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: 18
18
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Hahaha ok, ok, that does seem troll-ish.

Evolution is evident. Evolution of man is yet to be proven.

I think what concerns me is Science's ability (be it good or bad) to change it's mind. The fluidity of "science" requires you to make your own assumtions.




posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I am always at a loss over this because the article proposes that the split between chimpanzee and humans occurred some 6MYA. The hominids which seem to be the mid-way point only started up 1.6 - 2 MYA and I can't see the reason for such a huge amount of time to go from chimpanzee to hominid and such a short time onto human. Can you explain if I am missing something here?



posted on Feb, 10 2016 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Ghost147

I am always at a loss over this because the article proposes that the split between chimpanzee and humans occurred some 6MYA. The hominids which seem to be the mid-way point only started up 1.6 - 2 MYA and I can't see the reason for such a huge amount of time to go from chimpanzee to hominid and such a short time onto human. Can you explain if I am missing something here?


I read the research article yesterday - I'm not a molecular biologist but I am a scientist - I had a hard time understanding the hows and whys of some of the research as well.

My take away (and I'm probably wrong or at least didn't understand the article completely) was that mutations tend to slow down over time for humans. Specifically, Figure 6a suggests that the rate of mutation slows down over generations, but does that imply that it will eventually reach zero or is it asymptotic (never reach zero). The figure itself is somewhat confusing because the Key words "catarrhines" and "humans" are separated by shades of color with mammals having 2 shades equally divided. If that's the case, then Figure 6a is only depicting mammals?



I also I wonder how the model accounts for mutation rates among different populations of humans - or whether the model can be used at all to compare mutation rates among different populations.

Although the article is definitely targeted to scientists in that field, I think the figures are somewhat difficult to understand. We use figures, charts and tables in research to clarify and summarize the data. I thought the authors could have done a better job on that.

In any case, interesting outcome about the split time. I hope someone repeats their work to validate their conclusions.






edit on 10-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-2-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Evolution is evident. Evolution of man is yet to be proven.


We have the same type of DNA as all other life on the planet, even share something like 50% with a carrot, 96% with chimpanzees. We witness humans acquiring genetic mutations with each generation. Saying that evolution is evident in all other life except humans makes no sense at all, especially when you consider that human evolution is actually one of the more comprehensive and backed up transitions in all of evolutionary history. Scientists have found 20+ different species between ancient ape and modern human. It's not even close to debatable. It's nice to believe you are special and hand crafted by an eternal being or aliens, there's just nothing to back that up and no reason whatsoever to exclude humans from evolution.
edit on 2 11 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: Ghost147

I am always at a loss over this because the article proposes that the split between chimpanzee and humans occurred some 6MYA. The hominids which seem to be the mid-way point only started up 1.6 - 2 MYA and I can't see the reason for such a huge amount of time to go from chimpanzee to hominid and such a short time onto human. Can you explain if I am missing something here?


Evolution isn't linear and doesn't follow timetables. There isn't always some exact halfway point, it follows the environment and can go in numerous different directions before it settles where it is now. Besides, scientists consider homo habilis more of a halfway point and that's 2.5 MYA, I've even heard some say that Australopithecus afarensis is a better halfway point and that dates to 3-4 MYA. There's no exact halfway point, it's just an estimation. Also you may want to know that chimps didn't exist back then. It was really an ancient apelike ancestor. Chimps evolved later, they didn't turn into hominids and humans, they split from that line.



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Evolution is evident. Evolution of man is yet to be proven.


We have the same type of DNA as all other life on the planet, even share something like 50% with a carrot, 96% with chimpanzees. We witness humans acquiring genetic mutations with each generation. Saying that evolution is evident in all other life except humans makes no sense at all, especially when you consider that human evolution is actually one of the more comprehensive and backed up transitions in all of evolutionary history. Scientists have found 20+ different species between ancient ape and modern human. It's not even close to debatable. It's nice to believe you are special and hand crafted by an eternal being or aliens, there's just nothing to back that up and no reason whatsoever to exclude humans from evolution.


You jumped to that conclusion... (God/aliens) not me.

Are you saying we evolved from carrots?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
You jumped to that conclusion... (God/aliens) not me.

Are you saying we evolved from carrots?


I did not jump to that conclusion, I was just saying I understand why folks believe. What's your alternate theory if not god/aliens?

Are you saying humans didn't evolve? If so, how do you explain the fact that evolution in humans has been directly observed and measured via mapping genomes from one generation to the next and also via the numerous hominid fossils? Obviously humans didn't evolve directly from carrots, but if you go far back enough, you'll find a common ancestor.
edit on 2 11 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

And it will be a human ancestor...



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Barcs

And it will be a human ancestor...


Are you saying you think carrots evolved from humans?

The Creationist circus never leaves town!



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Are you admitting you are a vegetable?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Do you even English bro?



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Said the person with low comprehension skills while exhibiting so like a fool...



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
You jumped to that conclusion... (God/aliens) not me.

Are you saying we evolved from carrots?


I did not jump to that conclusion, I was just saying I understand why folks believe. What's your alternate theory if not god/aliens?

Are you saying humans didn't evolve? If so, how do you explain the fact that evolution in humans has been directly observed and measured via mapping genomes from one generation to the next and also via the numerous hominid fossils? Obviously humans didn't evolve directly from carrots, but if you go far back enough, you'll find a common ancestor.


Im not saying we DIDN'T evolve. Im just saying, im not counting on it. I think it's working with such little data and it's barely observable. It's a lot of assumptions and I don't like hanging everything on assumptions.

Also, my other theory? Im going with simulation.
edit on 11-2-2016 by MrConspiracy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MrConspiracy

Simulation theory...

It is an interesting concept, but even so...
when you think about it...
You have to pay homage to the programmer aka the creator...
edit on 11-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

And it will be a human ancestor...


Nope, a common ancestor couldn't be human, or you wouldn't share 50% of your DNA with a banana.

Tree of life:



In a diagram to show the divergence of groups from their common ancestor:



Not very clear on black background, here's the link to those same graphs on wikipedia:en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 12-2-2016 by Agartha because: Added link



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

I don't share any percentage of DNA with bananas and they don't share any with me... we each have our own DNA...
the similarities are due to the fact we live on earth and its that simple...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
Im not saying we DIDN'T evolve. Im just saying, im not counting on it. I think it's working with such little data and it's barely observable. It's a lot of assumptions and I don't like hanging everything on assumptions.

Also, my other theory? Im going with simulation.


Simulation requires a creator no?

Such little data? Do you realize that human evolution is one of the most comprehensive, substantiated transitions in all of evolutionary history? No offense but folks that say things like that obviously have never even attempted to do the research because saying it's barely observable is laughable. What assumptions are made in human evolution that don't apply to the rest of life on the planet? Why would humans be immune to genetic change? Why would somebody simulate evolution for all life on earth EXCEPT humans? How do you explain the hundreds of genetic mutations that happen from generation to generation that cause all other species to change over time, but not humans?
edit on 2 12 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Show direct evidence substantiated with observable data directly correlating your claim which proves evolution thru mutation for one species becoming another...
That obviously excludes mutations and hybrids within the same species as the outcome...
edit on 12-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...

edit on 12-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

I don't share any percentage of DNA with bananas and they don't share any with me... we each have our own DNA...
the similarities are due to the fact we live on earth and its that simple...


Can you please explain and back up that theory of yours?

You, I and everybody else share DNA with all animals and plants because we have a common ancestor. DNA coding has allowed for genetic comparison,so we were able to compare our DNA with, well, basically anything that has life. Plant and animal life diverged about 1.5 billion years ago: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

We share 90% DNA with our cats! Here is a study about apes: news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

.

"If people are asking what makes us human, they're not going to find a smoking gun [in this study]," said Evan Eichler, a genome scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle who was part of the research team. "But they're going to find suggestions for where to look."

That's from your link by the way...

Do you understand what you read???




top topics



 
18
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join