The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[newhope101]

Hey, There is a lot of "probably" and "may be" in scientists discussing whom evolved from what, as can be seen in the paste below. The latest studies re Neanderthal DNA strongly suggest they were human and no different than humans are from each other today. This debate is approaching its' end with research from the Max Planck Institute. The ability to sequence the DNA has changed our view of Neanderthal. One would not call a negroid a different species to a anglo saxon, yet physically there are differences and our DNA looks different also. Our DNA may change in micro ways when we get a flu and build resistance, which is adaptation. Look up micro and macro evolution debates to see the concerns science has in fitting the pieces of the puzzle into proposed time scales. Maybe they'll work it out someday. However for now "probably" and "may be" are the operative words.

In Africa, there is a distinct difference in the Acheulian tools made before and after 600,000 years ago with the older group being thicker and less symmetric and the younger being more extensively trimmed. This may be connected with the appearance (some 300,000 years later) of Homo rhodesiensis in the archaeological record at this time who may have contributed this more sophisticated approach.[citation needed]Rupert Murrill has studied the relations between Archanthropus skull of Petralona (Chalcidice, Greece) and Rhodesian Man. Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo heidelbergensis though other designations such as Homo sapiens arcaicus and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed.[who?] According to Tim White, it is probable that Homo rhodesiensis was the ancestor of Homo sapiens idaltu (Herto Man), which would be itself at the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. No direct linkage of the species can so far be determined.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hey, There is a lot of "probably" and "may be" in scientists discussing whom evolved from what, as can be seen in the paste below.

Too bad you didn't provide a source.

The latest studies re Neanderthal DNA strongly suggest they were human and no different than humans are from each other today.

Could you provide a source on this as well?

This debate is approaching its' end with research from the Max Planck Institute. The ability to sequence the DNA has changed our view of Neanderthal. One would not call a negroid a different species to a anglo saxon, yet physically there are differences and our DNA looks different also.

That's because by definition two different species cannot interbreed. Humans of all races can interbreed, therefore we can be classified as belonging to the same species.

Our DNA may change in micro ways when we get a flu and build resistance, which is adaptation.

And what prevents adaptation from building up over millions of years to produce speciation?

Look up micro and macro evolution debates to see the concerns science has in fitting the pieces of the puzzle into proposed time scales. Maybe they'll work it out someday. However for now "probably" and "may be" are the operative words.

There is no "micro/macro" debate in science. Over 99% of life scientists agree that the theory of evolution is the only viable explanation for the diversification of life, and that all life evolved from the same, or a similar, source. Your ignorance of actual science does not suddenly render that science nonexistent.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey, There is a lot of "probably" and "may be" in scientists discussing whom evolved from what, as can be seen in the paste below. The latest studies re Neanderthal DNA strongly suggest they were human and no different than humans are from each other today. This debate is approaching its' end with research from the Max Planck Institute. The ability to sequence the DNA has changed our view of Neanderthal. One would not call a negroid a different species to a anglo saxon, yet physically there are differences and our DNA looks different also. Our DNA may change in micro ways when we get a flu and build resistance, which is adaptation. Look up micro and macro evolution debates to see the concerns science has in fitting the pieces of the puzzle into proposed time scales. Maybe they'll work it out someday. However for now "probably" and "may be" are the operative words.

In Africa, there is a distinct difference in the Acheulian tools made before and after 600,000 years ago with the older group being thicker and less symmetric and the younger being more extensively trimmed. This may be connected with the appearance (some 300,000 years later) of Homo rhodesiensis in the archaeological record at this time who may have contributed this more sophisticated approach.[citation needed]Rupert Murrill has studied the relations between Archanthropus skull of Petralona (Chalcidice, Greece) and Rhodesian Man. Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo heidelbergensis though other designations such as Homo sapiens arcaicus and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed.[who?] According to Tim White, it is probable that Homo rhodesiensis was the ancestor of Homo sapiens idaltu (Herto Man), which would be itself at the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. No direct linkage of the species can so far be determined.

What is your point? What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? Science is usually about "probable" and "may be." Occasionally, we establish something definitively, such as ToE. When that happens, we value it as providing a foundation for future progress, and resent anti-science religionists trying to bash it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hey, There is a lot of "probably" and "may be" in scientists discussing whom evolved from what, as can be seen in the paste below. The latest studies re Neanderthal DNA strongly suggest they were human and no different than humans are from each other today. This debate is approaching its' end with research from the Max Planck Institute. The ability to sequence the DNA has changed our view of Neanderthal. One would not call a negroid a different species to a anglo saxon, yet physically there are differences and our DNA looks different also. Our DNA may change in micro ways when we get a flu and build resistance, which is adaptation. Look up micro and macro evolution debates to see the concerns science has in fitting the pieces of the puzzle into proposed time scales. Maybe they'll work it out someday. However for now "probably" and "may be" are the operative words.

In Africa, there is a distinct difference in the Acheulian tools made before and after 600,000 years ago with the older group being thicker and less symmetric and the younger being more extensively trimmed. This may be connected with the appearance (some 300,000 years later) of Homo rhodesiensis in the archaeological record at this time who may have contributed this more sophisticated approach.[citation needed]Rupert Murrill has studied the relations between Archanthropus skull of Petralona (Chalcidice, Greece) and Rhodesian Man. Most current experts believe Rhodesian Man to be within the group of Homo heidelbergensis though other designations such as Homo sapiens arcaicus and Homo sapiens rhodesiensis have also been proposed.[who?] According to Tim White, it is probable that Homo rhodesiensis was the ancestor of Homo sapiens idaltu (Herto Man), which would be itself at the origin of Homo sapiens sapiens. No direct linkage of the species can so far be determined.

In other words.
There is no dogma in science. Continued research and findings contribute to more knowledge.

Yeah, I can see where a Creationist may have a problem with that.

 

[David M]

The latest studies re Neanderthal DNA strongly suggest they were human and no different than humans are from each other today.

No they don't. What is your source for this?

The examination of the Neanderthal genome showed important differences in genes involved in cognitive development, skull structure, energy metabolism, and skin morphology and physiology. Additionaly many regions of the Neanderthal genome are more like those of the chimpanzee than present-day humans.

 

[painted wolf]

PW - do you have any input on the article about Tibetan's ability to breathe at higher elevations? I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

I haven't been able to read this article yet... I'll put it on my list of "to reads"! (I'm focusing on bulking up on Mesonychids for a research proposal... Mesonychids are a very cool extinct group of hooved meat eaters that were major predators before the carnivores evolved)

But I do know from my Animal Physiology class that Tibetans have some very cool things going on with their blood chemistry that allows them to perform better at altitude.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Hey, There is a lot of "probably" and "may be" in scientists discussing whom evolved from what, as can be seen in the paste below.

That is because science is not a finished process, but is always leaving room open for new information. That is a sign of a good scientist.

The latest studies re Neanderthal DNA strongly suggest they were human and no different than humans are from each other today.

This is categorically false! I have no idea where you would get this idea from... Neanderthals are 98-99% identical to humans... Genetically speaking this is significantly different. (all humans vary by less/around than 0.1%). They have wonderfully inhuman genes that control growth, bone development, brain development, speech and other areas. They are a fantastic species of their very own.

This debate is approaching its' end with research from the Max Planck Institute. The ability to sequence the DNA has changed our view of Neanderthal. One would not call a negroid a different species to a anglo saxon, yet physically there are differences and our DNA looks different also.

Anyone with a modern scientific background would never use such terms as "negroid"... Our DNA is virtually identical and all differences are based on cultural bias.

Our DNA may change in micro ways when we get a flu and build resistance, which is adaptation.

Um... no, not really... viral resistance is not heritable change except in very rare circumstances... that is why Smallpox will still kill you, even though your parents or grandparents were vaccinated against it. That is also why Whooping Cough will still potentially kill you once your vaccination resistance wears off.

Look up micro and macro evolution debates to see the concerns science has in fitting the pieces of the puzzle into proposed time scales.

I'm unaware of any significant problems in this area... some interesting minor things, but nothing ground shaking.
Perhaps you need a better informed source for your science?

Maybe they'll work it out someday. However for now "probably" and "may be" are the operative words.

Yes they are operative words... because science is an ongoing process... People don't make a scientific discovery and then just leave it alone. If so Einstein would have had nothing to do since Newton described gravity. Noone would have found caner fighting agents in Pacific Yew since the species was already named and described and so on.

The beauty of science is its never ending search for truth and understanding.

wa:do

 

[David M]

Anyone with a modern scientific background would never use such terms as "negroid"... Our DNA is virtually identical and all differences are based on cultural bias.

And the differences in our DNA (which are tiny) are larger within a population than with a different population from another continent.

 

[Half Asleep]

And the differences in our DNA (which are tiny) are larger within a population than with a different population from another continent.

Is this your way of admitting that Wolf schooled you?

 

[David M]

Is this your way of admitting that Wolf schooled you?

And where would this schooling have happened?

I was reinforcing PWs point, genetics provides no support for the concept of race. Nice to see you living up to your user name though.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Is this your way of admitting that Wolf schooled you?

There aren't many people on this planet that Painted Wolf couldn't "school", when it comes to the theory of evolution. I'm more than happy to say that I've learned a great deal from her posts.

 

[painted wolf]

And the differences in our DNA (which are tiny) are larger within a population than with a different population from another continent.

Is this your way of admitting that Wolf schooled you?

Actually David M is right. There is more (>80%) variation found within local populations than found between continental populations (<10%). It's a beautiful example of why race as we know it is totally bogus.

wa:do

 

[RedOne77]

PW,

It is my understanding that populations in Africa have the highest genetic variance, lending support for the out of Africa hypothesis. It didn't come from a particularly reliable source (and quite old right now), so just wondering how accurate that statement is in modern biology/anthropology?

 

[painted wolf]

It is my understanding that populations in Africa have the highest genetic variance, lending support for the out of Africa hypothesis. It didn't come from a particularly reliable source (and quite old right now), so just wondering how accurate that statement is in modern biology/anthropology?

I seem to recall a study in 2009 that supported higher genetic diversity in Africa. Which would make sense evolutionarily. As for how it stands right now, I'm not sure... I haven't heard anything to refute it.

wa:do

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Hey Painted Wolf,

I was thinking *GASP* that there seems to be a lot of common misconceptions about evolution.

It might be helpful if you, or someone equally knowledegable could start a couple of threads addressing some of these very common misconceptions eg. humans evolving from monkeys etc.

They could have a common naming theme eg

Evolution Misconceptions: Common Descent
Evolution Misconceptions: Gaps in the Fossil Record

This way when someone who comes at this forum with these very simple and very common misconceptions then we can just post a link to these threads instead of having to repeatedly explain it to them.

What do you think?

 

[LuisDantas]

Like this?

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Like this?

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"

Yes something like that.

But i think that an individual thread for each issue is easier to read and less confronting to the misinformed.

A basic targeted response to each of these misconceptions may be easier.

-Q

 

[painted wolf]

That was kind of what I was hoping for with my "ask a Biologist" thread... and my "Major Transitions" thread.

I have a ton of old threads that have been buried by time.
I'd need a sticky to ... well, make them stick around.

wa:do

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Perhaps one of the moderators can help you with that.

But i definitely think we need some form of readily available thread that can be shown to members when they put forward these incorrect notions.

Now i know i'm not exactly the poster child for calmly explaining things to people, but if given the chance i would rather point them towards those threads instead of ridiculing them.

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Perhaps something in large friendly letters.

-Q