Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 4:02 PM
35 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, PurpleYouko, ringo, Taq (8 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,830 Year: 9,866/19,786 Month: 2,288/2,119 Week: 324/724 Day: 49/114 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Author Topic:   Show one complete lineage in evolution
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 181 of 246 (136341)
08-23-2004 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by NosyNed
08-21-2004 5:21 PM


Re: Beyond you maybe ...
Nosyned your example is not something a creationist or anyone can deal with pro or con.
I can not and should not have to analysis fossils to prove or disprove thier lineage.
The therapsids "example" are just fossils of a creatures that no longer exist. Then also while they have differences they still are therapsids. Therapsids with differences. This is clearly not a lineage but only speciation however varied. And so for one to disprove its merits one must accept a premise rejected in the first place and then study it like a professionaql.
In short no one on the evolution side has presented a single complete lineage yet. You just present fossils of a kind with differences. You do not present kind into kind. And this is recognized by the evolution community as when in great or small mueseums etc they always show horse feet change.
Show us a lineage and we will be in trouble. If you can't then admit it while not giving up that it still occured.
Rob
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by NosyNed, posted 08-21-2004 5:21 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2541 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 182 of 246 (136342)
08-23-2004 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by RAZD
08-21-2004 5:46 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
You make my point. This forumn is about showing a lineage and you just announce that all mammals are descendent from the therapsids. Well then show the evidence in fossil form for it. It should be the most common kind of fossils found. Indeed in the literature evolutionists always retreat back to how difficult and rare it would be to find fossils of this because of such and such a reason. They never sayu "behold".

I understand what you saying about genetics but this is off thread (I think)The denetic thing is recent and primitive in its infancy and dealing with proposed connections only speculative. Creationists always say we are on one blue print and similaries in form can produce logically similiarities in DNA. Yet not evidence od lineage.
Rob


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2004 5:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 6:29 PM Robert Byers has responded

    
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 246 (136344)
08-23-2004 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Robert Byers
08-21-2004 3:12 PM


quote:
I have forgotten this stuff about cladistics and stratigraphy. Help

Cladograms are "trees of life" constructed by the theory of descent with modification (evolution). That is, the daughter species will have some of the same characteristics as the parent species and will also have new characteristics. Therefore, by using this theory, it is possible to construct parent-daughter relationships between fossil species WITHOUT REFERENCE TO WHERE THEY ARE FOUND IN THE FOSSIL RECORD. That is, cladograms are independent from fossil age. We also have another measure for fossils, their position in the fossil record. This is called stratigraphy. This is not a comparison of age via radiometric dating, but a comparison of above/below in the fossil record. Therefore, if the interpretation of the fossil record through descent with modificiation is accurate, then a daughter species should not be found below the parent species in the fossil record. We can directly compare two independent variables, one an interpretation (cladistics) and one that is absolute (stratigraphy). If cladistics is true, then it should correlate to stratigraphy. Lo and behold, they correlate therefore supporting the accuracy of cladistics (descent with modification/evolution). In the fossil record there is a measurable evolutionary signal that can not be denied.

quote:
All that is found are the cousins of each other on different parts of a landscape that was fossilized suddenly.

If they were in the same environment why are they in separate layers, and why do these layers reflect evolution instead of a violent mixing that would be expected from a violent flood?

added in edit: The theory of a violent flood is not debated here. I was referring to any event that would create a random distribution of fossils. Therefore, I am arguing for a non-random ordering of fossils by their fit into a cladogram (an evolutionary prediction).

This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-23-2004 04:03 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Robert Byers, posted 08-21-2004 3:12 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 08-23-2004 4:33 PM Loudmouth has responded
 Message 199 by Robert Byers, posted 08-24-2004 5:35 PM Loudmouth has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 184 of 246 (136353)
08-23-2004 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Loudmouth
08-23-2004 3:38 PM


Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!
If they were in the same environment why are they in separate layers, and why do these layers reflect evolution instead of a violent mixing that would be expected from a violent flood?

With the interconnectedness (intertwingling) of everything it is hard to hold the line on topics. But this is clearing going to drag this thread off topic and even off forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Loudmouth, posted 08-23-2004 3:38 PM Loudmouth has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Loudmouth, posted 08-23-2004 5:01 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 185 of 246 (136364)
08-23-2004 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by AdminNosy
08-23-2004 4:33 PM


Re: Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!
quote:
With the interconnectedness (intertwingling) of everything it is hard to hold the line on topics. But this is clearing going to drag this thread off topic and even off forum.

Good point. I will add in edit that the signal seen in the fossil record is different than a mechanism that would create random order.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AdminNosy, posted 08-23-2004 4:33 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 186 of 246 (136370)
08-23-2004 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Robert Byers
08-23-2004 2:51 PM


Re: Show me complete lineage in evolution
Some more dancing ...

Robert writes:

Well then show the evidence in fossil form for it. It should be the most common kind of fossils found.

Why should it be the most common? Do you have two (or more?) fathers, two mothers, eight grandfathers and eight grandmothers? This statement is very curious to me, and you have stated something similar before and not provided explanation for it. This appears to be a totally groundless way off base assumption that must contribute to your lack of understanding for it to crop up again. Enlighten me.

The evidence for it is in the article and in the cladistics that loudmouth has been talking to you about: every 'daughter' species (ie every mammal) has the jaw and ear features of the therapsids, but there are no (zero, zip, zilch, none, nada) parent species with these features -- they are new with the evolution of the therapsids. Every mammal fossil and skeleton and living creature is a part of the therapsid lineage in this regard (a term that is noticeable cumbersome when there are so many branches ... part of the problem of thinking constrained by terminology).

No comment on the transitional nature of the therapsid lineage including the ones with two (count em 2) jaw hinges as the creatures evolve from the reptile style jaw to the mammal style jaw .... must be you accept that as fact and now concede that transitions exist for "macro"evolution. Or did you miss it?

In fact I notice a complete absence of discussion on the relevance of the therapsid fossils to the topic at hand ... the old Switcheroo Step.

The denetic thing is recent and primitive in its infancy and dealing with proposed connections only speculative

Here we have the Shuffle: when in doubt make an absurd claim that implies that whole fields on knowledge are merely the dabbling of a few ill equipped debutants. Facinating that such a recent and infantile science creates it's own tree of life based on genetic differences including some insights into the branching of species in time, and that they correlate with those same cladistic and stratographic data the loudmouth talks about. Who woulda thunk that eh? The more we know the more it looks like evolution has the answers.

The point I was making is that at the genetic level there is no difference between "macro" and "micro" in the evolution of organisms ... that it is all the same process, and unless you can show otherwise it is irrelevant to make the distinction. Yes it is getting off this topic, but you can either concede that there is no difference in the levels of evolution at the genetic level or take up this topic on the appropriate {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} thread:
http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=page&f=5&t=494&p=11

There has been a fascinating discussion there by several people, but very little input from the creationist camp. Feel free to step in and correct that situation. Failure to take up this issue I will take as conceding that you cannot provide us with any method to differentiate evolution into two distinct 'kinds' and that such distinction is irrelevant.

Creationists always say we are on one blue print and similaries in form can produce logically similiarities in DNA. Yet not evidence od lineage.

The High Step. Love the argument of implied authority: whenever you want to make your statement sound more impressive claim it is a valid group position. This is a logical fallacy as the group is not necessarily a source of authority -- which certainly applies to 'creationists' as a whole -- and it implies that you are not the one saying this but getting it from a source -- usually generalized (as here) and not a specific reference.

I could also say that "Smiths know that they have the best name in the nation, as shown by the people who willingly pay money to change their name to Smith" and have as valid a statement as the one you just made.

Claims of wailing creationists, yours included, notwithstanding the evidence of genetics is that the genetic relationships match the cladistics of classic evolution, specifically with relation to lineages and relationships. Sorry, but claiming something does not make it so.

Again, you can take up this issue on the {"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?} forum topic listed above.

One point about the genetics that is on topic: it shows that all life is one "lineage" (and repeating the comment about terminology limiting thinking).

Still dancing, but not getting far. Try the next step.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Robert Byers, posted 08-23-2004 2:51 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Robert Byers, posted 08-24-2004 5:45 PM RAZD has responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3368 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 187 of 246 (136379)
08-23-2004 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Robert Byers
08-23-2004 2:27 PM


Robert,

And your example starts with a hypothesis that is itself just premise upon premise or interpretation upon interpretation.
Rob

No it doesn't. It is an accurate description of the scientific method. Now, please scroll back & tell me whether you agree, or not.

Thanks,

Mark


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Robert Byers, posted 08-23-2004 2:27 PM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Robert Byers, posted 08-24-2004 3:46 PM mark24 has not yet responded

    
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 188 of 246 (136486)
08-24-2004 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
08-23-2004 10:02 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
but I am interested in the question of whether the different group gender behavior would show up as different "adam" and "eve" ages for the respective populations.

It would show up differences in the typical number of partners taken by a single male. I strongly suspect that the walrus 'adam' and 'eve' would be seperated by a much greater distance than their human equivalents.

I can't see however how a difference in mobility between males and females would effect their relative distances.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 10:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2004 11:48 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 189 of 246 (136491)
08-24-2004 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
08-23-2004 10:02 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve show reasonably close concordance of age according to several studies documented here

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/5339/804

Both coalesce around 100-200,000 years ago.

Gender behavior in terms of dispersal can have a big impact on population genetics for example

Mol Ecol. 2004 Jun;13(6):1607-12. Related Articles, Links

Genetic evidence for sex-biased dispersal in resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus).

Moller LM, Beheregaray LB.

Marine Mammal Research Group, Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. luciana.moller@gse.mq.edu.au

In most mammals males usually disperse before breeding, while females remain in their natal group or area. However, in odontocete cetaceans behavioural and/or genetic evidence from populations of four species indicate that both males and females remain in their natal group or site. For coastal resident bottlenose dolphins field data suggest that both sexes are philopatric to their natal site. Assignment tests and analyses of relatedness based on microsatellite markers were used to investigate this hypothesis in resident bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops aduncus, from two small coastal populations of southeastern Australia. Mean corrected assignment and mean relatedness were higher for resident females than for resident males. Only 8% of resident females had a lower probability than average of being born locally compared to 33% of resident males. Our genetic data contradict the hypothesis of bisexual philopatry to natal site and suggest that these bottlenose dolphins are not unusual amongst mammals, with females being the more philopatric and males the more dispersing sex.

or

Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2003 Aug;57(8):1931-46. Related Articles, Links

Diversification of Sulawesi macaque monkeys: decoupled evolution of mitochondrial and autosomal DNA.

Evans BJ, Supriatna J, Andayani N, Melnick DJ.

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology and Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, Columbia University, New York 10027, USA. bje5@columbia.edu

In macaque monkeys, females are philopatric and males are obligate dispersers. This social system is expected to differently affect evolution of genetic elements depending on their mode of inheritance. Because of this, the geographic structure of molecular variation may differ considerably in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and in autosomal DNA (aDNA) in the same individuals, even though these genomes are partially co-inherited. On the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, macaque monkeys underwent an explosive diversification as a result of range fragmentation. Today, barriers to dispersal have receded and fertile hybrid individuals can be found at contact zones between parapatric species. In this study, we examine the impact of range fragmentation on Sulawesi macaque mtDNA and aDNA by comparing evolution, phylogeography, and population subdivision of each genome. Our results suggest that mtDNA is paraphyletic in some species, and that mtDNA phylogeography is largely consistent with a pattern of isolation by distance. Autosomal DNA, however, is suggestive of fragmentation, in that interspecific differentiation across most contact zones is significant but intraspecific differentiation between contact zones is not. Furthermore, in mtDNA, most molecular variation is partitioned between populations within species but in aDNA most variation is partitioned within populations. That mtDNA has a different geographic structure than aDNA (and morphology) in these primates is a probable consequence of (1) a high level of ancestral polymorphism in mtDNA, (2) differences between patterns of ancestral dispersal of matrilines and contemporary dispersal of males, and (3) the fact that female philopatry impedes gene flow of macaque mtDNA.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 08-23-2004 10:02 AM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2004 6:20 AM Mammuthus has responded
 Message 204 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-25-2004 4:33 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 190 of 246 (136493)
08-24-2004 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Mammuthus
08-24-2004 6:13 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
Y chromosome Adam and mitochondrial Eve show reasonably close concordance of age according to several studies documented here

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/278/5339/804

Both coalesce around 100-200,000 years ago.

I'm not clear on what you're saying here, and the link you gave seems to require a subscription: is this Y-chromosone adam and mitochondrial eve for humans, or for other species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Mammuthus, posted 08-24-2004 6:13 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Mammuthus, posted 08-24-2004 6:30 AM Dr Jack has responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 191 of 246 (136494)
08-24-2004 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Dr Jack
08-24-2004 6:20 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
Did not realize it was not accessible without a subscription. Sorry about that. Yes, it is Y-Adam and mt-Eve for humans.

Here are some excerpts:

quote:
Now, after almost a decade of study, two international teams have found the genetic trail leading to Adam, and it points to the same time and place where mitochondrial Eve lived. Described this month at a symposium on human evolution at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, the genetic trail is so clear that it allows researchers to compare the migration patterns of men and women tens of thousands of years ago (see sidebar). It even pinpoints the living men whose Y chromosomes most resemble Adam's: a few Ethiopians, Sudanese, and Khoisan people living in southern Africa, including groups once known as Hottentots and Bushmen.

quote:
Haplotype 1A, defined by an A at a particular site, appears to be ancestral because the A is found in chimpanzees, and Hammer's team found that in humans, it occurs only in some Africans. "It's at the highest frequency in the Khoisan," he says--the same population fingered by Underhill's team. Although the ancient form of 1A persisted in some groups in Africa, it also underwent a change to a G (guanine) 150,000 to 200,000 years ago in one descendant of Adam's. Like the T in Underhill's site, this form was carried out of Africa when men moved away and replaced other males around the globe.

Both sets of results bolster the so-called Out of Africa model of human origins. "We think that anything existing in Asian males was replaced by this," says Hammer. Underhill agrees: "I think this speaks persuasively for an Out of Africa origin for modern humans."



This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2004 6:20 AM Dr Jack has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2004 6:54 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 278 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 192 of 246 (136496)
08-24-2004 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Mammuthus
08-24-2004 6:30 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
Right... so the differing ages oft-quoted for Y-Adam and mt-Eve (80,000 and 150,000 respectively) were experimental artefacts then? And the two, in fact, occured at approximately similar times?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Mammuthus, posted 08-24-2004 6:30 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Mammuthus, posted 08-24-2004 7:08 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4648 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 193 of 246 (136497)
08-24-2004 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Dr Jack
08-24-2004 6:54 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
It depends on the locus tested. Another issue is that the estimates have huge standard deviations. Here is a recent paper that actually points to a likely source of the observed discrepancy documented by some groups i.e. female effective pop size is larger than male i.e. more females reproduce than males.

Mol Biol Evol. 2004 Aug 18 [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links

Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males.

Wilder JA, Mobasher Z, Hammer MF.

Division of Biotechnology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of EEB, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.

The time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) of the human mitochondria (mtDNA) is estimated to be older than that of the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome (NRY). Surveys of variation in globally distributed humans typically result in mtDNA TMRCA values just under 200 thousand years (kya) while those for the NRY range between 46 and 110 kya. A favored hypothesis for this finding is that natural selection has acted on the NRY leading to a recent selective sweep. An alternate hypothesis is that sexbiased demographic processes are responsible. Here we re-examine the disparity between NRY and mtDNA TMRCAs using data collected from individual human populations--a sampling strategy that minimizes the confounding influence of population subdivision in global datasets. We survey variation at 782 bp of the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit 3 gene as well as at 26.5 kb of non-coding DNA from the NRY in a sample of 25 Khoisan, 24 Mongolians, and 24 Papua New Guineans. Data from both loci in all populations are best described by a model of constant population size, with the exception of Mongolian mtDNA which appears to be experiencing rapid population growth. Taking these demographic models into account, we estimate the TMRCAs for each locus in each population. A pattern that is remarkably consistent across all three populations is an approximately two-fold deeper coalescence for mtDNA than for the NRY. The oldest TMRCAs are observed for the Khoisan (73.6 kya for the NRY and 176.5 kya for mtDNA) while those in the non-African populations are consistently lower (averaging 47.7 kya for the NRY and 92.8 kya for mtDNA). Our data do not suggest that differential natural selection is the cause of this difference in TMRCAs. Rather, these results are most consistent with a higher female effective population size.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2004 6:54 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2004 11:59 AM Mammuthus has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 194 of 246 (136535)
08-24-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Jack
08-24-2004 5:50 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
within each group the relative distance markers would be affected by the concentration of markers for the non-mobile sex and diffusion of markers for the mobile sex.

Over time some groups would suffer wholesale deaths (fires, earthquakes, etc) and this would tend to remove groups of the concentrated markers while not affecting the diffused markers. Male mobility -> 'older' adam while female mobility -> 'older' eve.

Just a thought.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2004 5:50 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19890
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 195 of 246 (136537)
08-24-2004 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Mammuthus
08-24-2004 7:08 AM


Re: similar to bonobos or chimpanzees?
thanks Mammuthus for the solid information. Do you know if any similar study has been done on either bonobos or chimps? I am curious to see if there is a difference that could show up due to different gender mobility and subsequent behavior patterns.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Mammuthus, posted 08-24-2004 7:08 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Mammuthus, posted 08-24-2004 12:04 PM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
14151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019