Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Origin of Novelty
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 856 of 871 (697310)
04-23-2013 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by mindspawn
04-23-2013 2:18 AM


Lol, that was a good one! Yeah yeah I admit birds live in trees, but even so , they don't swing and jump from branch to branch.
Why would an ape with wings need to swing and jump from branch to branch? Why couldn't the ape move about like a bat? Why not give the ape feathers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by mindspawn, posted 04-23-2013 2:18 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by Granny Magda, posted 04-23-2013 1:46 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 860 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 6:01 AM Taq has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 857 of 871 (697317)
04-23-2013 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 856 by Taq
04-23-2013 12:19 PM


But...
But... but... birds DO swing from trees... and jump from branch to branch... like, all the time... it's kinda their thing.
God help me... what are the birds like in mindspawn's world? I think I'm losing the will to live.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 856 by Taq, posted 04-23-2013 12:19 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 858 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2013 4:37 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 858 of 871 (697327)
04-23-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 857 by Granny Magda
04-23-2013 1:46 PM


Re: But...
what are the birds like in mindspawn's world?
Its Sphenisciformes and Struthioniformes all the way down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 857 by Granny Magda, posted 04-23-2013 1:46 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 859 of 871 (697340)
04-23-2013 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by mindspawn
04-23-2013 5:10 AM


Re: Novel protein coding gene in an Antarctic fish
mindspawn writes:
Do you really think that is what they meant when they said "They already harbor latent reservoirs". The way you describe it, its as if the latent ability they referring to , is merely the ability to evolve one day. Which evolutionists claim about the whole genome. I believe they were referring to something more specific when they used the term "harbour latent reservoirs", the implication is that abilities are already in place, the design for potential change is already there.
What they are pointing out is that a lot of potential to adapt to a variety of toxic environments is there on a lot of genes. Understand the rest of the paper, and you will understand the context of "latent". What that means in terms of what we were discussing is that there is a lot of potential for advantageous duplications to take place, because they identified all these circumstances in which amplification would be advantageous. Why you got excited by the word "latent" and associated it with "design" I don't know.
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
You already know that point mutations can change the protein product of coding genes in ways that are advantageous or neutral.
You say "I already know" this. This is the subject of this thread, but I remain unconvinced. There have been one or two unconvincing examples of this essential evolutionary process, EVER observed.
Where did you get that information from? One or two!!!! In the Lenski experiment alone, there are 10 to 20 beneficial point mutations in each of the 12 cultures he has divided his original clones into, plus far higher numbers of neutral mutations that have gone to fixation in each culture.
mindspawn writes:
But never observed combined with an extra coding gene, ie DNA based novel functions are always a claimed CHANGED function, rather than new additional function.
You are welcome to re-post any such evidence if I have missed it, remember I did not participate in the early part of this thread. And the E.Coli example of aerobic functionality, I refuted by comparing it to the aerobic qualities of the staphylococcus and pointing out the already existing aerobic promoter in the E.coli, which indicates a revitalization of an existing aerobic function, rather than a novel function per se.
No, you didn't refute anything. You just misunderstood the paper. A new gene was created. See below, where you bring it up again.
mindspawn writes:
Everything has the potential to adapt according to evolutionists, therefore I think you are understating the usage of the word "latent" in that article, by relating it to general evolutionary processes, rather than specific observances of latent already existing ability in that genome. Latent ability needs a process to get there, and yet theoretically there is nothing in variation and natural selection that would be able to select for latent ability, selection acts on blatant ability, actual fitness advantages, rather than latent/potential fitness advantages. Thus specific latent ability points more towards design than evolution.
The ability to adapt is a fitness advantage. Think about it. What would prevail in an ever changing world, strains of self-replicators with the ability to adapt, or those that remained always the same?
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
You'd have noticed that there are about thirty amplifications of the new gene in the Antarctic fish paper which is mentioned in the subtitle above if you'd read it carefully. There are variations by point mutation between these, as well. They are, from memory, 97% to 99% identical. Read the paper carefully, and you will see that they have analyzed a historical sequence of events which happened entirely by common types of mutation that can be observed in the lab. There's a duplication, which enables one copy to mutate away from the primary function and form the anti-freeze protein, then further duplications of the new gene.
Kindly re-post the link, I haven't got the time to look for old links in this thread.
For the third time on this thread and the fourth time in all: Novelty by duplication, point mutation, and multiple amplifications in a fish.
You seem to have the time to contradict experts in a number of fields, including genetics, but no time to familiarize yourself with the very large amount of research information available in the fields you're criticizing. And impressively, according to your own view in one of your posts, you're managing to do all this with a brain the size of a gorilla's.
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
If you read and understand the various papers I've shown you, you should be able to see very clearly that novel protein coding genes can be produced by well established processes. Duplication, then point mutation on one or both of the copies.
No-one has EVER proved the process of duplication together with novel function. That is purely in the realm of speculation.
Not to those of us who understand the fish paper, and other similar research.
mindspawn writes:
If its shown to me that its possible in theory, there's still more processes to prove, ie does it ACTUALLY happen (I can tell you it has never been observed)
Then you don't understand observation. It doesn't have to be direct. How would you try to make the case for a world wide flood 4,500 years ago? By observing the evidence of the event which would remain in the present. How do you think murderers are convicted "beyond all reasonable doubt" in cases with no eye witnesses? The same way.
There are a number of ways that the past can be read by observing genomes in the present.
mindspawn writes:
and is it so prevalent that it actually explains the existence of modern organisms (well if it hasn't yet been observed, its difficult to prove its prevalent in history). Quite a difficult challenge for you.
Not if you know how to read genomes.
mindspawn writes:
You missed my point. The original clone of the E.Coli experiment already had an aerobic promoter in the rnk gene, This means that the organism was not always anaerobic, if one section of it already had a latent aerobic function.
E.coli isn't an obligate anaerobe. It can function in both aerobic and anaerobic environments. What it cannot do is grow on citrate in aerobic environments. That is considered to be one of the defining characteristics of wild E. coli. The rnk gene has another completely different function. It is not a dormant promoter of the citT gene. What happened, after some necessary potentiating mutations, was that a duplication joined fragments of rnk and another gene, citG, creating a new hybrid gene. A novel gene.
mindspawn writes:
Thus the ability of E.Coli to develop aerobic functionality is NOT NOVEL,
E. coli always has aerobic functionality. It is the ability to exploit citrate in aerobic conditions that is a novel function for it. Are you sure that you read and understood all this?
Genomic analysis of a key innovation
mindspawn writes:
it was latent, as proven by the existing aerobic promoter. Even under evolutionary assumptions, it would be obvious to an evolutionist that the aerobic ability had already evolved in the E.Coli, even if E.coli is known to be unsuitable to aerobic conditions at the moment.
Once again, it isn't "unsuitable" to aerobic conditions. It just can't grow on citrate in them, and that's one of the defining characteristics E. coli. The novel function was to be able to exploit citrate in aerobic conditions, which wild E.coli can't do. And the promoter was previously nothing to do with citrate.
mindspawn writes:
So the fact that a duplication event caused the promoter to start functioning again in aerobic conditions does not prove any novel function.
No. The duplication caused a new gene which trapped the promoter into a new function as well as continuing with its previous one.
mindspawn writes:
Really do you think nature can just make a new function from nothing??
No. It makes new function from something. Read the paper.
mindspawn writes:
Regarding your links, I do see the favorable duplications. It is therefore theoretically possible for one of the copies to mutate into a novel function. The loss of copy number shouldn't be a big problem, because a further duplication could replace it. Let's focus on novel functions then.
That means point mutations on copies. Point mutations are the most common form of mutation.
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
I think you'll find that the young earth Baramin view will require extremely high levels of mutation to account for the differences within elephants. Deceptively, Asian elephants and the mammoth are closer to each other than they are to African elephants. What'll happen if the genomes are fully sequenced, and you find that the quantity of difference between African and Asian elephants is far too great for them to have come from a bottleneck 4,500 years ago? It certainly will be.
Based on the genomes of two mammoths and some African elephants, the current estimates of the difference between the mammoths (+ Asian elephants) and the Africans is about half that of the differences between humans and chimps. Tens of millions.
Possibly. I thought the genetic overlap between mammoths and elephants was greater . But they could be two separate baramins.
They [different elephants/mammoth] could easily be separate baramins. I am not a YEC, I believe biological life was created ~6500 years ago, not the earth. There is nothing that "easily" falsifies the view, especially in this thread that we are actually dealing with. Your other points will be falsified in other threads.
There's plenty that easily falsifies the young biosphere view.
mindspawn writes:
bluegenes writes:
How do you decide what's "too different" to be related? Surely the limit should be set by the quantity of genetic differences possible in your time scale. That's so little that you'll not only have to separate the common chimps from the bonobos and us from Neanderthal, you'll have to separate Africans from Australian aborigines and have them separately created in different Edens.
Really??? Back up your comments please.
Sure. Here: Message 1
ms writes:
Neanderthals bred with humans, which indicates a very closely matching genome. And I have no problem with a bonobo and a chimp on the ark, but all humans, even Neanderthals, come from Adam.
wikipedia:
"At roughly 3.2 billion base pairs,[3] the Neanderthal genome is about the size of the modern human genome. According to preliminary sequences, 99.7% of the base pairs of the modern human and Neanderthal genomes are identical, compared to humans sharing around 98.8% of base pairs with the chimpanzee.[4] (Other studies concerning the commonality between chimps and humans have modified the commonality of 98% to a commonality of only 94%, showing that the genetic gap between humans and chimps is far larger than originally thought.)"
Difference ? 0.3 % I'm sure most of those difference are merely large inactive duplications, which can often occur.
Are you really sure?
mindspawn writes:
In just ONE generation, you can have an entire chromosome duplication, a few percent of the genome (Down's syndrome). To have a 0.3% duplication, its possible to retain fitness (unlike down's syndrome which reduces fitness).
You're suddenly very keen on big duplications which would have to contain a lot of coding genes.
Actually, if they're talking about base pairs being identical, that means they'll be talking about point mutations. That would be 10,000,000 differences. Let's work it out at a rate of 100 mutations going to fixation each generation down each line from Adam and Eve, giving us 520 generations, so 52,000 differences.
No good eh! It looks like the Neanderthal are a different baramin from us.
mindspawn writes:
Are you seriously asking why features should be grouped. I frankly think that's a childish argument being put forward often in this thread, when even under evolutionary assumptions features do converge into suitable groupings depending on functionality. So whether designed, or evolved the very functionality determines the grouped features. This is common sense, and can be seen throughout nature. Birds have lungs, bone structure, and wing structure suitable for flight. Therefore they all have these features in common with eachother.
So who would design flightless birds with wings?
ms writes:
Even out by two orders of magnitude, there should be millions of alleles in each locus. Not just 2000. So still your figures agree that the number of alleles should be numerous. But how do you define an allele? Any difference in a gene is a new allele surely? Correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be trying to differentiate between neutral mutations, but I'm not sure if they made that distinction when counting 2000 alleles in humans, they probably looked for any difference in the sequence to define a new allele.
I wasn't making a distinction, merely pointing out that on a model of neutral evolution, the variants wouldn't be found in most of the population. Nearly everyone would have the original 4 unchanged.
ms writes:
Yes. Please test that prediction. The overwhelming majority would have most of their base pairs matching the original four genes, even if demonstrating new alleles with minor mutations.
No. They would have versions of the 4 intact. Variants would only be in a minority. One seventy-thousandth of the population would receive them each generation, so in 260 generations from Adam and Eve, about 1 in 270 people would have a new variant. We could test that. It belongs on my falsification of YEC by genetics thread.
mindspawn writes:
ie Four of those genes, give or take a few point mutations in each gene. but you also have to take into account the Nephilim, beings came to earth disobediently and bred with women, their offspring would have additional genes.
Can the Nephilim been directly observed, or indirectly observed, or not actually observed in any way at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by mindspawn, posted 04-23-2013 5:10 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 860 of 871 (697962)
05-02-2013 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 856 by Taq
04-23-2013 12:19 PM


Why would an ape with wings need to swing and jump from branch to branch? Why couldn't the ape move about like a bat? Why not give the ape feathers?
Dont be silly. Then the ape would have to have huge wings to carry its body weight, and the size of the wingspan would not be suitable for its tree diet and tree habits. Or you would have to drop the relative bone density, and size of the ape if you want the creature to maintain its tree dwelling ability. But then it would be too small to maintain its current diet, and have to have insect eating adaptations like the bat. ie if you gave an ape wings it would have to leave the forest, or become really similar to a bat. Leaving a huge ecological gap, prefectly suited to apes. LOL your whole argument is really really silly and not really worth replying to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 856 by Taq, posted 04-23-2013 12:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 865 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 11:13 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 861 of 871 (697964)
05-02-2013 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 841 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Well, they obviously did. Very briefly. They looked at Lucy, and said to themselves: "Clearly not a gibbon". They also didn't do a point-by-point comparison with a tyrannosaurus. The people doing this actually know some stuff about primates, unlike you, Mr. "A male gorilla has the same brain capacity as a human".
.
Exactly, they looked at the gibbon, the chimp, and the gorilla etc, and just happened to compare Lucy with the chimp, when other comparisons would not have highlighted their point as much. This is cherry picking their most convenient modern ape as a comparison.
And yes, I did make a mistake regarding the gorilla brain capacity, nevertheless this FITS IN WITH MY VIEW, because this highlights the vast difference between humans and apes, based on brain capacity. Lucy showed no advancement in brain capacity, as opposed to the Neanderthal which was fully human in brain capacity. There is no slow progression, you either get humans, or you get apes. Simple as that. Yes apes hands, pelvis, teeth, leg bones can sometimes resemble humans, this means nothing, they are still tree swinging small brained limited tool usage apes, INCLUDING Lucy.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2013 5:21 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 863 by caffeine, posted 05-02-2013 9:40 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 867 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2013 11:52 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 868 by Granny Magda, posted 05-02-2013 12:14 PM mindspawn has not replied

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 2660 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 862 of 871 (697977)
05-02-2013 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 854 by Taq
04-23-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
That is exactly what we have, but you feel it necessary to ignore it. Even more, you make massive errors such as claiming the human pelvis is more like that of a gibbon than an australopithecine. How anyone can make that claim after being shown the anatomy of each species is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain why you continue with this charade?
No you have not shown the transitionals leading up to australopithecus, nor have you shown the transitionals leading past the australopithecus towards a human. Isn't it strange that the australopithecus is commonly found, but the transitionals from small pelvis apes to the australopithecus are not found?? Yet proportional to height, the australopithecus has an even wider pelvis than a human. So the wonderful human-like pelvis feature developed how?? Where's the evidence? where's the evidence of its subsequent REDUCING in size to human proportions along with increasing brain size and along with decreasing gorilla morphology that has been found in Lucy? Show me the evidence? In the meantime it looks like a widespread ape that disappeared without subsequent evolving. That's the fossil facts.
Faced with the evidence, and without distorting facts with desperation to find a missing link, scientists say the following:
Just a moment...
""Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. ""
As usual, on further analysis, the creation view of a number of species in existence, with no evolutionary sequence to show how they got there, is confirmed.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by Taq, posted 04-23-2013 12:00 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 864 by Pressie, posted 05-02-2013 9:49 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 866 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 11:15 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 869 by Percy, posted 05-03-2013 7:53 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(2)
Message 863 of 871 (697979)
05-02-2013 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 861 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 6:11 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
And yes, I did make a mistake regarding the gorilla brain capacity, nevertheless this FITS IN WITH MY VIEW, because this highlights the vast difference between humans and apes, based on brain capacity. Lucy showed no advancement in brain capacity, as opposed to the Neanderthal which was fully human in brain capacity. There is no slow progression, you either get humans, or you get apes. Simple as that.
If I understand you right here, you seem to be saying that there are chimpanzee sized craniums, and human sized craniums, and nothing in between. This is false.
Chimpanzee cranial capacity varies from about 275-500 cc; while in modern humans it's between 1,000 and 1,900 cc.
We have fossil hominids well in the chimpanzee range, and well in the human range, as well as right in betwee the two. Perhaps this is best illustrated if you have a look at this pdf, all about measuring cranial capacity in hominids, and head for page 14. At the top is a scatter chart of the cranial capactiy of different fossil hominids. Note that the range in volume between chimpanzee and modern humans/neanderthals is quite amply fill by fossils of Homo habilis, Homo georgicus, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus
If you go to the appendix, starting at Page 25, you can see several pages of data on specific skulls showing there is no 'gap' in cranial capacity in the fossil record.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 6:11 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 864 of 871 (697980)
05-02-2013 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 862 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 9:03 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
As usual, even been shown a few times that you've still got no idea what the words 'transitional fossil' mean, you still don't get it.
Hint: the words 'transitional fossil' don't mean 'direct ancestor', mindspawn.
People don't really have to be rocket scientists to comprehend that. It's not difficult at all.
It seems to be very difficult for you, though.
Your difficulties in being able to understand or grasp the basics provide a hint that you experience quite a few insufficienceies in your skills of basic comprehension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 9:03 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 865 of 871 (697989)
05-02-2013 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 860 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 6:01 AM


Then the ape would have to have huge wings to carry its body weight,
Why couldn't the ape be small, like the size of a large cat?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 860 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 6:01 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 866 of 871 (697990)
05-02-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 862 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 9:03 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
No you have not shown the transitionals leading up to australopithecus, nor have you shown the transitionals leading past the australopithecus towards a human.
What features would these fossils need in order for you to accept them as transitional?
Are you now saying that you accept australopithecines as being transitional?
Yet proportional to height, the australopithecus has an even wider pelvis than a human.
And yet, the australopithecine pelvis is more like the human pelvis than any living ape which makes australopithecines transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 9:03 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 867 of 871 (697997)
05-02-2013 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 861 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 6:11 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Exactly, they looked at the gibbon, the chimp, and the gorilla etc, and just happened to compare Lucy with the chimp, when other comparisons would not have highlighted their point as much. This is cherry picking their most convenient modern ape as a comparison.
Er ... but you said their point was:
An in depth study trying to prove Lucy is more similar to apes than humans, compared Lucy to a chimp and not a gibbon. A cursory glance at gibbons, shows amazing similarities with Lucy ...
So if you are right about what they were trying to prove, and if you were right about Lucy being particularly similar to a gibbon, which you aren't, then the gibbon would have been the most convenient ape, and would have highlighted their point better.
Would you like to take another run at this?
And yes, I did make a mistake regarding the gorilla brain capacity, nevertheless this FITS IN WITH MY VIEW ...
Apparently it , FITS IN WITH YOUR VIEW equally well to claim that gorillas have the same cranial capacity as humans and to admit the facts. Your views are peculiarly indifferent to what the facts actually are.
You might want to think about why you made your mistake. When you did so, you were right there on the internet, five seconds away from finding out the actual facts. The cranial capacity of gorillas is not a secret. Why did you make it up instead of looking it up?
... because this highlights the vast difference between humans and apes, based on brain capacity. Lucy showed no advancement in brain capacity, as opposed to the Neanderthal which was fully human in brain capacity. There is no slow progression, you either get humans, or you get apes. Simple as that. Yes apes hands, pelvis, teeth, leg bones can sometimes resemble humans, this means nothing, they are still tree swinging small brained limited tool usage apes, INCLUDING Lucy.
Well, this is something else you've made up. Let's have some data, shall we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 6:11 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 868 of 871 (698001)
05-02-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 861 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 6:11 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Yes apes hands, pelvis, teeth, leg bones can sometimes resemble humans, this means nothing, they are still tree swinging small brained limited tool usage apes, INCLUDING Lucy.
No, it means that they are, by definition, transitional fossils.
A. aferensis meets the criteria that you provided for a transitional fossil. In Message 776, you gave the following definition of a transitional fossil;
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group
Thus, to determine whether Lucy is a transitional fossil between humans and earlier apes, we must compare the two. When we do so, we find that Lucy does indeed exhibit traits common to both basal apes and humans.
Lucy is a transitional fossil. Your own definition makes this clear. Anything else is just you desperately flapping around in an effort to avoid this obvious truth.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 861 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 6:11 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 869 of 871 (698110)
05-03-2013 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 862 by mindspawn
05-02-2013 9:03 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
Hi MindSpawn,
Some may think me unfair, but in my view scientific opinions on the pathways of human ancestry are fragile and uncertain because of the paucity of data. I think the fragility of these views has been clearly demonstrated time and again by the dramatic changes in viewpoint that occur with each new discovery. We shouldn't try to deny the highly tentative nature of these views on the hominid evolutionary tree.
So if we've somehow given you the impression that we're certain that Australopithecus afarensis is on the direct evolutionary path leading to humans then let me correct that impression now. Today we don't know for sure whether it is a direct ancestor or a cousin. The authors of the study you cited believe it isn't, others believe it is, yet others reserve judgment.
But clearly it a close relation, closer to us then the chimp/human common ancestor, more distant than Homo erectus. The ordered skulls were intended to show increasing relatedness through time, not illustrate a proven direct progression.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 862 by mindspawn, posted 05-02-2013 9:03 AM mindspawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 870 by Taq, posted 05-03-2013 1:01 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 870 of 871 (698167)
05-03-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 869 by Percy
05-03-2013 7:53 AM


Re: Which of those skulls are dated?
But clearly it a close relation, closer to us then the chimp/human common ancestor, more distant than Homo erectus. The ordered skulls were intended to show increasing relatedness through time, not illustrate a proven direct progression.
Darwin's discussion on this topic was actually quite good:
"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
There is simply no way of knowing if any fossil has a living descendant, short of extracting DNA from that fossil. What we can do is look at how morphology changed over time and use this to infer the changes that occurred in the lineage of a living species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 869 by Percy, posted 05-03-2013 7:53 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 871 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2013 2:56 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024