Question on evolutionary Rates

quote:

---

The question remains with only 7500 levels how did modern man evolve from the Eukaryotic Cells.

---

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the number of levels. Here are skulls indicating the evolutionary path from Australopithecus africanus (B) to modern Homo sapiens (N) (from Theobald's essay, of course). In my opinion, we see a pretty good transition from basically an upright chimp to humans in only 10 species (10 levels) taking 2.6 million years (260,000 years per level). With this amount of change (from chimp to modern human) in 2.6 million years, I don't see why we can't get from primitive mammal to human in 200 million years, or from fish to human in 400 million years, or protozoan to human in 1 billion years.In fact, we do see these transitionals.I fail to see a problem with these theoretical numbers or one's understanding of what these theoretical numbers mean when we have actual data that indicates that the transition has taken place.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Great site Chiro, if a little confusing.Being an extreme amateur at the whole 'tree of life' thing I finally took some time to run through the entire history of man from an evolutionary point of view and put some times against them. Hopefully it's of use to others as well.So starting at Chordata here is the full chain that I was able to trace to modern man. I'm not sure what level (phylum/order/family) these all belong to, so if someone more educated wants to fill in that info I would appriciated it for my own sake.Assuming that each of these are equally 'distant' from each other (a vast and unfounded assumption) and also assuming that the 7500 level number that I've seen bandied around, that gives about 200 'levels' per line item below.Chordata (early cambrian : 540mya )
Craniata (early cambrian : 540mya )
Vertebrata (lower cambrian : 540mya )
Gnathostomata (ordovician / early silurian : 438mya )
Teleostomi (late ordovician / early silurian : 438mya )
Osteichthyes (late silurian : 410mya )
Sarcopterygii (early devonian : 400mya )
Rhipidistia (early devonian : 400mya )
Osteolepiformes (early / mid devonian : 390mya )
Elpistostegalia (mid devonian : 380mya )
Tetrapoda (late devonian : 360mya )
Reptilomorpha (early carboniferous : 350mya )
Batrachosauria (carboniferous : 320mya )
Cotylosauria (carboniferous : 320mya )
Amniota (late carboniferous : 280mya )
Synapsida (upC : 280mya )
Eupelycosauria (early permian / late permian : 280mya )
Sphenacodontia (upC : 280mya )
Therapsida (early permian : 280mya )
Theriodontia (mid permian : 260mya )
Cynodontia (late permian : 250mya )
Eucynodontia (early triassic : 240mya )
Probainognathia (late triassic : 210mya )
Mammaliformes (late triassic : 210mya )
Symmetrodonta (upT-upK : 210mya )
Mammalia (mid jurassic : 170mya )
Cladotheria (mid jurassic : 170mya )
Theria (mK : 170mya )
Eutheria (mid cretaceous : 100mya )
Epitheria (late cretaceous : 65mya )
Archonta (late cretaceous : 65mya )
Primatomorpha (late cretaceous : 65mya )
Primates (late cretaceous / early paleocene : 60mya )
Haplorhini (early eocene : 50mya )
Anthropoidea (mid eocene : 45mya )
Hominoidea (late oligocene / early miocene : 20mya )Hope it's helpful to someone other then me.Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.

Nice list, Codegate.Be aware that the names of those groupings are not necessarily standard. They seem to go with the cladistic classification system which is still somewhat of an idiosyncracy among systemists, one reason being that there is as yet no standard naming convention for the various groups (the claims of the proponents for phylocode notwithstanding).

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

genius that I am. I knew something was wrong ... as general feeling ...Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Especially when {A} is a modern semi-upright chimp

your source says

quote:

---

Assuming all this-- quite a lot to swallow

---

That is too much for me to swallow.

You know, it had been a while since I'd seen as dishonest a quote-mine as you did, just now. Congratulations, I guess. Here's where that phrase appears:

quote:

---

The Mammaliaformes, as current fashion spells it, are defined as: the last common ancestor of Sinocodon and modern mammals and all of its descendants. Luo et al. (2002). Sinocodon + Smilodon is one way to remember it. However, for our purposes, we have used a working definition anchored on Haramiyavia, assuming that the unknown intersection between multituberculates and modern mammals is the appropriate break point. This assumes that Haramiyavia really is a primitive allotherian, which is hotly debated.

​

Assuming all this -- quite a lot to swallow -- we can envision the Mammaliaformes as made up of three main groups: the Allotheria, the Docodonta and close relatives (e.g. Morganucodon), and the Symmetrodonta. The Allotheria consist largely of the multituberculates. They outlasted the dinosaurs and are the single longest lived branch of mammaliforms. The docodonts were relatively short-lived, but left us with a superb fossil record. The Symmetrodonts (e.g. Kuehneotherium) are no longer bel ieved to be a separate branch at all, and include the living mammals. ATW020316.

---

So, what you characterize as "too much to swallow" is just a minor, disputed point in the evolutionary history of mammals. Dishonestly, you characterize it as an assumption upon which the entire evolutionary model hinges, when clearly it's no such thing.

Did you actually read what assumptions exactly were "hard to swallow", or are you engaging in the usual creationists practice of pulling quotes out of context?Added by edit:
Anyway, you have yet to explain why your "7500 levels" presents any sort of problem. There is no problem as far as I can see.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

The problem is only in the mind.

Hi, Chiroptera
Sorry I have been too busy to post. I read your posted site: these transitionals.
I found a lot of possibility, feasible and probability statements.
Now for quote mining. Herein lies the problem. If Man evolved from the chimp in only 10 levels there would have to be many freaky looking fossils to be found, which does not exist.We have some fossils skulls, and bones of which 60% are teeth.
We also have reconstructed beings of these skulls and bones by artist. If Carroll is right and 500,000 years is punctuation, what would your 260,000 years be.RAZD's horse took 66 million years to develop.
The forams took 66 million years to create 330 species of forams.
One species of forams remained the same for 500,000 years.
I am supposed to believe man did it from chimps in 2.6 million years.Like I said that is too much to swallow.

---

Just because I believe it that does not make it true.

quote:

---

Sorry I have been too busy to post.

---

Heh. Who hasn't been?-

quote:

---

Now for quote mining.

---

Good job! A bunch of random quotes always trumps physical evidence. Thumbs up!

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

There are plenty of fossils. if you believe there should be more, can you share with us the reason why? Just telling us you think there should be more is just an statement of opinion. Not good enough a reason for us to drop a theory which is otherwise born by the evidence. So, is that it? Is it all a matter of you finding it hard to swallow? I couldn`t care less. Your incredulity is proof that you are incredulous, nothing more.Give us one well thought out, evidence based, real reason to even raise a brow, for crying out loud, would you?

from

to
From ~B to N

(from 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1)

quote:

---

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

---

While chimps go from ~B to A (thus demonstrating that large changes are not necessary over time and that rates are different in different species under different selection pressures). Your problem, not necessary for those that look at the evidence.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hello, I.I should have taken some time to respond to this post properly.The problem is that you are veering off from the question that you brought up. You keep saying something about "7500 levels" and that humans could not have evolved from a protozoan in 2 billion years with only 7500 levels, or something like that.I have shown a picture of a sequence of skulls clearly showing a transition from a bipedal chimplike ape to modern human in only "10 levels" over 2.6 million years. You may not believe that this is actually what happened, but the plentitude of fossil remains spanning the last 2.6 million years clearly show that this is a possibility, whatever your complaint about "levels".Further more, if fossils clearly show the possibility of a chimp-like creature evolving into humans in only 2.6 million years, then there is no conceptual difficulty that I can see for humans to evolve from an egg-laying rat-like creature in 200 million years, or humans evolving from a fish-like creature in 375 million years, or humans evolving from an undifferentiated worm about a billion years ago, or even humans evolving from a choanoflagellate sometime before that.-

quote:

---

Like I said that is too much to swallow.

---

Sure, but I think you're taking too big a mouthfull at a time, and are eating junk that isn't even good for you to begin with. In other words, I think that you are deliberately searching for "problems".At any rate, I don't think your "problems" concerning "levels" really makes a lot of sense. This "level" business certainly doesn't seem to provide any kind of conceptual problem.Edited by Chiroptera, : Heh. "Chronoflagellate" indeed!

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

My original Question:

quote:

---

How is it possible for Modern man to evolve from Eukaryotic Cells in only 7500 speciations when it took 11,500 to go from single cell to Eukaryotic Cells?

---

To get the 7500 I was using the speed of the forams in speciating.
But most of the sites I have been pointed to talk of 500,000 years or greater to spectate. That would cut the levels in less than half. I am not trying to prove anything I am asking for information and the best I have got so far is: Yes this is a possibility. Anything is possible.
But because you have a picture of 14 different skulls of 13 different creatures and modern man does not prove that modern man came from any of the 13. This was an honest effort to explain how it could happen.RAZD did a pretty good job in Message 4BTW I have no problem with all creatures having the same elements that man does as they all were made from the earth.But if this is the best I can get, along with the many articles I have been pointed too and read with all their possibilities, probabilities and feasiablities. I like my theory better.