The Evolution Conflict

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

And then the whole issue of populations that can interbreed, but never would in the natural world (without human intervention)- like the domestic house cat and the African Serval. There are more barriers to interbreeding than just absolute genetic isolation (or geographic barriers)- there are also behavioral barriers, and these are linking with genetics, thus constituting (for many scientists) a different species.

Good point path of one. In the wild behavioral barriers are just as important as interbreeding being cut off by physical barriers.

lunamoth

[Bandit]

Hey Juan,

I understand what you are saying in some of this. The politics & power, the economics behind it.

Some do treat it like a religion. the Darwinsim religion.
I see it in the mags & newspaper also. Like false advertisement, This is the same way a lot of preachers & the big companies present things to get offerings.

[Bandit]

Does anyone remember Planet of the Apes? about 30 years ago

Now there is one twisted imagination.!.


here is one from Scientific America in 2003.

Your Great, Great Grand Ape

http://www.primates.com/history/

THE EURASIAN FOREBEAR of African apes and humans moved south in response to a drying and cooling of its environs that led to the replacement of forests with woodlands and grasslands. I believe that adaptations to life on the ground - knuckle walking in particular - were critical in enabling this lineage to withstand that loss of arboreal habitat and make it to Africa. Once there, some apes returned to the forests, others settled into varied woodland environments, and one ape - the one from which humans descended - eventually invaded open territory by committing to life on the ground.

they call it hypothesis. sounds like imagination to me.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,


thank you for the post.

the first link was provided as a general reference for all interested... the second link was provided to show that, within the scientific fields, themselves, their is considerable debate amongst the groups.

for some beings, this would appear to be a weakness, i.e. they believe that scientific statments should be dogmatic and assert positive truth claims, without such assertions, they consider science to be "guessing".

science, as you are well aware, should not engage in dogmatic assertions of any sort, being as it is predicated on the continual accumulation of knowledge and observation regarding a particular subject. to take an extreme example...

Newton and Einstein.

for a very long time, until quite recently actually, humans thought that Newtonain theories of gravity were correct. Einstein demonstrated that they were not and proposed his own theory of gravity, which is how it is understood today. however, apples did not suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome of the scientific debate.

more to the point... we are currently trying to overthrow Einsteins theory of gravity as well!

ultimately, i think that the issue is one of focus... what are religion and science trying to address?

i would posit that Religion is trying to address the "Why" and Science is trying to address the "How".

with that view in mind, i cannot find any reasonable way to pit these two views against each other. they are, in my perceptions at least, complementary to each other.

however, this may have more to do with the individual than anything else.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards to Vajradhara and Lunamoth!

Thank you for the info on "Mitochondrial Eve." I haven't delved deeply into this aspect, perhaps if time allows I will get to it. I do seem to recall the base being well into the millions of years though, something like 3.5 million, but there is the distinct possibility I recall incorrectly.

I do have a question that came to mind concerning the mathematical model:

It’s a simple mathematical problem: You have two parents and four grandparents, et cetera. And it goes 2n where n is the number of generations. You go back 50 generations and it’s 250, which is a huge number; it’s more than the total number of people who have ever existed in the history of life on earth. So obviously, it has to be less than 2; it’s 1-point-something, and that point-something reflects the fact that we are somewhat related. You don’t have two completely unrelated parents. Everybody is related to a certain extent.

If this is so, then surely it applies to other animals as well. Considering that humans outnumber virtually all other species outside of perhaps fish and insects, and any other creatures traditionally deemed even lower on the scale, then it would stand to reason using the same formula that other animals are even more closely related. That is to say, even our "closest relatives," the bonobos and other apes, are far more closely related to themselves than to humans. I know this may sound like a given, and I hope I can clarify what I am trying to say. How can humans be related to any of the apes if we are so distant in relation, and this is even more the case using this model coming from the ape side. At 3.5 million years, an argument can be made for a common ancestor between apes and humans. But if the common ancestor for humans was "only" 150 thousand years ago (human population currently above 6 billion "in the wild"), then how much closer are apes related when their population is far less (something on the order of 200 thousand chimpanzees, for instance, "in the wild" according to the Jane Goodall Institute). This would seem to me to place the "mitochondrial eve" for chimps much too close to even consider relation to humans. I haven't done the math, but surely the "original mother" of chimps would be, maybe as a guess, something like ten thousand years ago? Does this not contradict the fossil record?

I mean, I hate to keep sounding like a wet blanket, but the logic contradicts the evidence, or vice versa...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, path of one!

Thank you for your post!

It's speculated humans once had observable sub-species too- Neanderthals. Most now think of Neanderthals as a sub-species of modern humans. I.e., we are Homo sapiens sapiens, and they were Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Folks used to think they were an entirely separate species (H. neanderthalensis) but most the folks I know now think they aren't.

Yes, I agree, in large part because of the find of the hybrid child. Now we have H. Floresiensis to factor in.

And thanks, lunamoth, for explaining how some stuff just is fuzzy in science right now. I'm no taxonomist, but I know these folks aren't trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. There's still just a lot of debate within biology between lumpers and splitters, and Linneans and cladists. And then the whole issue of populations that can interbreed, but never would in the natural world (without human intervention)- like the domestic house cat and the African Serval. There are more barriers to interbreeding than just absolute genetic isolation (or geographic barriers)- there are also behavioral barriers, and these are linking with genetics, thus constituting (for many scientists) a different species.

I did not mean to come across as some conspiracy theorist or something. By and large I do not think the confusion is deliberate. But that does not negate my position regarding the similarity with religion. Religion too, if one is truthful to oneself, is every bit as much an art as science is. And just as scientists debate nuances and meanings of terms and "evidence," so too do theologians (if that is the proper term to use across all religious expression). I would use the term "religionist," but in this context it just doesn't seem correct. I could say "seeker of truth," but science too seeks truth, just a different form, manner and definition of truth.

As for "lumpers and splitters," at least now I have a vague idea of what to look for when I read the scientific papers. And I also must presume that "species not interbreeding" is not a given, even when I read it in those same papers. Therefore, should anyone claim a new "species," I must first detect what it is precisely that they actually mean, that the animal in question may not actually be a new species as defined by not interbreeding. Now I'm rambling...I think I am more confused than ever on this.

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3, Well, this is not my area of expertise, but I think where your confusion lays is in thinking of it as a ladder rather than as a tree with branches from a common anscestor. This is a rather common misunderstanding.*** So, 1) yes humans are much much much much more closely related to each other than to any other primate, and gorillas to gorillas, etc., 2) from my reading of the Mitochondrial Eve essay in Wiki, the 150,000 years ago date is a max estimate, and in fact it is likely that a "bottleneck" type experinece for humans occurred even more recently (either way, well after H. sapiens branched off). Other primates had their bottleneck episodes as well, but long after the different species had branched off from the common ancestor. The only reason I referred to the Mito Eve stuff was because you suggested that Neaderthals may have contributed to the present day DNA makeup of humans and the Mito Eve date would be one way of figuring out if that were possible. Seems that it could be, but I am not well versed in this area at all.

***Briefly, the common anscestor would be a primitive species like modern primates but neither a modern ape nor a human. At some point the population split with one going on to accumulate modifications over a long period of time leading to the apes and the other to humans. And, sometime long long long after the two populations stopped resembing each other and were now the separate species of humans and gorillas, etc., then the bottleneck episode resulted in just one or a very few breeding pairs (if you will pardon the expression to describe people) having offspring surviving to create all the humans now on earth.
This is simplistic and maybe path of one can point out any serious errors, but this is a basic model for descent from a common anscestor with a later bottleneck episode. Just for fun, we could still have a bottleneck episode with a new Mitochondrial Eve in the event of a world disaster in which only one family genetically survives. Seems like much more of a long shot now that we are at 6 billion and climbing. Applies more to endangered species.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

Thank you for your post!

THE EURASIAN FOREBEAR of African apes and humans moved south in response to a drying and cooling of its environs that led to the replacement of forests with woodlands and grasslands. I believe that adaptations to life on the ground - knuckle walking in particular - were critical in enabling this lineage to withstand that loss of arboreal habitat and make it to Africa. Once there, some apes returned to the forests, others settled into varied woodland environments, and one ape - the one from which humans descended - eventually invaded open territory by committing to life on the ground.

Other than the part about moving into Africa (I had always heard Africa to be the source), I think this is pretty much in line with what Desmond Morris portrayed in "The Naked Ape." Of course, Morris put a great deal more emphasis on the point that the ancestor of humans turned to hunting meat for food, and adapted accordingly, whereas the rest of the apes (with rare or minor exception) remain frugivores for the most part.

Of course, it remains a mystery to me as to why the human hunter lost his "fangs" as a meat eater (in contrast to other natural examples), and vegetarian apes kept theirs? One has to admit, human canine teeth are no match for those of a chimpanzee.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your post!

with that view in mind, i cannot find any reasonable way to pit these two views against each other. they are, in my perceptions at least, complementary to each other.

I do not want to beat a dead horse. I know it is difficult to see, but I am in reality saying the same thing.

[nomanshake]

If according to Darwin, life started as a chance, then why did that chance occur? i mean it just makes me sick when im thinking abt it , coz there's no answer..

[brucegdc]

Originally Posted by nomanshake

If according to Darwin, life started as a chance, then why did that chance occur? i mean it just makes me sick when im thinking abt it , coz there's no answer..

I guess you've missed it from above... Darwin doesn't address the *origin of life*, the theory (which is now considerably tweaked from the original) addresses a *mechanism for change* - the origin of different species. Nothing to do with how it all got kicked off, just what's appeared to have happened since (and continuing to happen -e.g. that moth species in the UK that went from basically white to basically smoke during the advent of coal-fired everythings)

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

I think where your confusion lays is in thinking of it as a ladder rather than as a tree with branches from a common anscestor. This is a rather common misunderstanding.

I accept the premise of common misunderstanding. Believe me, I was already set straight about this way back in this thread.

So, 1) yes humans are much much much much more closely related to each other than to any other primate, and gorillas to gorillas, etc., 2) from my reading of the Mitochondrial Eve essay in Wiki, the 150,000 years ago date is a max estimate, and in fact it is likely that a "bottleneck" type experinece for humans occurred even more recently (either way, well after H. sapiens branched off). Other primates had their bottleneck episodes as well, but long after the different species had branched off from the common ancestor.

OK, now this begins to make sense. Bottleneck was mentioned in the past, but neveer elaborated on, although I seem to recall it mentioned together with "founder effect," a term that holds no meaning to me at this point. I don't know what it means.

The only reason I referred to the Mito Eve stuff was because you suggested that Neaderthals may have contributed to the present day DNA makeup of humans and the Mito Eve date would be one way of figuring out if that were possible. Seems that it could be, but I am not well versed in this area at all.

OK, now I think I see what you are getting at. Let's see, according to some of the sources I read, humans may have already had the use of natural fire by 150,000 years ago. Rude tools were to come along "soon." I'm trying to recall the time frame given for the split between H. sapiens and Neandertal...seems it was around 250 to 150 thousand years ago, so I suppose it is possible. Neandertal were considered to be well versed with tools, although some material I covered recently said they had dexterity problems compared with H. sapiens, something to do with the thumb. I think "they" were more proficient with grabbing and grasping, whereas "we" were better suited to wielding and swinging an implement. ("they" couldn't use an axe, for example). I might be a little off on this explanation, but not by much, the point being their thumb anatomy was definitely different from ours. Hmmm, you've given me some food for thought.

Briefly, the common anscestor would be a primitive species like modern primates but neither a modern ape nor a human. At some point the population split with one going on to accumulate modifications over a long period of time leading to the apes and the other to humans.

I understand...

And, sometime long long long after the two populations stopped resembing each other and were now the separate species of humans and gorillas, etc., then the bottleneck episode resulted in just one or a very few breeding pairs (if you will pardon the expression to describe people) having offspring surviving to create all the humans now on earth.

Hmmm, Adam and Eve?

This is simplistic and maybe path of one can point out any serious errors, but this is a basic model for descent from a common anscestor with a later bottleneck episode. Just for fun, we could still have a bottleneck episode with a new Mitochondrial Eve in the event of a world disaster in which only one family genetically survives. Seems like much more of a long shot now that we are at 6 billion and climbing. Applies more to endangered species.

Thank you very much, you have brought a little light into my understanding of this subject.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, nomanshake, welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by nomanshake

If according to Darwin, life started as a chance, then why did that chance occur?

We do not know why that chance occurred. That is why we have religion, to try to understand why that chance occurred. We understood enough to question, "why?," long before we began to understand "how."

Humans have had religion for a lot longer than we have had anything that even resembled science.

[Aslan]

"His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?"

Looks to me like support for the Theory of Evolution. Man was created from dust (inorganic matter), then from a small seed (a simple organic lifeform), then became a perfect man (complex organic lifeform).

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Aslan

"His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?"

Looks to me like support for the Theory of Evolution. Man was created from dust (inorganic matter), then from a small seed (a simple organic lifeform), then became a perfect man (complex organic lifeform).

Interesting perspective.