Evolution My ToE

[dad]

And yet, they are still homo sapiens. Our species goes back at least 100,000 years and has only had writing for the last 5000 or so. Clothes don't tend to preserve well, so we don't know when it started to be worn.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet, they are still homo sapiens. Our species goes back at least 100,000 years and has only had writing for the last 5000 or so. Clothes don't tend to preserve well, so we don't know when it started to be worn.

The Bible makes much more sense to me than saying or piecing together bones and claiming they are representative of 100,000 years of homo sapiens coming from some unknown LCA. But that's me, don't expect it to be you. Have a good evening while it seems apparent that mankind (homo sapiens) are ruining the earth, and God has something better in store for mankind. Thanks for conversation. There are "new heavens and a new earth" to come where righteousness is to be.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, do you think this is biological? if not, then it isn't part of evolution.

Now, when the climate changes, there will be changes in populations and those changes will be evolution. But no, glaciers breaking up is not, itself, evolution.

Except for what they might call societal evolution. As in language or beaks of finches changing, maybe.

 

[Astrophile]

I have been saying that for a while now -- that it (usually) takes two humans, male and female, to produce offspring. They just don't pop up by themselves. And so far, they (humans) don't give birth to chimpanzees. Or birds.

You have missed the point that I made in post 4290, that the different 'kinds' of animals and plants (e.g. whales, dinosaurs, mammals, apes, coelacanths, and flowering plants) appear sequentially in the fossil record, not all at once. Since living things always come from previous life-forms, rather than by spontaneous generations, the first fossils belonging to a particular 'kind' must have been descended (over a long period) from previous living things (ancestors) of a different 'kind'; in other words, they must have evolved from a different 'kind' of living thing. In the light of this fact, I asked you how you interpreted the fossil record, and I should appreciate receiving an answer.

You must remember that evolution is a gradual process, that an individual animal doesn't produce offspring of a different species. The transition from one species to another requires thousands of generations, equivalent to thousands or tens of thousands of years; a larger transition, such as that from synapsids to mammals during the Triassic period, takes millions of generations and therefore millions or tens of millions of years. As Richard Dawkins puts it in Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker, evolution is a matter of 'accumulating small change'; it proceeds by small steps, not giant leaps.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except for what they might call societal evolution. As in language or beaks of finches changing, maybe.

You have missed the point that I made in post 4290, that the different 'kinds' of animals and plants (e.g. whales, dinosaurs, mammals, apes, coelacanths, and flowering plants) appear sequentially in the fossil record, not all at once. Since living things always come from previous life-forms, rather than by spontaneous generations, the first fossils belonging to a particular 'kind' must have been descended (over a long period) from previous living things (ancestors) of a different 'kind'; in other words, they must have evolved from a different 'kind' of living thing. In the light of this fact, I asked you how you interpreted the fossil record, and I should appreciate receiving an answer.

You must remember that evolution is a gradual process, that an individual animal doesn't produce offspring of a different species. The transition from one species to another requires thousands of generations, equivalent to thousands or tens of thousands of years; a larger transition, such as that from synapsids to mammals during the Triassic period, takes millions of generations and therefore millions or tens of millions of years. As Richard Dawkins puts it in Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker, evolution is a matter of 'accumulating small change'; it proceeds by small steps, not giant leaps.

I understand that. And of course the title, "The Blind Watchmaker," does say a lot. As if a watch likened to a flower or a human is made by blind non-intelligence. Be that as it may, the idea (yes, idea) that plants and animals came along sequentially from some unknown possibility with possible different 'branches' somehow is more than I can fathom. While I can understand the concept, I do not any longer accept that there is no "watchmaker" that is blind. As far as interpreting the fossil record, when I have time to review it, I'll get back to you. And remember -- I have a lot of questions and I don't like presumptions as answers in this case. But I'll try.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have made this point before, but I suppose that I shall have to repeat it. How do you explain the appearance of new 'kinds' in the fossil record? For example, there are fossil whales in Cenozoic rocks, but not in Mesozoic or Palaeozoic rocks. The whales that lived during the Cenozoic era and that are preserved as fossils must have had Mesozoic and Palaeozoic ancestors (remember 'all life comes from life'); since there are no Mesozoic or Palaeozoic fossil whales, these ancestors were not whales; therefore fossil and living whales must have evolved from non-whales. The same conclusion follows from the absence of Palaeozoic dinosaurs and mammals, of Eocene and Mesozoic apes, and even of Cambrian coelacanths. All extant and fossil 'kinds' must have had ancestors that lived before the first appearance of the 'kind' in the fossil record, and therefore they must have evolved from a different 'kind'.

Please think carefully about this before you reply, and consider the implications both of the fact that all life comes from pre-existing life of the same 'kind' and of the observed nature of the fossil record.

You want me to comment on this post, so it seems. Meantime, as you realize, I have no real training except for the cursory kind in evolution and history. Of evolution. Not to jump off the subject, but I deem it necessary based on your comments, how would you say evolution started? From non-life? And if you want me to follow you, I'd have to have a clear explanation about time sequences of rocks, since yes, I tend to believe that eruptions happened (by that I mean to say, I see no reason why eruptions did not happen), thereby changing the possibility of dating the fossils and the rocks, even those with minerals, which may have drifted off into another mound.
So, sorry to say, I'm just a beginner and I appreciate your patience.
Now to say that tas did have an outline of what he supposedly thinks is the line of departation of life. That is at #4284.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a matter of not understanding it. I see no hard "proof" of the theories. For instance, you can say evolution exists, but I see no proof that one form morphs (evolves) into another as living time goes on. I mean that according to mankind's observations while alive and *writing* it down as it happened, for the past several thousand years, there is no evidence that any form evolved into another. And of course, yes, the idea that writing of the humankind has only been in existence for the past few thousand years is another reason for me to believe the positive value of the Bible and not what scientists say in contrast to it.
I used to believe that fishes developed legs, became aphibians, and when was in school I didn't question these things. I accepted them as taught because -- that's what it seemed to be according to the teachers. And now I know that there are those that will say it happened in a very long period of time, therefore -- no evolving can be directly observed, but yes, frankly, I don't go along with that idea any more, because it's all conjecture based on fossils which really does not "prove" evolution at all. It PROVES that there are skelatons or fossils. Skelatons do not prove evolution.

There is no proof for theories. They are scientific theories, not mathematics or alcohol. One lifeform morphing into another is not a prediction or claim of the theory of evolution and if you saw that happen, it would be the kind of thing that would lead to a rejection of theory. Half a duck and half a crocodile would be another thing to challenge the theory. But we do not see them either. However, if you look at the evidence, you see changes over time. We can even see these in real time. Sometimes, even speciation has been observed.

There are many things outside of biological evolution that have not occurred while observers were present, but the evidence still shows they occurred. Applying your logic to these other areas, our criminal justice system would collapse.

Fossils are physical evidence of an event. They show more than just that event, but details about it as well. Location, timing, other fossils, the morphology of the fossils, and relationships can be determined by careful evaluation of one fossil with others. They are not examined in a vacuum.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, there was a Russian scientist who tried to artificially inseminate women from apes. Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal
It didn't work. But really the important point is: where is evolution in this? it got lost?

Thank you. I read the article. Apparently, he inseminated three female chimpanzees with human semen, but there were no results. Not surprisings. Even though we are related, there are genetic and chromosomal differences that are a barrier to gene flow between us and out relatives.

It looks like his planned experiments for later never materialized due to the death of his collection of non-human apes, and his own exile and eventual death. I doubt they would have been any more successful.

This was an artificial breeding program and not designed to demonstrate evolution. All that can be said is that humans and the other apes have evolved to a point where there is no reproductive compatibility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Here is something I do understand, and which I have found people to deny global warming is happening and a risk to life as we know it. Is it, do you think, a part of evolution?
Iceberg a third the size of Dublin breaks off in Antarctica

It is a change in the physical environment and not a prediction or a predication of the theory of evolution. But it will be a selection pressure on living things on this planet. Some species will very likely have their populations reduced or even become extinct as a result. Others might flourish.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet, they are still homo sapiens. Our species goes back at least 100,000 years and has only had writing for the last 5000 or so. Clothes don't tend to preserve well, so we don't know when it started to be worn.

Thinking about this -- the longevity or brevity of the human race -- it's pretty pathetic that it supposedly took so long (like 95,000 years or so) for them to figure out writing as if they didn't need it until scientists say they needed it. And nothing about, of course, in that 'short time span' about distinct types such as dinosaurs becoming birds. Not enough time to observe or care to write it down.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you. I read the article. Apparently, he inseminated three female chimpanzees with human semen, but there were no results. Not surprisings. Even though we are related, there are genetic and chromosomal differences that are a barrier to gene flow between us and out relatives.

It looks like his planned experiments for later never materialized due to the death of his collection of non-human apes, and his own exile and eventual death. I doubt they would have been any more successful.

This was an artificial breeding program and not designed to demonstrate evolution. All that can be said is that humans and the other apes have evolved to a point where there is no reproductive compatibility.

So far it doesn't seem that hybrids such as ligers have successful continued reproductivity, does it? It doesn't matter if it was an attempt to work in with the process of evolution. I can't figure why any woman would submit to that, but then I can't figure too much why a man would want to try to get an ape-human from a woman, it's sad, but -- could be considered scientific endeavor, I suppose. The point is it didn't work. And why? Because of that little bit of genetic difference, whereby that CLA just can't be found. Isn't known. Died out, supposedly. Can't be found.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is a change in the physical environment and not a prediction or a predication of the theory of evolution. But it will be a selection pressure on living things on this planet. Some species will very likely have their populations reduced or even become extinct as a result. Others might flourish.

And minerals and other things can float and sink into the surface under and over the water. And of course, lots of things environmentally, including cities and islands, are said to be at great risk. We'll see if we live long enough how this melting will affect the earth for better or for worse, but it sure will change things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So far it doesn't seem that hybrids such as ligers have successful continued reproductivity, does it?

We can force different species to breed. Sometimes those pairings produce results, but the results can be sterile or have poor reproductive capacities. Without the support of people, even those hybrids that are reproductive are not likely to be sustained.

There are instances of hybridization in nature in some population that have geographic variation, there are zones of hybridization. This is usually in subspecies of the same species, but hybrids between higher taxonomic groupings have occurred. Hybridization is also a mechanism of speciation and a few examples exist where new hybrid species, incapable of breeding with their ancestral populations have occurred.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And minerals and other things can float and sink into the surface under and over the water. And of course, lots of things environmentally, including cities and islands, are said to be at great risk. We'll see if we live long enough how this melting will affect the earth for better or for worse, but it sure will change things.

It will change the environment and some things will suffer and some will prosper. It is the magnitude and the loss that is a concern. It may impact parts of our species in areas were conditions are already a problem. Coast lines will likely change. Places like Australia are already experiencing difficulties due to climate change. I do not believe it will destroy the earth, or kill all life. But the Earth will be changed from what we know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thinking about this -- the longevity or brevity of the human race -- it's pretty pathetic that it supposedly took so long (like 95,000 years or so) for them to figure out writing as if they didn't need it until scientists say they needed it. And nothing about, of course, in that 'short time span' about distinct types such as dinosaurs becoming birds. Not enough time to observe or care to write it down.

How long is an intelligent species supposed to take in developing a written language?

Presumably, we had a spoken language for a considerably longer time, but that does not leave the evidence that writing on clay tablets or rocks does. What we know is that the earliest evidence of a written language dates to about 5,000 years ago. That is a conclusion based on the available evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you. I read the article. Apparently, he inseminated three female chimpanzees with human semen, but there were no results. Not surprisings. Even though we are related, there are genetic and chromosomal differences that are a barrier to gene flow between us and out relatives.

It looks like his planned experiments for later never materialized due to the death of his collection of non-human apes, and his own exile and eventual death. I doubt they would have been any more successful.

This was an artificial breeding program and not designed to demonstrate evolution. All that can be said is that humans and the other apes have evolved to a point where there is no reproductive compatibility.

Thanks for your response. OK, further from my comment, here's more:
The professor studying his works said at the end of the article that, “His ends and means today sound truly radical. But if you think about it, a successful hybridisation with apes is no more fantastic than a happy life in a communal apartment.”
(Hmmm, and I could agree with his summation, having lived in communal arrangements from time to time. Glad I re-read the article, because it was surmised also that it would have worked into the ToE if these women would have given birth -- imagine that -- an ape-human, despite the fact that humans are considered apes by some. But! of course -- that LCA is just gone -- maybe some think it would have work if the LCA remains are found, maybe not.)
Read more: Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal

 

[YoursTrue]

It will change the environment and some things will suffer and some will prosper. It is the magnitude and the loss that is a concern. It may impact parts of our species in areas were conditions are already a problem. Coast lines will likely change. Places like Australia are already experiencing difficulties due to climate change. I do not believe it will destroy the earth, or kill all life. But the Earth will be changed from what we know.

In this case, some believe this current situation is resulting because man does not want to control his effects on this earth, such as -- well -- not to start an argument -- methane emissions. Meantime, it's changing. The Bible says that God will intervene, you probably know that, before mankind ruins the earth completely.
I have been reading about the history of the meetings of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin and other leaders after WWII, it is mind-bending to see the opinions of men. Horrifying in some instances. I am bringing this up because it is said that man has ruled man to his injury. Mankind was not designed (per Adam and Eve) to rule himself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for your response. OK, further from my comment, here's more:
The professor studying his works said at the end of the article that, “His ends and means today sound truly radical. But if you think about it, a successful hybridisation with apes is no more fantastic than a happy life in a communal apartment.”
(Hmmm, and I could agree with his summation, having lived in communal arrangements from time to time. Glad I re-read the article, because it was surmised also that it would have worked into the ToE if these women would have given birth -- imagine that -- an ape-human, despite the fact that humans are considered apes by some. But! of course -- that LCA is just gone -- maybe some think it would have work if the LCA remains are found, maybe not.)
Read more: Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal

I think a successful hybridization between two ape species would be pretty fantastic considering the barriers that would have to be crossed to achieve it. It is not ethical or advisable. If it were to happen, we might learn something, but I cannot see it as a useful experiment. There are numerous related species that do not interbreed and are not capable of interbreeding even artificially. This does not reduce their relationship and shared origin. If a successful hybrid were to occur with humans and another species of ape, then it would be clear evidence of the relationship, but again, it would be unethical to perform such experiments. I don't even want to ponder the legal issues that would arise from something like that either.

Bonobos and chimpanzees would be the most likely to result in successful crossings. They are two different species in the same genus and based on what I know, their divergence as species is relatively recent. But I have no information on cross breeding of the two and know of no work being carried out to hybridize them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In this case, some believe this current situation is resulting because man does not want to control his effects on this earth, such as -- well -- not to start an argument -- methane emissions. Meantime, it's changing. The Bible says that God will intervene, you probably know that, before mankind ruins the earth completely.
I have been reading about the history of the meetings of Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin and other leaders after WWII, it is mind-bending to see the opinions of men. Horrifying in some instances. I am bringing this up because it is said that man has ruled man to his injury. Mankind was not designed (per Adam and Eve) to rule himself.

The current opinion is that human activity is the main component behind the change in climate. Over the last 100 years, there have been measurable increases in atmospheric CO2 and a concurrent increase in global temperature. The mechanism of temperature increase is a result of energy trapped by the increased CO2 in a greenhouse effect. Other atmospheric components, like methane and water vapor are even better at trapping the energy, but they do not seem to be causing the changes attributed to increased CO2.

I am not a biblical literalist and can only say that I do not know of anything in the Bible that directly addresses climate change that we are seeing now. Humans have a history of harsh treatment of our own species as well as others. But we have gotten better over time and more people are alive today as a result of the benefits of our cultural growth and technology than ever before. This is a double edged sword and I am not saying we do not need more cultural growth. More people means a greater draw on resources, increased waste production and alteration of the environment too.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for your response. OK, further from my comment, here's more:
The professor studying his works said at the end of the article that, “His ends and means today sound truly radical. But if you think about it, a successful hybridisation with apes is no more fantastic than a happy life in a communal apartment.”
(Hmmm, and I could agree with his summation, having lived in communal arrangements from time to time. Glad I re-read the article, because it was surmised also that it would have worked into the ToE if these women would have given birth -- imagine that -- an ape-human, despite the fact that humans are considered apes by some. But! of course -- that LCA is just gone -- maybe some think it would have work if the LCA remains are found, maybe not.)
Read more: Blasts from the past: The Soviet ape-man scandal

You are welcome.

It is interesting historically, but not something that scientific ethics would support these days.