Evolution

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by garbonzo, Feb 20, 2015.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Agreed. I'm not sure what statistics would support it specifically - I suppose a strong, unparsimonious outgroup effect - but that's not really my line anyway.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Are you aware of any comparable occurrence with other species? Although quite interested in human evolution I have tended to overlook the multi-regional hypothesis because it 'seemed' improbable - not a good reason, I know, but my interest is purely as an amateur.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well, what I know is that there's some hybrid speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_speciation. Most common in plants but there's a species of Rana around the Baltics that's a hybrid. Speciation seem to me to be more of a continuum of transition - which could bolster a multi-regional expectation, maybe.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,436
    The multi-regional hypothesis actually seems the most probable to me.
    With the ebb and flow of the interglacials and periods of glaciation, various of our ancestors would expand in population and area during the interglacials(especially during the superinterglacials like mis11), then survive in refugia during the coldest parts of the glacial periods. As the climate moderated, they would most likely have interacted and interbred on average once every 100kyrs or so. It seems that there was one such contraction of the population circa 70kyrs ago. During the time in the refugia, there would most likely have been inbreeding and accelerated mutation within these small populations. Then upon emerging from the refugia, the varied surviving populations would have shared these mutations, and kept those which were most advantageous.

    Ok, that's mostly a guess.

    During most of the time for homo on this earth, the earth was experiencing glaciation, with colder and dryer climate and lower sea levels.
    The archaeologist in me suspects that most of "the good stuff" is under the water covering the continental shelves.
     
  8. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    790
    I have not. I contrasted two different things in order to demonstrate that evolution cannot ever be falsified. You see, the point that you missed is that evolution is all based on a little fairy tale that we all descend from a common ancestor, and billions of years of accumulated mutation diversified the original LUCA into everything alive today, and that it can be demonstrated on the basis of the fact that we all share common characteristics and that by analyzing and categorizing such common characteristics we can build a tree of life all the way into the past with the LUCA at its root. That's basic Evolution 101. The most basic evolutionist claim.

    Except it doesn't hold true even for a cursory examination of evidence. We share a lot of characteristics with animals that we can't possibly share a common ancestor with that had such characteristics. So, in order to deal with the contradictory evidence, evolutionists coined the epicycle called 'convergent evolution'.

    A deep examination of the evolutionary theory will cause you to find many of those 'explanations' necessary to counter-claim obvious pieces of evidence that contradict primary evolutionary claims. This is not a sign of strength in a theory no more than it was for geocentrism.

    I already did.

    There is plenty of evidence against evolution. It is simply waved away with fairy tales like 'convergent evolution'.

    There are plenty of structures that could not be arrived at without proceeding intermediate forms. They are called 'irreducibly complex' ones. However, the epicycle offered by evolutionists on their cases is that such structures had other functions and were later adapted, or co-opted, to their current uses. There is no evidence supporting such claim.

    Wheels, I agree. They are overall a terrible structure, bad for everything other that keeping whatever it is above them steady. They cannot adapt to the ground below them, cannot easily turn, are exceedingly slippery under anything other than ideal conditions... anyone that has driven a car knows how badly it affects your driving if the wheels are not perfectly aligned. Thank God we don't see many wheels in nature.

    Propellers we find at micro levels.

    The most funny thing about this claim is that it used to be said about much later layers. And then we found a 'rabbit'. And the evolutionists double down and demanded an earlier one. And an earlier one. And an earlier one. Until they reached Cambrian. I am sure if we ever find a rabbit on the Cambrian layer, evolutionists will simply double down again and demand an even earlier one.

    Keep an eye on China, though. They are not Americans and could not care less about keeping the evolutionary theory alive at all costs. They may end up finding your rabbit.

    This is simply not true. This kind of bogus and empty claim may hold water in a discussion with a person that does not read as much on the subject as I do. What biologists usually do is to provide an explanation, without any supporting evidence, of how they think that such thing could have arisen step-by-step.

    And contradict each other.

    That definition is incorrect. Your research on this subject is lacking.

    Again, incorrect. The problem is that DNA is not evidence of evolution, per se. DNA is evidence of nothing. It fits equally well in evolution, creationism, panspermia, or fairy dust.

    Again, incorrect. The 'progression' of fossil from eohippus to horses use fossil from different continents, frequently unrelated environments without giving any explanation as to why certain 'species' are disappearing here and appearing there, it is often not reproduced to scale in order to deceive a size progression, and most important of all...

    There is no clear, proven link between the species other than supposed appearance.

    Why, exactly? Are you really making the claim that we ought to stick with something known to be incorrect because we can't provide the correct answer? Since when did 'we don't know' cease to be a valid answer for scientific inquiries?
     
  9. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,831
    Garbonzo, how do you breath with your head stuck in the sand like that?
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Of course it can. I gave you several examples of ways you could falsify it.
    Again, that is not contradictory evidence, any more than the existence of magnetic fields "contradicts" the existence of electric fields.
    OK, name one.
    No, it does not "fit" creationism, or fairy dust (whatever that is.) It fits well within the concept that we are all based on the same ancestor. There are many ways to store data in a genome; DNA is just one of those ways. The fact that all life on the planet shares the same method of doing so is strong evidence that we had one ancestor that did so. If we saw some organisms with DNA, some with a magnetically-coded genome, some that used crystal voids to encode genetic data, then you would have a strong argument that they do not share a common ancestor.
    Nope. Evolution has never been falsified. Other theories have been. Thus we stick with the best theory we have.
    Never - which is why even today we continue to do research on all branches of science.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I can't help but comment on your interpretation of the evidence or otherwise for evolution, especially since I have not studied or read to much on biology and associated sciences, and so remain a novice so to speak.
    Objections to the theory of evolution have been always thick and fast ever since Darwin first proposed it.
    Obviously the vast majority of those objections come from the religious community.
    As a "novice" and layman on the subject, and having learnt the benefits of the scientific method and peer review over many years now, I see Evolution as certain as any scientific theory can be.
    That obviously means I disagree with your interpretation.
    What little I do know, has me though asking why human embryos resemble those of animals at the early stages of life.
    Embryos for humans and other animals are similar at the early stages of life after conception.
    The obvious reason for this is that at the very beginnings of life on Earth, every living thing shared common genes.
    Human embryos at early stages have a tail for instance.
    That among the many many other lines of evidence supports evolution as probably the top near certainty scientific theory that exists.
    In fact there is really no doubt on that score.

    This leads to your other comment re evolution and Panspermia.
    There is [as far as I am aware] nothing within Darwin's theory of evolution excluding Panspermia.
    Evolution and Panspermia can compliment each other. Panspermia extends the parameters of evolution of life on Earth, to include the evolution of life in the Universe.
    Abiogenesis is just as obviously the logical default position of life in the Universe, and shows a connectivity between Panspermia and the evolution of life on Earth.

    Anyway, one of our more attuned folk on line may like to further comment on your rather religious interpretation.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,101
    You have it backwards. The conclusion that various organisms have common ancestors is based on evolutionary theory - that consequence of the theory generates a large and varied body of testable predictions, and their repeated verifications by research are among the evidence supporting the theory.

    No, we don't.
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,741
    Except convergent evolution shows every sign of an entirely separate lineage. Bats and Birds both fly, but they solved the problem in different ways. By common characteristics, scientists do not mean superficial similarities, but detailed morphological structures that could not have formed independently.




    Except that no irreducibly complex structures have been found.



    I noticed you used the word rabbit in quotes, is that because it's not really a rabbit? I guess you can't reconcile your creationism with the fact that some animals and plants only show up in later layers, thus falsifying the creationist claim that all species are but variations on certain established "kinds" of creatures.
     
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Huh? You probably mean "mammals" or perhaps "chordates" rather than "animals," but even after correcting your statement, it's extremely likely that all chordates share a common ancestor.

    For that matter, it's very likely that all living things (animals, plants, fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea) share a common ancestor. After all, a human and a banana tree share about 50% of their DNA!
    Convergent evolution is widespread. Look at the skull of a kangaroo and a female deer. As a layman, you'd probably need help seeing the slight differences which make it clear that they are two different species. In fact, although they are both mammals, they come from much different branches on the mammalian family tree. The kangaroo is a marsupial, a remnant of one of the oldest clades of mammals, whereas the deer is an artiodactyl, a member of a much more recently evolved clade: the placental mammals.

    Go back to your Pentecostal church, and stay there. You're beyond help.
     
  15. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    Actually, biologists use the term for plants too. I have a "coral cactus" sitting on my desk. Most people would call it a cactus becaues it has no leaves, all stem/trunk, and lots of stickers. But it is a Euphorbia. It is adapted to a desert climate in Africa. Cactus are adapted to a desert climate in the Americas. The fact that they superficially resemble each other is termed "convergent evolution". In fact, they are very different, particularly when you examine the DNA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cactus


    Completely different Orders of plants. But they look enough alike for most people who have no biological training that they call the euphorbias as "cactus". My particular "coral cactus" looks a lot like a "brain coral", a type of animal on the sea floor, hence the name "coral" cactus, even though not a cactus.

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=coral cactus&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&refig=c4333af754724ccab6991aa123c75b40&ghc=1&qs=AS&pq=coral cact&sc=8-10&sp=1&cvid=c4333af754724ccab6991aa123c75b40
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2015
  16. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    On the morning of Jan. 29, 2013, Chalachew Seyoum was climbing a remote hill in the Afar region of his native Ethiopia, his head bent, eyes focused on the loose sediment. The site, known as Ledi-Geraru, was rich in fossils. Soon enough, he spotted a telltale shape on the surface — a premolar, as it turned out. It was attached to a piece of a mandible, or lower jawbone. He collected other pieces of a left mandible, and five teeth in all.

    Mr. Seyoum, a graduate student in paleoanthropology at Arizona State University, had made a discovery that vaulted evolutionary science over a barren stretch of fossil record between two million and three million years ago. This was a time when the human genus, Homo, was getting underway. The 2.8-million-year-old jawbone of a Homo habilis predates by at least 400,000 years any previously known Homo fossils.


    More significant, scientists say, is that this H. habilis lived only 200,000 years after the last known evidence of its more apelike predecessors, Australopithecus afarensis, the species made famous by “Lucy,” whose skeleton was found in the 1970s at the nearby Ethiopian site of Hadar.


    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAA&url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/world/jawbones-discovery-fills-barren-evolutionary-period.html&ei=-i76VKaBIYm7yQTZ_oDYCA&usg=AFQjCNH7QFQMV3i7kKGrbGjxK6bNRPDcYw&sig2=jX_BueCgnh9N9NAaycbF2Q
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    First human' discovered in Ethiopia:


    Scientists have unearthed the jawbone of what they claim is one of the very first humans.

    The 2.8 million-year-old specimen is 400,000 years older than researchers thought that our kind first emerged.

    The discovery in Ethiopia suggests climate change spurred the transition from tree dweller to upright walker.

    The head of the research team told BBC News that the find gives the first insight into "the most important transitions in human evolution".

    Prof Brian Villmoare of the University of Nevada in Las Vegas said the discovery makes a clear link between an iconic 3.2 million-year-old hominin (human-like primate) discovered in the same area in 1974, called "Lucy".

    Could Lucy's kind - which belonged to the species Australopithecus afarensis - have evolved into the very first primitive humans?

    more at.....
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31718336
     
  18. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    These fossils remains show a humanoid, that has a similar physical appearance and DNA to humans. But fossils alone cannot us anything about the state of their mind/consciousness, which would make them appear human or animal in terms of mind and behavior. They can be an ape in a human body.

    For example, in any large family, one can have children with various attributes in terms of height, weight, eye color, intelligence, athletic ability, etc., all from the same parental DNA. Which of these children will "evolve" to college or to professional sports cannot be determine by their birth DNA alone. They all have the same parental DNA. This is why we can't find a gay gene, because genes alone, is not enough for a complete picture.

    If the tallish blue eyed girl evolved to become a professional basketball player (migration or standing upright analogy) some may fixate on her blue eye genes, after the fact (fossil), as a way to catalog her in the tree of evolution. Cataloging is more of an art than science, since the blue eye gene is not what made her become a dedicated athlete. But it makes it easy to pigeon hole her since it is superficial and easy to see.


    My theory for the evolution of humans, in terms of the human mind, and not just a physical shell that is cataloged by bones and DNA, was a connection to an ancestor of dogs. Dogs contain all the natural skills needed for successful human migration under ice age conditions, that are not inherent in the natural instincts of these fossil pre-humans. The prehuman were smart apes, and could monkey see and monkey do. They learned what they needed by copying the selective advantages of the dogs.

    One important skill humans learned was to eat meat, and become more of an omnivore and carnivore. In the winter, meat is the only reliable food. Dogs are scavengers and will try to eat almost anything. They helped the pre-humans test the new environments for foods. Dogs have a cast iron stomach and can live to puke another day. Dogs naturally bury meat and bones so its ferments for easier digestion; before fire.

    Dogs can read human emotions and are good at sign language, which was an early pre-human language. They have almost as many facial muscles as human allowing the dogs to be understood by the pre-humans.

    If you ever owned a tough dog, such as a work dog, they like all dogs, include their human family as a part of their pack. One has to train them to make a distinction. The tougher breeds will g through a stage where they will challenge even their owners for dominance. Standing upright was a way for pre-humans to look bigger, so they could do better in the constant pack challenge. The challenge is not a fight to death, but is more like tough sports training; football, that made the humans tougher and more skilled in self defense.

    If you ever had a dog, they like to chew on everything. They will even chew points on sticks to make crude knives and spears. The humans would watch their pack mates and learn to copy this; mimicking the jaw action of the teeth; fixed stone and moving stone to chew a point on a stick for a weapon. Before the made their own chew weapons, the humans would carry a dog stick, which each night the dogs would sharpen.

    Dogs form a chain of command, with the leader the strongest and toughest of them all. He is always challenged by the others in the pack, because the leader of the pack has the toughest jobs, and will have to fight the worse enemies. The chain of command is mostly designed for hunting and offense. But it will also include defensive duties with the mother dogs, protecting the human pups from danger.

    Dogs are burrowing animals that will also use natural caves, as their crates for night defense. The cavemen learned this from the instinct of the dogs, and would use caves if available. Dogs become domesticated when the human take over the leadership role; the student exceeds the master.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2015
  19. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,831
    The issue I have with this analysis is that humans were already living in social groups, had mastered the manufacture of highly sophisticated weapons and even begun to make 'art' at least 100,000 years before wolves/dogs were domesticated.
     
  20. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Watch National Geographic's video on how, and the many different times, the evolution has created the eye at: Then one that will become available. The 44 minute long one on venom is really good. Especially the last6 minutes!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 7, 2015
  21. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,855
    We had the theory of evolution before we knew about DNA. The theory of evolution predicts DNA. Creationism does not.
     
  22. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    I repeat from my Post #3
    So far, no evolution nay-sayer has offered a better explantion for that set of fossils.
     
  23. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    I repeat from my Post #3
    So far, no evolution nay-sayer has offered a better explantion for that set of fossils.
     

Share This Page