are we just the result of mutations? (1 Viewer)

[~TeLEpAtHeTiC~]

i had a difficult choice of where to put this thread so here is fine for now..

question, just gunna throw it out there, if you dont like it, just through it right back....


i wanna be on you....


anyway

ok look at evolution and darwins theory of natural selection. essentially from the point of view i am taking, it suggests that nature selects those individuals that are best equiped to the environment or develop a mutation or 'something' hah that gives it an advantage to others in the species.

this being the case... in a nutshell

would this suggest that were we are as humans and the natural world itself, animals plants etc etc
are all a result of continuing mutations.... i've though of this before, and i know it is a very basic assumption as i hav not bothered researching into this entirely but i'd like to here other opinions...for my boredoms sake

cause as far as i can see, i'm having a hard time getting my head around the fact that what we see around us is a result of eons of mutations and variation through them.

also how much more can humans evolve as a species...it seems we hav come to a plateau...
medicine, hygiene, living standards we hav constructed everything we need and so do we need to evolve any further?

i'm having an even harder time getting what i am trying to say onto this post... cause i get the feeling i'm sounding a lot more stupid that i mean to..
anyways if u get what i'm trying to say...respond


bored and listening

 

[withoutaface]

Your mums a mutation.

 

[Sepulchres]

1) Darwins theory doesnt suggest that species "mutate" over their evolutionary history but rather it is one source of variation. So, no we are not entirely the result of mutations according to Darwin.

2) Darwin looks like an ape himself and if I looked like him I'd hypothesize the same thing.

3) I don't believe in it.

4) Read his book if you're bored.

5) Is my lucky number. Yay.

 

[mynameisgone]

in very basic terms we are mutations or variations. Even Darwin was never sure of his theories and in generaly just stated facts about the closeness of species anatomically, ie his finches that were specialised to their enviroments but were all related.

i definately recommend his book, altough a bit of an epic, it is well worth it
i doesnt however discuss much genetics as this was after Darwins time.

By the way Sepulchres, yopur second point sounds very much like the original criticism of Darwin by bishop 'soapy sam' wilberforce

 

[Sepulchres]

Never knew a Bishop would speak in such derogatory terms.