Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 6:29 AM
392 online now:
CRR, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,050 Year: 16,656/21,208 Month: 2,545/3,593 Week: 12/646 Day: 12/78 Hour: 4/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?)
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15936
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 121 of 128 (585525)
10-08-2010 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by barbara
10-04-2010 1:30 PM


Re: where to go?
I just read the Chimpanzee genome project and if you go there you will find is there are several differences between us and chimps. A 30% difference that covers all areas. We are closer in relationship to a rat that shows we are 88% identical and they mention the human/rat common ancestry.

I believe I explained this at length here.

It's as though you said: "One scientist tells me that the weight of an elephant is 4.5, and another tells me that it's 9000. Who should I trust?"

You left off the units. One scientist is using tons, and the other is using pounds, and they are in agreement.

It is obvious to me that common ancestry is not a key factor in that it makes no sense at all.

The fact that biology makes no sense to you is more a commentary on your present level of understanding than it is on biology.

It all makes perfect sense to me.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by barbara, posted 10-04-2010 1:30 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1631 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 122 of 128 (585646)
10-09-2010 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by barbara
10-04-2010 1:30 PM


Re: where to go?
The following is a dissertation of what I think you are referring to:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2010/09/9877-wrong.html#comments-open

It shows where the 30% comes from.

Edited by bluescat48, : redundency


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by barbara, posted 10-04-2010 1:30 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
andy435
Junior Member (Idle past 2263 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 01-14-2011


Message 123 of 128 (600511)
01-14-2011 9:43 PM


Well. I dont know if we evolved from monkeys. But Darwin did think so!! Just came across this funny article.

http://jigarbpatel.blogspot.com/...nd-natural-selection.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 01-14-2011 10:02 PM andy435 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 124 of 128 (600515)
01-14-2011 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by andy435
01-14-2011 9:43 PM


Well. I dont know if we evolved from monkeys. But Darwin did think so!! Just came across this funny article.

We evolved from Miocene ape-toothed monkeys. From those critters both the ape and monkey lines evolved.

Darwin had no clue about the details of these early fossils. When Darwin published in 1859, only one major specimen, a Neanderthal, had been recognized for what it was. And it was not well understood.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by andy435, posted 01-14-2011 9:43 PM andy435 has not yet responded

  
skiles
Junior Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 03-11-2011


Message 125 of 128 (608535)
03-11-2011 2:58 AM


Evolution is simple to understand.

First of all, there is element called Variation. Variation is illustrated in the differences between any 2 people. For example, one might have a longer nose, or might be taller, etc.. Even siblings have such variations.

Here's a practical example:

We can see Variation having been exploited in different breeds of domestic dogs. People created the domestic dog breeds. We created different hounds and terrier breeds. One day, we even took a greyhound for it's speed and bred it with a terrier - a dog bred for catching rats and mice - to make a whippet, so that we'd have a dog better at catching rabbits.

Another practical example is the miniature horse. We took male and female horses who were small and bred them together until eventually we had a pack animal of a size suitable for use in mining.

So, variation could just be those subtle differences found even in two very much alike creatures of the same type, where one might be a faster runner because of stronger legs, or it could be the variation seen when one sibling is much shorter than the other.

The other element in evolution is Natural Selection.

Now, I've already talked about Selection, a bit. But in the scenarios I've already given, people were responsible for making the selections. We Selected the variation of shortness found in some horses, to make miniature horses, for example. Well, the difference with Natural Selection, is that humans are not responsible for causing that sort of evolution. In Natural Selection, nature is responsible.

For one example to illustrate Natural Selection, we could use primates. Let's say we have one species of primate which has a specialized diet and another species of primate which is a jack of all trades when it comes to eating. Our specialist primate has a much stronger jaw and because of that can eat plants our jack of all trades primate can't. Our jack of all trades species of primate has to scavenge and hunt when it can't find suitable plants to eat. So, our specialist primate has a much easier life. until one day, the climate changes and we have a long drought. All the specialist primate's special plants die. All of our specialist primates die as a result.

Here we see nature making a selection between 2 different species. Let's now talk about Natural Selection within a same species.

Picking up where we left off, our jack of all trades primate lived through the drought because it's diet was diverse.

(Again, this is just one example.)

The jack of all trades species of primate obviously goes on living and breeding. However, years later, there's a long flood. In order to survive the flood, our jack of all trades primate needs to get to higher ground. In this case, it means he has to climb trees. But some of our jack of all trades primates - by variation - have shorter arms than the arms of others like it. The ones with the shorter arms can't swing through the branches of the trees as well and so they have a harder time finding dinner. As a result, the shorter armed jack of all trades primates die. That's a natural selection.

The longer armed jack of all trades primates go on breeding. The longer armed trait is carried on. Eventually, over a long time, a sort of reverse miniature horse effect goes on with their arms through that breeding, until they no longer very well resemble what the jack of all trades primates looked like before the flood. It took many generations, but they all have very long arms and are now experts at swinging in the trees and so they make their lives in the trees all the time now.

This could go on forever. For example, another tremendous drought could come along many generations down the road and kill lots of the trees they live in. Now the species has to take to the ground again. Which variations will be helpful this time?

This is called evolution.

-Variation and Natural Selection. It's that simple.

I also recommend watching this entire documentary for more explanation: http://video.pbs.org/video/1372073556/

So, I think almost everyone can understand evolution, it's just a matter of if they agree with it or not. If you don't agree with it, you should go and look at the evidence for it, I suppose. Watch the documentary above as a starting point.

We've even witnessed evolution taking place with viruses, as they mutate. It's just not reasonable to deny evolution any more. Maybe it was somewhat reasonable to deny evolution in the 1940s and earlier, but not any more.

Hope I was helpful.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2011 9:04 AM skiles has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 126 of 128 (608550)
03-11-2011 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by skiles
03-11-2011 2:58 AM


Not quite so simple...
skiles writes:

Evolution is simple to understand.

First of all, there is element called Variation. Variation is illustrated in the differences between any 2 people. For example, one might have a longer nose, or might be taller, etc.. Even siblings have such variations.

Your description of evolution is not correct. You have not identified an important source of variation, namely mutation.

Another indication that your description is wrong is that it cannot account for mutations in organisms such as bacteria and viruses that do not reproduce sexually.

Edited by NoNukes, : fix punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by skiles, posted 03-11-2011 2:58 AM skiles has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by skiles, posted 03-11-2011 11:00 AM NoNukes has responded

    
skiles
Junior Member (Idle past 2194 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 03-11-2011


Message 127 of 128 (608565)
03-11-2011 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by NoNukes
03-11-2011 9:04 AM


Re: Not quite so simple...
I will disagree with your estimate. Inherent in variation is mutation and in viral evolution we witness the overall changing of the virus in response to changes in the virus' environment, incorporating variation.

In other words, you might only start off with 1 viral organism within a host which can fight an antibiotic, but that's all you need is that 1. No need to discriminate against it. -All the other like viral organisms could die off if they don't share it's particular useful variance. But as long as that 1 is alive, it can reproduce. It will carry on that trait which allowed it to survive. It evolves by natural selection. We witness it evolve.

This is the documentary I was trying to link earlier: http://video.pbs.org/video/1372073556/

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.

Edited by skiles, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2011 9:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 03-11-2011 2:51 PM skiles has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9650
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 128 of 128 (608597)
03-11-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by skiles
03-11-2011 11:00 AM


Re: Not quite so simple...
skiles writes:

I will disagree with your estimate. Inherent in variation is mutation and in viral evolution we witness the overall changing of the virus in response to changes in the virus' environment, incorporating variation

Your statement is not clear, but I assume that you are not advocating a Lamarkian explanation of evolution.

Your original post never mentioned any source of variation other than combining traits from diverse parents and your explanations and examples do not indicate any effect due to mutation. Mutation can allow offspring to have traits that were not present in the previous generation or in either parent.

In other words, you might only start off with 1 viral organism within a host which can fight an antibiotic

Antibiotics do not work on viral organisms. I assume that you meant to refer to a bacterial organism. With that correction, I agree with you.

But you might also start out with no bacterial organisms that can digest nylon and eventually create a colony of bacteria that does have that ability.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by skiles, posted 03-11-2011 11:00 AM skiles has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017