|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Human Evolution (re: If evolved from apes, why still apes?) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Wounded King writes: In terms of the topic in the immediate past molbiogirl was specifically talking about genetic similarity. After another review, I have to concede this point to you. I guess I got a little muddled by reading too fast.
I would agree that for constructing a phylogenetic tree you would probably be better of going with traditional approaches, I'm not sure if anyone has really tried using indels and other forms of copy number variation as a basis for such analyses.Building a phylogeny is not the be all and end all of evolutionary relatedness I would suggest. I'm not sure I understand what else you think there could be to evolutionary relatedness than phylogeny. After all, phylogenies, when done correctly, are taken to directly represent evolutionary relatedness. Furthermore, the basic definition of "phylogenetics" is the study of evolutionary relationships between organisms. I guess ecological and behavioral differences are important, too, but these can't really be considered evolutionary distinctions, because dolphins and penguins aren't fish, even though they live in the water and swim like fish. Anyway, this is all off-topic. Maybe we could start a new thread to discuss genetic factors in evolutionary relatedness. I'm not a geneticist (though I did do undergrad research in proteomics and bioinformatics), but I'm sure there's plenty I could learn from you about genetics and evolution. Thanks. Signed, Nobody Important (just Bluejay)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I'm not sure I understand what else you think there could be to evolutionary relatedness than phylogeny. After all, phylogenies, when done correctly, are taken to directly represent evolutionary relatedness. ... Anyway, this is all off-topic. Maybe we could start a new thread to discuss genetic factors in evolutionary relatedness. I'm not sure that there is a thread's worth to it. All I mean is that while classical phylogenetics can tell you plenty about who is most closely related to you and reconstruct an evolutionary history of cladogenesis, it tells you very little about what the actual functional basis is for the differences between one species from another in terms of phenotype. My own research is in Developmental biology and I come at this more from an evo-devo perspective. I am therefore more interested in changes in gene regulation and the effects of large scale genetic events such as gene duplication and divergence, or even wholesale genome duplications. I don't really care when chickens and frogs last had a common ancestor, I just want to know what is different and what is the same in the way they develop and what the genetic basis of those differences is. You might think of it as a more functional form of evolutionary relatedness, connected to the genetic basis of functional morphological/phenotypic change rather than to in many cases neutral genetic change used as a yardstick for measuring divergence times and determining phylogeny. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2723 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
All I mean is that while classical phylogenetics can tell you plenty about who is most closely related to you and reconstruct an evolutionary history of cladogenesis, it tells you very little about what the actual functional basis is for the differences between one species from another in terms of phenotype. See, I understand this perfectly. And, this fits right back in with kakip's original topic, and with skepticfaith's continuation thereof. The differences between us and chimpanzees in behavior and phenotype are the reason we can coexist with the chimpanzees, as opposed to requiring their destruction or assimilation into us as a condition of our rise to the "civilized condition." We didn't have to remove or replace them, because their use of a different habitat and a different way of life (both more suited to their phenotypes) didn't place them as competitors for our niche. To the contrary, we competed with ourselves more than with them. I think the misconception happening here is that the chimpanzee and the gorilla are relict populations of the lower life-forms from which evolutionists purport our species to have evolved, and that they are therefore mindless brutes who failed to make the transition to human. They are a failure, and we are the success story. The problem is that the theory of evolution is not anthropocentric in nature. The chimpanzee has evolved from our common ancestor as much as we have, and is therefore equally "advanced," if the term must be used (evolutionists prefer 'derived'). It has been stated by skepticfaith (and refuted by molbiogirl) that chimpanzees are more like our common ancestor than we are. The problem is that the fossil record for chimpanzees isn't as complete as the record for humans, so we can't confidently identify the common ancestor, per se. Australopithecus seems most logical of the fossils we know for sure, because it has facial and cranial features that more closely resemble a chimpanzee's (boxed dental arcade, long canine roots, no nose bridge, larger brow ridge, etc.), but hips, legs and foramen magnum more like us than them. For the time being, Australopithecus serves as a grand transitional fossil (and will continue to serve as such for some time), because of its mix of human-like and chimpanzee-like traits. However, we may, in the future, find an earlier fossil which shows better the transition from chimpanzee-like ape to Lucy (such fossils have been reported, but their remains are too few to be of diagnostic quality).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eclogite Junior Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 17 Joined: |
molbiogirl said:
You can't tell from a fossil that it "died in a flood". If, by some stretch of the imagination you think you can, please tell me how. And back up your "theories" with evidence from the scientific literature. Your word is not good enough for me.
Well, I am pretty rusty, but I wouldn't find this especially difficult. Since we are talking flood sedimentation then we are speaking of deposition in a terrestrial environment: flood plain, delta, lake. So I am looking for clastic sediments and, since this is a flood deposit, sediments that display the characteristics of high energy and rapid deposition. I expect to find my fossil towards the bottom of the bed; I will not be surprised to see the lower bed boundary is erosional; I expect a wide range of particle sizes (i.e. poor sorting)that fine upwards. If my fossil is found in that situation, ideally along with a mixture of others not typically found in the same environment, and the remains are broken or disarticulated, then I shall be pretty confident I have a thanatoassemblage (I see that thanatocoenosis is now the preferred term) and that the beastie has "died in a flood". These, by the way, are not 'theories', but a standard approach that would be known to any undergraduate geology major. However you, justifiably, ask for evidence from the scientific literature. The aspects relating to the character of flood sediments may be found in any elementary sedimentology text. I am from a vintage that used Pettijohn, or Krumbein and Sloss, but I am sure they have long joined their own thanatoassemblage. The logic of the foregoing for identifying a beastie that "died in a flood" should be self evident and compelling. If it is not let me know and I shall try to locate a field geology textbook that addressess it. I mention all this for a single reason: if we intend to decry scientific ignorance on the part of creationists (as has been done and defended several times in this thread) I think we should also decry it on the part of evolutionists. I hope all, especially molbiogirl, will agree with this. I look forward to a return admonition when I utter some foolishness about gel electrophoresis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Fourth, Creationism is not recycled feces. My point is thus: Every major civilization at the beginning of time (dated around 6,000 A.D. has believed not only in a God (or gods), but in a creation. There was absolutely no way that these civilizations, separated by at most seventeen thousand miles, the world's biggest (and possibly roughest) ocean, and the world's highest mountains. Therefore, the only explanation would be that all of these stories came from a real event. If you disagree, please do so and explain your theory on how these civilizations could have communicated the creation theory over this time. "The" creation theory?
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: P.S. Just as a side-note, evolutionism only came into being in the 1800's. According to creationists, that'd be only 200 out of 6000-8000 years, or 3%-2.5% of humanity. To evolutionists, it'd be 0.00013% of humanity. You could make the same claim about any sufficiently recent concept. Should we give up on the theory that lightning is an electrical discharge, and go back to the "thunder god is angry" hypothesis? How about the germ theory of disease? Witchcraft has historically been the more popular explanation. Splitting the atom? Why, the very name means "unsplittable", and has done for 2500 years. The Periodic Table hasn't been around nearly as long as the "four elements" of earth, air, fire, and water.
(Image courtesy of the Rediscovery Institute.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2667 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Ec ... I am well aware of how we would determine whether or not an animal died in a flood.
However. I got the distinct impression this particular creo was convinced that something about the fossil itself would tell us it died in a flood. What with the whole "it died a violent death" line of ... um ... "reasoning".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helena  Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
just watch these videos and then make a comment on it. But dont tell any frauds, cheatings,fakes AND ALSO DO NOT MAKE ANY STORY OF THAT.... becoz THESE VDEOS NCLUDE SCENTFC FACTS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t1aVYfavMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QHZSWpqyRs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV-fYlhHZzc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUjjFTsKJmU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jPlZRNpiq4 Edited by Admin, : Hide spam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
alexandra writes: But dont tell any frauds, cheatings,fakes AND ALSO DO NOT MAKE ANY STORY OF THAT.... becoz THESE VDEOS NCLUDE SCENTFC FACTS. "Too ashame" isn't English, and superstition based assertions are not scientific facts. Come back when you've finished school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
teen4christ Member (Idle past 5824 days) Posts: 238 Joined: |
The second video from the top presents a strawman argument. If you don't know why I say it is a strawman argument, perhaps you should consider finishing up school first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13029 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Helena,
If you register another account with this site I will report you to your ISP, the RIPE Network Coordination Center in Amsterdam.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
thief Junior Member (Idle past 5558 days) Posts: 30 Joined: |
off topic material hidden
Just got away from a similar debate. As I scanned the discussion here, I find something missing Allow me to demonstrate. You will need three geometrical points for reference (plane geometry) Label each point as you please with numbers one through six (each point will share two numbers) Choose a forth point within the confines of the triangle Using one cube of dice.. a direction is obtained Measure half way to the point shown by the roll Make a point Roll again...measure half to the next corner...make a point This process is time consuming As you continue..a pattern will emerge...triangles within the triangle All triangles will be proportionate to the original This effort is a demonstration of random events producing a known result This effect is known as chaos Just for fun..let's make the model large...very large Now let's add another random event..for drama...a very heavy meteor shower Without the shower...retracing your progression would very difficult With the shower the trace would be impossible Searching through long dead bones would be a long shot Genetic research is more likely...but finding a genome like ours? Good luck Thief Edited by AdminNosy, : not on topic, use peek to see it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
djwray Junior Member (Idle past 5339 days) Posts: 5 From: Australia Joined: |
Hi folks
My opinion is that humans didn't evolve from apes. Instead they evolved from Homo Erectus (and probably Neanderthals), which in turn evolved from another, probably Homo Habilis. Humans and apes are so diverse that humans couldn't evolve from them. I also believe that members of the Homo Erectus species gave birth to humans. Good luck DJhttp://www.atotalawareness.com "Mr. Dawkins, your greatest achievements have been wrapped in something much greater. You have been owned."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
humans didn't evolve from apes. Instead they evolved from Homo Erectus (and probably Neanderthals), which in turn evolved from another, probably Homo Habilis.
Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo Neaderthalensis, and Homo habilis are all apes.
Humans and apes are so diverse that humans couldn't evolve from them
We share ~95% of our DNA with chimps, how much diversity is there in that ~5%?
I also believe that members of the Homo Erectus species gave birth to humans.
Well depending on how you define "human" (I've seen some people with that opinion that "anything in the genus Homo is human) that could be true. But if you mean a H. erectus birthing a H. sapiens then you're out to lunch. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
welcome to the fray, djwray,
My opinion is that humans didn't evolve from apes. Unfortunately for you, your opinion has absolutely no effect on reality.
Instead they evolved from Homo Erectus (and probably Neanderthals), which in turn evolved from another, probably Homo Habilis. Both H. erectus and H. neanderthals are considered cousin branches of the hominid tree. Anthropology | Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History
Humans and apes are so diverse that humans couldn't evolve from them. Can you show the diversity line that clearly divides these skulls? 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
I also believe that members of the Homo Erectus species gave birth to humans. Curiously, what you believe is irrelevant to reality, and may interfere with your learning new knowldege. 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: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 310 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So where do the australopithecines fit into all this?
A. africanus, cranial capacity 400 - 500 cm3
H. habilis, cranial capacity (this specimen) 510 cm3
H. sapiens, average cranial capacity about 1500 cm3
It would seem perverse to allow a relationship between H. habilis and H. sapiens but to deny the possibility of a relationship between the australopithecines and H. habilis. Humans and apes, you say, are "so diverse" --- yet the difference between australopithecines, outside genus Homo, and H. habilis, inside genus Homo, seem markedly less than the differences that we can find within genus Homo.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024