Eye on the Ball

[flip]

There are four common mechanisms of evolution. The first mechanism is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and reproduction of entities that differ in one or more inherited traits.[1] Selection can act at multiple levels of organization, for example differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms, populations, or gene variants.[7] A second mechanism is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.[8][9] A third mechanism is biased mutation, which can affect phenotypes expressed across multiple levels of organisation. Finally, the fourth mechanism is gene flow, which is the incorporation of genes from one population into another.

Evolution demands a population to evolve. Sure some would die off, but from those census charts which supposedly take those things into account population still always increases . Evolution from a single individual would be impossible as it needs a population to work.

[Jeff250]

Evolution demands a population to evolve. Sure some would die off, but from those census charts which supposedly take those things into account population still always increases . Evolution from a single individual would be impossible as it needs a population to work.

Human population has not been monotonically increasing. A recent example of this is the Black Death. So not only is human population growth variable but it's not even necessarily positive.

Good counter-argument. I must be stupid because no one can explain the obvious lack of numbers in population and therefore their guesses are much more superior to my guesses.

We can tell that you're just guessing, but the problem is that scientists aren't, so this is why we aren't taking your guesses seriously. We expect you to do better. You already know that climate and technology affect population growth. We couldn't even sustain anything even close to the population we have now without farming, a relatively recent advancement, so how could the population have gotten this large any earlier than farming? The lack of earlier human population growth until recently isn't a problem--it's the natural result of changing climate and technological development.

[flip]

On it's own it's not a good guess, add in DNA evidence and it starts making sense. This is the flaw I see in science in which most just seem to readily accept, but it has everything to with your personal beliefs. If I see a very small population, knowing it would take a huge population to effect evolution and DNA evidence that suggests a single point even, I see that makes evolution in those circumstances impossible if even possible at all, but definitely not without a huge gene pool. Here's where your beliefs interfere. I see that as supporting evidence of the biblical creation account because I believe in God. I have more of course but I feel this is significant because evolution needs a huge gene pool to fulfill just one of the mechanics of evolution. DNA evidence and very low populations recently dispute that so I question it. If your an atheist and have determined there is no God at all, then you have to start theorizing about huge disasters to knock those numbers down that were needed to effect the change in the first place. Modern Science is flawed in that way. The data doesn't lie but the interpretation of that data is subjective as hell.

[flip]

The direct evidence suggests there was a migration of H. erectus out of Africa, then a further speciation of H. sapiens from H. erectus in Africa. A subsequent migration within and out of Africa eventually replaced the earlier dispersed H. erectus. This migration and origin theory is usually referred to as the recent single origin or Out of Africa theory. Current evidence does not preclude some multiregional evolution or some admixture of the migrant H. sapiens with existing Homo populations. This is a hotly debated area of paleoanthropology.

Current research has established that humans are genetically highly homogenous; that is, the DNA of individuals is more alike than usual for most species, which may have resulted from their relatively recent evolution or the possibility of a population bottleneck resulting from cataclysmic natural events such as the Toba catastrophe.[45][46][47] Distinctive genetic characteristics have arisen, however, primarily as the result of small groups of people moving into new environmental circumstances. These adapted traits are a very small component of the Homo sapiens genome, but include various characteristics such as skin color and nose form, in addition to internal characteristics such as the ability to breathe more efficiently at high altitudes.

I would expect to see huge numbers of H.erectus and alot of evidence of their existence by the time H.sapiens evolved and apparently I'm not the only one. I'm pretty sure it's an ongoing debate even among atheists.

[Top Gun]

*sigh*

Flip...this doesn't have anything to do with one's personal religious beliefs, or anything like that. Scientists don't construct some fictional disasters just to satisfy their own world view. They look at what geologic evidence tells them about natural events that happened in the past, and they look at genetic similarities between humans today, and then they theorize about which of said events most likely caused what they see in humanity today. If more evidence is uncovered that supports their position, it becomes more likely that their hypothesis is accurate...if not, then they take a look elsewhere. You're trying to equate scientific study with straight-up dogmatism, but they're two very different things.

As far as the "single point" idea, I think you're confusing the concept of a "Mitochondrial Eve" with the idea that there was one single pair of human beings that produced all of us. The Wiki article contains a nice little section that clears up some of the common misconceptions with the concept.

I would expect to see huge numbers of H.erectus and alot of evidence of their existence by the time H.sapiens evolved and apparently I'm not the only one. I'm pretty sure it's an ongoing debate even among atheists.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this. We have plenty of evidence of the existence of H. erectus, and where they generally lived. There's still some debate about the exact spread of the species, and precisely how it related to other hominids, but we can say, "Yeah, this is a place where H. erectus lived 1.5 million years ago." Are you saying you think the numbers are off, or something else?

[flip]

I give up. Every response is telling me how science "works."

[flip]

Flip...this doesn't have anything to do with one's personal religious beliefs, or anything like that. Scientists don't construct some fictional disasters just to satisfy their own world view. They look at what geologic evidence tells them about natural events that happened in the past, and they look at genetic similarities between humans today, and then they theorize about which of said events most likely caused what they see in humanity today. If more evidence is uncovered that supports their position, it becomes more likely that their hypothesis is accurate...if not, then they take a look elsewhere. You're trying to equate scientific study with straight-up dogmatism, but they're two very different things.

No, what I'm saying is if this said scientist does not believe in God, then even if his findings lead him that way, he would still look elsewhere because he does not believe God exists and in that way science is somewhat dogmatic.

concept of a "Mitochondrial Eve"

There is no concept here, DNA evidence has Proven this. We differ as to the interpretation. They "theorize" that we all have a common female ancestor some 140,000 years ago, and a common male ancestor from 90,000 years ago. The mitochondrial link is undeniable but I say it could also mean from a single pair and that the biblical account of creation may be accurate, as this seems to point, but an atheist would never consider that possibility, yet theorizing in itself is to consider all the possibilities.

Are you saying you think the numbers are off, or something else?

Yes. Over and over now. 1.5 million years with evidence to suggest at the very least close proximity we can "theorize" as to what their population should be over a period of 1.5 million years. We can even base that on our own population growth since we are directly related. We project that around 10,000 BC there were around 4 million humans, now there are almost 6 billion. That's roughly in 12-13000 years. I'm gonna give H.erectus a whole million years to reach that 4 million population mark, that still leaves another half million years to produce. In that time I'm gonna say in only 1.5 million years, there should have been at least a billion of them(real low estimate.) The census is a good projection of population growth because it was done by 12 unaffiliated agencies and they all basically agree. This is a span of 12000 years and technology cannot be accredited as it is only a few 100 years old. No, I would think with having 1.5 million years to reproduce, you would have visible proof of their existence everywhere. One explanation for the lack of numbers is that man actually hasn't been around that long and the "theories" won't allow that possibility. That's when it becomes dogmatic.

[woodchip]

Flip, if you want to play extrapolation games then compare the population from 1950 (2.5 billion) to present (9 billion):

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... w&dur=1355

Now compare the growth from 1750 (1 billion) to 1950 ( 2.6 billion):

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt ... BQ&dur=531

In short it took 200 years for population to increase 2.5 times as much and then it took only 60 year to increase almost 4x as much. population growth is not a nice straight linear increase so you cannot say if population is 9 billion today then it must be X 12000 years ago.

[flip]

True enough I guess but over a 1.5 million years span, I can assume population growth. Ok, I'll give you 100000 at a million years. Same difference.

[ Post made via Android ]

[woodchip]

flip, look at it another way. Baboons are very intelligent, have large social groupings, been around for a long time yet you do not see their populations numbering in the billions. Same with chimps and same with gorilla's. Why? The ability of the land to support larger populations does not exist. Coupled with predators and disease, these factors limit population size. The same holds true for mankind. Many populations of early man were nomadic. The reason why is if they stayed in one area they would use up all the resources and then starve. It wasn't until man learned to plant crops that he could then settle into one area and populations could expand. Without man being able to control the food source, the natural world would just plain not sustain a large population of, well....anything.

[flip]

Many populations of early man were nomadic. The reason why is if they stayed in one area they would use up all the resources and then starve.

This is exactly why they say they started migrating, because of competition for resources. This suggests an already over-populated area to begin with and a local region to migrate from. I wonder how strong agriculture was in 10000 BC, because it didn't seem to hamper their multiplication from then till now. I'm also not sure we can compare humans to baboons either. In no other species is the population as dense as it is with humans. They also say that man didnt have enough sense to realize a seed produces a plant, very simple and observable, and yet had enough sense to make tools to skin animals with. They didn't just tear into them and eat them like every other animal does. They obviously had to have enough sense to make shelter otherwise they were naked to the elements. No there should have been a great number of them after 1.5 million years.

[flip]

Let's also just assume evolution is true but only possible under certain conditions. One of those conditions is the requirement of a large population.

[Top Gun]

...I think I give up.

[woodchip]

Let's also just assume evolution is true but only possible under certain conditions. One of those conditions is the requirement of a large population.

Evolution is true and possible under all conditions where life can exist. You're starting to beat a dead horse with supposition.

[Jeff250]

The mitochondrial link is undeniable but I say it could also mean from a single pair and that the biblical account of creation may be accurate, as this seems to point, but an atheist would never consider that possibility

Genetic Eve and Genetic Adam weren't contemporaries by tens of thousands of years. The reason why your theory is unique isn't because you're religious--it's because you're ignorant of the facts.

[flip]

What the hell am I supposed to be ignorant of? Every damn thing I've posted was idiot evolution 101 right from wikipedia. I just don't think you guys thought too much beyond what you were told too read and be tested on. My theory so far is that there seems to be a lack of numbers and DNA evidence points to at the very least a single region of development. Your guys main dispute is not educational at all, it consists now again of just my ignorance yet nothing I've said can be disputed. Just the cause.

[flip]

There are four common mechanisms of evolution. The first mechanism is natural selection, a process in which there is differential survival and reproduction of entities that differ in one or more inherited traits.[1] Selection can act at multiple levels of organization, for example differential survival and/or reproduction of organisms, populations, or gene variants.[7] A second mechanism is genetic drift, a process in which there are random changes to the proportions of two or more inherited traits within a population.[8][9] A third mechanism is biased mutation, which can affect phenotypes expressed across multiple levels of organisation. Finally, the fourth mechanism is gene flow, which is the incorporation of genes from one population into another.

Red this from Wikipedia and forget for just a moment your conditioning and tell me where any one of these mechanisms doesn't need a generous population(gene pool) to be possible. We are talking about changing form from still part ape-man to fully man. That means that the whole species over time actually changed physical characteristics.

[callmeslick]

I would expect to see huge numbers of H.erectus and alot of evidence of their existence by the time H.sapiens evolved and apparently I'm not the only one. I'm pretty sure it's an ongoing debate even among atheists.

therein lies your problem.....this isn't a matter for religion to ponder. It is a matter of scientific discovery.
As for this need for more evidence, are you aware of how fortuitous the circumstances must be for fossils to even form, let alone survive to be located countless years later?

[callmeslick]

...I think I give up.

...think I'm with you

[Krom]

Flip: You suggested that it takes a huge gene pool in order to spur evolution into action, which is actually the exact opposite. A large gene pool dilutes mutations or individual traits into nothing which effectively halts evolution. To spur evolution into action actually requires a population bottleneck, meaning true evolutionary pressure exists only when a population is literally on the verge of extinction. The proof of this is everywhere in nature, why do you think humans are around today but our direct evolutionary ancestors are not? The answer is because our direct evolutionary ancestors could not survive and went extinct. The same applies to the evolutionary ancestors of pretty much everything else, why are the 5 toed ancestors of horses not still around? The answer is because they too succumbed to the forces of nature and went extinct.

While the exact reason is unknown; the facts are humans survived and our direct ancestors did not. It is very likely humans appeared because of whatever pressure wiped out our direct evolutionary ancestors. Why our evolutionary cousins also died out is also a mystery, but there are plenty of probable causes: Territorial humans deliberately killed them off, they were unable to compete for resources against humans, or they simply succumbed to the same pressures that ultimately led to humanity appearing in the first place. The true face of evolution is not "survival of the fittest", rather it is "elimination of the unfit".

Evolution is not an engine for producing success stories, the end result of 99.9% of evolution is extinction. You assume humans evolved out of another species en masse, when what really happened is the other species quite literally died out and were replaced by humans. This is why there weren't billions of humans even though modern man has been around for a long time.

[flip]

That makes sense Krom. It is ONE possible explanation. Of course we are always gonna differ because of fundamental differences. It's not like those are the only 2 reasons I believe I do, but at least you seem to know the science. Again I can find a myriad of reasons to doubt it because most of it is conjecture and supposition. Still a best guess and at best just the only alternative argument to the possible existence of a God. I'm just having fun though guys, no reason to to get all frustrated and ★■◆●

[Top Gun]

That makes sense Krom. It is ONE possible explanation. Of course we are always gonna differ because of fundamental differences. It's not like those are the only 2 reasons I believe I do, but at least you seem to know the science. Again I can find a myriad of reasons to doubt it because most of it is conjecture and supposition. Still a best guess and at best just the only alternative argument to the possible existence of a God. I'm just having fun though guys, no reason to to get all frustrated and ★■◆●

...it's not "just a guess," and it in no way impedes the existence of any sort of higher power. This is why we're frustrated you: you keep making statements like this that are completely detached from reality.

[flip]

Hell yeah it is just a guess but not when it suits you. I offer census information that projects population back 10000 BC. Your argument: There's no way to know for sure.

While the exact reason is unknown; the facts are humans survived and our direct ancestors did not.

The facts are they can not directly tie us to any of those early hominids, if that's what they are. Could just be another extinct species of ape that resembles us like just the rest do, and yet have no direct relation as Slick suggested at the very onset. How can you say evolution is fact? I know, too many fill in the blank and true or false tests. We both see the same results. DNA evidence and a local region. Even Krom concedes the reason is unknown but yet you guys thump that evolution bible like it's infallible.

[Jeff250]

I offer census information that projects population back 10000 BC.

Where? What was your methodology? What were the results?

The facts are they can not directly tie us to any of those early hominids, if that's what they are. Could just be another extinct species of ape that resembles us like just the rest do, and yet have no direct relation as Slick suggested at the very onset. How can you say evolution is fact?

There are many species of hominids. Some are our parent species, some are our uncle species, and some are our cousin species, and so not all are our direct ancestor species. We can create these family trees of species by looking at their fossils, location, age, and DNA. Evolution predicts that we should find these species (a pretty risky prediction over a century ago), and that's why we think it's a good framework to use to analyze other hominids. Creationism doesn't predict them, and that's why we don't find creationism to be a useful framework for thinking about other hominids.

[flip]

Well alrighty then. I still have yet to find a contradiction but I concede, your all a bunch of apes .

[woodchip]

The facts are they can not directly tie us to any of those early hominids, if that's what they are. Could just be another extinct species of ape that resembles us like just the rest do, and yet have no direct relation as Slick suggested at the very onset.

And yet Chimps have 95% of our DNA. Do you ever wonder why?

[CUDA]

The facts are they can not directly tie us to any of those early hominids, if that's what they are. Could just be another extinct species of ape that resembles us like just the rest do, and yet have no direct relation as Slick suggested at the very onset.

And yet Chimps have 95% of our DNA. Do you ever wonder why?

because chimps used to be men but because they relied too much on Government assistance that they forgot what it meant to be one

[flip]

I say that's because of the same designer Woodchip. Hell, everything organic is just dirt chemically rearranged.

[flip]

So this brings me to my next musing . The bible and evolution both agree that living organisms came from the raw materials of the earth. The earth already being ancient before we start seeing life. We place an age on everything with the use of carbon dating. Now, if all living organisms are basically made from dirt, or more easily said, come from the earth and it was already a few billion years old, would carbon dating indicate the age of the organism when it came from the dirt, or the actual age of the dirt itself, the materials the organism is made of. Say you make a brand new wooden table out of 300 year old wood. Is the table brand new or 300 years old?

[Jeff250]

To have an impact on fossil dating, wouldn't this require that only the first generation of animal ever be fossilized?

[flip]

Honestly the brand new or 300 years old tripped me up , I don't know how you could move forward with certainty at that point, but we are thinking along the same lines. Yeah maybe, I want to look over carbon dating once again because I'm thinking it's basically a solid state theory but I havn't made the time yet. That's possible though. I don't see how you could date ANYTHING earlier than the raw materials but from the time it became a living organism maybe the game rules changed. It would still make carbon dating less than 100% reliable.

[woodchip]

The problem with your new assertion flip, is there is ever more indication of the real possibility that earth was infused with bacteria (mars meteor ) or organic molecules (from comets). The question is just how far back in time and from where in the galaxy to you want to trace life's origins?

[flip]

From the inception of life.

[woodchip]

Define inception

[flip]

Hmm, alright at one point in time all the earth consisted of was inanimate matter. There was nothing living, just raw building materials. Easier to keep it defined to just here on earth too although going back is a much broader picture. We are discussing a point at which nothing lived.

[woodchip]

Yes and then comets impacted the earth containing organic molecules. From these molecules life could very well have been started. As a ancillary thought, what if all worlds with life were kick started with these same molecules? Perhaps we would see a similarity of life forms on worlds similar to earth?

[flip]

Possible but let's take this into account.

The development and testing of theories about extraterrestrial life is known as exobiology or astrobiology; the term astrobiology, however, includes the study of life on Earth, viewed in its astronomical context. Many prominent scientists consider extraterrestrial life to be plausible, but the scientific community does not currently recognize any verifiable evidence of such life.

Here is the basis for this theory of alien bacteria:

Alien life, such as bacteria, has been theorized to exist in the Solar System and quite possibly throughout the Universe. This theory relies on the vast size and consistent physical laws of the observable Universe. According to this argument, supported by scientists such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, it would be improbable for life not to exist somewhere other than Earth.

The only basis for thinking this is possible is the improbability that it's not possible. Nowhere could fact be established if your only evidence is "it's very possible."

[woodchip]

Alien life, such as bacteria, has been theorized to exist in the Solar System and quite possibly throughout the Universe. This theory relies on the vast size and consistent physical laws of the observable Universe. According to this argument, supported by scientists such as Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking, it would be improbable for life not to exist somewhere other than Earth.

The only basis for thinking this is possible is the improbability that it's not possible. Nowhere could fact be established if your only evidence is "it's very possible."

Don't be so quick Flip to dismiss extraterrestrial life:

Pro
"Now a team of experts at the NASA Johnson Space Center, including the lead astrobiologist in the 1996 study, David McKay, have looked at the rock again using a new analysis technique, called ion beam milling."

"They conclude that there is enough evidence to rule out at least one geological process as the one that formed the nanocrystal iron grains. That leaves something that was once living -- biology -- as a possible cause."

"The scientists also point out the similarity between magnetites found in the Martian meteorite and a type of Earth bacteria on land known as magnetotactic bacteria."

Con
That's not enough to satisfy Michael Fuller, who researches magnetism at the University of Hawaii's Institute of Geophysics and Planetology.

"The grain-sized distribution is pretty small," Fuller told Discovery News, adding that once iron particles get smaller than about 20 nanometers, the magnetism breaks down.


"Most of them (the grains discussed in the new research) appear too small. It doesn't look to me that they are very similar to magnetotactic bacteria," he said.

http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-me ... tites.html

So the jury is still out tho it seems that what appears to be microbes are still being examined and remove what they ain't is on on going.

[flip]

I've said before to be a christian you have to at least believe in other forms of life. On top of that, it's downright makes more sense to think it's intelligent design over a huge streak of good luck against astronomical odds. The tilt of the earth, the distance from the sun, the formation of our atmosphere, the ionosphere that shields us from radiation, I could keep going and going. We can theorize it all being luck or being intelligent design. The process looks exactly the same to me.

[Top Gun]

So this brings me to my next musing . The bible and evolution both agree that living organisms came from the raw materials of the earth. The earth already being ancient before we start seeing life. We place an age on everything with the use of carbon dating. Now, if all living organisms are basically made from dirt, or more easily said, come from the earth and it was already a few billion years old, would carbon dating indicate the age of the organism when it came from the dirt, or the actual age of the dirt itself, the materials the organism is made of. Say you make a brand new wooden table out of 300 year old wood. Is the table brand new or 300 years old?

This is a gross misunderstanding of radiometric dating. For one, carbon dating specifically is only used for items within the range of 60,000 or so years, as the half-life of carbon-14 is only around 6000 years. More generally, radiometric dating depends on the ratio of a certain radioactive isotope of a product with its decay products. The greater amount of decay products, the older the sample is, and since radioactive decay happens at a set rate, we can figure out exactly how old to a significant degree of accuracy. However, the process depends on the material we're dating having been in something of a stable situation...if some of those decay products escape the sample, then the ratio will be thrown off, and we can't date it accurately. So to kind of answer your question, we're basically indicating the age at which what we're measuring achieved some sort of steady state, which in the case of things like rocks and fossils is basically when they were formed.

Also, organisms don't just "come from dirt" in any literal sense, though the materials that comprise us do come from what we consume...we pretty much are what we eat. And looking further back, all of our heavier atoms, pretty much everything above carbon, were originally formed by the nuclear reactions of stars.