Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

sg, funny you mention it. I was pretty much on the fence until I began studying this exact problem more than 2 decades ago. I think among my first posts on the internet was on this very subject.

.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
B
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
B
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 901
Still no one has refuted any of Anyman's points. How come? Some of them were very specific.

Blacknad.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Dear Blacknad,

My experience in debating this subject for more than 20 years now is that generally speaking, no matter what you say, it will be ignored. Also, a common technique used by IDers and other creationists is to make an argument in the most arcane subject, feeling that no one listening would be smart enough or know enough to refute what they know to begin with.

In this particular case, he hasn't actually made an argument. He has accused the author of the story of having made up fairy stories and so forth and of using rhetorical techniques in place of reasoning. If you can't see that anyman himself was using exactly those techniques then I don't know what to say to you.

There are assumptions in any field of science - we call them laws or facts. The problem is that he's using a comic book understanding of the subject matter to criticize people who know a lot more than he does about it.

A good understanding of the entire 'debate' can be had by considering a single event in the recent Dover case. One of the witnesses for the school board, someone who was promoting ID in the schools and the downplaying of evolution education, was asked a question and then admitted that he hadn't actually read the standard that the school board was planning to adopt. Then one of the boardmembers complained about the length of the standard and admitted that she, too, had not read it.
That pretty much summarizes the last 150 years of debate on the subject.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"Still no one has refuted any of Anyman's points. How come? Some of them were very specific."

They have been refuted countless times. And there is no value in doing it yet again. Those interested in objective truth can read books. Those not interested can be preached to on Sunday morning by someone whose degree (divinity) taught them nothing about the subject.

Fascinating really. Astronomers, biologists, physicists, and mathematicians don't teach scripture. But for 25 pence every clergyman on the planet feels qualified to discuss evolution and physics.


DA Morgan
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
dano,

Quote:
anyman wrote:
"lots of folks like to talk about the molecular data but it too is based on a huge and numerous (not to mention faulty) assumptions"
Quote:
you said:
Faulty assumption? Really? Name them! And provide a reference to an objective source supporting your nonsense that the assumptions are faulty.
sigh...again?

MORE THAN HALF of all published studies...

Quote:
More than half of all published studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes, according to a geneticist at the University of Cambridge.

To the occasional chagrin of his peers, Peter Forster has repeatedly pointed out errors in published mtDNA sequences, the genetic material from cells' mitochondria, which are inherited from the mother. But his commentary in the latest issue of Annals of Human Genetics1 argues that the problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined.

The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations and evolution, says Forster. They may also confuse forensic analyses that rely on the published sequences, he adds.

"I was surprised by the number of errors," says Eric Shoubridge, a geneticist at McGill University's Montreal Neurological Institute in Canada, who investigates human diseases that result from problems with mtDNA. "What concerns me most is that these errors could be compounded in the databases."

Published mtDNA sequences are popular tools for investigating the evolution and demography of human populations. ...

...

... His colleagues' responses when he informs them of errors are varied. "Antagonism would be an understatement in some cases," he says. ...

...

Forster notes that nuclear DNA [nDNA, as opposed to mtDNA] sequences in public databases are also plagued by errors, and that this may be an even bigger problem, as such mistakes are more difficult to detect. (bold emps and bracket insertion mine ? am)
for the full article in nature

okay, let's see...

Quote:
More than half of all published studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes, according to a geneticist at the University of Cambridge.
MORE THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED studies on mtDNA...contain mistakes

whoa...how's that for scientific accuracy

hoooouuie...how's that for assumptions gone wild

and all you wanted was one, eh :-)

Quote:
To the occasional chagrin of his peers, Peter Forster has repeatedly pointed out errors in published mtDNA sequences, the genetic material from cells' mitochondria, which are inherited from the mother. But his commentary in the latest issue of Annals of Human Genetics1 argues that the problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined.
"occassional chagrin" = dramatically mild understatement

he has "repeatedly pointed out errors" but they still keep on citing the same data to support the conclusions in their published work

(mtDNA is now known to not even be exclusively acquired matrilineally but can at times be acquired patrilineally...throwing the data off by an even greater factor than the already acknowledged radical margin of error in the article...but we'll save that for another time :-)

and he writes elsewhere (annals of human genentics) that the prob is WAY BIGGER than anybody imagined...even after his repeated notifications

this more than satisfies your skeptical request criterion, blows it away, in fact...but we are not done yet...

Quote:
The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions in studies of human populations and evolution, says Forster. They may also confuse forensic analyses that rely on the published sequences, he adds.
part a here is radically understated...it's leading to massive error, period

part b translated to common language says:forensic analyses are case by case observable data...but they are ignoring that data and opting for the easy way by simply applying the paradigms accepted rates/sequences that are already **known and calculated** (NOT) rather than report the real observable individual data

then since the data in the reports and papers conform to the **known and calculated paradigmatic rates/sequences** they are sure to pass muster in the almighty peer-review process...and then the results are published...further confirming and adding to the **mountains of evidence** that so many love to site in support of their evolutionary paradigm

pretty tidy, eh :-)

yeah...that's the way, uh huh uh huh, we likes it...

get it? got it!

oh...he said confusing the results, NOT confirming the mountains of evidence

well, no matter, just ignore all that, sweep it under the rug, because we already know what the rates/sequences are/should be...and let's get back about the business of publishing more papers to confirm the paradigm and build our mountains of evidence rather than waste time on the confusion and conflict...don't worry, those are just anomolous data...go to the established table/database and use that; it gives the big picture and everything is already nicely worked out

Quote:
"I was surprised by the number of errors," says Eric Shoubridge, a geneticist at McGill University's Montreal Neurological Institute in Canada, who investigates human diseases that result from problems with mtDNA. "What concerns me most is that these errors could be compounded in the databases."
he was *surprised*...hmm, this is one of the most common words used in association with new discoveries, realizations by those in the evolutionary camp...

why...because reality doesn't fit with their philosophical evolutionary predictions/assumptions/expectations...that's why

he's concerned that this massive number of errors "could be" compounded in the databases...they use waffle language throughout to try and dilute the devastating but necessary inferences...but the massive errors are indubitably in the databases and they are without doubt compounded

Quote:
Published mtDNA sequences are popular tools for investigating the evolution and demography of human populations. ...
these data are commonly, virtually exclusively used in ?evolutionary? biology and ?evolutionary developmental" (evo-devo) biology...not to mention the negative affect on REAL biology :-)

stop it, you're killing me...no there's more

Quote:
... His colleagues' responses when he informs them of errors are varied. "Antagonism would be an understatement in some cases," he says. ...
yeah...don't confuse me with the facts, don't bother me with trifles; the study is done, the paper is already written (not going to go to the trouble of rewriting, especially since if it doesn't conform to known data, it might get bounced in peer-review), the paper's already been published (what, you think i'm going to just withdraw it/them; don't you know that academia and the science communities are *publish or perish* societies...)

yeah...antagonism is generally an understatement

Quote:
Forster notes that nuclear DNA [nDNA, as opposed to mtDNA] sequences in public databases are also plagued by errors, and that this may be an even bigger problem, as such mistakes are more difficult to detect. (bold emps and bracket insertion mine ? am)
not only is the mtDNA data bogus but so is the nDNA...and it's not just a little mistake, it's a big mess, "plagued by errors"

more difficult to detect, bigger problem

the problem is exponentially worse than the already radical acknowledgement...errors compounded on top of compounded errors on top of buku/beaucoup bad assumptions

MORE THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED STUDIES...

c'mon guys, this is not just a little mistake or even several mistakes...this is egregious error, willful ignorance exponentially compounded based on wrong assumptions and leading to woefully bogus conclusions

there's more but that'll do for now...that'll do

ps -- got other interesting references, at least one of which i'll post in the next frame...and it too is a doozy :-)

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Do you think your posts are judged on length or volume?


DA Morgan
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
dunno, don't really mind either way or some other

do you think yours are judged on dealing with the content...or ad homineminemineminem nonsense...

or just plain comic relief :-)

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
If you're going to cut-n-paste, anyman, you might at least give a reference. Did you get your "information" from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2332

BTW, the presence of errors in these databases doesn't refute evolution. These are problems that have been discovered by evolutionists. Dr Peter Forster who discovered these problems from which creationist shills are eager to draw incorrect inferences is still an evolutionist.

The mechanisms used for mapping DNA were already known to induce some error. IIRC, the techniques used in the national labs were producing error rates of like 1 in 1000, while that Ventner owned company was using their "scatter shot" approach to map it quicker, but with an error rate of 1 in 100. These were estimated rates according to my recollection and not measured rates.

Oddly, despite the crowing on apologetics sites, the creationists haven't contributed one bit of understanding to the data.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
It was pretty obvious AM did all that copying to disguise the source. Thanks for pointing it out.


DA Morgan
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
Quote:
If you're going to cut-n-paste, anyman, you might at least give a reference. Did you get your "information" from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2332
sorry...you wrong again

actually i copied from myself for the more recent post and updated it to make it relevant to the present thread

w\'ya lookithar...it ain\'t your link :-)

and the original source was nature

are you having trouble getting to the full nature article

what...you don't subscribe

i have personal subscriptions to 11 major science journals (nature, nature genetics, cell, science, molecular biology, etc)...both hardcopy and online versions for all

what's wrong fellas...you guys can't adequately refute my comments so you spend about half your time trying to belittle me personally...and your not doing that very adequately either :-)

carry on, fellas...carry on

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I no longer personally subscribe to any science journals. I used to get over a dozen, including Nature, Science, and IEEE transactions on Information Theory; however, I no longer need 'personal' subscriptions as my company provides electronic subscriptions to hundreds of journals. (Some are one time fees and some I only get the abstracts for them and have to purchase text.)

OTOH, even when I had a lot of journals, I found that for the technical stuff, I had to spend many, many hours reading them to understand them. I very seldom read all of a journal. Usually, I could maybe make it through 4 - 8 articles in a month, depending on the difficulty.

Buying lots of journals isn't the same thing as buying understanding of them. The article doesn't refute evolution. You're exaggerating your case by using rhetorical techniques you accuse evolutionists of using.

It's *awful* curious that you quoted the same thing that the apologetics page quoted with the same alarmist admonitions - the same implication that somehow refutes evolution: despite the fact that no one in the article apparently believes it refutes evolution. In fact, in Forster's article in the Annals of Human Genetics doesn't indicate that this bodes ill for the theory of evolution.

Rather, there's some cleaning up to do. Evolutionists have discovered the problem. Evolutionists are fixing the problem. And the know-nothings at the various apologetics sites are crowing as if they had actually refuted something - because, as usual, they don't understand what they're reading and they're grasping at any straw they can find. As usual, creationists aren't contributing anything to understanding.

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
fallible,

don't know what to tell ya, guy

i know bert (the author of your linked article), we met on several occasions in the '90s, we've been to dinner together, i've been to his home

and we always talked about our favorite two subjects, the book and c&e

we think pretty much alike on most things

we're both creationary guys with the same philosophical underpinnings...we see things through similar glasses

i also know and have dined with and have discussed our favorite subjects with half a dozen guys associated with AIG, and a couple of more over at ICR, and a couple down under at another creationary outfit

most of us think simimlarly on the c&e issues, we speak similarly and we write similar things

you and your evolutionary compadres here do the same...you haven't said a thing that i haven't heard a thousand times from a thousand guys in a thousand different places (on and off the net)

i could readily find some quotable material from others guys that sounds almost identical to what you have said since i came back to the board (and if memory serves, you were here for a short while before i got blocked awhile back)

but i don't find that *awfully* curious, and i'm not accusing you of copying them...you guys have all been to t.o and read thousands of posts on lots of different c&e sites that all say the same stuff

none of us have too many truly original thoughts on either side

i remember laughing years ago when i read an article or a book by futuyma where he said something like "evolution is a fact just like the earth goes around the sun"

i laughed because i had read the same thing years earlier in material written by gould...and i've heard the same thing a thousand times since from a thousand guys in a thousand places

i don't see them giving credit to where they got there stuff

we all sat through university classes and labs...where do we get everything we've got in our heads...mostly from someone else

do we stop and cite those sources every time we utter or write a word

give it a rest, guy

you were intent on doing one thing...making me look like a parrot, or worse a plagiarist so that no one would pay attention to my jazz...so that you could make me look like "another ignorant creationist"

well, carry on with that

and i'm going to carry on offering alternative commentary on the posts, articles, and books that are relevant to the c&e dialogue

i listen to, read, and study both sides...then i do my own thinking, my own speaking, and my own writing

and it doesn't matter if anyone pays attention to my jazz...it's not required reading

we use the same rhetorical devices to argue from different perspectives (as does everyone else in the dialogue on your side or mine)...the difference is that i unashamedly admit it...you guys don't

you guys think you have exclusive rights to the evidence and the rhetoric...you guys thought/think you can just run us over with your highbrow jazz...that ain't happening anymore...we've got our own jazz now :-)

Quote:
Buying the journals isn't the same thing as buying understanding
i understand fine...i even understand your side (it used to be my side :-)

but here we are; you say i don't understand...and i say you don't understand...does it carry more force or authority because you said it...

well, with those that share your philosophy, sure

somebody's gotta point out the jazz you guys are spouting is as leaky as a broken boat...i'm one of those guys

you say that i exaggerate my case...i say that you way overexaggerate your case (because your case is a non-case)...

it's not *who*'s right that really matters, it's *what*'s right...

my case is not exaggerated at all

Quote:
...no one in the article apparently believes it refutes evolution. In fact, in Forster's article in the Annals of Human Genetics doesn't indicate that this bodes ill for the theory of evolution.
of course they don't refute evolution...they're believers filled with FAITH...and faithfully dedicated to preserving the paradigm

but the paradigm is not based on solid data

and some of us know how to read critically and sythesize

they did express concern for those using the databases in their *evolutionary* studies

there are thousands of papers out there that have used those data to get or confirm their results

wrong assumptions, wrong data, wrong results

that's not too difficult to grasp, eh

and thousands more papers have cited those papers that used the flawed and faulty data

Quote:
Rather, there's some cleaning up to do
yeah...yank all those papers out of the lit

ooopps...there goes those *mountains of evidence* for evolution

now tff (or someone else) chimes in and says...

but there are so many other areas of study that contribute to the mountains of evidence that even if we lost the mtDNA clock it wouldn't affect the fact that evolution is a fact

except that they are also based on bogus assumptions and flawed data

the only guys that are "fixing the problem" is our guys, by pointing out the jazz

but that's not going to happen...those papers will remain in the lit...and they will continue to be cited...and the evolutionary camp will continue to build its bogus mountains of evidence on top of broken reeds and swampland

Quote:
As usual, creationists aren't contributing anything to understanding.
here we are with the you say, i say thing again

you say we contribute nothing

i say yous contribute nothing (to evolutionary understanding)...actually you do contribute **something**...a whole lot of confusion

i say we contribute a lot to pushing that confusion back into the darkness whence it came and whence it belongs

the good news is...we all gonna know the truth someday :-)

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
A
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
A
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 134
ps -- the mtDNA "clock" is broken...irreparably

it never really existed except in the minds of the evolutionary FAITHful :-)

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Anyman wrote:
"the mtDNA "clock" is broken...irreparably"

And you learned this watching the cartoons on Sunday morning TV?

Where?

Identify the source of this information. If the point is, as is your norm, pontification, try sending your emails to the Pontiff.


DA Morgan
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
"except that they are also based on bogus assumptions and flawed data"

So you and your cronies claim.

"the only guys that are "fixing the problem" is our guys, by pointing out the jazz"

You guys aren't fixing anything. You're piggy backing off of legitimate scientific criticism to make things appear the way they are not. The actual errors were found by evolutionists, not creationists. The actual work of fixing it is going to be done by evolutionists, not creationists.

You have collectively contributed exactly zip.


am: "the mtDNA "clock" is broken...irreparably"

There's nothing in the article to suggest that it is irreparably broken.

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
The multi-regionalists such as Milford Wolpoff and Alan Thorne must be still drunk from celebrating. All the criticism they got.

Anyway the problem anyman has in understanding how evolution works seems to be the problem of what are separate species. It's been obvious to me for a long time that all these Australopithecus and Homo "species" are not actually separate species. Subspecies perhaps. Anyman seems trapped by the biblical idea that all species must come from just one couple. Of course he is not the only one. Even atheists are influenced by stories we grow up with. That's why everyone was so willing to jump on the recent out of Africa theory. Sure, each individual mutation in each single chromosome must occur in just one individual. But species consist of populations. Each individual has some different genes.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Blacknad wrote:
"And I notice that people feel free to insult Anyman and accuse him of having Barbershop knowledge regarding evolution, but no one has actually made much of an answer to his points."

I've never accused him of ignorance. I've accused him of deceit, hypocrisy, and being a troll. Lets not confuse one with the other. He is quite intelligent and knows precisely what he is doing. He has no serious interest in science ... only in discrediting specific aspects of it that disprove a contemporary literalist biblical interpretation.

Answer his points? I didn't see that he had any. He had volume ... not substance. If you can distill what he posted into even one serious point, and provide a reference as to its origin, I will gladly refute it.


DA Morgan
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,031
Some people are complaining that no one has replied to anyman's long criticism of this posting.

Here goes:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What began as the excavation of a medieval town has turned into a pivotal site for our understanding of human evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simply journalistic hyperbole. Journalists have to make money by selling their articles. There has actually been no overturning of ideas of human evolution for nearly forty years.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most probably, we are on the threshold of a profound transformation of our understanding of early hominin evolution
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the heart of the tale of this first transcontinental migration lies the assumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The assumption has very little relevance as to whether evolution is correct. Only as to the actual pattern of human migration. In fact the assumption referred to relies on the influence the Christian religion has had on our interpretation of the evidence. The assumption made is that humans are totally different and superior to the rest of nature.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This idea has a powerful romantic appeal, suggesting that exploration and settlement are primordial and defining human instincts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The out of africa story was touted as fact because of: see above.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
over the past century...timing of all this seemed to attest to...In the past decade, however, this sequence has begun to unravel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are again splitting hairs over the detail. I look forward to a detailed explanation of human migration from the Garden of Eden. I would bet there will be plenty of maybes, perhaps and so on.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these startlingly early dates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The dating scenario was not actually very different. Again a journalist selling his article.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It looks as though increased intelligence was not a prerequisite
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The assumption was made because even atheists have been influenced by biblical stories.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over millions of years, the global climate gradually cooled, but there were also times when conditions altered quite abruptly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How gradual do things happen in geological terms. There is plenty of scope for fairly rapid change even under the theory of uniformitarianism.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A still more radical challenge to the supposed role of superior cognitive abilities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again the original assumption was that our brain was our most important development. Let's not forget that most biologists are academics!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surprisingly enough we don't know all the facts. Yet.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a bold challenge to the conventional story, Dennell argues that hominins migrated out of Africa before H. erectus even evolved, and long before the dates of the oldest known hominin fossils in Asia. These first migrants were either australopithecines or H. habilis - he, like some prominent palaeoanthropologists, regards these two as much the same kind of creatures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again the problem arises from the Bible. Many people who should know better accept that just because we call things two different species they automatically cannot breed together and form hybrids. We know that many creatures that appear to be very different are able to breed together.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor does H. erectus have any clearly identifiable immediate predecessors. "Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin 'without an ancestor, without a clear past'," observe Dennell and Roebroeks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is actually the main point of the article. We can now be pretty sure H. erectus evolved in Asia, moved back into africa and hybridised with H. ergaster. The same process happens between different groups of humans to this day. Except between groups who consider themselves to be far superior to any other group.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennell's solution to the problem is beguilingly simple: perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place. "Maybe the Rift Valley was a cul-de-sac," Dennell suggests. Tongue in cheek perhaps, but the remark conveys his strong conviction that the importance of Asia has been unfairly neglected
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your comment: hey, no problem, the explanation is simple...we've just been looking in the wrong place(s) all this time

there, see...simple

Me: Ah, so you do understand evolution.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this perspective the Dmanisi hominins may represent a missing link in the evolution of H. erectus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennell even goes so far as to suggest that the Dmanisi hominins might be ancestors of the later H. erectus in Africa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your comment: so it's pretty simple now...

australopithcenes/habilenes migrated out of africa into asia and europe...then later evolved into h erectus...but either before they evolved into h erectus, or some of the ones that didn't evolve, went back down into africa and evolved into h erectus there...and then of course later migrated back out of africa, back into asia and europe...as h erectus

Me: Sums it up nicely. I think you've got it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, African H. erectus might have Asian roots. If this is the case, Out of Africa 1 is a crucial part of the story of our own evolution, since H. erectus is generally thought to be a direct ancestor of modern humans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Almost certainly correct.

I'm getting sick of this now. Look forward to more of your comments.

Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 11
D
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
D
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 11
I wish to add a little bit of objective ideas.

FACT & TESTABLE : Micro evolution : small changes between one generation and the next, me versus my parents or you.

FACT & TESTABLE : Natural Selection : One characteristic that is already in a species becomming more prominant due to (un)natural changes in the enviornment.

FACT & TESTABLE : Mutations : DNA sequence changing almost always for the worse, and occasionally nuetral. I can't think of any observed that has been a positive mutation so if anyone has a reference please post.

THEORY : Speciation : I think there have been a few OBSERVED cases of speciation that I have read, but since I can't remember if they were observed (one speicies specifically seperated from another and no longer able to bread together) or only assumed based on close similarities I cannot say for certain. Post reference if you can.

THEORY : Macro Evolution : A projection of speciation of millions of years in combination with the previous facts. Since species are dictated mainly by differences in DNA fossils can't really help to much in that regard. Bone structure and looks alone I would say do not ammount to much "hard evidence", but would be more of a supporting evidence. Projecting speciation backwards does seem plausible however there are also some things that evolution, at the time, does not seem able to produce. That is the interdependence of every organ in an orgainsm arrising at the same time. Since we cannot see or test the past (at least right now) I don't see this being answered...

There are a few other examples in modern things that evolution can't explain (or at least no reason for there being) that I'll find articles later and post later (as in tommorow) since I need to wake up in a few hours to go to work, I don't have time now.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Thanks Terry.


DA Morgan
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5