Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 28 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question on evolutionary Rates
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 31 of 47 (394033)
04-09-2007 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ICANT
04-08-2007 10:57 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
quote:
The question remains with only 7500 levels how did modern man evolve from the Eukaryotic Cells.

I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the number of levels. Here are skulls indicating the evolutionary path from Australopithecus africanus (B) to modern Homo sapiens (N) (from Theobald's essay, of course).


Click to enlarge

In my opinion, we see a pretty good transition from basically an upright chimp to humans in only 10 species (10 levels) taking 2.6 million years (260,000 years per level). With this amount of change (from chimp to modern human) in 2.6 million years, I don't see why we can't get from primitive mammal to human in 200 million years, or from fish to human in 400 million years, or protozoan to human in 1 billion years.

In fact, we do see these transitionals.

I fail to see a problem with these theoretical numbers or one's understanding of what these theoretical numbers mean when we have actual data that indicates that the transition has taken place.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ICANT, posted 04-08-2007 10:57 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Codegate, posted 04-09-2007 2:31 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2007 5:54 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 04-09-2007 11:40 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2007 9:44 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Codegate
Member (Idle past 56 days)
Posts: 84
From: The Great White North
Joined: 03-15-2006


Message 32 of 47 (394073)
04-09-2007 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
04-09-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Numbers
Great site Chiro, if a little confusing.

Being an extreme amateur at the whole 'tree of life' thing I finally took some time to run through the entire history of man from an evolutionary point of view and put some times against them. Hopefully it's of use to others as well.

So starting at Chordata here is the full chain that I was able to trace to modern man. I'm not sure what level (phylum/order/family) these all belong to, so if someone more educated wants to fill in that info I would appriciated it for my own sake.

Assuming that each of these are equally 'distant' from each other (a vast and unfounded assumption) and also assuming that the 7500 level number that I've seen bandied around, that gives about 200 'levels' per line item below.

Chordata (early cambrian : 540mya )
Craniata (early cambrian : 540mya )
Vertebrata (lower cambrian : 540mya )
Gnathostomata (ordovician / early silurian : 438mya )
Teleostomi (late ordovician / early silurian : 438mya )
Osteichthyes (late silurian : 410mya )
Sarcopterygii (early devonian : 400mya )
Rhipidistia (early devonian : 400mya )
Osteolepiformes (early / mid devonian : 390mya )
Elpistostegalia (mid devonian : 380mya )
Tetrapoda (late devonian : 360mya )
Reptilomorpha (early carboniferous : 350mya )
Batrachosauria (carboniferous : 320mya )
Cotylosauria (carboniferous : 320mya )
Amniota (late carboniferous : 280mya )
Synapsida (upC : 280mya )
Eupelycosauria (early permian / late permian : 280mya )
Sphenacodontia (upC : 280mya )
Therapsida (early permian : 280mya )
Theriodontia (mid permian : 260mya )
Cynodontia (late permian : 250mya )
Eucynodontia (early triassic : 240mya )
Probainognathia (late triassic : 210mya )
Mammaliformes (late triassic : 210mya )
Symmetrodonta (upT-upK : 210mya )
Mammalia (mid jurassic : 170mya )
Cladotheria (mid jurassic : 170mya )
Theria (mK : 170mya )
Eutheria (mid cretaceous : 100mya )
Epitheria (late cretaceous : 65mya )
Archonta (late cretaceous : 65mya )
Primatomorpha (late cretaceous : 65mya )
Primates (late cretaceous / early paleocene : 60mya )
Haplorhini (early eocene : 50mya )
Anthropoidea (mid eocene : 45mya )
Hominoidea (late oligocene / early miocene : 20mya )

Hope it's helpful to someone other then me.

Edited by Codegate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 10:41 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 4:09 PM Codegate has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 33 of 47 (394099)
04-09-2007 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Codegate
04-09-2007 2:31 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
Nice list, Codegate.

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


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Codegate, posted 04-09-2007 2:31 PM Codegate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 34 of 47 (394114)
04-09-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Allopatrik
04-09-2007 9:15 AM


Re: Plural of Genus
genius that I am. I knew something was wrong ... as general feeling ...

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Allopatrik, posted 04-09-2007 9:15 AM Allopatrik has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 35 of 47 (394117)
04-09-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
04-09-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Numbers
we see a pretty good transition from basically an upright chimp to humans in only 10 species ...

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 10:41 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 36 of 47 (394173)
04-09-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
04-09-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Numbers
In fact, we do see these transitionals.

your source says

quote:
Assuming all this-- quite a lot to swallow

That is too much for me to swallow.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 10:41 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 04-10-2007 12:30 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 10:23 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 47 (394182)
04-10-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
04-09-2007 11:40 PM


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

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

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


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 04-09-2007 11:40 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 38 of 47 (394215)
04-10-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by ICANT
04-09-2007 11:40 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
Did you actually read what assumptions exactly were "hard to swallow", or are you engaging in the usual creationists practice of pulling quotes out of context?

Added by edit:
Anyway, you have yet to explain why your "7500 levels" presents any sort of problem. There is no problem as far as I can see.

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ICANT, posted 04-09-2007 11:40 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by tsig, posted 04-12-2007 7:48 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 1163 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 39 of 47 (394701)
04-12-2007 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Chiroptera
04-10-2007 10:23 AM


problem
Anyway, you have yet to explain why your "7500 levels" presents any sort of problem. There is no problem as far as I can see.

The problem is only in the mind.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Chiroptera, posted 04-10-2007 10:23 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 40 of 47 (394891)
04-13-2007 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Chiroptera
04-09-2007 10:41 AM


Re: Re-Numbers
Hi, Chiroptera
Sorry I have been too busy to post.

I fail to see a problem with these theoretical numbers or one's understanding of what these theoretical numbers mean when we have actual data that indicates that the transition has taken place.

I read your posted site: these transitionals.
I found a lot of possibility, feasible and probability statements.
Now for quote mining.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose.

Paleocene the placental fossils include a very primitive primate-like animal (Purgatorius - known only from a tooth,

Primates
GAP: "The modern assemblage can be traced with little question to the base of the Eocene" says Carroll (1988). But before that, the origins of the very earliest primates are fuzzy. There is a group of Paleocene primitive primate-like animals called "plesiadapids" that may be ancestral to primates, or may be "cousins" to primates. (see Beard, in Szalay et al., 1993.)

In my opinion, we see a pretty good transition from basically an upright chimp to humans in only 10 species (10 levels) taking 2.6 million years (260,000 years per level).

Herein lies the problem. If Man evolved from the chimp in only 10 levels there would have to be many freaky looking fossils to be found, which does not exist.

We have some fossils skulls, and bones of which 60% are teeth.
We also have reconstructed beings of these skulls and bones by artist.

A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.
All of these transitional animals lived during the same brief 500,000 years. Before this site was studied, these dinosaur groups were known from the much larger Judith River Formation, where the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, following by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It turns out that the sea level rose during that 500,000 years, temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water, and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. While the populations were isolated in this smaller area, they underwent rapid evolution. When sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site. This is an excellent example of punctuated equilibrium (yes, 500,000 years is very brief and counts as a "punctuation"), and is a good example of why transitional fossils may only exist in a small area, with the new species appearing "suddenly" in other areas. (Horner et al., 1992) Also note the discovery of Ianthosaurus, a genus that links the two synapsid families Ophiacodontidae and Edaphosauridae. (see Carroll, 1988, p. 367)

If Carroll is right and 500,000 years is punctuation, what would your 260,000 years be.

RAZD's horse took 66 million years to develop.
The forams took 66 million years to create 330 species of forams.
One species of forams remained the same for 500,000 years.
I am supposed to believe man did it from chimps in 2.6 million years.

Like I said that is too much to swallow.


Just because I believe it that does not make it true.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 04-09-2007 10:41 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Chiroptera, posted 04-13-2007 10:02 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 42 by fallacycop, posted 04-13-2007 11:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2007 12:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Chiroptera, posted 04-14-2007 2:19 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 41 of 47 (394893)
04-13-2007 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
04-13-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
quote:
Sorry I have been too busy to post.

Heh. Who hasn't been?

-

quote:
Now for quote mining.

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


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2007 9:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 42 of 47 (394900)
04-13-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
04-13-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
If Man evolved from the chimp in only 10 levels there would have to be many freaky looking fossils to be found, which does not exist.

There are plenty of fossils. if you believe there should be more, can you share with us the reason why? Just telling us you think there should be more is just an statement of opinion. Not good enough a reason for us to drop a theory which is otherwise born by the evidence.

RAZD's horse took 66 million years to develop.
The forams took 66 million years to create 330 species of forams.
One species of forams remained the same for 500,000 years.
I am supposed to believe man did it from chimps in 2.6 million years.

Like I said that is too much to swallow.


So, is that it? Is it all a matter of you finding it hard to swallow? I couldn`t care less. Your incredulity is proof that you are incredulous, nothing more.

Give us one well thought out, evidence based, real reason to even raise a brow, for crying out loud, would you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2007 9:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 43 of 47 (394977)
04-14-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
04-13-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
RAZD's horse took 66 million years to develop.

from


Click to enlarge

to

Click to enlarge

I am supposed to believe man did it from chimps in 2.6 million years.

From ~B to N


Click to enlarge

(from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3)
quote:
(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

One species of forams remained the same for 500,000 years.

While chimps go from ~B to A (thus demonstrating that large changes are not necessary over time and that rates are different in different species under different selection pressures).

Like I said that is too much to swallow.

Your problem, not necessary for those that look at the evidence.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2007 9:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 44 of 47 (395003)
04-14-2007 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
04-13-2007 9:44 PM


Re: Re-Numbers
Hello, I.

I should have taken some time to respond to this post properly.

The problem is that you are veering off from the question that you brought up. You keep saying something about "7500 levels" and that humans could not have evolved from a protozoan in 2 billion years with only 7500 levels, or something like that.

I have shown a picture of a sequence of skulls clearly showing a transition from a bipedal chimplike ape to modern human in only "10 levels" over 2.6 million years. You may not believe that this is actually what happened, but the plentitude of fossil remains spanning the last 2.6 million years clearly show that this is a possibility, whatever your complaint about "levels".

Further more, if fossils clearly show the possibility of a chimp-like creature evolving into humans in only 2.6 million years, then there is no conceptual difficulty that I can see for humans to evolve from an egg-laying rat-like creature in 200 million years, or humans evolving from a fish-like creature in 375 million years, or humans evolving from an undifferentiated worm about a billion years ago, or even humans evolving from a choanoflagellate sometime before that.

-

quote:
Like I said that is too much to swallow.

Sure, but I think you're taking too big a mouthfull at a time, and are eating junk that isn't even good for you to begin with. In other words, I think that you are deliberately searching for "problems".

At any rate, I don't think your "problems" concerning "levels" really makes a lot of sense. This "level" business certainly doesn't seem to provide any kind of conceptual problem.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Heh. "Chronoflagellate" indeed!


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-13-2007 9:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 45 of 47 (395075)
04-14-2007 8:23 PM


Re-Question
My original Question:

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

To get the 7500 I was using the speed of the forams in speciating.
But most of the sites I have been pointed to talk of 500,000 years or greater to spectate. That would cut the levels in less than half.

fallacycop writes:

Give us one well thought out, evidence based, real reason to even raise a brow, for crying out loud, would you?

I am not trying to prove anything I am asking for information and the best I have got so far is:

Chiroptera writes:

I have shown a picture of a sequence of skulls clearly showing a transition from a bipedal chimplike ape to modern human in only "10 levels" over 2.6 million years. You may not believe that this is actually what happened, but the plentitude of fossil remains spanning the last 2.6 million years clearly show that this is a possibility, whatever your complaint about "levels".

Yes this is a possibility. Anything is possible.
But because you have a picture of 14 different skulls of 13 different creatures and modern man does not prove that modern man came from any of the 13.

Chiroptera writes:

Anyway, you have yet to explain why your "7500 levels" presents any sort of problem. There is no problem as far as I can see.

ts writes:

The problem is only in the mind.

Zucadragon writes:

But that original statement is wrong in a very important way. And I'll provide a little example to explain it.

The Drosophilia fly is a bug of which we know all genetic information, we also know that (and this is well known for anyone dealing with the fly, ask around biologists and they'll explain it to you) the fly has many genes that are closely related to human genes, around 78% I hear and read in a lot of places. Yet if you look at it, it still looks like a simple bug.

And that's where the point lies, you can think about the first multicellular organism's and say "those would be so simple". But those first multicellular organism's would already have many of the genes that the humans would have in the future as well, minus and plus extra changes.. Just like the fly now, would those first organism's have many of the basic genes..

Which would take it less time in "speciation events" to get to the stage of what we call a human now.

This was an honest effort to explain how it could happen.

RAZD did a pretty good job in Message 4

BTW I have no problem with all creatures having the same elements that man does as they all were made from the earth.

But if this is the best I can get, along with the many articles I have been pointed too and read with all their possibilities, probabilities and feasiablities. I like my theory better.


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Chiroptera, posted 04-14-2007 8:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019