|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
 Posted - 04/02/2006 : 17:25:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It helps to actually look at the science of genetics rather than to make poorly informed speculations and oversimplified interpretations of the evidence. So to start with, there are approximately 3 billion base pairs of nucleic acids in the human genome. But from one human to another, ~3 million of those base pairs differ. So already the nonsense you have heard about how many changes are needed to get from Lucy to humans is clearly wrong.
Then I need someone to point me to a reference that will explain how and what took place from 3 millions years to today. I need to understand the mechanism and pressures that were at play to get from her or something like her to us. Not to be arguementive but if Lucy is the best example of a "cousin" then shouldn't Lucy's kissing cousin, our true ancestor be simular to her? If so what's the point if we use Lucy or not as a beginning guage of human development? If the fossil record it that lacking then why use Lucy to make a Evolutionists point at all. I guess I'm still not getting it but I'm teachable and still in the kindergarden. Thank you. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2006 : 17:56:27 [Permalink]
|
Kind of a tough one, as the fossil record, by it's very nature, doesn't record every minute of any species ancestory. But I think that this might be of assistance. quote:
Prominent Hominid Fossils
Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens
This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.
The list is sorted by species, going from older to more recent species. Within each species, finds are sorted by the order of their discovery. Each species has a type specimen which was used to define it.
Each entry will consist of a specimen number if known (or the site name, if many fossils were found in one place), any nicknames in quotes, and a species name. The species name will be followed by a '?' if suspect. If the fossil was originally placed in a different species, that name will also be given.
As can be seen, the list named only known species and their progression. Exactly which Australopithecine H. hablis sprang from is not noted. Indeed, it might have been from a different one, currently unknown. Hope this helps.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2006 : 18:45:21 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks for the answer. I guess I'm looking more for the how's and why's of what it took to make a Lucy to us. If it was via enetic mutation caused by "pressures" Like in Lubenows book Bones of Contention he said that Evolutionists say that there were 5,000,000 genetic mutations to make a Lucy to us. Right ot wrong in his statement I'm like to know if it was zero mutations, 1,000,000 mutations. Something else? Can we quantify the "pressures" that is what I'm asking. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2006 : 19:25:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Thanks for the answer. I guess I'm looking more for the how's and why's of what it took to make a Lucy to us. If it was via enetic mutation caused by "pressures" Like in Lubenows book Bones of Contention he said that Evolutionists say that there were 5,000,000 genetic mutations to make a Lucy to us. Right ot wrong in his statement I'm like to know if it was zero mutations, 1,000,000 mutations. Something else? Can we quantify the "pressures" that is what I'm asking. Thanks.
I may have misunderstood what you wrote here, but pressures as used here (ie selective) don't cause mutations. Rather, selective pressures act upon pre-existing mutations (ie variability in the genetic code of individuals) causing differential survival. (Sidenote: pressures can actually themselves increase the rate of mutation. Bacteria under "stress" [exposed to excessive heat, for example] perform less mismatch repair. Mismatch repair in turn correct for errors performed during DNA replication and homologous recombination).
Regarding if we can quantify pressures, then the answer is yes. Comparing the genomes of related organisms (eg humans and chimps) you can measure if certain genes have been under negative (your classical creationist type where the mutation is bad for the individual that acquired it) or positive (the mutation has had positive impact upon the individuals that have it) selection since the organisms last shared a common ancestor. You do this by comparing protein-coding sequences between the organisms and calculating the ratio of synonymous to non-synonymous amino-acid substitutions. This might sound like greek to you, but I can explain it in more depth if you're interested. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2006 : 20:12:23 [Permalink]
|
Well one answer might be that if (a big 'if') there's been a relatively stable mutation rate in all primate species over the last six million years or so, then because humans and chimps differ by 60 million base pairs (BP), then humans differ from the last common ancestor we had with chimps by 30 million BP or so. And then because "Lucy" lived about three million years ago (half of six million), that means that "Lucy" would be different from modern humans by at least 15 million BP (plus however many BP got mutated between our last common ancestor with "Lucy" and her existence).
Of course, this is massively oversimplfied because it assumes a rock-steady mutation rate and only single-base-pair mutations.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Adolphi: why is it that you want to know a number? Just to double-check Lubenov? Or is it to make some sort of "one mutation per generation would take much longer than three million years" sort of argument? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 02:29:36 [Permalink]
|
The problem with one mutation per generation is there are millions of humans. So that would be another false argument. Which is Dave's point I think. But I agree, what is it you think you are going to disprove? Because we are here and evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence so clearly you're not going to find some legitimate calculation to support your point.
If you want a good comprehensive but easy to read book on evolution try Evolution by Carl Zimmer. |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 03:40:14 [Permalink]
|
| I'm not here to convince you folks of anything but to gather the information necessary to understand the whole matter. However what I'm getting is very complicated and its hard for me to understand this all. Lubenow states very simply that 5,000,000 mutations went into changing Lucy to us. That there are three types of mutations good, bad and neutral. All this I can understand. Of course I'm looking for holes in the evolutionary theory but if the logic is tight then I'll be hardpressed to do so. Besides here is your oppertunity to "witness" to an unbeliever in a calm and friendly manner. So my next question is this please. If homo habilis could survive 1,000,000 years of enviornmental pressures why is he extinct? If he was not fit why did he last 1,000,000 years in the first place? The same could be said for Neandertal and Erectus. Ice age? Food supply? Looks like it was very tropical and the fossil record makes it look like there was lots of food on the menu. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 06:23:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
If homo habilis could survive 1,000,000 years of enviornmental pressures why is he extinct?
Because the environment changed in some way to which H. habilis couldn't adapt.quote:
If he was not fit why did he last 1,000,000 years in the first place?
The question seems to assume a static environment, but all sorts of things (large and small) were changing, constantly, including the presence (or absence) of species competing for the same resources.quote:
Looks like it was very tropical and the fossil record makes it look like there was lots of food on the menu.
Lots of things on the tropical menu will kill you. And over the course of a million years, there will be droughts, disastrous storms and diseases which will affect the availability of food. Of course, it's not like anyone is claiming that thousands of H. habilis all died out in a single year, anyway. Like the extinctions which have occured during recorded history, it's probable that their numbers dwindled over time for one reason or another until there simply were none left. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 08:24:29 [Permalink]
|
Bibleland wrote: quote:
I want to understand what your position is before I speak.
It you really want to understand the total evidence for evolutionary theory, it seems more practical to spend a year studying the history of discoveries claimed to support the theory over the past 100+ years, and then study some of the recent research at various levels of biology. People on SFN tend to know more about the specifics of evolutionary theory because a lot are especially interested in both science and refuting irrational claims such as Creationism. But the bottom line for many if not most laymen who accept the theory of evolution is that 99.9% of scientists who study biology say that it has overwhelming evidence. And a good number of those scientists are religious believers, including Christians, so if they are all coming to the same conclusion based on some pre-conceived bias, what could it possibly be? People become scientists because they are interested in the truth of the natural world. From time to time there are ones like that guy in South Korea who misrepresent data to bolster their career, but that would hardly lead the entire discipline to accept a blatantly false underlining principle.
quote:
If homo habilis could survive 1,000,000 years of enviornmental pressures why is he extinct? If he was not fit why did he last 1,000,000 years in the first place? The same could be said for Neandertal and Erectus. Ice age? Food supply? Looks like it was very tropical and the fossil record makes it look like there was lots of food on the menu.
Part of a changing environment includes the evolution of new species, and that is constantly driven by sexual competition, competition between similar species for same resources and the predator/prey relationship. Take Homo Erectus – the first hominid to leave Africa and populate the whole Old World. We have strong indicators in the fossil record that Erectus went extinct soon after modern humans evolved in Africa and then spread out into the same places that Erectus already was. We know that modern man had a more sophisticated tool set and was capable of visual representation (art). There is speculation and some evidence that modern humans had more complex language as well. So more anthropologists believe that modern humans outcompeted Homo Erectus because they both lived off the same resources.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/03/2006 08:26:38 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 13:42:27 [Permalink]
|
Not only does the environment change but so do competing organisms. They change inherently and they migrate to new locations where they either fit in, die out or overtake.
In addition to your good, bad and neutral genes you're missing one VERY BIG POINT. There are 20-30,000 genes with 3 billion places for mutations to occur. Every single one of those mutations you speak of are being acted upon along with all the other DNA. You cannot oversimplify things the way you have and hope to understand it.
Another thing is that mutations accumulate within a species. Chimpanzees have more variation within their species than humans do because they are an older species. That variation accumulates and the species may change over time both as a result of the environment and species DNA. After thousands of years, humans with dark skin who migrated to high latitudes evolve light skin. We may be bigger than 100 years ago in the USA not because of genetics but because of a better food supply.
In order to get a new species, a population must be isolated from its precursor group for thousands of years in the case of slowly reproducing mammals. The faster you reproduce the shorter the time frame to new species, but you still need isolation. Some people call this punctuated equilibrium. The mechanism for such equilibrium is a bit better understood now. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/03/2006 : 19:02:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
If homo habilis could survive 1,000,000 years of enviornmental pressures why is he extinct? If he was not fit why did he last 1,000,000 years in the first place?
Species go extinct all the time. Why would homo habilis be any different?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Chimpanzees have more variation within their species than humans do because they are an older species.
Why would the chimp species be any older than the human one? The argument I've heard that explains the larger variation in chimps is that they have shorter generation times. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 01:15:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Chimpanzees have more variation within their species than humans do because they are an older species.
Why would the chimp species be any older than the human one? The argument I've heard that explains the larger variation in chimps is that they have shorter generation times.
Older in this case is a relative term. I really don't know how old the chimpanzee species is. I only know they have more genetic variation within their species and that means more generations.
But humans also had a population bottleneck narrowing to as few as 1,000 members in our past that I don't believe chimpanzees experienced. I'll have to see if I can find the time line for that. |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 04:28:13 [Permalink]
|
I reeived an answer to my question ffrom Marvin Lubenow regarding the 5,000,000 genetic mutations in 3,000,000 years. Here it is:
Dear John: The figures are rather normal for evolutionists to quote, and I don't expect anyone to dispute them. They come from Dr. Vincent Sarich, a very well-known anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, who gave them in a Creation-Evolution Debate with Dr. Duane Gish at North Dakota State University, Fargo, on April 28, 1979. I was there, and I recorded it. He has debated Gish about six times, and has repeated those figures several times. In Christ, Marvin Lubenow |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 13:26:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
I reeived an answer to my question ffrom Marvin Lubenow regarding the 5,000,000 genetic mutations in 3,000,000 years. Here it is:
Dear John: The figures are rather normal for evolutionists to quote, and I don't expect anyone to dispute them. They come from Dr. Vincent Sarich, a very well-known anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, who gave them in a Creation-Evolution Debate with Dr. Duane Gish at North Dakota State University, Fargo, on April 28, 1979. I was there, and I recorded it. He has debated Gish about six times, and has repeated those figures several times. In Christ, Marvin Lubenow
I Googled Dr Sarich. He seems to be a prominent geneticist, evolutionist and is a professor at Stanford. I suggest you go through his works and find the numbers because they are incorrect and I think ol' Marv took something out of context or is mis-quoting the professor. If we have 3 million differences just between one human and another it seems unlikely those numbers as stated are correct. Perhaps he used the numbers as a hypothetical example rather than saying they were factual. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 04/04/2006 13:34:52 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 04/04/2006 : 16:18:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
I received an answer to my question from Marvin Lubenow regarding the 5,000,000 genetic mutations in 3,000,000 years. Here it is:
They come from Dr. Vincent Sarich, a very well-known anthropologist from the University of California, Berkeley, who gave them in a Creation-Evolution Debate with Dr. Duane Gish at North Dakota State University, Fargo, on April 28, 1979. I was there, and I recorded it. He has debated Gish about six times, and has repeated those figures several times. In Christ, Marvin Lubenow
1979 is almost 30 years ago. There have been huge leaps in genetics since then. Scientific knowledge is fluid, and gets updated on a regular basis as science progress. The numbers may have been thought to be valid back then, but with the knowledge we have today, it looks like it is sorely outdated. DNA sequencers weren't even invented back then...
This is also one of the kinds of "straw-men" that insincere YEC debaters use: Outdated scientific data. "Yes, that's what scientists used to think back then, but we have refined our instruments, and found that we were wrong. We now know better." |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
