Human Evolution

[thesometimesaint]

Danielwoods:

 

You are incorrect not one of those has ever been directly observed. Only their effects have.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Not sure. Other than kids are not born speaking english. You clearly have not ever had kids.

I have four kids. One is three. He is learning English. Not sure why we are talking about this.

Let me restate my point. Languages evolve. Isolated populations that started with a common language will over many generations eventually end up speaking different languages. Like evolution we cannot see this process happen within our lifetime. We can't recreate this process in a lab. We can conclude that this happens by examining the historical record.

[ERayR]

Okay...I want to understand everyone here.

 

Putting macroevolution aside for a moment. Does anyone here oppose the theory of natural selection?

 

Nope, nor micro-evolution.

[cdowis]

Let me restate my point. Languages evolve. Isolated populations that started with a common language will over many generations eventually end up speaking different languages. Like evolution we cannot see this process happen within our lifetime. We can't recreate this process in a lab. We can conclude that this happens by examining the historical record.

 

It's interesting how "evolution" is used to describe lmost everthing.  Languages do not evolve, they *change*.  Akkadian is more primitive than modern languages?  Look at the "evolution" of the English language from Anglo Saxon.

 

It gives the word a legitimacy that it does not deserve.

Edited September 24, 2013 by cdowis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I conclude that macro-evolution is discarding a lot that does not fit their mold or further their cause. 

What I meant to say is what is your theory that accounts for the fossil record, dna, geographic distribution of species, vestigial organs and genes, etc etc as well as the ancient technology that you see evidence for?

Edited September 24, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It's interesting how "evolution" is used to describe lmost everthing.  Languages do not evolve, they *change*.  It gives the word a legitimacy that it does not deserve.

I'm not sure why I am responding to you, but if you took two seconds and googled evolution, the first hit is wikipedia which clearly states in the very first sentence "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

 

What do you think evolution means if not change?

[Vance]

I take it your children grew up and started speaking a language unintelligible from English? That must create communication problems at home. What do you call their language? Is it written or just spoken?

From your questions it seems rather obvious that you haven't had children.  You could have just confirmed my suspicions.

[Vance]

You are incorrect not one of those has ever been directly observed.

 Ok.  So their existence is postulated rather than known.

 

Only their effects have.

Actually, that isn't true.  What you really mean is that what HAS been observed is POSTULATED to be the effects of postulated things.

 

Right?

 

So, your "science" is more theoretical than hard.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Vance

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Languages aren't alive. It doesn't have to have a heart rate and blood pressure, with the right amount of Oxygen to stay alive. So their "evolution" is not based on biology, rather intelligent influences, hence nothing is similar to the claims of Macro-evolutionary changes. 

 

Stars are observed in all different points of their life cycle, as you stated. Sure wish we could do that with macro level evolution. In fact, if it were true, you'd think that we'd be able to at least observe it once somewhere. 

 

Have you ever observed a new language being created? Can you recreate the process in a lab? Your objections to macro evolution included:

 

If that was true then there wouldn't be any controversy, because we could simply watch it happen. 

 

 

 

 

 

Common sense is only science if it can be supported by observations and repetition. Macro changes can't.

 

 

 

Observing the phenomena at least once, start to finish in any organism.

 

 

We haven't done this for star formation or for language formation.  Therefore the science behind these two ideas is faulty??

 

 

 

Stars are observed in all different points of their life cycle, as you stated. Sure wish we could do that with macro level evolution. In fact, if it were true, you'd think that we'd be able to at least observe it once somewhere. 

 

We do observe species at all different points of speciation. We see closely related species separated by geographic barriers. We see new species beginning to arise as populations evolve incipient reproductive barriers - barriers that are the foundation of speciation. We see lineages splitting in the fossil record.  Never once have we observed a new star being formed, but we don't have people lining up and protesting that science.

Edited September 24, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

From your questions it seems rather obvious that you haven't had children.  You could have just confirmed my suspicions.

I apologize.  My sarcasm did not come across in written form.  I didn't and still don't understand what children learning language for the first time has anything to do with the formation of new languages.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Its unfortunate that the Fundamentalists denial, is, I believe, causing some Darwinians to dig in their heels and not consider some possible tweakings.  There has been some speculation as to whether the interaction of random mutation and the environment -- in other words natural selection -- tells the whole story, or whether there might be changes programmed into the genes which are activated by future changes which would allow for sporadic bursts in speciation.  But with the Texas Board of Education trying to teach religion instead of science, I sense a reluctance in scientists to explore such tweakings which is an unfortunate side-effect of people wanting to return to the 1700's

I don't think this is the case.  The debate is raging now on the respective role of things such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection and how significant a role each plays in evolution over time.

[cdowis]

I'm not sure why I am responding to you, but if you took two seconds and googled evolution, the first hit is wikipedia which clearly states in the very first sentence "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

 

What do you think evolution means if not change?

 

OK, if that is your definition of evolution, and how can anyone disagree with "change".

 

Please help us understand the concept of "macrochange" vs "microchange".

[Vance]

I didn't and still don't understand what children learning language for the first time has anything to do with the formation of new languages.

It doesn't, but then again, I neither expressed nor implied that it did.  I wasn't talking about children "learning" a language.  I was talking about the formation of a new language.  I think if you had children you would understand.

[danielwoods]

All these phenomena that you mention are observed by directly observing the effects they have on other things. What exactly is directly observed in connection to macro-level evolution? 

Danielwoods:

 

You are incorrect not one of those has ever been directly observed. Only their effects have.

 

Which is exactly what I wrote. 

 

I have four kids. One is three. He is learning English. Not sure why we are talking about this.

Let me restate my point. Languages evolve. Isolated populations that started with a common language will over many generations eventually end up speaking different languages. Like evolution we cannot see this process happen within our lifetime. We can't recreate this process in a lab. We can conclude that this happens by examining the historical record.

 

As for language the analogy breaks down in a couple areas. One as I pointed out, it's not based on biology. Two is yes we can create new languages. It's done all the time. The US Army gives a language test before one is allowed to go into their language program. It's designed to test one's "language aptitude." The test is a new language that was developed is for this purpose. One learns it and then interprets the test. The language is real in the sense that one can communicate with it, but it isn't used by anyone. How is this applicable? It indicates that we can create languages in the lab.  

 

We haven't been able to do anything like macro-level changes in the lab. The exact opposite of what is expected happens. The organism dies. 

 

Have you ever observed a new language being created? Can you recreate the process in a lab? Your objections to macro evolution included:

 

We haven't done this for star formation or for language formation.  Therefore the science behind these two ideas is faulty??

 

Stars are observed in all different points of their life cycle, as you stated. Sure wish we could do that with macro level evolution. In fact, if it were true, you'd think that we'd be able to at least observe it once somewhere. 

 

We do observe species at all different points of speciation. We see closely related species separated by geographic barriers. We see new species beginning to arise as populations evolve incipient reproductive barriers - barriers that are the foundation of speciation. We see lineages splitting in the fossil record.  Never once have we observed a new star being formed, but we don't have people lining up and protesting that science.

 

This is false. No one sees linages splitting in the fossil record. The fossil record isn't a direct observation of anything but a dead and fossilized organism. There's no way to know who it's linage is. 

 

As for observing species at different points of speciation, sure I agree, because the definition of species and speciation is so obtuse. Speciation doesn't equal macro-level changes. 

 

Here's your example. We observe Stars in all different point of their life cycle. Ok. Now why can't we say that about every organism on the planet? If macro-level evolution were a fact, then why do we have to imagine what the common ancestors looked like? Why can't we observe at least some of them? Seems to me that if it were true that everywhere we'd have organisms changing and morphing into different things. Yet, this isn't what is observed at all. Why is that? 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Here's your example. We observe Stars in all different point of their life cycle. Ok. Now why can't we say that about every organism on the planet? If macro-level evolution were a fact, then why do we have to imagine what the common ancestors looked like? Why can't we observe at least some of them? Seems to me that if it were true that everywhere we'd have organisms changing and morphing into different things. Yet, this isn't what is observed at all. Why is that? 

This is the best part. Common ancestry is always talked about yet they can never find that common ancestor. That cant seem to find just one common acestor for any of the billions of organisims living or who have lived. Only theoriezed on what they would have been.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

This is a misunderstanding of what evolution predicts.  A common ancestor lives in population and through mating shares genes with other members of its population.  Over time one population will be split into two by some type of geographic or other barriers.  These two populations will now each have their own gene pool.  Selection pressures and genetic drift act in different ways on the isolated populations.  Neither population remains static but evolves based on the reproductive success that favors certain alleles over other alleles based on each population's environment.  Evolution does not predict for the common ancestor to be found among the living.

 

Which is exactly what I wrote. 

 

 

As for language the analogy breaks down in a couple areas. One as I pointed out, it's not based on biology.

It's an analogy and heaven knows no analogy is perfect.

 

Two is yes we can create new languages. It's done all the time. The US Army gives a language test before one is allowed to go into their language program. It's designed to test one's "language aptitude." The test is a new language that was developed is for this purpose. One learns it and then interprets the test. The language is real in the sense that one can communicate with it, but it isn't used by anyone. How is this applicable? It indicates that we can create languages in the lab.  

This misses the point of the analogy.  How does the creation of a new language validate the relationship of Latin to Spanish? BTW as we understand more and more about genetics we actually can get pretty close to this in a lab. We duplicate genes, splice here and add there.  We can recreate plant hybrids from their original parents. Again this isn't the same as actually observing one species evolve into another just as we can't observe latin evolving into spanish.

 

 

This is false. No one sees linages splitting in the fossil record. The fossil record isn't a direct observation of anything but a dead and fossilized organism. There's no way to know who it's linage is. 

There are many ways to place an organism found in the fossil record into the tree of life.  You just don't agree with those methods

 

As for observing species at different points of speciation, sure I agree, because the definition of species and speciation is so obtuse. Speciation doesn't equal macro-level changes. 

Yes I've been meaning to ask you.  As a young earth creationist, don't you believe in the evolution from a few kinds into all the different species found on the earth (to account for issues with getting all the species on Noah's ark)?

 

Here's your example. We observe Stars in all different point of their life cycle. Ok. Now why can't we say that about every organism on the planet? If macro-level evolution were a fact, then why do we have to imagine what the common ancestors looked like? Why can't we observe at least some of them? Seems to me that if it were true that everywhere we'd have organisms changing and morphing into different things. Yet, this isn't what is observed at all. Why is that? 

 

This is a misunderstanding of what evolution predicts.  A common ancestor exists in a certain population. This common ancestor shares genes through mating with other members of its population.  This population is then split into two different populations by geographic or other barriers.  Each population then evolves in separate ways as selection pressures and genetic drift act on them in different ways.  Different alleles become dominant in each population and the populations diverge over time.  Just as no one speaks old english, or latin, the common ancestor is long dead and its descendants have evolved in different ways.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This is the best part. Common ancestry is always talked about yet they can never find that common ancestor. That cant seem to find just one common acestor for any of the billions of organisims living or who have lived. Only theoriezed on what they would have been.

Again you only show your ignorance of what evolution actually is or predicts.  Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again you only show your ignorance of what evolution actually is or predicts.  Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. 

Blah blah blah. I have heard it all before dude. I have been in so many of these debates now. It always comes back to what is evolution. Everything turns really nebulous in terms of definition such as the term evolution. I remember debate about abiogensis and how that and evolution are not the same thing. We started talking about protiens and a how they evolved and suddenly it all came back to evolution. So can you show us a common ancestor of humans and monkey's? Because that is really what talking about the fossil record really is about is proving your theory. If you cannot show common ancestory from the fossil record then all you have is speculation. YOu don't even have evidence for your theories.  Which is probably why you claim I am ignorant. Nice but that just wont cut it.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

 

This is a misunderstanding of what evolution predicts.  A common ancestor exists in a certain population. This common ancestor shares genes through mating with other members of its population.  This population is then split into two different populations by geographic or other barriers.  Each population then evolves in separate ways as selection pressures and genetic drift act on them in different ways.  Different alleles become dominant in each population and the populations diverge over time.  Just as no one speaks old english, or latin, the common ancestor is long dead and its descendants have evolved in different ways.  

 

So essentally you are claiming there is no way to find the common ancestor.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So essentally you are claiming there is no way to find the common ancestor.

Among the living? Yes, that is what I am saying.  Because fossilization is so rare, it is also unlikely we will often find a common ancestor in the rocks.  Most fossils will be nothing more than cousins of our common ancestor. However that said, the cousins (perhaps even of the same species) provide many insights into what our common ancestor looked like.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Blah blah blah. I have heard it all before dude. I have been in so many of these debates now. It always comes back to what is evolution. Everything turns really nebulous in terms of definition such as the term evolution. I remember debate about abiogensis and how that and evolution are not the same thing. We started talking about protiens and a how they evolved and suddenly it all came back to evolution. So can you show us a common ancestor of humans and monkey's? Because that is really what talking about the fossil record really is about is proving your theory. If you cannot show common ancestory from the fossil record then all you have is speculation. YOu don't even have evidence for your theories.  Which is probably why you claim I am ignorant. Nice but that just wont cut it.

It appears that I probably misread both you and Daniel Woods.  I thought you said why don't we see the common ancestor among the living.  You have my apologies as it is clear that this is likely not what you meant.  

 

I think we have a fundamental misunderstanding about what to expect from the fossil record.  Evolutionary theory predicts that all living things have a common ancestor at some point in the past.  It makes predictions about what we should find in the fossil record. It doesn't say that we will find everything that ever lived in the fossil record.  We do see in the fossil record many species (in the proper time and place as predicted by evolution) that contain many apelike and human like characteristics.  How do you explain this Mola? Who were these ape like men from millions of years ago?

[Freedom]

Are they still cows?

 

There are a couple of conflicts I see:

1)  It is puzzling to me why God would rely on chance to develop something that resembled him and then call it his offspring when he already has an untold number of planets full of his children.  Not an efficient use of resources.

 

2)  Evolution contradicts the doctrine of the fall.  If the fall is destroyed then so is the atonement.  (Don't bother, I think I have heard all the rationalizations and and claims of metaphors.)

 

PS:   Thanks for your concern about my knowledge base but it is a little misplaced.  It is because of my reading that I reject macro-evolution.  I used to accept it.  I also used to be in livestock production and used selective breeding programs quite extensivly.

You are moving the goal post, which is why you are misinformed. macro evolution, by your own admission, is speciation. Speciation is when an organism from one species cannot mate with an organism from another species. Saying they are still cows is like saying they are still mammals, or still amebas. They are different species of cows, and this confounds your hypothesis. Horses and Zebras are very close in appearance, but are difference species.

 

evolution does not contradict the fall at all, only perhaps your own interpretation of the fall. If you feel it is incompatible with the doctrine of the atonement then you should take that up with Oaks, Ballard, Clarke, McKay and a host of other apostles. Even Joseph F Smith considered evolution as not being in any in opposition to church doctrine.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Freedom

[Freedom]

If that was true then there wouldn't be any controversy, because we could simply watch it happen. 

 

 

Where is the mechanism that forces an organism to create new hearts and lungs? The mechanism doesn't exist.

 

Right, I did say that speciation occurs, because of it's definition being the loss of the ability to procreate. However, this a macro-change it doesn't make. Why? Because, the arbitrary definition leads to nothing new. The loss of an ability is not a macro level change. Let's say for example, that you have 40 billion DNA points to start with. Then over time your progeny has only 30 billion DNA points that are working. Is that evidence of macro changes that would create say an Eye, or the ability to fly for example? No. The loss of an ability isn't an increase in DNA code.

 

In essence, a cow is still a cow. Nothing new there.  

You are changing the definition. a macro change is a change in species. Cow is not a species, it is made up of many different species. We observe speciation with omebas. You can say that they are still omebas, but that is like saying a cat turned into a dolphin, but they are still mammals. Once two species can no longer procreate, they for ever evolve down different paths until they become so different that they are not recognizable as being related in any way. You are looking for these dramatic changes to occur over a few generations. These changes occur over thousands and sometimes millions of years. As I stated earlier, a horse is significantly different than a zebra.

[danielwoods]

It's an analogy and heaven knows no analogy is perfect.

 

 

This misses the point of the analogy.  How does the creation of a new language validate the relationship of Latin to Spanish? BTW as we understand more and more about genetics we actually can get pretty close to this in a lab. We duplicate genes, splice here and add there.  We can recreate plant hybrids from their original parents. Again this isn't the same as actually observing one species evolve into another just as we can't observe latin evolving into spanish.

We don't observe that, you are correct, however we can replicate the process as languages aren't based on biology.

 

 

 

There are many ways to place an organism found in the fossil record into the tree of life.  You just don't agree with those methods

There are few ways to group and identify fossils into families, I agree. However, when evolution is referenced the extrapolation is greater than justified by the observed data, and that is really my only point in this thread.

 

 

Yes I've been meaning to ask you.  As a young earth creationist, don't you believe in the evolution from a few kinds into all the different species found on the earth (to account for issues with getting all the species on Noah's ark)?

Yes. I believe that the DNA originally was richer than compared to today.

 

 

 

This is a misunderstanding of what evolution predicts.  A common ancestor exists in a certain population. This common ancestor shares genes through mating with other members of its population.  This population is then split into two different populations by geographic or other barriers.  Each population then evolves in separate ways as selection pressures and genetic drift act on them in different ways.  Different alleles become dominant in each population and the populations diverge over time.  Just as no one speaks old english, or latin, the common ancestor is long dead and its descendants have evolved in different ways.

 

A misunderstanding or not, if macro level changes were possible it seems to me that they would also be common.

[danielwoods]

You are changing the definition. a macro change is a change in species. Cow is not a species, it is made up of many different species. We observe speciation with omebas. You can say that they are still omebas, but that is like saying a cat turned into a dolphin, but they are still mammals. Once two species can no longer procreate, they for ever evolve down different paths until they become so different that they are not recognizable as being related in any way. You are looking for these dramatic changes to occur over a few generations. These changes occur over thousands and sometimes millions of years. As I stated earlier, a horse is significantly different than a zebra.

Speciation is not macro level changes. We can point to all sorts of small changes, where they can't procreate. We can observe the process even. What we can't do is force selection beyond their genetic limits. Why is that? Why do organisms die when pushed beyond their limits?

The theory is that it takes millions of years, yet we can observe millions of generations where no major changes ever happen. Seems to me that based on the observable data, evolution has limits.