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

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Evolution is about speciation - genetic and phenotypic divergence.

The new species CANNOT reproduce with the original species because the genetic alterations prevent it from doing so.
It is a NEW SPECIES.

When Japheth 's Lineage migrated north through the caucus mountains into Europe, thus giving rise to the caucasian race, they experienced a phenotypic divergence into paler skin (less melanin) due to the lesser amounts of sunlight received at northern geographic latitudes. Going off your statement, you are saying this is evolution! Which it is Absolutely not. Despite this phenotypic divergence observed in the European Pale Skin, caucasians can still reproduce with all the other humans.

Humans can live at 20,000 feet for a million years and still may not evolve into a new species (although this isn't impossible).They may adapt to that altitude with alterations to their hemoglobin load to capture more iron, but until that human has DIVERGED genetically and phenotypically, they are still HUMAN.

They didn't adapt to capture more iron, you are speaking nonsense. The adaptive epigenetic mechanism for 2,3-BPG expression is present in all humans to adapt to higher altitudes, so conveniently for the first humans that went to high elevation, the accommodating biochemical mechanisms were already present. Praise be to God

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Raggedyman

For the same reason that the Model T Ford and the internal combustion engine has been studied, modified and produced new knowledge.

This is a bad analogy. Combustion is a well-known, repeatable process that has been proven to have oxygen and biomolecules as its reactants, and water and carbon dioxide as its products. The only constant in the theory of evolution is that it is always changing.

Jeez, by now you should know this.

Your speculation is based on nothing. Your proposed facts are untrue.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

Large changes have been shown to occur quickly at times under certain conditions. These conditions with the butterflies in Fukushima are being passed down by enough to split a species. i feel that the record is not so easy to read. Clearly things evolve and yet clearly they were designed to do so.

www.livescience.com...

Evolution may sometimes happen so fast that it's hard to catch in action, a new study of Galápagos finches suggests.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

We are in the wee baby stages of learning, it is not a time to put your eggs all in one basket unless you believe a hand basket can carry you to hell
www.space.com...

Implications found in quantum gravity and string theory tantalizingly suggest a universe that is in reality nothing like how it appears to human observers. It may actually be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, for example. Or it could be a completely digital simulation running in a vast computer. - See more at: www.space.com...
[/quote

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You still don't understand speciation. Yes, humans, in fact all organisms, have the ability to adapt. But adaptation doesn't necessarily imply speciation. Evolution is about speciation - genetic and phenotypic divergence.

The new species CANNOT reproduce with the original species because the genetic alterations prevent it from doing so.
It is a NEW SPECIES.

Humans can live at 20,000 feet for a million years and still may not evolve into a new species (although this isn't impossible). They may adapt to that altitude with alterations to their hemoglobin load to capture more iron, but until that human has DIVERGED genetically and phenotypically, they are still HUMAN.

Jeez, by now you should know this.

While in general this hits on a point, but for clarity there is only adaptation which is part of the process of evolution. The term species is taxonomic and using the term speciation implies there is a separate process withi evolution. Separating species doesn't mean that it is impossible to have cross breeding, though it would take an extreme environmental situation such as captivity and close enough genetic make up for this to occur. Typically the offspring ar infertile though there have been reports otherwise: I dont know if the claims are credible.

Just a pet peeve because it always leads to people using it in an attempt to validate the micro/macro nonsense.

originally posted by: Cypress


While in general this hits on a point, but for clarity there is only adaptation which is part of the process of evolution. The term species is taxonomic and using the term speciation implies there is a separate process withi evolution. Separating species doesn't mean that it is impossible to have cross breeding, though it would take an extreme environmental situation such as captivity and close enough genetic make up for this to occur. Typically the offspring ar infertile though there have been reports otherwise: I dont know if the claims are credible.

Just a pet peeve because it always leads to people using it in an attempt to validate the micro/macro nonsense.

Semantics does make it difficult to have one congruent concept of what exactly evolution would be. Regardless, I think a lot of examples which people think are "evolution" are actually epigenetic mechanisms... and what people would define as "evolution" actually happens all the time and is not evolution in terms of the mechanisms theorized to be the progenitor of new species.

It also doesn't help when you have SEO bloggers who are unloading their ignorant "Here Be Evolution" swill into the public, only for it to be repeated by people behaving like parrots repeating the nonsense of an ignoramus.

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

When evolution is discussed wise men will marvel at the metamorphosis of caterpillar to butterfly...

AHH its like evolution within evolution *head explodes*. Scientific explanation: Get your metapod or kakuna to level 10.

a reply to: cooperton

Its not semantics. There is no specific boundary when two species diverge and become extinct, which would be the case should we use that term. It is a technicality because some people are unable to grasp the concept.

In the case of the OP, the divergence would still be over several generations.

a reply to: cooperton

I will repeat my post:

You still don't understand speciation. Yes, humans, in fact all organisms, have the ability to adapt. But adaptation doesn't necessarily imply speciation. Evolution is about speciation - genetic and phenotypic divergence.

The new species CANNOT reproduce with the original species because the genetic alterations prevent it from doing so.
It is a NEW SPECIES.

Humans can live at 20,000 feet for a million years and still may not evolve into a new species (although this isn't impossible). They may adapt to that altitude with alterations to their hemoglobin load to capture more iron, but until that human has DIVERGED genetically and phenotypically, they are still HUMAN.

Jeez, by now you should know this.

1. Evolution is about speciation - genetic and phenotypic divergence.
You conveniently left out genetic:
Definition: Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species. Imagine that you are looking at a tip of the tree of life that constitutes a species of fruit fly. Move down the phylogeny to where your fruit fly twig is connected to the rest of the tree. That branching point, and every other branching point on the tree, is a speciation event. At that point genetic changes resulted in two separate fruit fly lineages, where previously there had just been one lineage.

2. The new species CANNOT reproduce with the original species because the genetic alterations prevent it from doing so.
It is a NEW SPECIES.
What don't you get about this?? Two separate species cannot reproduce. No-brainer.

3. Humans can live at 20,000 feet for a million years and still may not evolve into a new species (although this isn't impossible). They may adapt to that altitude with alterations to their hemoglobin load to capture more iron, but until that human has DIVERGED genetically and phenotypically, they are still HUMAN.

Yes, they are still human unless or until their genetic code is altered to the extent that humans are a different species (think fruit fly).

Your comment about the combustion engine:

"This is a bad analogy. Combustion is a well-known, repeatable process that has been proven to have oxygen and biomolecules as its reactants, and water and carbon dioxide as its products. The only constant in the theory of evolution is that it is always changing. "

Science is about discovery and hard evidence - that's it. New discovery, new evidence, new knowledge.
The combustion engine has changed - addititives which change the octane number, metal deactivators, corrosion inhibitors, oxygenates and antioxidants. The efficiency of a combustion engine is primarily a function of the fuel.

The theory of evolution has not changed. Only the details change as more knowledge is acquired. Your problem is that you expect scientific discovery to have an end point, an absolute truth, a "the end" to the story. Well it doesn't - nothing in science has an end point and there are no absolutes.

Your comment on hemoglobin:

"They didn't adapt to capture more iron, you are speaking nonsense. The adaptive epigenetic mechanism for 2,3-BPG expression is present in all humans to adapt to higher altitudes, so conveniently for the first humans that went to high elevation, the accommodating biochemical mechanisms were already present. Praise be to God"

You contradicted yourself.

The amount of hemoglobin in blood increases at high altitude. This is one of the best-known features of acclimatisation to high altitude. Increasing the amount of hemoglobin in the blood increases the amount of oxygen that can be carried.
High concentrations of hemoglobin require higher concentrations of iron. Each heme molecule is covalently bound to nitrogen. No iron - no heme. Get it?

a reply to: Ghost147

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.

Thank you for your interesting post. Fossil records are very inconclusive they may well show that species and adapt and change however than are not proof of evolutionary theory. Life is far more complex than we understand and to break its mechanism of change down to competion dont do life any justice.

Such theories are far more reflective of the type of culutre that we have beome over the last hundred years. I enjoy studying ecology and species interaction and life gives to life far more than it takes.

If we spent more time trying to listening nature instead of seeing it as a dumb machine we might see something very different..

snf :-)

a reply to: Phantom423

What don't you get about this?? Two separate species cannot reproduce. No-brainer.

Read some intesting stuff about humans sharing the same dna as pigs although monkeys dont.. A little mind candy..

a reply to: purplemer

i'd love to have you share. iv read a small amount on it....would like more though.

a reply to: Ghost147

Could be possible. However, we haven't found anything to suggest this was the case, but it could very well be possible.

That just depends how you look at things... The process we call evolution is to me a process of intelligent design by nature.

It shows an intelligence, a ability to problem solve, a self awareness just works on very different time scales to human life.

a reply to: cooperton

"Epigenetic" suggests that outside influences, such as environment, are responsible for stimulating the lactase persistence or non-persistence. There is a molecular (genetic) basis for lactase persistent polymorphism.

www.nlm.it...


EVIDENCE FOR A GENETIC CAUSE
Family studies, using lactose-tolerance tests, showed that these interindividual
differences in lactase activity were due to a genetic polymorphism. The most
convincing evidence came from large families from Finland (66). The studies suggested
that adults with low LDC (who are lactase nonpersistent) are homozygous
for an autosomal recessive allele that causes the post-weaning decline of lactase
activity, whereas people who are lactase persistent (high LDC) are either heterozygous
or homozygous for a dominant allele LCT∗P that allows lactase to persist.
Swallow & Hollox (76) summarize the published family studies from different
parts of the world. Only eight cases have been reported in which individuals with
high LDC were found in the progeny of parents who both had low LDC (20, 42).
In none of these studies was nonpaternity excluded, so this fit with a genetic model
is surprisingly good in view of difficulties in making a certain diagnosis!
Further evidence of the genetic nature of this variation came from a study of
lactose digestion in twins. Concordance of the lactose-tolerance phenotypes was
complete in monozygous twins, and the distribution of dizygous twin pairs corresponded
with Hardy-Weinberg predictions (50). Studies of lactase enzyme activities
in intestinal samples from adults were also in agreement: Using disaccharidase
8 Oct 2003 16:50 AR AR201-GE37-08.tex AR201-GE37-08.sgm LaTeX2e(2002/01/18) P1: GCE
LACTOSE INTOLERANCE 201
activity ratios, a trimodal distribution of sucrase:lactase or maltase:lactase activity
ratios was observed (18, 28). This activity distribution was compatible with the
existence of three genotypes: homozygous persistent, homozygous nonpersistent,
and heterozygotes. The observation of intermediate activity in the putative heterozygotes
also implied that cis-acting differences (i.e., within or neighboring
the lactase gene) are responsible for the polymorphism. The distribution of lactase
activities shown as a sucrase/lactase ratio in children and adults is shown in
Reference 76. Young babies show a unimodal distribution that shifts progressively
to a trimodal distribution with age.
Lactase persistence behaves as a dominant trait because half levels of lactase
activity are sufficient to show significant digestion of lactose. However, as the
levels of intestinal hydrolases are not present in vast excess over requirement
(87), under conditions of stress or mild pathology, heterozygotes may be more
prone than lactase-persistent homozygotes to become lactose intolerant. In contrast,
lactase-nonpersistent individuals do not necessarily experience symptoms of
lactose intolerance, particularly if they consume only modest amounts of milk or
other lactose-containing foods, e.g., the amount added to tea. Many genetic and
nutritional factors may influence lactose digestion in a single individual (19) so
that self-assessment of lactose-tolerance status is not very accurate. People seem to
adjust their dietary intake of milk and milk products consciously or unconsciously
to their individual lactose-tolerance threshold, and some adaptation can occur via
changes in colonic flora. However, there is no evidence for adaptive alteration in
lactase expression (37).

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Ghost147

Could be possible. However, we haven't found anything to suggest this was the case, but it could very well be possible.

That just depends how you look at things... The process we call evolution is to me a process of intelligent design by nature.

It shows an intelligence, a ability to problem solve, a self awareness just works on very different time scales to human life.

How does it show intellegence when the majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful?

a reply to: purplemer

Interesting but not sure how it relates to the discussion. Humans share dna with most species to some extent.

The octopus however is a strange creature in that regard - read this article - it's intriguing:

www.geek.com...

Octopuses are aliens — or, at least, so vastly different in their genetic makeup that they might as well be considered out of this world. Scientists recently sequenced the first genome in the Octopus Genome Project, a huge undertaking to map out the entire DNA structure of the complex cephalopod. What they found was simply incredible.

a reply to: Cypress

How does it show intellegence when the majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful?

You are a good example of intelligence shown along with a mryiad other species complete with biotech and tooled out to deal with surrounding environment.

Is not problem solving a form of intelligence the process you refer to as evolution has kept life around for billions of years..

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Cypress

How does it show intellegence when the majority of mutations are either neutral or harmful?

You are a good example of intelligence shown along with a mryiad other species complete with biotech and tooled out to deal with surrounding environment.

Is not problem solving a form of intelligence the process you refer to as evolution has kept life around for billions of years..

But life doesnt problem solve. Organisms either live long enough to pass on genetic traits or not. Gills allow fish to breath in water. If something occurred and we were forced to only live in the water tomorrow without returning to land, im not growing gills and my offspring isnt. We go extinct. There is no sentient being that is giving us gills.

a reply to: purplemer

Life is also something of a feedback loop as well where certain conditions produce certain responses and changes. Over time this may look like problem solving but could simply be the results based off the successful changes in response to the environment. When looking at what the successful outcome is and the changes allowing it to solve some perceived problem it had to overcome you also aren't looking at all the failures which could be many but of very small differences.

a reply to: mOjOm

thank you for your reply.

I see intelligence different. I see it in people and animals. I can see it the interactions between ecosystems. I can see it in the civillasations of forests and the earth itself. A self regualting self aware being whom we are part of..

and yes i see it in the process we refer to as evolution too. Consciousness exists on many levels we tend to see it on just one.

If we want to learn to survive we need to stop villifying the world around us and see it for what it is. Nature exists not becuase it competes but because it cooperates the more we look the more we see this..

Not trying to debate or make you change your mind just sharing the way I see it..

a reply to: Cypress

But life doesnt problem solve. Organisms either live long enough to pass on genetic traits or not. Gills allow fish to breath in water. If something occurred and we were forced to only live in the water tomorrow without returning to land, im not growing gills and my offspring isnt. We go extinct. There is no sentient being that is giving us gills.

Yes it does problem solve just does it over longer periods of time than a single life. If it didnt we would not have come out of the water in the first place..

;-)

a reply to: purplemer

I understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is that what you're seeing may not be what it seems. After all we don't even know that much about what consciousness is or how intelligence works or what it is either.

What I'm trying to say is that when it comes to problem solving let's say we need to throw a football through a swinging tire. Intelligence would be noting the swing of the tire, distance, throwing speed, when to release, etc. which would then calculate how to throw the ball through the tire.
Another way would be to throw ball after ball at the tire in different ways until one makes it through.

From the other side we'd see both of them as a success the difference being one would probably have many more failures than the other. So when looking at evolution which seems more similar. Lot's of failures and attempts with some success or very few attempts and failures with some success???

If there was an intelligence behind it I would assume that the rate and degree of change would be much more significant and obvious than it is. What we see is typically gradual changes with many failed attempts over a long period of time.

a reply to: mOjOm

After all we don't even know that much about what consciousness is or how intelligence works or what it is either.

Abosulty agree. We dont know yet we build entire philosophies of knowledge on the premise that we do. Science works on a dualistic approach that the world can be divided into both a subject and an object without any real proof to back it up IIf such premises are wrong then the whole lot falls down.

I understand your anology that it could all just be mindless repetition, mutation and competition.. I would like to share with you a thread I put up on forest ecosystems.

We are begining to understand that the trees in woodlands are all connected through their roots and fungi networks. The trees and other plants can use these networks to share information and resources if a tree needs something and another has it sends down through the root system. These trees do not need to be related..

For all our cleverness we live in a civilisation that is doing a good job of destroying itself and the planet. The forest which is a civilisation too has been here far longer than we have.

A time from now we may be gone the forests will recover and still remain. Our own smartness may wipe us bevause we think ourselves above all else and that life has nothing to teach because we are clever ones.


Have a read if you wish.

Why trees are even more awesome than you think
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Plants Communicate Using An Internet Of Fungus
www.abovetopsecret.com...

happy days