|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: You can look at the scientific paper that the author in Discover was basing his article on (pretty sure anyway). The last author in the paper is A. Thorne, who I am assuming is Alan Thorne. Go here:Just a moment... I have found that it is best to get the information straight from the source instead of hearing a filtered version through the media. Anyway, Alan Thorne's group is claiming that there was a branch of anatomically modern humans that were living in Australia as measured by their mitochondrial DNA. This example shows that humans were in Australia before the current mitDNA lineage was created. An interesting note is that this blows the creationist theory of a mitochondrial Eve being the Biblical Eve, since there are now observed instances of humans outside of that mitochondrial lineage. Also, it also states that current ancient Australians are within the current mitDNA lineage, so this probably means that either the lineage died out in Australia through dilution or Australia was repopulated after humans died out in Australia. However, this does put in doubt the "Out of Africa" theory for all living human lineages, but the mitDNA was extracted from anatomically MODERN human fossils and does not put into doubt an African origination for all human lineages, both living and dead. Here is the abstract:
DNA from ancient human remains provides perspectives on the origin of our species and the relationship between molecular and morphological variation. We report analysis of mtDNA from the remains of 10 ancient Australians. These include the morphologically gracile Lake Mungo 3 [60 thousand years (ka) before present] and three other gracile individuals from Holocene deposits at Willandra Lakes (
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
quote:Not necessary for you maybe since you just want to believe... but for most others... quote:To be a complete lineage- it should be roughly around the same place..othewise alternative explanations are easy.. Right now the indian and african elephant are different in different places - similarly you had different horses in different places - that's an alternative explanation.. . quote: Therefore this is not a complete lineage either...See the topic title - complete lineage .. Not every generation but every speciman that show some amount of change .....
quote: You think I am a high school student? Believe me most high school students in the US (esp public school) are illiterate..Don't mistake my hurried misspelled postings for anything else... And my point was they do not teach evolution like the way it *should* be presented. Here is a hint - they teach the Out of Africa theoryin the context of a topic such as 'Africa is the cradle of civilization..' .. Again, the kids don't really care about this stuff - I am just concerned about the way evolution is presented... quote: But, it would help immensely .. would it not?
quote:If you really did work in a genetics lab then you should know what you are observing is NOT agreed to be the evolution that we are discussing right now... So far I see two lineages with the horse lineage disputed/discredited..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But, it would help immensely .. would it not? Actually, it wouldn't. if fossilization were so common that entire, complete lineages were likely to be preserved - if there were an abundance of them for every species - then it would probably be evidence against evolutionary timescales, not evidence for the theory. You're asking for something that the reality of fossilization makes unlikely. That said, a number of lineages have apparently been presented to you, only to have them dismissed by you. So what, exactly, would you accept as a complete lineage?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
quote:Whoah, Whoah, Whoah, not so fast! You still haven't responded to my questions in post 59, where I showed that your first site was bunk. It would be nice if you could actually discuss these things instead of just linking to creationist websites. This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 05:01 PM "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Sorry about two replies, got ahead of myself.
As to H. erectus and H. sapien being the same species, your reference has this picture and claims that the H. erectus skulls on the left and the living human on the right are in fact identical.
However, they fail to show skull to skull comparisons. Extra soft tissue on the modern human example could mask the lack of supraorbital bone mass, and therefore the fossil and modern examples might not be identical. Do you happen to have a source showing examples of human skulls and H. erectus skulls side by side that show the same amount of supra-orbital protrusion? (just being a skeptic as well ). The next quote from the site you listed is a keeper.
There is no difference between the postcranial skeleton of modern man and that of Homo erectus . So if there is a difference, then there is a gap to fill. If there is no difference then they are the same species. You creationists have a tough time defining what a transitional species should look like. Also, within this statement they also admit that the cranial differences are real, and therefore the post-cranial doesn't matter. That, and the brain capacity of H. erectus is still different than humans. This is a quote that your site lifted from a Scientific American article:
[qs]Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens , with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus , didn't exist.[/quote] Which doesn't put into doubt that modern humans are qualitatively different than fossil hominids from prior to 2 million years ago, which means you still have to deal with australopithicenes and homos older than 2 million years old. Also, the fact that even scientists debate on how to classify these fossils should tell you that they are in fact very close to one another, and that there may not be any gaps in the evolution of modern man in the fossil record. So, again, on one hand we have creationists griping because there are large gaps and the next second they claim that the transitional species are too close together to be distinguished. Can they ever be happy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: And that is the problem. Whenever there is any change, creationists want a gradual change with fossils demonstrating every minute difference. For that type of evidence you need not every generation, but about every tenth generation. For example, a transitional fossil is found and they proclaim "Look at the change!" Creationist reply "Now you have two gaps instead of one." Then again, as shown in my post above, they can call small changes as not being indicative of a separate species. For creationists, grey is black, unless it is white. Added in edit:
quote: Then what type of evolution are you talking about, the kind without genetic heredity? Your genes control the makeup of your skeleton, and hence differences in fossil species represent differences in DNA. This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 07-27-2004 05:17 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
quote: quote:I think I trust the university of Leeds more than a creationist website. "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
Just a general remark regarding erectus skulls: The brow ridges aren't the only thing that differentiates erectus skulls from those of modern humans:
quote: Edit: While we're on subject on erectus anatomy, I found a site that refutes the argument that fossils such as Kow Swamp are erectus, and in doing so mentions a few things about erectus' anatomy: Kow Swamp: is it Homo erectus? Edit2: SkepticToAll, please don't let me pressure you into replying to these posts before my earlier ones. I would like to hear your response to post 59 before we continue to discuss erectus et al. This message has been edited by RRoman, 07-27-2004 05:47 PM "Knowledge is Power" - Francis Bacon Roman's drum blog |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Robert,
Thanks for the responce but you made my points. I know there was no transitionals for Darwin. There aren't "really" now any either. Thats the discussion here. Yes there are. A transitional according to evolutionary theory (as opposed to creationist mirepresentations) is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa. These never existed in Darwins time. They do now. In post 68 you said the following:
The hypothsesis didn't come first and then the sequences found to confirm it. The (percieved)sequences were observed and then came a hypothesis. The claim that someone on a island thought up a hypothesis and then itthe data fit would not be bourne out by history. All of those statements are demonstrably wrong. I'll state it again to make it crystal clear. The evolutionary expectations that there should be transitional & intermediate fossil taxa had not been realised in Darwins day, subsequently, data has become available that meet said criteria. Ergo, data has been found that meets the theories predictions.
That PE says it was an error about gradualism and "stasis". The Yanks here are saying there was no error. PE just was added on they say. You misunderstand. In Darwins day there was only phyletic gradualism, now there is that AND PE, which after all is just gradualism at different rates. What was overturned was the full-on-100%-gradualism-at-the-same-rate-&-nothing-else notion. What you are being told is correct, you are just showing the creationist ability to misunderstand everything. The "error" that is now corrected, is that we now know that phyletic gradualism isn't the only mode of evolution.
If it was science then PE advocates would of have to disprove test results verifying gradualism 100 years ago. But there were no tests. PE doesn't replace gradualism, in fact PE is gradualism, just at variable rates. There is evidence of phyletic gradualism as well as variable rates (PE). Therefore, the notion of full-on-100%-gradualism-at-the-same-rate-&-nothing-else has been tested & falsified, contrary to your statement.
It was speculation and finally in these swmall circles someone came up with a new idea to deal with the embarrasment of fossil poverty on gradual change. Look, I've done you the honour of replying point by point, now you do the same & answer post 4, & post 14, please. It shows conclusively that the fossil record matches evolutionary expectations way, way beyond anything that would be expected by chance, & certainly not a global flood. It therefore stands to reason that since cladograms by & large match stratigraphy, that the inferred lineages are all transitional taxa. There's 300 cladograms originally under study with over a thousand now. This is your problem, Robert. There aren't just one or two intermediate taxa, they are legion. The fossil record is chock full of taxa that are intermediate to others. This isn't "mere" interpretation, or baseless assumption. The cladograms are independant of stratigraphy, independent of the geologic column, yet match evolutionary expectations rather than diluvial expectations. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 07-27-2004 05:59 PM There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Skeptic,
You also have yet to respond to post 4, & post 14. Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
From your second reference:
quote: Unfortunately, (for you) this is an example of the kind of deliberatly misleading things that these sites use. This is exactly the kind of erroneous analysis that suggested 150 years ago that women were less intelligent than men. Is a whale more intelligent than a man, by a large mutliple? Is an elephant? No! Why not? Because what counts is the ratio between brain size and body mass. That is what needs to be examined. Notice how your reference picks pygmies. That is dishonest! As for the brow ridges they show skulls and a picture. I don't know the answer to that one. Here is a guess -- show me the skull of individuals that are supposed to have erectus like brows -- you will find the comparison less interesting when done. Note also that as erectus were evolutionarily much closer to us that to the common ancestor between us and apes you would expect them to be closer to us. You do understand that right? Some of it's features should be very nearly modern. Others will be less so. Also from your site:
quote: In fact, it is now understood that they didn't come from the same creature. It turns out, however, that the authenticated legs bones of erectus aren't all that much different. This line in your source is basically meaningless "filler". It isn't discussed further. It is just there to try to sow suspicion but can't actually be used to support the point that they are attempting to make. This is intellectual slight-of-hand. Bad source! Naughty source! Go to the back of the class!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: In rereading this bit, I just realized that it is even more wrong than I originally realized. Whoever wrote it really is completely ignorant of what they are trying to criticize. There is no way to tell how many sulci (brain folds) an animal's brain has by looking at the inside of the skull. The inside of the human skull, for example, is mostly smooth, only having a few ridges. Humans are second only to dolphins in the prepoderance of sulci on the surface of our brains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
A reply to posts #84 and #102 in this thread would be much appreciated.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 07-28-2004 09:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RRoman Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SkepticToAll Inactive Member |
I still maintain that Erectus actually is homo sapiens ..
Even if I am wrong then the evolution of 'Man' is going to become a lot more controversial awaiting new evidence.. You might find this link interesting:http://home.twmi.rr.com/canovan/kowswamp/kowswamp.htm
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024