|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Show one complete lineage in evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
Here is one study that addresses your question..the full article may require a subscription or purchasing the article...or going to a university library. Cheers,M J Hered. 2001 Nov-Dec;92(6):475-80. Related Articles, Links Modern African ape populations as genetic and demographic models of the last common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas. Jensen-Seaman MI, Deinard AS, Kidd KK. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, P.O. Box 208277, New Haven, CT 06520-8277, USA. In order to fully understand human evolutionary history through the use of molecular data, it is essential to include our closest relatives as a comparison. We provide here estimates of nucleotide diversity and effective population size of modern African ape species using data from several independent noncoding nuclear loci, and use these estimates to make predictions about the nature of the ancestral population that eventually gave rise to the living species of African apes, including humans. Chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas possess two to three times more nucleotide diversity than modern humans. We hypothesize that the last common ancestor (LCA) of these species had an effective population size more similar to modern apes than modern humans. In addition, estimated dates for the divergence of the Homo, Pan, and Gorilla lineages suggest that the LCA may have had stronger geographic structuring to its mtDNA than its nuclear DNA, perhaps indicative of strong female philopatry or a dispersal system analogous to gorillas, where females disperse only short distances from their natal group. Synthesizing different classes of data, and the inferences drawn from them, allows us to predict some of the genetic and demographic properties of the LCA of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
a tantalizing hint. but thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I think you misuderstand my line of reasoning
nevertheles I am fine abnd so in agreement with your idea of the scientific method as I understand what your saying Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
You said"Therefore I am argueing for a non-random ordering of fossils by thier fit into a cladagram"
So your PROOF that non-randomness has occured is they fir into a cladagram!The cladagram is dependent on the fossils being non-random it follows logically. Thats the rub . They're being "non-random" is an interpretation and not a fact. They are just frozen in place representing a day or momment in time. Co-existing communities not species in progression. Again the error in your line of thinking is that you require the reader to accept as a presumption, as a great premise that ther is a daughter/parent thing goning on here.Then you say look at thier progression. To us creationists you should present a lineage that does not requier our accepting a premise of fossil relationship to start with. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Too much to respond to. I like a clean conttention.
I have finely answered the therapsid progression thing.They are not creatures in progression but just different species living in different communities over some are frozen in time by the event. The different jaw types is not evidence of anthing but simple speciation. For example of the two kinds of tree sloths one has an extra verabrate (I know its some important bone). Now if a fossilization event took place and both kinds are found later in time you guys would insist this showed one kind evolving into another WHEN in fact they co-existed and the difference had nothing to do with ancestry.Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So asking for transitional fossils or a complete lineage should not be a creationist contention. Even if a fine graded progression is shown, they can just ignore it like you have above. Therefore, you can not use the argument that there are not any transitional forms in the fossil record.
quote: So you are saying that mammals are within the same kind as reptiles, since mammals speciated from reptiles? I might also add that during mammal fetal development we observe the same progression of jaw bones as seen in the fossil record. That is, there are three centers of ossificiation within the fetal jawbone that then move up into the middle ear. This is surprising since you are claiming that the progression in the fossil record is accidental.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Robert Byers writes: Too much to respond to. I like a clean conttention. Or too many facts that you just can't figure a dance step around. You didn't answer why the therapsids had to be the most common. Sigh.
I have finely answered the therapsid progression thing. They are not creatures in progression but just different species ... The tap dance ... tip toe around the facts and then say there is no relation between them. The denial of facts does not make them go away, or have any effect on the continued evolution of life, it just makes you willfully ignorant (you have the information but you choose to ignore it). Either you did not read or did not understand the article, big surprise. You also have not "answered the therapsid progression thing" You just denied it.
The different jaw types is not evidence of anthing but simple speciation. So you are now claiming that this is "micro"evolution if I follow your "thinking" ... and we now have the difference between "micro" and "macro" has moved up to the level of CLASS ... two more levels to go and "macro" evolution is gone and all you have left is "micro"evolution (or just plain vanilla evolution, as has been said before). Congratulations. ps -- I also see no further comments on the genetic issue, either here or on the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread:http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? -->EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism? As noted in the post you replied to, this means you have no answer for this issue, which means you "concede that there is no difference in the levels of evolution at the genetic level" -- thanks. Enjoy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
It is fairly common among social mammals for differences in dispersal among males and females to occur. Elephant herds are composed of a dominant matriarch, her daughters and close female relatives, and young of both sexes. Males, when they reach reproductive age, are forced to leave the herd and wander alone or in groups. Thus, they have a greater chance of dispersing their genes more widely i.e. they will tend to mate with females of other herds (preventing inbreeding) whereas females in a herd will tend, over time, to be more genetically similar. Since mitochondrial DNA is passed from mother to offspring only in mammals, it is not surprising that the genetic picture over time will differ between mitochondrial DNA and a nuclear genes. Elephants are not the only example as the references I posted show that the same thing can occur in primates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Andya Primanda Inactive Member |
O great hairy extinct one,
quote: Off topic but thanks for quoting the work of some of my college professors! Authors number two and three are in the faculty of the Deparment of Biology, Universitas Indonesia, and they taught some of the best classes I have during my undergrad days.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6503 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi Andya,
Cool! I collaborated with one of Don Melnicks postdocs on an elephant project...it's a small world. Cheers, M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
I understand your point. but yes we can. You guys have not shown transitions of kind only speciation within kind. Then i explain the speciation as only the result of a large area fossilized with different communities. However if you showed kind into kind it would be harder.
The reptile/mammal separation is a human interpretation and possibly not important in the natural world. The platapus for example.Also the similiar parst does not mean that a creature is one thing or another anyway. remember we are dealing with creatures that are not around and still error in what they were like is possible Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So are reptiles and mammals in the same kind or not? Please answer this question. Also, what rules do you follow to determine which speciesis are in the same kind? Are they arbitrary rules that change on a whim, or are their stringent guidlines that you are following?
quote: Then why isn't aren't all of these species in the same strata? Why are species that were living at the same time sorted into different geologic layers according to body morphology? Why does this order fit perfectly into an evolutionary model that is also reflected in mammalian fetal development?
quote: The platypus is a perfect example. It shares both reptillian characteristics (egg laying) and mammalian characteristics (fur and mammary glands). Thank you for mentioning more evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles. Also, isn't creationism a human interpretation of the Bible?
quote: Look at the title of the thread. What are creationists asking for with such a statement? Could you please explain that to me please.
quote: Which is why science is tentative and why science does not search for absolute proof. However, science is able to prove something false, which it has done with special creation 6,000 years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
Lots of questions but this should suffice.
Whether reptiles and mammals can be the same kind is not the discussion. Your classifications are not the way it is in the real world. For example the platypus. It is not in between a progression but it is rather just a kind of animal. It has (as defined by man) reptilian and mammal features but this is not evidence of ancestry. Saying it is is only an interpretation. The human classification system came first and then the creatures of the world must fit in. The playtapus isn't odd man out but a revealation the classification system is wrong. A misunderstanding. The aberation in the orbit is just not yet realized to disprove the orbit. There is in fact a greater orbit idea. The playtapus is like your examples a kind of animal. Not in between. thats just speculation based on 19th century premises. Also again this thread started with asking supporters of evolution to show the lineages. There should be endless abundance and between clear kinds of creatures. Not jaws and feet. Thats pathaticlly poor. Great numbers of great examples of great intermediaries will only and should only be persuasive to the public. You haven't done it and we say because it can't be done. And Darwin and evolutionists ever since have themselves had to deal with this equation. It stares you in the face. Rob
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Robert,
Your argument is that no matter how many transitionals we find it is not evidence that evolution occured. Is this correct or not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
robert writes: You guys have not shown transitions of kind only speciation within kind. The reptile/mammal separation is a human interpretation and possibly not important in the natural world. Thank you for confirming that you now regard CLASS distinction of mammals and reptiles to be evolution within kind or microevolution. This means that macroevolution can only apply to KINGDOM and PHYLUM. When kind = KINGDOM, what is left? Of course the natural world is totally indifferent to your, or anyone else’s, human interpretation as it will continue to act in the manner of the natural world regardless. And each person’s beliefs are only human interpretation — it is just that some of it is based on reproducible, testable, and verifiable or falsifiable observations, theories and experiments, and some is based on wishful thinking.
There should be endless abundance and between clear kinds of creatures. Not jaws and feet. Thats pathaticlly poor. Why? because you don't understand the process? I have asked you several times to expand this argument with detail and example, but so far all it is has been groundless assertion. EXPLAIN IT. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-27-2004 04:50 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024