Human Evolution

[Nerdsy]

[QUOTE=liamc2][size="1"][font=Trebuchet MS] Genetic sequences exposed to UV light causes mutations in the arrangement of the bases, often eliminating entire sequences resulting in a mutated expression, often resulting in cancerous growth or deactivation of cellular function. [Typically: Yay! Skin cancer!]

Exposure to various chemicals used in laboratories for Agarose gel electrophoresis [for gene sequencing], will result in mutations. Substances such as [b][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethidium_Bromide]Ethidium Bromide[/URL][/b], which is used as an intercalating agent in the previously mentioned Electrophoresis, are known as [b][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagen]mutagens[/URL][/b]. [/font][/size][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]That's all well and good, but we're talking about evolution here, and the mutations relevant to evolution are not caused by outside sources. We don't pass down cancer to our offspring, which is a must for evolution.

I'm less familiar with mutagens, but if they are not passed down from generation to generation (which I'm assuming is the case), then they're not relevant either.

Of course, there's cloning, where we can hypothetically decide what genes an offspring, but like I said, humans are a wild card due to their inelligence.[/color]

[TheShinje]

[QUOTE=DeathKnight][color=crimson]
Macro evolution is not a myth. It is an increasingly plausible, if not proven, theory. How this has become the great threat to religion seems amusing to me.[/color][/QUOTE]It is a thory that cannot be proven. To prove something scientifically, it needs to be observed, studied, if you will.

Since no-one is going to be able to sit for millions of years and observe the evolutionary process, it will rmeain a theory. Just like creationism. No-one is going to be able to witness God creating the universe (or how he went about this spceifically.)

In any case, I don't see macro-evolution as the great threat to religion. I just don't see any plausability in the idea.

[size=1]btw, that garfield GS banner of yours rocks.[/size]

[Sandy]

[QUOTE=Jeremiah]
Since no-one is going to be able to sit for millions of years and observe the evolutionary process, it will rmeain a theory. Just like creationism. No-one is going to be able to witness God creating the universe (or how he went about this spceifically.)[/QUOTE]

You don't qualify fossils and bones as evidence of the life millions of years ago? I hope you aren't one of those scary people who believe dinosaurs are the government's invention to disproof creationism... :/

[Delta]

[COLOR=#656446][QUOTE=Jeremiah]It is a thory that cannot be proven. To prove something scientifically, it needs to be observed, studied, if you will.

Since no-one is going to be able to sit for millions of years and observe the evolutionary process, it will rmeain a theory. Just like creationism. No-one is going to be able to witness God creating the universe (or how he went about this spceifically.)[/QUOTE]
I must disagree. We don't need to [i]directly[/i] observe these things in order for them to be true. See, we do have what we call 'indirect' measurements, meaning you're not observing the target property itself, but a related property. Think of them high school experiments where you use density to come up with the mass, or temperature and dimensional changes to get the coefficients of thermal expansion.

The reason why we do these experiments because they're more or less parallel to how we get data that we can't see or are not in our scale. In our field, the relationships between these properties are taken so much further that we end up with interpretations like gravity lows for underground cavities, or low seismic velocities for a liquid mantle. As for evidences of evolution/creation(-ism?), we cannot directly observe them but we sure have tons of data that gravitate to one of those ideas (and fossil records are just one of them).

As Sandy mentioned, we do have fossil evidences that show gradual morphological changes that lead from an ancestor species to a new one. Roughly, species that exhibit traits from both the ancestor and new species are what we call [i]transitional species[/i](although, really, all species are transitional). [i]Archeopteryx[/i] is one, the therapsid series is another. Also, for transitions at the the family-genus-species order, please look up the evolution of horses or giraffes; those are pretty popular examples too.

Ah, I've heard some people say "There are morphological changes, yes, but those doesn't debunk creationism. What if the creator actually intended to make these transitional species in the order we now interpret as 'evolution'?" [i]And I sincerely salute those people for pointing out what most miss yet remain within the confines of logic. I hope all creationists are like them.[/i] What we do have to back up the theory of evolution are the [i]other[/i] rock records of the past (geochemical signatures, for one) and the experiments of the present (those about mutation due to environmental factors, specifically). Link those two up with uniformitarianism -- the present is the key to the past, roughly, and the only tenet I will stake my life on -- and you've got pretty solid ground right there.

Sorry for the long-*** post. This one's right up my alley.

P.S.[quote name='Jeremiah][size=1']btw, that garfield GS banner of yours rocks.[/size][/quote] Agreed. XP
[/COLOR]

[TheShinje]

[quote name='Sandy']You don't qualify fossils and bones as evidence of the life millions of years ago? I hope you aren't one of those scary people who believe dinosaurs are the government's invention to disproof creationism... :/[/quote]

Rest assured, Sandy, I am not one of those scary people. I don't think the devil put them there to test our faith either. [u][url="http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/dinosaurs.htm"]Dinosaurs were written about in the Bible[/url][/u]. The temrinology might have changed throughout the years, but history is littered with cross-culture accounts \ of such creatures, like the Chinese Zodiac.

[size=1][i][quote name='CARM.org]....[font=Verdana']The Chinese histories and legends abound with dinosaurs. But they are not called "dinosaurs." They are called "dragons." The dragon is one of the twelve animals of the Chinese zodiac. What is interesting is that all the other eleven are commonly known animals and there is no hint of 'mythology' involved with their identities. It seems as if the dragon was just a commonly known at one time. The pictures are often fantastical, but so are their stylized pictures of horses and other animals.... [/quote][/font][/i][/size]

[quote][color=#656446]As Sandy mentioned, we do have fossil evidences that show gradual morphological changes that lead from an ancestor species to a new one. Roughly, species that exhibit traits from both the ancestor and new species are what we call [i]transitional species[/i](although, really, all species are transitional). [i]Archeopteryx[/i] is one, the therapsid series is another. Also, for transitions at the the family-genus-species order, please look up the evolution of horses or giraffes; those are pretty popular examples too.[/quote][/color]

[color=black][/color]
These fossils are not enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that evolution [color=black]did happen in fact. There is no complete set of transitional fossils that show the complete transition from one species to another. [/color][color=black]Fossils are not conclusive that these objects existed millions of years ago either. There exists a [/color][url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp"][color=black]fossilised hat[/color][/url][color=black]. The hat was fossilised onyl about 50 years ago, which lends ot the idea that fossilisation can be rapid in the right environment.[/color]
[color=black][/color]
[color=black][/color]
[color=black]If you're interested in the evolution of the horse, [url="http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm"]check out this alternative explanation[/url][/color]
[color=black][/color]
There is plenty of counter-argument at CARM.org regarding evolution if you are interested in really putting evolution theory to the test.

[Delta]

[COLOR=#656446][QUOTE=Jeremiah][color=black][/color]
These fossils are not enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that evolution [color=black]did happen in fact. There is no complete set of transitional fossils that show the complete transition from one species to another. [/color][color=black]Fossils are not conclusive that these objects existed millions of years ago either. There exists a [/color][url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp"][color=black]fossilised hat[/color][/url][color=black]. The hat was fossilised onyl about 50 years ago, which lends ot the idea that fossilisation can be rapid in the right environment.[/color]
[color=black][/color]
[color=black][/color]
[color=black]If you're interested in the evolution of the horse, [url="http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm"]check out this alternative explanation[/url][/color]
[color=black][/color]
There is plenty of counter-argument at CARM.org regarding evolution if you are interested in really putting evolution theory to the test.[/QUOTE]
That fossil hat article was really cool! I'm glad that they actually found a fossilized urban artifact to show that fossilization is not all burial and millions of years. The mammoth they recently brought out of the ice is another example of rapid fossilization. In other words, [i]fossilization can either be rapid or gradual[/i]. However (and as I stated in my previous post), it isn't by the hardness of the fossil or the type of fossilization that we determine those million year ages. There is still this whole range of techniques geologists use to date rocks and fossils.

Ah, I'll try to explain it without getting too technical. The earth's atmosphere wasn't always like this compositionally-wise, and the chemistry of the oceans is one that changes pretty rapidly when put against the geologic time scale. This is because there is this whole range of processes that have occurred and are still occurring both on and beyond this planet. Changes in the atmosphere's chemistry, violent volcanic activity and even the change in the eccentricity of the earth's orbit are but a few of these processes. Rocks are able to record these changes in the earth's atmospheric and marine chemistry. For example: [list][*] Igneous rocks may trap gases in their crystals (like zircon crystals! got a lot of those in Australia) as they cool, thus creating a sort of "time capsule" of the earth's atmosphere.
[*] Many rocks/crystals, when pulled out of their stable environments, morph. Iron oxidizes into iron oxide when there's enough oxygen in the atmosphere, that's why we don't find any large-scale, unoxidized iron formations that were formed after the Archaean (was it? roughly 3 billion years ago). [/list]Then we have isotopes. No, not the Carbon-14 archaeologists use (pre-empting that *facepalm* article about C-14 dating being really faulty); its half-life is but an atom compared to the the geologic time scale. We use potassium-argon (plenty of that in clay), rubidium-strontium(igneous and metamorphic rocks) and other isotope pairs to date those gases in the crystals or fission tracks in zircon or atoms trapped in the crystal (cages).

The horse evolution is the posterboy of textbook transitional series, mostly because family members exist to this day. However, the therapsid series is perhaps the most studied transitional series.
[quote name='National Geographic, from carm.org']Fossils of the three-toed and one-toed species are preserved in the same rock formation in Nebraska, proving that both lived at the same time, strongly suggesting that one did not evolve into the other[/quote] First up, a formation can span millions of years. One formation in my thesis was deposited in the course of some 3-4 million years, and that's just in a really unstable environment. The Ellis Formation of Yellowstone, at its shortest range, may have been deposited some 10-15 million years. So, formations do not necessarily equate to a certain number of years. With ranges like that, it's not that hard to imagine several species from the same family (genus even!) to be found in the same formation. Finding them in the same formation doesn't imply that they lived side by side.

And if by chance they did live side-by-side, remember that evolution does not happen in a straight line, from one species to another. Hence the "evolutionary tree"; branches of new species from an ancestral species may arise at the same time and may even co-exist with each other (National Geographic also did a TV feature on this, with the primates of Africa). These new species are tested and pitted against themselves and the environment, thus the role of natural selection and all the related jazz. The one who has the best features, or has the adapted to the new environment will prevail. Rinse and repeat.

...

Oh, and I just found that both horses were from the genus [i]Dinohippus[/i]. It was from 1981 Nebraska find that these two horses were spotted. Read more about it in [url=http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/dinohippus1.htm]this article[/url]. It seems that it was actually a transitional species between three-toed and one-toed species, that later species exhibited single toes, and that those single-toed horses became the [i]Equus[/i] we know today.

Thank you for bringing those points up.[/color]

[Todesengel]

[IMG]http://evolution.haifa.ac.il/html/html_eng/images/FUTURE%20OF%20HUMAN%20EVOLUTION.jpg[/IMG]

Ummmm wouldnt atrophied arm and leg muscles just serve to make humans weaker? I dont understand how that would make the species any more efficient. I suppose that with the advancement of technology, humans would no longer need to be strong, but I still dont know how weakness=efficientcy.

[Raiyuu]

That picture isn't supposed to be serious. It's a humorous look at what we might turn into given humanity's favourite habits - big index finger for operating the TV remote, filtered respiratory system and detoxification pouches to better deal with smoking and drinking, that kind of thing. It's suggesting our limbs will atrophy because all we do is sit around on the sofa eating pizza all day...

[Todesengel]

Oh okay, that explains the expanded buttocks. I fell really stupid now. :(

(crawls into hole) :animedepr

[The Spectacular Professor]

Yeah, I'm a Fundy.

My big argument is mostly "If survival is the key to evolution, why do digestive systems, among other needlessly complicated bodily functions, exist?" Another one I like to use is "Since things adapt to adaptations in other things, what made the first thing adapt?" And finally, "Mothers only have two arms. Explain that, adaptation theory! :angel: "

I'll admit, the whole theory is pretty interesting, though. I'm just wondering what good a giraffe neck would be to a shark.

Edit:
[quote name='AzureWolf']Phew, anyway,.. I don't know if mankind is going to evolve to adapt to the fat diets per say, but there has been belief that the more fit and the less fit, as the obesity trend continues, will eventually split into two incompatible species.[/quote]

Heh, I was just reminded of [U]The Time Machine.[/U]

Anyway, I really think scientists should just stop arguing about this and start collaborating instead of attempting to disprove each other. It's not like either one is going to make a difference since we're already here and all. I figure if we start doing things, they're more likely to get done, but maybe I'm just weird that way.

[Raiyuu]

Giraffe necks on sharks? Lol. You do realise that if adaptation / evolution theory is correct, crazy stuff like that won't ever happen? Because why would a longer-than-usual neck (or any neck at all, since sharks don't have them) help one shark survive over another?

[Akuya Astarios]

Basically my outlook on Human Evolution is this. A guy who wanted to be famous came up with all this stuff like humans came from monkeys (which is totally absurd) and stuff like that so he could go down in history. Those who go to church and who believe in God, know that this isn't true, so why, I ask you do they force us to "learn it" in school?

[Sandy]

[quote name='Akuya Astarios']Basically my outlook on Human Evolution is this. A guy who wanted to be famous came up with all this stuff like humans came from monkeys (which is totally absurd) and stuff like that so he could go down in history. Those who go to church and who believe in God, know that this isn't true, so why, I ask you do they force us to "learn it" in school?[/quote]

Ignorance is a bliss, isn't it? ;D

The next thing you know, they'll be saying things like "Earth is round" or "Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth" or something else as [I]absurd[/I], even though the Bible clearly doesn't mention them.

I ask you, why do they force us to learn things like [I]maths[/I] or [I]grammar[/I] in school? Jesus didn't have to learn them, why do I?

[Nerdsy]

[quote name='Aceburner']My big argument is mostly "If survival is the key to evolution, why do digestive systems, among other needlessly complicated bodily functions, exist?" Another one I like to use is "Since things adapt to adaptations in other things, what made the first thing adapt?" And finally, "Mothers only have two arms. Explain that, adaptation theory! :angel: "[/quote]

[color=deeppink]1. Because it's random. We don't change to best suit our environment. We merely change, and if that change is helpful to our survival we keep it. Our bodies don't just go "OH SHI- WE NEED A THE ABILITY TO BREATHE UNDERWATER BECAUSE WE LIVE ON A BOAT AND THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO OUR SURVIVAL."

Besdies, complex bodily systems don't hamper our ability to survive, so there is no reason a less complex mutation would become prevelant. I should also point out that without a digestive system, we wouldn't be able to eat. ; )

2. Again. It was random. That original mutations are not caused by the "adapations in other things." Hell, they're really just birth defects that end up helping instead of hurting. And when there was only one thing, the only thing that it adapted to was the evironment; something can adapt to more than other life.

3. Because it never happened. Again, this is random. Or, conversly, it happened (assuming for a minute that such a biological leap is possible, which is extrememly unlikely), but it didn't help the woman survive to breed. Hell, a woman with more than two arms likely would have had a hard time finding a mate...[/color]

[quote name='Akuya Astarios']Basically my outlook on Human Evolution is this. A guy who wanted to be famous came up with all this stuff like humans came from monkeys (which is totally absurd) and stuff like that so he could go down in history. Those who go to church and who believe in God, know that this isn't true, so why, I ask you do they force us to "learn it" in school?[/quote]

[color=deeppink]Two things here. First, two guys thought of it at around the same time; however, the second one never published himself. He just sent his research to Darwin and said "Do what you want with it." Also, Darwin was already famous at the time.

Second. No where in the theory of evolution does it say we came from monkeys.[/color]

[Todesengel]

[quote name='Akuya Astarios']Basically my outlook on Human Evolution is this. A guy who wanted to be famous came up with all this stuff like humans came from monkeys (which is totally absurd) and stuff like that so he could go down in history. Those who go to church and who believe in God, know that this isn't true, so why, I ask you do they force us to "learn it" in school?[/quote]

Because there is actually something backing up the idea of evolution. The only thing backing up the idea of Creationism is faith. People who go to church dont KNOW creationism is true they BELIEVE it is. Which is more absurd, A supreme being magically creating humans in his image, or humans coming from billions of years of random mutations, I would think the former. Charles Darwin wasn't just "A guy who wanted to be famous" he actually studied the subject for many years and came up with a theory of why things are the way they are, instead of relying on faith. Maybe you should be a little more open minded instead of acting like only what you beleive is right. I could easily say Jesus was just someone who wanted to be famous so he came up with all this absurd "I am the son of god" ****.

[Johnny Justjohnny]

[COLOR=Gray]My opinion is thus:

Creationism is just an out-dated attempt at explaining the unknown. When you don't know something, humans compulsivly come up with something to explain it; afterall, what's more terrifying then the unknown? Over time, we've gone from believeing in the spirits of the forest, to many named gods with their own function, and down to one god; what's the next logical step? Abandoning the concept altogether and pursueing more modern, well-founded ideas.

NOW, does that mean that I necessarily think that Evolution is right? I can't think of any other explanations that make as much sense; while there may be gabs in the theory, that doesn't mean that some rediculous "I said it, so it is!" theory without any backing whatsoever is correct. So I'm going with the good right now; by exploring Evolution, we can only learn more, and maybe it'll turn out that Evolution isn't correct and there's another explanation, at which point we will explore thatone. That's how intelligence evolves.

As for me, well, I don't really care what's right or wrong. I like to learn, to know, to understand the world around me; but I don't really give a ****. Who cares if we came from monkies or from ashes, doesn't change who we are. For now, I'll just go with what makes sense. Logic POWER!

Also: LOL! at Fundies.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]Basically my outlook on Human Evolution is this. A guy who wanted to be famous came up with all this stuff like humans came from monkeys (which is totally absurd) and stuff like that so he could go down in history. Those who go to church and who believe in God, know that this isn't true, so why, I ask you do they force us to "learn it" in school?[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Gray]
So... you, a Christian, are calling us nonbelievers idiots because... we think something... because someone said it... at one point in time... and backed it up? Which is, of course, different from the big JC, who said something and then backed it up by saying "GOD DID IT LOL!"[/COLOR]