Study finds twist in human evolution

[Achilles]

Link

WASHINGTON - Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man.

Normally, I only post the first paragraph, but considering the topic and anticipating the influx of rhetoric, I'm including the final paragraph as well

 

All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said.

I found this observation to be quite thought provoking:

Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.

Anthropologists have been suggesting for some time that humans are naturally "serial monogamists". I wonder if there is any correlation between between physical size and maintainability of monogomy, even when we are genetically predisposed toward non-monogomy and physiologically pre-disposed to serial monogomy. Hmmm...

[Darth InSidious]

Interesting, but I fail to see anything inflammatory about this. Dammit, I wanted to see blood on the walls! And be ankle-deep in it, for that matter!

[Achilles]

I knew you would be disappointed

[Rogue Nine]

even when we are genetically predisposed toward non-monogomy

We are?

[John Galt]

I'd say this find lends more credibility to evolutionary theory, if anything. Shows that the "impossible odds" argument that creationists tend to use isn't actually all that relevant, as the evolutionary path isn't a straight line.

[Achilles]

The purpose of sexual reproduction is to allow for the maximum amount of variation in the gene pool. Monogamy runs counter to that. Mammals tend not to be monogamous, though there are a few examples of monogamy amongst primates. Our fragile evolutionary tendencies toward serial monogamy are a relatively recent development and still run counter to our much older and therefore much stronger instincts (males attracting as many mates as possible).

 

That's the nickel tour. I can probably come up with a list of suggested readings if you'd like to learn more. Just let me know.

[Jae Onasi]

I'd say this find lends more credibility to evolutionary theory, if anything. Shows that the "impossible odds" argument that creationists tend to use isn't actually all that relevant, as the evolutionary path isn't a straight line.

 

Doesn't matter if it's straight, convoluted, or somewhere in between. Impossible odds are still impossible odds. Of course, I think God can make the universe any darn way He wants, and if He wants to make it along evolutionary lines, straight, convoluted, or otherwise, fine. Not like I have any choice in the matter.

[Achilles]

Impossible odds are still impossible odds.

Is this an evolution thread or a creationism vs. abiogenesis thread? Last time I checked they were separate subjects. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. If you would like to discuss life origins, I'd be more than happy to join you in that thread.

 

Unless, of course, I misconstrued your meaning and you are arguing that god created all life on this planet in its present form and it has not changed at all since.

 

Thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

Is this an evolution thread or a creationism vs. abiogenesis thread? Last time I checked they were separate subjects. The evidence of evolution is overwhelming. If you would like to discuss life origins, I'd be more than happy to join you in that thread.

 

Unless, of course, I misconstrued your meaning and you are arguing that god created all life on this planet in its present form and it has not changed at all since.

 

Thanks.

 

I don't know if He made it in its present form or not, though I fall into the 'guided evolution/progressive creation' camp and think that He utilized the scientific laws He created--I don't see God and evolution as incompatible. Likely the 'impossible odds' does belong in an abiogenesis discussion.

[Achilles]

I don't know if He made it in its present form or not, though I fall into the 'guided evolution/progressive creation' camp and think that He utilized the scientific laws He created--I don't see God and evolution as incompatible.

So then there's no question for you that evolution is real, your question is who started it and/or who guides it? "Odds" (impossible or otherwise) don't really come into play then?

 

Likely the 'impossible odds' does belong in an abiogenesis discussion.

I'll get a thread started.

[jonathan7]

I presuming here is where I am meant to stick my thoughts on evolution. Stricktly speaking I am sat on the fence if evolution is proved beyond my reasonable doubt it doesn't really change my perception of the world, neither would this perception change if it were disproved either.

 

I think evolution in many ways is abit like Freuds theories in psychology/psychiatry; it is a very pervasive theory. Because it is such a large and broad theory. It has permiated into our language for example normally when typing I do very quickly however in a previous post to Achilles when I wrote this;

 

I feel I may be making a post in the evolution thread. Strictly speaking I am completely sat on the fence, I am unsure currently of how life has changed on earth. All I know is; the earth is 6Billion years old; there is alot of animals who are related in various ways which inhabbit the earth. etc etc

 

It took me a fair while to articulate myself here as I was going to use the word evolved and then realised this presented a problem given I am unsure about evolution.

 

I would be interested in seeing the data which some of you believe's prooves evolution (mainly as haven't really studied evolution much since A-level biology, the last thing I read on evolution was the National Geographic issue that was entitled; Was Darwin wrong? (the answer in the article was no)). But it didn't address my understanding of the issue. I do believe in Micro evolution and natural selection. However Macro evolution to me is pervasive as can we actually observe it? Do we then change what the actual facts are to suit the theory? Is macro-evolution an observable phenomenon? I have as yet been unable to read Darwkins books (I'm very poor atm, so am unsure if he address the above or the issues I will list below). My A-level understanding of biology also tells me that; you can't gain genetic code, that is to say if something mutates it either keeps the same ammount of genetic information or loses some genetic information. For evolution to be possable surley you need the ability to gain genetic information? And have we ever observed any organism gain genetic information from mutation/natural selection? That concludes my questions for now.

[Achilles]

I do believe in Micro evolution and natural selection.

The quick tour looks something like this (I'll take liberties with some of the factors to make this less than 50,000 words, but not with the process itself).

 

All present life shares a common ancestor. As living things replicate, small "copying errors" occur. This is especially true in complex life forms that have DNA. Take you for instance: half your genetic code came from your mother and half from your father. Your genome is unique and not an exact replica of either parent.

 

That genetic code is incredibly long and even though the code itself is relatively simple (DNA only uses 4 amino acids), copying errors do occur from time to time. From 2 genomes, a completely unique 3rd genome was created. Information was added. Because of the fact that copying errors occur, mutations are a reality.

 

So two groups of lifeforms that are genetically compatible (i.e. from the same species and able to mate/reproduce with one another) become separated. One ends up in the desert and one ends up near the sea. The group near the desert reproduces, adding new possible combinations of genes each generation.

 

Suppose each generation is then categorized in three groups: Group 1 has no mutations. Their genomes are unique, but no copying errors occurred. They are 100% capable of reproducing with other members of the species. Group 2 did have copying errors, so there code has mutations. They are 99% able to reproduce with other members of the species. Group 3 also had mutations and are 99% able to reproduce with other members of the species.

 

Over time, the mutations from Group 2 are shown not to add any competitive advantage. The species depends on running for survival and the mutations in Group 2 include one guy with shorter legs, another with less cartilage between joints, a third with smaller lung capacity, a fourth with diminished motor skills, etc. Nothing obvious, but just enough to increase the probability that they are the ones that get eaten if the group is being chased.

 

Group 3 however has the exact opposite problem. Their mutations provided cases of longer legs, increased cartilage between joints, increased lung capacity, or slightly increased motor skills. These guys are going to be just a little bit faster than Group 1 and a lot faster than Group 2.

 

But instead of just assuming that all of Group 2 are going to get eaten while Group 3 and most of Group 1 run to safety, suppose that some of the members of Group 2 got better eyesight along with their bad knees. They couldn't run as fast, but they could spot predators better than any other member of the species. Maybe they were born pale, and while mocked by other members of the species, were better able to blend in to the environment (later to be picked off by nocturnal predators ).

 

Similarly, suppose that someone in Group 3 got crappy hearing so they couldn't hear the warnings when their compatriots tried to warn them that they were about to run face-first into a tree. The mutation that gave them long legs also shortened their arms and they were no longer able to feed themselves, so they died before reproducing.

 

Time goes on. Some of the species die before they are able to reproduce because they are ill-suited for the environment. Others survive and have lots of offspring because they are better suited to the environment. Group 1 never changes. Each generation, slight mutations occur and those with mutations are just a little less capable of reproducing with the original un-mutated species. After 50 generations or so, some new members or the species are no longer able to reproduce with members of Group 1. We now have a new species.

 

Suppose that while this is going on, similar things are happening with the group that was separate toward the sea. Knowing that the mutations in the group are going to be different that those in the desert group, we can safely predict that it will only take 25 generations (possibly less) before some members of the sea group are able to reproduce from members of the desert group. Where we had 1 species before, we now have 3 or even more.

 

I'm not going to drone on anymore here, but hopefully I've given you enough of the picture that you can begin to run with it. Let me know if anything is unclear or if I skipped step that would have aided with understanding.

 

However Macro evolution to me is pervasive as can we actually observe it?

<snip>

Is macro-evolution an observable phenomenon?

Is the question: Have we observed so-called "macro evolution" (a creationists term)?

 

The answer is yes, via the fossil record. Creationist tend to refute this evidence because the fossil record is incomplete.

 

Apparently A,B, hypothesized C, partial record of D, E, F, G, hypothesized H, etc is not sufficient to convince some that there is an alphabet. However the magical creation of Z is a completely plausible alternative and should be blindly accepted because a book written more than 2000 years ago tell us that we should (even thought there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Z was magically created and scientific evidence shows that a relationship to the other 25 letters does exist).

 

My A-level understanding of biology also tells me that; you can't gain genetic code, that is to say if something mutates it either keeps the same ammount of genetic information or loses some genetic information.

Quick recap of above.

 

If I have 1-2-3 and I want to add additional information, I don't have to tack on a 4, I can simply re-sequence the numbers as 3-2-1, 2-1-3, 2-3-1, etc. This is precisely how additional information is created within species.

 

Side-note: Humans actually have one fewer chromosome pair than apes (we have 46, they have 48). However if you look at chromosome 2, you can tell that at some point in our genetic history, a copying error (mutation) caused two chromosomes to become fused. Meaning at some point, humans had the same number of chromosomes as they do. Hmmm...

 

Sorry for the length.

[Achilles]

How Sharks Hide Their Fingers

The genetic potential to create fingers and toes apparently existed ages before animals even crawled onto land, dating back to the distant common ancestors of sharks and humans, research now reveals.

Link

[damian622]

(...)I don't see God and evolution as incompatible.

Well, I see. If evolution is fact, that means God work was beta (or maybe even alpha...) and needs upgrading/patching. Do Good Creator release not full product (yes, that's also comment about LucasArts due to TSL Restoration Product )?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Impossible odds are still impossible odds.

Well, as people have very likely pointed out to you, there's nothing special with one specific result. Evolution being what it is, it's only natural that a great diversity results. We're only one of many possible outcomes.

 

I mean, I just threw a reduced stack of 28 cards to the floor. Then I picked them up and stacked them as I retrieved them. The resulting sequence of cards came about randomly. Yet, I can list the sequence and go 'wow, what are the odds of this sequence, out of so many possibilities, coming about? The odds are too great!'. But still, I threw them to the ground and picked up and stacked them randomly, with no intention of creating any sort of system.

 

And even if you decide that there was divine interventions behind the enormous odds, they're still near-impossible odds. The problem remains. I mean, God is almighty, right? He had an infinite range of combinations to choose from? What are the odds he would choose this one? Still 'impossible'.

[PoiuyWired]

Well, I see. If evolution is fact, that means God work was beta (or maybe even alpha...) and needs upgrading/patching. Do Good Creator release not full product (yes, that's also comment about LucasArts due to TSL Restoration Product )?

 

How do I file a bug report?

 

So, we are supposed to be happy that we don't get BSOD everyday? How do I switch to Linux?

[The Source]

Evolution and God are interesting subjects. Personally, I believe that mankind did evolve into what we are now. Even though we may have started off small, God was still involved with the whole proccess. We can go into Christianity conundrums, but that is a conversation for another thread. I don't believe that mankind will ever figure out what God did, but we will come very close in figuring out the complexities of our species. You never really know. Maybe the key to our existance is on a planet far, far, far away.

[Arcesious]

I guess we'll see what the 'great mystery' really is someday won't we. personnally, i can't wait to see Chrisitanity proven solidly correct, but that'll neve rhappen at this rate. we'll just have to see what happens in the end of all things.

[PoiuyWired]

Evolution and God are interesting subjects. Personally, I believe that mankind did evolve into what we are now. Even though we may have started off small, God was still involved with the whole proccess. We can go into Christianity conundrums, but that is a conversation for another thread. I don't believe that mankind will ever figure out what God did, but we will come very close in figuring out the complexities of our species. You never really know. Maybe the key to our existance is on a planet far, far, far away.

 

Thw "we are aliens from outterspace" Theory? Interesting that someone brought it up.

 

Also, there are theories of the earlier humanoids interbreeding with each other and things like that. But I don't have enough knowledge of these currently.

[The Source]

Thw "we are aliens from outterspace" Theory? Interesting that someone brought it up.

 

Also, there are theories of the earlier humanoids interbreeding with each other and things like that. But I don't have enough knowledge of these currently.

If you follow the logic of Christianity, you will find that Adam's and Eve's children did some interbreeding. Ouch. I hear several people screaming now. Lol...

 

When it comes to our species starting on another planet, the possibility is definately there to theorize. Since asteroids hit Earth constantly, what if the one that killed the dinos brought our bacteria. Otherwords, the asteroid hit and killed all life on Earth, but it dropped the basis for our biological beginnings. All it needed was something that existed allready on Earth, and then it started a process of evolution that created current mankind.

 

With one big yell everyone in the Christian community screamed, "You call yourself a Christian?" Lol... It is okay to be a Christian and have these thoughts. No one is going to kill me when I get to heaven. Hehehehe....

[Achilles]

Since asteroids hit Earth constantly, what if the one that killed the dinos brought our bacteria. Otherwords, the asteroid hit and killed all life on Earth, but it dropped the basis for our biological beginnings. All it needed was something that existed allready on Earth, and then it started a process of evolution that created current mankind.

Small mammal already existed when the dinos were wiped out. They were better adapted to the new environment so they survived while most everything else died. It's not as though life started over from scratch

 

EDIT: More info here if you're interested.

 

and yes, in order for the origin myth of Adam and Eve to be true, there would have had to have been some incest. Ewww.

[Jvstice]

Adam and Eve's children, and also Noah's children both had to commit incest, because Genesis describes humankind as only having one family on all Earth left twice. Not to mention that Abraham was married to his half sister, Isaac married his cousin, and Jacob also married his cousin.

 

Something interesting about evolution. Has anyone else here ever heard of the concept of ring species? There are a number of bird species that are divided into many populations that encircle the globe. These populations overlap each other in their physical locations so that the members of one population are capable of reproducing with those adjacent to them on each side, but no other members of their species other than their own population. So on and so forth all the way around the world.

 

If you eliminate any population group of a ring species anywhere in the world, then the two groups adjacent to the wiped out population can't breed with one another. If you did this to any two non- adjacent populations, you make what was 1 species into two, because it becomes impossible for the populations on one side of the divide from exchanging DNA with those on the other side. In essence, you will have created a "new" species.

 

Anyway, I'll post more specifically related to human ancestors later if anyone's interested.

[Arcesious]

I don't fully beleive evolution is correct, but soem parts of it are still correct. i don't believe macro evolution is real, and i will make my points with what scientific knowledge i have. it is a factual science but still a theory.

 

Macro Evolution:

Are fossils proof enough? have we ever actually recovered some perfectly intact DNA strnad sform what remains of the dinosours instead of looking at other animals and saying the chicken is related to the Tyranasurus Rex, or some repilian lizard is related to an amphibian through evolution? do we actually have solid truth of macro evolution where no important bits or peices of vital evolutionary genomes are missing?

 

Micro Evolution:

What has this been tested on? so far i've only heard it's from bacteria ans such, which are completely unrelated to other forms of larger living things, which i will explain later? Is interspecies intercourse of flies and bacteria even proof of true micro evolution when it is from two completely different species that aren't even of the smae family?

 

Here are my sicnetific points:

 

Two big dogs- AA and AA, breed and make aa, a smaller dog. Aa and Aa are heavily mixed parents, making an aA breed, having genetic disorders- which is not evolution as far as i can tell.

 

Bacteria types A and B have never had contact with each other, and are not of the same family, but are of the same Phylum. Type B dies out, and type A makes Type B bacteria. that isn't evolution because of this:

Bacteria and such are a special Phyla, completely different genetic setup than other Phylas. They naturally have randomized genetic codes, a form of natural slection, but not evolution itself. They are the closest thing to evolution however.

 

Now, slightly more complex things:

Interspecies intercourse- not evolution.

 

Species AA and BB mate. BB overrides most of AA's genetic codes. Species Xx breeds with species yY, and you have a perfect cross, at least i think that's how it works when that happens. Species yY has genetic disorders due to heavy mixing of different creatures of it's same species, the yY not being natural, as it should go Yy, yy, or YY.

Those two species mate, and you Get Either XY or YX, or that in lowercase xy, yx, or xY, yX. Normally species Y should overide species X, but if the gnetic disorder causeds the lowercase or the higher starting letter, the lower starting letter that is capital is the dominant gene.

None of that is evolution. Natural slection is the DNA slection of compltely new genes without mating thugh interpsieces or identical species.

Human DNA study has revieled i think about 2 Billion possible genome combination in DNA already, and all of that appears to not be evolutionary- it is of different races of Humans mixing their DNA through their children so much that disorders happen that appear to be evolution. so far, the only way evolution can work is interspecies intercourse. now don't worry, i'm not trying to disprove evolution itself, as you saw with my explanation of bacteria, that is a form of evolution that is real.

 

if species Dd and dD mated, you'd have a perfect cross, likely resulting in multple offspring. but if this happened, i'm not fully sure on this one though, but i'll still explain it: DD mated with DE, you'd get evolutionary traits longer along the line. the DE was recived by interspeices intecourse, but if gene DE was De, the e would not override the normally less dominant D. If DE still was mated, the mixture over time could result in evolution.

 

In conclusion, what i've seen is that only Interspexcies intercourse and specil genetic setups can result in evolution. The T-rex had to mate with a bird dinosour to eventually have the Chicken as a relative. Bacteria is a totally different setup than the normal double-helix DNA right? or wait? is it or did i get something wrong with that? Correct me if that's wrong. There you go- my views on what's right and wrong of evolution. I am not the best at science, so if i've made some mistakes, i am open to correction of them.

 

here's just a radom idea: what if humans never evolved? what if they were the first species, like Chrisitnaity says? how would that effect evolution if it was proved true? I'm not going to get into religion though, so don't worry- that's just a idea to throw out here.

 

(i sorta copied and edited this from another thread i made)

[Jvstice]

Arcesious: a very basic example of microevolution can be found if you look up Biston betularia. It's the first example you run across in any basic college biology course. It's not a crossbreed. It's something that naturally happened to a moth species twice, immediately after the industrial revolution began in england and soot piled up on everything, and a century or two later, when environmental clean up lead to the original habitat of the species being restored.

 

Bacterial reproduction is very different than for large multicellular organisms because sexual reproduction for them is the exception and not the rule. In most animals, plants, and fungi at least, that is not the case. In asexual reproduction (which you find prevalently in the bacteria) the offspring are genetic clones of their parents. All differences from their parents and siblings are mistakes in copying their genetic template during reproduction.

 

Over time, this led to different cell lineages of bacteria, and eventually what we call different species. That is why every bacteria is not like every other. Of course, the term species as it applies to bacteria is somewhat arbitrary in that their exchange of genetic material can occur between species, and is not a part of their regular reproduction.

 

here's just a radom idea: what if humans never evolved? what if they were the first species, like Chrisitnaity says? how would that effect evolution if it was proved true?

If we were the first species the way some people who misinterpret genesis literally claim, then we could place no faith whatsoever in the fossil record, in any method of radioactive dating (and probably physics), in archeology as a science, in biology as a science (including the sciences of medicine, genetics, proteinomics, evolutionary biology & psychology, comparative anatomy, and more), and there'd have been few good effects from having left the Roman Catholic Church for most Europeans (because most of their claims were right, because there'd be little moral arguement against the divine right of kings or that God doesn't want divine theocracy). Also, the universe cannot be a lawful, reasonable place, (because we cannot rely on physics, and it only runs because of constant effort to maintain the system by God) and even what we regard as universal law could turn against us at any moment killing all of humanity on a whim.

 

Have I touched on everything? I think that's all the major points....

[Arcesious]

Huh... interesting. So those moths evolved to adapt to the industrial revolution eh? just to be sure- did they mate with another similar species or not? If they did, then they didn't evolve, the simply adaped?

 

Here's another idea:

 

This is the only way i think evolulution can work:

 

A red bird and a blue brid mate and get a purple bird. the purple bird still retains what those two had, but it's offspring always mate with the red bird. eventually, say a ton of mattings later, the gene of the blue bird becoems dominat again, and you get a lighter shade of the blue bird, the blue bird being msotly of the red bird species, but being a different new species.

 

Of course, as i've seen- evolution uses natural selection- where the genes are selected without mating, and then used at mating to produce a new species. but i haven't seen anything do that yet, besides bacteria. still, these evolutions that species have not seemed to be from the phylum of mammalia at all. therefore, i find no proof that apes or whatevver type of monkey it was were relate to humans when we don't actually know the evolutionary genome as of yet. my other question is this: i huans did evolve, why didn' all the apes or whatever monkey it was evolve along with them over those many, many, years?

 

I honestly don't like the idea of my ancestors beings apes. it just seems so.... wierd.

here's onother question out in the open: What if earth isn't as old as many people think it is? what if the geology info of it being millions and billion s of years old is wrong? i find evolution textbooks kinda odd when they say this:

'The ape didn't evolve for billions of years' and later in the textbook 'the ape didn't evolve for millions of years' and then it says 'trillions of years ago...' -just make up their minds when it evolved- or do the evolutionists not even have an exact timeframe and are just guessing by fossils only and havn't discovered the evolutionary genome?

 

I think that earth is only about ten thousand years old- as our sun isn't going blue yet- and if it was billions and trillions of years ago, wouldn't it be blue by now? and if it was billions and trillions of years ago- wouldn't the moons be about twice as far away from earth than it is now, as via the discovery that the moon moves just slightly farther out of orbit each year? explain that to me.