It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Resarch Suggests Chimp/Human Fossil Record May Be Inaccurate Depiction Of Divergence

page: 1
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
This is quite a find, and extremely fascinating!

Scientists at Columbia University have produced a new model of the molecular clock. Essentially, the molecular clock is the rate at which mutations occur, and it is used by evolutionary geneticists to estimate when events such as the split between the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees occurred.





Evolutionary geneticists date events using the number of mutations that have accumulated since they occurred. For instance, they date the spilt time between humans and chimps by dividing the number of genetic differences between them by the rate at which new mutations arise. Recently those dates have been mired in uncertainty, with new estimates of the mutation rate suggesting that the human splits from chimps and gorillas are more than two times older than previously thought. Importantly, the new split time estimates appear to be at odds with the fossil record.

Researchers at Columbia University introduce a model that considers how life history traits (e.g., age of puberty and reproduction) in parents affect the number of mutations inherited by their children. They find that because life history traits evolve, so should the mutation rate. In other words, the molecular clock is expected to wobble. Based on this model, and using what we know about life history traits in apes, they revisit the question of when humans and other apes split. Accounting for changes to life history on the ape phylogeny suggests that mutation rates have declined toward the present, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown. The resulting split time estimates reconcile the genetic and paleontological data, and in particular, they suggest that the human-chimp split may have occurred as recently as 6.6 MYA.

link 1
link 2

It's always great news hearing about discoveries like this. This improved view of the molecular clock is going to help us determine timelines in genetic divergence with much greater accuracy.

As great and revealing as the Fossil Record can be, it's only based off of our oldest and earliest known specimens. Calculating split time with a more accurate understanding of the Mutation Rates is going to open up a lot of new discoveries within modern species.




posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This is the great thing about science, it isn't immune to change but welcomes it. You can't really say that about YEC or any other creation account beliefs.

Always striving for the truth, not stagnating in a pile of its own mess.

Nice find.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 05:38 PM
link   
As great and revealing the fossil record can be..What? what fossil record

You claim a truth that is clearly not true

I would be an evolutionist if the fossil record was Great
Most of that record consists of a few bones that scientists have created a whole species from

Please show me something that suggests that the fossil record is great, or even in existence
You know that old creation conundrum

Fossil record of half one animal and half another or even the evolution of one species into another in the fossil record

You know a great fossil record with many transitional fossils, not a few that you believ are transitional and prove nothing but GREAT, with lots that prove EVERYTHING



Great fossil record that was sung by the band smoke and mirrors?


For a proven science evolutionists sure change their minds a lot and often, calculating or assuming

No evidence presented


+16 more 
posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
As great and revealing the fossil record can be..What? what fossil record


The one that consists of the totality of fossils, both discovered and undiscovered, and their placement in fossiliferous (fossil-containing) rock formations and sedimentary layers (strata).

Are you denying that fossils exist?



originally posted by: Raggedyman
You claim a truth that is clearly not true


Science doesn't deal with truths, it deals with probabilities. Nothing in science is considered absolute, because we acknowledge that we cannot possible know everything.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
I would be an evolutionist if the fossil record was Great


We don't need fossils to show that Evolution is evident. All that is required for evolution to exist is reproduction with variation. The fossil record only serves as a record of the history of life.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Most of that record consists of a few bones that scientists have created a whole species from


Please feel free to cite your claims.

Of course, to prove this wrong, all we need to do is find a complete fossil.

So, here you go:









The above photos are all full, complete fossils, none of their bones are collected from different sites.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Please show me something that suggests that the fossil record is great


Well, most large Natural History Museums will have a collection of several million fossils in their collection. Of course, not all of these are individual species, many overlap. The 1999 Encyclopedia of paleontology states that we know of over 250,000 different species from fossilized remains.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
or even in existence


All the term "Fossil Record" means is the categorization and recording of found fossils. All that would be needed for the fossil record to exist is a single fossil that had it's discovery and details recorded.

I'm not quite sure how you can deny the fossil record exists. Once again I must ask, do you not believe fossils exist?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
Fossil record of half one animal and half another or even the evolution of one species into another in the fossil record


I don't understand the first part of your question. Half of one and half another? Could you elaborate?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
You know a great fossil record with many transitional fossils, not a few that you believ are transitional and prove nothing but GREAT, with lots that prove EVERYTHING


Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution doesn't have any stopping points, there are no 'complete species', life is in a continuous state of collecting mutations. We only have snapshots of what the current mutations are in one single organism, and we describe it's population as a species if they can reproduce fertile offspring.

However, if you want the response in a list, you can head here for more information.

For a visual representation spanning thousands, and sometimes millions of years, here are a few good examples:







originally posted by: Raggedyman
No evidence presented


There's no reason for me to present a comprehensive analysis on the topic of evolution in a thread that isn't focusing on the evidence of evolution.

We know evolution is a fact, which is why it would be pointless to bring it up.

Alas, you now have your evidence. Please read above.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Not doing the song and dance again. The article provides a synopsis of the research, so clearly they have more evidence on the table than anything you have brought up now or in the past.

Now as for the research, I wonder if they have used this method in other genetic lines of species to test the accuracy. To have a finding with that large of a discrepancy raises to quite a few questions.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Weren't you just accusing Ghost of 'following' you the other day? It seems like you may have gotten that backwards....Anyway, if you're going to continue to make such remarkably ignorant claims, please provide peer-reviewed evidence to back them up.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

If those two pictures don't convince a creationist, nothing will. They're perfect representations of what evolution claims, that species go through small changes over time that result in big changes when comparing one end of the spectrum to the other.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

The word was "transitional"

I obviously erred
I thought that evolution was a proven science according to some

Just love the way that this science has to keep changing, searching, discovering and according to your op, assuming

Those pictures don't convince me.
All they prove is something died, what is the question

Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human, Huxley knew that years ago

They have evidence on the table? Yeah, just not the public table, just behind closed doors

I love the words and imaginary images in the quote

mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.

I am sorry, those words beggar belief in science


someone needs to expose this lie for what it is, religion of faith


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I thought that evolution was a proven science according to some

It is. With more supporting evidence than any other single scientific theory.

Just love the way that this science has to keep changing, searching, discovering and according to your op, assuming

How else would new knowledge continue to be gained?

Those pictures don't convince me.

Of course not. All the evidence in the world can't convince those who choose to remain ignorant.

Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human

Source please.

They have evidence on the table? Yeah, just not the public table, just behind closed doors

Evidence exists freely in libraries the world over, on the internet, and in the ground beneath your feet. Many specific examples have been given to you already, and you've steadfastly ignored them all.

I am sorry, those words beggar belief in science

Perhaps to you. Not to the educated or to those who understand how science works.

someone needs to expose this lie for what it is, religion of faith

This may just be the single most hypocritical statement I've ever seen on ATS.



posted on Feb, 3 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
The word was "transitional"


Yes, and I have shown those transitions. Perhaps you are misunderstanding the term?

Could you provide the definition, to your understanding?


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I obviously erred
I thought that evolution was a proven science according to some


It is


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Just love the way that this science has to keep changing, searching, discovering and according to your op, assuming


Me too, it means it's becoming more accurate upon new discoveries. The entire concept has not disappeared, nor has the original conclusion really been falsified so much that the totality of it is false. All we've done is found a more accurate way to define a split-date.

Think of it from this stance; instead of the time being from within 80-90% accurate, it's now 95-98% accurate.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Those pictures don't convince me.


You asked a particular question, and they answered that question. The reason why they didn't convince you is because you don't really understand the foundation from which those questions stem, and that's the mechanisms involved in Evolution.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
Just recently we all discovered Neanderthal was human, Huxley knew that years ago


Please cite this discovery


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I love the words and imaginary images in the quote


You mean actual fossils and taxonomic names? Me too, they really make it much similar for people who aren't paleontologists to comprehend the information being given.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
mired in uncertainty, new estimates, previously thought, time estimates appear, at odds ,
Based on this model, using what we know, suggests, supporting the notion of a mutational slowdown, time estimates reconcile , they suggest, may have occurred.


Great! You're finally understanding that Science does not, nor has ever dealt with absolute certainty.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
I am sorry, those words beggar belief in science


No, they depict an acknowledgement that nothing is absolutely certain. Once again, nothing is certain, and science humbly recognizes that nothing can be absolutely certain. We do not know everything and we cannot know everything.

There is a reason why these researchers don't say "humans and chimps diverged 6,787,207 years and 2 hours ago". It's because they aren't dealing with certainty, but rather 'best evidence yet that suggests [date]'.

You continue to misunderstand this concept.


originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Ghost147
someone needs to expose this lie for what it is, religion of faith


Yes, and someone also needs to expose misconceptions for what they are, founded on ignorance. Of course, there is nothing wrong with ignorance. We are all ignorant of everything until the information is available and made in a way in which we can comprehend it.

The question is, will that ignorance be denied, or embraced.




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

This is actually a rather important development. If further research corroborates the efficacy and accuracy of this study, it will give us a much clearer picture of early hominid evolution by allowing us to allocate resources and manpower to focus on pinning down a more precise timeframe within which the genus Pan diverged from our own Genus' precursors as well as whether or not species like Ardipithecus Ramidus were a direct ancestor of the Australopithecines or was just one of several early hominids who used bipedal locomotion.

The dating ascribed by this stuffy to the divergence of our mutual genus' would seem to indicate my earlier thoughts that Sahlanthropus Tchadensis was another early and small, chimpanzee sized ape as opposed to a human ancestor. But even that is still rather speculative because of the lack of post cranial remains found for them. On the other hand,the timeframe fits very closely with the appearance of Oororin Tugenesis who still shared some similarities with contemporaneous early hominins while having some rather different dentition from the other apes at that time as well as the beginnings of bipedalism.

This is one of my favorite parts of Paleoanthropology. The more answers we find, the more questions that become raised. Thanks for posting this, well done as always.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Evolution is not creation or a means for a beginning as it would always need something to evolve from...

Therefore creationism and evolution are two different things that should stop being compared and that's a fact...

However this also means creation would allow for evolution...
So why do we have defectives who believe evolution is an argument against creation?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I don't understand how this applies to the post you're responding to.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Well you said evolution is a fact...
Ape to man is not a fact...
It is still assumed...
I just figured with that sentiment you were against creationism and wished to stir the pot...
Incidentally I'm thinking the subject matter discussed in your op will only prove to widen this gap in time...
Will be interesting to see...



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle



Evolution is not creation or a means for a beginning as it would always need something to evolve from... Therefore creationism and evolution are two different things that should stop being compared and that's a fact...


I guess that's true. In biology, abiogenesis is the study of life origins if I'm correct.




However this also means creation would allow for evolution... So why do we have defectives who believe evolution is an argument against creation?


Yes and no. Because creation is a religious belief in general. While evolution is science. Anyone can accept evolution, and also believe in creation of some kind. But the beliefs could build toward a paradox. For example: the creation belief in Genesis does contradict the modern view of human evolution.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916

This could just as easily be argued by a creationist in reverse by stating evolution is false because it does not fit the story of creation...
Especially seeing as evolution does not have its own pieces in order to prove a damn thing...
At any rate Creation and evolution 2 different things and creation is greater for it has the power to allow for evolution see...
I'm not the one who first brought up creationism in this thread so I don't want to be accused of derailing it...
What I'm really saying is people are stupid for attempting to use evolution as an argument against creation...



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Well you said evolution is a fact...


Correct


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Ape to man is not a fact...
It is still assumed...


No, it's not assumed, there is an incredible amount of evidence from various different fields within biology that all lead to this conclusion.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I just figured with that sentiment you were against creationism and wished to stir the pot...


You'll have to be more specific when you say "creationism". If you are referring to creation in the sense that life could have started by aliens billions of years ago, then that is perfectly reasonable because abiogenesis simply isn't clear enough at the moment to present a single conclusion over how life on earth started.

If you're referring to creationism, such as that found in the literal interpretation of the bible, where man has no relation to animals at all, or that life started 6k-12k, then yes, that concept is preposterous, and everything even beyond biological evolution disproves that concept.

Evolution is a fact.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Incidentally I'm thinking the subject matter discussed in your op will only prove to widen this gap in time...
Will be interesting to see...


which gap, exactly?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

I agree we shouldn't derail the thread. OP's topic should be discussed. However, I do have to disagree with you on scientist not being able to prove evolution. There's more then enough to prove evolution. I just need to better research it so I can explain it better. Yes, I have to admit I'm not as knowledgeable as I want to be on evolution, and biology in general. But I'll make sure to drop you a message in the near future for a thread about evolution if you're ever interested.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Teddy916

This could just as easily be argued by a creationist in reverse by stating evolution is false because it does not fit the story of creation...


No, this conclusion is not analogous to what Teddy wrote.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Especially seeing as evolution does not have its own pieces in order to prove a damn thing...


Evolution is as much a fact as gravity or that Earth is spherical, or that the planets orbit the sun.

Our theory of evolution is our way of explaining how the fact of evolution functions. Just as we have theories to explain how gravity functions.

Medicine and agriculture would not exist the way they do now without our knowledge of evolution. Mutations per generation would not exist without evolution (something you readily acknowledge as evident as you seem to have no issues with the article in the OP). Perhaps you misunderstand what evolution is?


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
At any rate Creation and evolution 2 different things and creation is greater for it has the power to allow for evolution see...


Different things, yes. Creation is greater? absolutely not. Evolution is one of the most evidence-backed theories in all of science. Creation has absolutely no evidence what so ever.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
I'm not the one who first brought up creationism in this thread so I don't want to be accused of derailing it...


Who brought up creationism?


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
What I'm really saying is people are stupid for attempting to use evolution as an argument against creation...


no one used evolution as an argument against creation.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916

Heh your a typical evolution lover...
I'll tell you what soon as man evolves into something greater than man..
or you can find a way to convince me evolution and creationism are the same thing save your breath...



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join