Evolution question.

[Penguin]

If us humans were supposed to have evolved from primates, apes etc how come they still exist today?
If something "evolves" all previous is superceded and the new replaces?

Also why is no skeletal evidence seldom found to show a creature's evolution? You have one type of creature, and then another type of skeletal evidence found. A scientist would say "now this creature has evolved from that" but not much skeletal evidence is found to show the gradual evolution stages, as in a skeleton with legs from when they were 1 foot tall to being 5 foot tall.

[Alex P]

I think you will find the main defense of this -theory- (Thought I'd put it in simple terms before the big hitters touch on this.) There are many speice of monkey... Pro evolutionists will tell you something along the lines that we evolved from an advanced primate, like you got ya baboons, gorillas, spider monkeys, apes, chimps and so on.. Many types.. The claim from some will be we came from one individual specie of monkey that is now extinct because it evolved into us.

You then again have evidence found in places like Hena, Japan... 100,000 year old human skull. or the 60,000 year old Mungo man from down in oz. Or hey even better add those years together.... 160,000 years.... (oldest yet found of our homosapien kind....) In Africa... Oh and I think also in Morocco? They found a childs jaw? That was dated for around 160,000 years... Which But then you compare that to such evidence as the "oldest primate fossil" which is estimated to be 55 million years old lol.... I guess there is a time gap there for evolution, perhaps they would say many of these species of primate are like species of dog? ALL dog come from wolf... Yet they are all so very different... Perhaps this is how they make the claim?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Penguin

If us humans were supposed to have evolved from primates, apes etc how come they still exist today?
If something "evolves" all previous is superceded and the new replaces?

Evolution does not mean that one species will go extinct to make way for another. For example some members on the margins of their range will be forced to make adaptations. Over time, lots of time, these adaptations mount up to make it unsuitable for the environment in which it had its origins and it would be classed a distinct species. Its cousins can continue to exploit its original range unchanged.

Also why is no skeletal evidence seldom found to show a creature's evolution? You have one type of creature, and then another type of skeletal evidence found. A scientist would say "now this creature has evolved from that" but not much skeletal evidence is found to show the gradual evolution stages, as in a skeleton with legs from when they were 1 foot tall to being 5 foot tall.

There is very good evidence to support the evolutionary history of man. Unfortunately the lie-mongers in the 'creationist' camp use a strategy of of half truths, out of context interpretations and laughably bad science to convince those too lazy to look for themselves. All the creationist arguments are wholly and deliberately fraudulent and to me it says something about the integrity of its proponents that is far more important that the pseudo-debate they pretend to engage in.

I can only guess from the way you phrased your post that you are quite young. My advice to you is to remember that religion has a long and illustrious track record of producing liars. Science does not have all the answers, but at least it searches for them with integrity.


tao

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Penguin

If us humans were supposed to have evolved from primates, apes etc how come they still exist today?

Ditto to Tao's answer. Also, the species from which modern humans evolved do not exist today. Primates are a huge group ranging from lemurs to baboons to chimps to us. It's like saying "If horses exist, why aren't Zebras extinct?" Well, because multiple species can co-exist on earth. Diversity of environment lends itself to diversity of species.

Second, we did not evolve directly from any species of living ape. Our evolution quite clearly began about 4 million years ago with australopithecines, which were a number of species of upright walking, but still quite chimp-like, apes. I can recommend some good, basic reading on human evolution if you like.

If something "evolves" all previous is superceded and the new replaces?

No.

Also why is no skeletal evidence seldom found to show a creature's evolution?

There is plenty of skeletal evidence in the case of humans. It is really easy to see the gradual shift to modern human anatomy when presented with skeletons starting with Australopithecines, then onto Homo habilis, and then Homo erectus, and then the early and late Archaics, and then modern Homo sapiens. We may not have discovered all the species of humans yet, but there are no "missing links" in the sense of large gaps. We already have enough to have a clear timeline and evolution toward upright walking, larger body size, larger brain, and more complex culture and social structure.

A scientist would say "now this creature has evolved from that" but not much skeletal evidence is found to show the gradual evolution stages, as in a skeleton with legs from when they were 1 foot tall to being 5 foot tall.

Mutations can have very large effects. Evolution is based on the mostly random occurrence of genetic mutation, and the environment's selective process on those mutations. A mutation can have rather profound effects on a creature at times. If it is favorable in the environment and is a mutation found in the sex cells (gametes), then it may provide that creature with more offspring over its lifetime (and most importantly, more grand-offspring) and over time this may become a new species, either exploiting new niches within an environment, or out-competing other species in the environment, or allowing it to radiate to new environments.

A basic course or textbook in evolutionary biology or biological anthropology will explain all this. I can recommend a few good ones, if you like.

[wil]

At the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC it has a geneology, family tree of sorts which indicates we've all (most of us mammals) evolved from a tree shrew...

and yes we didn't evolve from them but our current line of apes, baboons, monkeys, gorillas etc, are distant cousins many times removed...



CNN.com - Fossilized shrew could be ancient human kin - April 24, 2002

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I can only guess from the way you phrased your post that you are quite young. My advice to you is to remember that religion has a long and illustrious track record of producing liars. Science does not have all the answers, but at least it searches for them with integrity.
tao

LOL I'm 35! I just wanted to ask in a direct way to bring out more opinions.

[Penguin]

Thanks for all your posts. I'll have a read to digest it all when I have more time.

[path_of_one]

No problem. I will add that you got responses from a variety of folks on this thread, in terms of our religious (or non-religious) background.

I would debate Tao's idea that science searchs for answers with integrity while religion produces liars, but that debate can already be found elsewhere. LOL

Suffice it to say that it is always appropriate to question everything, including science. Scientists are not a uniform bunch of just being in science to search for answers with integrity. There are money, politics, and personal agendas in science, too.

But it still came up with the best information so far about how life changes over time.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There is very good evidence to support the evolutionary history of man. Unfortunately the lie-mongers in the 'creationist' camp use a strategy of of half truths, out of context interpretations and laughably bad science to convince those too lazy to look for themselves. All the creationist arguments are wholly and deliberately fraudulent and to me it says something about the integrity of its proponents that is far more important that the pseudo-debate they pretend to engage in.

I can only guess from the way you phrased your post that you are quite young. My advice to you is to remember that religion has a long and illustrious track record of producing liars. Science does not have all the answers, but at least it searches for them with integrity.

Oh, my good friend Tao!

Not the least biased or jaded, are we?

It would be difficult for me to refute your assessment of religion producing liars...however, held to the same standards, so has science produced liars if they too are to be held "absolutely inviolable." Particularly regarding the "story" of evolution. If the story continues to change, then it cannot be said to be "truth." If ever there were a scientific field that thrives on moving goalposts, it is the field of evolutionary theory.

All I need do is ask for a plain and distinct irrefutable definition of "species." And then allow me to offer numerous contradictions. I'll save us more time by asking up front...does a bigger nose, feet, or hair color qualify to distinguish a new species? Does "inablility" to breed (not preference) with the parent stock denote a species? Does the gene count on the genome distinguish what constitutes a species?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I would debate Tao's idea that science searchs for answers with integrity while religion produces liars, but that debate can already be found elsewhere. LOL

Indeed, on all counts.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Suffice it to say that it is always appropriate to question everything, including science. Scientists are not a uniform bunch of just being in science to search for answers with integrity. There are money, politics, and personal agendas in science, too.

Oh, but there are those zealots who pretend they search with integrity...often so they can mock those they disagree with or don't understand. They are the ones I generally find that don't take a good hard look at the reality, but rather accept the institutional dogma hook, line and sinker, blindly, faithfully and without question.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But it still came up with the best information so far about how life changes over time.

I agree evolutionary theory is a good working model. Certainly much can be done using it as a basis to build from. But "truth" it is not, as there are far too many unaccounted for discrepencies.

[path_of_one]

My goal, as a pragmatic scientist, is useful, accurately predictive models.

I mean, truth and all that stuff is nice. But what I really want are useful models. Science, for me, is about understanding for improving physical reality. Not that I don't find the rest interesting. But I would not say that my primary goal in my scientific research is finding The Truth. I'm after more practical concerns.

[Bruno's logic]

Evolution is a human word describing what this universe actually is; motion, change, time in and of space.

I have no doubt that there is more going on than we are aware of but the basic truth is that evolution means change and that is a never ending subject….

I Hold to the thought that it’s possible for life to evolve to the point where it becomes self aware and to eventually become aware of the natural physics that govern existance. That eventually self aware entities become so aware of the mechanics of nature that they can create life forms and some even distribute their creations throughout space….
It is along these lines that I think that at least some of the life on our planet may have come from.
Seeded by the masters of the universe….

One thing is for certain, in all of infinite space, nothing remains the same thing for too long…

Change, embrace it.

Evolution, accept the inevitable…

In an infinite space where all things are connected, we are one…. It seems we have forgotten this, but that's the beauty of being human...

~Bruno

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

My goal, as a pragmatic scientist, is useful, accurately predictive models.

I mean, truth and all that stuff is nice. But what I really want are useful models. Science, for me, is about understanding for improving physical reality. Not that I don't find the rest interesting. But I would not say that my primary goal in my scientific research is finding The Truth. I'm after more practical concerns.

Now if we can only get Tao to realize this same paradox.

[Tao_Equus]

lol

Before I got to the responses I had re-read my own post and saw how fatuous a statement I made. Not like me at all is it

There is indeed a lot of bad science out there and many fraudulent scientists. I think Poo, you have the right approach and I hope to a large degree it is my own. I am less interested in theory than what makes practical sense. But this is precisely why I am a proponent of evolutionary theory, despite its incompleteness, and abhor the creationist fraudsters. Abhor is a strong word and I do not choose it lightly. My problem with the big shouters amongst creationists is that I do not believe for one moment that they believe what they are saying. They are very deliberately and purposefully trying to deceive people, invariably so they profit personally from it. I believe they should be tried in court as fraudsters and not be allowed to hide behind religious freedom. And they should certainly be banned from teaching kids that creationism is science.

We do have an incomplete picture of the complexities of how evolution works and much disagreement on definitions. That said what evidence does exist is as solid as evidence gets. We may not have a full picture of the intricacies but we do have a very solid observable and testable models of the general principles. Any animal breeder can confirm that.

Bruno you go into what is the driving force of evolution, change. And I agree with all you say except the rather anthropocentric notion of He Man and the Masters of the Universe. The dominant and most important class of life on our planet is bacteria, not us. It is not just organic life that is subject to evolutionary processes. We have this bias toward thinking that life is organic, carbon based and observable. It may well be that this is only a small part of what life really is. We could just be looking at the fungi fruits on the forest floor and not the invisible rhizome that lays beneath the soil but is 99% of the whole. But what science, at least "good science", does is encourage us to keep looking. I cannot comprehend science ever having all the answers, there are simply too many questions for that to be possible, but at least it approaches these questions with a desire to find out the working truth and to prove it to be testable and repeatable and open to peer review. We cannot do more than that.


tao

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

lol

Before I got to the responses I had re-read my own post and saw how fatuous a statement I made. Not like me at all is it

LOL- that's OK.

But this is precisely why I am a proponent of evolutionary theory, despite its incompleteness, and abhor the creationist fraudsters.

Exactly. Evolutionary theory is useful. It isn't about Truth, but rather what works. It works. Evolutionary medicine is useful. Genetic research is useful. Animal and plant breeding is useful.

I believe God is Creator, but in the sense that God is change. God is evolution. But my beliefs about a Creator God do not make for useful medical or agricultural advancements. There's a balance there. My spirituality has a purpose, but it's a different one than my science. You could say my spirituality informs the ethics and purpose of my science. But my spirituality speaks to a world other than this physical plane, and science to the "how it works" of this physical plane. My spirituality may give me a purpose to reduce suffering, to heal, to feed people... but it does not necessarily give the means (or all the means humans are capable of having). We were given an intellect for a reason- we should use it!

And they should certainly be banned from teaching kids that creationism is science.

I agree. But I also think evolution should be taught in a way that is less threatening to people's beliefs, in part because people only are open to learning when they feel safe and not defensive. When I teach evolutionary theory in classes, I do not say creationism of any sort is science. I explain the difference. But I do tell people that evolutionary theory need to become their belief. They can feel free to learn about it without my telling them they are stupid or blind or something if they disagree. And because of this, they are open to actually learning about that which they have learned to disagree and to find out if they actually do disagree. And they can see the value of their religion and science, without thinking they must confuse the two and justify either one in light of the other's ways of knowing.

We may not have a full picture of the intricacies but we do have a very solid observable and testable models of the general principles. Any animal breeder can confirm that.

Yep. And it's nearly impossible not to see human evolution as a reality when you hold the skeletons yourself. As soon as you understand the biomechanics of upright walking and can recognize the key structures that make a modern human different from an ape, you can see the gradual changes from the Australopithecines to us that clearly led to modern humanity.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

But I also think evolution should be taught in a way that is less threatening to people's beliefs....

I see it the other way round. People who use the cover of religion to propagate blatant untruths like creationism in our schools should be subject to criminal prosecution. Evolution theory is not a vague possibility but as much a certainty as the sun will rise again tomorrow. We may not understand some of the fine details fully yet but the general principles are irrefutable and religious zealots/profiteers should not be allowed to say otherwise to our children. It is the creationists, not science, that has driven the need to even debate this amongst ourselves. It is them that should be forced to change their ways. If any aspect of religious teaching is in conflict with available empirical evidence to the contrary then it is religion that has to address that fact not science. One of my biggest issues with religions is that they are allowed to peddle what they know to be fiction or speculation as though it were truth. To me this is fraud and they should be held accountable as fraudsters. Its that black and white to me.

tao