The human-chimpanzee common ancestor model: The issues.

[Fearisgood]

Evolution theory predicts that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor in the past. There are however issues that have to be addressed. Please stay on topic and within the boundaries of the headings provided.

1) The fossil issues.
a. What is the most recent lineage? Humans chimps gibbons Australopithecus etc…
b. Fraud
c. Type of “evidence”
2) The molecular issues.
a. Actual difference
b. Deleterious mutation rate
c. Brain evolution

1) The fossil issues.
a. What is the most recent lineage? Humans, chimps, gibbons Australopithecus etc…
Can anyone provide their version of human-chimp common ancestor lineage (not links, just their lineage in point form). It should be interesting to compare the common ancestor lineages that people adhere to on this board. The common reply to this question is “It is a work in progress and this is how science works”. Fair enough, then it should be part of hypothesis testing not theory.
The lineage seems to change like fog adapts to the landscape.

Now did we evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor, or were they already upright, and chimps and orangutans evolved to a knuckle-walking lifestyle? Morotopithecus seemed to have walked upright.
Rowan Hooper. Four legs new, two legs much older. New Scientist 194.2607 (June 9, 2007): p18(2).

Was Lucy a human ancestor or a gorilla ancestor? Looks like a gorilla to me…
Reference and abstract

Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths.
Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Apr 17;104(16):6568-72.

Abstract
Mandibular ramus morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans. Because modern humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, and many other primates share a ramal morphology that differs from that of gorillas, the gorilla anatomy must represent a unique condition, and its appearance in fossil hominins must represent an independently derived morphology. This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor. The ramal anatomy of the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus is virtually that of a chimpanzee, corroborating the proposed phylogenetic scenario.

(emphasis me)

Where does Ardipithecus fit in this fairytale? What happened to Homo habilis? Were was the earliest spilt, or were there a split, hybridization and again a split? What can one really empirically see from a few bones? Facial reconstruction success from bones for humans without any other information is still minimal, never mind million year old fragmented fossils .

b. Fraud
Fraud in the human origins debate is well documented. Piltdown Man seems to be the one that comes to mind first.
Others:
German anthropologist, Professor Reiner Potsch von Zieten’s career has now ended in disgrace after the revelation that he systematically falsified the dates on a 36,000-year-old skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg this and numerous other stone-age relicts (Harding, 2005). The crucial skull fragment, once believed to have come from the world’s oldest Neanderthal, has now been determined to be a mere 7,500 years old, according to the Oxford University radiocarbon dating unit. After redating the evidence, it was concluded that he had methodically falsified the dates on numerous artifacts: he had simply made up the dates to fit his theories. Testing revealed that all the skulls dated by Potsch were, in fact, much younger than he had claimed. His deceptions were so serious that it may mean an entire tranche of the history of man’s development will have to be rewritten

One of the most pungent cases of fraud involved paleontologist Viswat Jit Gupta who discovered a treasure trove of fossils that made astonishing additions to the faunal lists of species in the area he worked (Talent, 1989). After extensive investigation researchers concluded that Professor Viswat Jit Gupta salted the area with fossils, evidently stolen from teaching collections. He published close to 300 papers about the finds over a period of 25 years all of which are now in doubt. Talent (1989) concludes, as a result of this case, the database for the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic of the Himalayas has, as a consequence of these publications, become so marred by inconsistency as to throw grave doubts on the scientific validity of any conclusions that might be drawn from it. Because the biostratigraphical underpinning of so much Himalayan stratigraphy is in question, the credibility of many years of labour by numerous geologists is at stake. (non-human origin fraud)

Evolutionists are at times very candid, such as Johanson's admission that now "nobody really places a great deal of faith in any human evolution tree" (Morell, 1995; p. 546) Yet, many of their arguments are over this tree, which seems to change with each new find. The reason is that construction of these trees is based on evidence that is so flimsy and fragmentary that a wide variety of interpretations is possible which in turn is a major explanation for the many heated conflicts that have characterized paleoanthropology. There are so little hard data that most of the findings can be construed in several different ways.

References:
1) Controversy in paleoanthropology
2) Harding, L. 2005. History of modern man unravels as German scholar is exposed as fraud. The Guardian, Saturday, February 19.
3) Talent, J. 1989. The case of the peripatetic fossils. Nature 338:613-615.
4) Morell, V. 1995. Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Families and the Quest for Humankind’s Beginnings. New York: Simon and Schuster.


Here is a funny version of the following transcript describing the interpretation of an Australopithecine fossil find.

DON JOHANSON: We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up [we know we can count on reliable evolutionary propagandist Lovejoy to not let us down!]. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't [here's an actual quote from Johanson: "I knew, though, that I had to prove myself by finding some hominids or the money would dry up." - Johanson, Ancestors- In Search of Human Origins, pg. 51]. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized [suddenly a clever story popped into his head how he could make a man out of a monkey and keep Don's funding flowing!]

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization. [and hence the fairytale was "afoot"!]

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore. [ROTFL!!!! Maybe it was bigfoot!]

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position [since it is chimp-like, but we can't have that, or Don's funding will dry up and he won't be able to pay me!]

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost [My buddy Lovejoy came up with a good tale, to keep my funding flowing! Yes! I think I'll sing a Beatles song!]. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. [that is, to a human-like shape!] He didn't want to tamper with the original [ROTFL! tamper was a good way to put it!] so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. [ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!] It was a tricky job [no, it was a bad joke masquerading as science], but after taking the kink out of the pelvis [Someone needs to check the kink in Lovejoy's brain], it all fit together perfectly [ah, but of course!], like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. [and hence I would get more funding! We'll put Piltman down to shame!].

Looking at the fraud and wild imaginations, i think it is fare to ask: How much of human origins and origins in general is imagination and how much is objective, empirical science?

 

[Fearisgood]

c. Type of “evidence”?
Because fossil evidence accounts for less than 10 percent of the animal, it can be interpreted in many ways, even in the rare situation where a skeleton is relatively complete. Lucy, for example, is one of the most complete skeletons to date, and around three quarters of it is missing. Most other finds consist of, at best, a few bone fragments or sometimes just teeth.

Here is an article were a fossil find is discussed. Reference and article

Oldest Human Femur Wades Into Controversy. Science. 2004 Sep 24;305(5692):1885. Gibbons A.
PARIS. Tempers flared last week in a sweltering salon at the French Academy of Sciences here as scientists hotly debated the attributes of anthropology's most famous thighbone, the 6-million-year-old femur of an ancient Kenyan hominid called Orrorin tugenensis. More than 100 scholars packed the academy's opulent, wood-paneled Grande Salle to witness the first face-to-face gathering of the discoverers of the three oldest putative hominids. In talks and a panel discussion, the researchers discussed whether Orrorin and other contenders for the title of earliest human ancestor walked upright and in what manner. Bipedalism is a traditional hallmark of membership in the human family rather than being an ancestor of chimpanzees gorillas, or quadrupedal apes. The speakers were particularly interested in learning more about Orrorin's legs. Paleontologist Brigitte Senut of the National Museum of Natural History in Paris presented recently published computed tomography (CT) scans of Orrorina's thighbone (Science, 3 September, p. 1450). According to Senut, the scans sho that the bone is thicker on the bottom of the subhorizontal neck of the femur, indicating that weight was put on the top of the bone. Other features also suggest that the hips were stabilized in a manner similar to those of modern humans. In fact, Senut proposed that Orrorina's gait was more humanlike than that of the 2- to 4-million-year-old australopithecines. If so, australopithecines would be bumped off the direct line to humans a dramatic revision of our prehistory.
But paleoanthropologist Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, immediately attacked this view of Orrorin. He said that the resolution of the CT scans was so poor that it was impossible to be certain of the pattern of bone thickness. CT scan expert James Ohman of Liverpool John Moores University in the U.K., who was not a the meeting, agreed that the published scans were taken at the wrong angle. White further grilled Senut about the fossil analysis, asking if her team had directly measured the internal structure of the bone at a preexisting break, a more reliable means of gathering the data than CT scanning. Senut responded that colleagues had suggested doing the scans to make her case stronger an added in an interview that the bone was broken in a zigzag pattern that made it difficult to photograph. In her view, other features on the bone make it clear that Orrorin had
walked uprighta'so there was no need to unglue the bone and measure it. White accepts that Orrorin walked upright and so is one of the first members of the hominid family. But he says Senut has offered little evidence as to Orrorinas gait. "Was it human, an Australopithecus pattern, or something different?â€� he asked. Even standard x-rays would help answer that question. As the discussion grew more heated, White called Senutss displacement of australopithecines "une position créationniste," because it suggests that Orrorinas femur was quite modern 6 million years ago, rather than evolving in stages. Senut declared indignantly that she is not a creationist and then asked White to provide his own evidence about the mysterious Ardipithecus ramidus. A partial skeleton of that 4.4-million-year-old species was discovered by White’s team, the Middle Awash Research Project, in Ethiopia from 1994 to 1996, but the bones remain unpublished. White responded by projecting images of the Ardipithecus skull for the first time in public. The CT scans were startling: The skull was so crushed that the top of the vault was smashed almost to the base, forming a slab of hundreds of chalky pieces. White described it as "road kill"..The reconstruction uses microCT scans to reassemble the specimen. This is the most fragile hominid skeleton ever found," says White. We are very sorry it's taken us this long to do, but I think you want the right answer instead of the quick answer.ANN GIBBONS

Wow, a whole hypothesis based on a few teeth and a fragmented femur (road kill). Shocking… But hey it must be science.

Another reason for so much controversy is that new fossil discoveries are rarely shared with other scientists for years, if ever, due to concerns over publishing priorities. Typically, to get full credit for a discovery, the finder must hoard the fossil for a decade or more before allowing others to study it so that he can publish first.
An additional consideration is that these fossils are generally very fragile and easily broken working with them tends to damage them. Consequently, most researchers have access to only photographs or, at best, casts. In view of this fact, it is not surprising that major disagreements are common. Most anthropologists must rely only on descriptions and interpretations put forward by the discoverer of the fossils the very person who has a vested interest in proving his own theories.

2) The molecular issues.
a) Actual difference
In October 2006, Time magazine trumpeted that humans and chimps were 98% similar on the genetic level (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283,00.html). Where did they get the 98% from? Well it was not from the peer-reviewed papers at the time or they decided to only tell half the truth?

The best available article at the time:
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome.
The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium
Nature 437, 69–87 (1 September 2005)
(can be found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/chimpgenome/index.html

From the article:
Abstract:

Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our last common ancestor, constituting approximately 35-million single-nucleotide changes, 5 million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangments.

In the article

On the basis of this analysis, we estimate that the human and
chimpanzee genomes each contain 40–45Mb of species-specific euchromatic sequence, and the indel differences between the genomes
thus total , 90Mb.

Indels are insertions or deletions. When you look at one genome and compare it to another and there is a section that humans have and the chimpanzees don't they call that an insertion, if it's absent then it's a deletion.

There are also roughly 20MB of chromosomal rearangement differences between human and chimp genomes (Including: homologous recombination 2MB, other large scale differences eg supposed fusion, pericentric inversions etc.)

Now lets add up the differences:
A ) Single-nucleotide change-- 35MB (this is probably the figure used by Time)
B ) Indels-- 90MB
C ) Chromosomal rearangements-- 20MB
= +- 145MB
Some more math: 145/3000*100= 4.833% more or less

So the similarity according to DNA sequence between the human and chimpanzee should be more or less 95.2%... a far cry from the 98-99% being perpetuated as the truth.

A more recent article described how human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4% [1]. Along the lineage leading to modern humans a gain of 689 genes and the loss of 86 genes since the split from chimpanzees was observed. In total it was found that more than half of the 9,990 families present in the mammalian common ancestor have either expanded or contracted along at least one lineage.
And a 17.4% difference was found in genes expressed in the cerebral cortex [2]

After the recent publication in Science magazine, John Cohen admitted that the inaccuracy of the statistic (99% similarity) was known from the start [3]. It was even predicted that there must be profound differences outside genes.
From the article [3]:

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,”

What exactly did he mean by "us"? At the end of the article Cohen states [3]:

“In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.”

and it certainly make you wonder.

Nothing stopped anyone from correcting the various editors and magazines of their mistakes or at least updating current estimates. The following quotes certainly makes you think... not of a conspiracy, but rather long-term negligence allowing falsehood and confusion to prevail with political and social undertones.

“For many, many years, the 1% difference served us well because it was underappreciated how similar we were,”

Could researchers combine all of what’s known and come up with a precise percentage difference between humans and chimpanzees? “I don’t think there’s any way to calculate a number,” says geneticist Svante Pääbo, a chimp consortium member based at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.”[3]

“In the end, it’s a political and social and cultural thing about how we see our differences.”[3]

References

 

[Fearisgood]

b) Deleterious mutation rate

In 2000, the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) was calculated (using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection) to be at least 3 [1]. This was done by comparing only pseudogenes in humans and chimpanzees. U value estimates in Escherichia coli, Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans were estimated (using observable living organisms, not a hypothetical common ancestor model) to be 0.0002, 0.2-1 and 0.005 respectively[3,4,5]. For U =3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, meaning each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects given by 1-e^U [6]. Can this be reconciled with current observation? Synergistic epistasis and truncation selection are added as ad hoc explanations for this high U-value, and it seems unlikely that it is the case as well.

The way indels are calculated in the deleterious mutation rate is also a topic of discussion. Indels give a 90MB difference (by far the biggest) but only 5 million length mutation (indels) events are incorporated into the deleterious mutation calculation.
Larger insertions (> 15 kb) were identified in 163 human regions containing 8.3 Mb of the human-specific sequence and a whopping 73% (approx. 70,000) of the indels are larger than 80 bp. That alone should be cause for concern because supposedly junk DNA also gets transcribed. Cells also make RNA copies of many other sections of DNA and none of the extra RNA fragments gets translated into proteins [7]. And it does not seem that they are produced by darwinian accident. They might be functioning like microRNA’s or RNAi’s (RNA interference)[7]. The notion that some DNA might be “junk” or leftovers of evolution is an evolutionary ignorant idea. Thing is, we don’t know the function, but it does not mean it is useless. This is the “vestigial organ” myth all over again.
Also, length mutations (indels) have the lowest mutation rate at 2.3 x 10^-9. They are 10 times less common than single substitutions.
If each of the 90MB indel difference was calculated as a single mutation, the U-value would be disastrous for the hypothesis. The already extremely high U-value would be unexplainable.

The problem is simple enough, since our common ancestor there would have had to be 35 million single base substitutions. That comes to 140 per diploid generation (7 per year) for 5 million years. That is in addition to 1 indel 14 base pairs long per year for the same amount of time and the vast majority of these would have to be fixed. FIXED being the operative word. Reconcile this with observation.

1. Nachman MW, Crowell SL. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics. 2000 Sep;156(1):297-304.
2. Thread
3. Kibota, T. T., and M. Lynch, 1996 Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli. Nature 381: 694-696.
4. Fry, J. D., P. D. Keightley, S. L. Heinsohn and S. V. Nuzhdin, 1999 New estimates of the rates and effects of mildly deleterious
mutation in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 96: 574–579
5. Keightley, P. D., and A. Caballero, 1997 Genomic mutation rates for lifetime reproductive output and lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 3823–3827.
6. Kimura, M., 1968 Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature. 217: 624–626
7. Andy Coghlan. 'Junk' DNA makes compulsive reading. New Scientist 194.2608 (June 16, 2007): p20(1).

c. Brain evolution

Let’s look at one of the many lineages available. Look at the one at wiki for interest sake.
From there and other sources one can see the following line:
A. Afarensis with a cranial capacity of +-430cc lived about 3.5 mya. (Which in the above mentioned article seems to have been removed)
A. Africanus with a cranial capacity of +-480cc lived 3.3-2.5 mya.
P. aethiopicus with a cranial capacity of 410cc lived about 2.5 mya.(Supposed chimp ancestor)
P. boisei with a cranial capacity of 490-530cc lived between 2.3-1.2 mya. (Supposed chimp ancestor)
OH 5 'Zinj" with a cranial capacity of 530cc lived 1.8 mya.
KNM ER 406 with a cranial capacity of 510cc lived 1.7 million years ago.
And then KNM-WT 15000 (Turkana Boy) 1.5 million years ago had a cranial capacity of 880cc.
"The skeleton was about 1.60 m (5 ft 3 in) tall, although he might have been 68 kg (150 lb) and 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in) tall had he lived to adulthood. The total skeleton is made up of 108 bones accounted for. The cranial capacity of Turkana Boy was about 880 cc, although if he had lived to adulthood, it would have been about 910 cc"
Turkana Boy, Wikipedia LINK
Then other supposed human ancestors. [1]
Hexian 412,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,025cc.
ZKD III (Skull E I) 423,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 915cc.
ZKD II (Skull D I) 585,000 years old had a cranial capacity of 1,020cc
ZKD X (Skull L I) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,225cc
ZKD XI (Skull L II) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,015cc
ZKD XII (Skull L III) 423,000 years ago had a cranial capacity of 1,030cc
Sm 3 >100,000 years ago had a cranial 917cc

The brain weight would have had to grow by 250% while the body only grows by 20%. The average brain weight would have to go from 400-450g, 2 1/2 mya to 1350–1450 g 0.2–0.4 my, and it looked like it miraculously almost doubled overnight (between 1.7 and 1.5mya) and stayed just about stationary for 1 million years.

Despite all the molecular studies that have been done so far, no evidence have been found to suggest how this brain expansion might have occurred if we had a common ancestor. Equally mysterious is that by some other evolutionary process the Neanderthals developed a cranial capacity 10% greater than our own. Also we have virtually no chimpanzee ancestors to compare the cranial capacity to. That is because every ape skull unearthed in Africa and Asia is automatically celebrated as one of our ancestors in a desperate attempt to find this mythical transitional apeman.

What is the genetic basis for the threefold expansion of the human brain in 2 1/2 million years?
An interesting gene is the HARF1 gene. And the 118bp HAR1 (human accelerated region 1, named so because it “looks” like accelerated evolution occurred there) region [2]. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our supposed “ancestor”,“supposedly” 310 million years ago. With an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes, indicates that something special is going on there. Another interesting genes is ASPM.

Researchers are unanimous in admitting that they have no clue how the most significant human trait was produced and yet insist that the case for a common ancestor has been made.

References
1) Endocranial Cast of Hexian Homo erectus from South China, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 130:445–454. 2006)
2)Pollard K. et al. An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. Advanced electronic publishing. Nature. August 16, 2006.
3) Zhang J. Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size. Evolution of the Human ASPM Gene, a Major Determinant of Brain Size.


To conclude:
Where are our up-right walking cousins? According to evolution, adaptive radiation among species occurs as they evolve. This adaptive radiation produces “cousins” that are very similar to each other. Cats are an example of adaptive radiation with the different varieties. Varieties such as lions, tigers, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars etc., all of which are said to be closely related. All of which are still extant.

According to the evolution, like the cats, the variety of so-called not to distantly removed animal species “cousins” have happened with just about every genera. What about man? Man has no close extant relatives such as the cats and many other highly successful species currently do.

Considering man has been so successful with their big head and newly found hands to make tools, speech and so on, you would think that his family tree would have a few close branches representing his “cousins” adaptively radiating from it. BUT IT DOESN'T. Apparently this success meant extinction for man’s cousins, despite ALL the evolutionary models that say there should be other successful up-right walkers still around.

Of all of the claimed pre-humans in the so-called evolutionary lineage, a few of them should have evolved through a similar but different branch and still be with us. The branch radiating out with one limb becoming human and the other limb some other closely related human like animal.

You might be able to point to some fragmented skull and say, look here's a potential off shoot, a neandertal, buts that's about all she wrote. They stopped dead. Despite his newly found hands to make tools, bigger brain, speech and so on that gave him an advantage to survive.

It appears that man’s branch on the tree has no successful offshoots, not even a twig.... no signs of adaptive radiation...WE’RE ALONE!

So I ask those that believe we had a common ancestor...where are our up-right walking cousins? Why is our closest so called cousin still a knuckle dragging chimp. Why did they mutate so fast? How did our brain get so big? How much of human origins is empirical science or imaginary storytelling?

Supposition is not Science, it's speculation.
Gravity is observable science, molecules to man evolution is the science of story-telling.

 

[Fearisgood]

References of post nr.2 (Only 10000 characters allowed)
1) Demuth JP, Bie TD, Stajich JE, Cristianini N, Hahn MW. The evolution of Mammalian gene families. PLoS ONE. 2006 Dec 20;1:e85.
2) Oldham MC, Horvath S, Geschwind DH. Conservation and evolution of gene coexpression networks in human and chimpanzee brains. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Nov 21;103(47):17973-8. Epub 2006 Nov 13.
3) Jon Cohen, News Focus on Evolutionary Biology, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science, 29 June 2007: Vol. 316. no. 5833, p. 1836, DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5833.1836.

Apologies for the 4 consecutive posts, couldn't fit into 1 post.

 

[Skeptik]

Some people look like monkeys. If visual evidence were enough, I would say we are not that far ahead.

 

[rwenzori]

You probably need an expert in the field to debate all these points. One cr@p part of your post is the insinuation that evolutionary theory is twaddle because there have been frauds in the past. That is a non sequitur. I assume your post is one of those typical attacks on evolutionary theory by the god-botherers. It is an easy target. It seems to me that, to use an analogy, the whole picture is a 20,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, of which we have maybe 100 pieces. Of course things will look a bit wrong - but it does not mean that there is no picture.

 

[cyghost]

I'd agree with rwenzori but will give this a fair bash once I have some more time.

An immediate thought on fraud ~ The beauty of science is that fraud will be ousted and while the temptation and the pressure must be truly daunting at times, it is inconceivable that a major conspiracy or blanket blackout will ever be possible. Other than creationism, ID and the like, science is self correcting and adaptable. To upset the apple cart is the dream of any true scientist, therein lies Nobel prizes and recognition.

Creationism by it's very nature is not very adaptable or flexible now is it?

An immediate second thought is to ask what would you replace the Theory of Evolution with? Given that evolution is a fact that we can observe we need something to fit the observable and predictable evidence. Godditit is not practical as there is no evidence for God to exist in the first place.

 

[Nick333]

You probably need an expert in the field to debate all these points. One cr@p part of your post is the insinuation that evolutionary theory is twaddle because there have been frauds in the past. That is a non sequitur. I assume your post is one of those typical attacks on evolutionary theory by the god-botherers. It is an easy target. It seems to me that, to use an analogy, the whole picture is a 20,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, of which we have maybe 100 pieces. Of course things will look a bit wrong - but it does not mean that there is no picture.

This a favourite tactic of the Creationists. They write these long articles raising very technical issues that no one but an expert could really address. The thing is that these issues, while they may be interesting, aren't really fundamental to proving that evolution is a real process. So whether or not a human - chimp common ancestor model really qualifies as a theory or a hypothesis it doesn't disprove evolution as a whole.

The reason articles like this are written is that the average fundumbmentalist isn't interested in real arguments, they only want to be convinced that there is real scientific argument against evolution. Their belief or disbelief is decided on a purely emotional level. This is why this sort of article is always peppered with fallacious arguments like the one you spotted.

In fact the whole article is designed to force your average evolutionist into admitting that they don't actually subscribe to any particular human-chimp common ancestor model or even really know what the currant evidence for any such model is (although I assume that genetic evidence is pretty compelling).
The fact is that it doesn't actually matter. The proof for evolution is actually very simple and based on very simple facts. To be honest, evolution as a subject isn't incredibly interesting to me so I don't spend an incredible amount of time reading about it.

The same with Quantum Physics. Speaking of Quantum Physics no one really understands it at all, should we write it off as BS?

 

[Mr TB]

This a favourite tactic of the Creationists. They write these long articles raising very technical issues that no one but an expert could really address. The thing is that these issues, while they may be interesting, aren't really fundamental to proving that evolution is a real process. So whether or not a human - chimp common ancestor model really qualifies as a theory or a hypothesis it doesn't disprove evolution as a whole.

The reason articles like this are written is that the average fundumbmentalist isn't interested in real arguments, they only want to be convinced that there is real scientific argument against evolution. Their belief or disbelief is decided on a purely emotional level. This is why this sort of article is always peppered with fallacious arguments like the one you spotted.

In fact the whole article is designed to force your average evolutionist into admitting that they don't actually subscribe to any particular human-chimp common ancestor model or even really know what the currant evidence for any such model is (although I assume that genetic evidence is pretty compelling).
The fact is that it doesn't actually matter. The proof for evolution is actually very simple and based on very simple facts. To be honest, evolution as a subject isn't incredibly interesting to me so I don't spend an incredible amount of time reading about it.

The same with Quantum Physics. Speaking of Quantum Physics no one really understands it at all, should we write it off as BS?

Is this not interesting, when I made statements concerning the simple facts of concerning evolution I was advised of my lesser knowledge concerning the subject... not defendeing but accuse...
When you are approached from the technical side of the issue you wish not to defend it but rather accuse...

 

[Nick333]

Is this not interesting, when I made statements concerning the simple facts of concerning evolution I was advised of my lesser knowledge concerning the subject... not defendeing but accuse...
When you are approached from the technical side of the issue you wish not to defend it but rather accuse...

Dodo you know nothing about evolution. If as I suspect Fearisgoof is another one of your alias' you don't have the slightest clue about the subject and are trolling pure and simple.

Anyway no point arguing with an idiot. I don't have to understand the proof of the common ancestry between chimps and humans to understand the proof for evolution.

 

[Mr TB]

This a favourite tactic of the Creationists. They write these long articles raising very technical issues that no one but an expert could really address. The thing is that these issues, while they may be interesting, aren't really fundamental to proving that evolution is a real process. So whether or not a human - chimp common ancestor model really qualifies as a theory or a hypothesis it doesn't disprove evolution as a whole.

The reason articles like this are written is that the average fundumbmentalist isn't interested in real arguments, they only want to be convinced that there is real scientific argument against evolution. Their belief or disbelief is decided on a purely emotional level. This is why this sort of article is always peppered with fallacious arguments like the one you spotted.

In fact the whole article is designed to force your average evolutionist into admitting that they don't actually subscribe to any particular human-chimp common ancestor model or even really know what the currant evidence for any such model is (although I assume that genetic evidence is pretty compelling).
The fact is that it doesn't actually matter. The proof for evolution is actually very simple and based on very simple facts. To be honest, evolution as a subject isn't incredibly interesting to me so I don't spend an incredible amount of time reading about it.

The same with Quantum Physics. Speaking of Quantum Physics no one really understands it at all, should we write it off as BS?

The fact is that it doesn't actually matter. The proof for evolution is actually very simple and based on very simple facts. To be honest, evolution as a subject isn't incredibly interesting to me so I don't spend an incredible amount of time reading about it.

The forumite raised certain issues concerning the technical side of evolution , are you unable to debate the issues ?
Are your only option in defense concerning these matters unrealistic accusations?

To be honest, evolution as a subject isn't incredibly interesting to me so I don't spend an incredible amount of time reading about it.

May the quoted statement not rather be the real reason why you have not got any proper understanding of molecules to man evolution?

 

[Nick333]

The forumite raised certain issues concerning the technical side of evolution , are you unable to debate the issues ?
Are your only option in defense concerning these matters unrealistic accusations?

Unrealistic? You are known for having more than one nick. Whats unrealistic about you having yet another?

May the quoted statement not rather be the real reason why you have not got any proper understanding of molecules to man evolution?

This is exactly my point. The molecules to man thing is the perfect example of how fundumbmentalist read this sort of crap and latch on to an idea they have no real understanding of and harp on about it because they've been convinced its a really important issue that evolution collapses without.

Its actually exactly your style to post something like this.

 

[Fearisgood]

One cr@p part of your post is the insinuation that evolutionary theory is twaddle because there have been frauds in the past.

Did i say or insinuate evolutionary theory is "twaddle" because of fraud, or did i ask: "How much of human origins and origins in general is imagination and how much is objective, empirical science?".

I assume your post is one of those typical attacks on evolutionary theory by the god-botherers.

Issues... not attack. But if you feel this in an attack on your particular brand of faith, i'm sure you will be able to defend it, or are you going pull a "my priest said so, so it must be so and you are full of it" and refer to "scientists in general say it is so, so it must be so". You are then no better than the average fundamentalist, and cannot logicaly defend your position, if you even have a position.

An immediate thought on fraud ~ The beauty of science is that fraud will be ousted and while the temptation and the pressure must be truly daunting at times, it is inconceivable that a major conspiracy or blanket blackout will ever be possible.

No conspiracy or blanket blackout... rather "...long-term negligence allowing falsehood and confusion to prevail with political and social undertones".

Other than creationism, ID and the like, science is self correcting and adaptable. To upset the apple cart is the dream of any true scientist, therein lies Nobel prizes and recognition.

Henri Bergson "upset the applecart" and got a noble prize for...
Creative Evolution: An Anti-Darwin Theory Won a Nobel

Creationism by it's very nature is not very adaptable or flexible now is it?

Do you really want a theory to be enormously amorphous and a structureless smorgasbord of explanations like macro-evolutionary theory?

An immediate second thought is to ask what would you replace the Theory of Evolution with?

Nothing really, it is doing fine when it is concerned with observable, testable, empirical science.

Given that evolution is a fact that we can observe we need something to fit the observable and predictable evidence.

"Observe" being the operative word... Who said current evolutionary models and creation are mutually exclusive... why?

This a favourite tactic of the Creationists. They write these long articles raising very technical issues that no one but an expert could really address.

I'm no expert, and im sure that if you give a little time to researh and discuss the issues, instead of trying to make vague ad hominems.

The thing is that these issues, while they may be interesting, aren't really fundamental to proving that evolution is a real process. So whether or not a human - chimp common ancestor model really qualifies as a theory or a hypothesis it doesn't disprove evolution as a whole.

"Proving evolution as a process"? Can you be more specific and elaborate? Are you referring to the observable and unobserved part in general? We observe speciation, we have not observed single-cellular evolution to multi-cellular evolution or reptile to avian, or fish to reptile evolution. That, as you know might take "a while" and is not within the realms of observable, testable, empirical science.
"it doesn't disprove evolution as a whole". Again, can you be more specific what you mean "as a whole"? You can not disprove the unobservable.

The reason articles like this are written is that the average fundumbmentalist isn't interested in real arguments, they only want to be convinced that there is real scientific argument against evolution.Their belief or disbelief is decided on a purely emotional level.

The same can be said to the other side of the "fundumbmentalist" scale. They only want to be convinced that there is real evidence for evolution and are not interested in real arguments. The emotional levels of some posts are certainly noted.

This is why this sort of article is always peppered with fallacious arguments like the one you spotted.

Again, i only asked the question: "How much of human origins and origins in general is imagination and how much is objective, empirical science?". I did not say or intend to mean "because of a few cases of fraud everything should be bunk"...If it came across as so... "jammer mammie, but i are a boertjie, soutie taal is dol\ll\lers moeilik" and a stand corrected.

In fact the whole article is designed to force your average evolutionist into admitting that they don't actually subscribe to any particular human-chimp common ancestor model or even really know what the currant evidence for any such model is (although I assume that genetic evidence is pretty compelling).

Actually, the article was "designed" to raise a few issues concerning the model. If you dont know the evidence, you are just like every other "fundumbmentalist" that follows scientists like a bunch of sheep. I specifically wanted to talk about the genetic evidence, maybe Haldane's dilemma if you like...

The fact is that it doesn't actually matter. The proof for evolution is actually very simple and based on very simple facts. To be honest, evolution as a subject isn't incredibly interesting to me so I don't spend an incredible amount of time reading about it.

Off course it does not matter to the average fundamentalist, as long as a few guys that knows more than i do says so, it must be so...pfff.

I don't have to understand the proof of the common ancestry between chimps and humans to understand the proof for evolution.

I'm interested in what you understand to be the proof of evolution.

This is exactly my point. The molecules to man thing is the perfect example of how fundumbmentalist read this sort of crap and latch on to an idea they have no real understanding of and harp on about it because they've been convinced its a really important issue that evolution collapses without.

So... just to be clear here, you believe the LUCA-to-you hypothesis/theory/model, but think the molecules-LUCA hypothesis/theory/model is utter nonsene?

 

[rwenzori]

Did i say or insinuate evolutionary theory is "twaddle" because of fraud, or did i ask: "How much of human origins and origins in general is imagination and how much is objective, empirical science?".

You have a whole long boring bit about "Fraud", hence I'd go with the former. Your debating is about as honest as that of Snuki Zikalala.

Issues... not attack. But if you feel this in an attack on your particular brand of faith, i'm sure you will be able to defend it, or are you going pull a "my priest said so, so it must be so and you are full of it" and refer to "scientists in general say it is so, so it must be so". You are then no better than the average fundamentalist, and cannot logicaly defend your position, if you even have a position.

I suggest reading up on the nature and philosophy of science, as you clearly have no understanding of either.

 

[Fearisgood]

You have a whole long boring bit about "Fraud", hence I'd go with the former. Your debating is about as honest as that of Snuki Zikalala.

Fraud is not only limited to evolution theory you know... Remember the spectacular South Korean stem cell fraud of a few years ago? That does not mean all stem cell research is bunk, but the history in knowing as to why and how it was done is important, and to put it in perspective and in context of discussion to inform. But it is typical for people who dont want to discuss a topic to go straight to the ad hominem. Care to point out where you spot dishonesty, id be glad to correct it

I suggest reading up on the nature and philosophy of science, as you clearly have no understanding of either.

Care to point out and discuss where there was a lack understanding instead of making these remarks? I would much rather discuss the issues than stoop down to name-calling.

 

[rwenzori]

Fraud is not only limited to evolution theory you know... Remember the spectacular South Korean stem cell fraud of a few years ago? That does not mean all stem cell research is bunk, but the history in knowing as to why and how it was done is important, and to put it in perspective and in context of discussion to inform. But it is typical for people who dont want to discuss a topic to go straight to the ad hominem. Care to point out where you spot dishonesty, id be glad to correct it

Okey dokey. Here, and in what follows in that post:

b. Fraud
Fraud in evolution theory is well documented.

It is a cheap smear. Like Snuki is good at. Leave out the whole fraud bit.

Care to point out and discuss where there was a lack understanding instead of making these remarks? I would much rather discuss the issues than stoop down to name-calling.

Most of what you posted attacks scientific theories for making claims that are incontrovertibly true, because they are "science". Which is like saying the bible is true because it says so. Scientific knowledge is not about absolute truth - scientific theories are conceptual constructions based on logic, that must be falsifiable. As such they are only good until something better comes along.

Seeing as you are in the fold of the god-botherers, the difference between the two in terms of truth is that science uses logic and observation to arrive at its theories while religion is any old waffle you can dream up, with no necessary reference to logic or the observable world.

 

[alloytoo]

Henri Bergson "upset the applecart" and got a noble prize for...
Creative Evolution: An Anti-Darwin Theory Won a Nobel

Lets be specific shall we, Henri Bergson was a philosopher who won the 1927 Nobel prize for Literature.

With respect to Mr. Bergson who was and remains respected in his field.

1927? This is hardly shaking the current scientific establishment.

Worth noting that two Steve's on the Project Steve list are more recent benificaries of the nobel prizes....in physics

 

[Fearisgood]

It is a cheap smear. Like Snuki is good at. Leave out the whole fraud bit.

Fair enough, i changed the "Fraud in evolution theory is well documented" into "Fraud in the human origins debate is well documented". It was too broad for the topic and a generalization, ill give you that. But i think ill leave the fraud bit in because it is the truth, especially when looked at in context of the type of evidence and how it is interpreted. I still think it it fair to ask: "How much of human origins and origins in general is imagination and how much is objective, empirical science?".

Most of what you posted attacks scientific theories for making claims that are incontrovertibly true, because they are "science". Which is like saying the bible is true because it says so.

No i pose the question to those who constantly harp on about "evolution is fact, do you really think all those scientists are lying". There are issues, and the human-chimp model is only a small part of those issues. Evolution theory (LUCA-to-you model) wont be falsifiable anytime soon because it is a structureless smorgasbord of ad hoc explanations without any demonstration-based explanations.

Scientific knowledge is not about absolute truth - scientific theories are conceptual constructions based on logic, that must be falsifiable.

I think the ultimate goal of science is absolute truth dont you think? How is the evolution from a single-celled creature to everything we observe today unfalsifiable when you have all these ad hoc explanations to

1) Common descent.. Includes Nrs: 2-5 in this list.
2) Anagenesis. Transformation within single lineage.
3) Cladogenesis. Splitting a lineage.
4) Loss. Traits are lost.
5) Replacement.Traits are replaced.
6) "Convergence". Complex similarities that cannot be explained by 1-14 and is called "Independent origin of similar traits"
7) Lamarckism . Inherited use-and-disuse of parts
8) Atavism - genetic throwbacks. Masked ancient traits unmasked into distant descendants - transposes traits across time. (Can theoretically mimic transposition (9))
9) Transposition. Ancient notion. Moves traits between distant lineages - lateral DNA transfer, plasmids, "endosymbiosis," "leghemoglobin"
10) Recapitulation. Peculiar embryological mechanisms - "terminal addition" & "telescoping acceleration"
11) Multiple biogenesis. Many life origins
12) Incompleteness. "The data is too incomplete"
13) Exobiology. "It came from Space!" Mars rocks, Directed panspermia, SETI, Extraterrestrials, Ancient astronauts
14) "Concerted evolution". Molecular drive

to use when some of the data does not fit. Everything can be explained by naturalism, you just can't test it.

Seeing as you are in the fold of the god-botherers, the difference between the two in terms of truth is that science uses logic and observation to arrive at its theories while religion is any old waffle you can dream up, with no necessary reference to logic or the observable world.

"necessary reference to logic or the observable world." Ever observed single-celled evolution to multicellular organisms? It takes time and supposition to think it is possible at the moment. Supposition is not science, it's speculation.

...the Project Steve list...

Hehe, first time i've heard of it, gotta love it.

 

[alloytoo]

Hehe, first time i've heard of it, gotta love it.

Project Steve : The list

 

[rwenzori]

No i pose the question to those who constantly harp on about "evolution is fact, do you really think all those scientists are lying". There are issues, and the human-chimp model is only a small part of those issues. Evolution theory (LUCA-to-you model) wont be falsifiable anytime soon because it is a structureless smorgasbord of ad hoc explanations without any demonstration-based explanations.

Hokay Dokay! I am unfortunately not a practising scientist so cannot debate all the detail. When or if or how some original chemicals came together is beyond my field. But once one gets past that step, evolutionary processes are happening all the time, as any fule kno. That much is quite observable in the world. Try spending a week at a multi-drug-resistant TB hospital and you'll find out!

What is your theory about those first chemical reactions? That the idea is cr@p and god made the world a few millennia ago? That god put the reactions together? Mine would be that The Stamp stamped, and life was!

One thing I don't get about all these anti-evolution boys, is how they explain the fact that over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct. Did god stuff it up?