Ida, evolutionary model, challenged by new discovery

[JBeukema]

According to new research published online in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences) on July 1, 2009, a new fossil primate from Myanmar (previously known as Burma) suggests that the common ancestor of humans, monkeys and apes evolved from primates in Asia, not Africa as many researchers believe.

According to Dr. Chris Beard–– a paleontologist at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and a member of the international team of researchers behind the Myanmar anthropoid findings––the new primate, Ganlea megacanina, shows that early anthropoids originated in Asia rather than Africa. These early Asian anthropoids differed radically from adapiforms like Ida, indicating that Ida is more closely related to modern lemurs than it is to monkeys, apes and humans.
The 38-million-year-old Ganlea megacanina fossils, excavated at multiple sites in central Myanmar, belong to a new genus and species. The name of the new species refers to a small village, Ganle, near the original site where the fossils were found, and the greatly enlarged canine teeth that distinguish the animal from closely related primates.

New Fossil Primate Suggests Common Asian Ancestor, Challenges Primates Such As 'Ida'

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What we descended from lemurs? Come on which is it? Mice, apes or Lemurs?

 

[JBeukema]

Clearly RGS's understanding of the subject matter is lacking and is insufficient to approach the matter in a mature and intelligent manner.

By the way, we are apes. In fact, we're great apes

 

[KittenKoder]

What we descended from lemurs? Come on which is it? Mice, apes or Lemurs?

This is a relatively ignorant question, considering all three have a common ancestor.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What we descended from lemurs? Come on which is it? Mice, apes or Lemurs?

This is a relatively ignorant question, considering all three have a common ancestor.

No proof of that exists. Once again provide even ONE example of proven mammal species that we can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinct separate species.

 

[JBeukema]

Once again RGS's sole response is a classic argument from ignorance.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Once again RGS's sole response is a classic argument from ignorance.

Go ahead prove me wrong, provide us with that mammal species that science can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinctly different species.

 

[KittenKoder]

Once again RGS's sole response is a classic argument from ignorance.

Go ahead prove me wrong, provide us with that mammal species that science can PROVE developed into 2 or more distinctly different species.

Rise of Mammals Article, Mammal Evolution Information, Facts -- National Geographic

 

[JBeukema]

Define 'proof' in your world. All evidence supports the accepted theory; only the details and early stages are really in question.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Define 'proof' in your world. All evidence supports the accepted theory; only the details and early stages are really in question.

Proof would be being able to trace from the supposed 2 species directly to the originating supposed species. When you have to ASSUME to get there you have no proof.

Did you know that pigs are genetically pretty close to humans? Does that mean we have a pig ancestor too?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way reread your opening piece, if it is so ACCEPTED why are they now changing what they believed?

 

[JBeukema]

Proof would be being able to trace from the supposed 2 species directly to the originating supposed species.

Genetics, fool.

When you have to ASSUME to get there you have no proof.

Coming from a theist, that is a very amusing comment

Did you know that pigs are genetically pretty close to humans? Does that mean we have a pig ancestor too?

Again you show your ignorance. It implies a strong possibility of a common ancestor. I bet that you'd find a shared branch if you looked at a phylogenetic tree

 

[KittenKoder]

By the way reread your opening piece, if it is so ACCEPTED why are they now changing what they believed?

There's the flaw, science is a "belief" ... it's a collection of facts, theories, and data that is used to explain the world around us, very different from belief. If you wish to stay in only one realm, the imaginary, then that is your right, if you do not wish to actually learn about science, then perhaps you should refrain from posting on said topic ...

 

[JBeukema]

By the way reread your opening piece, if it is so ACCEPTED why are they now changing what they believed?

They have merely forwarded a model that varies in the details and early stages. See, science, unlike stupid theists, revises the theory if evidence is found which contradicts the accepted model. It's called honesty, and it's one of the things that sets scientific theory apart from ignorance and religion.

 

[KittenKoder]

I like this discovery, it actually supports one of my "younger" theories, from when I was first learning about evolution back in junior high school. To simplify it, humans evolved from a few different ancestors, not all from the same, thus making us a near final step in evolution instead of just part of one track.

 

[JBeukema]

I like this discovery, it actually supports one of my "younger" theories, from when I was first learning about evolution back in junior high school. To simplify it, humans evolved from a few different ancestors, not all from the same, thus making us a near final step in evolution instead of just part of one track.

You mean multi-regional hypothesis? The problem with that concept is that multiple species with different evolutionary ancestors would not be able to reproduce (else they would not be species), making MRH pretty much impossible. That is why is has never been widely accepted.

 

[KittenKoder]

I like this discovery, it actually supports one of my "younger" theories, from when I was first learning about evolution back in junior high school. To simplify it, humans evolved from a few different ancestors, not all from the same, thus making us a near final step in evolution instead of just part of one track.

You mean multi-regional hypothesis? The problem with that concept is that multiple species with different evolutionary ancestors would not be able to reproduce (else they would not be species), making MRH pretty much impossible. That is why is has never been widely accepted.

Not necessarily, to use the reverse as an example, many species of frog cannot reproduce with the other, yet even on a genetic level they are very close, so why would it be impossible for the exact opposite to happen in nature? Also, look into how the mule is bred for another good example. It's not as much of a stretch as you would think, so long as they belong to the same family. This is a problem with genetic sciences, the code itself is so complex that we barely scratched the surface of understanding it.

 

[JBeukema]

I like this discovery, it actually supports one of my "younger" theories, from when I was first learning about evolution back in junior high school. To simplify it, humans evolved from a few different ancestors, not all from the same, thus making us a near final step in evolution instead of just part of one track.

You mean multi-regional hypothesis? The problem with that concept is that multiple species with different evolutionary ancestors would not be able to reproduce (else they would not be species), making MRH pretty much impossible. That is why is has never been widely accepted.

Not necessarily, to use the reverse as an example, many species of frog cannot reproduce with the other, yet even on a genetic level they are very close, so why would it be impossible for the exact opposite to happen in nature?

Clarify

Also, look into how the mule is bred for another good example. It's not as much of a stretch as you would think, so long as they belong to the same family.

You do realize that they are sterile, right? You are positing multiple events that are each as close to impossible as it gets in biology, and you have no evidence to support your hypothesis. You can't even build a solid theory, yet alone a useful model. Your hypothesis reeks of ignorance.

 

[KittenKoder]

You mean multi-regional hypothesis? The problem with that concept is that multiple species with different evolutionary ancestors would not be able to reproduce (else they would not be species), making MRH pretty much impossible. That is why is has never been widely accepted.

Not necessarily, to use the reverse as an example, many species of frog cannot reproduce with the other, yet even on a genetic level they are very close, so why would it be impossible for the exact opposite to happen in nature?

Clarify

Also, look into how the mule is bred for another good example. It's not as much of a stretch as you would think, so long as they belong to the same family.

You do realize that they are sterile, right? You are positing multiple events that are each as close to impossible as it gets in biology, and you have no evidence to support your hypothesis. You can't even build a solid theory, yet alone a useful model. Your hypothesis reeks of ignorance.

Yes and no, one cross breed resulted in a sterile breed, yes, but that does not mean others are impossible. Felines are another that come very close to shattering that theory. Also, as I said, it was a theory I was working on in junior high school, but this sparks a bit of thought on that again. With genetics we are still too blind, and there are many possibilities we have yet to discover in this region of science, so it is still possible. As physics and chaos math demonstrates, nothing is impossible, though some things may be improbable, most of what we see as impossible just hasn't been discovered or observed yet.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Genetics prove nothing unless they are an exact match. EVERYTHING on this planet, according to Science evolved from the exact same building blocks and the first microbic life forms. Of course using that approach everything SHOULD be close to the same in genetics.

Once again, provide a clear defined path from species to species and prove 2 distinct species evolved from a single Mammal species. Science can not do that. All they can do is provide a clear path WITHIN a mammal species.

And my personal belief is that evolution does not conflict with God at all. God made everything and he used what was present on this planet. You see unlike you two, I can believe in both science and God. I am more open to knowledge then either of you close minded people.