Article re lack of consensus in evolutionary theory

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

In the 150 years since Charles Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa, the number of species in the human family tree has exploded, but so has the level of dispute concerning early human evolution. Fossil apes are often at the center of the debate, with some scientists dismissing their importance to the origins of the human lineage (the "hominins"), and others conferring them starring evolutionary roles. A new review out on May 7 in the journal Science looks at the major discoveries in hominin origins since Darwin's works and argues that fossil apes can inform us about essential aspects of ape and human evolution, including the nature of our last common ancestor.

So far, so good.

Quote

Humans diverged from apes--specifically, the chimpanzee lineage--at some point between about 9.3 million and 6.5 million years ago, towards the end of the Miocene epoch. To understand hominin origins, paleoanthropologists aim to reconstruct the physical characteristics, behavior, and environment of the last common ancestor of humans and chimps.

"When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, it's just a big mess--there's no consensus whatsoever," said Sergio Almécija, a senior research scientist in the American Museum of Natural History's Division of Anthropology and the lead author of the review. "People are working under completely different paradigms, and that's something that I don't see happening in other fields of science."

"No consensus whatsoever..."

"People are working under completely different paradigms..."

Interesting.

Quote

There are two major approaches to resolving the human origins problem: "Top-down," which relies on analysis of living apes, especially chimpanzees; and "bottom-up," which puts importance on the larger tree of mostly extinct apes. For example, some scientists assume that hominins originated from a chimp-like knuckle-walking ancestor. Others argue that the human lineage originated from an ancestor more closely resembling, in some features, some of the strange Miocene apes.

In reviewing the studies surrounding these diverging approaches, Almécija and colleagues with expertise ranging from paleontology to functional morphology and phylogenetics discuss the limitations of relying exclusively on one of these opposing approaches to the hominin origins problem. "Top-down" studies sometimes ignore the reality that living apes (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and hylobatids) are just the survivors of a much larger, and now mostly extinct, group. On the other hand, studies based on the "bottom-up"approach are prone to giving individual fossil apes an important evolutionary role that fits a preexisting narrative.

So both approaches have substantial problems with them, it seems.

Quote

"In The Descent of Man in 1871, Darwin speculated that humans originated in Africa from an ancestor different from any living species. However, he remained cautious given the scarcity of fossils at the time," Almécija said. "One hundred fifty years later, possible hominins--approaching the time of the human-chimpanzee divergence--have been found in eastern and central Africa, and some claim even in Europe. In addition, more than 50 fossil ape genera are now documented across Africa and Eurasia. However, many of these fossils show mosaic combinations of features that do not match expectations for ancient representatives of the modern ape and human lineages. As a consequence, there is no scientific consensus on the evolutionary role played by these fossil apes."

Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils that we have today.

Wow.

Quote

"Living ape species are specialized species, relicts of a much larger group of now extinct apes. When we consider all evidence--that is, both living and fossil apes and hominins--it is clear that a human evolutionary story based on the few ape species currently alive is missing much of the bigger picture," said study co-author Ashley Hammond, an assistant curator in the Museum's Division of Anthropology.

Again, wow.

Here's a link to the article itself: https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abb4363

Just the other day I was trying a thought experiment.  If my twelve-year-old son asked me to explain the theory of evolution, would I be able to do it in a coherent way?  I'd like to think that I could, but I wonder if my understanding of it is too much a pastiche of varying "paradigms" that don't necessarily jibe with each other.

FAIR has published this interesting quote from Pres. Harold B. Lee:

Quote

Harold B. Lee's plea may be the wisest stance:

Perhaps if we had the full story of the creation of the earth and man told to us in great detail, it would be more of a mystery than the simple few statements that we have contained in the Bible, because of our lack of ability to comprehend. Therefore, for reasons best known to the Lord, He has kept us in darkness. Wait until the Lord speaks, or wait until that day when He shall come, and when we shall be among the privileged either to come up out of our graves and be caught up into the clouds of heaven or shall be living upon the earth likewise to be so translated before Him. Then we shall know all things pertaining to this earth, how it was made, and all things that now as children we are groping for and trying to understand.

Let's reserve judgment as to the facts concerning the Creation until we know these things for sure.^[3]

[3] Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 29.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here:

So far, so good.

"No consensus whatsoever..."

"People are working under completely different paradigms..."

Interesting.

So both approaches have substantial problems with them, it seems.

Wow.

Again, wow.

Here's a link to the article itself: https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abb4363

Just the other day I was trying a thought experiment.  If my twelve-year-old son asked me to explain the theory of evolution, would I be able to do it in a coherent way?  I'd like to think that I could, but I wonder if my understanding of it is too much a pastiche of varying "paradigms" that don't necessarily jibe with each other.

FAIR has published this interesting quote from Pres. Harold B. Lee:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I would explain that there are many scientific models of evolution, and that it is not a scriptural term. Scientifically, it is the result of genetic material continuing to replicate, with mutations, in changing environments, often resulting in more complex life forms that have been found to be more likely to successfully replicate. Scripturally, all life forms on Earth exist as part of God's plan for the exaltation of His spirit children, and genetic change, for better or worse, is part of the nature of life a fallen world.

Edited May 10, 2021 by CV75

[Calm]

How different are all these paradigms?  There is a difference if they vary on a macro level vs micro differences.  Is it about refining the theory or dumping it and starting from scratch or somewhere in between?  And if the latter, which pole is the current state closer to...macro changes needed or micro refinement?

Can’t read the article right now, will do later.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Calm

[MrShorty]

"No consensus whatsoever" feels like an exaggeration to me intended to emphasize the fragmented evidence which leads to multiple possible ideas being proposed that all seem to have problems encompassing all of that fragmented data. Reading through both, it seems like there are actually several points of consensus. For example, evolutionary theory (ies) seem common to everything -- I don't see anyone in these articles arguing for creationist or other non-evolutionary explanation. Within @smac97's quoted section, there seems to be a consensus that the pan and homo lines diverged between 6 and 10 million years ago.

The disagreements around human origins seem to be less about the overall evolutionary view, but rather in the details. The authors seem to be emphasizing that those working backwards from observations on modern humans and apes to draw conclusions (I expect sometimes detailed) about the common ancestors and phylogeny are finding very different conclusions than those trying to work from the fossils and reconstruct the timeline working forward. Maybe somewhat analogous to every civil engineer's worst nightmare of digging a tunnel from both ends and completely missing each other in the middle. It seems to me that this is more about emphasizing the gaps that exist in the data rather than casting doubt on the basics of evolutionary theories.

Around the idea of talking to a 12 year old (or even a high school student). I don't see anything here that suggests that isn't enough consensus to help teenagers understand the basics while also acknowledging that there are some areas of active research intent on filling in gaps in what we know and understand.

As for Pres. Lee's quote. As a lay person, there probably is value in being patient and waiting for more data and better understanding before hitching our lay wagons to any one theory of human origins. However, I also hope that Pres. Lee's quote does not mean that no one anywhere should be doing this research (which will include coming up with hypotheses and explanations that are often proven wrong as more data comes in). I can appreciate the need for patience and maybe even a willingness to wait until the resurrection to fully understand some things. But I also hope that we don't see it as inappropriate to try to explain our origins based on our best guess work based on the best data we have while waiting for God to deliver His explanations.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

How different are all these paradigms?  There is a difference if they vary on a macro level vs micro differences.  Is it about refining the theory or dumping it and starting from scratch or somewhere in between?  And if the latter, which pole is the current state closer to...macro changes needed or micro refinement?

Can’t read the article right now, will do later.

I've never understood the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Seems to me that enough micro changes over enough time equal macro changes. 

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

Creating models for human evolution is not the same as evolutionary theory. This is specifically addressing human evolution and really has very little to do with any problem in evolutionary theory in general. Humans evolve in the same way that all other life forms evolve.  The only conflict here is identifying common ancestors between humans and the extant great apes. Fossils are incredibly rare and so to think that we could possibly create an ironclad model of human evolution with the hominin and ape fossils we have is really kind of silly (and I’m pretty sure most paleoanthropologists know that). We also should not be looking for the “common ancestor” per se but the common “ancestors” since hybridization has been found to be a very important process in evolution. Evolutionary theory is extremely broad and the human portion of it is endlessly fascinating to me.

 

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

Fossils are incredibly rare and so to think that we could possibly create an ironclad model of human evolution with the hominin and ape fossils we have is really kind of silly (and I’m pretty sure most paleoanthropologists know that). 

The article agrees with this:

"Africa is a huge continent, and most paleontological discoveries are concentrated in a small portion of it. The greatest challenge is finding hominoid-bearing Mio-Pliocene sites outside East and South Africa, even though we know they exist. Besides insufficient sampling effort, this is hindered by numerous impediments to fieldwork in most of Africa, including geopolitical conflicts, restricted land use development, lack of suitable outcrops (due to extensive vegetation cover), and taphonomic factors [tropical forests do not favor fossil preservation.

[katherine the great]

47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never understood the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Seems to me that enough micro changes over enough time equal macro changes. 

Exactly. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never understood the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Seems to me that enough micro changes over enough time equal macro changes. 

I agree, I probably should not have used loaded terms when I didn’t mean the same thing as they are usually used. What I meant was starting from scratch (theory changes, not evolutionary ones) vs refinement of the General theory, filling in the details and making sure the connections are right. 

Edited May 10, 2021 by Calm

[strappinglad]

It is probably the fact that my mind has been infected by exposure to so much PC thought, but the idea that they are looking for the connections between apes and hominids in Africa , borders on r *****. 

This just in 

Remains of nine Neanderthals discovered in Italian cave (msn.com)

Edited May 11, 2021 by strappinglad

[mfbukowski]

Oops

Edited May 11, 2021 by mfbukowski
Error

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

If my twelve-year-old son asked me to explain the theory of evolution, would I be able to do it in a coherent way? 

"The species which survive, survive.

The others die out because of some kind of environmental change- climate, new predators etc"

Not that complicated!

And then Gallieo:

"The bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go!"

Science teaches us how things work, not why!

Edited May 11, 2021 by mfbukowski

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

 

It is probably the fact that my mind has been infected by exposure to so much PC thought, but the idea that they are looking for the connections between apes and hominids in Africa , borders on r *****. 

 

 

Or maybe its because Africa was home to the earliest humans as well as most of the great apes... 

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The others die out because of some kind of environmental change- climate, new predators etc"

I'm just glad that the proto-species worked out the basics of medical care prior to fast cars and explosives.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, MrShorty said:

However, I also hope that Pres. Lee's quote does not mean that no one anywhere should be doing this research (which will include coming up with hypotheses and explanations that are often proven wrong as more data comes in). I can appreciate the need for patience and maybe even a willingness to wait until the resurrection to fully understand some things. But I also hope that we don't see it as inappropriate to try to explain our origins based on our best guess work based on the best data we have while waiting for God to deliver His explanations.

I don't think he said anything like that. Or meant it that way. It seems to me to be a caution along the lines of "Don't get wrapped around the axel about this subject, because we don't know enough to justify a tizzy fit."

I believe they teach conventional evolution at BYU, so apparently it's not a forbidden topic.

[Stargazer]

14 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never understood the distinction between macro and micro evolution. Seems to me that enough micro changes over enough time equal macro changes. 

There isn't a real difference, I don't think. It's the same for micro and macroeconomics. Macroeconomics is the effect of a lot of microeconomics.

And a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Stargazer

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

There isn't a real difference, I don't think. It's the same for micro and macroeconomics. Macroeconomics is the effect of a lot of microeconomics.

And a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money.

Trillion is the new billion. 😎

[Tacenda]

My sister-in-law mentioned that she knows someone that tried to deposit a large sum of money at Wells Fargo and they wouldn't let them. Is cash going to be nonexistent one day? 

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My sister-in-law mentioned that she knows someone that tried to deposit a large sum of money at Wells Fargo and they wouldn't let them. Is cash going to be nonexistent one day? 

There could be many reasons this happened, I am guessing, including concerns the cash was counterfeit or a result of criminal enterprise.  Was it into their own account or someone else’s (the last may be banned depending on the bank for security reasons, Wells Fargo is one of them:  https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2017/11/big-banks-ban-cash-deposits-into-others-accounts.html?page=all )  Was it a brand new account?  Maybe they didn’t have appropriate ID or there was something else that flagged them as suspicious.  Maybe the depositor refused to jump through the hoops required by the government for over $10,000.  I find it very, very, very difficult to believe a bank would turn down the opportunity to make a lot of money in a way they have been doing for centuries. 

https://www.mybanktracker.com/checking/faq/rules-deposit-10000-cash-check-271595

Edited May 11, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 5/10/2021 at 3:49 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

So far, so good.

"No consensus whatsoever..."

"People are working under completely different paradigms..."

Interesting.

So both approaches have substantial problems with them, it seems.

Wow.

Again, wow.

Here's a link to the article itself: https://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.abb4363

Just the other day I was trying a thought experiment.  If my twelve-year-old son asked me to explain the theory of evolution, would I be able to do it in a coherent way?  I'd like to think that I could, but I wonder if my understanding of it is too much a pastiche of varying "paradigms" that don't necessarily jibe with each other.

FAIR has published this interesting quote from Pres. Harold B. Lee:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

I certainly am not an expert on this topic though I have read a number of books on evolutionary theory over the past few years. One expert's comment on this article is "Of course, human origins stories don’t need to be compatible with the fossils; they only need to be compatible with the theory."   The article also seems to ignore DNA evidence.  I would be cautious of hanging my hat on this one article until I saw what other experts had to say about it.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Of course, human origins stories don’t need to be compatible with the fossils; they only need to be compatible with the theory."

Meaning what?  If the origin stories/theory isn’t compatible with fossil evidence, isn’t that problematic?

Edited May 11, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning what?  If the origin stories/theory isn’t compatible with fossil evidence, isn’t that problematic?

There likely is not enough fossil evidence.  But it is pretty clear all life evolved. Why would humans be different?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There likely is not enough fossil evidence.

So we have a theory not based on fossil evidence or that is compatible with what little fossil evidence we have?  There is, IMO, a big difference.
 

Or was the expert saying we have enough evidence for other species to support the theory, so until we have sufficient human fossils, the human origin stories need to be compatible with the general theory because we assume consistency between human and other evolution?

Edited May 11, 2021 by Calm

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

So we have a theory not based on fossil evidence or that is compatible with what little fossil evidence we have?  There is, IMO, a big difference.
 

Or was the expert saying we have enough evidence for other species to support the theory, so until we have sufficient human fossils, the human origin stories need to be compatible with the general theory because we assume consistency between human and other evolution?

I don't know. It was one little short article. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

For people who learn by watching stuff like this, this is a good video.  Talking about insights into evolutionary development by looking at how a single fertilized cell turns into a whole being: