Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Incredible Shrinking Timeline

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A new study has come out that tracks ‘tracks’; i.e., reptile ‘tracks’. It seems that the transition from a straddled to an upright position of reptilian limbs took place almost immediately. So scientists say that have studied fossilized tracks prior to, and immediately after, the end-of-the Permian mass extinction.

Fossil Reptilian Tracks

[BTW, let’s remember that the Darwinian objection to an absence of intermediate forms is the imperfection of the fossil record, with the difficulty of ‘soft-tissue’ fossilizing as a partial reason. But here we’re talking fossil footracks, which would seem even harder to form, and yet they’re found!]

Professor Mike Benton offers this:

“As it is, the new footprint evidence suggests a more dramatic pattern of replacement, where the sprawling animals that dominated Late Permian ecosystems nearly all died out, and the new groups that evolved after the crisis were upright. Any competitive interactions were compressed into a short period of time.”

Scientists (=evolutionists) were of the assumption that this pre-to-post Permian transition took 20-30 million years. It now appears to have been almost immediate.

Ah, yes, the incredible shrinking timeline for the Cambrian Explosion, the Reptilian Explosion and the Mammalian Explosion (This last one has been coming out over the last year or so, and now we’re seeing the Reptilian Explosion come to the fore). Let’s hear it for Darwinian ‘gradualism’. When will these guys ever give up?!? Behe, in his Edge of Evolution, documents that it has taken 10^16 to 10^20 replication events (progeny) of the eukaryotic malarial parasite for it to come up with a two amino acid change as a way of resisting cholorquinone. Assuming one year/generation for the reptiles, this meant evolutionists before had 20-30 million generations for ‘something’ to happen. And now? Darwinism is hopeless to explain these new discoveries. And, yet, they persist. Scientific faith is a wonderful thing, isn’t it?

Comments
A "rigged" lottery is an intelligent explanation. We do not need to hypothesize a god we need only hypothesize an intelligent source.suckerspawn
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Ritchie:
As long as something is possible, no matter how unlikely it is, then given enough attempts, it will eventually happen.
1- That is just a bald declaration 2- How do we figure out what is possible? 3- There isn't any scientific data which demonstrates the transformations required (for universal common descent) are even possible.
Evoution itself is not improbable.
Mere "evolution" isn't being debated.
The existence of a god, simply put, is more improbable than anything which exists in the universe.
Another bald assertion.
So whenever you face a puzzle with a highly unlikely material explaination, no matter how unlikely it is, it will always be more probable than one that hypothesizes a god.
Puzzle: Natural processes only exist in nature and therefor cannot account for its origins. What is the material explanation?Joseph
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT
PaV [from 47] "You buy a ticket once a week. That’s 50 times per year. Times 50,000 years = 2,500,000 times that you’ve bought a ticket, where each ticket has a roughly one in 55,000,000 chances of winning. This means that your chance of winning after 50,000 years is about one in 20, or 5%. Should this be a surprise then?" That is precisely my point! Given enough attempts, unlikely events eventually become inevitable. in post 36, you stated that "the odds for one random mutation occuring at a specific site along the genome is 1 in 100,000,000." I won't argue with this figure because I don't know any better. But this is the chance of a mutation occuring FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL THAT IS BORN. So if an animal of the species in question has a litter of five offspring, that's 5 chances of this 1 in 100,000,000 event happening. If there are a million of these creatures born in a year, that's a million chances. And over a hundred years, that's a hundred million chances. So should we be surprised if it eventually happens? "You need 50,000,001 for the probability to rise to 50% The chance that the first mutation is the right one is still 1 in 100,000,000." No, you need 50,000,000 for the probability to be 50%. 50% + 1 makes an event 'likely'. The odds are indeed still 1 in 100,000,000, but 50% of 100,000,000 is 50,000,000. So if you have 50,000,001 attempts at a 1 in 100,000,000 event, it is likely that the event will indeed happen.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews "If the winning lottery number was 100 digits long, winning would still be unlikely. The difference is that no one would win." Not so. The odds of winning would be far, far worse, I grant you, but it would still be possible, and if enough people played (I grant you'd need a truly huge nuber of people though) the chances of SOMEONE winning would indeed become likely. As long as something is possible, no matter how unlikely it is, then given enough attempts, it will eventually happen. "Random, non-directed evolution is the 100-digit lottery. It’s highly improbable even after taking into account the billions of years and generations." That's just not true at all. The assertion you MIGHT be trying to make is 'Going back to the first spark of life, the chances of life turning out exactly as it has done is phenominally unlikely'. And this is true. But immaterial. Evoution itself is not improbable. It is actually very likely, given the amount of evidence which supports it. "That still doesn’t make it impossible. But, like with that 100-digit lottery winner, it wouldn’t be rational for us to accept that explanation, even if we didn’t have a better one." On the contrary. If you played a 100-number lottery and won, it would still be reasonable to believe that you won fairly - or possibly that it had been rigged in your favour (both natural explainations). If you then turn to supernatural explainations, these will be even MORE unlikely, so they will not help you. The existence of a god, simply put, is more improbable than anything which exists in the universe. So whenever you face a puzzle with a highly unlikely material explaination, no matter how unlikely it is, it will always be more probable than one that hypothesizes a god.Ritchie
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Khan:
but a mutation with a slight advantage (e.g. slightly more upright posture) will be selected for.
A mutation to what, specifivally, allowed for a slightly more upright posture? Do you have any idea what would be involved in this sort of thing? It would help your case if we had evidence for this sort of transformartion.Joseph
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
Mark, ID is not about universal common descent. At best ID just says that organisms were designed to evolve- evolved by design. IOW a targeted search.Joseph
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
05:23 AM
5
05
23
AM
PDT
Given that the ultimate question is not about reptilian anatomy, but instead, how did this all happen – why does anything beyond “how did this all happen” take precedence? In what sense precedence? Do you mean it is impossible to answer the question about reptilian anatomy without answering the ultimate question? This would make all of science impossible.Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
#52 "ID hypothesis needs to explain the transition from one type of reptile to another whatever the origin of living tissue." Given that the ultimate question is not about reptilian anatomy, but instead, how did this all happen - why does anything beyond "how did this all happen" take precedence? Please be specific in this most obvious question. Are we to ignore what we already know to be true so that we may seek to confirm what some think might have happended (in spite of what we already know to be true)?Upright BiPed
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT
#51 Sorry - I don't understand your comment. Whatever you think about the beginning of living tissue (and one answer is "we don't know") surely an ID hypothesis needs to explain the transition from one type of reptile to another whatever the origin of living tissue. After all the comment above criticises MET for apparently failing to do just this.Mark Frank
September 18, 2009
September
09
Sep
18
18
2009
12:44 AM
12
12
44
AM
PDT
Mark Frank, Without a beginning to living tissue, the above commentary is moot. It is in that beginning that the plausability of design is not only stronger than that of a purely materialistic explanation - it is the only explanation that follows the observable evidence.Upright BiPed
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
Look above at the extensive discussion of the plausibility or otherwise of a Darwinian solution. Discussion of what mutations must have taken place, the probability of those mutations, how the difference sexes could mate, the actual timescale involved, etc. Now show me a single sentence discussing the plausibility of a designed solution.Mark Frank
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
PaV @ 45:
Did I address this comment to you? No.
You introduced the terms "microevolutionary" and "macroevolutionary," as well as "sudden appearance" in connection with Gould, addressed to me @ 38 above.
Did I say that going from a ’straddling’ position to an ‘upright’ position was “macroevolution”? No. So, on what basis are you making this assertion?
You now characterize the change in reptilian stance as,
a major renovation of a body-plan after an extinction event.
Which you obviously have claimed as an exemplar of "macroevolutionary" change. Do you deny that? Is the change in reptilian stance a "macroevolutionary" change, or not? Terminology aside, my question to you therefore remains: On what basis do you claim that the change in stance displayed by some reptiles across the end-of-permian extinction is beyond the reach of variation and selection, yet accept that the wide morphological diversity observed among 2,800 shrimp species may be accomplished by the same mechanism? On what basis do you reject one, yet accept the other?
I simply pointed out what Gould pointed out—the ‘trade secret’ of paleontologists—that stasis is the more characteristic trait of the fossil record, rather than gradual change.
And immediately associated him with the creationist/ID chestnut, "sudden appearance." But nothing whatsoever in Gould's work supports the notion of "sudden appearance" in that sense.
But nowhere has a coherent mechanism of evolutionary change at the “macro” level ever been presented. The operative word here is coherent. If you know of such a presentation I would be happy to peruse it.
Since you misconstrue Gould, I suggest The Structure of Evolutionary Theory for one such coherent viewpoint.Diffaxial
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
PaV,
Because I’m assuming that the change of one, single nucleotide isn’t enough, by itself, to make ’straddling’ reptiles ‘upright’.
probably not. but a mutation with a slight advantage (e.g. slightly more upright posture) will be selected for.. in any case, what probably happened is that there was a low frequency of reptiles with upright posture before the extinction event (indeed you can see this in fig 2 of the paper). more of these animals survived the extinction event than the sprawling ones, their ancestors survived and thrived and replaced the sprawlers, and hence you see rapid evolution with very little need for mutation..Khan
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Ritchie [40]:
Let’s say I live to a million and I play the lottery every week. I win one random day when I am 50,000 years old. Clearly my winning is the result of nothing but chance. Yet it does not make sense to ask why didn’t I win sooner. It does not point to a supernatural agent influencing my win. It is rational simply to point out that winning was unlikely, so it would take many attempts before my winning becomes probable or likely.
You buy a ticket once a week. That's 50 times per year. Times 50,000 years = 2,500,000 times that you've bought a ticket, where each ticket has a roughly one in 55,000,000 chances of winning. This means that your chance of winning after 50,000 years is about one in 20, or 5%. Should this be a surprise then?
No, only one offspring has to be born. 50,000,001 offspring need to be born before such a specific mutation is PROBABLE.
You need 50,000,001 for the probability to rise to 50% The chance that the first mutation is the right one is still 1 in 100,000,000.PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
Khan [39]:
in 7, you refer to the probability of getting a “good” mutation, which I assume meant an immediately beneficial one. why is the benefit suddenly in the future now?
Because I'm assuming that the change of one, single nucleotide isn't enough, by itself, to make 'straddling' reptiles 'upright'. So it has to wait for other mutations to occur before it can bestow any benefit.PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
Diffaxial at[43]:
On what basis do you describe the change in stance displayed by some reptiles across the end-of-permian extinction as “macroevolutionary,” and therefore beyond the reach of variation and selection, yet the morphological diversity among shrimps observed among the specimens displayed on the above linked page as “microevolutionary,” and therefore easily accomplished by selection?
Did I address this comment to you? No. Did I say that going from a 'straddling' position to an 'upright' position was "macroevolution"? No. So, on what basis are you making this assertion? What's being called into question here is the timeline associated with a major renovation of a body-plan after an extinction event. How did this all happen so quickly. Darwin averred that change had to take place gradually. Well, some of you are making a big deal of how "long" six milliion years is; but, geologically, this ISN'T a long time. But, for the average human being, yes, this is a long time. However, it seems to me that the relevant question is always whether or not this is a sufficient amount of time for genetic mechanisms to bring about this change in a 'random' fashion? That is the question. Where is the answer? No one has given an answer except by saying how many 'days' six million years represents.
However, the average run of a single species is approximately four million years – which means that the “sudden” in “sudden appearance” for such rapid change typically spans 40,000 to 80,000 years. That is a significant percentage of the entire run of Homo sapiens. Is the emergence of and change within a new species over tens of thousands of years what you mean by “sudden appearance?”
Years aren't the really relevant numbers here; generations are; the number of offspring per generation is also important. I'm not at all familiar with shrimp reproductive cycles, but I'm rather sure that they produce thousands upon thousands of eggs, and perhaps several times a year; whereas reptiles produce 5-6 eggs, and perhaps once a year. When we concern ourselves with statistical properties, that's what is important; not strictly years. As I'm sure you well know.
NOTHING in Gould’s work calls into question descent with modification resulting from the primary engines of change identified by Darwin (variation and selection). Don’t try to argue otherwise.
Have I tried to argue otherwise? Please point it out to me. I simply pointed out what Gould pointed out---the 'trade secret' of paleontologists---that stasis is the more characteristic trait of the fossil record, rather than gradual change. As to his opinion regarding current evolutionary theory, yes, he presents a composite view. And, yes, there are now layers to current evolutionary thought, the greatest, perhaps, being evo-devo. But nowhere has a coherent mechanism of evolutionary change at the "macro" level ever been presented. The operative word here is coherent. If you know of such a presentation I would be happy to peruse it.PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Granny @34 No, you quoted the wrong part:
Some key muscles, mainly between the back and pelvis, must actually attach to different locations.
"Some" is not "nearly always." BTW, feel free to post at your pace. These threads can progress too fast at times.SpitfireIXA
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
PaV @ 38:
“Adaptive radiation” is just another term for “microevolution”, something that the vast majority of those opposed to “macroevolution” via Darwinian mechanisms already accept.
Thank you. I just won a bet. On what basis do you describe the change in stance displayed by some reptiles across the end-of-permian extinction as "macroevolutionary," and therefore beyond the reach of variation and selection, yet the morphological diversity among shrimps observed among the specimens displayed on the above linked page as "microevolutionary," and therefore easily accomplished by selection? The diversity among shrimp reflects morphological differences (to my admittedly untrained eye) far in excess of the change in stance observed among some reptiles.
Stephen Gould, considered one of the premier biologists of our time, came up with his theory of “punctuated equilibria” to be able to come to terms with what the fossil record reveals: sudden appearance, stasis, sudden disappearance.
IIRC, in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory Gould notes that most species displaying punctuation undergo rapid change for approximately 1-2% of their run, then demonstrate stability. However, the average run of a single species is approximately four million years - which means that the "sudden" in "sudden appearance" for such rapid change typically spans 40,000 to 80,000 years. That is a significant percentage of the entire run of Homo sapiens. Is the emergence of and change within a new species over tens of thousands of years what you mean by "sudden appearance?" Gould also notes that not all species display this pattern of punctuationism, that many display gradual rather than sudden changes in morphology, and that the relative importance of stasis/punctuation versus gradual change in the natural world remains an important empirical question. More generally, Gould argued throughout the 1,400 pages of Structure both for the revolutionary importance of Darwin's essential insights and that considerable new theoretical superstructure has been built upon his accomplishments, augmenting the essential Darwinian core with several more contemporary insights. These include the role of historical and developmental constraints, the role of contingency, evo-devo, the reality of levels of selection, and so forth - levels of explanation that account for facts regarding the large scale patterning of the history of life on earth that selection alone does not. And, of course, these were central interests of Gould's that distinguished him from Dawkins and Dennett and indeed engendered friction with them. The cover illustration of Structure (a painting of the branching structure of a fossil coral) depicts this sense of both retaining an essential Darwinian core while both pruning and grafting the theory in several directions. Gould both embraced Darwin and rebuilt his vision of evolutionary theory to include factors that go far beyond Darwin - as well one would expect of a a living science. NOTHING in Gould's work calls into question descent with modification resulting from the primary engines of change identified by Darwin (variation and selection). Don't try to argue otherwise. I'll grab my copy of Structure when I get home. I'm sure you'll consult yours, too.Diffaxial
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Ritchie, We're comparing apples to oranges when we relate two different events by calling them both "unlikely." If the winning lottery number was 100 digits long, winning would still be unlikely. The difference is that no one would win, even if everyone in the world played a thousand times. If someone won, chance would be an explanation, but educated people would dismiss that answer and start asking how someone really got the numbers. Random, non-directed evolution is the 100-digit lottery. It's highly improbable even after taking into account the billions of years and generations. The point is that we're fooling ourselves if we don't think that a possibility can be eliminated by staggering odds. Random evolution is not a lottery number. That still doesn't make it impossible. But, like with that 100-digit lottery winner, it wouldn't be rational for us to accept that explanation, even if we didn't have a better one.ScottAndrews
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Mr PaV, Given the fact that neither Great Danes nor Chihuahua’s ’straddle’, it’s hard to take your response seriously. The point is that Great Danes and Chihuahuas are a greater ratio of body size and pelvis to pelvis distance than the ratios of upright stance and straddle stance in ancient reptiles. Even if the male has an upright stance and has to adopt a stance as wide as a Republican senator in an airport bathroom in order to mate, I don't see this as an insurmountable (no pun intended) obstacle. And that is assuming the worst, that the change from straddle to upright occured in a saltational leap. If it occured via gradual reshaping of the pelvis, then the problem is even less critical.Nakashima
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
PaV, I find the reasoning in your last post (36) quite odd. Let's say I live to a million and I play the lottery every week. I win one random day when I am 50,000 years old. Clearly my winning is the result of nothing but chance. Yet it does not make sense to ask why didn't I win sooner. It does not point to a supernatural agent influencing my win. It is rational simply to point out that winning was unlikely, so it would take many attempts before my winning becomes probable or likely. "In this case the odds for one random mutation occuring at a specific site along the genome is 1 in 100,000,000. So 10^8 offspring have to be produced to have one such random mutation." No, only one offspring has to be born. 50,000,001 offspring need to be born before such a specific mutation is PROBABLE. It's easy to play around with probability, but the fact is that in a world governed by nothing but chance unlikely events WOULD still happen. They would happen less often than likely events. But they would still happen. Even EXTREMELY unlikely events would happen. They would be rarer still, but we should still expect them. The lesson to be drawn here is that just because unlikely events happen, that does not mean they were driven by anything other than chance. Just because a particular mutation happening a particular way is incredibly unlikely, that does not mean we should conclude divine intervention. After all, every week someone usually wins the lottery, yet the odds of each person doing so were laughable before the draw.Ritchie
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
PaV (37),
It would probably be better to say that this neutral mutation, which, indeed it is, is a “future” beneficial mutation. All by itself, however, it’s sort of like static noise.
in 7, you refer to the probability of getting a "good" mutation, which I assume meant an immediately beneficial one. why is the benefit suddenly in the future now? (38) like every other ID person (and many evo bio people as well, unfortunately), you misunderstand Gould's idea. PE was specifically about small, species-level changes, i.e. what you would call microevolution. so adaptive radiations are exactly the type of thing that PE explains.Khan
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
Diffaxial at [24]:
The premise of your question is faulty. There are nearly 2,800 described species of shrimp (infraorder Caridae) worldwide with estimates of twice that number yet to be discovered and described. A huge variety of specialized lifestyles is also observed. In short, these animals display a history of rich adaptive radiation that has resulted a in tremendous variety of species, a pattern that is consistent with a picture of evolutionary descent with modification.
I'm sure there are plenty of different species, enjoying plenty of different 'specialized lifestyles'. But a significant reorganization of body-plans are not part of that diversity. Stephen Gould, considered one of the premier biologists of our time, came up with his theory of "punctuated equilibria" to be able to come to terms with what the fossil record reveals: sudden appearance, stasis, sudden disappearance. "Adaptive radiation" is just another term for "microevolution", something that the vast majority of those opposed to "macroevolution" via Darwinian mechanisms already accept. I prefer to simply refer to it as adaptation---something that the biological world was aware of well before the time of Darwin's Origin. So, please do try to answer the question. Gould had an answer. Hopefully you'll come up with one too.PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
Khan at [26]: It would probably be better to say that this neutral mutation, which, indeed it is, is a "future" beneficial mutation. All by itself, however, it's sort of like static noise.PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
ellazimm at [24]: "'Cause mutations happen at random." But it is, of course, BECAUSE these mutations happen "at random" that the question can be asked: 'Why didn't it happen before?' If it were 'directed' in some way, i.e., non-random, then you could say that there wasn't a 'directing agency' present before. The odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 55 million or so. If you sell enough tickets someone will win. That's obvious. But, you have to sell enough/produce enough tickets. In this case the odds for one random mutation occuring at a specific site along the genome is 1 in 100,000,000. So 10^8 offspring have to be produced to have one such random mutation. Now, let's ask this further question: what are the odds that this 'mutation' is beneficial? The odds are quite low. Historical studies show that almost all mutations are deleterious, or harmful. Further, once a 'beneficial mutation' occurs, it then must spread through the population, which will take a signifcant number of generations since (1) the whole time that this 'beneficial mutation' is spreading, these same genomes are acquiring 'harmful mutations' at a much higher rate, and (2) stochastically, i.e., randomly, this 'beneficial mutation' also has the possibility of reverting or becoming a harmful mutation. So it's no so starightforward as saying 'we know someone wins the lottery.' Intelligent beings plan the lottery and produce and sell tickets so as to arrange for an eventual winner. When dealing with 'random' forces, why should we have the same expectations?PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Nakashima at [28]:
Considering the Great Dane/Chihuahua stories floating around, I have a hard time taking your question seriously.
Given the fact that neither Great Danes nor Chihuahua's 'straddle', it's hard to take your response seriously.PaV
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
SpitfireIXA says
In actuality very few muscles change their origins or insertions between chimps and humans. Yes, that is what I said @30. Please read more carefully. But, just one changing position is genetically significant.
No this is completely different. In that comment you said:
Nearly every bone and muscle in the chimp anatomy must change, in some cases (like the pelvis) significantly, to conform to human anatomy.
Last time I checked "nearly every" means something completely different from "very few". Just something to think about. I have to head to work and will be away from my computer tonight so the rest of my answer to you and drawingtheline will have to wait, unfortunately because this is an interesting discussion, until tomorrow evening.grannyape92
September 17, 2009
September
09
Sep
17
17
2009
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Granny @31
I would recommend a good book on chimp anatomy.
No thanks, I have enough.
In actuality very few muscles change their origins or insertions between chimps and humans.
Yes, that is what I said @30. Please read more carefully. But, just one changing position is genetically significant.
In most cases it is the size that changes and in some cases humans actually lose a few muscles.
You failed to mention layering, nerve connections and tension, all of which are affected. I can recommend a few good books on that.
Pelvic morphology probably changes the most...
Since I mentioned that as well, it is a wonder that you find my analysis so incorrect. Add to this the significant redesign of the leg/knees to support vertical weight and movement, an overhaul of the hands and feet (especially the digits), a major redesign of the spine to handle bipedalism, and a reorganization of the interplay and tension of the torso/back muscles to balance. Top that off with a refurbished skull containing far more intellectual capacity and a reorganized motive capacity that can deal with the vast differences between quadruped and biped operation. Then, change all of the necessary auxiliary microbiological support structure that agrees to build, affirm and self-correct this plan documented by the genes. And finally, do all of the above at same time, because if bipedalism is a benefit in natural selection, then all of the steps above (and many more not listed) are necessary to achieve it. (One, of course, wonders why the hazardous balance and slow speed of bipedalism, combined with a much poorer birth system compared to chimps, would be a natural selection winner...) This isn't Harry Potter. Waving HOX genes around like a magic wand does not get you there. But it does make a great just-so story.SpitfireIXA
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
grannyape92, I'm always interested in fossil evidence claims. Can you point to specific transitional fossils? It appears a lot of interpretation goes on with those including the recent Ida - the eighth wonder of the world! Also, do you believe the evolutionary transition for the brain of chimps to humans is overestimated as well? This transition, I believe, is much more significant to explain from an evolutionary viewpoint. It's obvious the anatomies are similar - you don't need anything but eyes to see that - but whether that was due to design or random mutation is the question.drawingtheline
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
Actuallly, SpitfireIXA, as I mentioned above that was just one small example. You are incorrect when you say that "Nearly every bone and muscle in the chimp anatomy must change, in some cases (like the pelvis) significantly, to conform to human anatomy. Some key muscles, mainly between the back and pelvis, must actually attach to different locations." I would recommend a good book on chimp anatomy. In actuality very few muscles change their origins or insertions between chimps and humans. In most cases it is the size that changes and in some cases humans actually lose a few muscles. Pelvic morphology probably changes the most and based on the anatomy of the chimp and human pelvis we can predict what those changes would look like in the fossil record. Then of course, you have to go out and find the fossils to see if they match your prediction. There have been a number of fossil pelvises found over the last hundred years or so and guess what? The predictions were successful, which brings us back to the Hox genes. Experiments with mice and so forth indicate that the Hox gene family is responsible for a wide variety of skeletal traits. The point of all this is that you vastly overestimate the differences between chimp and human anatomy so getting from one to the other seems like an unfathomable mystery to you.grannyape92
September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply