Explained at Real Clear Science:
As a genus, humans, from Homo sapiens (that’s us) to our extinct ancestors Homo neanderthalensis and Homo erectus, are wanderers. Over the vast majority of our history, which spans hundreds of thousands of years, we have roved from place to place, inhabiting a wide range of habitats. We moved with the seasons, we moved to find food, we moved — perhaps — just to move. Our adaptability was our key adaptation, an evolutionary leg-up on the competition. The ability to store fat was vital to this lifestyle. Body fat cushions internal organs, but it also serves as a repository of energy that can be readily broken down and used to power muscles. Humans might fatten up at one environment, then move on to another. When food was scarce, we could count on our fat to sustain us, at least temporarily.
Chimpanzees, on the other hand, are localized to specific environments where food is often plentiful, primarily the forests of West and Central Africa. Fatty stores of energy aren’t required, but strength to climb food-bearing trees is. Natural selection favored brawn, causing chimps to shed fat as unnecessary weight.
Clever idea. But thoughts from readers?
(Who would want to be a chimp just to be thin?)
See also: Why human evolution did not go the way analysts would have predicted
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Maybe because there are no McDonald’s restaurants and reality television shows where chimpanzees live(d)?
Not me!
of related interest: Contrary to the claims of Darwinists, the best fossil, and genetic, evidence indicates that humans are devolving, not evolving:
Also of note: The genetic similarity between chimps and humans is not nearly as similar as Darwinists have, for decades, misled people to believe
Moreover, where the genetic differences between chimps and humans are most ‘striking’, is the place where mutations are ‘always catastrophically bad’:
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be ‘always catastrophically bad’. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species.
Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome.
Of related interest to the ‘image of God’ inherent to man:
It’s an interesting derivative hypothesis, given that you accept the underlying hypothesis. Shame it’s being presented as if it were an established fact.
Houses of cards are fascinating. Wouldn’t want to live in one, but that’s just me.
I love to see these new scientific facts. Words of evolutionary wisdom to pass down to our children.
We moved just to move. Evolution told us to move, so we did – because that’s what evolution wanted. Trees didn’t want to move, so they just stayed there.
If we couldn’t store fat, we couldn’t move. So, evolution decided that we needed to store some fat. It would have been pretty stupid to tell us to move around without giving us some fat! Otherwise, we would have had to stay with the chimps, and that would have been a disaster.
That’s pretty complicated language. Hey, its science, it has to be. Ok, I got it. Chimpanzees didn’t move around. They stayed there. But why (I must ask)?
Of course, they didn’t want to “move just to move” because there was a lot of food there. Humans were told to “move just to move” — so they went to places where there wasn’t any food. Makes sense! Thus, they had to have some fat. Otherwise, they would have had to stay where the food was, and that’s what chimps do.
Of course – it’s a lot better to burn up all your energy and constantly need to re-fill rather than store enough to get you through several days, months or a whole lifetime. Evolution figured it all out.
Natural selection favored brawn because otherwise chimps would have to eat grass.
Silver Asiatic: We moved just to move.
Not exactly. We have plenty of direct observations of the habits of primitive tribal societies, as well as historical evidence. We also have direct observations of chimpanzee habits.
Silver Asiatic: Natural selection favored brawn because otherwise chimps would have to eat grass.
Grass has low nutritional value, and requires special adaptations to digest. By adapting to trees, apes avoided many predators, while being able to find higher calorie, more digestable foods.
Silver Asiatic: Evolution figured it all out.
It’s not that complicated. Humans without the ability to store fat would reproduce less frequently during times of scarcity.
Fruit grows on trees so that chimps would not have to eat grass.
I think I got it SA!
Mung
Brilliant! I believe you must be one of those “leading evolutionary theorists” we’ve heard about.
And Zach is always nearby to help us with more scientific facts.
RealClear Science tells us that perhaps ‘we moved just to move’.
Zach corrects Real Clear Science by stating:
“Not exactly”.
That is excellent! We now know even more about it. Thanks for telling us more scientific facts, Zachriel — and especially for correcting Mr. Pomeroy, a “zoologist and biologist by training”.
And as Darwin taught us, the more primitive the tribal society, the more like a chimpanzee you are. So, we have direct evidence of people who were around when chimp-likes split from humans.
That’s the best. Nothing to dispute there when it comes to direct observations of pre-historic development of mammalian life.
Fortunately, evolution didn’t want them to change very much for the past 13 million years. Humans changed a little — but fortunately we still have some primitive-types around.
Good solid facts once again. Other mammals stayed on the ground, but chimps were able to go up in the trees. Plus, bananas taste a lot better and chimps didn’t want to store calories in fat AND be able to climb trees. I mean, that’s asking evolution for a little too much. Be happy with what evolution gives you.
Of course! It’s all very simple. Humans “moved just to move, not exacty” so they didn’t have food. That’s the big problem with “just moving”. You tend to go places where there’s no food and then wonder: “Evolution, why did you move us here?” Ahh, but evolution is pretty smart. It gave humans fat. Not only did they not have to eat as much, but they could reproduce more. Nice job evolution!
Ok, you almost got me there …
“If chimps got fat, then the trees couldn’t hold them”.
Nice try. But Mung already taught us the facts we need to answer this:
“If chimps got fat, then trees would have co-evolved to get strong enough to hold them. After all, trees had all that fruit and they needed chimps to go up there and eat it.”
As Zachriel explained, “It’s not that complicated”.
Zachriel: Not exactly.
Silver Asiatic: That is excellent! We now know even more about it. Thanks for telling us more scientific facts, Zachriel — and especially for correcting Mr. Pomeroy, a “zoologist and biologist by training”.
Here’s his statement: “We moved with the seasons, we moved to find food, we moved — perhaps — just to move.” Humans moved for a variety of reasons. The larger brain required a richer food source, which included cooked meat. That meant moving with the herds, seasonal dependency, as well as local depletion of food sources. Over time, wanderlust became part of the fabric of the human animal.
Silver Asiatic: as Darwin taught us, the more primitive the tribal society, the more like a chimpanzee you are.
Actually all modern humans share a much more recent ancestral population.
Silver Asiatic: Plus, bananas taste a lot better and chimps didn’t want to store calories in fat AND be able to climb trees.
Chimpanzees don’t have to store calories as they live in forests that provide food year round.
Silver Asiatic: After all, trees had all that fruit and they needed chimps to go up there and eat it.
Colorful and high-caloric fruits evolved as a way to disseminate seeds.
SA if wit were a sword, Zach would truly be the million ‘we’ he thinks he is after your post. 🙂
Here are a few facts that are not quite as unfactual as Zach’s facts turned out to be:
Of semi related note: Anatomical differences between chimps and humans are far more widespread than Darwinists would presuppose:
A Darwinist informed me that the classification that King and Wilson used to infer that humans that the two species are not just in separate genera but in separate families was from 40 years ago and that Darwinists had now ‘monkeyed’ with cladistic analysis and that humans are now reclassified as apes. (I guess that makes it ‘official’ since a Darwinist did the reclassifying).
Yet, contrary to what the Darwinist believed to be true, the known differences between apes and humans have been growing larger, not smaller, over the last 40 years.
So if anything, the original classification that had humans classified not just in separate genera but also in separate families should have been reinforced not weakened.
In fact, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, since pigs are found to be ‘anatomically’ closer to humans than chimps are, actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than many neo-Darwinists had first supposed it would be:
Now Zach, you are going to have to work on your Darwinian story telling quite a lot before you can beat the Pig/Chimp, i.e. “PIMP”, hypothesis! 🙂
Zach
When evolution gives you a bigger brain, you better start moving around to find some richer food – otherwise, evolution will take that bigger brain away!
Thanks, BA — I notice our evolutionary friends almost never answer the wealth of counter-arguments you post.
Meanwhile, I’ve started collecting them in a file just to be able to read and keep up with it all.
Are you trying to make a serious point?
They hypothesis here that genetic variants can change the degree to which people deposit fat (still true), and that once our ancestors adopted a lifestyle in which they move from habitat to habitat those variants that let their owners store more fat were more likely to be reproduced.
No part of that hypothesis seems unreasonable to me. There are certainly genetic variants that effect fat deposition, there is no doubt that our ancestors were less tied to a habitat that chimps and fat deposition seems a useful trait in that case (and in fact there are pleny of studies of energetics and fertility in modern hunter gatherer societies).
You could also (potentially) test the idea that selection fixed fat-deposition alleles using genomic data.
So why the childish dismissal of this hypothesis?
Modern Nomadic folks will be chubby per this theory. Evidence? Fat Americans wandering around Paris does not count.
“Hi, I’m Dan Marino and I lost 40lbs using the Jane Goodall Chimp Diet. Combine with the patented “Monkey Bar” exercise system and see even better results”
“Are you tired of looking in the mirror and seeing a fat nomad? Well, take it from me, Marie Osmond, you will lose 5 pounds in your first week using the Scientifically Proven Jane Goodall Chimp Diet. Guaranteed. What are you waiting for?
wd400 states
“No part of that hypothesis seems unreasonable to me.,,,
So why the childish dismissal of this hypothesis?”
Perhaps it would help your and Zach’s credibility, and stop us from laughing at you, if you guys actually demonstrated that it is possible to change one creature into another creature?
Especially, before you guys just assume that it happened and start making up all these outlandish, and yes humorous, fairy tale stories?
“Colorful and high-caloric fruits evolved as a way to disseminate seeds.”
Zach, the fine tuning required on so many levels for that “evolution” to happen boggles the human mind.
Colorful and high BS Evo studies have a better chance to be disseminated by blogs/mags. Eg “skinny chimp” Evo Theory. What utter BS. Colorful.
Cmon, have an obese human and skinny chimp switch their diet & exercise regimen for a year. Skinnier human and fatter chimp. Wow, Evolution works fast sometimes.
BA77,
Serious question: What’s your opinion on Homo erectus? Were they human?
The 2 NorCal Professors are no doubt excited their skinny chimp study made it into “Proceedings of the National Academy of Science”. But this is Cargo Cult Science at best, Cargo Cult Religion at worst.
Better would be “Did chimp diet evolve to maximize poop flinging distance?” At least there would be some measurements, some aerodynamics, and some math for crying out loud. You could still work in the 99% DNA shtick . That is key lol.
Poop flinging studies;
http://www.wired.com/2011/11/chimp-throwing/
.
http://m.phys.org/news/2011-11.....gence.html
as to:
“Serious question: What’s your opinion on Homo erectus? Were they human?”
Well, since the leading experts themselves can’t seem to agree on a ‘opinion’ about what homo erectus is, I certainly don’t think my opinion matters to resolving the issue.
But my ‘opinion’, for what its worth, (if you had a dollar and my opinion you could get a Coke), is that homo erectus is a fictitious classification, originally perpetrated by Ernst Mayr, that was pieced together from various unrelated fossils, around a certain time period, in order to fit the Darwinian narrative:
In my ‘opinion’, Darwinists simply ‘want’ human evolution to be true too much in order for them to be objective in their analysis of the fossils:
The ability to store fat was vital to this lifestyle.
Think fat bacteria, who cover the earth. Talk about a bunch of wanderers!
ok, wait. So now we need to add another epicycle. No problem!
BA77,
AFAIK, the classification could be fictitious, and could be revised in the future.
Do you think these skulls are humans? (Picture from your link to the Guardian)
If they are not human, what are they?
Maybe this picture of the Dmanisi skull is a better example. Clearly not human, but also very different from chimpanzees etc. What/who is it?
You want me to definitively say what the fossils are when the experts themselves are not even sure what they are or even if the fossils belong together as one species?
No thanks, I’ll leave such unfounded speculations for such questionable fossils to the Darwinists. They are experts in proclaiming certainty where none is forthcoming.
What I can say for certain is that Darwinists do not have the fossils (nor a viable mechanism for that matter) to make their case for a gradual transition:
In the following podcasts, Casey Luskin, speaking at the 2014 Science and Human Origins conference, discusses why the fossil evidence doesn’t support the claim that humans evolved from some ape-like precursor.
2014 – podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 1
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....s-tell-us/
podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 2
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-2/
podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 3
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-3/
podcast – Casey Luskin – On Human Origins: What the Fossils Tell Us, part 4
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....l-us-pt-4/
as mentioned previously, neo-Darwinists do not even have a viable mechanism:
Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test – Douglas Axe – July 18, 2012
Excerpt: “For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be ‘neutral’). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (greater than 100 million years).
My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they’re in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be.” Doug Axe PhD.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....62351.html
Modern Apes descended from human like ancestors is my guess. Heck, modern Apes have 99% human DNA.
Shame there are no fossils to speak of for Apes.
BA77,
“I don’t know” is always a respectable answer.
But isn’t it a bit awkward if you can’t tell whether these fossils are human? Especially for someone who questions common descent.
so the experts themselves don’t even know for certain what the fossils are and you, from pictures on the internet, are saying it is awkward for me to refuse to speculate on them?
If there is anything awkward at all in this whole deal it is in the fact that this one find completely blew apart the Darwinian narrative up to that point and you, apparently nonplussed in the least, still resolutely believe in the Darwinian narrative even though this one find blew apart the narrative up to that point:
Moreover, why don’t you accept the much more robust evidence I presented from extensive cranial and dental analysis that found no evidence for common descent?
Or is speculation okay with you when it supports your preferred atheistic worldview and robust evidence ignored when it does not support it?
Real science could care less for what you may imagine to be true and only cares what you can demonstrate to be true. And in regards to empirical science, Darwinism is not even on first base as being a real science.
If there is a bright white line between man and ape then it should be easy to differentiate them? On the other hand, if the two are connected by an unbroken chain of inheritance…
WD400, show me some ape fossils. White Line that is evident now should also be evident in the fossil record. “But apes don’t fossilize.”
“they’re dainty like precambrians.”
BA77,
I think your reluctance to speculate is perfectly reasonable. You know more about this stuff than I do. But isn’t it strange that this fossil is so hard to place? Are there modern primates whose skulls could be confused with human skulls?
Your evidence could be conclusive and common descent could be rubbish. But then the fact that you have such trouble deciding whether this particular skull is human would be even more mysterious.
I’m not interested in a debate over atheism or Darwinism. I am just curious about whether the skull is human.
I’m not interested in a debate over atheism or Darwinism. I am just curious about whether the skull is human.
cognitive dissonance in its full glory folks!
Eh? Not getting your meaning.
It’s not an ape fossil Dave. Earliest ape fossils were clearly apes. Not monkeys mind you. Apes. White Line now, White Line then.
Hi ppolish,
So I take it you believe the Dmanisi skull is human?
Edit: By “human” I mean homo sapiens. I don’t know if that’s standard.
Earliest ape fossil is clearly ape. Not monkey. Not human. Ape. White Line Ape. Flung poo probably.
http://mobile.the-scientist.co.....discovered
I’m not familiar with the Dmanisi skull. But it’s a member of a monkey tribe, an ape tribe, or a human tribe. Pick one.
Doubt if it’s human sapien. But I’m making s guess. Did not Google.
“Eh? Not getting your meaning.”
Apparently not or you would not have said such a thing in the first place.
I made my case from what can be known for certain from the evidence.
And what can be known for certain from the best evidence is that Darwinists are far, far, short from making their case.
Casey Luskin did an extensive study on the ‘skull’ issue and found:
Of related note, it is interesting to note how biased some Darwinists have been in the past with ‘skull’ evidence
Thus, considering such shenanigans that Darwinists are prone to with the fossil evidence, for me to give a solid opinion on a fossil picture, I would certainly have to have a lot more data to go on than just a picture on the internet.
In other words, I’m no better than you in stating my personal opinion on the fossils which overturned the Darwinian narrative.
Which, come to think of it, you have not even stated your own personal opinion on the matter and have only falsely pretended as if my own opinion on the issue would matter to you personally.
Of course my opinion does not matter to you because, if it did matter to you, you would have abandoned your atheistic position long ago.
ppolish,
Thanks for the clarification.
BA77,
Well, does Casey Luskin think the Dmanisi skull is human?
Ok.
I did say in my post #26 that the skull was clearly not human and not chimpanzee.
And it’s not specifically your opinion that I think is significant. Rather, it’s how critics of common descent deal with all these uncomfortably humanlike primates from the past.
Casey’s opinion, which I referenced before, is here:
Skull “Rewrites” Story of Human Evolution — Again
Casey Luskin October 22, 2013
Excerpt: “There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.”
So we’re left right back where we started: lots of disagreements, a big mystery and big gaps in the fossil record. What else is new?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78221.html
Moreover, I find it interesting that this find overturned the Darwinian narrative that had been in place for decades and you think it is ID proponents which are questioning common descent?
UHHH excuse me, it was the evidence itself which overturned the Darwinian narrative, not ID proponents!
Or is common descent never questioned in your mind even if the evidence itself undermines it?
You think the fossil is definitely transitional between chimps and humans?
For what its worth, my ‘speculation’ is that it is not transitional:
“There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.”
Perhaps you can present some other compelling empirical evidence to make your case that common descent is true instead of just speculative evidence?
How about just changing one bacteria into another bacteria or is that just too much evidence to ask for? If so, why? And since you can’t provide even that mediocre level of confirming evidence, why are you so eager to accept common descent on such questionable fossils. Questionable fossils which, by the way, overturned the meta-narrative of common descent that was in place for humans?
BA77,
Does he take a position on whether the skull is homo sapiens or not?
I don’t know. It just looks clearly not human and not chimpanzee (the fact that it’s not chimpanzee is probably irrelevant. I was just looking at some pictures of skulls and noticed the obvious differences)
Ok. So what is it: human or not?
The fact that you and the experts are having a hard time placing this fossil? If there were truly few or no transitions, wouldn’t these scientists have an easier time constructing phylogenetic trees?
Correction: Without common descent, it’s probably harder to construct phylogenetic trees, since they wouldn’t exist. 😛
But it should be easier to distinguish between humans and non-humans, presumably.
daveS,
Read the article.
So you don’t know, but you do know. How convenient a waffle.
You already have your mind made up that it is more human than chimp. And I already told you that I’m not going to speculate on such a questionable fossil with such scant data.
HMMM, I’m not the one trying to place the fossil in a common descent pattern, you and the experts are! Moreover, some of the experts admitted that they can’t comfortably place the fossil(s) in a common descent pattern. You, apparently, disagree with those experts.
Moreover, phylogenetic trees presuppose common descent. The reason why phylogenetic trees are not easily reconstructed is because the presupposition of common descent is wrong:
I didn’t see that he states whether the skull is human or not. Same on the second reading. So apparently he doesn’t come down on one side or the other?
I don’t know if it’s transitional between humans and chimpanzees. That’s about it.
I don’t know how to quantify that. The brain size might be closer to chimpanzees than humans.
No, that’s the opposite of what I said. I referred specifically to their difficulty in placing the skull.
Yes, my error (see my previous post).
Does any prominent ID researcher take a position on the human/nonhuman question?
I agree with bornagain77 that the evidence is insufficient. The variation in hominid skulls is well known, however the brain case volume is just over a third that of a human, so it doesn’t look good for Dmanisi finishing grade school, but you never know.
Take a look at this 7 foot sweetheart–look at his profiles.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nikolai+valuev+images&biw=1473&bih=729&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=DXlyVdqVMZfboASE3IGoCg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
I’m not at all “uncomfortable” with other animal bodies being similar to our animal bodies. however, our mental and moral capacity is light-years ahead of any other hominid.
I’m not sure how you would judge this Dmanisi.
-Q
I would think that the whole ‘So we’re left right back where we started: lots of disagreements, a big mystery and big gaps in the fossil record. What else is new?’ would clearly, with the ‘big gap’ quip, put him in the non-human camp.
You already know that I think transitions between forms by unguided Darwinian processes are completely impossible, so why in blue blazes are you asking me to speculate on such a dubious fossil that you yourself find inconclusive?
But quantify it you must because you have already decided that common decent must be true?
It must be true even though you have no viable mechanism and the overall fossil record is, overwhelmingly, a pattern of sudden appearance and stasis?
Well quantify away if you must!
While your at it, how about generating 500 bits of functional information by unguided material processes, so as to have a semblance of experimental credibility to stand on?
You dropped the ‘you’ from there.
Moreover, I have no need to put fossils in branching tree patterns and I’m perfectly content to let the species exist unconnected to anything else. You on the other hand, as an atheist, are compelled to try to find a tree pattern.
recycle
I’m sorry, I may have jumped the gun on Casey’s position. I just re-read his article from 2012 on skull sizes where he states this in the ‘entire’ conclusion, (instead of just the excerpt I had originally extracted from the conclusion)
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.
bornagain77: You already know that I think transitions between forms by unguided Darwinian processes are completely impossible, so why in blue blazes are you asking me to speculate on such a dubious fossil that you yourself find inconclusive?
Because such organisms represent plausible cousin species on the line of transition, something predicted by common descent, but not by special creation.
BA77,
I was just clarifying that I don’t know if the fossil is transitional between humans and chimps (I don’t even know if that’s relevant here). It could be transitional between humans and some other Homo species, so I wouldn’t call it inconclusive.
I was responding to your post asserting that I had already decided the fossil was more human than chimp; I just have no way of deciding where on the chimp-human axis this fossil lies.
🙂
As I’ve stated, I’m a poorly-informed layperson when it comes to this stuff. Even if I were to accomplish the above task, it wouldn’t enhance my credibility on Homo fossils in the slightest.
“It could be transitional between humans and some other Homo species, so I wouldn’t call it inconclusive.”
So ‘could be transitional’ is conclusive in your book?
“I just have no way of deciding where on the chimp-human axis this fossil lies.”
But you wouldn’t call it inconclusive?
“As I’ve stated, I’m a poorly-informed layperson when it comes to this stuff. Even if I were to accomplish the above task, it wouldn’t enhance my credibility on Homo fossils in the slightest.”
In regards to fossils, I have no ‘credibility’ either. But I was asking you to provide a empirical basis for your extraordinary claims for Darwinian processes. I was not asking for your subjective personal opinion on fossils which you apparently find inconclusive but conclusive at the same time. (i.e. you admit that you really don’t know what the fossils are or even where they go, but you are sure they must go somewhere on the imaginary tree that is in your head.)
Without such a empirical demonstration that Darwinian processes can generate non-trivial levels of functional information (i.e. 500 bit threshold), Darwinian claims as to how we originated are ‘not even wrong’, they are absurd!
BA77,
No problem. Yeah, it seems Homo = human according to Luskin, with Homo habilis banished to the australopithecines.
So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?
bornagain77: But I was asking you to provide a empirical basis for your extraordinary claims for Darwinian processes.
The claim concerns common descent, not darwinian processes. The skull is a piece of evidence to be evaluated. If it represents a plausible cousin, a branch on the family tree, then it supports common descent. The more such branches found, the more strongly common descent is supported.
Like Q, I have absolutely no problem with animals that look like humans. There is a common misconception about what “image” is in the Judeo-Christian context.
One thing I would like to highlight is that there are a lot of species that are complex around when fossilization occurred but not now. Think of the dinosaurs – they had to be complex to have vascular and nervous (and the rest) systems to support such a vast size.
My point? I think variety was quite different many years ago when these fossils were laid. Most of these fossils are never going to be links from chimp to human – they are just different varieties of non-human primate.
In fact, if you believe in rapid speciation (or variety within a kind ) and you imagine there was a point where only one of each “kind” survived a catastrophic event then the variety to occur following mating would be potentially very different. Hence why we see different variety in the fossil record – nothing to do with transitional stages, simply variety.
Zach, “The claim concerns common descent, not darwinian processes.”
So you admit that you have no examples of unguided Darwinian processes generating even 500 bits of functional information and that unguided Darwinian processes are thus grossly inadequate even IF (capital IF) common descent were true?
Thanks Zach, much appreciated!
daveS:
“So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?”
Hmmmm,
Australian Aboriginal with prominent brow ridge – picture
http://mmmgroup2.altervista.org/aborig2.jpg
Aboriginal peoples
Excerpt: Because Aboriginals have slightly larger eyebrow protrusions, a more downwardly slanted jaw and a smaller brain volume than Western peoples, they were thought to be living examples of transitional species. In order to produce proofs of evolution, evolutionist paleontologists together with fossil hunters who accepted the same theory dug up Aboriginal graves and took skulls back to evolutionist museums in the West. Then they offered these skulls to Western institutions and schools distributing them as the most solid proof of evolution.
Later, when there were no graves left, they started shooting Aboriginals in the attempt to find proof for their theory. The skulls were taken, the bullet holes filled in and, after chemical processes were used to make the skulls look old, they were sold to museums.
This inhuman treatment was legitimated in the name of the theory of evolution. For example, in 1890, James Bernard, chairman of the Royal Society of Tasmania wrote: “the process of extermination is an axiom of the law of evolution and survival of the fittest.” Therefore, he concluded, there was no reason to suppose that “there had been any culpable neglect” in the murder and dispossession of the Aboriginal Australian.5
http://harunyahya.com/en/Evolu.....al-peoples
daveS, are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human?
BA77
The fossil was discovered less than 2 years ago and its significance and relation to other Homo specimens is still being debated. It appears that many experts regard it as important. Therefore I don’t believe it has been shown to be inconclusive, contrary to your assertion in #49.
Right. Why all the interest in comparing it to chimps anyway?
Yes, fine. Now do you agree with Luskin that all members of the Homo genus were/are human (excluding habilis)? Are they all offspring of Adam and Eve?
bornagain77: So you admit that you have no examples of unguided Darwinian processes generating even 500 bits of functional information and that unguided Darwinian processes are thus grossly inadequate even IF (capital IF) common descent were true?
Common descent provides the historical framework to discuss mechanisms. Doesn’t the predicted existence of non-sapiens hominins give you pause?
daveS, are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human?
No.
Zach, no, doesn’t the gross inadequacy of unguided material processes to generate functional information give you pause.
hint, one line of evidence relies on imagination to make its case, the other line relies on experiment.
Guess which one is scientific and which one is pseudo-science.
are you saying aboriginals were not created by God and are sub-human?
daves: “no”
then you answered your own question:
“So are all the genuine Homo fossils we find offspring of Adam and Eve? Some of which have very small brains and heavy brow ridges?”
bornagain77: no
Well, that’s the difference between you and scientists. Verified predictions are an important component of the scientific method. The discovery of forms intermediate between humans and other apes is strongly supportive of common descent.
bornagain77: one line of evidence relies on imagination to make its case
The discovery of predicted fossils, “hard” evidence, is not imagination.
Ok. The idea of Adam and Eve being what some call Homo erectus is new to me.
Zachriel, you do know that the questionable fossils that you are saying confirmed a prediction of Darwinism also overturned 4 of 5 other fossils that were held, for decades, to be proof of human evolution? I would call that a major step backwards in confirming your prediction!
Why is evidence only looked at in one way by you guys?
By the way, did you see Dr. Hunter’s new paper of the failed predictions of Darwinism?
Absolutely devastating!
daveS, my position is simple. Darwinists don’t have the fossils, nor a mechanism to make their case.
In fact, as far as the science itself is concerned, neo-Darwinism is falsified as to being a true description of reality.
You trying to dredge up unresolved theological issues on evidence which you yourself find questionable is of distant secondary importance to the actual science at hand.
But alas, Darwinism was based on bad theology, not science, at the beginning, and continues, as you and Zach clearly demonstrate, to be based on bad theology, not science, to this day.
i.e. you resolutely ignore what the empirical science is saying, to focus solely on what you perceive to be Theological problems.,,,
here is a related post on the (faulty) theological, not mathematical, foundation that undergirds Darwinian thought
By examining all the evidence on both sides. I would think a sane person would have to come to the conclusion that any theory as persistent as darwinism, which has managed to survive 200 years of evidence produced to nullify it, has a supernatural power behind it. It is Darwin’s religious conviction, and the fanatics who propagate it have no more respect for fact or truth than a Spanish inquisitor engaged in a heretic hunt. Darwinism is not a scientific theory let alone fact. It is a religious conviction.
Now after my Rant 🙂
Here’s something from Gerald Schroeders web site.
I’m not sure what I think about it.
Adam was the first of the Homo-Sapiens.
Adam was the first human, the first Homo sapiens with the soul of a human, the neshama. That is the creation listed in Genesis 1:27. Adam was not the first Homo sapiens. Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed (part 1 chapter 7) described animals co-existing with Adam that were identical to humans in shape and intelligence, but because they lacked the neshama, they were animals. The Guide for the Perplexed was published in the year 1190, seven centuries before Darwin and long before any evidence was popular relative to fossils of cave men and women. So from where did these ancients get the knowledge of the pre-Adam hominids? They learned it, correctly we discover, from the subtle wording of the biblical text. Those animals in human shape and intelligence would be the “adam” listed in Genesis 1:26, when God says “Let us make Adam.” But in the next verse God creates “the Adam,” the Adam, a specific being [a nuance in the Hebrew text first pointed out to me by Peggy Ketz and totally missed in the English translations!]. The Mishna in the section, Keli’im, discusses “masters of the field” that were animals but so identical to humans that when they died one could not tell them apart from a dead human. Masters of the field implies farming – a skill that predates the Adam by at least 2000 years according to pollen studies in the border area between Israel and Syria. Nahmanides (year 1250; the major kabalistic commentator on the Torah), in his long discussion of Genesis 2:7, details the flow of life that led to the Adam, the first human. He closes his comments there with the statement that when this spirituality was infused into the living being, that being changed to “another kind of man.” Not changed to man but another kind of man, a homo sapiens / hominid became spiritually human. The error in the term “cavemen” is in the “men.” They were not men or women. Though they had human shape and intelligence, they lacked the neshama, the human spirit infused by God. Cave men or women were never a theological problem for the ancient commentators. And they did not need a museum exhibit to tell them so. It is science that has once again come to confirm the age-old wisdom of the Torah! (For a detailed discussion of the ancient sources cited here, see the two relevant chapters in my second book, The Science of God.)
http://geraldschroeder.com/wor.....e_id=79#h5
BA77,
That’s certainly true of me personally; I don’t have enough knowledge to make a case for Darwinism.
It would be interesting to take your proposal that the Dmanisi specimens and other “homo erectus” individuals were descendants of Adam and Eve and see what the consequences are.
For example, can we establish a timeline? If so, how would this timeline square up with the biblical genealogies of Jesus? According to Luke, Adam to Jesus consists of 76 different generations, if I’m reading correctly. I don’t know what the average generation length would be, but it would have to be less that 1000 years, right? That would give an upper bound in the 70,000 year range for the ages of these fossils.
as to:
That is not my proposal. That is Casey Luskin’s position.
For the two cents it is worth, my personal position, due to the ‘gap’, and due to my ignorance of exactly what the fossils are, is to say that the fossils, which apparently overturned the Darwinian meta-narrative on supposed human evolution up to that point, are inconclusive.
You seem to agree that the fossils are inconclusive and that a case cannot be made for Darwinism with them.
Thus, the experts can’t make a case and you can’t make a case. Go figure! Can I quote you also that the fossils are of highly questionable interpretation and are of little use for establishing whether Darwinism is true? 🙂
I note that you do not contest the fact that Darwinism is falsified as far as the empirical science itself is concerned, but that you, true to Darwinian form, instead go straight to perceived theological issues, specifically dating discrepancies, to try to make your case.
You do realize that in doing so you have left the realm of empirical science and have entered squarely into Theological debate to try to make your supposedly ‘scientific’ case for Darwinism?
In other words, you have, in your appeal to Theology, in fact, directly underscored my claim that Darwinism is reliant on (faulty) Theological presuppositions instead of on any confirming real-time empirical science! i.e. Darwinism is a religion not a science!
of supplemental note as to when the ‘image of God’ may have appeared in man:
More interesting still, the three Rs, reading, writing, and arithmetic, i.e. the unique ability to process information inherent to man, are the very first things to be taught to children when they enter elementary school. And yet it is this information processing, i.e. reading, writing, and arithmetic that is found to be foundational to life:
As well, as if that was not ‘spooky enough’, information, not material, is found to be foundational to physical reality:
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information.
I guess a more convincing evidence could be that God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.
But who has ever heard of such overwhelming evidence as that?
Verse and Music:
BA77,
Hmm. Based on this exchange:
I thought you were confirming that all Homo fossils were from offspring of Adam and Eve. Is that not the case?
So you don’t know what the fossils are, just that they overturned Darwinism.
The experts apparently are not in agreement, so I would say the statement that they are of “questionable interpretation” is accurate.
I don’t really care about the origin (theological or scientific) of the claims that all humans descended from Adam and Eve, and that Adam to Jesus is about 76 generations. Lots of people I know believe it’s historical fact. I would like to know once and for all whether it’s true. This fossil would have some bearing on the truth of those claims if it’s human. What’s wrong with investigating further?
daveS,
No I was confirming that Darwinists justified slaughter of aboriginals because of their brow ridges and small brains
as to:
No question mark? Anyways, that was exactly what all the uproar was about when the discovery was announced. To repeat:
as to:
Are you certain that the fossils are questionable and cannot currently be used to to support your position?
as to
So you don’t really care but you do really care? Which is it?
All I did was pointed out that you have conceded the empirical high ground to me and resorted to theological debate to try to defend Darwinism.
That’s all fine and well to have questions about God, but you would do much better in discussing these personal Theological issues with reverendspy than with me, especially since he is in Theology and I am primarily concerned with the actual empirical science at hand.
BA77
Exactly — along with much, much more.
I have to thank those guys … this is one of the funniest threads we’ve had in a while.
I love the ad hoc explanations. Going for a ride on their epicycles. 🙂
When evolution gave us bigger brains, we had to go wandering around to find meat. We got bigger brains by eating seeds, but we really needed meat to make those brains work right. Humans found some meat and it tasted great. No problem digesting raw meat – it’s just like eating a banana except better for your brain! No problem killing animals with your bare hands either in the hopes that meat would actually be better for your brain than bananas. Of course, it was pretty obvious: “If I eat an antelope, that will be good, because I have a bigger brain than a chimp and raw antelope meat tastes better than bananas anyway and every hominid knows that meat is good for your brain. So, we’ll risk our lives to get meat, but it’s not a big risk because evolution gave us fat!” Modern day evolutionary statistics have shown that humans still prefer raw mammalian flesh over fruit. And humans generally don’t like bananas because you would have to be a chimp to like those and they only grow on trees – so come on!
Fortunately, evolution gave humans fat so they could wander around for a while until they learned how to kill, skin and rip out the good tasting parts of an animal. They tried just eating fur but that wasn’t as good for the brain, in spite of tasting great and being so easy to swallow.
Modern evolutionary studies have shown that among humans, vegetarians have smaller brains, like chimps. Obviously, they don’t eat meat which is necessary for big brains. Vegans actually have even smaller brains – sort of like fruitflies who don’t eat any meat or dairy products.
Fattyness is vital to the human lifestyle so we could do more with less food. Bacteria never thought about that so they have to eat all the time and stay skinny.
Chimps didn’t need to be fat because they have a lot of bananas. Evolution decided that it’s more efficient for them to have to find food every day, rather than just eat once a month and store fat. Plus, chimps brains stayed small but humans’ got big.
Trees need colorful tasty fruit to spread seeds, otherwise they’d be like other trees that have dull, uncolorful seeds.
Chimps learned to climb because selection favored brawn. Humans didn’t want to climb because whatever they were eating alongside of chimps on the ground, it gave humans bigger brains and evolution told them to ‘move just to move’ and then go find some meat. Otherwise, their bigger brains wouldn’t work very well and evolution would turn them into chimps again – and humans certainly didn’t want that!
This is all directly observed from watching the habits of primitive people – like Egyptians butterfly collectors and folk musicians. And by watching chimps of course. It’s evolution in action. Lab-tested.
I think we could fill an entire textbook with all of these wonderful facts about evolution!
How did I answer my own question (about all Homo fossils being human) then?
No, I’m not certain about that; I don’t know enough about them to be sure.
Heh. I don’t care about the origin of the claims. I do care whether they are true or not.
No. Even if the fossil is not human, that doesn’t mean Darwinism is correct, so this is not about Darwinism.
But why can’t we empirically test biblical claims?
Ok, I would also like to see what others think about this issue.
daveS
That is an admirable response – and refreshing to hear.
I also think you’re right to explore theological issues at the same time. Even if you find those arguments inconclusive, at least you’re taking the time to research.
Thanks, Silver Asiatic.
bornagain77: you do know that the questionable fossils that you are saying confirmed a prediction of Darwinism also overturned 4 of 5 other fossils that were held, for decades, to be proof of human evolution?
What fossils are those?
In any case, a feature of common descent is that the closer organisms are to their common ancestor, the more difficult it is to distinguish an ancestor from a near cousin. That’s why scientists argue over whether a particular fossil is on the direct line to humans or a side-branch.
Zachriel, Gotcha,,,, so predictions only count when they confirm, however dubiously, Darwinian predictions, and they don’t count when they falsify, however crushingly, Darwinian predictions. Man that is some neat little ‘scientific’ theory you got there. It explains everything and can be falsified by nothing.
SA at 74 🙂
Zach,
“what fossils are those?”:
to repeat for the umpteenth time:
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,,
If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.
per the guardian
SA,
What on earth are you going on about? None you latest rant appears to be related in any meaningful way to anything in teh OP or this thread.
Moreover, why do you think male chimps have almost no body fat? Even when raised in captivity, or compared humans living in hunter-gatherer societies? In 15 I laid out a pretty simply testable hypothesis to explain this observation. If you dont’ like that what is your alternative and how would you test it?
Silver Asiatic >74
Exactly what part of what you wrote is a wonderful fact about evolution? Be honest and admit it is nothing more than conjecture and assumption. It surely is not science. maybe pseudoscience.
The very same conjecture and assumption was made of coelacanth
below is an excerpt from Walt Browns “in the beginning”
“Before coelacanths were caught, evolutionists incorrectly believed that the coelacanth had lungs, a large brain, and four bottom fins about to evolve into legs. Evolutionists reasoned that the coelacanth, or a similar fish,
crawled out of a shallow sea and filled its lungs with air, becoming the first four-legged land animal. Millions of students have been incorrectly taught that this fish was the ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds,and mammals, including people. (Was your ancestor a fish?)
J. L. B. Smith, a well-known fish expert from South Africa, studied the first two captured coelacanths (nicknamed the coelacanth “Old Fourlegs”) and wrote a book by that title in 1956. When dissected, did they have lungs and
a large brain? Not at all. Furthermore, in 1987, a German team filmed six coelacanths in their natural habitat. They were not crawling on all fours!
Before living coelacanths were found in 1938, evolutionists dated any rock containing a coelacanth fossil as at least 70,000,000 years old. It was an index fossil. Today, evolutionists frequently express amazement that
coelacanth fossils look so much like captured coelacanths—despite more than 70,000,000 years of evolution. If that age is correct, billions of coelacanths would have lived and died. Some should have been fossilized
in younger rock and should be displayed in museums. Their absence implies that coelacanths have not lived for 70,000,000 years”
bornagain77: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray
The implications of the find are still in dispute, and many scientists believe the findings represent taxic diversity rather than in-species diversity.
A feature of common descent is that the closer organisms are to their common ancestor, the more difficult it is to distinguish an ancestor from a near cousin. That’s why scientists argue over whether a particular fossil is on the direct line to humans or a side-branch.
More data is needed to improve the resolution.
bornagain77: If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks.
That’s actually always been part of the theory of evolution, Darwin saying “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”
Silver Asiatic
The key here is
1. First create a plausible story–how the leopard got its spots, how the giraffe got its long neck, etc.,
2. Then find facts and fossils to fit into the story. It’s sorta like creating a mosaic.
3. Fill in the cracks with wild speculation, millions of years, and large latin words.
4. Contend that the story is now a *FACT* backed by Mountains of Evidence(tm). Ridicule any dissenters as anti-scientific.
It’s fun and profitable. You could end of teaching university courses on the subject. 😉
-Q
So Zach,
Always??? Really???
As Dr. Wells points out in the preceding video, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin’s tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
But that ‘tree pattern’ that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin’s theory predicted.
Moreover, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found in the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
BA77,
Try to read for comprehension. Why do you suppose that this may end the names of habilus, ergaster, etc?
Because the Dmanisi find shows that 1.8million years ago, specimens that would have been classified as separate species if found separately, are actually all the same species.
The only people that this is a problem for are those, like Luskin, who made the ridiculous argument that there was some huge unbridgeable gap between habilus and erectus. Here we have specimens that would have been classified as habilis and erectus if found separately, and, yet, not only are they of the same species, but may even had been family members!
Oops. Some gap there.
The “disarray” mentioned in the title is about the naming convention and categorization of the fossils. But, of course, that’s precisely the kind of disarray and problems that should happen if there was a gradual transition.
Zach as to:
So if a fossil find tears down decades of Darwinian research it is just a problem for further research for Darwinists? Nice to know. Of course others might suspect that such ‘flexibility’, of a supposedly scientific theory, in the face of any and all contrary evidence was sure sign that we are dealing with a pseudo-science instead of a real science.,,, But, as SA has brilliantly highlighted, I’m sure Darwinism can also explain, i.e. make up a just so story, as to why we would suspect that Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a real science! 🙂
goodusername, so you think, contrary to Zach, that getting rid of ‘half a dozen different species of early human ancestor’ and having them all re-classified as just one species (which I guess is still ‘homo-erectus’?) is a good thing? Really???
By golly,, Dr. Hunter is right, there simply is never any bad news if you are a Darwinist. No matter what the evidence is it always ends up confirming the theory no matter what. Talk about job security! 🙂
,,, More realistically though, as goodusername highlighted when he contradicted Zach, there seems to be as many opinions on erectus’s status as there are paleontologist who offer an opinion on its status:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567671
Human Evolution
A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution at the right, which they refer to as “Figure 1.”
http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i4f.htm
BA
LOL – there was a selection advantage for humans to think that Darwinism is a pseudo-science. Plus, chimps don’t care about evolution at all, so there you have it!
A “good thing” in what way? I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean. Is it a bad thing? Where did Zach say it was a bad thing?
It’s just an argument regarding classification. The human fossil record is still there regardless. The argument is just on how many ways to split the series up into species. It’s the old lumper vs splitter debate. One person might split the series up into 3 species, another into 10. If we had convenient gaps, we wouldn’t have these problems.
Should the fossils of 1.8 million years ago be divided into erectus, ergaster, habilis, georgicus, and rudolfensis? Or should it just be habilus and erectus? Or just erectus?
That debate has nothing to do with Darwinism. Toss Darwinism aside and the fossils don’t suddenly disappear, and the arguments regarding categorization will still be there.
Wait, you think that the Dmanisi fossils are a problem for those that believe that erectus evolved from habilis? Really?
Most Darwinists believed that erectus gradually transitioned from habilis around 1.8 million years ago.
Luskin argued that there was a wide unbridgeable gap between habilis and erectus.
The Dmanisi find is evidence that around 1.8 million years ago, it was impossible to draw any line between habilis and erectus.
And this find is bad news for… the former group?
If we don’t have intermediate fossils between two groups, that’s a problem for Darwinism. If we then find fossils with intermediate features of the two groups so that even experts can’t agree on classification, that’s a problem for Darwinism.
Heads you win; tails you win.
Looking at your posts above, I notice that you repeatedly argue that we don’t have transitional fossils, but you also mention a lot about fossils from around the time that a transition supposedly took place with intermediate features of both groups that are difficult for even experts to classify into either group A or group B.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
I’m not sure where you think I contradicted Zach, but the links you posted are just more lumper vs splitter disputes. In this case, mostly on whether erectus should be one species or split into erectus and ergaster.
“The human fossil record is still there regardless.”
Yep, and there is still a ‘big gap’ there regardless of how many ways Darwinists rearrange to fossils to try to fit their preconceived conclusion:
Hey, I have an idea goodusername that will resolve this issue, since Darwinists have a less than stellar record in dealing forthrightly with the fossil record for supposed human evolution. Do you think you could ever actually experimentally demonstrate that it is possible to change on of God’s creatures into another one of God’s creatures? Or is actual empirical evidence too much to ask? wd400 seemed to shy away when I asked him for actual evidence that such a transition was actually possible in reality:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567658
wd400
I’m sorry you didn’t understand what I was saying and you found nothing meaningful in it. So, it’s understandable why you can’t respond to it. I’m glad others understood what I was saying.
As I explained elsewhere, evolution proposes a “bigger picture” than merely something like why some male chimps have no fat. As I pointed out, you tend to avoid the bigger issues and focus on the minutiae.
Evolution proposes a story – a story for the development of all the massive diversity of life, and all of its diverse features, in the entire biosphere on earth since “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”.
You’ve got all the space you need here to elaborate on that story. Make it convincing – to us, not you. I already know you’re convinced. You find it all very reasonable.
But again, I don’t think you see the problem. It’s certainly not solved by statistical analysis of fat-friendly genes.
In your reply @ 32 you were a bit more bold than usual — yes, looking at the bigger issue, but in merely a cryptic way.
For you (without any additional information) you see the difference between human and chimp as one of degree – merely a physical difference. The gap can be bridged by gradualism. Or perhaps you don’t see a significant difference between human and chimp?
Again, you really offer very little on those kinds of issues. But at least you got started with that.
reverendspy
You’re right. Evolutionary theory is nonsense. I don’t think anybody really takes it seriously. Evolutionists just make up stories and they feel no hesitation to change or discard them at any time.
See Querius @85 for the ‘methodology’.
I don’t know what this even means. It’s true I’m not all that interested in philosophy of grand narratives.
Evolutionary biology is a science — a means by which we can propose and test hypotheses. I laid out one small example of that above, referring specifically to the topic of this thread. How would ID handle the same observations?
Querius
That method has really worked wonders for all these years!
The story of the giraffe might be the funniest of them all. Of course, “they had to stretch to reach leaves at the tops of trees”. 🙂
Things haven’t changed much since Darwin gave this famous story:
They would just get larger mouths because they wanted more insects … and then they become whales.
What’s so unreasonable about that? 🙂
Ppolish @ 22, thanks of the Wired article (http://www.wired.com/2011/11/chimp-throwing/ ). It’s hilarious! Chimpanzee poop fights are now credited with the evolution of the human brain! Who makes this stuff up? LOL
By the way, Silver Asiatic, thanks for compiling the comedy at 9!
And wd400 @ 96, you might want to note that your novel spelling of “Evoltutionary” (sic) includes an insertion that might actually be evolving into a brand new original thought! 😉
Shhh! Let’s see what happens . . .
-Q
wd400
Ok, as I said, the rest of us understood right away but you don’t. That’s ok, I understand.
I’ve seen that, and it’s good to see you admit it. But it’s important to recognize that evolution is a grand narrative. It’s a worldview. That’s what you’re defending. I’d suggest that you should become more familiar with it — because often when people look at the grand claims there are enormous problems.
Seeing the forest in this case, is more important than just seeing trees. That’s why it’s not enough to point to micro-evolution as if that answers all of the problems. There is a network – inter-connectivity that fills the biosphere. Bacteria, plants, animals, fish – evolution has to explain the totality.
I’m pretty sure you don’t understand the thesis that ID is defending. Like many, you think that ID is some kind of counterpoint to the evolutionary worldview and that ID proposes to explain the development of the entire biosphere just as Darwinism does. But that’s not the case.
It’s important to understand what ID proposes.
Silver Asiatic,
Thanks for the Darwin quote. I knew that he thought that bears evolved into whales, but I never knew the details of his meticulously researched study of how bears feed themselves on insects! lol
-Q
I’ll admit that I thought ID was meant to be science.
wd400
As I said, you don’t know what ID proposes and you can’t articulate it. I’ll suggest that you’re wasting a lot of your time here if you haven’t figured that much out yet.
Feel free to “articulate” the science of ID. And why you spend time making childish and ignorant cariactures of evolutionary biology is ID is not a scientific competitor to that field.
Moreover, why do you think male chimps have almost no body fat?
The female chimps like em slim and trim. Let’s see those abs!
I have an idea. Let’s grab a 5 year old and give him/her some photos of animals. Ask him/her to then come up with a reason why the animal has a certain feature, say why a giraffe has a long neck. Then compare the answers to those of an evolutionary biologist. We can then compare the answers side by side without saying who the answers are from. Maybe it will give us an idea of the level of intelligence needed to propose these explanations. Obviously the biologist will be more intelligent. But maybe we should then expect more from these biologists if the answers cannot be differentiated from the 5 year old and the all mighty evo biologist…
scottH, please don’t insult 5 year olds! 🙂
of related note:
bornagain77: Always???
This is quoted from Origin of Species by Charles Darwin 1869: “the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.”
bornagain77: So if a fossil find tears down decades of Darwinian research it is just a problem for further research for Darwinists?
It’s called evidence. A feature of common descent is that the closer organisms are to their common ancestor, the more difficult it is to distinguish an ancestor from a near cousin. That’s why scientists argue over whether a particular fossil is on the direct line to humans or a side-branch. More evidence will allow scientists to better distinguish between closely related organisms.
bornagain77: there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.
Tattersall certainly accepts common descent, and thinks the changes were likely due to “minor structural innovation at the DNA level” in small populations. Do you have a quota for quote-mining or something?
Silver Asiatic: Things haven’t changed much since Darwin gave this famous story: “In North America the black bear was seen …”
It was a testable hypothesis. Turns out molecular and fossil evidence shows that whales evolved from the same ancestor as modern artiodactyla.
wd400
1. I was impersonating evolutionary theorists. That’s why it seemed childish and ignorant – because that’s what it is. You’ll notice scottH @ 105 compared it to what 5-year olds would come up with.
2. Evolution has a grip on all of science. Pompous academics expect everyone to take their ideas seriously. But it’s obvious that they don’t take it seriously themselves. You’re a perfect example. You simply ignore the evolutionary grand narrative as if it doesn’t exist. You really have nothing to say about the story of evolution itself. My comments are merely illustrating how absurd and indefensable the story is. The reason evolution is a target is because the pretensions of evolutionary theorists need to be exposed and broken so that ID’s scientific research will be seen for the value it has, and not dismissed through Darwinian-bias. Plus, for entertainment value alone, evolutionary claims provide the most comical material to be found among all of the pseudo-sciences. That’s why people laugh at it. I’m certainly not the only one. You could go back to David Berlinski’s critiques to find some very funny statements about the absurdity of evolutionary claims. I realize that you won’t find them funny at all, for various reasons.
3. In many cases, but not all, ID is a competitor to evolutionary claims. It’s important to eliminate causes that can be explained naturally in order for the ID inference to be the most reasonable option. However, ID does not propose that every aspect of nature shows scientifically observable evidence of design. ID is compatible with ‘evolution’, certain if that term is meant as ‘micro-evolutionary adaptations’. But the evolutionist also insists that “there is no evidence of design in nature”. ID merely needs to show evidence in one area to refute that. Let’s not forget that cosmological ID is obviously not a competitor to evolution also – again, ID is not a grand narrative to explain the origin of life, the origin of the universe or the development of life on earth (as evolution is for that). Instead, it merely presents evidence of intelligent design that can be found in some aspect of each of those areas.
Zachriel, just like I thought, evidence only counts for your beloved theory and never against it. Like I said, that is some neat little ‘scientific’ theory you got there. It can explain anything and be falsified by nothing.
Of course, others not so enamored with your beloved theory might point out that the ‘explain anything and be falsified by nothing’ quality of your theory is also a sure mark of a pseudo-science.
But I’m sure Darwinism can also explain, i.e. offer a just so story, why some people may believe that Darwinism is a pseudo-science.
And thus demonstrating your ignorance of evolutionary theory. Which evolutionary theorests do you think proposed giraffes got their long necks from stretching?
When presented with an actual evolutionary hypothesis, instead of a strawman of you own making, you can’t provide either a criticism or a useful alternative. Instead you a left spluttering.
Maybe, just maybe, there is something to evolutionary biology after all. If you’d just learn about it…
wd400: “And thus demonstrating your ignorance of evolutionary theory,,,”
Speaking of ignorance of evolutionary theory wd400, were not you one of the ‘enlightened’ Darwinists who claimed that the human brain was the result of a few mutations to HOX genes or something like that?
If not, can you please help enlighten us poor ignorant IDiots as to how something so unfathomably complex as the human brain came about by unguided material processes?
I found the ‘just so story’ of HOX gene mutations, told with such conviction, a bit unsatisfying to put it mildly.
Hopefully you can be a little more specific as to details! 🙂 Such as these following details
When I see such unfathomable complexity in the brain wd400, I just can’t shake the feeling that almighty God put that thing together. I know you think we are ignorant for believing as such, and I sure want be as smart as you consider yourself to be, but I just can’t see how unguided material processes can create that.
So please slow it down and take us through the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally ‘get it’ and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all ! 🙂
Verse:
Psalm 139:13
For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
Except for my brain. That was knitted together after I got out of my mother’s womb.
🙂
wd400
Yes, the evolution of the giraffe’s neck is one of the best:
“With the giraffe, the continued preservation of the individuals of some extinct high-reaching ruminant, which had the longest necks, legs, &c., and could browse a little above the average height, and the continued destruction of those which could not browse so high, would have sufficed for the production of this remarkable quadruped [giraffe].” — Charles Darwin
“Darwin’s story of how the giraffe got its long neck is perhaps the most popular and widely-told story of evolution. It is popular because it seems plausible: giraffes with slightly longer necks enjoyed a slight selective advantage in reaching the higher leaves of trees, and so over the ages these slight neck elongations accumulated, resulting in the modern giraffe. ”
Biologist and geneticist W.E.Loennig has written a detailed, thoroughly-researched study, “The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe”, which shows that almost everything about this popular story is either false or unsubstantiated. In Part I (my English translation is linked from http://www.discovery.org/csc) Loennig shows that there is no fossil evidence to support the idea of a gradual elongation of the neck from the giraffe’s Okapi-like ancestors, and that the elongation required much more than simple quantitative changes: new features were required, for example, to handle the much higher blood pressure required by the long neck.
BA
You’re right – I would like to see that and maybe some day be as smart as wd400.
I realize he has already explained why some male chimps are not fat — so that should really be enough to explain the human brain — but it would be nice for him to teach all of us IDiots about the evolution of the brain. Yes, nice and slowly. He’s got all the time and space needed for it.
For example, what are the physical differences between modern human brains and the earliest humans? It must be a huge difference because modern humans can do many things that humans couldn’t do for about a million years. It would be great to see the mutational pathways that created language, music, art, mathematics, science — and also IDiot thinking in the changing physical structure of the brain. Each one had a selection advantage of course, and we should be able to find everything we need in the fossil record.
From BA77’s references to the complexity of the brain (I observe that wd400 never addresses any of these) …
Let’s hear it from the Darwinists: “Evolution is not random!”
Now let’s hear it from Larry Moran: “Evolution is random!”
Evolution is randomly not random. IDiots.
LOL:
“I realize he has already explained why some male chimps are not fat — so that should really be enough to explain the human brain,,,”
OH, I get it now, the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too.
And that is why we can land men on the moon and chimps fling poop at us.
Thanks for clearing that up. I really should learn to stop asking for details. 🙂
bornagain77: evidence only counts for your beloved theory and never against it.
Have no love for any particular theory. Evidence can count for or against a theory. That’s why the current biological theory is quite different from Darwin’s original theory.
In the specific case, we’re discussing the branching order of hominins. The evidence may indicate that there was less branching than previously supposed. More evidence will help resolve this issue. This doesn’t impact the overall theory of evolution, of course.
Silver Asiatic: Loennig shows that there is no fossil evidence
There’s actually several extinct species of giraffids, including bohlinia and samotherium.
Excellent fact, BA77. Once our brains became fat, then we became humans, then we landed on the moon.
You mean we actually have to know how the proteins work before we can explain their evolutionary origin?
No! … we obviously don’t understand evolutionary theory. We already learned why chimps are skinny. You’re asking for far too many details, BA77. 🙂
Zachriel,
“Have no love for any particular theory. Evidence can count for or against a theory. That’s why the current biological theory is quite different from Darwin’s original theory.”
They are equidistant from objective reality. Neutral theory is as far from the real world as Darwin’s original theory was. The reason is, random causation coupled with law-like causation cannot explain the rise of irreducibly complex linguistic machines (data -> protocol/code -> intended pragmatic end-result).
We have 0 evidence in support of naturalistic causation begin capable of explaining the observations.
On the contrary, we have solid evidence in support of intelligent causation being capable of explaining the generation of linguistic machines (intelligence here means both animal and human).
EugeneS: Neutral theory is as far from the real world as Darwin’s original theory was.
Genetic drift can be directly observed. The question that neutral theory attempts to answer is how much of historical evolution is due to this process.
EugeneS: The reason is, random causation coupled with law-like causation cannot explain the rise of irreducibly complex linguistic machines (data -> protocol/code -> intended pragmatic end-result).
If your gobbledygook refers to adaptation, then we can directly observe evolution by natural selection. If you are referring to the origin of the genetic code, we do not yet have a workable theory of its origin.
“Have no love for any particular theory.”
In so far as love is defined as not being able to see the glaring faults in what, or whom, you love, you are head of heals in love with Darwinism with a love that would make teenagers blush in shame.
Silver Asiatic:
“Once our brains became fat, then we became humans, then we landed on the moon.”
Man,,, You’re a freakin’ genius you IDiot! – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J00T-agwjQ
bornagain77: you are head of heals in love with Darwinism
Ignoring our comments then making up our position is called a strawman argument.
Zachriel, you have no evidence, and, thus, no argument to ignore.
Thus, the strawman, like the evidence, only exists in your imagination.
Speaking of ignoring evidence, care to pick up the ball where wd400 dropped it,,,
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-567930
,,, and give us the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally ‘get it’ and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all ! 🙂
If I Only Had a Brain – Video and Lyrics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg66kwRnOpw
bornagain77: you have no evidence
There’s never an excuse for *purposefully* misrepresenting someone’s position.
bornagain77: and give us the Darwinian explanation of the humans brain step by tiny step so that we IDiots can finally ‘get it’ and put all this ID nonsense to rest once and for all !
There is no step-by-step explanation. However, there is a general explanation. Let’s start with common descent. Humans share a common ancestor with other apes, indeed, common ancestry with hummingbirds. Okay so far?
“However, there is a general explanation”
we just talked about that ‘general’ explanation:
“the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too.”
Silver Asiatic:
“Once our brains became fat, then we became humans, then we landed on the moon.”
Please try to keep up Zach
———-
Man,,, You’re a freakin’ genius you IDiot! – video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J00T-agwjQ
bornagain77: “the mutation to the gene that made chimps skinny and us fat made our brains fat too.”
The evidence indicates that different genes were involved.
Zachriel,
“Genetic drift can be directly observed.”
So what? That’s not the point. Many things can be observed. The question is, whether they can explain other things. Genetic drift in principle is as good as random mutation in Darwin’s theory. Good for nothing, that is.
Stochastic phenomena (be it drift or random mutation) coupled with law-like necessity of selection, fixation, gravity, friction, nuclear or electromagnetic forces or whatever else, cannot adequately explain the rise of biological function.
You are still toying with you theoretical tornadoes generating functional systems for no purpose at all. Functional systems yielding pragmatic utility can only be explained by intelligence simply because nature does not care about pragmatic utility. If you cannot understand this simple empirical fact, I can’t help you, I’m afraid.
Zachriel,
“The evidence indicates that different genes were involved.”
are they close to the ‘I like coconut ice cream after dinner’ gene?
Speaking of I like coconut ice cream genes, I hate to break this to you Zach, seeing as how infatuated with the whole gene business you are, (you must have a special I like genes gene), but the whole concept of the gene has now been overturned:
In the following podcast, Dr. Sternberg’s emphasis is on ENCODE research, and how that research overturned the ‘central’ importance of the gene as a unit of inheritance. As well he reflects on how that loss of the term ‘gene’ as an accurate description in biology completely undermines the modern synthesis, (i.e. central dogma), of neo-Darwinism as a rational explanation for biology.
Here are a few more references on the loss of the term gene as a ‘central’ concept in the dogma of Darwinism:
EugeneS: That’s not the point.
Of course it’s the point. We know that at least some molecular evolution is due to drift.
EugeneS: Genetic drift in principle is as good as random mutation in Darwin’s theory. Good for nothing, that is.
Drift explains many of the patterns we observe in genomes.
EugeneS: Stochastic phenomena (be it drift or random mutation) coupled with law-like necessity of selection, fixation, gravity, friction, nuclear or electromagnetic forces or whatever else, cannot adequately explain the rise of biological function.
We can also show how natural selection leads to adaptation.
BA77
Interesting point. When your opponent has nothing to say he can’t complain about being ignored.
The general argument:
“Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Therefore, evolution is true.”
Now for the details of that:
“Ape-like ancestors evolved from hummingbirds”.
Now even more details from biochemistry:
“Genomic modelling shows that the presence of the same genetic structures in different organisms indicates ancestry – as in the case of whales and bats sharing the same genes for echolocation”
http://www.cell.com/current-bi.....%2902057-0
Obviously, bats evolved from whales. And whales evolved from bears. When you go in the water and open your mouth, you eventually turn into a whale.
Silver Asiatic: The general argument:
“Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Therefore, evolution is true.”
Rather, it is a strongly supported scientific fact that humans share a common ancestor with other apes. From that, we have the historical context to discuss the mechanisms of that transition.
Silver Asiatic: Obviously, bats evolved from whales.
No. Bats and whales share a relatively distant common ancestor.
Silver Asiatic: And whales evolved from bears.
No. Whales evolved from the same ancestor as modern artiodactyla.
What makes it a ‘strongly supported scientific fact’ is “Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Therefore, evolution is true.”
and What makes bats evolving from whales a ‘strongly supported scientific fact’ is because “Bats evolved from whale-like ancestors. Therefore, evolution is true.”
please do try to keep up Zach! 🙂
bornagain77: What makes it a ‘strongly supported scientific fact’ is “Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Therefore, evolution is true.”
Humans share a common ancestor with other apes.
“Humans share a common ancestor with other apes.”
Really????,,, Seeing as I don’t believe it is possible to change one of God’s creatures into another one of God’s creatures, you don’t mind giving me a little demonstration of your ‘strongly supported scientific fact’ do you?
i.e. Why do Darwinists get a free pass on ever experimentally demonstrating that Darwinism is remotely feasible?
All the while, despite such poverty of evidence, Darwinists claim that generating the fantastically complex human brain by unguided material processes is beyond all doubt:
Whatever Darwinists are doing, without any empirical basis for their claims whatsoever, whatever they are doing, it is certainly NOT science!
“We know that at least some molecular evolution is due to drift.”
It cannot account for the rise of biological function. Evolution chooses only from among existing functions. Function must exist before evolution even kicks in.
You want to try reading these links… The Cell paper shows the (synonymous changes only) DNA tree is identical to the expected shape, while the protein tree unites echolocators. So not only is simply untrue that bats and whales have the same genes, but the DNA sequences of the prestin gene supports the known tree of mammals, with the protein tree a clear signal of parallel evolution.
bornagain77: “Humans share a common ancestor with other apes.” Really????
That’s the problem with ID, of course. The common descent of humans and other life is one of the most profound discoveries in biology, a foundation of everything we know about biology, yet those IDers who understand the evidence for common descent will remain silent.
Do you accept that the Earth and life on Earth is billions of years old?
EugeneS: It cannot account for the rise of biological function.
Drift may explain the majority of molecular evolution, but adaptation requires selection.
Here’s a figure showing bats and dolphins group together on the same tree based on Prestin sequence comparisons.
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hp.....7372_n.jpg
Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes – Erika Check Hayden – 04 September 2013
Excerpt: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,” says molecular phylogeneticist Frédéric Delsuc at the The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Montpellier in France, who was not involved in the study. What is more, he adds, the genes involved are not just the few, obvious ones known to be directly involved in a trait but a broader array of genes that are involved in the same regulatory networks.
http://www.nature.com/news/con.....es-1.13679
Problem 7: Convergent Evolution Challenges Darwinism and Destroys the Logic Behind Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin February 9, 2015
Excerpt: Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern. Examples of this abound in the literature,,,,
Biochemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution.126 Each case shows an example where biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor. So what does this do to the main assumption of tree-building that biological similarity implies inheritance from a common ancestor? With so many exceptions to the rule, one has to wonder if the rule itself holds merit.,,,
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91161.html
Newly Discovered Convergent Genetic Evolution Between Bird and Human Vocalization Poses a Severe Challenge to Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin – December 15, 2014
Excerpt: “We’ve known for many years that the singing behavior of birds is similar to speech in humans — not identical, but similar -,,, “But we didn’t know whether or not those features were the same because the genes were also the same.”
“Now scientists do know, and the answer is yes — birds and humans use essentially the same genes to speak.”,,,
“there is a consistent set of just over 50 genes,,,”
“These changes were not found in the brains of birds that do not have vocal learning and of non-human primates that do not speak,”
So certain birds and humans use the same genes for vocalization — but those genetic abilities are absent in non-human primates and birds without vocal learning? If not derived from a common ancestor, as they clearly were not, how did the genes get there? This kind of extreme convergent genetic evolution points strongly to intelligent design.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92041.html
Podcast: Casey Luskin on How Convergent Evolution Turns the Logic of Common Ancestry on Its Head
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95481.html
podcast – The “Big Bang” for Birds
http://www.discovery.org/multi.....for-birds/
Casey Luskin discusses the abrupt origin of birds (as well as the paper on convergent vocalization genes) on The Universe Next Door with Tom Woodward.
Same Old Darwinian Drivel – June 26, 2014
Excerpt: the six electric fish lineages, all of which ‘evolved’ independently, used essentially the same genes and developmental and cellular pathways to make an electric organ,
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-505369
“The common descent of humans and other life is one of the most profound discoveries in biology,”
baseless Atheistic assumptions falsely parading as scientific fact are not ‘profound discoveries’. They are unsubstantiated fantasies
Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle – “Haldane’s Ratchet” – Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford – 2013
Excerpt: We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage.
Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as “Haldane’s Dilemma” is very real.
Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon “Haldane’s Ratchet”.
http://media.wix.com/ugd/a704d.....fa9c20.pdf
bornagain77 (quoting): Whenever evolutionary biologists are forced to appeal to convergent evolution, it reflects a breakdown in the main assumption, and an inability to fit the data to a treelike pattern.
Convergence has been part of the theory of evolution since Darwin, so it can’t “reflect a breakdown in the main assumption”.
Zach
Yes, mouse-deer.
They were swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water.
They then became more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths.
They gained a little weight also. Evolution made them fatter, like it did with humans.
The main assumption is that biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.
wd400
From the paper …
When genetic and functional similarity cannot be explained by ancestry or by any of the patchwork of exceptions above … then it’s clear evidence of convergent evolution. Of course, there’s no other option.
Bats and whales needed an echolocating function, so evolution selected the same kinds of mutations for them.
Why do IDiots have a problem with this? I mean, there’s clear evidence here. When everything else fails, it’s convergent evolution, obviously.
We found a gap, and evolution filled it.
Silver Asiatic: The main assumption is that biological similarity — even at the genetic level — is the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.
Not mere similarity, but a nested pattern of traits.
Silver Asiatic: then it’s clear evidence of convergent evolution. Of course, there’s no other option.
They can support that finding by comparing synonymous and non-synonymous substitutions. Guess what they found?
SA.
Why do the synonymous mutations in Prestin make a tree that perfectly matches the mammal tree estimated from the rest of the genome?
Zach
That they could not estimate the probability of (and therefore cannot predict) the occurrence of the non-synonymous substitutions.
Zach
As BA pointed out, with convergent evolution that assumption breaks down.
wd400
What was the probability that bats and whales would both develop echolocation from a common selection for amino-acid-altering mutations?
corrected link
Picture: Echolocation in bats and whales based on same changes to same gene
http://blogs.discovermagazine......n-tree.jpg
The echolocation abilities of bats and whales, though different in their details, rely on the same changes to the same gene – Prestin. These changes have produced such similar proteins that if you drew a family tree based on their amino acid sequences, bats and toothed whales would end up in the same tight-knit group, to the exclusion of other bats and whales that don’t use sonar.
http://blogs.discovermagazine......XXadkbcBCA
Neither lineage developed echolocation “from” these mutations. If there are only a handful of mutaitons that can increase teh fidelity of high-frequency hearing via prestin then it’s pretty likely two echolocating lineages will find them.
Back on an envelope, say changing a Proline to a Histidine would be favoured in an echolocating lineage. Half of the second position mutations in a Pro codon will lead to His. Since the mutation rate is mammals is ~1e-8 that’s a 5e-9 chance per-individual per-generation. With a population size of 10, 000 you’d get a rate of 5e-5 per generation and therefore an expected waiting time of ~20,000 generations. So the mutation would come up often enough, the fact it’s favoured in both echolocating lineages would make it much more likely to become fixed.
Precise calculations would require us to know about the way mutations interact with each other to create the phenotype and their respective selective advantages. Calculating the probability that each lineage would find the same substitutions would require us to know about what other mutations might have the same effects (or to turn it around,, this finding is evidence that only a few mutations are able to generate better high-frequency hearing).
Now, answer my question. Why do the synonymous mutations in Prestin make a tree that perfectly matches the mammal tree estimated from the rest of the genome?
Actually your numbers are way off wd400:
Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology – video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85kThFEDi8o
Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse – August 2011
Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....osenhouse/
of related note:
Convergent evolution’ (homology in unexpected places) is found to be much more widespread than originally thought. Far more often than would be expected under the neo-Darwinian framework.
“Despite its complexity, C4 photosynthesis is one of the best examples of ‘convergent evolution’, having evolved more than 50 times in at least 18 plant families (Sage 2004; Conway Morris 2006).”
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/.....9.full.pdf
“The reason evolutionary biologists believe in “40 known independent eye evolutions” isn’t because they’ve reconstructed those evolutionary pathways, but because eyes don’t assume a treelike pattern on the famous Darwinian “tree of life.” Darwinists are accordingly forced, again and again, to invoke convergent “independent” evolution of eyes to explain why eyes are distributed in such a non-tree-like fashion.
This is hardly evidence against ID. In fact the appearance of eyes within widely disparate groups speaks eloquently of common design. Eyes are a problem, all right — for Darwinism.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....83441.html
, Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of ‘convergence’:
Map Of Life – Simon Conway Morris
http://www.mapoflife.org/browse/
Simon Conway Morris: “Fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution.” – March 2012
Excerpt: “The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/
Silver Asiatic: As BA pointed out, with convergent evolution that assumption breaks down.
Even with convergence, you can still determine a consistent nested pattern. While fish and whales both have slippery surfaces (convergence), anything but a cursory look will reveal that whales group with mammals (nested).
Silver Asiatic: That they could not estimate the probability of (and therefore cannot predict) the occurrence of the non-synonymous substitutions.
Synonymous substitutions support the standard mammalian phylogeny.
wd400
Because that’s the way they were designed.
Zach
The explanation for why that feature developed in mammals is an exercise in story-telling.
Lol.
Silver Asiatic: Because that’s the way they were designed.
Sure. Synonymous substitutions were designed for no other reason than to look like common descent.
Silver Asiatic: The explanation for why that feature developed in mammals is an exercise in story-telling.
It’s an example of how posited convergence still leaves the overall nesting pattern intact. It contradicts bornagain77’s and your contention that convergence “reflects a breakdown” in nesting.
Darwin: It is incredible that the descendants of two organisms, which had originally differed in a marked manner, should ever afterwards converge so closely as to lead to a near approach to identity throughout their whole organisation.
Nice to see some self-mockery from a proponent of a group of people who often take themselves too seriously.