Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

That's because you do not understand how plastic phenotypic (outward appearance) is. The study of embryology gives is and insight. I borrowed this from the internet.

The development of vertebrates shows how similar out embryonic structures are. Genetic changes in the regulation of development can have large effects on the outward appearance. Vertebrates are very similar even though we appear so different as the adult forms. Given enough time to pass and huge and sometimes abrupt changes can occur in organisms. Our problem is we have not observed these changes long enough to see major changes because our life span is so limited. If we could observe for several hundred thousand years instead of the several hundred years we have been observing we would see changes.

Explain the abrupt changes, please.
(Good night, time to close up.)

 

[Polymath257]

Glad you agree that cultural 'evolution' is not biological or genetic evolution. Or who knows?

No, cultural evolution in humans has mostly disconnected from genetics. There may be a small component, but it isn't strong if it is there.

But the point was the analogy: small changes accumulating over time leading to large changes with no distinct boundaries.

What do you mean that there is no firm line between human and pre-human. There isn't? OK, let's discuss what is the predecessor to humans, shall we?

What is the line between French and Latin? Or between Old English and modern English?

This is the point of the analogy: that small changes in populations over time lead to large changes with no clear boundaries.

So, the question isn't what is the predecessor of humans, but what *are* the predecessors of humans. Between any predecessor and humans there will be other predecessors. There is no 'jump'.

So, we can talk about human predecessors and their relatives (evolution branches and isn't a direct line).

OK, what is the LCA of humans? You're bringing up several points, and I need to concentrate on one at a time, so I'll try to center on one point at a time in my responses as much as possible.

And, again, LCA of humans *and what other species*? The Latest Common Ancestor of humans and chimps will be different than the Latest Common Ancestor of humans and, say, cats. And that will be different than the Latest Common Ancestor between humans and robins.

The LCA of humans and chimps lived a few million years ago (around 8 million, if I recall correctly). The LCA of humans and cats would have been much farther back (I don't know when the primate and carnivore lines separated). And that between humans and birds further back than that (mammals split from reptiles before dinosaurs existed).

 

[Polymath257]

Explain the abrupt changes, please.
(Good night, time to close up.)

Which abrupt changes? You realize the development down the columns is continuous, right?

 

[Polymath257]

Plus I see no evidence of genetic changes observable. That means that I have not seen any report of observable evidence of genetics of fish, for instance, moving to become something like a tortoise.

Good. because if you saw such, the biological theory of evolution would be shown to be WRONG.

THIS IS NOT WHAT EVOLUTION SAYS WILL HAPPEN.

Fossils appear or are unearthed, but this does not mean that life is simply a connection of chemical (biologic) responses or reactions without the orinator of life, let us use gravity as an example of a very powerful yet not truly understood force, greater than -- ourselves.

Irrelevant. Those fossils and the genetics we have *do* tell us that species are not fixed: they change over time. And that *is* what evolution is.

NOT a fish giving birth to a turtle.

 

[Audie]

What do you mean that there is no firm line between human and pre-human. There isn't? OK, let's discuss what is the predecessor to humans, shall we?

Interesting that you did not understand
that so basic thing about evoluntion.
There are no bright line distinctions possible
from one generation to the next!
As it has been expressed elsewhere,
it is like asking-
"Who was the first person to speak French?"

 

[Polymath257]

Naturally you don't see the value of the Bible. I do. But what makes you think that God did not engineer these things as He sees fit? Listen, I'm not contesting that a chick embryo is different from a rabbit embryo, and in some instances, looks somewhat similar. But I don't believe that life as we know it all came about as a result of evolutionary chemical/biological forces, sometimes explained as by natural selection. I believe that God is responsible for life as we know it. Even though I see and agree that chemical responses are necessary to continue life.

OK, so you would be ok saying that God directed evolution? But that species did, in fact, change over time and humans are descendants of other apes? But the process was directed by some deity? If you are OK with that, then there is no problem.

Evolution isn't about trying to deny the existence of God. There are plenty of evolutionary biologists that are theists. But yes, life *is* a chemical process. Species change over long periods of time with no clear boundaries. If you want to believe that God directed this, then that is a different discussion from the *science* of biology.

 

[Audie]

OK, what is the LCA of humans? You're bringing up several points, and I need to concentrate on one at a time, so I'll try to center on one point at a time in my responses as much as possible.

In all kindness, you would be best to study basics first
and then go into fine details.

 

[Audie]

Glad you agree that cultural 'evolution' is not biological or genetic evolution. Or who knows? Maybe scientistics will say it IS genetic evolution. Even Einstein kept trying to figure things out. After all, one could postulate and perhaps rightly so -- say it's in the brain, isn't it? And often people cannot change their accents, or find it very difficult to learn another language. But as said, a Chinese speaking woman does not give birth to an infant that speaks Chinese OR English. Language is a learned skill. And accents do not biologically evolve, unless one wants to start talking about brain connections, and that is not what I'm talking about. But again -- I've seen cows sway with seeming enjoyment to music. OK, that's great. But so far cows have not been able to read or write music. Something, according to the hypothesis, stopped *evolving* with the cows.
How do you feel about Darwinian evolution, since that is essentially what I THINK (not sure anymore) what we're talking about.

Stopped evolving...I dont know that cow-brains were ever
evolving toward a structure that would enable resd-write.

Prey creatures such as deer, bunnies, cows etc are
considtently less intelligent than predators.

But again you are on finr detaild, but the questions
are flawed or hampered by basic misunderstandings.

And BTW, nobody familiar with evolution would think
cultural evolution was genetic.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's because you do not understand how plastic phenotypic (outward appearance) is. The study of embryology gives is and insight. I borrowed this from the internet.

The development of vertebrates shows how similar out embryonic structures are. Genetic changes in the regulation of development can have large effects on the outward appearance. Vertebrates are very similar even though we appear so different as the adult forms. Given enough time to pass and huge and sometimes abrupt changes can occur in organisms. Our problem is we have not observed these changes long enough to see major changes because our life span is so limited. If we could observe for several hundred thousand years instead of the several hundred years we have been observing we would see changes.

Some animals we know can live much longer than the usual lifespan of humans. For instance, Bowhead whales have an average lifespan of 200 years, Too bad they can't write about what they have observed, passing information from generation to generation. Whales are probably designated as having come before humans were on the earth. But then, no previous organisms are said to have developed writing or language skills to be passed on to humans.

 

[Astrophile]

So we go back to the (missing, not there apparently) Last Common Ancestor -? But then again, that's what all those charts show, the *tropes.* Somehow starting with an ape-like hunched over body, *evolving*? to the last specimen, humanoid standing type. So it wasn't a chimpanzee, it looked very similar to a chimpanzee. Go back to what is the Last Common Ancestor if you know what it is, and then say why. Who knows what is the LCA down the line from humans?

I don't know the names or occupations of any of my ancestors who lived during the 16th century, or even whether they all spoke English. However, the fact that I am ignorant of them obviously doesn't mean that I didn't have any 16th-century ancestors.

In the same way, the fact that scientists can't put a Linnean name to the Last Common Ancestor of humans and chimpanzees doesn't mean that this ancestor didn't exist. It is even possible that some of the already known species of Miocene apes were ancestors of both humans and chimpanzees, but that there isn't enough fossil evidence to make a positive identification.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Plus I see no evidence of genetic changes observable. That means that I have not seen any report of observable evidence of genetics of fish, for instance, moving to become something like a tortoise. Fossils appear or are unearthed, but this does not mean that life is simply a connection of chemical (biologic) responses or reactions without the orinator of life, let us use gravity as an example of a very powerful yet not truly understood force, greater than -- ourselves.

This is funny. You won't see reports of fish changing into turtles. It has never been observed and is not a claim or prediction of the theory. A fish changing to a turtle would be evidence refuting the theory. And a lot of other biology as well.

Fossils are not one dimensional objects recovered from a vacuum. There is a volume of information associated with fossils that is used in describing and explaining them. Where they are found. What is found with them. How old they are. What fossils are above and below them at the same location. It is not just evidence of some formerly living thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some animals we know can live much longer than the usual lifespan of humans. For instance, Bowhead whales have an average lifespan of 200 years, Too bad they can't write about what they have observed, passing information from generation to generation. Whales are probably designated as having come before humans were on the earth. But then, no previous organisms are said to have developed writing or language skills to be passed on to humans.

For lack of whale stories we could look for evidence to tell us about the past. Maybe nature left some kind of record.

Whales have been around longer than humans, but their evolution was fairly quick on a geological scale.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Stopped evolving...I dont know that cow-brains were ever
evolving toward a structure that would enable resd-write.

Prey creatures such as deer, bunnies, cows etc are
considtently less intelligent than predators.

But again you are on finr detaild, but the questions
are flawed or hampered by basic misunderstandings.

And BTW, nobody familiar with evolution would think
cultural evolution was genetic.

Hey! Rabbits are so smart.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting that you did not understand
that so basic thing about evoluntion.
There are no bright line distinctions possible
from one generation to the next!
As it has been expressed elsewhere,
it is like asking-
"Who was the first person to speak French?"

Was it Pierre?

 

[Astrophile]

I don't 'see' the mechanism as taught by evolutionists for micro or macro changes producing different forms. Fish remain fish. Please -- show me the proof and process where they do not. Naturally there are tadpoles that become frogs. And tadpoles are not fish. But then they don't look like frogs either.

Plus I see no evidence of genetic changes observable. That means that I have not seen any report of observable evidence of genetics of fish, for instance, moving to become something like a tortoise.

Do you understand that over very long periods of time all living things change, both genetically and in appearance? The fish of the Devonian period were very different from modern fish; if you could compare a modern mackerel, for example, with its Devonian ancestor, all you could say would be that they were both fish, in the same way that a human and a kangaroo are both mammals.

According to Fish - Wikipedia, 'There are almost 28,000 known extant species of fish', including 26,000 species of teleost fishes, as opposed to 6,495 species of mammals - Mammal - Wikipedia and between 190 and 448 species of primates - Primate - Wikipedia .

What do you think? Do you think that all those 28,000 species of fish and 26,000 species of teleost were created separately? Alternatively, are you willing to accept that eels, herring and catfish are descended from a common ancestor but draw the line at thinking that these diverse forms of fish could share ancestors with salamanders and newts? And if you accept that eels, herrings and catfish are descended from a common ancestor, why do you object to the idea that the same is true of humans and chimpanzees?

 

[Audie]

Was it Pierre?

Jean Paul

 

[Audie]

Hey! Rabbits are so smart.

I probably meant hares

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I probably meant hares

I see. Not to split hairs, but they are not the sharpest bunnies of our bunch.

Frankly, most of them are just frightened and confused over dye.

 

[Bear Wild]

Hey! Rabbits are so smart.

That's just it. Rabbits are so smart that they no to not reveal what they are really capable of. They hide behind the illusion of "Oh just look at the cute little bunny"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's just it. Rabbits are so smart that they no to not reveal what they are really capable of. They hide behind the illusion of "Oh just look at the cute little bunny"

Who are you so wise in the ways of rabbits?

You have nailed down the main reason I chose this avatar. I noticed that people responded more vigorously to posters with aggressive looking avatars. I thought this might be more relaxing.

Relax, I be a rabbit.