Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 183 (8016 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-17-2014 11:00 PM
161 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Ed67
Post Volume:
Total: 723,565 Year: 9,406/28,606 Month: 1,096/2,455 Week: 406/428 Day: 132/75 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   Where are all the apes leading up to humans?
Catholic Scientist
Member
Posts: 8978
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 31 of 67 (653385)
02-20-2012 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?

No, why would I?

How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos? Why is there such a huge gap?

We out competed them.

Please don't post ad hoc explanations with no scientific evidence to back up it up.

Saying they are not alive today because X reason without any scientific evidence to support it is not science, but a cheap cop out.

You didn't offer the same courtesy. Why would we expect to find sub-humans walking around?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12026
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(7)
Message 32 of 67 (653391)
02-20-2012 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right? There should be sub-humans and sub-sub-humans and sub-sub-sub humans walking around.

The more I think about this, the sillier it seems.

They were living where we wanted to live, using the resources that we wanted to use, hunting the game that we wanted to hunt and inhabiting the land that we wanted to cultivate, and they were our technological and intellectual inferiors. What is there about the history of our bloody and warlike species that makes you expect that for tens of thousands of years we'd have (in effect) established nature reserves for them, while visiting unrestrained war and death on members of our own species, and while driving dozens of other mammal species into extinction?

Around these nature reserves --- are we to suppose? --- empires rose and fell, wave after wave of invaders came and fought and settled and were conquered in their turn, armies of thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands struggled for land, and all this time every culture that came into contact with H. erectus said "But we mustn't kill them and take their land. Because one day someone will invent the theory of evolution and then they will be seen as being of great scientific importance."

I think not.

It is obvious that they would be driven to extinction, because if nothing else got them, we would. So I think the explanatory burden is on you. Can you think up any plausible scenario at all under which they would have survived to the present day?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 2122
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 33 of 67 (653393)
02-20-2012 3:54 PM


You seems to have come here looking for a fight rather than to learn. That's a pity because what you've asked is a decent enough question and there are people here that are happy to help you find an answer to it.

I see that you have already proposed another thread asking whether the woodpecker's head is designed. That looks like a standard Jehovah's Witness 'gee wizz isn't nature amazing, god must have done it' question.

Before you get onto the bombarder beetle's backside, it would save some time and multiple copy and pastes if you tell us if there's anything you actually would like to know rather than just roll out the same old nonsense that we've all seen thousands of times.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 15442
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


(8)
Message 34 of 67 (653399)
02-20-2012 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by CrytoGod
02-19-2012 6:25 PM


misinformation rather than reality
Hi CrytoGod, and welcome to the fray.

I'll just add a few points to the ones made by others concerning your misinformation:

How come there is no ape species more human like than chimps or bonobos?

There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.

Why is there such a huge gap?

Measured by DNA the gap between chimps and humans is about 2%, and this is similar to the gap between horses and zebras and donkeys.

The gap between humans and chimps is similar to the gap between humans and bonobos. The gap between chimps and bonobos is also similar but not quite to the same degree, due to the evidence of there being a common ancestor to chimps and bonobos that is more recent than the common ancestor with humans.

The gap between chimps and humans is similar to the gap between chimps and neanderthals (and yes we have DNA evidence of neanderthals as well as for chimps and bonobos) and the gap between humans and neanderthals is similar to the gap between chimps and neanderthals, but again not to quite the same degree due to the evidence of there being a common ancestor to neanderthals and humans that is more recent than the common ancestor with chimps.

The differences in these genetic differences are not linear\additive, but more like the sides of a triangle (or quadrilateral when we include bonobos with chimps, neanderthals and humans).

There are scientists today that argue that chimps should be classified as hominids.

There are also elements in the DNA of chimps, bonobos, humans and neanderthals that show we all had a common ancestor. The DNA evidence also links us to a common ancestor with gorillas, other apes, other primates.

You would expect to find living gradations of species leading up to human, right?

Why?

Can you show how the theory of evolution would predict this?

Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents?

Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This necessarily means that evolution occurs over sequential generations. This predicts that intermediates would be found in ancestral populations rather than in current populations.

As an example we can look at part of the fossil record for Pelycodus:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate ...

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.


This shows the gradual evolution, the "gradations of species" leading, generation by generation, from Pelycodus ralstoni through the intermediate species Pelycodus trigonodus and Pelycodus jarrovii before reaching Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus.

It also shows a speciation event where one parent population (Pelycodus jarrovii ) divides into two reproductively independent daughter populations (Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus).

At any one time along those paths you would think you have a single species, and yet by the time you go from Pelycodus ralstoni to Pelycodus trigonodus you have sufficient differences that have accumulated that Pelycodus trigonodus appears different from Pelycodus ralstoni, and by the time you get to Pelycodus jarrovii there are additional differences that are now sufficient for Pelycodus jarrovii to appear different from Pelycodus trigonodus.

These differences are similar in quantitative measurements to the differences between Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus, which are each sufficiently different from Pelycodus jarrovii to appear different one from the other and from their parent population.

Evolution occurs within the breeding population, not within individuals: it is the accumulation of differences from parent to child over generations.

Your parents are an intermediate between you and your grandparents. You will understand why your parents are likely still living, but that your great great grandparents have likely died out, gone extinct along with other individuals of their generation.

Message 8: My own opinion is that there is insufficient evidence to provide any specific answers about why they went extinct. From Australopithicus afarensis and before all the way up to Homo neanderthalensis (Neaderthals), we can only speculate about the reasons for their extinction.

Curiously, opinion has been shown to be a very poor barometer of reality, and it has a very poor record of being able to alter reality in any significant manner. You are free to think whatever you want, even that neanderthals had wings if you wish to.

In science, however, we like to see hypothesis backed up and tested against evidence. In this case we have fairly solid evidence that Australopithicus afarensis existed ~3.5 million years ago but that it was replaced circa 3 million years ago by Australopithicus africanus ...

quote:
Human Evolution

• Under each species name is a list of the national or geographical areas where all or most of its fossil remains have been found.

• White numbers inside the species bars indicate the approximate count of distinct individuals in each species from whom fossil remains survive. This is considerably smaller than the number of fossil specimens, because a specimen can be a single tooth, bone or bone fragment.


... now please note that initially there has been some dispute over whether or not Australopithicus afarensis and Australopithicus africanus are actually two different species instead of specimens of the same species: this is because the differences from one to the other are of the same quantitative degree as the differences between Pelycodus ralstoni and Pelycodus trigonodus seen above. If you arranged the specimens of both from 2.9 million years ago to 3.1 million years ago together, you would be hard pressed to draw a line between them - even if you were an experienced scientist.

I am aware that there is a dispute about the hominid fossils and its interpretations.

And yet you do not appear to be aware of how small that dispute is: it is the dispute between classification of specimens, and not about the general trend. This is a difference between "splitters" and "lumpers" - where a "lumper" could classify Australopithicus anamensis, Australopithicus afarensis and Australopithicus africanus as a single species rather than as a genus.

Curiously, we see this same pattern again and again in the fossil record for all species of fossils, and it is the pattern that is predicted and thus expected from evolution.

Again from the last link:

quote:
The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.

• Each colored bar represents the time interval spanned by recovered fossils associated with that species. Dotted lines indicate the conjectural evolutionary lines of descent. (Different paleoanthropologists will connect these in different ways, while preserving the chronological sequence.)


There is no dispute regarding the overall chronological sequence. I suggest you read the whole article, as it might bring you up to date.

You can then look around the internet to see if you find a radically different sequence published by a paleontologist: without finding a radically different sequence you should admit that the "dispute" is rather minor if existing at all.

I find it quite funny that they all just so happen to be extinct. Evolutionists will give ad hoc explanations for why it is so. It's one of the many reasons why I doubt their evolution story.

Amusingly, we are entertained by your rather uninformed opinions and amused by your attempts to portray evolution in a negative light with ancient outdated information quoted out of context, when we know the context and we know that more recent information has only served to add to, and solidify the case for, evolution.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by CrytoGod, posted 02-19-2012 6:25 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Warthog
Member (Idle past 245 days)
Posts: 84
From: Earth
Joined: 01-18-2012


(3)
Message 35 of 67 (653404)
02-20-2012 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by CrytoGod
02-20-2012 12:07 PM


You seem to have missed my reply, so I suggest you go back and read it before repeating the same things. I seem to have trouble getting creationists to respond in a meaningful way to my posts. I wonder why?

quote:
It doesn't matter how old the quotes are if there are no more recent statements from scientists who say otherwise. Moreover not all the quotes are 30 years or older.

Age of references most certainly matters simply because our level of understanding changes over time. The most recent quote (which you posted twice) was Gee 2001 - congratulations on making it into this century, if only barely. Most of your copypasta PRATTs were from a time when a computer capable of keeping up with my laptop would fill rooms, if it existed at all.

quote:
If you claim they are lies or taken out of context then prove it.

I believe I have already done so. Please reread my response and tell me why I haven't proven it - show us your evidence.

quote:
Scientists expected to find gradual transitions in the fossil record (hence the quotes).

And in many cases they have.They have also found rapid change and stability of species over time. You oversimplify then nature of evolution, misrepresent how it works and then claim it to be false.

This image has been shown before but how's this for gradual transitions? Show me where apes end and humans begin.

quote:
So evolutionists can't even use the sub humans became extinct explanation when there is no solid scientific evidence they existed. It is well known the fossil record doesn't support their story and that is why they conjured up the ad hoc explanation punctuated equilibrium to cover up their failed expectation.

Try googling 'hominid evolution' and look at some of the many sites describing the 'imaginary' evidence before pasting any more creationist babble. A hint: If a site is about both evolution and christianity, it's usually misrepresenting science to prop up religion. Show me your evidence that my assertion is wrong.

You should also know more about punctuated equilibrium before trying to use it as an example of why evolution is false.

quote:
Evolution is a funny 'theory'. It explains everything with just-so stories and ad hoc explanations which means it explains nothing.

I love the creationist 'just so' argument. It is constantly regurgitated while ignoring evidence and without anything but religious 'just so' stories to counter it.

I suggest you extend your research beyond AiG etc and actually look at the real evidence available to anyone to look at. After you have done that, maybe you can do better than paste this crud over and over without ever thinking about it for yourself.

Show us YOUR evidence that refutes what we are saying.

Also - off topic but relating to your other thread attempt about woodpeckers...

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


Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by CrytoGod, posted 02-20-2012 12:07 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
articulett
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 36 of 67 (653413)
02-20-2012 9:38 PM


Some of our hominid cousins do survive in our DNA:

http://www.nytimes.com/...ng-research-into-human-origins.htm

Great recent article for anyone ACTUALLY interested in the subject. (I don't believe that creationists are.)


    
articulett
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 37 of 67 (653414)
02-20-2012 9:52 PM


Most dead things rot away as they are eaten by living things-- even fungi and bacteria. We are lucky to get the fossils we get.

But I don't think anyone who understands the DNA can possibly deny evolution. It's considered a fact verified in stunning detail via the genetic record: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/05/100512131513.htm

I don't think we even have this much evidence for germ theory, atomic theory or the theory of gravity.

Only those who imagine themselves saved for believing a particular magic story (and damned for doubt) seem to be capable of denying such evidence-- usually fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. And I find that they do so by being incurious and making sure they keep ignorant of any new discoveries that threaten their faith.

The majority of Christians around the world seem to accept evolution including Ken Miller who edits many biology texts and Francis Collins.

I'm not sure how they maintain their Christianity given the impossibility of "Adam and Eve" however. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/...ith-and-a-contest


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 12:14 AM articulett has responded

    
articulett
Member (Idle past 470 days)
Posts: 49
Joined: 06-15-2010


Message 38 of 67 (653415)
02-20-2012 10:08 PM


I don't know how to embed videos, but this seems to be a good thread to goof on creationists via a Family Guy episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRJ8DMyBLTc


    
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 627 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


Message 39 of 67 (653427)
02-21-2012 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by articulett
02-20-2012 9:52 PM


quote:
But I don't think anyone who understands the DNA can possibly deny evolution. It's considered a fact verified in stunning detail via the genetic record: http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/05/100512131513.htm

Theobald's conclusion has been rigorously challenged.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/...alds_test_of_comm041071.html

http://www.evolutionnews.org/...ald_tests_univers041021.html

DNA analysis actually disproves the evolution story. Let's take a look at The Tree of Life shown by molecular phylogenetic analysis:

Evolutionists often claim that universal common ancestry and the tree of life are established facts.

This figure below from a leading textbook [George Johnson, Jonathan Losos, The Living World, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008.] is typical.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/...-XehG8E/s1600/JohnsonTextTOL.JPG

According to Dr. Jonathan Wells: " [Darwin] believed that the differences among modem species arose primarily through natural selection, or survival of the fittest, and he described the whole process as "descent with modification."

"Biologists in the 1970's began testing Darwin's branching tree pattern by comparing molecules in various species. The more similar the molecules in two different species are, the more closely related they are presumed to be. At first, this approach seemed to confirm Darwin's tree of life. But as scientists compared more and more molecules, they found that different molecules yield conflicting results. The branching-tree pattern inferred from one molecule often contradicts the pattern obtained from another."

What do evolutionists say?

For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life, says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. [i]But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change. espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [[animal] phyla remained unresolved.
Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krueger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the
Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005).

Evolutionary bioinformatics specialist W. Ford Doolittle explains, Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the true tree, not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science, Vol. 284:2124-2128 (June 25, 1999).

"[d]espite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most [a nimal] phyla remained unresolved."
- Antonis Rokas, Dirk Krueger, Sean B. Carroll, "Animal Evolution and the Molecular Signature of Radiations Compressed in Time," Science, Vol. 310:1933-1938 (Dec. 23, 2005). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5756/1933.full

What about 'convergent evolution' on the DNA level?

quote:
Convergent Evolution on the DNA level

Evolutionists have found convergence on the DNA level which goes against their expectations because it is highly, highly, unlikely. This is found among whales and bats when it comes to echolocation. The ScienceDaily article reports that these similarities are not just phenotypic but extend down into the level of the gene sequences:

"two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level"

Convergent genetic evolution was said to be "surprising" under neo-Darwinian thinking, this article reports, "The discovery represents an unprecedented example of adaptive sequence convergence between two highly divergent groups and suggests that such convergence at the sequence level might be more common than scientists had suspected." The article continues:

"The natural world is full of examples of species that have evolved similar characteristics independently, such as the tusks of elephants and walruses," said Stephen Rossiter of the University of London, an author on one of the studies. "However, it is generally assumed that most of these so-called convergent traits have arisen by different genes or different mutations. Our study shows that a complex trait -- echolocation -- has in fact evolved by identical genetic changes in bats and dolphins."

[...]

"We were surprised by the strength of support for convergence between these two groups of mammals and, related to this, by the sheer number of convergent changes in the coding DNA that we found," Rossiter said

Likewise, a report by the same scientists in Current Biology called the finding "surprising":

Only microbats and toothed whales have acquired sophisticated echolocation, indispensable for their orientation and foraging. Although the bat and whale biosonars originated independently and differ substantially in many aspects, we here report the surprising finding that the bottlenose dolphin, a toothed whale, is clustered with microbats in the gene tree constructed using protein sequences encoded by the hearing gene Prestin.

(Ying Li, Zhen Liu, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi Zhang, "The hearing gene Prestin unites echolocating bats and whales," Current Biology, Vol. 20(2):R55-R56 (January, 2010) (internal citations removed).)

Thus, the high unlikelihood of such convergent genetic evolution poses great problems for systematists who seek to reconstruct a tree of life because molecular systematic banks upon the assumption [or expectation] that genetic similarity is the result of common inheritance. In this case, however, common inheritance makes no sense:

What could have caused the misplacement of dolphin to the bat clade in the prestin tree? Horizontal gene transfer, DNA contamination, gene paralogy, long-branch attraction, and biased amino acid frequencies are all unlikely. The only remaining reason is the convergence of the prestin sequences of echolocating bats and whales, likely resulting from a common selection for amino-acidaltering mutations that are beneficial to echolocation.

(Ying Li, Zhen Liu, Peng Shi, and Jianzhi Zhang, "The hearing gene Prestin unites echolocating bats and whales," Current Biology, Vol. 20(2):R55-R56 (January, 2010) (internal citations removed).)

A review of this research in Current Biology stated:

Remarkably, prestin amino-acid sequences of echolocating dolphins have converged to resemble those of distantly related echolocating bats. ... Even more remarkable is the new finding that echolocating dolphins and porpoises show Prestin gene sequences that resemble those of echolocating bats. Whales and dolphins belong to the order Cetartiodactyla, and their closest living relatives may be hippopotamuses. Nevertheless, dolphins and porpoises share at least 14 derived amino acid sites in prestin with echolocating bats, including 10 shared with the highly specialised CF bats. Consequently, dolphins and porpoises form a sister group to CF bats in a phylogenetic analysis of prestin sequences (Figure 1). This finding is arguably one of the best examples of convergent molecular evolution discovered to date, and is exceptional because it is likely to be adaptive, driven by positive selection.

(Gareth Jones, "Molecular Evolution: Gene Convergence in Echolocating Mammals," Current Biology, Vol. 20(2):R62-R64 (January, 2010) (internal citations removed).)


Source http://www.evolutionnews.org/...n_design_in_bat_and_whale042 291.html

This is just a few of the many examples that disproves the evolution story.

quote:
Some of our hominid cousins do survive in our DNA:

http://www.nytimes.com/...ng-research-into-human-origins.htm


Sorry, I don't have a pass to log in and don't plan on getting one anytime soon.

quote:
No, why would I?

Okay, so you're just gullible.

quote:
We out competed them.

Scientific evidence please?

quote:
You didn't offer the same courtesy. Why would we expect to find sub-humans walking around?

Because they supposedly existed? Oh, but of course they just so happened to be extinct... because humans out competed them according to you.

Interesting story.

quote:
The more I think about this, the sillier it seems.

They were living where we wanted to live, using the resources that we wanted to use, hunting the game that we wanted to hunt and inhabiting the land that we wanted to cultivate, and they were our technological and intellectual inferiors. What is there about the history of our bloody and warlike species that makes you expect that for tens of thousands of years we'd have (in effect) established nature reserves for them, while visiting unrestrained war and death on members of our own species, and while driving dozens of other mammal species into extinction?

Around these nature reserves --- are we to suppose? --- empires rose and fell, wave after wave of invaders came and fought and settled and were conquered in their turn, armies of thousands and tens and hundreds of thousands struggled for land, and all this time every culture that came into contact with H. erectus said "But we mustn't kill them and take their land. Because one day someone will invent the theory of evolution and then they will be seen as being of great scientific importance."

I think not.

It is obvious that they would be driven to extinction, because if nothing else got them, we would. So I think the explanatory burden is on you. Can you think up any plausible scenario at all under which they would have survived to the present day?


Scientific evidence that supports your story please?

quote:
There are many intermediate species that have become extinct through one of two processes: (1) they evolved into later species or (2) they were outcompeted by other species.

Oh, riiiiiight they evolved to other species so that's why we don't see sub humans or they got outcompeted by other species.

Scientific evidence please?

quote:
Measured by DNA the gap between chimps and humans is about 2%, and this is similar to the gap between horses and zebras and donkeys.

Actually, that has been challenged. Recent study shows it can be as low as 70% genome similarity. http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

Moreover, A Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny
http://www.evolutionnews.org/..._a_whopping_23_of047041.html

quote:
Why?

Can you show how the theory of evolution would predict this?

Do you expect to see great great grandparents roaming the world? Their great great grandparents?

Evolution is the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This necessarily means that evolution occurs over sequential generations. This predicts that intermediates would be found in ancestral populations rather than in current populations.


If living sub human populations were walking around it would certainly give more credence to the evolution story. But of course, they just so happened to be extinct or they evolved. Whatever. But not even the fossil record supports their story as quoted by evolutionists.

quote:
Age of references most certainly matters simply because our level of understanding changes over time. The most recent quote (which you posted twice) was Gee 2001 - congratulations on making it into this century, if only barely. Most of your copypasta PRATTs were from a time when a computer capable of keeping up with my laptop would fill rooms, if it existed at all.

But if there is no new scientific evidence that contradicts it then the 'old' evidence is still valid. I have yet to read or hear any scientists recently who say the fossil record supports gradual evolution.

quote:
I believe I have already done so. Please reread my response and tell me why I haven't proven it - show us your evidence.

I believe you haven't.

quote:
And in many cases they have.They have also found rapid change and stability of species over time. You oversimplify then nature of evolution, misrepresent how it works and then claim it to be false.

This image has been shown before but how's this for gradual transitions? Show me where apes end and humans begin.


What scientists endorses it? Is there a consensus among scientists of the interpretations of relationships of the fossils to one other? How do we know there are not hoaxes? Evolutionists have a history of presenting hoaxes as the 'missing link'?

There are a bunch of other questions regarding it.

I just go by what evolutionists have said and they say in essence the hominid fossil record is horrible and open to many different interpretations. That's not hard scientific evidence.

quote:
This book rolls up a great deal of information from many papers, so if you'd like to see the papers containing the data he used there's a long list of references at the end beginning on page 45.

I'm not trying to debate the percentage of extinct species with you, I just thought since you asked about it that you'd like to see some additional information. Is this somehow relevant to your contentions about human ancestry?

I'm still not sure what question you're asking. Are you asking why the gap between chimps/bonobos and humans is so large? And if so, then if you do not accept that the extinct hominid species are related to us, why do you accept that chimps and bonobos are related to us when they resemble us even less?

Also, you didn't give any indication whether you understood the explanation about the lack of evidence making it impossible to know in any specific way why a species went extinct. Did the explanation make sense?


The Newman book provides models which is hypothetical at best. However I'm asking for hard scientific evidence for the claim that 98%+ of all species have become extinct.

Evolutionists claim that 98%+ of species have become extinct in order for their evolution story to make sense. Since there so many gaps in the fossil record they assume the fossils of all the species are there but they just haven't discovered them yet. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

The explanation is just that... an explanation. Where is the scientific evidence to back it up?

quote:
Precisely what are you willing to accept as "scientific evidence?" Do you expect Percy's reference to have a listing of all of the billions of species estimated to have existed on Earth throughout history? Do you require documentation of a specific fossil for every species that is believed to have ever existed, despite the fact that fossilization is an extremely rare event and many organisms (including bacteria and other single-celled organisms) simply do not leave fossils? Are you willing to accept a mathematical extrapolation from the number of known species from the fossil record? Given that the number is in fact an "estimate," will you immediately challenge the admitted imprecision of the number, even though it's likely to be accurate, regardless of Percy's response? Do you even understand the difference between precision and accuracy, or will you conflate the two in an attempt to "prove" that the imprecision of an estimate means it's somehow likely to be inaccurate in its entirety?

What if only 90% of the species that have ever existed are now extinct? Would your argument change? Would it change at 80%? At 50%? Because even if it's an absurdly low number like 10%, we know that our hominid ancestors are all extinct, even though it's extremely unlikely to find evidence for a specific cause for the extinction of a specific species. Does the manner of extinction particularly matter when determining whether those hominid ancestors were actually the ancestors of modern humanity? Does it matter whether a branch of our ancient cousins were killed off in a natural disaster because they all lived in a single geographic area, or whether they were simply out-competed by a new branch of the family tree? What's the relevance?

Is there some reason that you think that reversing the typical "if humans descended from apes, why are there still apes" argument into the equally vapid "if humans are descended from apes, why are all the human-ancestor apes extinct" is particularly clever? Why do you think that the Theory of Evolution requires ancestor species to survive to be contemporary with all of their descendants? By that logic, you should be asking "if birds descended from dinosaurs, why aren't there any dinosaurs living today?" After all, we don't see "sub-birds" and "sub-sub-birds" flapping their not-quite-flight-capable wings around today either. I wouldn't expect to, but for some reason you seem to. Why?


I think empirical evidence is very strong scientific evidence as opposed to ad hoc explanations, just-so stories, assumptions, and speculations that evolutionists are fond of.

Did Percy's reference have scientific evidence to back up the claim? I believe not.

Yes, having the fossils would be really compelling scientific evidence.

Would you accept the human population is 6,000 years old using mathematical population statistics? Probably not.

I don't think it matters how they were extinct. However I think it matters to provide evidence to back up the evolutionists' story of how they were extinct.

Evolutionists are really good story tellers. I'll give them that. Too bad they have no scientific evidence to back it up.

Again, I find it very funny that they all just so happened to be extinct. It would be really compelling evidence to find some human like ape with primitive features and culture somewhere around the world. Ooooh but of course they all just so happened to be extinct.

These days I don't know what evolution theory requires anymore if it requires anything. Evolution explains everything and therefore explains nothing. That's why evolution can't be falsified. No matter how much evidence contradicts it or shatters their expectations or predictions they will just give some ad hoc explanation or change their evolution story.

For example, Junk DNA. It was expected or predicted:

The amount of DNA in organisms, neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins wrote in 1976, is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the purpose of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true purpose of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA. (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)

Recent scientific evidence says otherwise:

"Pseudogenes have long been labeled as "junk" DNA, failed copies of genes that arise during the evolution of genomes. However, recent results are challenging this moniker; indeed, some pseudogenes appear to harbor the potential to regulate their protein-coding cousins. Far from being silent relics, many pseudogenes are transcribed into RNA, some exhibiting a tissue-specific pattern of activation...." http://rnajournal.cshlp.org/.../early/2011/03/11/rna.2658311

"What was once considered "junk DNA" now holds the keys to many novel gene regulatory mechanisms..." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20639473

Of course there are numerous more studies that shatters the "Junk DNA" myth. According to Jonathan Wells (received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley) exposes the myth in his book aptly titled "The Myth of Junk DNA" http://www.mythofjunkdna.com/

Or what about Morphological Stasis?

Evolutionists didn't expect to find organisms to stay the same morphologically for millions and millions of years (supposedly) as shown with discoveries of "living fossils" and "amber fossils":

Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution). Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15

Niles Eldredge remarked: In the context of Darwins own founding conceptions, and certainly from the perspective of the modern synthesis, living fossils are something of an enigma, if not an embarrassment. (Eldredge and Stanley p. 272)

Peter Ward in his 1992 book terms living fossils evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else. (p. 13)

"The principal problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p.214.)

These are just a few of the many contradictions or shattered expectations that discredits the the evolution story.

quote:
"How come there is no members of my family tree more like me than my cousins? Why is there such a huge gap? You would expect to find all of our shared ancestors like parents and grandparents and great-grandparents leading up to me, right? All of my family before me from my father to my grandfather to my great-great grandfather should be walking around."

The fact that most of my ancestors are dead has no logical bearing on whether or not my cousins and second-cousins and other more distant relatives who still breathe are actually related to me.

Why then do you believe that the ancestors of our species must be alive to prove our relation to the distant cousins of humanity that are alive today?


Your analogy doesn't seem to make sense.

I know my great... grandfather was human. I don't know if my ancestors going back many generations weren't human as believed by evolutionists. If these supposed sub human species existed it would give more credence to their claim. Ah but of course they are all extinct.

quote:
So do you have any evidence that punctuated equilibrium is incorrect?

I can't prove a negative, buddy. You should provide scientific evidence if you actually believe in PE.

This should be good.

Edited by CrytoGod, : Typos.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by articulett, posted 02-20-2012 9:52 PM articulett has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2012 12:53 AM CrytoGod has responded
 Message 41 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2012 12:55 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 49 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2012 4:10 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 02-21-2012 6:30 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Warthog, posted 02-21-2012 6:36 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Tangle, posted 02-21-2012 6:36 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 02-21-2012 10:05 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 57 by Catholic Scientist, posted 02-21-2012 10:40 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 60 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-21-2012 12:14 PM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 63 by articulett, posted 02-22-2012 1:04 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12026
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(2)
Message 40 of 67 (653431)
02-21-2012 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CrytoGod
02-21-2012 12:14 AM


Scientific evidence please?

You're asking for scientific evidence that our species fights wars for territory?

Have you spent your life in a cave or something? How come you have internet access?

Because they supposedly existed?

They definitely existed, the fossil record is full of 'em. The question is, why did they go extinct. I'd still be interested to hear your explanation, if you have one. Does it involve magic in some way?

Oh, but of course they just so happened to be extinct... because humans out competed them according to you.

Interesting story.

Not that interesting, because it's so bleedin' obvious.

Now, perhaps you could answer my question, and construct any scenario under which they would have survived. How would we not have competed with them and won?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 12:14 AM CrytoGod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 2:02 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12026
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 41 of 67 (653432)
02-21-2012 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CrytoGod
02-21-2012 12:14 AM


You seem to have broadened your scope to being wrong about everything. Now, I can see that the actual topic of the thread is not going very well for you, but I still think you should stick to it. Look on it as a character-building exercise.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 12:14 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12026
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 42 of 67 (653433)
02-21-2012 1:22 AM


Incidentally, does anyone else think that CrytoGod is Mazzy? There's something about his specific brand of gormless stupidity that I find hauntingly familiar.
  
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 627 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


Message 43 of 67 (653434)
02-21-2012 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Blue Jay
02-20-2012 12:09 AM


quote:
Your position baffles me. Do you dispute the evidence that there once were creatures on this planet that fit into the gap between humans and chimpanzees? For example, do you dispute the existence or veracity of the "Lucy" skeleton, which has characteristics intermediate between humans and chimpanzees?

"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of [bones from] two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

"Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Having studied the bones of these fossils for a period of 15 years thanks to grants from the British government, Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself."
186 Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94

In 1983, Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are "unmistakable" (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered."
Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.

“His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp. 164–165.

Edited by CrytoGod, : addition


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Blue Jay, posted 02-20-2012 12:09 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by hooah212002, posted 02-21-2012 2:00 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3078
Joined: 08-12-2009
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 44 of 67 (653435)
02-21-2012 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by CrytoGod
02-21-2012 1:44 AM


Try less copypasta.

"There is no refutation of Darwinian evolution in existence. If a refutation ever were to come about, it would come from a scientist, and not an idiot." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CrytoGod, posted 02-21-2012 1:44 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
CrytoGod
Junior Member (Idle past 627 days)
Posts: 16
Joined: 02-19-2012


Message 45 of 67 (653436)
02-21-2012 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
02-21-2012 12:53 AM


quote:
You're asking for scientific evidence that our species fights wars for territory?

Have you spent your life in a cave or something? How come you have internet access?


I am asking for scientific evidence for the claims why they are extinct.
Is there anything wrong with asking for scientific evidence?

quote:
They definitely existed, the fossil record is full of 'em. The question is, why did they go extinct. I'd still be interested to hear your explanation, if you have one. Does it involve magic in some way?

You believe they exist however there is no hard scientific evidence they ever existed. The fossil record surely doesn't support it. Scientists have said it themselves.

quote:
Not that interesting, because it's so bleedin' obvious.

Now, perhaps you could answer my question, and construct any scenario under which they would have survived. How would we not have competed with them and won?


If apes are still alive today then why not the half human-apes? Oh of course. They became extinct because of competition. Evolutionists say it so it must be true. Forget scientific evidence to back it. Let's just believe their stories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2012 12:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2012 2:16 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 02-21-2012 3:36 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Taq, posted 02-21-2012 11:49 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded
 Message 64 by articulett, posted 02-22-2012 1:30 AM CrytoGod has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014