Darwin's theory

Skylinehead

catallus wrote: »

If you want to get pedantic about the shape of the skulls, most of them wouldn't have sunk to the bottom because skulls have holes in them, so they float.

Eh? I find that ships with holes in them tend not to float.

And skulls don't float.

robinph

So your proof of the flood actually being a real event is that they made a film about it?

DeadHand

catallus wrote: »

Lookit, they made a film about it last year with Russell Crowe (it was directed by that guy who wrote swan lake), so he'd know more about it than me, but microscopic species can exist in water as far as I know, anyway.

Tchaikovsky directed a film last year? How'd he do that? Through a medium?

endacl

catallus wrote: »

Lookit, they made a film about it last year with Russell Crowe (it was directed by that guy who wrote swan lake), so he'd know more about it than me, but microscopic species can exist in water as far as I know, anyway.

If you want to get pedantic about the shape of the skulls, most of them wouldn't have sunk to the bottom because skulls have holes in them, so they float.

This has gone really OT, but the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see.

I'm just going to stick you on 'ignore' for the moment. No offence. I'll take you back off once this thread has run its course. Your messing is usually quite funny, but you're just kind of firing out silliness for the sake of silliness at this stage. It's not even trolling. I'd suggest others do the same. They've their hands full dealing with the redoubtable JC, who actually appears to believe that kinda cr4p. Likewise, mickrock appears to be waving his copy of Creationism for Dummies around. You're just getting a bit annoying now.

SaveOurLyric

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

Tordelback

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past.

You make an hypothesis about the past, based on existing data. You uncover new data or proxy data (in this case fossils, tools, environmental evidence etc.), or re-analyse existing data, and you see if they fit your hypothesis. If they don't, your hypothesis would be wrong, and you would have to make a new hypothesis. Thus your hypothesis about the past is testable.

Surely they teach this in Junior Cert Science?

Doctor Jimbob

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

Anatomical and genetic homology between humans and apes.

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 1 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

That's the thing about established facts. They're true whether or not you accept them.

Your questions are based around fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved. No answer given by somebody who understands the processes and methodologies involved would give you a satisfactory answer.

So, the question in response might be 'what have you done to try to understand the processes you question, under the terms that they are generally understood and explained by those you are questioning'?

Thargor

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?
Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future). If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past. Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event? If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

SaveOurLyric, all your issues in this thread are rooted in your complete and utter ignorance and the bizarre pride you seem to take in that ignorance. Read a book thats not the bible or a pamphlet you found in a church and take your head out of your ass.

Also the evidence doesnt care what what an ignoramus like you accepts or doesn't accept, evidence is evidence.

endacl

Polite, patient version:

endacl wrote: »

That's the thing about established facts. They're true whether or not you accept them.

Your questions are based around fundamental misunderstanding of the concepts involved. No answer given by somebody who understands the processes and methodologies involved would give you a satisfactory answer.

So, the question in response might be 'what have you done to try to understand the processes you question, under the terms that they are generally understood and explained by those you are questioning'?

Just stop asking stupid questions if your not going to pay attention to the answers version:

Thargor wrote: »

SaveOurLyric, all your issues in this thread are rooted in your complete and utter ignorance and the bizarre pride you seem to take in that ignorance. Read a book thats not the bible or a pamphlet you found in a church and take your head out of your ass.

Also the evidence doesnt care what what an ignoramus like you accepts or doesn't accept, evidence is evidence.

Nice one Thargor. I think we've covered all the bases there!

The Corinthian

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?

Other than fossil evidence that shows different but clearly related species changing over the course of millennia, natural selection in action is actually quite easy to observe in very short time spans.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anatomical and genetic homology between humans and apes.

And as we all know now, it was the empirical testing of that homology that resulted in the HIV virus to jump to humans.

Thargor

endacl wrote: »

Polite, patient version:



Just stop asking stupid questions if your not going to pay attention to the answers version:



Nice one Thargor. I think we've covered all the bases there!

Ha, never even saw your post. I have low patience because I sit beside one of these people in work, they're always trying to show me things on websites that look like they were optimized for Netscape Navigator.

endacl

Thargor wrote: »

Ha, never even saw your post. I have low patience because I sit beside one of these people in work, they're always trying to show me things on websites that look like they were optimized for Netscape Navigator.

Zero tolerance. Document the interruptions. Send it on to HR. You might tolerate his interruptions. You shouldn't have to endure his stupidity.

ScumLord

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening.

You still don't seem to have a basic grasp of how evolution works. That's like saying about baking, take this carrot cake and turn it into chocolate log and then I'll believe in baking.

endacl

ScumLord wrote: »

You still don't seem to have a basic grasp of how evolution works. That's like saying about baking, take this carrot cake and turn it into chocolate log and then I'll believe in baking.

You might want to edit that. Every carrot cake I've ever eaten has turned into a chocolate log. Nothing to do with baking.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?

Yes, it's that compelling. If you are genuinely interested in understanding why it's that compelling, I suggest reading "Why Evolution is True" by Jerry Coyne. It in my view is the greatest book ever written on giving the evidence in support of why evolution by natural selection is a fact.

Something tells me however that you don't wish for it to be true. As if it is true, then you might have to re-adjust your religious views.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that man, apes, etc were created 10000 years ago (and yes, assorted other skeletons etc placed in the earth here and there to entertain scientists of the future).

Do you see what you are doing? At first, you're questioning the available evidence in favour of evolution. You're then in your next sentence asking if the evidence is really just a cunning ploy by a God to try and trick scientists 4.54 billion years down the line after creating Earth. Do you see why such an idea is absurd?

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past.

Let's compare it to a murder scene. Absent of actually being there to witness the event, how do we establish who the culprit is? In the case of Colin Pitchfork, who raped and murdered two 15 year old girls and almost got away with it - He was caught through screening of DNA. Had it not been the case, a 17 year old guy Richard Buckland would have spent the rest of his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit. And much like a murder case, DNA is a powerful tool in determining relationships in the past between any two animals.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event?

Through phylogenetics, we can use DNA to establish how close or distant a relationship is between any two species. In the case of humans and chimps (our closest relative), the DNA shared between is closer than that shared between a mouse and a rat, or even a chimp and a gorilla.

What this means is that in the very recent past (6 million years ago), the last common ancestor between chimps and humans diverged into two different groups. One group eventually evolved into the line of apes that gave rise to today's chimps and bonobos, while the other group gave rise to the homo genus (which includes humans, and neanderthal, along with some others like homo erectus and homo heidelbergensis).

So in the case of humans - we have an array of fossils showing the physical progression of man's early ancestor's to today's humans. We also have DNA to establish relationships between today's animals (and a few recently extinct like Neanderthal). Through a combination of both, we get to paint a pretty vivid picture about the past.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening. So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

You see, that's now how evolution works. Evolution is an extremely slow process when natural selection is involved. We couldn't just sit down one day, and in the space of a few years force chimps to evolve into humans. Remember, the amount of time that it took humans to evolve from a tree-dwelling ape, to today's walking-talking humans was millions of years. There is no way to ever replicate that in a lab.

We have however used artificial selection to sway evolution in certain directions. One example is the Silver Fox experiments in Russia. Their goal was to try and understand how Wolves evolved into today's domestic dogs. Wolves are naturally aggressive, more territorial and far less approachable than dogs.

In the fox experiment - they allowed only the most tame and approachable foxes to breed over the course of a number of generations. The result was the foxes became more tame, and even "dog like". Their physical appearance changed, as did their mannerisms - which made them more approachable.

If we were to try an experiment, where we allowed only the most intelligent chimps to breed through artificial selection, we may after 1000 years be able to produce a new line of Chimps that are perhaps on average 10% more intelligent than standard chimps. But they will never become humans, because humans did not evolve from chimps or any of today's apes.

If there is anything about evolution in specific you don't understand, just ask. I think you have issues understanding what evolution is, and what the operating mechanics of it are (in particular natural selection).

Wibbs

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening.

Here's one nature made earlier

As you can see we have a clear progression from "ape" to the hominid family over the course of 5 million years. You can see the basic similarities, but also the differences.

Check out this comparison to classic Neandertals. They show a more obvious morphological debt to Erectus.

Now of course it wasn't as simple as all this. It wasn't a "clean" A to B progression. It never is, it's fuzzy lines of back and forth adaptation and evolution and interbreeding. EG Neandertals weren't our direct ancestors, both us and they were evolved from local populations of Homo Erectus. Think of both of us like Erectus version 2.0. They were the V 2.0 that came up in Europe, we were V 2.0 that came up in Africa. Indeed at first we don't look so different to more lightly built later Neandertals(Wiki at one point had a pic of a supposed archaic modern from North Africa that was actually a French Neandertal skull). We had brow ridges, less of a chin, bigger teeth etc. Our main difference was in the overall shape of the skull, ours were more rounded, ball like, theirs were more elongated, rugby ball like, our cheekbones were different too. Even within these different peoples we see changes over time. Both us and the Neandertals became less robust, brow ridges got smaller, they even got chins which no other archaic human had(other than us). By the end of their time on earth Neandertals themselves started to look more "modern", though still far outside the morphology of today's peoples. As I said you couldn't shave one and stick him in a suit, he would be spotted as very odd looking straight away.

Actually on that score and IMHO, current mainstream science has swung the pendulum away from showing them as "apemen" and now try hard to make them look like the hairy bloke in the pub. Too hard. Their eyes were noticeably larger than our own yet current reconstructions don't show this. They also had huge noses and again this is played down, to the point where the reconstructed noses lay inside the original skulls nasal cavity. The reconstruction of the female Neandertal is almost entirely conjecture and a lash up of male bones "feminised" for the purpose. The blue eyes and blondish hair is frankly risible IMHO.


Anyway, when creationists claim there are no fossils that show a slow progression they must not have looked at the evolution of humans, because it's pretty damned clear.

Brian Shanahan

Antar Bolaeisk wrote: »

Some pretty much have (see crocodiles)

I'm sorry to have to pull you up there, but you're wrong. The only species which is not evolving is an extinct species.

It is a common misconception when people see a "primitive" species and assume they have stopped evolving, because they haven't, it's just that a lot of the evolution has been going on under the hood, and in parts of the animal which don't fossilise and therefore don't get preserved, but it is a simple fact of biology that species which stop or lose the ability to evolve quickly die out, because their environment is dynamic, often quite quickly so, and always changing.

Brian Shanahan

Vivisectus wrote: »

A gay gene might have beneficial effects for survival, and at the same time not always get expressed in such a way as to lead to a 100% homosexual preference... it could even sometimes not even get expressed like that at all! Thus such a gene could overcome the downsides of a decreased likelihood of procreation.

Sickle cell anaemia is a perfect illustration of this idea. There is a gene (located in chromosome 11) which confers an advantage in resistance to malaria if it is inherited from one parent, yet causes anaemia if it is inherited from both. While this is an awful chance for an individual, in the areas where the mutation occured (mostly in malaria infested tropical and sub-tropical areas, often independently) it is a great benefit at the population level to have the mutation, because even if a large number die from anaemia related problems, many more are rendered highly resistant to malaria, one of the largest killers.

endacl

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Sickle cell anaemia is a perfect illustration of this idea. There is a gene (located in chromosome 11) which confers an advantage in resistance to malaria if it is inherited from one parent, yet causes anaemia if it is inherited from both. While this is an awful chance for an individual, in the areas where the mutation occured (mostly in malaria infested tropical and sub-tropical areas, often independently) it is a great benefit at the population level to have the mutation, because even if a large number die from anaemia related problems, many more are rendered highly resistant to malaria, one of the largest killers.

Hah! If darwinology is so bloody clever, and both anaemia and malaria are associated with blood, why didn't the people who lived in those regions simply 'evolve' to have no blood?!?

How am I doing JC? I'm kinda new to this creationist thing.

Hang on. If they didn't have blood........ Sundays....... Transsubstantiation....... Body and blood with no blood....

Feck's sake. My first attempt at creation science an I'm tripped up by my own logic. JC. Seriously. I don't know how you keep your head on straight at all.

Cianmcliam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Sickle cell anaemia is a perfect illustration of this idea. There is a gene (located in chromosome 11) which confers an advantage in resistance to malaria if it is inherited from one parent, yet causes anaemia if it is inherited from both. While this is an awful chance for an individual, in the areas where the mutation occured (mostly in malaria infested tropical and sub-tropical areas, often independently) it is a great benefit at the population level to have the mutation, because even if a large number die from anaemia related problems, many more are rendered highly resistant to malaria, one of the largest killers.

In theory it sounds plausible, however I just can't see how the math can stack up on this. Take the hypothesis discussed earlier in the thread, that a set of genes that contributed to having a gay male child might make female relatives slightly more fertile. This just doesn't seem to balance out.

A super-fertile female simply can't produce many more children than a normaly healthy female because they can't avoid the 9 months gestation and subsequent weaning period that other mothers also can't avoid. They also have a finite amount of time, until the middle of their fourth decade, before their reproduction stops altogether.
The homosexual male could well forfeit any amount of children almost up to his death bed, could be several dozen in polygamous societies or raiding tribes. The families with homosexual males in their line would then be replaced in the population by those whose men were fond of one night stands, multiple wives and taking back many women during wars.

As I said before, there's surely genetic factors at play but I can't see a very good argument for it being an adaptation.

EoghanIRL

Wibbs wrote: »

Here's one nature made earlier

As you can see we have a clear progression from "ape" to the hominid family over the course of 5 million years. You can see the basic similarities, but also the differences.

Check out this comparison to classic Neandertals. They show a more obvious morphological debt to Erectus.

Now of course it wasn't as simple as all this. It wasn't a "clean" A to B progression. It never is, it's fuzzy lines of back and forth adaptation and evolution and interbreeding. EG Neandertals weren't our direct ancestors, both us and they were evolved from local populations of Homo Erectus. Think of both of us like Erectus version 2.0. They were the V 2.0 that came up in Europe, we were V 2.0 that came up in Africa. Indeed at first we don't look so different to more lightly built later Neandertals(Wiki at one point had a pic of a supposed archaic modern from North Africa that was actually a French Neandertal skull). We had brow ridges, less of a chin, bigger teeth etc. Our main difference was in the overall shape of the skull, ours were more rounded, ball like, theirs were more elongated, rugby ball like, female Neandertal is almost entirely conjecture and a lash up of male bones "feminised" for the purpose. The blue eyes and blondish hair is frankly risible IMHO.

Cool drawing.
Interesting how a and b have no mandible but only a maxilla . Never knew that .
Or is it just removed for the drawing ? Noob question :P

SaveOurLyric

ScumLord wrote: »

You still don't seem to have a basic grasp of how evolution works. That's like saying about baking, take this carrot cake and turn it into chocolate log and then I'll believe in baking.

It isnt. No one claims you can turn a carrot cake into a chocolate log. But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

SaveOurLyric

Edgarfrndly wrote: »

Yes, it's that compelling. If you................
what the operating mechanics of it are (in particular natural selection).

Well explained, thanks. And it does sort of make sense. So if evolution is correct, why are there still people who dont believe in it ? Are they simply not evolved enough ?

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

No they're not. That would be as dumb as creationism.

Wibbs

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

Because the evidence for it is very compelling. As I linked earlier http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/paleobiology/jpg/300_96dpi/c17f021.jpg.

And that's a very rough sketch of the fossil record we have for humans and proto humans. There are many examples of one blending into the other. The so called intermediate fossils and evidence the creationists claim don't exist. That's why there's no "missing link", the changes are slow and pretty steady over time. Even in so called anatomically modern humans there are changes within them since we first left north east Africa. Hell there have been more changes in the human genome in the last 10,000 odd years than happened in the previous 50,000. This is some complex shít here.

Even mainstream for public consumption science often misses the latter and can serve to confuse. That Brian Cox series currently on the box "Human Universe" was making some well dubious claims among the science in the first episode. EG he mused along the lines that if a human from hundred odd thousand years ago was born today they'd grow up just like us. Eh nope. Sorry Brian. I dunno where they were gleaning their advice from. The jury is very much out on that one. The early anatomically modern humans found while having clear features that lead to us today, were quite different in many aspects. Check this dude out LINK. One of the early examples. The features of AMH he has are (very basically) a more rounded braincase, though not as rounded as us today, more of a chin, though again not as much as folks today, his cheekbones are much more forward sweeping than other archaics, he has much less of a gap between the last molar and the jaw, he has more of a forehead, but again not as much as folks today. Plus he's got browridges you could rest a pint on and his face has more of a muzzle thing going on than would be common today. If the chap was alive today he'd look more like us than a classic Neandertal alright, but he'd still stand out as a little odd looking.

Culturally? The jury is really out on that one. In the middle east where modern humans and Neandertals lived together and apart from(IIRC) 100,000, to 50,000 years ago, there was remarkably little difference between them culturally. They used the same stone tool tech, they seemed to have both buried their dead(depending on whom you read). This was also the likely point where we were breaking out the milk tray, roses and barry white records and getting jiggy with each other, so we must have felt somewhat kindred. About the only difference were their hunting strategies. Moderns tended to do follow the herds seasonal type hunting whereas the other lads were more local. If you were taking bets on who would end up winning you'd be hard pressed. Neither were like us anyway.

As for Brian going on about hafted weapon points and all that from 150,000 years ago, I personally call shenanigans. If you read the original report it looks very like selection bias on the part of the researchers. Sure they found what looked like blades and points, however they made up a tiny minority of the tools found. Nothing like a consistent technology being used regularly. This is very common in this area of science(EG for years "handaxes" were the pride of museum collections and research. Well they're very pretty, so like the magpies we are they collected them profusely yet other stuff, the more common stuff was largely ignored except by a few people). Don't get me effin started on the "finished product" bollocks surrounding Levallois lithic reduction* technique. No really... Don't. :D

So you see SOL, I'm no blinkered proponent of "science is perfect maaaan". Not by a long shot and it can sometimes be quite resistant, even aggressive to new ideas that contradict current firmly held beliefs**. Looong history of that there and each generation often thinks "no, we have it right now". That firmly held belief meme is not just restricted to the religious, it seems to be a very human thing. However the difference is and it's a big effin difference is sooner or later when the evidence is so obvious(and often when a new generation of scientists comes along) science changes. It adapts, it dials back, even throws out the the old and in with the new that has better evidence. Religion does not. Especially fundamentalist stylee religion. It takes a position and never deviates.






* good god, I just typed the words "Levallois lithic reduction" in After Hours. That says two things; AH is well cool and I win the internet.

**in this context of human evolution there was(and still is a little) the "out of Africa" guys in the red corner and the "multiregional" guys in the blue. That shít ran for years with denials, dismissals and even came to blows at conferences. Boffins throwing punches at other boffins. I'd have paid to see that stuff.

Capt'n Midnight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/180301.stm

Research at the Queen Elizabeth National Park, Uganda, showed that 15% of female elephants and 9% of males in the park were born without tusks.

In 1930 the figure for both male and female elephants was only 1%.

In elephant terms 1930 was just 3 generations ago.



We've witnessed so many species that have been made extinct by introduced animals. Extinctions are so common that there's even the story of Tribbles the cat who was alleged to have wiped out a whole species of flightless bird. Some of the main agents of extinction today are the cats, rats and mice that out compete and eat native species. And cane toads.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well explained, thanks. And it does sort of make sense. So if evolution is correct, why are there still people who dont believe in it ? Are they simply not evolved enough ?

They are simply too ignorant to bother to actually research it. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Capt'n Midnight

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Sickle cell anaemia is a perfect illustration of this idea.

Cystic Fibrosis is probably a better example.

1 in 19 Irish people have the gene for it.

For most of history if you got a copy of the gene from both parents it was very unlikely you'd have a family yourself.

Edgarfrndly

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

Man is an ape. Man is also evolved from now extinct apes. The evidence for it is overwhelming. It is not a claim. It is a fact.