Evolution and Santa Claus/ /Commonalities of Illusions

Morat · #41 8th November 2002, 02:35 PM

  Don't be stupid. If he were forced to use the actual definitions biologists used, when discussing biology, he wouldn't be able to expoit the ambiguity he created to create the illusion of a point.

  What would you have the poor man do? Actually make a point? Learn? Have a heart!

 

chickenman · #42 8th November 2002, 06:33 PM

When the skulls are studied for even a short length of time, it becomes glaringly obvious that the bone structure is radically different between Homo Sapiens and all the other specimens. If the Homo Sapiens evolved from any of the other represented specimens, then there would be numerous intermediate genetic variations required between the Homo Sapiens and any of those other skull. If such variant natural selective specimens existed before Homo Sapiens evolved to their present form, then we would have found evidence of them. But we have found no such evidence and what we know for sure, that is scientifically, is that Homo Sapiens are radically different than all other specimens. This tells us, realistically, without having to rely on any other theory or without having to view the evidence in any other way than scientifically, that the evidence does not support Homo Sapiens evolving from any other known fossil specimen found on this planet. Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be correct because we are the prime example that proves a disconnection from the stated belief of a continuous evolvement of all life on the planet from a single reference frame.

john, adress the evidence for the descent of homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimps in the urate oxidase pseudogene thread or shutup

John MacNeil · #43 9th November 2002, 12:36 PM

What does radical mean? Well, that's an easy one to explain, so I'll start with a definition and then highlight the differences between Cro-Magnon and the previous class of hominids.

--Radical: of or from the root or roots; going to the source or foundation of something; --Webster's

Cro-Magnon has a high, vaulted cranium with thin walls of bone encasing the brain pan which accomodates a brain of between 1300 cc and 1700 cc. Neanderthals, Skhul V and all the other previous representations of the hominids that Cro-Magnon is supposed to be naturally selected from have low, rearward sloping craniums with thick walls of bone encasing a brain pan that could accomodate a brain of between 800 cc to 1100 cc.

Cro-Magnon has no brow ridge above the eyes. Neanderthals and the others have a thick, protruding ridge of bone on their brows that stretches from one side of the forehead to the other without any kind of partition.

Cro-Magnon has small cheekbones that are sculpted to a narrow face. Neanderthals and the others have wide, angular cheekbones.

Cro-Magnon has a flat face. Neanderthals and the others have a prognathic face with the lower facial bones protruding like an ape's, but to a lesser degree.

The Cro-Magnon skulls are proportionately different than all of the previous hominids. Where all of the earlier represented hominids in the Smithsonian display have commonalities to each other, the Cro-Magnon has differences. If there ever was a phylogenic connection between the Cro-Magnon and the Neanderthals or the others, then the Smithsonian would be displaying that evidence and evolutionists would have a real foundation for their theory. The problem is, that evolutionists stated their theory began billions of year ago and they worked it to the present. When the science didn't validate their theory, why, they just ignored that scientific evidence. If they formulated their theory properly, they would have begun with what they know in the present time and tried to work it to include the past, and not vice versa.

I imagine it would have been quite a shock to Neanderthal or any of those other early hominid women when they started giving birth to Cro-Magnon babies. That would have raised quite a domestic stir around the campfire, I'm sure.

Hmmm....what else was there? Oh..yeah...race and species! Why would anyone consider the terms race and species to be the all important linchpin to the discussion? The terms don't dictate the science, the evidence does. When someone gets hung up on such triviaities it makes me think of check mark scholars and I wonder about society's viability.

When the geneticists with the Human Genome Project were able to isolate the loci clusters of gene that denote an individual's race, that science proved that white people couldn't turn into black people and black people couldn't turn into white people. If the two different races bred, they would get some mixture of the two but they would never get a pure black or a pure white breed. That means that the original individual races are actually separate species. I'm sorry kids, but that's the new science. You'll just have to get with the program and grasp the new realities. Science isn't going to stagnate and wait for you to catch up, it's just going to keep right on truckin'.

MSBS · #44 9th November 2002, 02:38 PM

Hmmm....what else was there? Oh..yeah...race and species! Why would anyone consider the terms race and species to be the all important linchpin to the discussion? The terms don't dictate the science, the evidence does. When someone gets hung up on such triviaities it makes me think of check mark scholars and I wonder about society's viability.

[snip]

That means that the original individual races are actually separate species. I'm sorry kids, but that's the new science. You'll just have to get with the program and grasp the new realities. Science isn't going to stagnate and wait for you to catch up, it's just going to keep right on truckin'.

Obviously the terms don't dictate your science since you are using the wrong ones.  No matter how hard you want races to be seperate species you still fail to make a case for it.  I've heard these arguments before, and have been just as dismissive of them.  Of course, previously, I've heard them mostly from the so called "Christian Identity" movement.  The point being that the different human races do not share common anscestry.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the point you are attempting to make, is it not?  You've presented no credible evidence for it, but lets just run with it now (not because it's credible science, but because you are using it as the linchpin in your rhetoric). 

All semantic arguments aside (and a dismissive attempt to say it isn’t), race being equal to species is the basis of your entire argument, and following it to its conclusion, you’re trying to establish that Neandertals equate to just another race of humans.  But, have you considered the implications of this?  As I said, it’s not a new argument; it’s commonly expounded to the Christian Identity sects for a specific purpose.  Usually it’s used to suggest a separate lineage for the various races— they do this in an attempt to say that the races besides the white race do not share common descent from Adam and Eve, and thus should not be seen as being the children of God, or to be included among those the Jesus died to save.  Obviously I don’t believe this as I support the scientifically held view, and as defined by all common usages of the words (I am a trained biologist after all) that all human races are the same species and have common anscestors.  I’d like to believe that the view of the Christian Identity sects is not the view you are supporting, but it’s the only other place I’ve ever heard views similar to yours expounded.  Please bring us up to speed as to how your point of view differs from these racist Christian sects.

I imagine it would have been quite a shock to Neanderthal or any of those other early hominid women when they started giving birth to Cro-Magnon babies. That would have raised quite a domestic stir around the campfire, I'm sure.

Boy, it sure would have.  Let's see what scientists have to say about the plausability of this scenario, shall we?

DNA was extracted from the Neandertal-type specimen found in 1856 in western Germany. By sequencing clones from short overlapping PCR products, a hitherto unknown mitochondrial (mt) DNA sequence was determined. Multiple controls indicate that this sequence is endogenous to the fossil. Sequence comparisons with human mtDNA sequences, as well as phylogenetic analyses, show that the Neandertal sequence falls outside the variation of modern humans. Furthermore, the age of the common ancestor of the Neandertal and modern human mtDNAs is estimated to be four times greater than that of the common ancestor of human mtDNAs. This suggests that Neandertals went extinct without contributing mtDNA to modern humans.

Krings M. et al., 1997. Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans, Cell, vol. 90, pp. 19-30.

In other words, modern humans and Neandertals share a common anscestry, but the Neandertal lineage did not contribute to modern human lineage (cro-magnons are considered modern humans).  Your little scenario of Neandertals suddenly becomming modern humans is indeed implausable, as the scientific literature shows. 

Enough for now, lets hear your response and then we can continue "grasping at this significant oppurtunity."

PS.  Since you keep refering to Neil Risch and his opinion piece in Genome Biology, how about you give it a read so that we can go over some of the points? 

 

chickenman · #45 9th November 2002, 07:21 PM

When the geneticists with the Human Genome Project were able to isolate the loci clusters of gene that denote an individual's race, that science proved that white people couldn't turn into black people and black people couldn't turn into white people. If the two different races bred, they would get some mixture of the two but they would never get a pure black or a pure white breed. That means that the original individual races are actually separate species. I'm sorry kids, but that's the new science. You'll just have to get with the program and grasp the new realities. Science isn't going to stagnate and wait for you to catch up, it's just going to keep right on truckin'.

I'm sorry kiddo, you need reading comprehension lessons, risch's paper says nothing of the sort

Please, do us all a favour and look up the following terms as they pertain to population genetics:

Allele
Sub-population
Migration
Locus

We can actually measure the amount of gene flow between the different races using measures such as Fst - they aren't different species by any definition that biologists use

it isn't the new science at all, its the fevered imaginings of a layperson who doesn't quite understand the implications of a paper he's read

John MacNeil · #46 10th November 2002, 12:58 PM

Contrary to some people's belief, the fact that race and species of humans are interchangeable terms is not central to this discussion or to the fact that evolution theory is not valid. Evoluton theory dictates that Cro-Magnon people were naturally selected from previously existing hominids. It is incumbant on evolutionists to prove at least one single case of such evolutionary process that connects us physically with previously existing hominids. If that can't be done for the relatively recent past, then their theory has no validity.

The science produced by the Human Genome Project is documented and recorded and is accepted by mainstream science as being valid. The scientific evidence that Stanford geneticist Neil Risch and his team produced and published the results of have been critically reviewed. For anyone to state now that the loci clusters for race do not exist would be simply foolish. However, if Neil Risch states in his article that he still believes in evolution and a common ancestor out of Africa, when the science he works on shows the opposite, then that is personal opinion and has no scientific validity and is deserving of no respect as it pertains to the scientific evidence. Therefore, to discuss Neil Risch's personal opinion would not be beneficial to this discussion. If anyone wishes to do that, they would be better off going to Neil Risch's web site and discussing it with him.

The pertinent data that we are interested in here is that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal do not share a complete DNA sequence. It is acknowledged by modern science that Neanderthal women did not give birth to Cro-Magnon babies. That leaves the question to be asked, Which hominid women did give birth to Cro-Magnon babies? If that question cannot be answered, then there is no connection to the past.

The Neanderthal, the Skhul V and the Homo Erectus all lived during the same geologic time period and they all share common physical traits. It is virtually certain that they could not have given birth to Cro-Magnon babies. This is the central point of the natural selection continuity that must prove or disprove evolution theory as it relates to us. In essence, which species of hominid was the first to give birth to a Cro-Magnon baby? And when? If the evolutionists cannot answer that question, then they have no theory. Of course, no proponents of evolution will ever attempt to answer those question because there is no answer. Evolutionists don't even allow themselves to think about such direct inquiry. They prefer the foggy notion of "It all happened a long time ago over many generation and many change and if you don't believe that then you don't believe in science."

When dealing with reality, that is, with the scientific evidence and the observation of phenomena that is described objectively, it is a simple matter to dismiss the evolution theory. Science has shown us that Cro-Magnon humans have existed on this planet for approximately 30,000 year and it has also shown us that no evidence exists which links us to the previous species of hominid that existed here before us. This leads us to make several observation which must be regarded as scientifically valid.

First, Cro-Magnon humans have no scientific connection that can be proved that places us on this planet before the known fossil evidence from 30,000 year ago.

Second, no theory of our existence here has any scientific validity if it ages us as younger or older than the fossil evidence. This point makes invalid the evolution theory and the young earth theory.

Third, there is only one theory which predicted a demarcation timeframe for the current ecological structure of life on this planet, and that theory is in the bible. Therefore the bible must be considered as the only valid scientific evidence for the origin of Cro-Magnon, or, more scientifically, the only theory which has been proved by the observation of the evidence. As our most famous scientist said;

-- "A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the construction of a theory."--Albert Einstein

The fact that the bible describes a demarcation for the appearence of our kind of hominid on this planet indicates that science must now include "ideas" as valid scientific evidence where it is warrented. Ideas are the product of thought and, ultimately, is what all science is derived from. Since the bible explains our appearence on this earth and has done so for several thousand year, we must be willing to accept the bible as scientific evidence. That is not to say I believe it is a literal translation of everything that happened. The bible has had many translations by many different people and I, not being a scholar in bibliography, cannot believe everything in the bible from my scientific perspective. But the truth remains that for several thousand year the bible has been telling us what science is now confirming.

Edited: To magically restore Neil Risch to geneticist after I had briefly made him a physicist.

MSBS · #47 10th November 2002, 05:07 PM

Contrary to some people's belief, the fact that race and species of humans are interchangeable terms is not central to this discussion or to the fact that evolution theory is not valid.

Bull. It is central to your thesis. You are trying to show non-relatedness among the races by saying they have discontinuous genetics. To do this you are using the term species in a novel way that is not in agreement with its normal use in common speech or in its more specific meaning among biologists. People of different races can mate and have children, and thus are of the same species no matter how hard you wish this not to be the case. Thus far, all that you have been able to show by this foolish insistence of incorrect usage of both the word species and the concept of species in the biological sense is that your scholarship is poor and that you fail to understand some of the basic tenants of both biology and genetics.

The science produced by the Human Genome Project is documented and recorded and is accepted by mainstream science as being valid. The scientific evidence that Stanford physicist Neil Risch and his team produced and published the results of have been critically reviewed.

Well good for you. You got some of the main points right here. Congratulations. I would like to point out, however, that while Dr. Risch is a Stanford professor he is not a physicist. He is, in fact, a geneticist, and he studies genetic epidemiology and statistical genetics.

 

For anyone to state now that the loci clusters for race do not exist would be simply foolish.

So, on the basis of single paper, you decide this is the correct position and that geneticist that hold differing viewpoints are fools? I’m inclined (as you seem to be, although it can be hard to tell) that Dr. Risch’s position is likely correct. You do, however, realize that there is a body of literature that has been published that takes differing views do you not? Just out of curiosity, how much of the other literature have you read before you made your “informed” opinion?

 

However, if Neil Risch states in his article that he still believes in evolution and a common ancestor out of Africa, when the science he works on shows the opposite, then that is personal opinion and has no scientific validity and is deserving of no respect as it pertains to the scientific evidence. Therefore, to discuss Neil Risch's personal opinion would not be beneficial to this discussion. If anyone wishes to do that, they would be better off going to Neil Risch's web site and discussing it with him.

 
Here is where your argument falls completely to pieces. Dr. Risch is not just expressing an opinion without basis, he is saying that the evidence shows common ancestry, and that genetic differences that we see in different races show us when these races diverged. Using a number of previously published papers as references he cites evidence of genetic differentiation using a number of different genetic markers that support this point. Get this straight now, what Risch has shown is that different races can be treated as distinct populations and have differing frequencies of alleles. Now the basis of this would be that all races of modern humans share a common ancestry and that through “micro” evolution have differentiated somewhat from each other and that these slight differences in genetics have implications in medical treatment.

The pertinent data that we are interested in here is that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal do not share a complete DNA sequence. It is acknowledged by modern science that Neanderthal women did not give birth to Cro-Magnon babies. That leaves the question to be asked, Which hominid women did give birth to Cro-Magnon babies? If that question cannot be answered, then there is no connection to the past.

Wow, you actually conceded a point and quit making that ridiculous straw man argument about Neandertals giving birth to modern humans. There is hope after all.

The Neanderthal, the Skhul V and the Homo Erectus all lived during the same geologic time period and they all share common physical traits. It is virtually certain that they could not have given birth to Cro-Magnon babies. This is the central point of the natural selection continuity that must prove or disprove evolution theory as it relates to us. In essence, which species of hominid was the first to give birth to a Cro-Magnon baby? And when? If the evolutionists cannot answer that question, then they have no theory. Of course, no proponents of evolution will ever attempt to answer those question because there is no answer. Evolutionists don't even allow themselves to think about such direct inquiry. They prefer the foggy notion of "It all happened a long time ago over many generation and many change and if you don't believe that then you don't believe in science."

When dealing with reality, that is, with the scientific evidence and the observation of phenomena that is described objectively, it is a simple matter to dismiss the evolution theory. Science has shown us that Cro-Magnon humans have existed on this planet for approximately 30,000 year and it has also shown us that no evidence exists which links us to the previous species of hominid that existed here before us. This leads us to make several observation which must be regarded as scientifically valid.

First, Cro-Magnon humans have no scientific connection that can be proved that places us on this planet before the known fossil evidence from 30,000 year ago.

Second, no theory of our existence here has any scientific validity if it ages us as younger or older than the fossil evidence. This point makes invalid the evolution theory and the young earth theory.

Third, there is only one theory which predicted a demarcation timeframe for the current ecological structure of life on this planet, and that theory is in the bible. Therefore the bible must be considered as the only valid scientific evidence for the origin of Cro-Magnon, or, more scientifically, the only theory which has been proved by the observation of the evidence. As our most famous scientist said;

-- "A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the construction of a theory."--Albert Einstein

 
Oops….spoke to soon there.
First of all, just because a question has not been answered does not mean it cannot be answered. Furthermore, you need to research a little better—modern humans date back 100,000 years in Africa and the middle east. The 30,000 year time frame you are suggesting dates to the immigration of our species (single) into Europe and Asia.

The fact that the bible describes a demarcation for the appearance[sic] of our kind of hominid on this planet indicates that science must now include "ideas" as valid scientific evidence where it is warranted[sic]. Ideas are the product of thought and, ultimately, is what all science is derived from. Since the bible explains our appearance[sic] on this earth and has done so for several thousand year, we must be willing to accept the bible as scientific evidence. That is not to say I believe it is a literal translation of everything that happened. The bible has had many translations by many different people and I, not being a scholar in bibliography, cannot believe everything in the bible from my scientific perspective. But the truth remains that for several thousand year the bible has been telling us what science is now confirming.

 
Strangely enough, I have no problem with this philosophy. However, thus far you have been inundating us with poor scientific scholarship, novel use of scientific wording, straw man arguments, and a rock like stubbornness in your willful choice not to actually answer any questions asked of you or your argument. Get a good genetics textbook, do some reading, and then try again when you have a better grasp of the subject at hand.

I’ve posted this before, but I think it is more relevant then ever now.

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge. This translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

chickenman · #48 10th November 2002, 05:57 PM

this is painful

please macneill, look up allele, look up migration, look up sub-population, look up "the biological species concept"

risch's paper doesn't contradict evolution at all, its support for evolution i.e. changing allele frequencies in populations

DNAunion · #49 10th November 2002, 07:29 PM

DNAunion: Okay, I'll probably get smacked around abit for this, but maybe I'll learn something (besides I'm bored - this might get the old blood pumping again). Oh, and all of this is off the top of my head, too.

If I remember correctly the biological species concept says one or the other of these:

1) A group of organisms that CAN reproduce in the wild with the result being viable and fertile offspring is a species

2) A group of organisms that DO reproduce in the wild with the result being viable and fertile offspring is a species

Maybe I'm wrong - like I said, this is off the top of my head.

Here's the thing. I remember reading somewhere (Science? Scientific American? Discover?) that the number of species of cichlids (<-spelling?) in Lake Victoria in Africa is declining. The culprit being cloudier water (they used a bigger term). The cichlids used to reproduce only with members of their own color patterns, but as the water became cloudier, they became less able to discern which were of their own group and so began reproducing with cichlids that did not have their own color patterns. Thus, the number of species was reduced as two (or more) merged into fewer ones.

If that is correct, then a species is those organisms that DO actually reproduce in the wild - being ABLE to is not enough: you have to actually do it.

If that is correct, then even though whites and blacks could always produce viable and fertile offspring, they would have been separate species in the 1800s (or whatever), only becoming a single species now that interbreeding ACTUALLY occurs.

On the other hand, all dogs are of the same species, yet they don't all interbreed in the wild. So if it is just the ABILITY to reproduce - if actually doing it is not required - then the number of species of cichilds is NOT decreasing in Lake Victoria [at least not due to the cloudy-water thing]

Okay, slap me around people :-)

chickenman · #50 10th November 2002, 07:40 PM

the biological species concept is defined in terms of gene flow - as long as there is migration between subpopulations that produces fertile offspring - then those subpopulations are the same species. I think you're stretching the definition a bit there DNAunion - I mean you could stretch it to say that any organisms that haven't yet produced fertile offsrping are potentially different species. I'd say the chiclids were either incipient species (not real species - but allopatric populations close to reproductive isolation) or there had always been some small amount of migration between the subpopulations - and thus they were a polytypic species - a species with several recognisable variants