Have we learned anything of value from the "science" of evolution?

[SFC Ollie]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Wait.. why are we teaching Creationism? Why not any of the hundreds of other creation myths from the other world religions? Is there something that gives Judeo-Christian Creationism a higher probability of being correct than any of the other creation myths have? That seems rather discriminatory of us to only teach the one, don't you think?

That would be because the majority of the people in the USA believe it in some form or another. No matter how you twist it.........

 

[natepro]

The thing of it is Dean that we don't live in the utopian world (thank God) of radical academic one sided restrictive liberalism. Americans should be free to consider Creationism while the academic world concentrates on genetic mutations in lower life forms and the origin of the species. Teaching Creationism in schools is not a threat to the world of liberalism as we know it. Kids will still be learning how to put a condom on a cucumber. Relax lefties.

Wait.. why are we teaching Creationism? Why not any of the hundreds of other creation myths from the other world religions? Is there something that gives Judeo-Christian Creationism a higher probability of being correct than any of the other creation myths have? That seems rather discriminatory of us to only teach the one, don't you think?

That would be because the majority of the people in the USA believe it in some form or another. No matter how you twist it.........

Well yeah. But believing it doesn't make it true. Nor would I think the First Amendment would allow them to pick Judeo Christian Creationism over, say, the creation myth from the Rigveda. Why ignore the Hindus?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Uh -- amphibians? Lungfish? That's not where the faith is required to trace our ascent from ole slimy... But YES your distance ancestor WAS a fish.. The RDean branch has more direct roots in ole slimy...

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

You still have anatomical vestiges of gill slits. And yes they slithered IN/OUT of water the way snakes slither into it now. Likely adaptation to unreliable water levels or food supply in the local pool.

As far as mating -- well -- they did it something like ----- .

My God, are people still recycling that tired old myth of "vestigial gill slits"? Does no one study human anatomy any more?

Humans do not have "gill slits", nor is what they DO have "vestigial". Humans have pharyngeal arches and clefts, which are COMPLETELY NECESSARY to our anatomy. To say, "Hey, on a fetus, those look almost like gills. That must mean humans had gills once!" is akin to saying, "Hey, that cloud looks like an elephant. That must mean that elephants used to fly!"

The whole "gill slits" lie was originally perpetrated through Ernst Haekel's fraudulent drawings, long since debunked but mysteriously being trotted out by various evolutionists over the years anyway.

 

[Woyzeck]

WoyZeck:



Actually I do.. And it's not because of "sloppy reasoning" or your pet peeves. I've told you that accept the actual "spark of life" theory and the fact that our ancestral lines run thru the Great Apes. But I find it completely unsatifying to not know WHICH Pleioscene fish line hosted my ancestral roots.

Draw a line at any ancient period and there is one root ancestor to us and Great Ape existing at that time. I see it as a huge incomplete assumption. We've CLAIMED that the long windy path (back to the common primordial goo) only contains transistions explanable thru evolution. Yet -- to MY knowledge, that exact path is not known and MAY BE unknowable.

With the transistion to the root of the mammals --- were we the FIRST mammalian instance? Or a 2nd or 3rd wave? Since I have NEVER seen a complete tracing back thru say the Jurassic period -- which reptile species was the one that carried our flag thru THAT period?

Yes I find fault.. We're handwaving at the 280Mill years of evolution preceeding the Apes...

Um, what? What do you mean who carried 'our flag?'

Biologists don't' handwave' the evolution before apes. We have a pretty good idea of our life evolved one earth. Here's an interactive family tree of life on earth, where you can start with Eukaryote and end with homo sapiens.

Thanks very much for that great link.. It distracted me for hours from more important topics like "why are only 6% of scientists Republicans" or "is Michelle Bachmann clinically crazy".

What I meant by "carried our flag" is to employ the DNA and observational tools that we have to make CERTAIN and DISTINCT claims to knowledge of the lineage of our species. In fact, to trace the lineage in attempts such as the Tree of Life website. I now know that I can confidently buy Sturgeon at the fish counter without any guilt whatsoever of consuming a direct ancestor. That's worth a lot of inner calmness.

The thing about direct ancestors, is that they aren't around. That's what make them ancestors.

However -- after intial enjoyment and perusal of that site -- I still doubt that we can assume that simple natural selection or evolution as taught to me in school can be touted as the SOLE and ONLY cause of growth on the Tree o'Life.

Okay. Sure why not.

First things I ran into at about the Eukaryotes level were statements like:

The current view of eukaryotic phylogeny is of a small number of large ‘supergroups’, each comprising a spectacular diversity of structures, nutritional modes, and behaviours (Adl et al., 2005; Keeling, 2004; Keeling et al., 2005; Simpson and Roger, 2002). Some of these supergroup hypotheses are well supported, while others remain the subject of vigorous debate (see (Keeling et al., 2005) for a discussion of evidence). Furthermore the relationships between supergroups are poorly understood. Below we summarise the main members of each supergroup, the evidence for its monophyly, and emerging hypotheses for inter-supergroup relationships.

No way -- by any sophisticated measure -- is this early portion of the tree of life "settled science". There MIGHT be enough evidence to PROPOSE a tree structure and even occasionally opportunistically prove a relational branch. But that's far from showing the CAUSE of that branch was mere "natural selection". To do that would imply not only understanding the genetic and observational similiarities, but would assume you had enough ENVIRONMENTAL and COMPETITIVE species information to suggest that ONLY natural selection was at work.. Don't think anyone is that bold about reconstructing the "scene of the crime" at the time that mutation was "selected".

I'm not really sure where the problems with natural selection come in. I'm not seeing the connection.

Then -- I got to:

The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section.

In other words --- this page is under construction STILL!!!! Come back later. Not "hand-waving" as I asserted before, but certainly enough honest confusion to doubt that we can attribute "evolution thru natural selection" as the SOLE and ONLY motivating source for a tree of life that we can't accurately draw yet.

I'm still not seeing what this has to do with natural selection either. Is it because it doesn't list ways life would start? Because that doesn't have much to do with the theory of evolution.

Look -- I'm on board with evolution in the way that Dr. Traveler described it's UTILITY. But it's a TOOL that should be used more sparingly when you can "set the scene" for an adaptation and verify it's effect. And to use that tool to EXCLUDE other perfectly good scientific explanations for WHY the branching and diversity in the TOL happened -- is just not plausible to me..

And the other scientific explanations are? I'd be very interested to know, especially if they run counter to the experiments, observations, and studies I've read about that actually support evolution and natural selection.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It isn't necessary for a theory to answer every single question possible to be true.

For another example, take Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Kepler discovered the three laws through observational data collected by Tycho Brahe. The theory was controversial, but it was verifiable.

However, Kepler's Laws in no way explain WHY planets move in elliptical orbits with varying speeds related to an area differential. They're completely and totally silent on the why.

Later on, Newton would come along to explain the mathematics as to why a universe with a gravitational force inversely proportional to the square of the distance would force an elliptical path using some fairly advanced Calculus. Finally we knew why Kepler's Laws worked: The Law of Gravity.

Of course, at this point there are still questions. We now know how to mathematically describe the effect of gravity, but as of the last I heard we don't seem to have nailed down exactly WHY Gravity works the way it does. It just works.

It's similar to what we're seeing with evolutionary theory. We can see evolution in action on various levels: At high speed on the single cell level, and at a slightly slower speed for multi-cellular organisms. We know the mechanism that makes it work. However, even with that not all the questions are 100% known. That's why research continues.

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

You can test the theory of evolution too. Here's one example of such an experiment.

What species did e. coli evolve from, and can you prove it?

What species has e. coli evolved into, and can you prove it?

I love it when you twits exclaim, "Look! Change inside a species! That proves that species change into other species! Argument over!" I love it because I can always use a good laugh.

 

[rdean]

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

You can test the theory of evolution too. Here's one example of such an experiment.

What species did e. coli evolve from, and can you prove it?

What species has e. coli evolved into, and can you prove it?

I love it when you twits exclaim, "Look! Change inside a species! That proves that species change into other species! Argument over!" I love it because I can always use a good laugh.

Neanderthal man is alive and well - and living happily in Britain, scientists say.
A study has found that our ancestors couldn't resist the charms of the Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago.
As a result, Neanderthal genes have been passed down to us today.
In fact up to four per cent of the DNA of people living in some parts of the world comes from the short, stocky cavemen.

Neanderthal DNA reveals our ancestors DID interbreed with extinct species

DNA can tell a lot. Oops.

 

[rdean]

Did Neanderthals believe in "Adam and Eve"?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You can test the theory of evolution too. Here's one example of such an experiment.

What species did e. coli evolve from, and can you prove it?

What species has e. coli evolved into, and can you prove it?

I love it when you twits exclaim, "Look! Change inside a species! That proves that species change into other species! Argument over!" I love it because I can always use a good laugh.

Neanderthal man is alive and well - and living happily in Britain, scientists say.
A study has found that our ancestors couldn't resist the charms of the Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago.
As a result, Neanderthal genes have been passed down to us today.
In fact up to four per cent of the DNA of people living in some parts of the world comes from the short, stocky cavemen.

Neanderthal DNA reveals our ancestors DID interbreed with extinct species

DNA can tell a lot. Oops.

DNA cannot tell the truth either. People, however, can do both.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You can test the theory of evolution too. Here's one example of such an experiment.

What species did e. coli evolve from, and can you prove it?

What species has e. coli evolved into, and can you prove it?

I love it when you twits exclaim, "Look! Change inside a species! That proves that species change into other species! Argument over!" I love it because I can always use a good laugh.

Neanderthal man is alive and well - and living happily in Britain, scientists say.
A study has found that our ancestors couldn't resist the charms of the Neanderthals tens of thousands of years ago.
As a result, Neanderthal genes have been passed down to us today.
In fact up to four per cent of the DNA of people living in some parts of the world comes from the short, stocky cavemen.

Neanderthal DNA reveals our ancestors DID interbreed with extinct species

DNA can tell a lot. Oops.

Brilliant non sequitur. Knew I could count on you.

 

[flacaltenn]

I mean lets talk about the first one. Did it have both gills and lungs? Feet? What did it eat? How did it mate? At least 2 must have "Evolved" spontaneously, right?

You still have anatomical vestiges of gill slits. And yes they slithered IN/OUT of water the way snakes slither into it now. Likely adaptation to unreliable water levels or food supply in the local pool.

As far as mating -- well -- they did it something like ----- .

My God, are people still recycling that tired old myth of "vestigial gill slits"? Does no one study human anatomy any more?

Humans do not have "gill slits", nor is what they DO have "vestigial". Humans have pharyngeal arches and clefts, which are COMPLETELY NECESSARY to our anatomy. To say, "Hey, on a fetus, those look almost like gills. That must mean humans had gills once!" is akin to saying, "Hey, that cloud looks like an elephant. That must mean that elephants used to fly!"

The whole "gill slits" lie was originally perpetrated through Ernst Haekel's fraudulent drawings, long since debunked but mysteriously being trotted out by various evolutionists over the years anyway.

There's still viable debate about pharyngeal arches and clefts. Even tho they begin anatomical development with a hint of similiarity to gill slits -- it could imply the something about the evolutionary track that the species took.. Anyone who has ever "hatched a butterfly" knows you can't ignore the larval and pupae state of the species. In that case, the species exists as an independent functioning animal with NO resemblance to the adult.

 

[flacaltenn]

Woyzeck::

1))

The thing about direct ancestors, is that they aren't around. That's what make them ancestors.

Of course "direct ancestors" are still around. The obvious one is the chimpanzee. But the chimpanzee has direct relatives that are ALSO around (according to the tree of life) such as lobe-finned fish.. Maybe the "direct" qualifier thru you off.. I wasn't talking about gramps.

2)) I said:
However -- after intial enjoyment and perusal of that site -- I still doubt that we can assume that simple natural selection or evolution as taught to me in school can be touted as the SOLE and ONLY cause of growth on the Tree o'Life.

Okay. Sure why not.

Because to show that evolution was the sole and only force operating on species change, you would have to know much more than just the anatomical information of the transistion.. You're not following this -- so let me give you an example.. I watched a great 3 part series on PBS about the ascendency of man from chimps. I noticed the POWER of that science was that they spent more time exploring the environment AROUND the species than they did just the anatomical transistions. They knew the weather, the food chain, the predators, the tools used, the social characteristics, even the PARASITES that these early ape men faced in daily life. And BECAUSE they could reconstruct those important Darwinian variables, you can then attribute NATURAL SELECTION and EVOLUTION as a primary mover in genetic development. OBVIOUSLY in a complete Tree of LIfe with missing and sketchy links where we CAN'T actually trace back even close to the origins of life without controversy -- I seriously doubt that we could do the same job of proving Darwinian natural selection because we DON'T know and can't reconstruct those environmental for the MAJORITY of species transistions that occurred. Hell -- we can't even agree if it was warm or cold to within a couple million years..

3)) I said

In other words --- this page is under construction STILL!!!! Come back later. Not "hand-waving" as I asserted before, but certainly enough honest confusion to doubt that we can attribute "evolution thru natural selection" as the SOLE and ONLY motivating source for a tree of life that we can't accurately draw yet.

I'm still not seeing what this has to do with natural selection either. Is it because it doesn't list ways life would start? Because that doesn't have much to do with the theory of evolution.

The "start of life" is not in play here because -- you're right. That's has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. My point was that with so many various ascendency paths in dispute or uncertain, and given my point above about needing so much info than just anatomical classification to PROVE evolution -- if you can't draw the lineage and provide a complete view into the daily of a species at the time of the adaptation -- you can't attribute EVOLUTION as the cause.. You can assume it. You can believe in it. But that species is not EVOLUTIONAL without that accompanying knowledge.

It's NOT sufficient to be able to draw all those transistions. You have to have congruent timeline information to reconstruct the predators, the food chain, and the even the weather for that species in order to claim certain Darwinian evolution..

4))

And the other scientific explanations are? I'd be very interested to know, especially if they run counter to the experiments, observations, and studies I've read about that actually support evolution and natural selection.

Well -- heck.. Considering there were so many epochs of species devastation -- what's to say that intense cosmic radiation accompanying one of those extinctions caused MASSIVE SIMULTANEOUS mutations of many species? And then allowed Darwinian selection to "sort it out"..

((That's my "kill them all and let God sort it out" FlaCalTenn theory of species diversity))

The variation on that theme would be differences in Chemical or Enviromental contamination that could cause similiar large genetic changes???

Or --- sudden introduction of genomes via space debris? Not possible? Of course it's possible.

Or -- the very recent (unproven) evidence of "DNA teleportation". Look it up.. Wild and unreasonable for sure -- but --- is it possible.

THere's a couple likely and a couple unlikely alternatives right there...

 

[Woyzeck]

Woyzeck::

1))

The thing about direct ancestors, is that they aren't around. That's what make them ancestors.

Of course "direct ancestors" are still around. The obvious one is the chimpanzee. But the chimpanzee has direct relatives that are ALSO around (according to the tree of life) such as lobe-finned fish.. Maybe the "direct" qualifier thru you off.. I wasn't talking about gramps.

Modern chimps aren't our direct ancestors, our evolutionary line split off from each other millions of years ago. I don't think you understand what a direct ancestor is, or why ancestors generally aren't around anymore.

2)) I said:
However -- after intial enjoyment and perusal of that site -- I still doubt that we can assume that simple natural selection or evolution as taught to me in school can be touted as the SOLE and ONLY cause of growth on the Tree o'Life.

Okay. Sure why not.

Because to show that evolution was the sole and only force operating on species change, you would have to know much more than just the anatomical information of the transistion.. You're not following this -- so let me give you an example.. I watched a great 3 part series on PBS about the ascendency of man from chimps. I noticed the POWER of that science was that they spent more time exploring the environment AROUND the species than they did just the anatomical transistions. They knew the weather, the food chain, the predators, the tools used, the social characteristics, even the PARASITES that these early ape men faced in daily life. And BECAUSE they could reconstruct those important Darwinian variables, you can then attribute NATURAL SELECTION and EVOLUTION as a primary mover in genetic development. OBVIOUSLY in a complete Tree of LIfe with missing and sketchy links where we CAN'T actually trace back even close to the origins of life without controversy -- I seriously doubt that we could do the same job of proving Darwinian natural selection because we DON'T know and can't reconstruct those environmental for the MAJORITY of species transistions that occurred. Hell -- we can't even agree if it was warm or cold to within a couple million years..

So because we can't reconstruct the environment perfectly, natural selection is not what happened? That doesn't quite make sense, because I'm not seeing any reason why we shouldn't believe natural selection then either. Is there evidence for another process? Or are you saying that because we don't know all the specifics there might be another process? It's rather poor reasoning for discounting something we know perfectly well exists and happens every day.

3)) I said

In other words --- this page is under construction STILL!!!! Come back later. Not "hand-waving" as I asserted before, but certainly enough honest confusion to doubt that we can attribute "evolution thru natural selection" as the SOLE and ONLY motivating source for a tree of life that we can't accurately draw yet.

I'm still not seeing what this has to do with natural selection either. Is it because it doesn't list ways life would start? Because that doesn't have much to do with the theory of evolution.

The "start of life" is not in play here because -- you're right. That's has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. My point was that with so many various ascendency paths in dispute or uncertain, and given my point above about needing so much info than just anatomical classification to PROVE evolution -- if you can't draw the lineage and provide a complete view into the daily of a species at the time of the adaptation -- you can't attribute EVOLUTION as the cause.. You can assume it. You can believe in it. But that species is not EVOLUTIONAL without that accompanying knowledge.

So because biology has gaps in its knowledge we shouldn't accept evolution at all? I thought the point of science was to figure things we don't know out.

I'm still not seeing why we shouldn't assume it's evolution at work. We've applied evolution to gaps in our knowledge, used it to predict species before we discover them, done experiments testing natural selection, so pardon me if I still don't understand why we should dismiss it as such.

It's NOT sufficient to be able to draw all those transistions. You have to have congruent timeline information to reconstruct the predators, the food chain, and the even the weather for that species in order to claim certain Darwinian evolution..

That's a lovely high standard for you to claim, but kinda pointless. There's nothing to suggest it wasn't evolution, we have found no evidence indicating other processes than what the theory of evolution states.

4))

And the other scientific explanations are? I'd be very interested to know, especially if they run counter to the experiments, observations, and studies I've read about that actually support evolution and natural selection.

Well -- heck.. Considering there were so many epochs of species devastation -- what's to say that intense cosmic radiation accompanying one of those extinctions caused MASSIVE SIMULTANEOUS mutations of many species? And then allowed Darwinian selection to "sort it out"..

Physics and astronomy isn't really my strong point, but I don't think radiation would quite work like that. The only thing it would do were it true is reinforce the principles of evolution. Mutations arise, cause change in organisms, then those with beneficial mutations would have better changes of survival. So evolution and natural selection are still at work.

The variation on that theme would be differences in Chemical or Enviromental contamination that could cause similiar large genetic changes???

Changes in environment often cause evolutionary changes in organisms. Look at the peppered moths of London during the Industrial Revolution for such an example.

Or --- sudden introduction of genomes via space debris? Not possible? Of course it's possible.

Yes, I've seen the recent article about life starting from a crashing asteroid of meteorite too. I don't see where evolution doesn't come in to play however.

Or -- the very recent (unproven) evidence of "DNA teleportation". Look it up.. Wild and unreasonable for sure -- but --- is it possible.

Intesting, but I don't see where the alternative to evolution comes in.

THere's a couple likely and a couple unlikely alternatives right there...

Not really. None of those you just listed, while interesting, offer a counter-theory to evolution. At best, it's theories on abiogenesis, which is nice, but we've both agreed evolution makes no claims regarding the start of life on earth.

 

[Woyzeck]

You're putting evolution up with gravity? LOL. Seriously?

Gravity can be rigorously tested and has been for ages...and we still have the Pioneer anomaly! evolution? not so much

You can test the theory of evolution too. Here's one example of such an experiment.

What species did e. coli evolve from, and can you prove it?

Unicellular evolution isn't something I know that much about. But the genus Escherichia and Salmonella split over a hundred million years ago. The Escherichia then split over time into five different species.

What species has e. coli evolved into, and can you prove it?

So, reading the link or googling the results is probably too much for you, hm?

I love it when you twits exclaim, "Look! Change inside a species! That proves that species change into other species! Argument over!" I love it because I can always use a good laugh.

Thank you for not actually saying anything about evolution, but giving me the inspiration to go find a book in the future about E. coli evolution to fill in the gaps in my knowledge.

 

[SFC Ollie]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd3-1tcOthg&feature=related]The Dawn Of Man: First Step In Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[flacaltenn]

Woyzeck::

Strange of you to disallow my statement that I had "direct ancestors" in the lineage of the Divine Tudor family.. Yeah we "split" a thousand years ago -- but I still get their Christmas cards.. Man's ascendency from the Tree of Life intersects EXACTLY at the Chimpanzees. They have not "evolved" enough since then to justify any taxonomical change. Chimps TODAY are the same as chimps at the time of split. Therefore -- we ascended DIRECTLY from that node of the tree and THEY LIVE TODAY alongside us. The REST of the primate world are more distant turd-flinging cousins..Semantics? Maybe.. But pretty dam descriptive of the relationship.

What side of the Scope's trial were YOU rooting for anyway??

BTW: Same semantics applies to the one-celled creature that is the direct root of the Hominid line of ascendency. The point of the tree of life is to show the ascendency of all species. And the Hominid clan has a DIRECT LINE of ascendency from some paramecium type creature that (for all I know) MIGHT still be the around today as the same specie -- or at least a close relative.

Ascendency ---> Direct Lineage ---> Direct ancestor..

I've also read your comments in the religion forum about mutations and Darwin.. (I do perform opposition research on important discussions). And they explain how you can both ACKNOWLEDGE that random and perhaps large scale mutations to cosmic rays or chemical exposure ARE established fact -- and then brush that off with statements like

Is there evidence for another process? Or are you saying that because we don't know all the specifics there might be another process? It's rather poor reasoning for discounting something we know perfectly well exists and happens every day.

It's not that there MIGHT be another process. It's that the nature of random mutations by cosmic rays or chemical exposure or introduction of truly alien DNA CAN cause MASSIVE leaps in evolution that DIDN'T result from mere enviromental pressures. That a mutant variation capable of reproducing those traits COULD reproduce those traits. That would result in there being NO DARWINIAN explanation for the HUGE dissimiliarities between the old species and the mutant!!!!!!!

And this is important bit Woyzeck.. If this were NOT possible and it is NOT a concern --- why is there such an International furor about the "ethics" of bio-engineering???? That man may accidentally release Franken-species into the environment by inadvertently messing with the genome??? A glow in the dark cat for instance. Or bacteria that eats plastic? And maybe "natural selection" isn't gonna be the great "equalizer" that you imagine it to be for all those eons..

So add "man-science" to my list of non-Darwinian motivators to evolution. Alongside those other "acts of God" (insurance company terminology for bacteria laden meteorites, Cosmic Ray storms, or roving hordes of Franken-flys) .

Unfortunately, because of your (and others') insistence (in spite of hard evidence) that natural selection guides EVERY species transistion -- the term evolution has been made synonomous with "Darwinian Natural Selection".. But that overlooks the milleniums of chances for drastic, random and sudden intervention in the evolutionary process.

Where only AFTER the fact -- does "natural selection" tend to sort it out. Won't apply as much in the future -- now that we have OUR HAND on the "mutation button" will it??

 

[flacaltenn]

The Dawn Of Man: First Step In Evolution - YouTube

How come that ape didn't get an Academy nomination? That's apeshit...

 

[Woyzeck]

Woyzeck::

Strange of you to disallow my statement that I had "direct ancestors" in the lineage of the Divine Tudor family.. Yeah we "split" a thousand years ago -- but I still get their Christmas cards.. Man's ascendency from the Tree of Life intersects EXACTLY at the Chimpanzees. They have not "evolved" enough since then to justify any taxonomical change. Chimps TODAY are the same as chimps at the time of split. Therefore -- we ascended DIRECTLY from that node of the tree and THEY LIVE TODAY alongside us. The REST of the primate world are more distant turd-flinging cousins..Semantics? Maybe.. But pretty dam descriptive of the relationship.

We share common ancestors with chimps, apes, gorillas, etc. The modern chimp species is only about a million years old, so taxonomical change has happened in the time between the split and now. So your 'direct ancestry' from modern chimps is moot, seeing as the split predates modern chimps by five million years.

What side of the Scope's trial were YOU rooting for anyway??

I was very busy not being born yet when that was going on.

BTW: Same semantics applies to the one-celled creature that is the direct root of the Hominid line of ascendency. The point of the tree of life is to show the ascendency of all species. And the Hominid clan has a DIRECT LINE of ascendency from some paramecium type creature that (for all I know) MIGHT still be the around today as the same specie -- or at least a close relative.

Technically, we're related to all life on earth. We're all cousins, so to speak, more or less.

I've also read your comments in the religion forum about mutations and Darwin.. (I do perform opposition research on important discussions). And they explain how you can both ACKNOWLEDGE that random and perhaps large scale mutations to cosmic rays or chemical exposure ARE established fact -- and then brush that off with statements like

Is there evidence for another process? Or are you saying that because we don't know all the specifics there might be another process? It's rather poor reasoning for discounting something we know perfectly well exists and happens every day.

It's not that there MIGHT be another process. It's that the nature of random mutations by cosmic rays or chemical exposure or introduction of truly alien DNA CAN cause MASSIVE leaps in evolution that DIDN'T result from mere enviromental pressures. That a mutant variation capable of reproducing those traits COULD reproduce those traits. That would result in there being NO DARWINIAN explanation for the HUGE dissimiliarities between the old species and the mutant!!!!!!!

You don't really understand mutations and natural selection and the whole thing do you? Radiation, as you claim, would induce mutations in an organism. These changes would then be filtered out through natural selection. If the mutations led to a beneficial change in the organism, that organism has a better chance to survive. The radiation scenario you presented would still be objected to natural selection. It's also not the way all mutations happen.

Most mutations don't happen through radiation. The vast majority of mutations in organisms happen through DNA error in replication. This can happen, for example when creating offspring. Humans on average have 30 mutations in their DNA at birth.

In fact, all the things you listed would still be utterly subject to natural selection, no matter how mutations were induced. Radiation, or alien DNA crashing on earth would still not remove evolution. They do not actually describe a counter theory, because for the theory to work, evolution has to happen.

And this is important bit Woyzeck.. If this were NOT possible and it is NOT a concern --- why is there such an International furor about the "ethics" of bio-engineering???? That man may accidentally release Franken-species into the environment by inadvertently messing with the genome??? A glow in the dark cat for instance. Or bacteria that eats plastic? And maybe "natural selection" isn't gonna be the great "equalizer" that you imagine it to be for all those eons..

If the above scenarios you describe weren't possible, why are people worried about bio-engineering? See, this is what I don't understand. If you link human bio-engineering (giving examples of releasing new species into new environments) with alien DNA or whatever you want, then evolution still takes it's course once they are released into the wild.

Even unchanged species being released into new environments can have negative effects on the environment. Take the release of gypsy moths into the United States. They're a pretty common pest for trees and originally from Eurasia. Since their introduction in the middle of the nineteenth century they've found a suitable habitat out of the Northeast.

You can imagine what bio-engineered species of something might do, and have done and why people are worried about them.

So add "man-science" to my list of non-Darwinian motivators to evolution. Alongside those other "acts of God" (insurance company terminology for bacteria laden meteorites, Cosmic Ray storms, or roving hordes of Franken-flys) .

What you don't acknowledge, is once these are released into the wild, they will be subject to natural selection, based on whether their traits are beneficial to the organism in question or not.

Unfortunately, because of your (and others') insistence (in spite of hard evidence) that natural selection guides EVERY species transistion -- the term evolution has been made synonomous with "Darwinian Natural Selection".. But that overlooks the milleniums of chances for drastic, random and sudden intervention in the evolutionary process.

Natural selection takes place in the wild. In the laboratory, it's artificial selection.

And there is much evidence for natural selection in the wild. I'm still waiting on the hard evidence of an alternative theory that upsets natural selection.

Where only AFTER the fact -- does "natural selection" tend to sort it out. Won't apply as much in the future -- now that we have OUR HAND on the "mutation button" will it??

Mutations happen independent of us, and have for billions of years. Natural selection will still apply to organisms outside of human control, so there's really nothing to worry about.

 

[flacaltenn]

Woyzeck::

We share common ancestors with chimps, apes, gorillas, etc. The modern chimp species is only about a million years old, so taxonomical change has happened in the time between the split and now. So your 'direct ancestry' from modern chimps is moot, seeing as the split predates modern chimps by five million years.

While I simmer over the rest of your excellent post.. WTF exactly is a "MODERN" chimpanzee? And how does it differ from the 1 million year old variety? We're talking about Pan troglodytes right?

I get this picture of "Bedtime for Bonzo" with the chimp in the cute pajamies being put in the crib..

As soon I stop ROFLing --- I'll try to concentrate again..

 

[Woyzeck]

Woyzeck::

We share common ancestors with chimps, apes, gorillas, etc. The modern chimp species is only about a million years old, so taxonomical change has happened in the time between the split and now. So your 'direct ancestry' from modern chimps is moot, seeing as the split predates modern chimps by five million years.

While I simmer over the rest of your excellent post.. WTF exactly is a "MODERN" chimpanzee? And how does it differ from the 1 million year old variety? We're talking about Pan troglodytes right?

Yes.

 

[Photonic]

To all those looking for more information on the Theory of Evolution, and about how concestors and etc work.

Richard Dawkins wrote an awesome book explaining as best as he can the current stipulations of Evolution of our ancestors.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Dawn-Evolution/dp/061861916X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315414429&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (9780618619160): Richard Dawkins: Books[/ame]

It's actually sitting right next to me, lol.