Human Evolution

[thesometimesaint]

Only while they were romping around in the Garden.

 

That must be it.

[ERayR]

I never heard that Berkley was a hotbed of creationism.

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47

 

Read the origin of the term here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

 

or here:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

 

It appears that you don't have a firm understanding of it. 

 

Bump for Bcuz

[Rivers]

Thanks for the chart.  This is all very interesting.  It makes me wonder why some people are still asking for transitional forms.  

[ERayR]

 

Thanks for the chart.  This is all very interesting.  It makes me wonder why some people are still asking for transitional forms.  

 

 

Because the chart is based on assumptions and conjecture.

[Stone holm]

Because the chart is based on assumptions and conjecture.

 

Okay, I bite what assumptions and conjectures?

[thesometimesaint]

The assumption and conjecture that this world is understandable and measurable.

[ERayR]

Okay, I bite what assumptions and conjectures?

 

The assumptions and conjectures of those that produced this lovely little chart.  The assumptions that the older forms portrayed actually evolved int to present day humans.  The familial relationships are conjecture as actual transformations have not been observed.

[Rivers]

The assumptions and conjectures of those that produced this lovely little chart. The assumptions that the older forms portrayed actually evolved int to present day humans. The familial relationships are conjecture as actual transformations have not been observed.

The only way to actually observe these transitions is to build a time machine and travel through the earth's history.

These assumptions are based on a convergence of evidences from different fields of study. Evidences include the geographical distribution of living organisms, genetics, direct observation of evolutionary processes, anatomic similarities of species, and the fossil record. There is no piece of evidence that proves evolution by itself. The evidence of evolution is seen by looking at the big picture. The theory of evolution simply makes sense in light of the big picture.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Rivers

[Stone holm]

The assumptions and conjectures of those that produced this lovely little chart.  The assumptions that the older forms portrayed actually evolved int to present day humans.  The familial relationships are conjecture as actual transformations have not been observed.

I see. Given that standard you could dismiss most of science. To follow that through you would then have a lot of near humans running around at the same time as humans? Or were all of the species that ever existed running around from the beginning? Would it not be reasonable to expect that if a person simply dismisses an argument based on its being assumptions and conjecture, that he would present another reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we do have?

[thesometimesaint]

I see. Given that standard you could dismiss most of science. To follow that through you would then have a lot of near humans running around at the same time as humans? Or were all of the species that ever existed running around from the beginning? Would it not be reasonable to expect that if a person simply dismisses an argument based on its being assumptions and conjecture, that he would present another reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we do have?

 

I observe that It isn't raining right here right now. So it must have never rained anywhere at any time.

[katherine the great]

The assumptions and conjectures of those that produced this lovely little chart.  The assumptions that the older forms portrayed actually evolved int to present day humans.  The familial relationships are conjecture as actual transformations have not been observed.

They don't need to be directly observed.  I can't observe my children growing, but when they are suddenly taller than me, I don't have any doubt that they have grown.  I don't consider that conjecture on my part.  Homo erectus had the exact same body as modern humans, but a smaller brain, different features and less modern behavior.  Heidelbergensis was even closer to modern humans and very similar to Neanderthal.  We can see from DNA analysis that people of European and Asian ancestry share genes with Neanderthal, but that they were different enough before they died out to be considered a separate species.  However, we were closely related enough that early in our divergence we could (and did) share genes with them.  The beauty of this diagram is that it offers an extremely plausible chart of human evolution based on the evidence that we have now.  When more fossils and or DNA become available, the forms may shift around a bit, but it looks very logical to me.  Fossil evidence is only part of the evidence of human evolution.  Tools, technology, migration, genetics, linguistics, dating techniques all add to the enormous pile of evidence that support it.  You can believe what you want, but I think you are missing the boat.

[ERayR]

I observe that It isn't raining right here right now. So it must have never rained anywhere at any time.

 

I observe ridicule so it must be that you have nothing cogent to say.

[ERayR]

They don't need to be directly observed.  I can't observe my children growing, but when they are suddenly taller than me, I don't have any doubt that they have grown.  I don't consider that conjecture on my part.  Homo erectus had the exact same body as modern humans, but a smaller brain, different features and less modern behavior.  Heidelbergensis was even closer to modern humans and very similar to Neanderthal.  We can see from DNA analysis that people of European and Asian ancestry share genes with Neanderthal, but that they were different enough before they died out to be considered a separate species.  However, we were closely related enough that early in our divergence we could (and did) share genes with them.  The beauty of this diagram is that it offers an extremely plausible chart of human evolution based on the evidence that we have now.  When more fossils and or DNA become available, the forms may shift around a bit, but it looks very logical to me.  Fossil evidence is only part of the evidence of human evolution.  Tools, technology, migration, genetics, linguistics, dating techniques all add to the enormous pile of evidence that support it.  You can believe what you want, but I think you are missing the boat.

 

Children metaphor doesn't fit.  The rest is still assumptions and conjecture.  There is no solid link.

[ERayR]

I see. Given that standard you could dismiss most of science. To follow that through you would then have a lot of near humans running around at the same time as humans? Or were all of the species that ever existed running around from the beginning? Would it not be reasonable to expect that if a person simply dismisses an argument based on its being assumptions and conjecture, that he would present another reasonable hypothesis based on the evidence we do have?

 

I see you intend to resort to hyperbole.  What does your hyperbole prove.  If there were a few "near humans" running around it would greatly enhance your case.  If your assumptions are correct their really should be a few near humans running around.  It is awfully convenient that it all happened before it could be observed. 

[thesometimesaint]

I observe ridicule so it must be that you have nothing cogent to say.

 

You are claiming that because something isn't directly observed that it can not be. I am just taking that claim to its logical conclusion.

[ERayR]

You are claiming that because something isn't directly observed that it can not be. I am just taking that claim to its logical conclusion.

 

You are claiming that science must be observable and repeatable.  You can't have it both ways.  Oops I guess that's wrong Macro-evolutionists have been doing it for over a hundred years.

[katherine the great]

Children metaphor doesn't fit.  The rest is still assumptions and conjecture.  There is no solid link.

I disagree.

[katherine the great]

Here is a great transitional fossil--a perfect mosiac of archaic and modern human features.   

[thesometimesaint]

You are claiming that science must be observable and repeatable.  You can't have it both ways.  Oops I guess that's wrong Macro-evolutionists have been doing it for over a hundred years.

 

 

As Evolution is both observable and repeatable at both the micro and macro level. You are really claiming that because it is/or isn't raining at your location such must be always and at an earth wide level.

 

See

[danielwoods]

They don't need to be directly observed.  I can't observe my children growing, but when they are suddenly taller than me, I don't have any doubt that they have grown.  I don't consider that conjecture on my part.  Homo erectus had the exact same body as modern humans, but a smaller brain, different features and less modern behavior.  Heidelbergensis was even closer to modern humans and very similar to Neanderthal.  We can see from DNA analysis that people of European and Asian ancestry share genes with Neanderthal, but that they were different enough before they died out to be considered a separate species.  However, we were closely related enough that early in our divergence we could (and did) share genes with them.  The beauty of this diagram is that it offers an extremely plausible chart of human evolution based on the evidence that we have now.  When more fossils and or DNA become available, the forms may shift around a bit, but it looks very logical to me.  Fossil evidence is only part of the evidence of human evolution.  Tools, technology, migration, genetics, linguistics, dating techniques all add to the enormous pile of evidence that support it.  You can believe what you want, but I think you are missing the boat.

 

The point is that no matter how logical it appears, it's not observed and hasn't ever been observed, ever. Not even once. That's the point. What is logical to you is based on what you believe, not what science can demonstrate and observe directly. 

[Brian 2.0]

The rest is still assumptions and conjecture.  There is no solid link.

 

What would a solid link look like?  Is there a piece of evidence that could be provided to fulfill your standard?

[Brian 2.0]

The point is that no matter how logical it appears, it's not observed and hasn't ever been observed, ever. Not even once. That's the point. What is logical to you is based on what you believe, not what science can demonstrate and observe directly. 

 

Same question as above... what could be observed to prove macro-evolution?  What evidence could be provided?  Or is it simply unprovable? 

[Stone holm]

The point is that no matter how logical it appears, it's not observed and hasn't ever been observed, ever. Not even once. That's the point. What is logical to you is based on what you believe, not what science can demonstrate and observe directly.

If we are talking about observing in this context the moment of transition, we are simply setting up an impossible proof when it comes to humans. We would need to look to more volatile life forms with very small distance between generations. Such as I suppose bacteria except then the objection would be raised, but those are bacteria and not mammals. The problem with alternative theories which deny evolution from one species to another is that all species have to exist at the git go, and from then on we just lose species and never gain them. The fossil record just doesn't support that. So if you wish to simply dismiss an argument, well that is fine but you need to come back with something that has some substantiation in the fossil record.

[katherine the great]

The point is that no matter how logical it appears, it's not observed and hasn't ever been observed, ever. Not even once. That's the point. What is logical to you is based on what you believe, not what science can demonstrate and observe directly. 

Based on the piles of evidence that I have observed, I cannot accept any conclusion other than that evolutionary theory is a fact. If you can falsify the theory of evolution, I am all ears.

[Stone holm]

Based on the piles of evidence that I have observed, I cannot accept any conclusion other than that evolutionary theory is a fact. If you can falsify the theory of evolution, I am all ears.

I believe it is the best working theory we have at present. The naysayers have not come up with a better explanation. I expect, however, that there will be future refinements as we gather more evidence. But those refinements will not come from simple denials of the evidence or the setting up of impossible tests. Given the serious situation developing from over use of antibiotics, it would be nice if we were training our children to understand evolution and why it is important to understand rather than rehashing religious arguments from the nineteenth century that aren't even an important issue for Mormonism.