More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[YoursTrue]

Which is why I was in gymnastics in high school and college.

BTW, I have a banana almost every day for breakfast, so that pretty much proves my point.

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably know that scripture,)

 

[YoursTrue]

In the above image you can see "Java Man". He was the first Homo erectus ever discovered. But that line of Homo erectus is not the one that we are descended from.

By the way, Homo erectus use to be the perfect "missing link". When first discovered he was claimed to be both "Human" and "Ape" by creationists. Sometimes the same creationists made both claims.

LOL, he (it -- Java man) isn't in the line of that (Unknown common Ancestor) that humans are supposedly descended from?

 

[YoursTrue]

Which is why I was in gymnastics in high school and college.

BTW, I have a banana almost every day for breakfast, so that pretty much proves my point.

Come on -- even Tarzan didn't 'really' swing from or live in trees too much. Plus he found a Jane.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is evidence of evolution. "Proof" is a poor term to use in the sciences. But yes, Lucy is clear evidence of that.



Since all animals in existence evolved from a predecessor it does mean that she evolved from other animals. If you want to discuss general evolution we can discuss that too.

And please, you are making mistakes in classification. The problem is that our classification system describes species as they are now. I need to get a bit more technically correct. We cannot be sure that Lucy is an ancestor yet. But she still is a transitional species in our lineage. Transitional species include close relatives.

For example if you had a great great grandmother who had two sons and one was your great grandfather and the other was your great grand uncle. Even though you are not descended from your great grand uncle he would still be transitional between you and your great great grandmother. He would have some of the genes of your great grandfather that your great grandmother did not have. It is not a perfect analogy but it gives you an idea I hope.

Evolution can get very complex when there are multiple subspecies that sometimes still interbreed. This image tells you why recent human evolution is "a big mess":

There is nothing to prove that all animals evolved from maybe(?) a single animal ancestor? Not sure if that's what the theory says now. Do you think "all animals" evolved from a single animal ancestor?

 

[YoursTrue]

So your argument rests on a logical fallacy. Great.

Yes, life around us is beyond the analysis of the theory of evolution. (Because there really is no proof beyond conjecture due to the various forms.) But that's me now as I see it now. As I said, I virtually believed (didn't really care) what they taught me in school about evolution, and was an honor student w/scholarship awards. I understood what they were saying to a degree, and I believed it. It wasn't until later that I cast aside that theory. But! that's me. I believe there is a directional force with intelligence above nature. No one really saw evolution taking place, in the thousands of years of mankind's written history, no accounts of animals morphing into other forms. I've heard the arguments (not enough time, etc.). But there is no fossil proof that animals morphed into other forms. No photographs. Nothing. Take it as you will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, he (it -- Java man) isn't in the line of that (Unknown common Ancestor) that humans are supposedly descended from?

No, not directly. Did you not look at the image that I posted? Java man was like an uncle of yours that did not have any kids or actually more accurately one whose children all passed away.

Homo erectus was a rather successful species for a while. It spread outside of Africa to must of Europe and Asia. But eventually those outside of Africa died.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is nothing to prove that all animals evolved from maybe(?) a single animal ancestor? Not sure if that's what the theory says now. Do you think "all animals" evolved from a single animal ancestor?

DNA.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA.

DNA what? From what? The first animal whatever it was? What was it, btw? And how do you know it evolved? I'm beginning to think it's all fairly nonsense. But! that's me. So as the saying goes, not show me the meat, but how about show me the DNA in the first animal and then evolving...ok?

 

[Subduction Zone]

DNA what? From what? The first animal whatever it was? What was it, btw? And how do you know it evolved? I'm beginning to think it's all fairly nonsense. But! that's me. So as the saying goes, not show me the meat, but how about show me the DNA in the first animal and then evolving...ok?

You were asking what evidence sorted common descent. At any level DNA supports common descent.

And your questions unfortunately show that you are not approaching this topic honestly. Do you see the mistake that you made?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not directly. Did you not look at the image that I posted? Java man was like an uncle of yours that did not have any kids or actually more accurately one whose children all passed away.

Homo erectus was a rather successful species for a while. It spread outside of Africa to must of Europe and Asia. But eventually those outside of Africa died.

I'm guessing (correct me on your thinking if I'm wrong about how you figure) that you think the visual difference among groups of humans means evolution. Such as those groups with dark skin, or those groups with light skin. Would you call that evolution as changing form or species? What say you?

 

[YoursTrue]

You were asking what evidence sorted common descent. At any level DNA supports common descent.

How?

And your questions unfortunately show that you are not approaching this topic honestly. Do you see the mistake that you made?

What I see is that there is DNA that is similar according to various types, such as 99% etc of similar DNA from one type of ape to human DNA. But again -- this does not mean evolution. What it means is that gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees have a large percentage of DNA that humans have. So? There again is a big difference between them. But! that's how I now think. In order to approach this topic honestly, let's also be honest--must I agree with the Theory? I think maybe it's time to define the Theory, possibly once again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm guessing (correct me on your thinking if I'm wrong about how you figure) that you think the visual difference among groups of humans means evolution. Such as those groups with dark skin, or those groups with light skin. Would you call that evolution as changing form or species? What say you?

No, that is not a change of species. There is a reasonable standard for what two different species are. If two different populations cannot interbreed with fertile offspring they are of a different species. The change in skin color of populations is evolution since evolution is just the:

Change of frequency of gene alleles of a population.

African people clearly have genes that feature darker skin than Europeans or northern Asians. That does not mean that they are different species, it only indicates that the populations have evolved. Evolution is not a magic wand that suddenly creates new species. That is creationism. The change in species is so slow that in real time people do not notice it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How?

The evidence is shown in the frequency of shared genes across all life. If you are only looking at a small population you can find out who was the father or mother of whom by the genes that those individuals have. One will find greater and greater differences between populations as their degree of relatedness drops. But it is still there. You share genes with a banana. Does that make you a banana? Of course not. But it is evidence that you had a common ancestor.

What I see is that there is DNA that is similar according to various types, such as 99% etc of similar DNA from one type of ape to human DNA. But again -- this does not mean evolution. What it means is that gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees have a large percentage of DNA that humans have. So? There again is a big difference between them. But! that's how I now think. In order to approach this topic honestly, let's also be honest--must I agree with the Theory? I think maybe it's time to define the Theory, possibly once again.

Again that is evidence for evolution. It is undeniable until it is refuted. And refusing to understand is not a refutation. Do your remember the definition of evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

That sort of relationship is what is predicted by the theory of evolution. Therefore it is evidence for it. In fact it fits that definition perfectly. It also gives you a chance to refute evolution. If the genome of a species that is not closely related to us was more similar than that of gorillas for example, it would be evidence against the theory of evolution. Be careful if you try to check this with creationist sources. They do tend to lie. For example there are different ways of measuring similarity and have seen them measure similarity in one way for one comparison and a different way for another. One needs to use the same "ruler".

And the simplest version of the theory of evolution is perhaps the gene allele defintion:

evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.

Evolution: Glossary

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that is not a change of species. There is a reasonable standard for what two different species are. If two different populations cannot interbreed with fertile offspring they are of a different species. The change in skin color of populations is evolution since evolution is just the:

Change of frequency of gene alleles of a population.

African people clearly have genes that feature darker skin than Europeans or northern Asians. That does not mean that they are different species, it only indicates that the populations have evolved. Evolution is not a magic wand that suddenly creates new species. That is creationism. The change in species is so slow that in real time people do not notice it.

People do not notice it because it's so slow?
As far as different species, the only thing that can show is that DNA of similarity is found in certain specimens or species. That does not mean or show or prove that they changed form by natural undirected gradation, which interestingly enough is not shown in anything concurrent with fossils or -- evolution in real time. The natural movement, I mean. You say it's slow. Again -- whether slow or not -- there is, as we have discussed at length, no proof of adding DNA to different kinds.
OK, you say it's evolution when different groups of humans (?) manifest distinctly different characteristics by virtue of interbreeding, is that right? It's not evolution of the Darwinian kind ... which again, has no proof. Only suggested proof. What does have proof is that all humans TODAY are human of the homo sapien kind, isn't that the current thinking among evolutionists? No matter that genetics can hold true for different colors and sizes distinct to close reproduction. Different skin colors or length of limbs or shapes of noses do not eventually lead to something other than human. That is, among humans, of course. (Only slightly kidding, because gorillas still stay gorillas, etc., and humans stay humans. I don't know how much gorilla coloration can be different in different areas, but -- gorillas remain gorillas, and humans remain humans.) What I think you are inferring is that eventually humans will evolve to something not of the homo sapien kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

The evidence is shown in the frequency of shared genes across all life. If you are only looking at a small population you can find out who was the father or mother of whom by the genes that those individuals have. One will find greater and greater differences between populations as their degree of relatedness drops. But it is still there. You share genes with a banana. Does that make you a banana? Of course not. But it is evidence that you had a common ancestor.





Again that is evidence for evolution. It is undeniable until it is refuted. And refusing to understand is not a refutation. Do your remember the definition of evidence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

That sort of relationship is what is predicted by the theory of evolution. Therefore it is evidence for it. In fact it fits that definition perfectly. It also gives you a chance to refute evolution. If the genome of a species that is not closely related to us was more similar than that of gorillas for example, it would be evidence against the theory of evolution. Be careful if you try to check this with creationist sources. They do tend to lie. For example there are different ways of measuring similarity and have seen them measure similarity in one way for one comparison and a different way for another. One needs to use the same "ruler".

And the simplest version of the theory of evolution is perhaps the gene allele defintion:

evolution: Darwin defined this term as "descent with modification." It is the change in a lineage of populations between generations. In general terms, biological evolution is the process of change by which new species develop from preexisting species over time; in genetic terms, evolution can be defined as any change in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation.

Evolution: Glossary

Look, the earth itself has many of the essentials found in a body. It is obviously necessary in many cases for vegetation. So since similar elements are in the various facets, or modes of life on the earth, I certainly see no problem with that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People do not notice it because it's so slow?
As far as different species, the only thing that can show is that DNA of similarity is found in certain specimens or species. That does not mean or show or prove that they changed form by natural undirected gradation, which interestingly enough is not shown in anything concurrent with fossils or -- evolution in real time. The natural movement, I mean. You say it's slow. Again -- whether slow or not -- there is, as we have discussed at length, no proof of adding DNA to different kinds.
OK, you say it's evolution when different groups of humans (?) manifest distinctly different characteristics by virtue of interbreeding, is that right? It's not evolution of the Darwinian kind ... which again, has no proof. Only suggested proof. What does have proof is that all humans TODAY are human of the homo sapien kind, isn't that the current thinking among evolutionists? No matter that genetics can hold true for different colors and sizes distinct to close reproduction. Different skin colors or length of limbs or shapes of noses do not eventually lead to something other than human. That is, among humans, of course. (Only slightly kidding, because gorillas still stay gorillas, etc., and humans stay humans. I don't know how much gorilla coloration can be different in different areas, but -- gorillas remain gorillas, and humans remain humans.) What I think you are inferring is that eventually humans will evolve to something not of the homo sapien kind.

You screwed up again. The sort of so called "proof" that you are demanding does not exist in any of the sciences. What we have is evidence.

Can you please not keep repeating such a basic error?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look, the earth itself has many of the essentials found in a body. It is obviously necessary in many cases for vegetation. So since similar elements are in the various facets, or modes of life on the earth, I certainly see no problem with that.

WTF?? Please, face facts. We are discussing science where one can only use scientific evidence.

 

[Astrophile]

What does have proof is that all humans TODAY are human of the Homo sapiens kind.

What do you think of the different species of australopithecines, or of Homo habilis, Homo erectus or Homo naledi? Were they humans of the Homo sapiens kind?

(Only slightly kidding, because gorillas still stay gorillas, etc., and humans stay humans. I don't know how much gorilla coloration can be different in different areas, but -- gorillas remain gorillas, and humans remain humans.)

How long have humans been humans, and how long have gorillas been gorillas? We don't have fossil humans or fossil gorillas from Miocene rocks (about 5.3 to 23 million years ago) although there are plenty of Miocene fossils of extinct species of apes, so it looks as if the Miocene ancestors of humans and gorillas were not themselves humans or gorillas.

 

[GardenLady]

@Astrophile, the link above to the Smithsonian's Human Origins page gives good timelines and discusses the relationships of earlier hominins to homo sapiens.

 

[Bear Wild]

How?



What I see is that there is DNA that is similar according to various types, such as 99% etc of similar DNA from one type of ape to human DNA. But again -- this does not mean evolution. What it means is that gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees have a large percentage of DNA that humans have. So? There again is a big difference between them. But! that's how I now think. In order to approach this topic honestly, let's also be honest--must I agree with the Theory? I think maybe it's time to define the Theory, possibly once again.

Sure why not. Step one. Is there variation within a species. Please in order to go forward we must start from the beginning and not jump in the middle. So starting with the theory again we must ascertain if you understand the simple concept of variation which is dependent on genetic expression.

So do you understand that there is variation within a species? The rest will follow in a clear and concise way.