Human Evolution

[cdowis]

OK, so the answer is "no".

[Freedom]

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

 

Nothing personal.

The proof is found in animals with shorter life spans - we can reproduce macro-evolution and the fossil record shows a pattern of development that fits within the framework of the theory of evolution. There is never absolute proof of anything but the reality is, you have no alternative. Speciation is observable, and the fossil record shows that it occurs. You are rejecting it because it cannot be proven absolutely but nothing can be. In fact, I do not even understand why you are opposed to it. You just oppose it for the sake of opposing it.

 

All scientific theories are based on observable evidence. It is how we explain the evidence. Unless you can come up with an alternative theory to explain the evidence, you are simply arguing from silence.

[thesometimesaint]

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).

 

When a set of a given species have enough genetic changes that is no longer possible to produce viable offspring with the parent species.

 

Yes as but two examples. There are varieties of sea gulls that are no longer able to reproduce with the parent sea gull population. Also while all domesticated dogs are descendent from the Gray Wolf. The Great Dane and the Chihuahua can not reproduce except in a laboratory.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

Cdowis said exactly that:

 

 

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).

So the real issue to invalidate common ancestry would be the inability to find an offspring that is a different species than its parent. This was in response to you saying:

 

 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 I mischaracterized you I apologize, but you and cdowis have certainly mischaracterized evolutionary theory.

Edited September 25, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

OK, so the answer is "no".

Yes.  The answer for you is no.

[thesometimesaint]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Modern day birds are just dinosaurs. We have even a new name for them Fried Chicken.

 

See  Dinosaurs are birds.

http://www.amnh.org/explore/science-topics/birds-are-dinosaurs

Edited September 25, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Freedom]

OK, so the answer is "no".

The answer is yes. The answer you are looking for does not exist. We cannot prove irrefutably that smoking causes cancer, for example, but the evidence pointing to this conclusion is not refuted. We do not have a sample of every animal that every lived for the past million years so no, we cannot track the dna from child to mother all the way back to the first protein strand - to expect this sort of proof is demonstrably ignorant. What we do is look at the evidence. There is absolutely no evidence to support  your theory so when you say you reject evolution because there is no absolute proof, why on earth do you believe differently if your position has zero evidence? Do you not see the hypocrisy? You are saying we need to prove evolution absolutely, but you do not require a single bit of evidence for your point of view.

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory and it is the only plausible theory in existence. Those who reject it, reject it solely on religious grounds even though there is no reason within their own dogma to reject evolution. I have yet to find an atheist biologist who takes exception to evolutionary theory.

[cdowis]

 

Yes as but two examples. There are varieties of sea gulls that are no longer able to reproduce with the parent sea gull population. Also while all domesticated dogs are descendent from the Gray Wolf. The Great Dane and the Chihuahua can not reproduce except in a laboratory.

 

Thanks.

[danielwoods]

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?

 

We are DEvo... 

 

(a little joke there) However, what I would say is that since the fall, all has been going down hill slowly. What is a "kind" exactly is an interesting debate and one that I don't think will be resolved anytime soon. In essence a "kind" or type is a larger classification than species, that's obvious right? So, you are correct, after the creation animals were able to adapt based on their rich (or diverse) DNA. The environment they found themselves in selected out those adaptations. However, with every isolation a certain amount of loss occurs. We see this with Dog breeds, Golden retrievers get cancer. German Shepherds suffer hip problems. Bulldogs have skin problems. Dalmatians get kidney stones. We also see it with cave dwellers. The degrading of the DNA through this process indicates to me that we are devolving, not evolving. 

 

As for big cats, I'm inclined to view them as having a common ancestor. 

 

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.

 

Everyone has an agenda. Attacking the source doesn't refute the argument presented. 

[Freedom]

We are DEvo... 

 

(a little joke there) However, what I would say is that since the fall, all has been going down hill slowly.

What evidence do you have for this hypothesis?

[danielwoods]

What evidence do you have for this hypothesis?

 

Seems I stated two examples - 

However, with every isolation a certain amount of loss occurs. We see this with Dog breeds, Golden retrievers get cancer. German Shepherds suffer hip problems. Bulldogs have skin problems. Dalmatians get kidney stones. We also see it with cave dwellers. The degrading of the DNA through this process indicates to me that we are devolving, not evolving.

[thesometimesaint]

We are DEvo... 

 

(a little joke there) However, what I would say is that since the fall, all has been going down hill slowly. What is a "kind" exactly is an interesting debate and one that I don't think will be resolved anytime soon. In essence a "kind" or type is a larger classification than species, that's obvious right? So, you are correct, after the creation animals were able to adapt based on their rich (or diverse) DNA. The environment they found themselves in selected out those adaptations. However, with every isolation a certain amount of loss occurs. We see this with Dog breeds, Golden retrievers get cancer. German Shepherds suffer hip problems. Bulldogs have skin problems. Dalmatians get kidney stones. We also see it with cave dwellers. The degrading of the DNA through this process indicates to me that we are devolving, not evolving. 

 

As for big cats, I'm inclined to view them as having a common ancestor. 

 

 

Everyone has an agenda. Attacking the source doesn't refute the argument presented. 

 

Evolution works in both directions. Change the environment enough and there is pressure to speciate. That or go extinct. Some 90+% of all species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct. Therefore all of us alive today are related in some way. Also known as Common Descent.

 

There is no scientifically accurate definition of kind.

 

What ever their individual traits All domesticated dogs are descendents of the Gray Wolf.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html

 

Agreed. However when a source has repeatedly been shown to be false then it is appropriate to be highly skeptical of that source. IE; If your doctor kept on giving you wrong medical advice. How long does it take before you stop using his services?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

There is no scientifically accurate definition of kind.

That is a bummer.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I love to explain things if anyone is genuinely interested.  Typically, what bugs me is when people who have no knowledge on a subject shoot off their mouths ignoring those who do know what they are talking about.  One can disagree, but if one knows nothing about a subject, I would think that one would at least try to get some understanding before one goes off half-cocked.

 

We are all specialists in our own ways and honest discussion is the way we learn things- always- there is no other way.  There are mountains of things you know which I don't have a clue about, and I would love to learn them from you.

 

So please, if I am being obscure, let me know, because my goal is to be able to teach this stuff so anyone can understand it.  But for those who just want to argue I have a tendency just to blast away.

[mfbukowski]

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

If you understand the comment, it is exactly ON topic.  The point is macro evolution.  Where is the "macro" jump where we went from Pilgrims to President Obama?

 

Th point is, there wasn't one. 

[mfbukowski]

Everyone has an agenda. Attacking the source doesn't refute the argument presented. 

OO -good one!  The best counter-punch I have seen from you.

 

I guess I will actually have to read the link now. 

[Freedom]

Seems I stated two examples - However, with every isolation a certain amount of loss occurs. We see this with Dog breeds, Golden retrievers get cancer. German Shepherds suffer hip problems. Bulldogs have skin problems. Dalmatians get kidney stones. We also see it with cave dwellers. The degrading of the DNA through this process indicates to me that we are devolving, not evolving.

 

Why do you insist upon misrepresenting evolution despite all the explanations that have been provided? Evolution is not about creating the perfect creature, it is about becoming best suited for the environment. Regardless, do you have proof that in your notion of a beginning there were no skin problems, kidney stones, cancer or other problems?  

[katherine the great]

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.

If memory serves, you are not a "simple soul."    Evolution does not happen on the individual level, it happens in populations over time.  There is always variation in traits in a population.  Lets say that there is a population of white, black and gray bunnies (same species) who live in a bushy landscape and they all thrive.  (I am just totally making this up.)  Some kind of new bush is introduced into the landscape (seeds get blown in to the region and then picked up by some prickly creature that passes through the area and shakes some of the seeds off) that has a white foliage so as the plant becomes more common, the white bunnies gain greater camouflage benefit from predators.  The black bunnies are the losers in this scenario because they are easily spotted and gobbled up at a faster pace than the others, but the white bunnies become more numerous over time because more of them live to reproduce and pass their white gene to the next generation.  Within several generations, we see the number of black bunnies decrease and the number of white bunnies increase.  This is microevolution.  The white bunnies become very numerous but there is still variation in the species so there are gray and black bunnies as well.  There is a huge drought for a period of time and some of the bunnies start moving away from their habitat in search of food, but some of the bunnies stay where they are.  Over time, a small creek becomes a large river and the descendants of the bunnies who stayed are not able to exchange genes with the bunnies who radiated out from their home habitat.  The habitats continue to change, but the original area continues to support enough of the bunnies that there is no fundamental change in their genes, but the bunnies who moved go through several more environmental changes over the generations that result in changes.  Most of the changes will be from the genes already present in the population, but sometimes a mutation will happen that works better in a particular environment and that trait will become more common in the population as time passes.  With enough time, these two populations of bunnies will become different enough that if their descendants were to come back in contact with each other (say a few thousand years later), they could be genetically different enough that they would not be able to mate and have reproductive offspring.  They have become different species.  This, of course is a Reader's digest version.  There are countless ways that gene pools change over time.

[danielwoods]

Why do you insist upon misrepresenting evolution despite all the explanations that have been provided? Evolution is not about creating the perfect creature, it is about becoming best suited for the environment. Regardless, do you have proof that in your notion of a beginning there were no skin problems, kidney stones, cancer or other problems?  

 

Even dog breeders talk about the higher percentage of problems with these breeds. 

 

I'm not saying that evolution is "about creating the perfect creature" rather, my point was that it appears to me that the net result of evolution is less adaptability not more, as time goes on more losses occur. 

[Stone holm]

Even dog breeders talk about the higher percentage of problems with these breeds. 

 

I'm not saying that evolution is "about creating the perfect creature" rather, my point was that it appears to me that the net result of evolution is less adaptability not more, as time goes on more losses occur.

There is a small but very good book that just came out about evolution and adaptivity in connection with climate change by a Vermont author can't remember the name, but it discusses this very topic and comes to a different conclusion .

[mfbukowski]

 

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

 

 

That article says nothing specific about the article I quoted

 

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.

 

Surely you see that this is PRESUMING that there IS an "origin" and therefore it is a circular argument.  It presumes intelligent design from the beginning, that there pre-exists "complex specified information necessary to generate new body plans" which then are incorporated into the system.

 

The entire point of Darwinian evolution is that such plans do NOT exist- the "goal" of evolution is to come up specifically with a way to show evolution WITHOUT such "plans" existing.  THAT is the "axe to grind" which science brings into the picture, and that is why intelligent design is NOT "scientific" from the beginning.

 

"Let's make a theory of the origin of species which does not presume that there is a plan made by God" says the scientist.

 

"OK then" says the advocate of intelligent design, "but then you are not accounting for the existence of a plan, so your argument is defeated!"

 

Huh? 

 

 

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.

Of course they are harmful sometimes, but they can also be beneficial.  We are talking about hundreds of thousands of mutations which happen in nature- not a few which are forced in the laboratory.  None of the harmful mutations in nature survive- that is the entire point!  So again the presumption is in favor of intelligent design.

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.

 

This is a horrible argument.  Of course they are expressed in a living animal and of course they are not the "source of genetic information" - AGAIN HE IS PRESUMING THAT THERE IS genetic information in the first place- a plan.

 

Duplicate Disasters

Meyer also discusses gene duplication in Chapter 11 (see Fig. 11.2, p. 214). As with other proposals, this answer begs the question of the origin of genetic information

Again, begging the question that there IS such a thing!!  Unbelievable!

 

 

It cannot serve as a mechanism for searching the vast sequence space to find function. When dealing with unguided processes, like neo-Darwinism, no strategy is any better than blind search. In the imaginations of Darwinists it "could" or "might" or "may" or "possibly" happen -- but the probabilities are against them.

 

Probabilities of what?  Of having a certain outcome?  The entire point is that there IS no certain outcome!

The probabilities of a human evolving with a blue nose with green speckles are quite remote, but that's not the point!  The proability of SOME change which may or may not be beneficial are quite high!  Again, begging the question that there IS a plan- a known outcome.  We are not talking abut an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters writing Romeo and Juliet- we are talking about they writing anything!

 

In Chapter 10, Meyer reviews the work of Doug Axe who, with generous assumptions to facilitate evolution, calculated vanishingly small chances of finding functional protein sequences in the search space of possible ones. No amount of duplicating existing genes or switching them on or off with Hox genes can overcome the low probability of success.

 

The low probability of success for a specific outcome that is!  Presuming that there ARE "functional" protein sequences- PRESUMES THAT PROTEIN SEQUENCES HAVE A FUNCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.  that is the wrong presumption, IF WE TAKE ON SCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTIONS.

This new paper, like the ones preceding it, dodges the important question of the origin of genetic information. It presumes that duplicating a gene or a gene cluster can produce new body plans, new organs, and new organisms -- sorry, duplicating garbage only gives you twice as much garbage. It presumes that switching on downstream genes will do the trick -- sorry, switches can only switch on what already exists.

 

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/hox_genes_to_th076231.html#sthash.O0K177U4.dpuf

 

Oh gosh, do I have to say it again?  The "origin of genetic information" presumes there IS an "origin" and that it IS "information", when in fact, we are looking back at millions of years of random processes and calling that "information".

 

Now let me make it clear that I am just making the point here that Meyer's argument is a poor one.

 

I don't know or care if evolution is "true" or not- it doesn't matter to me if God made the world in 6 days or 16 trillion years, or if it blinked into existence 6 minutes ago with our memories intact of things which are not "real"

 

My life will not change one iota based on scientific discoveries unless they cure aging and make everyone live to be 145.

 

But a bad argument is a bad argument, pure and simple.

Edited September 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't understand that science is based on theories which must be observable- that is the presumption of science in the first place.

 

I actually believe that this world and everything in it was planned by God, but at least I know that that is NOT science.  We call that "faith" because it CANNOT be proven through observation.

[Freedom]

Even dog breeders talk about the higher percentage of problems with these breeds. 

 

I'm not saying that evolution is "about creating the perfect creature" rather, my point was that it appears to me that the net result of evolution is less adaptability not more, as time goes on more losses occur. 

This is getting a bit tiring. Problems with specific breads has nothing to do with evolution. They have problems because of intelligent design: people interfering with the natural selection process and preventing biodiversity. Breeders create animals with specific physical appearances to win shows and have no concern for the actual health and long term survival of the animals. You have absolutely no evidence that we are seeing led adaptability. Live is constantly changing an adapting. It is perpetual. Consider these comments from   Scientific America:

From a biological perspective, there is no such thing as devolution. All changes in the gene frequencies of populations--and quite often in the traits those genes influence--are by definition evolutionary changes. The notion that humans might regress or "devolve" presumes that there is a preferred hierarchy of structure and function--say, that legs with feet are better than legs with hooves or that breathing with lungs is better than breathing with gills. But for the organisms possessing those structures, each is a useful adaptation.

Nonetheless, many people evaluate nonhuman organisms according to human anatomy and physiology and mistakenly conclude that humans are the ultimate product, even goal, of evolution. That attitude probably stems from the tendency of humans to think anthropocentrically, but the scholarship of natural theology, which was prominent in 18th-and 19th-century England, codified it even before Lamarck defined biology in the modern sense. Unfortunately, anthropocentric thinking is at the root of many common misconceptions in biology.

Chief among these misconceptions is that species evolve or change because they need to change to adapt to shifting environmental demands; biologists refer to this fallacy as teleology. In fact, more than 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct, so clearly there is no requirement that species always adapt successfully. As the fossil record demonstrates, extinction is a perfectly natural--and indeed quite common--response to changing environmental conditions. When species do evolve, it is not out of need but rather because their populations contain organisms with variants of traits that offer a reproductive advantage in a changing environment.

Another misconception is that increasing complexity is the necessary outcome of evolution. In fact, decreasing complexity is common in the record of evolution. For example, the lower jaw in vertebrates shows decreasing complexity, as measured by the numbers of bones, from fish to reptiles to mammals. (Evolution adapted the extra jaw bones into ear bones.) Likewise, ancestral horses had several toes on each foot; modern horses have a single toe with a hoof.

Evolution, not devolution, selected for those adaptations.

 

There is such a wealth of information available to you to read but you simply refuse to read it. Your arguments fall apart because you refuse to understand want evolution is. Your argument is based on a false premise.

[cdowis]

 Evolution does not happen on the individual level, it happens in populations over time.  There is always variation in traits in a population.

snip

  With enough time, these two populations of bunnies will become different enough that if their descendants were to come back in contact with each other (say a few thousand years later), they could be genetically different enough that they would not be able to mate and have reproductive offspring.  They have become different species.  This, of course is a Reader's digest version.  There are countless ways that gene pools change over time.

 

OK, but this is a terminology thing.  They are still bunnies, with relatively minor changes.  They did not evolve with wings, or opposible thumbs.

 

I may be simple, but I'm not stupid.

[katherine the great]

OK, but this is a terminology thing.  They are still bunnies, with relatively minor changes.  They did not evolve with wings, or opposible thumbs.

 

I may be simple, but I'm not stupid.

I never said or even remotely implied that you are stupid.  I don't think you are (unless I'm getting you mixed up with another poster--i've been away from the board for awhile.)  You asked for a very simple example and I tried to give you one.  Of course they were still bunnies because they only developed minor changes in my scenario. That was "micro" evolution--not a speciation event.   We don't know what kind of changes the bunnies who migrated might have undergone through mutation over time.  A bunny would not have suddenly developed wings.  It would take many major morphological changes for something like this to happen to a bunny by  virtue of it's anatomy.  Now a certain type of dinosaur with lightweight bones, and a bipedal stance seems a very likely candidate to develop flight.  Bunnies are too heavy and built entirely wrong.