them, and we can't have that can we...lol

Even Stanley Miller acknowledged this after many years, and a life time trying to create life in a laboratory, that their must be some creative organizing force to drive the process. Note: I have noticed this profession by Miller has been left out or deleted from his wiki pages or any easily found on the internet sources. This happened in my life time, and I remember when he made that announcement. He was a tenured Professor and could not be fired, but he became an embarassment to Stanford by making suich a claim. It was what made me start to question the validity of evolution as more than just a theory.

My question to every one is why do you believe every thing you're told. Also why would a Doctor of Psychiatry, Wilhelm Riech, once in line to replace Dr. Sigmund Freud as the head of the school of Psychiatry in Vienna, be kicked out of three countries, end up in America, because he discovered the energy that apparently caused, or drove the process for life creation. He managed to be able to collect it, photograph it, measure it, and even get a simple motor to run off of it. Only to have his lifes works and devices destroyed, his books burned, and imprisoned until his death. In the United States.

Too bad Reich and Miller did not get to collaborate together,,,,maybe then Miller's work would not of been so fruitless. The powers that be, would not of allowed it....Your question should be, why not?

Reich's work has to be re-examined, and in private institutions it is being studied, but will never be main streamed as long as the power structure in control of the world now has their way....it is easier to dismiss then to believe, especially when it is counter to what your core principles, or foundational beliefs you've acquired in life happen to be.