Human Evolution

[cdowis]

I think we have hit on something.  In the evolution tree, at what point does it change to a different species == can you demonstrate that offspring could be a different species than its parent?  So, this is the REAL issue, rather than the so-called transitional organisms.

 

This could be used as a test to falsify the common ancestry theory for variant species (macroevolution).

[Rob Osborn]

I think we have hit on something.  In the evolution tree, at what point does it change to a different species == can you demonstrate that offspring could be a different species than its parent?  So, this is the REAL issue, rather than the so-called transitional organisms.

 

This could be used as a test to falsify the common ancestry theory for variant species (macroevolution).

I believe you have really hit onto something here. Very interested in peoples responses.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

If that was what you were taught you were taught wrong.  Very very wrong. What you are describing does happen in some plants (as a result of hybridization - see the Senecio cambrensis for a recently created species) but is relatively rare for plants and I am unaware of it ever happening in animals. Parents do not give birth to children of a different species.

 

Speciation happens when two populations become genetically isolated.  Most often this occurs due to geographic isolation. Each separated population responds to the selective pressures of the environment that they are in. Small adaptive changes appear in the population as individuals within the population that have better suited alleles for a particular environment produce more offspring. Certain alleles become fixed.  New alleles are created by mutation or duplication. Because the two different populations are genetically isolated, they will diverge from each other.  Overtime these changes will accumulate. Given enough time, the two populations will no longer mate with each other.  

 

We can see this.  About three million years ago the isthmus of Panama was created separating the Pacific ocean from the Atlantic.  There are 7 species of snapping shrimp on side of the isthmus.  For each of the 7 species of shrimp, their closest evolutionary relative lives on the other side of the isthmus. The related species (one from each side) look almost identical to each other, but when placed together in the same environment they will no longer mate, but instead snapped aggressively at each other.

 

While you may reject the language analogy I presented earlier, it demonstrates clearly what evolution predicts will happen to isolated populations.  If two populations start with the same language, but then become isolated eventually their languages will become unintelligible.  The process happens slowly.  Each generation speaks the language of their parents with some small minor modifications to suit their needs.  At no point does a new language spontaneously occur (outside the tower of babel perhaps) so that the parents cannot communicate with their children.  None the less these small changes overtime accumulate and eventually you find related languages like Spanish and Portuguese   Given enough time, the languages will hardly resemble each other.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think we have hit on something.  In the evolution tree, at what point does it change to a different species == can you demonstrate that offspring could be a different species than its parent?  So, this is the REAL issue, rather than the so-called transitional organisms.

 

This could be used as a test to falsify the common ancestry theory for variant species (macroevolution).

 

 

I believe you have really hit onto something here. Very interested in peoples responses.

 

It is amusing that both of you don't have a clue as to what evolutionary theory is, but you reject it for lack of evidence. At what point is a child an adult? At what point is a baby a child? If I start with a grain of sand and keep adding a grain at a time, at what point does it become a heap?

Edited September 25, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Freedom]

I think we have hit on something.  In the evolution tree, at what point does it change to a different species == can you demonstrate that offspring could be a different species than its parent?  So, this is the REAL issue, rather than the so-called transitional organisms.

 

This could be used as a test to falsify the common ancestry theory for variant species (macroevolution).

Watch the video. It does not change the way you keep supposing despite all the explanations to the contrary. You are misunderstanding evolution. The changes are gradual and over many many generations. You have two birds that have the same mother. One flies off to Africa, the other to Iceland. Over thousands of years, in isolation from each other, they evolve down different paths. Eventually, the offspring of the birds in Iceland evolve to a point that they are not of the same species as those in Africa. This is how penguins evolved and why they cannot mate with pigeons. Over time, they evolved to survive in cold temperature, and eventually to swim.

 

To say show me the child that is a different species from the mother is like saying show me the one letter that proves the transition from Latin to English, or the one person who is the transition from Chinese to German. Clearly, according to your belief, we started out with two people yet today we have many racial groups. I challenge you to find the transitional person between each of these groups.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

ERayR.  I will admit ignorance when it comes to how ancient civilizations constructed and moved large monolithic objects.  I've probably spent an hour looking at it since yesterday, and it is intriguing.  I don't see how any of that throws a wrench into evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory says that anatomically modern humans first appeared 200,000 years ago.  Advanced human civilazations 10,000 years ago might create religious problems, probably raise a ruckus with modern historians, but I see no bar to evolutionary claims.  Can you explain why you think that ancient technology disproves macroevolution.  

Edited September 25, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

I am pretty sure it was CDowis that wanted the summary, not ERayR.  Tough to keep track in a thread like this.

[danielwoods]

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

 

Thanks for the link. That was very interesting. What is also interesting is that it doesn't help the cause. 

 

Stephen Myer in his new book talks about this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/hox_genes_to_th076231.html

 

Stephen Meyer discussed Hox genes in Chapter 16 of Darwin's Doubt(pp. 317-321), along with all the other proposals for rescuing neo-Darwinism from the problems of the Cambrian explosion: specifically, the origin of all the complex specified information necessary to generate new body plans.

Meyer points out that since Hox genes coordinate the expression of so many other different genes, experiments have shown that mutations are harmful. That happened here; the mice were deformed. None of them got better, even if swapping the order of some of the Hox gene clusters "rescued" the phenotype from complete failure. A second problem is that Hox genes are expressed after the beginning of animal development, when the basic body axes are already in place. A third problem is that Hox genes only switch other genes on and off. As such, they cannot be sources of genetic information required to build new body plans.

 

 

 

 

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)

Scientists determine that a new species is created once one group can no longer procreate with their relatives. They are then deemed a new species. We can observe this happening when a group is isolated, ether by choice (such as migratory birds) or circumstances of various types (like hurricanes). After a while the isolated population isn't able to mate with their previous counterparts. And then you have Speciation.

As for your second question. Identifying fossil species is done by comparing the bone structure and other features to known species.

Edited September 25, 2013 by danielwoods

[mfbukowski]

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.

As a born skeptic, I can tell you that throughout my life, in my opinion, that is about the best we can do for anything unless we have had an experience ourselves and know it in our "gut".  Even then someone will dream up a reason to doubt it.

Edited September 25, 2013 by mfbukowski

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 Scientists determine that a new species is created once one group can no longer procreate with their relatives. They are then deemed a new species. We can observe this happening when a group is isolated, ether by choice (such as migratory birds) or circumstances of various types (like hurricanes). After a while the isolated population isn't able to mate with their previous counterparts. And then you have Speciation.

 

It is nice to see the non-mormon young earth creationist can describe speciation.  I am interested in what you do believe (not to debate but to understand). Please correct the following: Building on what you said before, you believe that God created kinds with all sorts of genes that could be activated as necessary. That as animals dispersed over the earth that these kinds used their genetic material and adapted to the environment they found themselves in creating all the species that we see on the earth. You believe that overtime no new adaptions in DNA have been created, rather that DNA left to itself only degrades. Is this correct?  I'm curious as to how many species fit a kind.  Like are all the big cats a kind? So under your view, you would say that lions and tigers could have evolved (although by a different mechanism than darwin proposed) from some primitive (although superior from a DNA perspective) ancestor?

[ERayR]

As a born skeptic, I can tell you that throughout my life, in my opinion, that is about the best we can do for anything unless we have had an experience ourselves and know it in our "gut".  Even then someone will dream up a reason to doubt it.

 

The real bummer is that the two of us can have valid but different best guesses with the same information. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As a born skeptic, I can tell you that throughout my life, in my opinion, that is about the best we can do for anything unless we have had an experience ourselves and know it in our "gut".  Even then someone will dream up a reason to doubt it.

This is what I like about your posts. I have no formal training in philosophy so you are very hard to follow sometimes but I always appreciate the stretch.

[mfbukowski]

I think we have hit on something.  In the evolution tree, at what point does it change to a different species == can you demonstrate that offspring could be a different species than its parent?  So, this is the REAL issue, rather than the so-called transitional organisms.

 

This could be used as a test to falsify the common ancestry theory for variant species (macroevolution).

In which generation in American history did we become socialist?.  I mean we started out as Pilgrims, and now we are here.  When exactly did this happen, where no one is a Pilgrim any more, and wears those hats etc?

[mfbukowski]

The real bummer is that the two of us can have valid but different best guesses with the same information. 

yep.  It's called "ambiguity" which means we get to think for ourselves!  Oh no!  Not that! 

[mfbukowski]

Stephen Meyer clearly has an agenda and always has.  He is not a good source.  One might as well quote Bruce R. McConkie on the subject.

Stephen Myer in his new book talks about this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/hox_genes_to_th076231.html
 
 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In which generation in American history did we become socialist?.  I mean we started out as Pilgrims, and now we are here.  When exactly did this happen, where no one is a Pilgrim any more, and wears those hats etc?

At the very least your examples cause me to think more so than anyone else.

[Stone holm]

In which generation in American history did we become socialist?.  I mean we started out as Pilgrims, and now we are here.  When exactly did this happen, where no one is a Pilgrim any more, and wears those hats etc?

 

Depends on your definition of "socialist" -- how did we run so far of the topic?

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

Brief summary. Offspring tend to look like their parents, with changes. Those animals/plants that are reproduced tend to be better suited towards their environment. Those differences produce different animals that come and go over time.

[Freedom]

Here is an example. A single species thrives in a moderate climate. A volcanic eruption occurs and causes half the species to flee north, and the other to flee south. Some among them have thicker fir and some have thinner fir. In the moderate climate, both survived and thrived although they were perhaps a bit uncomfortable. In the northern climate, those with thin fir died off, in the southern climate those with thick fir died off.

In the northern climate, a random genetic defect causes thicker skin. It so happens that those with thicker skin are even more adapted to survive in the north so this defect becomes an advantage and over generations, only those with thick skin and thick fir survive. It so happens that this same defect shows up among those in the south, but the these die off before reaching maturity because they overheat and therefore do not pass on this trait. The most common food source in the north is tree roots of the Klingon fir. Unfortunately, the same trait that allows for the better digestion of tree roots also makes the carrier fatally allergic to nuts.

 

In the southern climate things are not going so well because there are far more predators. Some of the species have longer claws than others, however. A trait that held no genetic advantage before, now  become a huge advantage. In the south with many predators and many trees, those with long claws are able to climb the trees to avoid being eaten. Eventually, the thin haired, thin skinned longed nailed breeds are the only ones that survive. Then another mutation appears that also appeared in the northern group - longer legs. In the north, these ones die off because they are more exposed to the cold. In the south, they are more adapted at climbing trees. In these trees, the primary food source is nuts and bugs - those who cannot eat them die off. These changes are completely random and only become an advantage if the environment demands it.

 

Over thousands of years, these animals develop separately and evolve by chance to become something different until at some stage, the two become different species. It is gradual, one change at a time. There is no leap between a single generation. It could well be that God put these genetic codes in the DNA and anticipated these changes taking place, but the fundamental reality is that evolution occurs and it is observable over and over again with life forms that have very short lifespans and is observable in the fossil record. We can see them transforming naturally into different species based on the environments they are exposed to. 

 

In my example, over 500,000 years, the group in the south evolve into small animals the size of small monkey with long limbs and claws, they live off the nuts and insects in the trees. The animals in the north become large like a pig, they cannot eat nuts and they are herbivores so they do not eat insects. They have thick fir and very muscular legs for running and digging up roots. The ones in the north hibernate in the winter, those in the south do not. They become as different as monkeys are from black bears.

[cdowis]

 Eventually, the offspring of the birds in Iceland evolve to a point that they are not of the same species as those in Africa. This is how penguins evolved and why they cannot mate with pigeons. Over time, they evolved to survive in cold temperature, and eventually to swim.

 

OK, and here is the key point.  Has it been scientifically proven that an individual from these two penguin groups have exactly the same ancestor?  Can they identify that specific "Eve" ancestor?

 

 I'm calling for a CFR. 

 

To say show me the child that is a different species from the mother is like saying show me the one letter that proves the transition from Latin to English, or the one person who is the transition from Chinese to German. Clearly, according to your belief, we started out with two people yet today we have many racial groups. I challenge you to find the transitional person between each of these groups.

 

We are talking about changes in species (macroevolution), not microevolution.  Of course a child can have different physical properties.

[cdowis]

I'm not trying to be difficult.  Only challenging your assumptions.  You made an assertion and I want to see proof. 

 

Nothing personal.

[thesometimesaint]

 Ok.  So their existence is postulated rather than known.

 

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.

 

These are theories. That is that they so far meet all the conditionals of all traits needed to establish their existence. IE; No one so far has seen an electron, and given our level of observation it is unlikely, but not impossible, that we will ever seen one. That lack of observation doesn't in any way stop us from using the electron as electricity.

 

See electron theory

http://www.philsoc.org/1962Spring/1526transcript.html

 

That is what scientists do make theories that explain an observed phenominon. Then test those theories until they fall apart.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

 Eventually, the offspring of the birds in Iceland evolve to a point that they are not of the same species as those in Africa. This is how penguins evolved and why they cannot mate with pigeons. Over time, they evolved to survive in cold temperature, and eventually to swim.

 

OK, and here is the key point.  Has it been scientifically proven that an individual from these two penguin groups have exactly the same ancestor?  Can they identify that specific "Eve" ancestor?

 

 I'm calling for a CFR. 

 

To say show me the child that is a different species from the mother is like saying show me the one letter that proves the transition from Latin to English, or the one person who is the transition from Chinese to German. Clearly, according to your belief, we started out with two people yet today we have many racial groups. I challenge you to find the transitional person between each of these groups.

 

We are talking about changes in species (macroevolution), not microevolution.  Of course a child can have different physical properties.

 

Scientifically proven yes. Enough to convince nearly 100% of biologists who have studied the matter {reference Martz, Larry; McDaniel, Ann (1987). "Keeping God Out of Class (Washington and bureau reports)". Newsweek (Newsweek Inc.) CIX (26): 22–23 which found that 700 out of 480,000 US earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism}.

 

Proven enough to convince cdowis who thinks that evolution predicts that children will be a different species than their parents? No.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Depends on your definition of "socialist" -- how did we run so far of the topic?

You missed the point of his analogy.  We all know you are one so I guess it was hard to see what the analogy was with out taking it personally?

Edited September 25, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Proven enough to convince cdowis who thinks that evolution predicts that children will be a different species than their parents? No.

Nice strawman. No on talked about this. Good grief.