How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[YoursTrue]

That isn't how it done. Evolution explains the fossils in series over time. It is not the fossil that are forced into the theory.

What fossils prove or show is that they were part of the anatomy of something. They do not prove evolution in any manner whatsoever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don’t think @YoursTrue understand, that most of the times, people used the word “human” with only modern humans, the Homo sapiens or more precisely the subspecies of the Homo sapiens - the Homo sapiens sapiens.

But in biology, human also referred to the genus Homo, which is a Latin word that mean “human”. So there are number of extinct species (aside from Homo sapiens) within the genus Homo that are also humans, eg Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, the Neanderthals, Denisovans (Homo denisova), etc.

The last two, Neanderthals & Denisovans, were both out-of-Africa contemporaries to the early Homo sapiens, and were close enough that they could interbreed with the early Homo sapiens eg Cro-Magnon people.

Trace DNA (more specifically, Nuclear DNA) of the Neanderthals and of the Denisovans can still be found in DNA among certain today’s populations of humans. Examples, somewhere around 3%-5% Denisovan can be found in today’s DNA of some populations of Australian Aborigines, Papuans and Melanesians.

Denisovan was firs discovered in Denisova cave in Altai Mountains, Siberia. Fossils of humans, Neanderthals and a Denisovan (finger bone). More Denisovan fossils were found elsewhere in Asia.

When populations of two species intermix, producing mix breed offspring, this type of evolutionary mechanism is called Gene Flow. It differed from the mechanism Natural Selection, in which biologists tried to find last common ancestors.

DNA of Neanderthals (1% to 3%) were found in DNA of modern populations of humans, but it is uncertain if these Neanderthal trace DNA were due to Natural Selection or Gene Flow. So there are two camps, vying over which mechanism is true than the other.

Am I correct in understanding that you are saying there is a view that the Neanderthal DNA found in populations of modern humans could be apparent and actually the result of natural selection? That would be interesting.

 

[YoursTrue]

Artists are interpreting the science. The art is not the conclusion of the scientists. It is the work of an artist. Basing your acceptance or rejection of science on an artistic rendering is not a sound practice.

Say what you will -- there simply is no real evidence proving evolution. I don't base my rejection of the theory of evolution on drawings of what might have been. I base it on no evidence of the theory. Period. But to show ridiculous artists' drawings as if some long-haired ancient hominid put something like a rubber band in his hair is beyond ridiculous. I think it's called ridiculous-plus. I guess chimpanzees don't have that mental capacity. C'mon...lol...yes, it's enough. I say this with respect for you though. And for chimpanzees.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What fossils prove or show is that they were part of the anatomy of something. They do not prove evolution in any manner whatsoever.

Why do you have to act this way? If you want to claim that you need to "prove" it. Once again, if you understand to concept of the burden of scientific evidence you would understand that the burden of proof is now upon you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What fossils prove or show is that they were part of the anatomy of something. They do not prove evolution in any manner whatsoever.

They don't prove anything in science.

It isn't simply a fossil bone that is observed. The age, location, and comparison to other fossils from different ages and locations. It is as if they were zooming out to look at the larger picture. What is seen is a pattern of change in these fossils over time. Evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Say what you will -- there simply is no real evidence proving evolution. I don't base my rejection of the theory of evolution on drawings of what might have been. I base it on no evidence of the theory. Period. But to show ridiculous artists' drawings as if some long-haired ancient hominid put something like a rubber band in his hair is beyond ridiculous. I think it's called ridiculous-plus. I guess chimpanzees don't have that mental capacity. C'mon...lol...yes, it's enough. I say this with respect for you though. And for chimpanzees.

Sorry, but once again you demonstrate utter ignorance.

Would you like to go over the concept of scientific evidence again?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Say what you will -- there simply is no real evidence proving evolution. I don't base my rejection of the theory of evolution on drawings of what might have been. I base it on no evidence of the theory. Period. But to show ridiculous artists' drawings as if some long-haired ancient hominid put something like a rubber band in his hair is beyond ridiculous. I think it's called ridiculous-plus. I guess chimpanzees don't have that mental capacity. C'mon...lol...yes, it's enough. I say this with respect for you though. And for chimpanzees.

There is actually volumes of evidence supporting evolution and a sound, logical theory to explain it. That evidence is very real. If it were not real, it wouldn't be evidence.

While I respect your right to reject the theory for your own reasons, I cannot imagine it is based on a lack of evidence. Since that evidence has been accumulating continuously for over 200 years.

The evolution that occurs in the development of chemical resistance in bacteria, insects or plants is the same evolution as speciation which is the same evolution occurring in anagenesis and cladogenesis resulting in the higher taxonomic branching. The only difference is increasing time.

Still no idea about the "rubber band" in the hair picture, so I cannot speak to it knowledgeably.

 

[YoursTrue]

Am I correct in understanding that you are saying there is a view that the Neanderthal DNA found in populations of modern humans could be apparent and actually the result of natural selection? That would be interesting.

I am looking at some writings of and about Stuart Newman regarding abrupt origin of forms. Have you heard of him? I've concluded as much as possible within the scope of looking at writings purporting the theory of evolution as true, and I have concluded it is simply not true because there is no evidence of such, not even the fossils evidence that evolution of gradual selection is true. Nothing. Zilch. Since that is my conclusion after much discussion, I will now move into the area of sudden emergence of forms. I have read about this before but never really studied it. Thanks again for the discussion and your patience.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is actually volumes of evidence supporting evolution and a sound, logical theory to explain it. That evidence is very real. If it were not real, it wouldn't be evidence.

While I respect your right to reject the theory for your own reasons, I cannot imagine it is based on a lack of evidence. Since that evidence has been accumulating continuously for over 200 years.

The evolution that occurs in the development of chemical resistance in bacteria, insects or plants is the same evolution as speciation which is the same evolution occurring in anagenesis and cladogenesis resulting in the higher taxonomic branching. The only difference is increasing time.

Still no idea about the "rubber band" in the hair picture, so I cannot speak to it knowledgeably.

No? So it's a fantasy you think.

 

[gnostic]

Am I correct in understanding that you are saying there is a view that the Neanderthal DNA found in populations of modern humans could be apparent and actually the result of natural selection? That would be interesting.

Or that the DNA came from extinct species that were common ancestors of both Hs & Neanderthal, hence Natural Selection.

I am not a biologist, but I think it more probable it happen through intermixing of 2 populations, hence Gene Flow.

But the last I have checked, not all paleontologists and biologists agree with Gene Flow scenario.

The only really way we would know for sure, if they were to find Neanderthal and Homo sapiens living together with mix-breed children, but you know well that the chances of finding such fossils of mixed families to be very slim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No? So it's a fantasy you think.

I don't understand the question. What are you asking me about fantasy?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Or that the DNA came from extinct species that were common ancestors of both Hs & Neanderthal, hence Natural Selection.

I am not a biologist, but I think it more probable it happen through intermixing of 2 populations, hence Gene Flow.

But the last I have checked, not all paleontologists and biologists agree with Gene Flow scenario.

The only really way we would know for sure, if they were to find Neanderthal and Homo sapiens living together with mix-breed children, but you know well that the chances of finding such fossils of mixed families to be very slim.

Thanks. I see. I agree, it is more probable to be gene flow. But I had not heard or independently come to the idea of human genes arising by natural selection and only apparently Neanderthal. Even at a very much lower probability of occurrence it is still a possibility.

It is too bad that such fossils as you note aren't likely to be found. It would tell us much.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't understand the question. What are you asking me about fantasy?

From what I gather one of the hominids in the progression of life illustration has its hair pulled back. But all that takes is a knowledge of how to twist grass into a short string. It would not take any advanced technology at all to do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am looking at some writings of and about Stuart Newman regarding abrupt origin of forms. Have you heard of him? I've concluded as much as possible within the scope of looking at writings purporting the theory of evolution as true, and I have concluded it is simply not true because there is no evidence of such, not even the fossils evidence that evolution of gradual selection is true. Nothing. Zilch. Since that is my conclusion after much discussion, I will now move into the area of sudden emergence of forms. I have read about this before but never really studied it. Thanks again for the discussion and your patience.

I'm not familiar with Newman or his work.

All the evidence supports the theory and based on that I accept it. But more than that, the theory is used to make successful predictions and on that basis it is a sound, logical explanation of the evidence.

I am not sure what you mean by sudden appearance of forms, but I gather it has to do with the work of Newman based on your comment about abrupt origin of forms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

From what I gather one of the hominids in the progression of life illustration has its hair pulled back. But all that takes is a knowledge of how to twist grass into a short string. It would not take any advanced technology at all to do that.

I looked over the linked page and didn't see any artistic image showing any of the progression with its hair done up or pulled back and tied.

I agree with you about it being a simple tool that could be made out of grass or other natural materials and don't understand why it would be significant to damaging the interpretation of the imagery.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not familiar with Newman or his work.

All the evidence supports the theory and based on that I accept it. But more than that, the theory is used to make successful predictions and on that basis it is a sound, logical explanation of the evidence.

I am not sure what you mean by sudden appearance of forms, but I gather it has to do with the work of Newman based on your comment about abrupt origin of forms.

He appears to fully support the theory of evolution, he only has a personal theory on how certain changes may have occurred at an accelerated rate compared to the more standard off the shelf model of evolution:

Newman has proposed a theory for the evolution of cell differentiation in animals. Based on a detailed consideration of gene regulatory components and processes that distinguish this group from all other forms of life, including their nearest holozoan relatives, he has suggested that the topologically associating domains found in the nuclei of metazoan cells had a unique propensity to amplify and exaggerate inherent physiological and structural functionalities of unicellular ancestors.[9]

Stuart Newman - Wikipedia

I have seen this before. The work of a scientist is misinterpreted into somehow being against the theory of evolution. He mere has a different theory on how it may have happened. No help for the creationists there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I looked over the linked page and didn't see any artistic image showing any of the progression with its hair done up or pulled back and tied.

I agree with you about it being a simple tool that could be made out of grass or other natural materials and don't understand why it would be significant to damaging the interpretation of the imagery.

Yes. they are just artistic interpretations. They are going to be oversimplified and wrong. For example I have seen them with a modern chimp on the far left. That is grossly wrong, No scientists thinks that, but it still got the basic idea across.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not sure what you are referring to. The pictures in the link you provided did not have their hair done up with anything. In any event, an artistic interpretation is not a scientific conclusion.

ok, sorry, I'll look for that one. On the other hand, these depictions are accepted by the general public as, um, realistic?
But now moving on, I've been looking up a few things. Do you agree with the following statement: "Over time, researchers have categorized living organisms into a hierarchal organizational system that aims to name and understand the relationships between species."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

ok, sorry, I'll look for that one. On the other hand, these depictions are accepted by the general public as, um, realistic?
But now moving on, I've been looking up a few things. Do you agree with the following statement: "Over time, researchers have categorized living organisms into a hierarchal organizational system that aims to name and understand the relationships between species."

It is good that you are aware they are representative artistic interpretations and not scientific conclusions.

The categorization is based on shared characteristics and the nested hierarchy is the form that results.

Modern taxonomy is based on the 10th edition of Linnaeus Systema Naturae from 1758. Given that it has been going on for 265 years, I would agree taxonomy has occurred over time and that taxonomists name, describe and categorize living things. Theses categories fall into a hierarchical structure indicating relationships. The relationships are based on biological features of these organisms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes. they are just artistic interpretations. They are going to be oversimplified and wrong. For example I have seen them with a modern chimp on the far left. That is grossly wrong, No scientists thinks that, but it still got the basic idea across.

The feathered dinosaur that you posted a link to had an artistic image that included color. No one is suggesting by that picture that we know what color these things were. But we do know that among animals with well-developed eyesight, including birds, color is a common characteristic. We also know how color is used in living things. So it would not be unrealistic to expect that feathered dinosaurs would have color even if the color choices and patterns are not actually known.