Footprint find on Crete may push back date humans began to walk upright

[westwall]

I already have, that's the point. That's why when people make incredibly asinine statements, as your buddy isaac did, i am compelled to call them on it. And, as usual, you resort to insult, but fail to answer any of the questions. So, i suggest you take your own advice and get an education.

You really expect people on a message board to educate you on the vastness and complexities of the details evolution. You don't want to believe in it, that's fine. But don't pretend it then doesn't exist or that nobody understands it to fit your worldview.

You apparently need a starting point so go spend a week reading up on telomeres and the relationship to human evolution 200,000 years ago. If 'book lernin' just ain't yer thing then go spend some time in the religion forum. Science and technology aren't for you.

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

You are a goddamned fraud. Your posts on this board have proven that beyond doubt. You are repeatedly shown your disdain for science and real scientists.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "










I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "


And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"



Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.

Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.

When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?

What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You really expect people on a message board to educate you on the vastness and complexities of the details evolution. You don't want to believe in it, that's fine. But don't pretend it then doesn't exist or that nobody understands it to fit your worldview.

You apparently need a starting point so go spend a week reading up on telomeres and the relationship to human evolution 200,000 years ago. If 'book lernin' just ain't yer thing then go spend some time in the religion forum. Science and technology aren't for you.

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

You are a goddamned fraud. Your posts on this board have proven that beyond doubt. You are repeatedly shown your disdain for science and real scientists.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "










I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "


And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"



Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.

Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.

When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?

What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.

You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is the foundation of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.

You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.

 

[westwall]

I already have, that's the point. That's why when people make incredibly asinine statements, as your buddy isaac did, i am compelled to call them on it. And, as usual, you resort to insult, but fail to answer any of the questions. So, i suggest you take your own advice and get an education.

You really expect people on a message board to educate you on the vastness and complexities of the details evolution. You don't want to believe in it, that's fine. But don't pretend it then doesn't exist or that nobody understands it to fit your worldview.

You apparently need a starting point so go spend a week reading up on telomeres and the relationship to human evolution 200,000 years ago. If 'book lernin' just ain't yer thing then go spend some time in the religion forum. Science and technology aren't for you.

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

"I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations"

Then why is it the scientific community at large doesn't share this understanding with you? Have they not also studied evolution? Yes, they have...in fact, the experts are the ones who discovered everything you studied.

This reminds me if you claiming authority on the climate by saying you are a geologist, yet having an opinion at odds with the scientific consensus endorsed by every major geological society in the world.

In either case, I have yet to understand what makes you so special, and how you think claiming this authority is any substitute for the consensus or for published science.

Ahhhhh, but they do. We all agree that evolution is a "thing". But there are huge arguments going on about how it comes about. First there was evolutionary theory, then "phyletic gradualism, then there was "punctuated equilibrium", in other words there are MULTIPLE lines of thought on how evolution occurs, but simple people, like you, don't even understand the basics.

Well understood my ass, they are arguing over the processes involved all of the time!


Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

• Kevin Laland,
• Tobias Uller,
• Marc Feldman,
• Kim Sterelny,
• Gerd B. Müller,
• Armin Moczek,
• Eva Jablonka,
• John Odling-Smee,
• Gregory A. Wray,
• Hopi E. Hoekstra,
• Douglas J. Futuyma,
• Richard E. Lenski,
• Trudy F. C. Mackay,
• Dolph Schluter
• & Joan E. Strassmann

08 October 2014
Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

"We all agree that evolution is a "thing". "

No, the consensus is that evolution is the reason every species, including us, has ever lived, and that we all have a common ancestor (one individual, in fact). If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with evolutionary theory. And it is clear that you do not. Spare me the equivocation.


No, you do not get to misappropriate the theory of evolution into your completely opposed viewpoint buy putting it in air quotes. You are diametrically opposed to it, and that is the position you have chosen. Own it.

By all means point to a single post I have ever made where I don't support evolutionary theory. That's the problem when you silly people lie, it is very easy to catch you in them. As far as us all coming from one common ancestor, that sounds an awful lot like Adam and Eve, which is kind of religious don't you think? I am fully versed in evolutionary theory and the evidence supports a common ancestor, that is absolutely true, but no scientist worth his or her salt will ever proclaim that that is the only "truth".

There is far too much uncertainty in evolutionary theory to support that. Far better is to assert that yes, mankind evolved from a common GROUP. That is a supportable statement. The claim that there is a mitochrondial "Eve" has some support, there is also evidence for a singular "man" from 60 or so thousand years ago. The problem is they didn't live near each other.

Whenever you read the studies they use the word "suggests". Guess what, that is not definitive. That is a weasel word that is great for the news headlines, but in the real world of science means, "but could also not be true". Non scientific people, such as yourself, leap all over the "suggests", but ignore the follow on.

That's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. A scientist MUST think about the follow on, because invariably it is the follow on that screws up your theory.



Here's a Live Science article and look at that, there's that magic word "suggested".


"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

 

[westwall]

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

You are a goddamned fraud. Your posts on this board have proven that beyond doubt. You are repeatedly shown your disdain for science and real scientists.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "










I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "


And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"



Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.

Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.

When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?

What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.

You are commenting on the most well-founded theory in the history of humanity. It is supported by mountains of mutually supportive evidence from every field of science, and by physics and mathematics. It is literally the of all of biology, which has blossomed spectacularly in its light.

You pointing out scientists caught lying does not undermine the theory. It is ridiculous that you think it does. And then you claim authority on all manner of scientific topics by saying you are a scientist. What a crock. You are no scientist.

AGW is the least supported theory ever in the history of science. It is almost entirely based on computer models and fools like you can't seem to understand that computer models are not data.

And yes, I am a scientist. And a damned good one.


And, for the record, "consensus" is a political word. It is NOT a scientific one.

 

[westwall]

C'mon fools. You claim I am a creationist, but can find no post I have ever made that supports that lie, and the real sad fact is I know far more than all of you combined about evolutionary theory. Demonstrably so. This could have been a good discussion about the footprints found on Crete, a truly interesting find. But you idiots have tried to turn it into a political discussion as you always do. That's the problem with anti science religious nutters, all you have is politics because you know fuckall about science.

So, lets get this thread back on track.

What are the possible sources of the footprints on Crete? Is this a case of concurrent evolution, or is it evidence of something else?

 

[task0778]

C'mon fools. You claim I am a creationist, but can find no post I have ever made that supports that lie, and the real sad fact is I know far more than all of you combined about evolutionary theory. Demonstrably so. This could have been a good discussion about the footprints found on Crete, a truly interesting find. But you idiots have tried to turn it into a political discussion as you always do. That's the problem with anti science religious nutters, all you have is politics because you know fuckall about science.

So, lets get this thread back on track.

What are the possible sources of the footprints on Crete? Is this a case of concurrent evolution, or is it evidence of something else?

Pretty much unknown isn't it? I'm not sure one footprint is all that conclusive of anything, some sort of ape-like creature with a misshapen foot maybe? A unique individual? Is concurrent evolution possible? What about Darwin and his discoveries on the Galapagos Islands where he found various species of animals that were similar to those found in South America but diverged into their own subspecies with some differences? Speculation is fine but I'd say we don't have sufficient evidence to be sure of anything yet. Just enough to ask questions though, and that's good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You really expect people on a message board to educate you on the vastness and complexities of the details evolution. You don't want to believe in it, that's fine. But don't pretend it then doesn't exist or that nobody understands it to fit your worldview.

You apparently need a starting point so go spend a week reading up on telomeres and the relationship to human evolution 200,000 years ago. If 'book lernin' just ain't yer thing then go spend some time in the religion forum. Science and technology aren't for you.

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

You are a goddamned fraud. Your posts on this board have proven that beyond doubt. You are repeatedly shown your disdain for science and real scientists.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "










I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". I consider them to be criminals. Face it clown boy, every time you trot one of their tall tales out it is easily refuted by real observed data. The only fraud is you and your fellow travelers.

"I don't consider scientists who engage in academic fraud to be "real scientists". "


And there it is... "They're all liars, I'm the one telling the truth"



Applause for honesty. Yes, it's an absurd idea, but you actually believe it and you had the guts to say it. None of this "dog whistle" bullshit we are inundated with. No sir...westwall will suck it up and come right out and say they're all lying.

Can I put you on TV? I mean that. I would like people to see you make this claim. Far and wide.

When they are caught lying, as they have been repeatedly, they are no better than charlatans. What happens to charlatans when they get caught? Hmm?

What is stunning to me is your desperate defense of the indefensible. You must be one of the swine.

I see you are deleting my posts, while also being rude and calling names. I have reported your poor behavior . Do not post to me any more, and I will not post to you. Have a nice life, Mr. Scientist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Great Human Migration
Why humans left their African homeland 80,000 years ago to colonize the world

The Great Human Migration | History | Smithsonian

"The Toba supereruption was a supervolcanic eruption that occurred about 75,000 years ago at the site of present-day Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia)."

 

[OldLady]

I often wonder if what science often insists is the "earliest" human is really just the earliest human they have found evidence of. It's a long time ago and not a lot of places on Earth had the exact circumstances that would preserve that evidence for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So the "earliest" civilizations are actually just the earliest we've discovered, yet. And the earliest humans? I have a feeling it will go back farther as time goes on.
I sometimes wonder if civilization on this planet has waxed and waned several times in the past, and it was so long ago and the end was so destructive that we know nothing about it. For it to take nearly all of the 200,000 years for humans to get with the program seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[MarkDuffy]

'human-like', there are a million ways to get odd footprints in mud. This isn't going to push back 'modern humans' to 6 million years ago, that is when the first fossils of something not an ape and something of human characteristics have been found. Evolution cannot be short circuited by millions of years on the scale of change involved with these species. Just as we will never find a T-rex fossil in the Triassic, or a footprint of one.

Stories like the OP are interesting though.

I disagree. Evolution is very poorly understood, we know it happens, but we don't know the rate at which it happens, or the percentage of beneficial mutations. The fossil record is so incomplete that the holes that we could drive trucks through and not ever find a thing are legion.

Utterly ridiculous. Evolution is very well understood it is only layman that think it isn't. It's like saying 'we don't know what caused the big bang so physicists are entirely in the dark about the universe'. I find people that have a religious bent tend to try to cast scientific facts and theories as 'well we just really don't know' if there is some area that research is still taking place while at the same time they believe in something for which there is no physical evidence. Don't know who is religious here it is a general statement.

It's like when they were still filling in the periodic table of the elements. 'Well there are still many elements that they 'think' are out there but they haven't found them so the entire table of the elements is just guessing and we don't really know, the whole thing could be wrong'. Sorry that isn't how it works. Go to ANY local college and talk to a biologist and ask them if footprints that are 'human-like' from 6 million years ago could be human. They'll laugh and then explain why it's impossible.

But fantasy has it's fans.

It is? Describe how it works then. Use your own words, not a cut and paste job.

Evolution is random mutation and other processes acted upon by non-random selection giving rise to new genotype frequencies in a population gene pool.

Whar's mah prize?

What causes the mutations? What are the "other processes"? Describe them in detail. Define non random selection and how it specifically applies to evolutionary theory.

So far you get nothing.

You didn't give a prize for the last one, and think I will give you more of my time?

LOL

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I often wonder if what science often insists is the "earliest" human is really just the earliest human they have found evidence of. It's a long time ago and not a lot of places on Earth had the exact circumstances that would preserve that evidence for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So the "earliest" civilizations are actually just the earliest we've discovered, yet. And the earliest humans? I have a feeling it will go back farther as time goes on.
I sometimes wonder if civilization on this planet has waxed and waned several times in the past, and it was so long ago and the end was so destructive that we know nothing about it. For it to take nearly all of the 200,000 years for humans to get with the program seems highly unlikely to me.

Fair points.....but, on the contrary, scientists don't insist on an absolute date or place for "the first humans". And there will be limits to how far back this can go, given what we know about the fossil record and the evolutionary tree. No, we will not be discovering human and dinosaur fossils side by side. Not that you implied as much.....

 

[OldLady]

I often wonder if what science often insists is the "earliest" human is really just the earliest human they have found evidence of. It's a long time ago and not a lot of places on Earth had the exact circumstances that would preserve that evidence for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. So the "earliest" civilizations are actually just the earliest we've discovered, yet. And the earliest humans? I have a feeling it will go back farther as time goes on.
I sometimes wonder if civilization on this planet has waxed and waned several times in the past, and it was so long ago and the end was so destructive that we know nothing about it. For it to take nearly all of the 200,000 years for humans to get with the program seems highly unlikely to me.

Fair points.....but, on the contrary, scientists don't insist on an absolute date or place for "the first humans". And there will be limits to how far back this can go, given what we know about the fossil record and the evolutionary tree. No, we will not be discovering human and dinosaur fossils side by side. Not that you implied as much.....

I'm sure there are limits, and no, I don't imagine we were riding around on dinos like the Flintstones.
People are very sloppy though in stating "facts" about human history; text books, documentaries, Nat Geo--all of them--make claims of "first civilization" when it should be "earliest known civilization." Minor, I guess, but since the science of archeology is advancing all the time, more and more "facts" we are taught as students have been "corrected."

 

[MarkDuffy]

If you honestly wanted to be educated about these topics, you would do your own research, or take a class. You are being quite dishonest, amd I sincerely hope nobody is gullible enough to waste their time trying to educate you on these topics.

I already have, that's the point. That's why when people make incredibly asinine statements, as your buddy isaac did, i am compelled to call them on it. And, as usual, you resort to insult, but fail to answer any of the questions. So, i suggest you take your own advice and get an education.

You really expect people on a message board to educate you on the vastness and complexities of the details evolution. You don't want to believe in it, that's fine. But don't pretend it then doesn't exist or that nobody understands it to fit your worldview.

You apparently need a starting point so go spend a week reading up on telomeres and the relationship to human evolution 200,000 years ago. If 'book lernin' just ain't yer thing then go spend some time in the religion forum. Science and technology aren't for you.

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

"I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations"

Then why is it the scientific community at large doesn't share this understanding with you? Have they not also studied evolution? Yes, they have...in fact, the experts are the ones who discovered everything you studied.

This reminds me if you claiming authority on the climate by saying you are a geologist, yet having an opinion at odds with the scientific consensus endorsed by every major geological society in the world.

In either case, I have yet to understand what makes you so special, and how you think claiming this authority is any substitute for the consensus or for published science.

Ahhhhh, but they do. We all agree that evolution is a "thing". But there are huge arguments going on about how it comes about. First there was evolutionary theory, then "phyletic gradualism, then there was "punctuated equilibrium", in other words there are MULTIPLE lines of thought on how evolution occurs, but simple people, like you, don't even understand the basics.

Well understood my ass, they are arguing over the processes involved all of the time!


Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

• Kevin Laland,
• Tobias Uller,
• Marc Feldman,
• Kim Sterelny,
• Gerd B. Müller,
• Armin Moczek,
• Eva Jablonka,
• John Odling-Smee,
• Gregory A. Wray,
• Hopi E. Hoekstra,
• Douglas J. Futuyma,
• Richard E. Lenski,
• Trudy F. C. Mackay,
• Dolph Schluter
• & Joan E. Strassmann

08 October 2014
Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I just read that link. I am an evolutionary biologist and agree with the con argument mostly. We have two types of evolutionary biologists lumpers and splitters. I am a lumper. You could say that Laland is agruing against a case of splitters he has made up in his mind. Evolutionary biology is not as confined as he claims. He does point to a few causes (DNA research grants get the bucks) and also notes the story we talk to laymen about (selection). Is there more to evolution than simple, of course.

From the con argument ~ What Laland and colleagues term the standard evolutionary theory is a caricature that views the field as static and monolithic. They see today’s evolutionary biologists as unwilling to consider ideas that challenge convention.

We see a very different world. We consider ourselves fortunate to live and work in the most exciting, inclusive and progressive period of evolutionary research since the modern synthesis. Far from being stuck in the past, current evolutionary theory is vibrantly creative and rapidly growing in scope. Evolutionary biologists today draw inspiration from fields as diverse as genomics, medicine, ecology, artificial intelligence and robotics. We think Darwin would approve.

You asked me in my previous post to define "other processes". You should conclude this puts me in the Laland camp. Possibly. I agree that too much attention is put into DNA whereas the cell itself contains information. This is why we cannot start with DNA and make life, the rest of the cell is required.

Development in an organism comes from DNA that is only mostly only read during development.

In my younger days I used to get into food fights over so-called junk DNA. There is no junk DNA, it is important to evolution.

I will freely admit, just as in any endeavor, scientists can be just as dogmatic as religionists, especially when it hits their little special slice of the pie.

 

[task0778]

There is some question as to how to define who or what being human means. Modern humans (homo sapiens) are generally agreed to have appeared somewhere around 200,000 years ago, although recent discoveries have questioned that theory to be closer to 300,000 years. It's not based on a heckuva lot of evidence or proof, we can date much of what is discovered and make all sorts of conjecture about this and that but it's all still somebody's idea of what happened, and where and when.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You really expect people on a message board to educate you on the vastness and complexities of the details evolution. You don't want to believe in it, that's fine. But don't pretend it then doesn't exist or that nobody understands it to fit your worldview.

You apparently need a starting point so go spend a week reading up on telomeres and the relationship to human evolution 200,000 years ago. If 'book lernin' just ain't yer thing then go spend some time in the religion forum. Science and technology aren't for you.

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

"I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations"

Then why is it the scientific community at large doesn't share this understanding with you? Have they not also studied evolution? Yes, they have...in fact, the experts are the ones who discovered everything you studied.

This reminds me if you claiming authority on the climate by saying you are a geologist, yet having an opinion at odds with the scientific consensus endorsed by every major geological society in the world.

In either case, I have yet to understand what makes you so special, and how you think claiming this authority is any substitute for the consensus or for published science.

Ahhhhh, but they do. We all agree that evolution is a "thing". But there are huge arguments going on about how it comes about. First there was evolutionary theory, then "phyletic gradualism, then there was "punctuated equilibrium", in other words there are MULTIPLE lines of thought on how evolution occurs, but simple people, like you, don't even understand the basics.

Well understood my ass, they are arguing over the processes involved all of the time!


Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

• Kevin Laland,
• Tobias Uller,
• Marc Feldman,
• Kim Sterelny,
• Gerd B. Müller,
• Armin Moczek,
• Eva Jablonka,
• John Odling-Smee,
• Gregory A. Wray,
• Hopi E. Hoekstra,
• Douglas J. Futuyma,
• Richard E. Lenski,
• Trudy F. C. Mackay,
• Dolph Schluter
• & Joan E. Strassmann

08 October 2014
Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

"We all agree that evolution is a "thing". "

No, the consensus is that evolution is the reason every species, including us, has ever lived, and that we all have a common ancestor (one individual, in fact). If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with evolutionary theory. And it is clear that you do not. Spare me the equivocation.


No, you do not get to misappropriate the theory of evolution into your completely opposed viewpoint buy putting it in air quotes. You are diametrically opposed to it, and that is the position you have chosen. Own it.

By all means point to a single post I have ever made where I don't support evolutionary theory. That's the problem when you silly people lie, it is very easy to catch you in them. As far as us all coming from one common ancestor, that sounds an awful lot like Adam and Eve, which is kind of religious don't you think? I am fully versed in evolutionary theory and the evidence supports a common ancestor, that is absolutely true, but no scientist worth his or her salt will ever proclaim that that is the only "truth".

There is far too much uncertainty in evolutionary theory to support that. Far better is to assert that yes, mankind evolved from a common GROUP. That is a supportable statement. The claim that there is a mitochrondial "Eve" has some support, there is also evidence for a singular "man" from 60 or so thousand years ago. The problem is they didn't live near each other.

Whenever you read the studies they use the word "suggests". Guess what, that is not definitive. That is a weasel word that is great for the news headlines, but in the real world of science means, "but could also not be true". Non scientific people, such as yourself, leap all over the "suggests", but ignore the follow on.

That's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. A scientist MUST think about the follow on, because invariably it is the follow on that screws up your theory.



Here's a Live Science article and look at that, there's that magic word "suggested".


"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Uh, the common ancestor theory doen't mean what you claim it does.

Let's take Mitochondrial Eve. What we mean is that her line is the oldest has has carried down unbroken through history, not that she was the only one.

Of course we are talking about a group.

What field of science do you come from?

Apparently you have a problem with boastful claims made in papers presented. You obviously are not an evolutionary biologist. We always made bold assertions when we publish. It's politics. LOL

"This is the oldest and obviously a new species. We can tell how he walked just from these three teeth! This specimen is obviously in the direct path to us and deserves a new genus and we have named it!"

 

[MarkDuffy]

C'mon fools. You claim I am a creationist, but can find no post I have ever made that supports that lie, and the real sad fact is I know far more than all of you combined about evolutionary theory. Demonstrably so. This could have been a good discussion about the footprints found on Crete, a truly interesting find. But you idiots have tried to turn it into a political discussion as you always do. That's the problem with anti science religious nutters, all you have is politics because you know fuckall about science.

So, lets get this thread back on track.

What are the possible sources of the footprints on Crete? Is this a case of concurrent evolution, or is it evidence of something else?

How have I responded to this thread? Have I denied it or rejected it out of hand?

As far as concurrent evolution goes, the foot is too modern w/o intermediate fossils pointing towards that possibility. So concurrent is much less likely.

And you mean convergent, not concurrent. You don't know as much as you think you do.

The thing that makes me go WTF is the date.

 

[westwall]

No, I actually meant to say "parallel" which is more appropriate IMO, save for the time frame obviously. If this is indeed a pre iteration of hominid, who's to say this branch didn't evolve into the Neanderthal, etc.

 

[westwall]

That's the problem with you faux intellectuals, when you can't answer the questions you resort to insults. Here's a clue, I am not religious. I'm an agnostic. My wife is Wiccan, your silly attacks are just stupid. I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations.

"I am a firm supporter of evolution, I am also however a scientist, so unlike you, I have actually studied the subject and understand its limitations"

Then why is it the scientific community at large doesn't share this understanding with you? Have they not also studied evolution? Yes, they have...in fact, the experts are the ones who discovered everything you studied.

This reminds me if you claiming authority on the climate by saying you are a geologist, yet having an opinion at odds with the scientific consensus endorsed by every major geological society in the world.

In either case, I have yet to understand what makes you so special, and how you think claiming this authority is any substitute for the consensus or for published science.

Ahhhhh, but they do. We all agree that evolution is a "thing". But there are huge arguments going on about how it comes about. First there was evolutionary theory, then "phyletic gradualism, then there was "punctuated equilibrium", in other words there are MULTIPLE lines of thought on how evolution occurs, but simple people, like you, don't even understand the basics.

Well understood my ass, they are arguing over the processes involved all of the time!


Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

• Kevin Laland,
• Tobias Uller,
• Marc Feldman,
• Kim Sterelny,
• Gerd B. Müller,
• Armin Moczek,
• Eva Jablonka,
• John Odling-Smee,
• Gregory A. Wray,
• Hopi E. Hoekstra,
• Douglas J. Futuyma,
• Richard E. Lenski,
• Trudy F. C. Mackay,
• Dolph Schluter
• & Joan E. Strassmann

08 October 2014
Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

"We all agree that evolution is a "thing". "

No, the consensus is that evolution is the reason every species, including us, has ever lived, and that we all have a common ancestor (one individual, in fact). If you don't agree with this, you don't agree with evolutionary theory. And it is clear that you do not. Spare me the equivocation.


No, you do not get to misappropriate the theory of evolution into your completely opposed viewpoint buy putting it in air quotes. You are diametrically opposed to it, and that is the position you have chosen. Own it.

By all means point to a single post I have ever made where I don't support evolutionary theory. That's the problem when you silly people lie, it is very easy to catch you in them. As far as us all coming from one common ancestor, that sounds an awful lot like Adam and Eve, which is kind of religious don't you think? I am fully versed in evolutionary theory and the evidence supports a common ancestor, that is absolutely true, but no scientist worth his or her salt will ever proclaim that that is the only "truth".

There is far too much uncertainty in evolutionary theory to support that. Far better is to assert that yes, mankind evolved from a common GROUP. That is a supportable statement. The claim that there is a mitochrondial "Eve" has some support, there is also evidence for a singular "man" from 60 or so thousand years ago. The problem is they didn't live near each other.

Whenever you read the studies they use the word "suggests". Guess what, that is not definitive. That is a weasel word that is great for the news headlines, but in the real world of science means, "but could also not be true". Non scientific people, such as yourself, leap all over the "suggests", but ignore the follow on.

That's the difference between a scientist, and a non scientist. A scientist MUST think about the follow on, because invariably it is the follow on that screws up your theory.



Here's a Live Science article and look at that, there's that magic word "suggested".


"Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed today (Aug. 1) in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate.

Genetic 'Adam' and 'Eve' Uncovered

Uh, the common ancestor theory doen't mean what you claim it does.

Let's take Mitochondrial Eve. What we mean is that her line is the oldest has has carried down unbroken through history, not that she was the only one.

Of course we are talking about a group.

What field of science do you come from?

Apparently you have a problem with boastful claims made in papers presented. You obviously are not an evolutionary biologist. We always made bold assertions when we publish. It's politics. LOL

"This is the oldest and obviously a new species. We can tell how he walked just from these three teeth! This specimen is obviously in the direct path to us and deserves a new genus and we have named it!"

Of course you make boastful statements. The problem is that's not scientific. I'm a retired geologist.

 

[westwall]

C'mon fools. You claim I am a creationist, but can find no post I have ever made that supports that lie, and the real sad fact is I know far more than all of you combined about evolutionary theory. Demonstrably so. This could have been a good discussion about the footprints found on Crete, a truly interesting find. But you idiots have tried to turn it into a political discussion as you always do. That's the problem with anti science religious nutters, all you have is politics because you know fuckall about science.

So, lets get this thread back on track.

What are the possible sources of the footprints on Crete? Is this a case of concurrent evolution, or is it evidence of something else?

Pretty much unknown isn't it? I'm not sure one footprint is all that conclusive of anything, some sort of ape-like creature with a misshapen foot maybe? A unique individual? Is concurrent evolution possible? What about Darwin and his discoveries on the Galapagos Islands where he found various species of animals that were similar to those found in South America but diverged into their own subspecies with some differences? Speculation is fine but I'd say we don't have sufficient evidence to be sure of anything yet. Just enough to ask questions though, and that's good.

I absolutely agree on this. And, who's to say the footprint wasn't altered through weathering processes prior to its fossilization.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You can never say "Cretin!" disparagingly again