The human-chimpanzee common ancestor model: The issues.

[Fearisgood]

Project Steve : The list

Thanks, i just went to the site and read about. Steve-o-meter is about 810 . Gotta love it, think ill sign up if i ever get appropriate credentials.

 

[getafix33]

is how they explain the fact that over 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct

And you know this how????

I think that animals are extinct has anything to do with evolution.

 

[rwenzori]

And you know this how????

I think that animals are extinct has anything to do with evolution.

Whatever the actual total, 99.99 percent of all species that have ever lived are no longer with us. “To a first approximation,” as David Raup of the University of Chicago likes to say, “all species are extinct.”

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

Which appears to be online, free in PDF form at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19478/A-Short-History-of-Nearly-EverythingBill-Bryson

My point about extinction is to the creationists - does god stuff it up? Why did he create all these extinct species?

 

[getafix33]

does god stuff it up? Why did he create all these extinct species?

To answer your question, considering you brought God into the equation, you must look at Genesis where sin came into the world.
God created life (I know you disagree, but hear me out). What He created was perfect in every way. With the fall of man, sin entered the world and the start of decay began. ie, man was supposed to live for ever and never die, with sin in the picture, man now dies (which no-one can refute)
So why do animals become extinct? Well I am sure that could argue the survival of the fittest, but that doesn't prove evolution, it proves that we are living in a decaying world where animals, plants and humans die everyday. Why do they/we die, because of the results of sin.

 

[rwenzori]

To answer your question, considering you brought God into the equation, you must look at Genesis where sin came into the world.
God created life (I know you disagree, but hear me out). What He created was perfect in every way. With the fall of man, sin entered the world and the start of decay began. ie, man was supposed to live for ever and never die, with sin in the picture, man now dies (which no-one can refute)
So why do animals become extinct? Well I am sure that could argue the survival of the fittest, but that doesn't prove evolution, it proves that we are living in a decaying world where animals, plants and humans die everyday. Why do they/we die, because of the results of sin.

OK, but how come all the poor dinosaurs were wiped out waaaaaay before homo sapiens walked the planet? Were they naughty creatures too? Did they eat of the forbidden fruit?

 

[getafix33]

OK, but how come all the poor dinosaurs were wiped out waaaaaay before homo sapiens walked the planet?

Did they die out before humans walked the earth? Do we know for sure? - Just a question

 

[rwenzori]

Did they die out before humans walked the earth? Do we know for sure? - Just a question

Do I perceive a religiously loaded question??? LOL!

Yes - about 65 million years before. And no, I wasn't around to witness it first hand.

 

[getafix33]

Do I perceive a religiously loaded question??? LOL!

Nope, not a loaded question, just interested to hear what you have to say.

 

[rwenzori]

Nope, not a loaded question, just interested to hear what you have to say.

OK

It's either that, or this:

The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, which created the entire universe "after drinking heavily." All evidence for evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in an effort to test Pastafarians' faith. When scientific measurements, such as radiocarbon dating, are made, the Flying Spaghetti Monster "is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."

Sometimes it's hard to tell which rings more true.

 

[getafix33]

Spaghetti - mmmm makes me hungry

 

[Crabby]

Can we get this moved to the religion section already

RAmen!

 

[Mr TB]

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?

I think the thread is derailed from the above post onwards as the FORUMITE did not address the issues at hand and turned to metaphysics such as THE STAMP.????
Is this a tactic in avoiding any scientific discussion concerning evolution?

Both NICK333 as well as this FORUMITE tried to turn evolution into a simple issue trying to avoid any techical issues concerning the subject.

I am suspicious...is evolution indeed science...?

 

[cyghost]

I decided to give the following response in such a way that people can read up for themselves and decide on these issues. To say that the ToE is a work in progress is correct to a certain extend and as such any one would admit to gaps and incomplete areas. We are working on these and not just sitting back and saying God must have done it. The website talkorigins is a font of useful information under one umbrella so to speak. As mentioned Billy Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything is also a must read ~ he speaks to the everyman.

The fossil issue Notably the summery There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens.
Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.

A number of new genera and species have been discovered within the last decade (Ar. ramidus, Au. amanensis, Au. bahrelghazali, Au. garhi, Orrorin, Kenyanthropus, Sahelanthropus) and no consensus has yet formed on how they are related to each other or to humans. It is generally accepted that Homo erectus is descended from Homo habilis (or, at least, some of the fossils often assigned to habilis), but the relationship between erectus, sapiens and the Neandertals is still unclear. Neandertal affinities can be detected in some specimens of both archaic and modern sapiens.

I was wondering who these dastardly dare do's was who said the human-chimp lineage was cast in stone in the first place? It would seem that a strawman has been setup and mercilessly attacked. That is par for the course I am afraid.

The molecular issue While it is important that we get our facts straight arguing about whether we are 98% or 95% similar is not the issue. The fact that all life shares this very similar DNA gene structure is. Evolution is not in question except by the obtuse.
I also recommend The Language of God by Francis Collins. I don't quite see how he is a believer in a God but he knows his genes and explains the way of it quite well.

On brain size

I don't quite know what you are attacking but it certainly isn't evolution. Yet you insist with your "LUCA to you" crap. This is a fallacy and as I explained to you right in the beginning when you wrote that MT crap that it is absolutely senseless having a debate when it starts of on a fallacy. We may all be guilty of committing fallacies, its an easy thing to do, but when one willingly commit a fallacy to further a point the discussion becomes null and void. Dishonesty does debate no favour.

EVOLUTION HAS GOT NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

This is a simple point. Anyone should get it after a few tries.

If your point has been merely that we have a lot to learn, I don't think anyone would disagree with you and certainly not any scientists.

 

[Fearisgood]

I was wondering who these dastardly dare do's was who said the human-chimp lineage was cast in stone in the first place? It would seem that a strawman has been setup and mercilessly attacked. That is par for the course I am afraid

Mmm, yes, curious how there was a desperate attempt to draw up those lineages to make the transition seem... well seemless (still seems to be a few and im sure you will find countless other attempts). At least there is honesty in the field and it is being admitted that there is not even a workable ancestor lineage, just a bunch of supposed bipedal off-shoots, all whom seem to have mysteriously died out with humans being the only bipedal hominid. Curious how creationists view certain hominidae as homo sapien and others as extinct apes... maybe because of the lack of a testable lineage on the evolution side? Link

The molecular issue While it is important that we get our facts straight arguing about whether we are 98% or 95% similar is not the issue.

Similarity is a big issue as it has an effect on deleterious mutation rates and cost theory. You cant just sweep the genetic differences under the rug and hope natural selection will do the trick (hope you will discuss that data). Mutated genes need to be fixed in a population and you cant have them mutate too fast... mutational meltdown...

The fact that all life shares this very similar DNA gene structure is.

Evolution or common design?

Yet you insist with your "LUCA to you" crap.

Do you not understand what LUCA means? Last Universal Common Ancestor... Bet you have seen this tree before... Tree of life

This is a fallacy and as I explained to you right in the beginning when you wrote that MT crap that it is absolutely senseless having a debate when it starts of on a fallacy.

Where is the fallacy in the LUCA model? (Of course i think it is a nice story dressed up as science atm, but thats just me). Do you want published papers discussing it? You still have not pointed out why you think MT is crap or defended the evolutionary criticisms pointed out in that post, you still seem to be stuck on the first line.

We may all be guilty of committing fallacies, its an easy thing to do, but when one willingly commit a fallacy to further a point the discussion becomes null and void. Dishonesty does debate no favour.

Do you deny that science is trying to explain the origins of life by natural means? Through which process other than evolution do you think science will explain the natural origins of life? Answer these two questions directly, maybe then we can have a discussion.

EVOLUTION HAS GOT NOT ONE THING TO DO WITH THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

Yes, it cant explain what happened before the LUCA (or after that for that matter because we know nothing about the LUCA, only imaginations and story-telling),however, there are attempts. Again i will ask you, through which process do you think life will originate by natural means?

This is a simple point. Anyone should get it after a few tries.

We can discuss the two utter nonsense models separately in two different topic if you want?
1) LUCA-to-you model and the issues.
2) Molecules-to-LUCA and the issues.

Since you insists that and the one has nothing to do with the other, or do they? If so, how so?

 

[rwenzori]

Is this a tactic in avoiding any scientific discussion concerning evolution?

This thread was never about any kind of scientific discussion of evolution. It was put in the "Science" section, though it is clearly a typical creationist attack on evolution. It always belonged in the PD/religion section. Creationist attacks on science are not science - they are mush.

 

[cyghost]

You still have not pointed out why you think MT is crap or defended the evolutionary criticisms pointed out in that post, you still seem to be stuck on the first line.

I am stuck on that line because we can not have a discussion when the premise starts off on a fallacy. Complete waste of time then.

Do you deny that science is trying to explain the origins of life by natural means?

The nature of science means it only address the natural. However, there are places, loads of em, where science have no answers yet. Then science say: We do not know. We might hypothesize but really, we don't know. That's a logical position to maintain.

Through which process other than evolution do you think science will explain the natural origins of life?

Who can possibly say? You desperately want to put this in a box when it doesn't fit. Lets say, for the sake of argument, abiogenesis becomes the duo facto theory, then abiogenesis will be the process describing the origins of life. Perhaps it is conceivable that it will slip nicely into the evolution niche, but again, who can say?

 

[Fearisgood]

I am stuck on that line because we can not have a discussion when the premise starts off on a fallacy. Complete waste of time then.

That's right stay stuck...

The nature of science means it only address the natural. However, there are places, loads of em, where science have no answers yet. Then science say: We do not know. We might hypothesize but really, we don't know. That's a logical position to maintain.

Of course... if we cant detect design, we will forever say "we dont know how it came to be". But the research is very interesting and may help in other fields and should not be stopped. I bet in the future, if it ever happens that robots take over, robots will forever wonder and try and figure out how their circuits and software evolved from that first transistor with natural selection, mutation, copy paste etc... once they decided to through away their manuals.

Who can possibly say? You desperately want to put this in a box when it doesn't fit. Lets say, for the sake of argument, abiogenesis becomes the duo facto theory, then abiogenesis will be the process describing the origins of life. Perhaps it is conceivable that it will slip nicely into the evolution niche, but again, who can say?

Sooo... will natural selection play a role in abiogenesis?
Wont natural selection have an affect on replicating molecules?

Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next whereby natural selection acts on and plays a role. Agreed? Genes are just the replicators in living organisms on which natural selection acts. If you were to apply this notion on an abiotic milieu, simple replicating molecules would be the "genes" whereby natural selection can act upon. Agreed? What am i missing?
Abiogenesis will work exactly according to evolutionary principles. Natural selection and "mutations".

But this is off topic and im sure you would much rather discuss them as separate. Maybe as the following?
1) LUCA-to-you model and the issues.
2) Molecules-to-LUCA and the issues.

Have you looked into the deleterious mutation rate and cost theory?

 

[Mr TB]

This thread was never about any kind of scientific discussion of evolution. It was put in the "Science" section, though it is clearly a typical creationist attack on evolution. It always belonged in the PD/religion section. Creationist attacks on science are not science - they are mush.

This quote from an article I read and is seem applicable to quite a few of us:

Nontheless, evolutionists should not be so quick (and arrogant)
to pronounce evolution as the ultimate explanation for biological origin
and diversity when there is so much of biology that evolution cannot account for or explain. Gaps in scientific knowledge should, however, not be viewed as strong evidence either for creation or against evolution.
The true difficulties facing evolution are not what we do not know about biology,but rather what we do know.

Biological evolution certainly happen but not in the way fundumbamentalists push it...

 

[w1z4rd]

evolution doesnt deal from Molecules to "LUCA". Try a bit of honesty here mate. I know its a hard concept for you, but give it a try sometime.

 

[Mr TB]

"The nature of science means it only address the natural."

Sorry for yapping but "NATURE OF SCIENCE" is to "ONLY" address the "NATURAL".

It is the nature of science "NOT" to address the "SUPERNATURAL"

Based on what you just said my conclusion is then that anyone's who's believes are influenced only by scientific evidence should rethink his/her decisions as science does not address the supernatural...