Human Evolution

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

 

Interesting.  BTW, while we don't see eye to eye on this issue, I appreciate your perspective and the tone that you bring to the conversation.  

[mfbukowski]

The problem is that the distinction between "macro" and "micro" is a false dichotomy which makes people think that there are two kinds of evolution.

 

One has to realize that EVERY organism is "transitional" to everything that comes after.  In 1620, for sake of argument, let's say that "all European-Americans" were Pilgrims fleeing from religious persecution, and were fundamentalist Protestants.

 

Now they are not.

 

Please tell me in which year America changed?  Where was the "macro" step from Pilgrims to present beliefs?  There wasn't one.  There were countless small steps, forward, backward, and sideways, beginning then and ending now. 

 

So too with organisms.

Edited September 24, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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.

Of course the theory accounts for this.  When an organism is well adapted to its environment (cockroaches and sharks) there is no need for adaptation.

 

So what you are citing is not an exception to the theory at all- it is indeed PART of it.

[Freedom]

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.

 

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.^[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution

 

 

Macroevolution

Definition

noun, plural: macroevolutions

Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.

 

 

You have come to a gun fight and are openly acknowledging that, not only do you not have a gun, but you do not even know what a gun is.

 

And do you know why there are examples where there are no changes? You are demonstrating your ignorance of evolution because your comment would be answered with even the most superficial understanding of how it works, yet you feel qualified to challenge it. There is no hole in evolution, the fact that some species do not change is added proof of evolution.

[Freedom]

 

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

And that they are. I suggest you study the innumerable species of mosquitos. Or birds, or fish, or trees, or monkeys, or cats, or cows, or starfish or...

 

I do not understand why you do not see this. You say there is no macroevolution, yet the planet is full of millions of examples of biodiversity that did not exist in the past. Entire species have disappeared because they could not survive today, so their record is lost. Humans have only been around for about 200,000 thousand years, yet look at the remarkable diversity. You would argue that we have only been on the earth for 6,000 years. If in this very short time we could evolve into such a massive difference in appearances it boggles the mind that you do not consider the astounding changes that could occur if you give us another 1,000,000 years.

[katherine the great]

Ancient technologies throw a wrench into macro-evolution by just being there.  According to Macro-evolutionary theory man developed step by step and as he did so did his knowledge, understanding and ability to utilize the knowledge and understanding finally reaching the present pinnacle of modern science. 

Where do you get your information?  Where does the theory of evolution state that?

[katherine the great]

I think there are some very fundamental misconceptions held by some posters on this thread about evolution.  Macroevolution does not refer to an event.  An organism doesn't ever have offspring that is fundamentally different than itself genetically.  Macroevolution cannot be observed from a lawn chair or in anyone's lifespan or generation--it is a process that takes place over geologic time so we can only observe it when we zoom out substantially and look back through time.  Until a person can suspend their disbelief for long enough to do that, they cannot really even glimpse the logic and the beauty of it. If every organism on this earth are truly all God's creations, it makes sense that we are connected to Him literally and to each other in a physical sense.  I don't know why, but I kind of resent the insinuation that believing this somehow makes us less spiritual or faithful to our belief in God.  It doesn't.

[Freedom]

Can you give us a summary rather than one hour video?

This post is systematic of the challenge faced by those opposed to evolutionary theory. If they had any knowledge of evolutionary theory, they would not require a summary of the video. That they are not willing to take just one hour to learn what evolutionary theory is, shows that they are willfully ignorant. So it begs the question, why are people who are willfully ignorant of the subject matter here trying to refute it?

[Stone holm]

I think there are some very fundamental misconceptions held by some posters on this thread about evolution.  Macroevolution does not refer to an event.  An organism doesn't ever have offspring that is fundamentally different than itself genetically.  Macroevolution cannot be observed from a lawn chair or in anyone's lifespan or generation--it is a process that takes place over geologic time so we can only observe it when we zoom out substantially and look back through time.  Until a person can suspend their disbelief for long enough to do that, they cannot really even glimpse the logic and the beauty of it. If every organism on this earth are truly all God's creations, it makes sense that we are connected to Him literally and to each other in a physical sense.  I don't know why, but I kind of resent the insinuation that believing this somehow makes us less spiritual or faithful to our belief in God.  It doesn't.

When all else fails, there is a tendency to attack the spirituality...it is why Mark Twain made some of his jokes. It is even stranger when fellow Mormons do it because we should know there are issues with Genesis.

[ERayR]

When all else fails, there is a tendency to attack the spirituality...it is why Mark Twain made some of his jokes. It is even stranger when fellow Mormons do it because we should know there are issues with Genesis.

 

I have attacked no ones spirituality. Please retract your accusation.  On the other hand I have been called willfully ignorant.  Who is attacking who?  But then I have come to expect no more.

Edited September 25, 2013 by ERayR

[Freedom]

I have attacked no ones spirituality. Please retract your accusation.  On the other hand I have been called willfully ignorant.  Who is attacking who?  But then I have come to expect no more.

Watch the video and you will no longer be willfully ignorant. We have told you countless times what evolution is but you continue to ignore us. This is being wilfully ignorant.

[ERayR]

Watch the video and you will no longer be willfully ignorant. We have told you countless times what evolution is but you continue to ignore us. This is being wilfully ignorant.

 

You have no way of knowing whether I have watched the video or not.  On the other hand have you read any of the material I recommended?

 

And finally I can be ridiculed by people that I know and care about a lot more than I do you so I think you are on ignore.

Edited September 25, 2013 by ERayR

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution debates somehow never evolve, its just stasis, stasis ,stasis...same old thing over and over again. If scientist would juat focus on the observable we would never have to debate this issue.

[mfbukowski]

We all have to realize that all these ideas are linguistic explanations which seem to work for specific purposes, but none of them can possibly describe anything beyond what we experience anyway.

 

Quite honestly, I can see evolution as being as true as creationism, and the idea that all was made in 6 days.  If God wanted it that way, that's the way it could be, and maybe the way it was.  "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy..."

 

This world is a pretty complex and wonderful (in the sense of "full of wonder") place full of mystery and magic, and we make up stuff that seems to fit what we experience.

 

Since we will never know in this life what "really" happened, I wouldn't get too upset about it either way.  Dogmatism is what starts wars, and Ignorance is its first cousin.  As far as I am concerned, dogmatism IS ignorance because nobody really knows anything- it's all just a reasonable guess.

[Freedom]

You have no way of knowing whether I have watched the video or not.  On the other hand have you read any of the material I recommended?

 

And finally I can be ridiculed by people that I know and care about a lot more than I do you so I think you are on ignore.

Your own comment that you wanted a summary rather than taking the time to watch it, and your comment about ancient technology demonstrates that you did not watch it. My point is, those here who keep misrepresenting evolution has you keep on doing, is evidence of willful ignorance because there have been ample posts to youtube where evolution is explained. Go watch the video.

[Freedom]

 

 

Since we will never know in this life what "really" happened, I wouldn't get too upset about it either way.  Dogmatism is what starts wars, and Ignorance is its first cousin.  As far as I am concerned, dogmatism IS ignorance because nobody really knows anything- it's all just a reasonable guess.

The problem here is those who are criticizing evolution do not understand it and are not willing to understand it. Most people here are attempting to dispel gross misconceptions about the science and are not forcing it down anybody's throat. Evolution and salvation are not related, those who see a contradiction are speaking from silence.

[Freedom]

Evolution debates somehow never evolve, its just stasis, stasis ,stasis...same old thing over and over again. If scientist would juat focus on the observable we would never have to debate this issue.

You mean the fossil record? the reason for the debate is because the creationists refuse to focus on the observable.

[danielwoods]

Interesting. BTW, while we don't see eye to eye on this issue, I appreciate your perspective and the tone that you bring to the conversation.

 

Same back at ya, as always!

 

Of course the theory accounts for this.  When an organism is well adapted to its environment (cockroaches and sharks) there is no need for adaptation.

 

So what you are citing is not an exception to the theory at all- it is indeed PART of it.

 

I'm sorry. I was referencing millions of generations of observed human selection (as opposed to natural selection) where scientists have pushed species like the fruit fly and bacteria to evolve, and they do, but only to a point, then they die. This is what is observed. If macro level changes were a fact of history, we should be able to replicate it in species that have a high generational frequency. 

 

You have come to a gun fight and are openly acknowledging that, not only do you not have a gun, but you do not even know what a gun is.

 

And do you know why there are examples where there are no changes? You are demonstrating your ignorance of evolution because your comment would be answered with even the most superficial understanding of how it works, yet you feel qualified to challenge it. There is no hole in evolution, the fact that some species do not change is added proof of evolution.

 

Thanks. For some reason I don't feel a need to defend myself. 

 

And that they are. I suggest you study the innumerable species of mosquitos. Or birds, or fish, or trees, or monkeys, or cats, or cows, or starfish or...

 

I do not understand why you do not see this. You say there is no macroevolution, yet the planet is full of millions of examples of biodiversity that did not exist in the past. Entire species have disappeared because they could not survive today, so their record is lost. Humans have only been around for about 200,000 thousand years, yet look at the remarkable diversity. You would argue that we have only been on the earth for 6,000 years. If in this very short time we could evolve into such a massive difference in appearances it boggles the mind that you do not consider the astounding changes that could occur if you give us another 1,000,000 years.

 

All I'm saying is that it's not observed. Give me an example where it's observable. 

 

I think there are some very fundamental misconceptions held by some posters on this thread about evolution.  Macroevolution does not refer to an event.  An organism doesn't ever have offspring that is fundamentally different than itself genetically.  Macroevolution cannot be observed from a lawn chair or in anyone's lifespan or generation--it is a process that takes place over geologic time so we can only observe it when we zoom out substantially and look back through time.  Until a person can suspend their disbelief for long enough to do that, they cannot really even glimpse the logic and the beauty of it. If every organism on this earth are truly all God's creations, it makes sense that we are connected to Him literally and to each other in a physical sense.  I don't know why, but I kind of resent the insinuation that believing this somehow makes us less spiritual or faithful to our belief in God.  It doesn't.

 

In essence then the question is how many generations does it take for an organism to display a macro level change? Or we could ask it in a different way. Why is it that when organisms are pushed by human selection, in the lab, they grow weaker and die instead of evolving new ways of adapting? 

 

Your appeal to "suspending" one's disbelief sounds more like a religious plea than anything else. And all this time I thought science was based on observational data. I guess I am mistaken.

 

Evolution debates somehow never evolve, its just stasis, stasis ,stasis...same old thing over and over again. If scientist would juat focus on the observable we would never have to debate this issue.

It's a curious thing to me. The reluctance to focus on the observable, and the insistence to "suspend" one's disbelief and just believe that it's all true and beautiful. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

Unfortunately, danielwoods, you are mistaken.  The data is 11 years old, and fruit flies were central to the discovery.

The mechanism is now known.

 

These darn scientists just won't go on what is actually observable in a lab will they? 

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm
 

 

FIRST GENETIC EVIDENCE UNCOVERED OF HOW MAJOR CHANGES
IN BODY SHAPES OCCURRED DURING EARLY ANIMAL EVOLUTION

Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.

In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.

The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution—the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

“The problem for a long time has been over this issue of macroevolution,” says William McGinnis, a professor in UCSD’s Division of Biology who headed the study. “How can evolution possibly introduce big changes into an animal’s body shape and still generate a living animal? Creationists have argued that any big jump would result in a dead animal that wouldn’t be able to perpetuate itself. And until now, no one’s been able to demonstrate how you could do that at the genetic level with specific instructions in the genome.”

The UCSD team, which included Matthew Ronshaugen and Nadine McGinnis, showed in its experiments that this could be accomplished with relatively simple mutations in a class of regulatory genes, known as Hox, that act as master switches by turning on and off other genes during embryonic development. Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx—which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, while its crustacean counterpart from Artemia only represses 15%—would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects.

 

 

I'm sorry. I was referencing millions of generations of observed human selection (as opposed to natural selection) where scientists have pushed species like the fruit fly and bacteria to evolve, and they do, but only to a point, then they die. This is what is observed. If macro level changes were a fact of history, we should be able to replicate it in species that have a high generational frequency. 

Edited September 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

You mean the fossil record? the reason for the debate is because the creationists refuse to focus on the observable.

Hey wait a minute there, bub.  Pretty soon you will be saying that the First Cause is not observable.  Sheesh.  

[cdowis]

 

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. 

 

 

Tell me what it means to observe "species at different points of speciation". 

For example, how do you identify fossils from the same species which are extinct?  (This is a loaded question, so be careful)

[cdowis]

I think there are some very fundamental misconceptions held by some posters on this thread about evolution.  Macroevolution does not refer to an event.  An organism doesn't ever have offspring that is fundamentally different than itself genetically.

 

That's interesting. 

 

So there can be no evolution to a different species ==>>  all offspring are the same species as the parent, right?!  But that sounds like microevolution.

 

Please explain so that a simple soul like myself can understand.

[Vance]

I think there are some very fundamental misconceptions held by some posters on this thread about evolution.  Macroevolution does not refer to an event.  An organism doesn't ever have offspring that is fundamentally different than itself genetically.  Macroevolution cannot be observed from a lawn chair or in anyone's lifespan or generation--it is a process that takes place over geologic time so we can only observe it when we zoom out substantially and look back through time.  Until a person can suspend their disbelief for long enough to do that, they cannot really even glimpse the logic and the beauty of it. If every organism on this earth are truly all God's creations, it makes sense that we are connected to Him literally and to each other in a physical sense.  I don't know why, but I kind of resent the insinuation that believing this somehow makes us less spiritual or faithful to our belief in God.  It doesn't.

Sounds more like a religion than a science.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Since we will never know in this life what "really" happened, I wouldn't get too upset about it either way.  Dogmatism is what starts wars, and Ignorance is its first cousin.  As far as I am concerned, dogmatism IS ignorance because nobody really knows anything- it's all just a reasonable guess.

This is exactly how I feel about the issues at hand. I am just a little skeptical about some aspects of it. I can see it both ways. Which is why I am convicend no on really knows. And all we have is best guesses.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's interesting. 

 

So there can be no evolution to a different species ==>>  all offspring are the same species as the parent, right?!  But that sounds like microevolution.

 

Please explain so that a simple soul like myself can understand.

I agree. Because one aspect of evolution that I was taught was a jump to a different kind,not just speciation,in a single generation. Did my teachers just lie to me about it or make it up out of whole clothe? I think there are serious issues with this. I know it has been argued before on this very board. One aspect of 2 different species is that they cannot produce viable offspring. So that would mean that you would need evolution to occour at the same time or near the same time in 2 separate places to produce offspring that could mate with the newley created offspring and produce viable offspring so that this new species could continue.

Edited September 25, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram