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.
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.
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).
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.
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:â€œGlooskap came first of all into this country, into Nova Scotia, Maine, Canada, into the land of the Wabanaki, next to sunrise. There were no Indians here then (only wild Indians very far to the west). First born were the Mikumwess, the Oonahgemessuk, the small Elves, little men, dwellers in rocks. And in this way he made Man: He took his bow and arrows and shot at trees, the basket-trees, the Ash. Then Indians came out of the bark of the Ash-trees...
Glooskap made all the animals. He made them at first very large. Then he said to Moose, the great Moose who was as tall as Ketawkqu's, "What would you do should you see an Indian coming?" Moose replied, "I would tear down the trees on him." Then Glooskap saw that the Moose was too strong, and made him smaller, so that Indians could kill him.
Then he said to the Squirrel, who was of the size of a Wolf, What would you do if you should meet an Indian? And the Squirrel answered, "I would scratch down trees on him." Then Glooskap said, "You also are too strong," and he made him little.
Then he asked the great White Bear what he would do if he met an Indian; and the Bear said, "Eat him." And the Master bade him go and live among rocks and ice, where he would see no Indians. So he questioned all the beasts, changing their size or allotting their lives according to their answers.â€
quote:At the time that turned the heat of the earth, / At the time when the heavens turned and changed, / At the time when the light of the sun was subdued / To cause light to break forth, / At the time of the night of Makalii [winter] / Then began the slime which established the earth, / The source of deepest darkness. / Of the depth of darkness, of the depth of darkness, / Of the darkness of the sun, in the depth of night, / It is night, / So was night born.
Kumulipo was born in the night, a male. / Poele was born in the night, a female. / A coral insect was born, from which was born perforated coral. / The earth worm was born, which gathered earth into mounds, / From it were born worms full of holes. / The starfish was born, whose children were born starry.
quote:The earth is a great island floating in a sea of water, and suspended at each of the four cardinal points by a cord hanging down from the sky vault, which is of solid rock. When the world grows old and worn out, the people will die and the cords will break and let the earth sink down into the ocean, and all will be water again. The Indians are afraid of this.
When all was water, the animals were above in GÃ¤lÃ»Ã±'lÃ¤tÃ¯, beyond the arch; but it was very much crowded, and they were wanting more room. They wondered what was below the water, and at last DÃ¢yuni'sÃ¯, "Beaver's Grandchild," the little Water-beetle, offered to go and see if it could learn. It darted in every direction over the surface of the water, but could find no firm place to rest. Then it dived to the bottom and came up with some soft mud, which began to grow and spread on every side until it became the island which we call the earth. It was afterward fastened to the sky with four cords, but no one remembers who did this...
When the animals and plants were first made -- we do not know by whom -- they were told to watch and keep awake for seven nights, just as young men now fast and keep awake when they pray to their medicine. They tried to do this, and nearly all were awake through the first night, but the next night several dropped off to sleep, and the third night others were asleep, and then others, until, on the seventh night, of all the animals only the owl, the panther, and one or two more were still awake. To these were given the power to see and to go about in the dark, and to make prey of the birds and animals which must sleep at night. Of the trees only the cedar, the pine, the spruce, the holly, and the laurel were awake to the end, and to them it was given to be always green and to be greatest for medicine, but to the others it was said: "Because you have not endured to the end you shall lose your hair every winter."
Men came after the animals and plants. At first there were only a brother and sister until he struck her with a fish and told her to multiply, and so it was. In seven days a child was born to her, and thereafter every seven days another, and they increased very fast until there was danger that the world could not keep them. Then it was made that a woman should have only one child in a year, and it has been so ever since.
quote:Of old, Heaven and Earth were not yet separated, and the In and Yo not yet divided. They formed a chaotic mass like an egg which was of obscurely defined limits and contained germs. The purer and clearer part was thinly drawn out, and formed Heaven, while the heavier and grosser element settled down and became Earth. The finer element easily became a united body, but the consolidation of the heavy and gross element was accomplished with difficulty. Heaven was therefore formed first, and Earth was established subsequently. Thereafter divine beings were produced between them.
Hence it is said that when the world began to be created, the soil of which lands were composed floated about in a manner which might be compared to the floating of a fish sporting on the surface of the water.
At this time a certain thing was produced between Heaven and Earth. It was in form like a reed-shoot. Now this became transformed into a God, and was called Kuni-toko-tachi no Mikoto. Next there was Kuni no sa-tsuchi no Mikoto, and next Toyo-kumu-nu no Mikoto, in all three deities. These were pure males spontaneously developed by the operation of the principle of Heaven.
quote:The Raven and his wife created the world. They made the cape of UÃ±iÂ´sak out of a nose of an eider-duck [Somatheria spectabilis]; the peninsula of Alaska, of a long belt-knife; and the island ImaÂ´lik [one of the Diomedes], of a button of the scabbard [with which it is clasped around the hip]. They made reindeer of their hair, and dogs of their nails, and sea-water of their urine.
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.
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.
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.
DJ www.atotalawareness.com "Mr. Dawkins, your greatest achievements have been wrapped in something much greater. You have been owned."
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
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.