Human evolution

[Ophiolite]

 

(if you look at where i tend to post i do not often enter biology sections' date=' it is not my strong point, i had however read about this and thought it was appropriate to post... obviously i am wrong! maybe i will go back to not posting in biology!)

 

and back to where we were before i came! :-[/quote']Please keep posting. This is a discussion forum. If we all agreed and all knew the same things it would get very boring very quickly. The only people who are never wrong are those who do nothing or think nothing.

Please ignore the slightly derogatory character of Sorcerer's reply. It is difficult to be humble when you are as talented as he.

But I will re-echo his advice to do a quick read of Lamarck, Darwin-Wallace and neo-Darwinism.

Thanks for making us think.

[Ophiolite]

pretty much every page on the web has a copyright notice' date=' [/quote']Just a quick frivolous aside. Who holds the copyright on the copyright symbol?

[Sayonara]

Nobody - it's not intellectual property.

 

 

...probably.

[Skye]

P.S. Darwin himself supported the idea that offspring inherited traits that were aquired during the life of their parent, through 'gemmules' dispersed through the body that migrated to the sex organs and transmitted the information to the gametes.

[YT2095]

I`de hate to think that we`re at our evolutionary zennith already

 

it`s far more likely that evolutionary proccess will be assisted with our interferance, eventualy resulting in a wider diversity, for example it`s been proposed that geneticaly engineered people designed to live in Zero G for space exploration may become possible, I think the idea was to have 4 arms instead of 2 arms and 2 legs, to assist motility within a craft etc...

 

although not strictly "Evolution" as outlined originaly, but more Artificial sellection/manipulation as opposed to Natural Sellection

[coquina]

There is a genetic abnormality in which some people to have a thinner disc and therefore a narrower space between their lower vertebra. They are far more likely to herniate a disk than the general population. (Been there, done that, got the scar to prove it.) My dad had the same genetic abonormality and so does my daughter.

 

This may be a case of "reversed evolution". In the days before surgery, people with this inherited trait would have been more likely to injure their backs so seriously that they would be unable to hunt. If only the afferent nerve is pinched, a person has a terrific amount of pain, but when the efferent nerve is also pinched, signals that tell the limb to move cannot reach the muscles and they atrophy, limiting movement.

 

On the other hand, people who have this trait are directed by physical therapists to do back strengthening exercises, and to "sit up straight", the defect might not have caused injury to early homids, since slouching in front of a computer wasn't an option for them.

[WILLOWTREE]

Are human's still evolving? Would the intelligence we have acquired through evolution prohibit further evolution, for example people genetically predisposed to certain diseases, etc. will still more than likely reach breeding age.

 

How could humans be evolving if they never have ?

 

The paucity of physical fossil evidence yet the assumption of human evolution can only be explained by an irrational disbelief in the universal God.

[Spaceman]

it`s far more likely that evolutionary proccess will be assisted with our interferance' date=' eventualy resulting in a wider diversity, for example it`s been proposed that geneticaly engineered people designed to live in Zero G for space exploration may become possible, I think the idea was to have 4 arms instead of 2 arms and 2 legs, to assist motility within a craft etc... [/quote']

Wouldnt that be reverse engineering genetics.Four hands like a monkey perhaps

[Ophiolite]

How could humans be evolving if they never have ?

 

The paucity of physical fossil evidence yet the assumption of human evolution can only be explained by an irrational disbelief in the universal God.

There is certainly enough in your brief first post Willowtree to keep us in discussion for quite a long time. The points you raise have been debated quite hotly on several other threads that you may already have stumbled across.

If I may summarise what I think are your key points (If I have misunderstood' date=' please correct me):

1. There is a universal god.

2. Not to believe in this god is irrational.

3. There is almost no evidence to support human evolution.

4. Humans did not evolve.

 

Taking each of your points in turn.

1. [i']There is a universal god.[/i]Well there may be, but again there may not be. The arguments I have seen proving the existence of god are no stronger, and probably no weaker, than those proving the non-existence of god. I imagine that you are equally familiar with these arguments, but have, perhaps, chosen, as an act of faith to favour one over the other.

2. Not to believe in this god is irrational. Well that really depends upon which of these two opposing suites of arguments you accept. Some of us take a central, agnostic position on the issue.

3. There is almost no evidence to support human evolution. There is a steadily growing body of evidence to support this, so much that it would be difficult to know where to begin. If you wish me to reference specific material please ask. I am unaware of any serious scientists working in the field who would dispute this. If there are, I would be intrigued to know details of their work.

4.Humans did not evolve. Based on the evidence just referred to above, well, yes, they did.

[LucidDreamer]

In a month or so when I have more time I’m going to find a creationist “scholar” and have a nice long debate about creationism and evolution. I will try to get him to agree to host it on this forum. I'm tired of arguing with people who don't have a clue and I would like to find someone who really knows their stuff to debate it.

[Ophiolite]

Excellent idea LucidDreamer. The better creationist arguments that I have read do pinpoint weaknesses (even though these are only in detail or current available evidence) in evolutionary theory. An intelligent debate on these topics would be welcome rather than a perpetual rehash. Have you a plan for locating this "scholar"?

[LucidDreamer]

I was thinking I might look at the creationist web sites and email one who seems to know what he is talking about. Either that or I will just go to the forums until I find someone who makes good creationist arguments. I don't have a big academic name or anything so I couldn't get a well-known creationist to argue with, but I would like to get someone who has at least spent a little time studying it and who is capable of making it an interesting debate. Maybe I'll even get beat. I would rather take on someone a bit above my level than someone who doesn't know Cambrian from Canada.

[Ophiolite]

Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it. I shall await the event with interest.

[Mokele]

Why? What's the point? You'll never convince them, and with a 1 one 1 without an audience, noone else will be convinced either.

 

I dunno, I just see it as a huge waste of time, myself.

[Spaceman]

no its an excellent idea,make sure its a scientist though as they know exactly each pro's and cons in current data,not just someone who bible bashers as it would be counter productive.

[SubJunk]

i agree spaceman and ophiolite, and luciddreamer of course, i'll look forward to it

[YT2095]

Wouldnt that be reverse engineering genetics.Four hands like a monkey perhaps

quite possibly, but keeping the gene that generates the opposing thumb.

there would also have to be bone and organ modifications, unlike any that have existed before in a 1G environ.

 

but sure, the reverse part maybe a better starting point for that appendage, rather than starting from scratch

[Ophiolite]

Why? What's the point? You'll never convince them' date=' and with a 1 one 1 without an audience, noone else will be convinced either.

 

I dunno, I just see it as a huge waste of time, myself.[/quote']Your thoughts got me thinking about the function of this, or any similar forum. While some people come in with specific questions (many of which could be answered more efficiently by a qucik google) a large part of the content is just general discussion that is, hopefully, at least interesting and at most intellectually stimulating.

I don't think the object of the debate is to convince the 'creationist' he is wrong, or vice versa, but rather to stimulate participants and observers, open their minds, and give each of us a different viewpoint. So if the debate is a waste of time, then the whole forum is a waste of time. I don't think so, and since you are a regular poster, I don't believe you do either.

What do you think. I'm with Spaceman and Subjunk.

[Ophiolite]

the reverse [engineering] [/i']part maybe a better starting point for that appendage, rather than starting from scratch

I understand that compared with the other primates humans are quite well endowed. I don't want any monkeying with that aspect, please.

[Mokele]

I don't think the object of the debate is to convince the 'creationist' he is wrong, or vice versa, but rather to stimulate participants and observers, open their minds, and give each of us a different viewpoint. So if the debate is a waste of time, then the whole forum is a waste of time. I don't think so, and since you are a regular poster, I don't believe you do either

 

Ahh, yes. I agree, but I mis-read (or mis-interpreted) the original post, in that I thought the debate would be over email, not in a place where others could see.

 

Other than that, I guess I'm just cynical about debating creationists after debunking the "entropy contradicts evolution" crap about 2 gazillion times, or so it feels like. If Lucid can get someone who actually doesn't just spew the same old tired crap, kudos, and it'll be interesting, but frankly, I'm skeptical. Anyone who actually knows and understands the data either is convinced of evolution, or has let their denial override any rational thought to the point of intelectual dishonesty.

 

But, like I said, I'm pretty cynical about them.

 

Mokele

[rakuenso]

Due to advances to our buddy medicine, our rate of natural selection has greatly diminished. While viruses and bacteria, who are forced to adapt to our vaccines and antibiotics, are evolving at such a ridiculous rate it will be doubtful that our medicine could ever catch up with them. Notice that most of our medicine is used passively, with the exception of vaccines such us the flu shot which tries to predict the mutations and adaptations in the 3 RNA strands.

 

Unless with the aid of gene therapy, which is still some ways off to being viable, our genes arent going anywhere in terms of evolution.

[WILLOWTREE]

[b']Humans did not evolve ? Based on the evidence just referred to above, well, yes, they did.[/b]

 

Human Evolution: Classic Myth

 

The following quotes were lifted from "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells [2000]:

 

"In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life" by Henry Gee [1999] (chief science writer, "Nature" magazine)

 

"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate....the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent."

 

Concerning the fragmentary fossil record sprinkled across millions of years:

 

"an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."

 

"between about 10 and 5 million years ago - several thousand generations of living creatures can be fitted into a small box."

 

Comment on the conventional picture of human evolution:

 

"a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices."

 

"To take a line of fossils and claim they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story - amusing, perhaps even instructive but not scientific."

 

"The Myths of Human Evolution" by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall [1982]

 

"myth that the evolutionary histories of living things are essentially a matter of discovery."....if true...."one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas if anything the opposite has occurred."

 

"Through the Glass Darkly: Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins Research" by A.S.U. anthropologist Geoffrey Clark [1997]

 

"paleoanthropology has the form but not the substance of a science."

 

 

 

IOW, paleoanthropologists are storytellers who insert a paucity of disputed fossil evidence into "preexisting narrative structures."

 

http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html

 

"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence we have of hominid evolution."

 

 

 

Darwins Terrier writes:

 

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000368-8.html#110

 

Next, it would hardly be a surprise if "a smart scientist from another discipline" would think there's little to go on. There really isn't a vast quantity of hominin fossils by volume -- which is no surprise either; it's due to the taphonomic conditions where these things are found.

 

You could fit the entire hominin fossil record in the boot of, well maybe a large estate. (No, I wont translate; Americans never bother!) But the question is, so what?

 

It is not sheer quantity that matters, but what a highly experienced anatomist and palaeontologist can tell from what there is.

 

 

 

The authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia does not match the fanatical boasting of the rank and file.

 

This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a purported lack of the same type of physical evidence.

 

Multiplied billions and billions of human beings yet the yield of evidence for human evolution could fit into a small box =equals= the basis from which a vocal minority floods the world with this myth of human evolution.

 

What is obvious to deduce from these facts is a desparate attempt of a certain worldview to validate its main assertion that a universal God does not exist.

 

Acceptance of evolution becomes an imperative matter of sheer NECESSITY for all who reject God as the ultimate Creator.

[LucidDreamer]

If you are going to insist on using random comments from scientists, often taken out of context, as evidence then by the same rationale all of the comments or opinions of scientists about evolution would also be considered evidence. So taking all of the scientists today we find an overwhelming consensus in favor of the existence of evolution, which by using your criteria of evidence, evolution is proven.

 

The authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia does not match the fanatical boasting of the rank and file.

Is it your assertion that evolutionary scientists don't believe in evolution or only the smart ones don't believe in evolution?

This paucity of actual fossil evidence by which human evolution is alleged, yet the hypocritical quickness of the same persons to claim the Biblical record of ancient Israel is erroneous because of a purported lack of the same type of physical evidence.

Most scientists have no interest in the historical accuracy of the bible at all. If you are going to compare two scientific models, such as evolution and creationism, then you must compare them only as scientific models and leave out the religion.

Multiplied billions and billions of human beings yet the yield of evidence for human evolution could fit into a small box =equals= the basis from which a vocal minority floods the world with this myth of human evolution.

No one believes that there were billions of people on the Earth until very recently, including creationists.

What is obvious to deduce from these facts is a desparate attempt of a certain worldview to validate its main assertion that a universal God does not exist.

 

Acceptance of evolution becomes an imperative matter of sheer NECESSITY for all who reject God as the ultimate Creator.

 

While it is true that an Atheistic belief system requires a non-deity based origin it is also true that some theistic belief systems require the absence of evolution and the existence of a creationist's model. Although Atheism basically requires evolution, theism doesn't necessarily require one to believe in either creationism or evolution even though some religious leaders or doctrines insist otherwise. There are many people, including scientists, who both believe in evolution and a God and who are not desperate to prove anything. How would you account for their beliefs?

[Mokele]

Yes, the fossil record is spotty. That's to be expected. Yes, that means we can only draw inferences based on what we find. However, the inferences are fairly obvious and straightforward, at least at the broad scale.

 

Huh, we have a large number of fossil skeletons of various hominids. The earlier ones are, in general, more like non-human apes, and as you get more and more recent, you find species with more and more humanoid characteristics (I'm talking in very broad terms, here). I can't think of any way to logically explain that, can you?

 

Funny how that bad old theory of evolution predicts and explains exactly what we find, eh?

 

What is obvious to deduce from these facts is a desparate attempt of a certain worldview to validate its main assertion that a universal God does not exist.

 

Evolution has nothing to do with existence or lack thereof of any deity. It has to do with biological change over time, which has enough evidence to convince anyone with an IQ greater than that of a jellyfish.

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

You have taken time to prepare your post and it deserves proper consideration when replying. I do not have time, right now, to address each point you have made, but will pick on a couple of them.

The authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia does not match the fanatical boasting of the rank and file.

Well I definitely fit into the 'rank and file' and not the 'intelligencia'. I not quite sure how one could boast about a scientific theory' date=' unless it was one of your own making. So I for one don't fit that part of the profile. Fanatical - I think that one misses for me also. I accept the general theory of evolution because I consider the evidence I have examined for it over many years is convincing. I also find that the 'intelligencia' of evolution are of the same view.

Do some of the rank and file become fanatical and ove-zealous in their portrayal of that evidence? Certainly, but that is a failing of theirs, not of the theory.

[i']Are you declaring that the "authoritative assessments of evolutions intelligencia" deny human evolution?[/i]

 

Acceptance of evolution becomes an imperative matter of sheer NECESSITY for all who reject God as the ultimate Creator.

Well, again, that's not me, as I am an agnostic. I am not at all clear why you think it is imperative for atheists to prove evolution. One of the pieces of evidence that causes me to be agnostic rather than atheist is the sheer beauty of evolution.

I don't see how evolution is in anyway incompatible with there being an ultimate creator.

 

WillowTree, I obviously know nothing about your background. so please do not take this amiss. Have you read, with an open mind, any book on evolution by one of 'evolution's intelligencia"? I ask, because I have read, extensively, with a very open mind material by 'creationist intelligencia'. They raise some very important points, and highlight areas of uncertainty, but, in my judgement fail to make a case.

 

I shall try to address your points on the paucity of fossils later.