Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Just ONE question on evolution

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Evolution has yet to be describe to me in a way that sticks in my head. Can someone explain IN LAYMAN'S TERMS what I am about to ask.

In evolution I would expect to find many samples of a species with gradual changes that has taken place over millions of years. In the image below, there are three skulls of Australopithecus afarensis (that I manipulated). The first specimen lived 3 million years ago (I don't know the exact years, so I just wrote 3 million). This one has a very bony brow.

The second one lived 2 million years ago. Through the process of evolution, as this species moved closer and closer to becoming human, I would expect to find subtle differences, but this creature would still be called Australopithecus afarensis, only with a less severe bony brow.

Then the one that lived only a million years ago I would expect to find the bony brow gone, but still considered Australopithecus afarensis.



Is this, in fact, what science is finding? Because if we aren't finding subtle differences in any given species, how can it be considered evolution?




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
How would those findings match up, when other beings of higher densities genetically modified us?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I think what darwinists will tell you is: this is one branch of a species that remained unchanged while any variations would create a branch and a sub-species or child species would make an entrance.

So while the parent species may remain unchanged other sub-species could have branched out through mutations which if compared side by side would show the changes you are looking for. They just label the changed species differently.

It's still a theory. Evolution is real.. ie: change happens. The theory is still a theory though. We observe a change the effect or cause is not completely proven.

Like global warming.. or rather "climate change". Proof that the weather changes isn't proof that humans are doing it. Proof that we have all these species fossils, is not proof that genetic mutations result in new species. No matter how obvious it might seem.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Evolution is basically a change to a species physical and mental self to adapt to a change in the environment in order to ensure the survival of the species.

Those who adapt get to have more babies ,those who don't fade away.

Any of those guys of yours still around?

I think that evolution is both a slow process and an abrupt one.
edit on 27-8-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Evolution has more holes in it than that skull does...



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I think what darwinists will tell you is: this is one branch of a species that remained unchanged while any variations would create a branch and a sub-species or child species would make an entrance.


How do these sub-species come about? I imagine that a tribe of one species splits up. Half of them stay where they are and never change. The other half goes off to face adversities in a new environment which causes them to evolve in certain ways in order to survive. Then that tribe splits up, and so on and so on...creating thousands of branches and sub-species.

Under this premise how could EVERY SINGLE branch die out and leave only us here today? Doesn't that seem highly improbable? Not only improbable, but for evolution to have worked this way it would have taken (in my opinion) billions of years.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
It is two things.
Adaptability and survival of the fittest.

In todays world,we have circumvented that in such a way that it could doom us all.

Think about those that are searching for bigfoot.
Now think way back.
Curiosity or elimination of the competition for food.

I would go for the elimination IMO.
edit on 27-8-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I think what darwinists will tell you is: this is one branch of a species that remained unchanged while any variations would create a branch and a sub-species or child species would make an entrance.


How do these sub-species come about? I imagine that a tribe of one species splits up. Half of them stay where they are and never change. The other half goes off to face adversities in a new environment which causes them to evolve in certain ways in order to survive. Then that tribe splits up, and so on and so on...creating thousands of branches and sub-species.

Under this premise how could EVERY SINGLE branch die out and leave only us here today? Doesn't that seem highly improbable? Not only improbable, but for evolution to have worked this way it would have taken (in my opinion) billions of years.


Let's say some female caveman has a baby and that baby has a genetic feature that works well. Like slightly larger eyeballs. Then that large eyed kid has a kid and it carries the large eyeball feature along.. and the larger eyeball is helping keep these caveman alive longer and letting them have more kids that are passing on the gene.. The theory goes that those large eyed caveman will reproduce blah blah..

It's a theory.. and yes it not been proven. And people hold on to it the same way a Catholic might insist eating the host helps them get into heaven. Religion of Science.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
Under this premise how could EVERY SINGLE branch die out and leave only us here today? Doesn't that seem highly improbable? Not only improbable, but for evolution to have worked this way it would have taken (in my opinion) billions of years.


It would be highly probable. When a species is under stress, evolution does not have to take long at all. For example, the trend to lighter skin in a northern climate would take about 20,000 years--not all that long. Although it seems like a huge change, it really is only a reaction to the lack of vitamin D--not that big a change at all.

We'll probably never know the extent of hominim variation in the past, but one thing is certain. From the very first remains found, subsequent ones have fit into the pattern like a jig saw puzzle. It didn't seem that way at first, but as more and more is discovered the picture is becoming more clear. Then add DNA evidence into the scheme and you get corroboration from a completely different (and unexpected) direction. The theory of our evolution is MUCH stronger (and more complex) than it was, say, fifty years ago.

You don't really need any "space brothers tweaked us" explanations to show how we are the way we are. We evolved here, and though it is 'possible' we were 'tweaked,' it's simply unnecessary to invoke it. Occam's Razor and all.

One big change in evolutionary theory relatively recently is the acknowledgement that evolution can happen in bursts. It's not always a slow grind upwards. What causes this? Just the right (or wrong) conditions.

Here's an example of social evolution: As you know, the Roman Empire was actually quite advanced. They had modern plumbing, running water and waste removal. They had concrete. They lacked electricity, but the reconstructions of Roman villas, for example, are actually fairly "modern." Then we had the Middle Ages. These weren't as backwards as people claim--they weren't all that dark, but it is a fact that there wasn't a great deal of obvious innovation for 1,000 years or so, though much was happening in the background and in infrastructure.

Then two things happened: 1. The invention of the printing press and 2. The Black Plague. Because so many people died, their clothes were used to make the "rag content" of paper, thus giving the printing press "cheap fuel." Further, with so many dead, fewer inherited, but those fewer grew richer for lack of competition--their siblings were dead. Suddenly you had a richer populace that had the ability to spread knowledge. And that caused...

the Renaissance, which was an intellectual and technological leap forward, an evolutionary leap forward because of unique circumstances that coincided at just the right time.

Homo aferensis was a very successful species that lasted a very long time, far longer than we have so far. It lived in a steady-state environment that allowed this to happen with no appreciable change being necessary.

edit on 8/27/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by jiggerj
Under this premise how could EVERY SINGLE branch die out and leave only us here today? Doesn't that seem highly improbable? Not only improbable, but for evolution to have worked this way it would have taken (in my opinion) billions of years.


It would be highly probable. When a species is under stress, evolution does not have to take long at all. For example, the trend to lighter skin in a northern climate would take about 20,000 years--not all that long. Although it seems like a huge change, it really is only a reaction to the lack of vitamin D--not that big a change at all.

We'll probably never know the extent of hominim variation in the past, but one thing is certain. From the very first remains found, subsequent ones have fit into the pattern like a jig saw puzzle. It didn't seem that way at first, but as more and more is discovered the picture is becoming more clear. Then add DNA evidence into the scheme and you get corroboration from a completely different (and unexpected) direction. The theory of our evolution is MUCH stronger (and more complex) than it was, say, fifty years ago.

You don't really need any "space brothers tweaked us" explanations to show how we are the way we are. We evolved here, and though it is 'possible' we were 'tweaked,' it's simply unnecessary to invoke it. Occam's Razor and all.

One big change in evolutionary theory relatively recently is the acknowledgement that evolution can happen in bursts. It's not always a slow grind upwards. What causes this? Just the right (or wrong) conditions.

Here's an example of social evolution: As you know, the Roman Empire was actually quite advanced. They had modern plumbing, running water and waste removal. They had concrete. They lacked electricity, but the reconstructions of Roman villas, for example, are actually fairly "modern." Then we had the Middle Ages. These weren't as backwards as people claim--they weren't all that dark, but it is a fact that there wasn't a great deal of obvious innovation for 1,000 years or so, though much was happening in the background and in infrastructure.

Then two things happened: 1. The invention of the printing press and 2. The Black Plague. Because so many people died, their clothes were used to make the "rag content" of paper, thus giving the printing press "cheap fuel." Further, with so many dead, fewer inherited, but those fewer grew richer for lack of competition--their siblings were dead. Suddenly you had a richer populace that had the ability to spread knowledge. And that caused...

the Renaissance, which was an intellectual and technological leap forward, an evolutionary leap forward because of unique circumstances that coincided at just the right time.

Homo aferensis was a very successful species that lasted a very long time, far longer than we have so far. It lived in a steady-state environment that allowed this to happen with no appreciable change being necessary.

edit on 8/27/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)


Kind of like "the cleansing",a reduction of the competition allowing for expansion.
Also after these periods of growth and reduction an explosion of growth follows.

A small example is our century.
You can see it ,the great depression,WWII .
But that is just a very tiny speck of what happens during change .

It will happen again,when,who knows,but people and animals will always try to adapt to survive.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
But here's the real question.

If not Evolution, what do we have? What is the competing theory?

Creationism? Could be but, that's really too broad a term. Even an evolutionist could say well God created the universe and we evolved according to that Creation. You can't just say, that evolution is wrong without offering a competing theory or offering a change to the theory.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazing
But here's the real question.

If not Evolution, what do we have? What is the competing theory?

Creationism? Could be but, that's really too broad a term. Even an evolutionist could say well God created the universe and we evolved according to that Creation. You can't just say, that evolution is wrong without offering a competing theory or offering a change to the theory.


Seems creationism wants to explain the beginning ,but not the rest.
Cause if we follow what is told in any of the religious text,God's hand is in everything that happens.
That means he/she/it is very busy and has a really good connection to everything that is happening.

More of a pain in the ass job then anything spiritual.

But if he planted a seed to let it grow and either survive or die,then what do you say about that?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Ok I am going to give this one a go...

First the caveat: I am a trained scientist (PhD Chemistry (specializing in pharmaceutical design), and Masters in Biochemistry (specializing in Bioinformatics, in particular genomics)) I also have several years teaching these subjects in labs, as well as about a decade of scaling up R&D pharmaceuticals to be suitable to be manufactured.

Basically I am biased.

So Evolution is a genetic change, and it can be gradual, or it can be sudden. Both occur. It is about mutation of genes, that offer some advantage over other versions of the genes. It is about the passing on of said genes too. Otherwise they die with the individual who has them.

Old school archaeology looks at how these genes are expressed. The fossils of skeletons (if we are lucky we find something snap frozen in Siberia, or mummified in a tar pit, and then we know what it "looked like") are the physical representation of some genes which coded for well the Skeleton, we also might see how muscles attached by marks left on the bones. But that old school study (which is the examples you are listing) was stuck with the large scale physical evidence, of a small set of changes over time. It is also based off of the luck of finding a partial skeleton, or hells a bit of fossilized bone that tells us something.

Modern genetic archaeology can study fairly recent finds, using DNA. But DNA is fragile, it can't be studied in ancient fossils. It degrades.

But scientists have observed evolution in both simple bacteria, and in changes in some human genes. We have seen some genes in humans be selected over others. We look at mummies, bones from shipwrecks, and graves etc. We can trace peoples migrations using simple changes (that produce no real change in the human) in either the Ychromosome (from daddy) or the mitochondrial DNA (only from mom, and does not code for YOU as you know it, just the little powerhouse in each cell that keeps us ticking... the mitochondria).

Lastly, how much difference is a big difference? Well not much. We are about 97 to 98% genetically similar to Chimps, yet they are not us. Those small changes in how we express proteins from our genetic codes, is what makes us difference. Humans are even less different as a species. The difference between what some people called "race" is smaller than the differences inside a "race". Those differences are not much.

So When we look at some skulls, that look "similar" it's a change of a set of genes, that have "evolved" to something more suitable. Homo neanderthalus (the Neanderthal) was if memory serves about 99% similar to us, yet looked physically different (brow ridges, huge muscles etc). They were suited to live in cold climates, and hunt (or more likely scavange) megafauna like Mammoths, mastodons etc. Homo Sapiens was probably (we are not sure) just better at doing things. We either breed them out, or chased them out of their ranges. OR we being humans killed them (after probably taking their women) off, because they were different.

Evolution is a theory that well evolves. Darwins ideas are like the rough draft on a napkin, compared to what we think now, and with genetic sequencing getting cheaper and cheaper, that will continue to change.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheGreatDivider
 


SO does intellegent design, and creationism. However we are expected to "take it on faith" that this is so. Not likely.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Any conjecture or hypothesis based on the idea that the universe and life itself were not the product of purposeful intelligent design is wrong and will be proven* wrong.

Everyone coming up with theories based on the prejudiced assumption that there is no Creator is wrong and will therefore come up with wrong conclusions biased toward their prejudiced views.

When they are proven wrong, which is always 100% of the time (when they assume we are a product of chance) instead of letting the conclusions lead them to logical conclusions of fact and truth, that we were created by an intelligent designer, they will continue to ignore evidence and come up with even more ridiculous theories to try and keep their prejudiced ideas in tact.

But as long as scientists base all their theories on their blind faith and refuse to see facts they will always be proven wrong.

Not to say that all scientists blindly do the above, this is referring to those that do. Like say for example the scientists who say that since we don't know everything inside the DNA that some of it must be "junk" because of evolution, they will eventually be proven wrong.

Just like the scientists who say that certain parts of the human body have no function because they are left-over remnants from when we were different species, they will be proven wrong, when the functions of said organs are discovered. 100% of the time they will be proven wrong.

There was a time when people thought that flies just sprang up out of nothing. We consider them foolish now. Except a lot of educated people still believe that things far more complex than flies sprang up out of nothing.

Whose the fools?

edit on 27-8-2012 by SubAce because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SubAce
 


How very unscientific. You are basing this theory of yours on no evidence. No metrics are involved. Oh and I am a spiritual individual, just not Abrahamic. There is plenty of room for creators out there, I am sure. But you've supplied no evidence it was involved.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

OK...LAYMAN'S TERMS....Evolution....

Over very long periods of time...any life form...will come in contact with either an event or another species or change in Nature that will cause the deaths of the weak of that species or the deaths of a number of that species that is not capable of coping to it's new environment.

The survivors breed and pass along traits that allowed them to survive. As conditions change...so does the species.
This is the same with Bacteria that right now are immune to standard Antibiotics. Doctors over prescribed them...some Bacteria survived the treatment and their progeny that is born of Mitosis...is now immune to standard Antibiotics.

That's it in a nut shell. Those that have the traits to survive changes...multiply and pass on along these traits.
Split Infinity



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 

First of all, congratulations to Noinden for his or her terse yet comprehensive and clear round-up of the sources of evidential support for evolution.

Now to your question:


How do these sub-species come about? I imagine that a tribe of one species splits up. Half of them stay where they are and never change. The other half goes off to face adversities in a new environment which causes them to evolve in certain ways in order to survive. Then that tribe splits up, and so on and so on...creating thousands of branches and sub-species.

Under this premise how could EVERY SINGLE branch die out and leave only us here today? Doesn't that seem highly improbable? Not only improbable, but for evolution to have worked this way it would have taken (in my opinion) billions of years.

There is no such thing as a species that 'never changes'. Evolution never ceases, even among humans.

Unless they are geographically isolated for a very long time, most of the populations you theorize will continue to interbreed, and genetic differences between them will largely be eliminated by natural selection. They remain members of the same species.

Populations that are geographically separated from each other for many generations will continue to evolve – individuals in both the parent and daughter populations will continue to mutate, and natural selection will continue to act. Some populations will die out. Others eventually evolve into separate species.

There is no wild proliferation of species and subspecies that needs to be eliminated, leaving just one champion. The winnow of nature never stops working, so most mutants are cut off at the pass before they have a chance of reproducing.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you, it's a his FYI


To continue from your points. Lets look at Homo erectus (you teenage boys can stop doing your Bevis and Butthead impressions now), it was a VERY successful species (if memory serves it lasted close to a million years on this planet, and spread a large distance). Homo erectus changed physically quite a bit over that period of time. That is a changing species. Just as humans have changed (for example most of us who are european (not me sadly) have become lactose tolerant thanks to a mutation, and this gene seems to have followed the proto Indo-Europeans and their Indo-European descendants around (many assume that cattle domestication was in part a PIE trait, the cow and bull were VERY important in almost all IE cultures). Similarly we can see the human jaw has changed size, while the number of teeth for most of us have not. If you had to have your wisdom teeth yanked (I did, only on the upper jaw), it is due to this.

Strangely, its been very recently seen (see the latest New Scientist) that genetically similar creatures like the Chimp and the Human, have different problems, Chimps almost never get cancer, while well we know we do. This implies it is epigenetic (influenced by the enviroment as well as the genome).



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Gradual change:



(A) For reference: Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Note that they don't necessarily represent our direct ancestors.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join