|
On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
i think he was refering to the fusion of the chromosomes.
"but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur."
is pretty missleading, you can't say that evolution has "happened", it's a continous process.
you could however say that speciation or evolving something complex like flaggelum will take a long time.
think of it as a person walking, you can't say that walking in general will take a long time, but you can say that walking from washington to china will take a long time.
|
On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur.
Wut. The definition of evolution is genetic change from one generation to the next.
|
This isnt the missing link. There is still a debate whether or not the term "mising link" is even valid :S Also, its not precise if this is the same line that :"missing link" is needed to be found.
This is a huge discovery, but i think the thread topic is misleading since its jumping to conclusions, as well as some hype by the media.
"She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line " - Dr Jens Franzen
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm
|
On May 21 2009 06:35 Aegraen wrote:
Anyways, to settle any doubts, I do believe in evolution, I do however unlike most others question it.
lol. This + your comments on global warming + your kaku namedrop = LOL
You are not a qualified scientist. In "Questioning" these things you aren't accomplishing anything but stunting your intellectual growth. I'm not saying that you shouldn't question things. I'm saying you shouldn't question things in the manner you are going about it.
Just look up and realize the scope of the scientific community and the amount of information that is checked, doubled checked, peer reviewed and then passed on to you. Don't believe everything you're told obviously, but just because you don't immediately grasp something or when something seems wrong. Look into it, don't just say it's wrong. This would be called an opinion. And opinions are utterly valueless.
Your comment about having "pages and pages" of evidence that disproves global warming for instance. I don't care if you have 1000 pages of "irrefutable" evidence that global warming isn't occurring. What does that matter to the 100000 pages of "irrefutable" evidence that global warming is occurring? There really is no question of validity. I don't care how many books for the layman you read on quantum string theory, evolution, and climate change you are still not a qualified voice on the subject. Just like I, who have read the same type of books, am no authoritative voice on those subjects.
The truth is - don't believe everything you read, and spend a lot of time researching people, institutions, and publishers to find what information you can gather is the most accurate. That is all any of us in this world can do. I agree that there is a huge difference between the bias and ignorant scientific zealotry you have spoken of, and attempting to learn the truth. However noone is completely unbias. But everyone could certainly try a little harder. The amount of information out there is absurdly large. All you can do is challenge everything until you can find the most realiable information. From your statements you need to work on that.
Meh I've lost focus, I had a much greater point, but I tire of this drivel and I hate the fact that my entire point, and innately points of this nature are always self defeating. Telling someone not to be arrogant in any form can only come off as arrogance. So I may not reply. This has lost it's luster.
|
Alright folks - move along, there's nothing to see here.
...just another semi-religious psuedo-intellectual spewing nonsense.
|
On May 21 2009 07:43 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur. What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step?
My reasoning behind the statement is, yes, you can have a mutation occur in one generation, however until that mutation can be passed through the species, then it is not evolution, at least not in any consequence to the species. In that generation, and surely has many times, that mutation has never reached the species because that individual, or that select group with the right mutation died before reproductive age, or never reproduced. Therefore, how can you quantify a single mutation, no matter how significant, evolution if it never was propagated throughout the species?
Evolution by nature, cannot take place within one generation. You honestly believe it can? That goes against the laws of nature and reproduction.
|
I wonder what other they'll now dedicate themselves to finding...
|
To some of you guys who seem to be interested in evolution and all that I would suggest "Growth of Biological Thought" by Ernst Mayer. Very good book that is basically a history of biological theory and it does this by looking at problems from their 1st inception to today. It covers evolution and DNA and such and is a very good read and explains these problems very deeply. I had to read it for my advanced biological anthropology class this semester.
On another note, people sometimes seem to forget that evolution is probabilistic.Survival of the fittest is such a poor word to use for it and it was only tacked on to evolution because of that guy who coined the term social Darwinism. A creature could have all the advantages in the world and still lose out. Mutations are not something that drive evolution and infact their role is kinda down played now a days in evolutionary thought. (they used to be thought to be THE driving force). Infact genetic differentiation between species actually comes mostly from benign mutations because they have the best chance of being passed on. So many factors in Evo that is really is quite complex and amazing. populations of the same species can easily become isolated and develop differently, or develop the same based on the distribution of the genes in each pop. A small pop can break off and produce a founder effect. etc etc etc its not a neat and easy to define process.
|
On May 21 2009 08:35 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 07:43 Motiva wrote:On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur. What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step? My reasoning behind the statement is, yes, you can have a mutation occur in one generation, however until that mutation can be passed through the species, then it is not evolution, at least not in any consequence to the species. In that generation, and surely has many times, that mutation has never reached the species because that individual, or that select group with the right mutation died before reproductive age, or never reproduced. Therefore, how can you quantify a single mutation, no matter how significant, evolution if it never was propagated throughout the species? Evolution by nature, cannot take place within one generation. You honestly believe it can? That goes against the laws of nature and reproduction.
hmmm. This is primarily a case of semantics then?
If a mutation occurs, and then it causes the species to die it is still evolution. The number of generations isn't really the deciding factor. I suppose we use the term "evolution" to quantify the step by step cumulative change in gene pools. If a species mutates/evolves into a less efficient form and thus dies, this is still called evolution. Evolution does not have to denote actual progress in the survivability. Just change.
Evolution doesn't have to carry the connotation of progress. The argument that because a mutation occured and then the specimen died before it was able to replicate is just a manifestation of survival of the fittest and the natural variance of every day life (perhaps the mutation actually made it more efficient, and it died by chance).
We don't quantify a single mutation, evolution is just the quantifying of millions+ of single cumulative mutations.
There is no purpose to evolution. You talk about evolution as if it has a destination, as if there is some goal or direction. There is just a lot of time and a lot of different ways to arrange genes, and ectectect......
EDIT: probabilistic ah exactly the word I needed when i was writing this post... 
|
On May 21 2009 09:16 Motiva wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 08:35 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 07:43 Motiva wrote:On May 21 2009 07:34 Aegraen wrote:On May 21 2009 07:19 seppolevne wrote:On May 21 2009 07:11 irishash wrote:On May 21 2009 04:38 Diomedes wrote:On May 21 2009 01:12 irishash wrote:
sorry, wrong.
edit: just so i don't look a COMPLETE asshole, the reason i say it's not confirmed is the simple fact that two of our chromosomes from chimps are fused together (2 + 3), which is theoretically impossible (in science as "we" currently understand) for that to happen in the small time period it happened to us in, for evolution itself to do so, it would need much much more time. so now the question is... what fused the chromosomes? or what caused a change in something that evolution was sped up millionfold and then almost halted after humans come about The fact that we have 46 chromosomes while all the other great apes have 48 that means one pair has fused. And it can happen in one generation while we had like 5 million years to do it. Then we looked and compared and tried to find which pair of chromosomes was fused. If we couldn't figure out which chromosome it was, evolution would be wrong. We know that with telomeres we can figure out which chromosome has fused. Our chromosome no.2 is the fused one. We know it fused at base pair 114,450,823 to 114,455,838. It has both centromere no.2 and the centromere no.13 in chimps/bonobos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) i think you need to reread my post. i didn't say it isn't possible, i said it isn't possible for it to happen in such a short amount of time as it did unless there are catastrophic changes to "something" to alter something for evolution to NEED to happen that fast, if it's even possible. and while i didn't read the wiki link, it probably doesn't make clear the fact that while there are 46 chromosomes in humans and 48 in apes, we still contain the same amount of information contained in those 48 chromosomes, only occupying 46 places. this, in science as we understand it, is impossible to happen in the short amount of time scientists believe we arrived on earth unless someone (aliens, god, etc) altered our DNA like we do to our fruits and vegetables, or a major event occured that caused life to need to adapt, and adapt quickly. Evolution doesn't NEED anything. And why can't it happen in one generation? A mutation can occur in one generation, but evolution can never happen in one generation. Evolution takes a long time to occur. What do you think evolution is? Evolution is mutation occuring in 1 generation and then getting passed on for many generations. It's cumulative Change. Single Step by Single Step. So you are then arguing that evolution is not cumulative change occurring step by step? My reasoning behind the statement is, yes, you can have a mutation occur in one generation, however until that mutation can be passed through the species, then it is not evolution, at least not in any consequence to the species. In that generation, and surely has many times, that mutation has never reached the species because that individual, or that select group with the right mutation died before reproductive age, or never reproduced. Therefore, how can you quantify a single mutation, no matter how significant, evolution if it never was propagated throughout the species? Evolution by nature, cannot take place within one generation. You honestly believe it can? That goes against the laws of nature and reproduction. hmmm. This is primarily a case of semantics then? If a mutation occurs, and then it causes the species to die it is still evolution. The number of generations isn't really the deciding factor. I suppose we use the term "evolution" to quantify the step by step cumulative change in gene pools. If a species mutates/evolves into a less efficient form and thus dies, this is still called evolution. Evolution does not have to denote actual progress in the survivability. Just change. Evolution doesn't have to carry the connotation of progress. The argument that because a mutation occured and then the specimen died before it was able to replicate is just a manifestation of survival of the fittest and the natural variance of every day life (perhaps the mutation actually made it more efficient, and it died by chance). We don't quantify a single mutation, evolution is just the quantifying of millions+ of single cumulative mutations. There is no purpose to evolution. You talk about evolution as if it has a destination, as if there is some goal or direction. There is just a lot of time and a lot of different ways to arrange genes, and ectectect...... EDIT: probabilistic ah exactly the word I needed when i was writing this post...
Succinctly, evolution cannot be harmful in that specific environment (Of course evolution that allowed you to become specifically adept in one environment will be your doom when the climate changes), because if it is then the species goes extinct, and are no better off than they were beforehand. Evolution implies progress, or in any case, survival. How can you 'evolve' and dieout, that is not evolution, because it doesn't matter if you had the mutation or not.
Evolution =/= any change in DNA code / genes etc.
|
can someone plz answer Aegraen question how even a single mutation in one or two specimen can spread into the entire species in a short timespan? or wasnt that what you said? that you had evidence that some spread of this kind happend very fast?
|
A mutation can spread quickly in a small population. In a larger population if 1 individual has a mutation and spreads it to his offspring there are still many other genes in the pool. but in a smaller population it can spread pretty quickly. This where a founder effect or isolation of a small population within a species can lead to a relatively rapid speciation. And evolution is basically defined today as the change in the gene frequencies in a population from generation to generation so basically evolution is always happening. It is constantly there because gene frequencies change from generation to generation.
|
On May 21 2009 09:50 aqui wrote:
can someone plz answer Aegraen question how even a single mutation in one or two specimen can spread into the entire species in a short timespan? or wasnt that what you said? that you had evidence that some spread of this kind happend very fast?
My original point was that, the discrepancy between the speed from one point to the other is comparatively disproportionate to such a drastic extreme, that it is highly unlikely that this fossil means much, and if it does, then it begs the question, what sped up the process to super extreme mode when it was for all intents and purposes laxidasicle (omg, im so tired can't spell right now) beforehand.
What facilitated the rapid evolutionary transition? We know what climate was like, and where they inhabited, so, what else then could it have been? Too many questions opened up if this find is of any significance. Lets see if anyone even bothers to ask the questions needed to be done.
|
Since this specimen was found way outside of Africa it also could be just an evolutionary dead end that really did not have an impact on human evolution. Just because it seems to have characters to be in that line doesn't mean it evolved that way but then didn't go anywhere. In reality we need to know more
|
On May 21 2009 09:44 Aegraen wrote:
Succinctly, evolution cannot be harmful in that specific environment (Of course evolution that allowed you to become specifically adept in one environment will be your doom when the climate changes), because if it is then the species goes extinct, and are no better off than they were beforehand. Evolution implies progress, or in any case, survival. How can you 'evolve' and dieout, that is not evolution, because it doesn't matter if you had the mutation or not.
Evolution =/= any change in DNA code / genes etc.
...
1) You say: "Evolution implies progress, or in any case, survival" No. Evolution only is quantified change over numerous mutations.
2) You say: "How can you 'evolve' and dieout, that is not evolution, because it doesn't matter if you had the mutation or not." No. Where did you get that information? EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC. You are confusing the ENDS with the MEANS.
Evolution = Cumalitive mutations.
Mutations = ANY CHANGE
Thus
EVOLUTION = ANY CHANGE
Where are you getting your definition? Cite 1 top evolutionary biologist that says that evolution is ONLY PROGRESS.
-EVOLUTION IS PROBABILISTIC- reread that and then do it again.
There is no purpose, direction or meaning. You are confusing the fact that due to the nature of our enviroment survival of the fittest holds true. Even though the fittest surviving has NOTHING to do with evolution at it's core. In the same sense that our perception of the sky being blue has nothing to do with the sky itself. Survival of the Fittest is the concequence of our perception on Evolution. It's a simple truism.
|
I don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but you guys should check this news out on peer reviewed journals, provided you have access to them. You'd find that all the hype is just for a fossil that doesn't really tell us anything we didn't already know. Popular news outlets aren't to be trusted with sciency stuff. They tend to disort the news beyond recognition just to attract more readers.
|
On May 21 2009 09:54 Aegraen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2009 09:50 aqui wrote:
can someone plz answer Aegraen question how even a single mutation in one or two specimen can spread into the entire species in a short timespan? or wasnt that what you said? that you had evidence that some spread of this kind happend very fast? My original point was that, the discrepancy between the speed from one point to the other is comparatively disproportionate to such a drastic extreme, that it is highly unlikely that this fossil means much, and if it does, then it begs the question, what sped up the process to super extreme mode when it was for all intents and purposes laxidasicle (omg, im so tired can't spell right now) beforehand. What facilitated the rapid evolutionary transition? We know what climate was like, and where they inhabited, so, what else then could it have been? Too many questions opened up if this find is of any significance. Lets see if anyone even bothers to ask the questions needed to be done.
I'm curious, and I genuinely mean it when I say please cite your sources? What evidence does this bring up at all that there was any discrepancy in the rate of evolution? Rapid evolutionary transition? Please expand and explain because i see no discrepancies?
and I agree w/ Cpt. Cocaine, but seriously.... theres no discrepancies and this discovery really tells us nothing new?
|
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
|
This isn't a missing link between humans and apes its a missing link between mammals and primates. Poorly written ariticle. But awesome news
|
On May 21 2009 10:39 Misrah wrote:
So funny. Typical TL pseudo- intellectual's discussing evolutionary theory. I just find it funny that so many people find the theory of evolution to be true, and infallible. When in reality biological knowledge is so limited. I am astounded that people actually believe that science can postulate how one cell has propagated into multi-cellular organisms. When currently we do not even understand the mechanism of muscles, to be a giant leap of faith in the theory- and evolution itself.
Woah, hold on a sec. No one here is claiming the theory of evolution is infallible. If you want to provide some evidence that evolution doesn't happen then go ahead. How us the mechanism of muscles related to evolution? That's a genuine question and not rhetoric.
The fact that we can't come up with an explanation for multicellular organisms doesn't disprove evolution, it just shows that there is a gap in our knowledge. It doesn't mean that all the other pieces of evidence pointing towards evolution can be discounted. What is your alternate theory if you don't believe in evolution?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
