The Demise of Evolution

[ZNP]

@ZNP

And if your true inner concerns are about human evolution. Then talk about human evolution. Don't let your feelings trickle into unrelated topics such as with Lazarus fossils. If it's a philosophical concern that you have, then discuss philosophy.

I have questions about evolution, minor ones about how it works with other species. I find the explanations are unsatisfying. For example, if a fish disappears and then reappears they call that lazarus taxa, but if the same thing happens with foraminifera they call it "Elvis taxa" saying the later appearance is really offspring that taken on the same appearance as great granddad. My thought is that we know the human genome has cells that are turned off, if you turn them on it can radically change the appearance of the species to something that lived millions of years ago. What if that is what is happening? That makes DNA and evolution much more complex than we are currently making it out to be.

However, with Man I don't get it, not at all. If written language is such a huge advantage, and it obviously is to us, then why is it that no other creatures have evolved along this path as well. I get it, you have to have the appendages that can aid in writing, but why no other primates? Second, I compare this to activation energy in a chemical reaction. Yes, the final state of the reaction is less energy and has released a great deal of energy, we can say it is exothermic. But the activation energy is obviously very great, which would explain why no other creature out of the millions and millions of species have made this transition. Yet our evolution from no written language to a full blown civilization was in the blink of an eye by geologic standards. The oldest cave paintings are around 35,000 years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I worked in West Texas and we found that foraminifera was one of the best ways to date the rocks. They are abundant, you can usually find a variety of different ones and that can help narrow down the date even more. I don't understand the reference to ceolacanths. It seems a lot easier to deal with microscopic shells.

The reference to coelacanths was there because you referred to "Lazurus species". They are a Lazurus family since they were thought to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous.


And as you know we can tell the relative ages of rocks very well with fossils. So at least you do understand that life has evolved. The coelacanth of today are rather different from those of the past.

In another post your referred to reading etc., you might want to study emergent properties:

What Are Emergent Properties?

They show up in complex systems again and again. An "I don't understand" is never evidence against something. It only tells us to study that concept more. Reading appears to be a byproduct of civilization and the need to be able to keep track of transactions. The earliest of "writing" was in the form of pictures. Certain characters were used far more often than others and were simplified and eventually someone in the western world hit on the idea of matching sounds to characters. In the eastern world they stuck with picture, but developed a system for that as well.

Speech is another emergent property that arose from much simpler forms. We see even the simplest of speech in birds and other species when they use different sounds for warning, mating, greeting etc..

 

[Ophiolite]

However, with Man I don't get it, not at all. If written language is such a huge advantage, and it obviously is to us, then why is it that no other creatures have evolved along this path as well.

Many other creatures use various forms of communication: auditory, visual, olfactory, tactile, but no other creature uses language. (Some argument can be made that there is a rudimentary presence of the skill in some primates, cetaceans and a handful of dinosaurs, notably the Psittacus erithacus and the genus Corvus, but is decidedly rudimentary.)

It is not the evolution of writing that is significant, but the evolution of language. We do not currently know why humans evolved that ability, though there are several plausible hypotheses. Certainly we know it requires significant intelligence which places exceptional demands on the physiology of the species. It may be that the price is just too high in almost every instance.

 

[Job 33:6]

Loftusia persica

And what formations has this species been used to date?

This is actually a trick question because if it were ultimately the source of dating strata, it couldn't be considered a Lazarus species as nobody would be able to distinguish between late cretaceous and eocene strata.

But you're welcome to present your ideas in full by providing an answer.

 

[Job 33:6]

I have questions about evolution, minor ones about how it works with other species. I find the explanations are unsatisfying. For example, if a fish disappears and then reappears they call that lazarus taxa, but if the same thing happens with foraminifera they call it "Elvis taxa" saying the later appearance is really offspring that taken on the same appearance as great granddad. My thought is that we know the human genome has cells that are turned off, if you turn them on it can radically change the appearance of the species to something that lived millions of years ago. What if that is what is happening? That makes DNA and evolution much more complex than we are currently making it out to be.

However, with Man I don't get it, not at all. If written language is such a huge advantage, and it obviously is to us, then why is it that no other creatures have evolved along this path as well. I get it, you have to have the appendages that can aid in writing, but why no other primates? Second, I compare this to activation energy in a chemical reaction. Yes, the final state of the reaction is less energy and has released a great deal of energy, we can say it is exothermic. But the activation energy is obviously very great, which would explain why no other creature out of the millions and millions of species have made this transition. Yet our evolution from no written language to a full blown civilization was in the blink of an eye by geologic standards. The oldest cave paintings are around 35,000 years old.

"For example, if a fish disappears and then reappears they call that lazarus taxa, but if the same thing happens with foraminifera they call it "Elvis taxa""

Here, your example foram species is referred to as Lazarus taxa.
Loftusia persica: An Eocene Lazarus Occurrence? on JSTOR

"My thought is that we know the human genome has cells that are turned off, if you turn them on it can radically change the appearance of the species to something that lived millions of years ago. What if that is what is happening? "

Well, this seems to be a stretch. I'm not sure if you're pondering the possibility of if humans lived in the cretaceous or if dinosaurs were alive yesterday. Lazarus species are generally few in number. Things like dinosaurs are in relative abundance. Seems unlikely to suggest that dinosaurs (aside from birds) survived the kt extinction. And without evidence for human life in cretaceous strata, from a stance of paleontology, it doesn't make sense to suggest that mankind is a lazarus species either.

This might make for a good science fiction novel, but it seems more imaginative than based on any actual research.

"I get it, you have to have the appendages that can aid in writing, but why no other primates?"

They don't have the appropriate brain anatomy. They might one day evolve to speak, we do not know what the future beings. If they did evolve to speak, the world would probably come to resemble the planet of the apes movies. If they could speak, they'd be able to gather and transmit information like we could. If they could speak, they'd probably rapidly explode in technology, much as we have.

This isn't some grand mystery though. Tiktaalik may have looked back in history and said "wow, why can't those other fish walk on land like we do?" But it isn't some grand mystery why some fish could walk on land but others couldn't. It's just the way descent with modification works.

 

[ZNP]

It is not the evolution of writing that is significant, but the evolution of language. We do not currently know why humans evolved that ability, though there are several plausible hypotheses. Certainly we know it requires significant intelligence which places exceptional demands on the physiology of the species. It may be that the price is just too high in almost every instance.

I disagree. Without written language it is extremely difficult for a civilization to develop. Likewise it is impossible for you to do things like build structures, go to the Moon, develop telecommunications, philosophy, law, etc. Instead you are left with "hawk", "snake", "lion".

This of course brings the biggest and most amazing thing about man is what E.O. Wilson has posited that we are one of only 18 eusocial species. The other 17 were all genetically hard wired to be eusocial (most are insects and we can see evidence that this behavior has not changed for a hundred million years) but man is not hardwired to be eusocial, we have to teach it. So unlike every other species we have religion and law and school in order to teach our species to be eusocial.

 

[Ophiolite]

I disagree. Without written language it is extremely difficult for a civilization to develop. Likewise it is impossible for you to do things like build structures, go to the Moon, develop telecommunications, philosophy, law, etc. Instead you are left with "hawk", "snake", "lion".

You have entirely missed the point and that is likely down to my weak exposition.

Of course writing was essential to the development of civilisation, but:

• It would not have been possible without language.
• Without writing and with language we would still have been the smartest species on the planet.
• The transition from spoken to written language was arguably an order of magnitude easier than from no language to spoken language.

This of course brings the biggest and most amazing thing about man is what E.O. Wilson has posited that we are one of only 18 eusocial species. The other 17 were all genetically hard wired to be eusocial (most are insects and we can see evidence that this behavior has not changed for a hundred million years) but man is not hardwired to be eusocial, we have to teach it. So unlike every other species we have religion and law and school in order to teach our species to be eusocial.

I am a long time fan of Wilson, but I am the first to acknowledge that not all of his ideas fit neatly in the mainstream of current biology. Here, specifically, he has modified the definition of eusocial to such an extent he has almost constructed a circular argument. If we run with his definition then there are other eusocial species, if we don't then man is excluded.

However, this is off-topic. If you wish to discuss it then start another thread, send me a pm and I shall participate. I shall not respond in this thread to any further posts on the concept of eusocial humanity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. Without written language it is extremely difficult for a civilization to develop. Likewise it is impossible for you to do things like build structures, go to the Moon, develop telecommunications, philosophy, law, etc. Instead you are left with "hawk", "snake", "lion".

This of course brings the biggest and most amazing thing about man is what E.O. Wilson has posited that we are one of only 18 eusocial species. The other 17 were all genetically hard wired to be eusocial (most are insects and we can see evidence that this behavior has not changed for a hundred million years) but man is not hardwired to be eusocial, we have to teach it. So unlike every other species we have religion and law and school in order to teach our species to be eusocial.

I don't think that E.O. Wilson made such a claim:

"E. O. Wilson and others[1][2] have claimed that humans have evolved a weak form of eusociality (e.g., with menopause), but these arguments have been disputed.[3]"

Eusociality - Wikipedia

And there are countless species of ants, bees, termites, etc. that have a strong form of eusociality. You appear to have a problem with evolution. Now you may not be a YEC, or even technically an OEC, but you still seem to have some sort of creationist beliefs and are continually misrepresenting what scientists say. Claiming that humans have a weak form of eusocialism is completely different from claiming that we are one of only eighteen true eusocial species.

Life, including human life, is the product of evolution. That can be strongly supported by the sciences. Not understanding how a trait or ability, such as reading and writing, is not evidence for a creator. It only means that there is a lack of understanding on your part and perhaps on the part of others. You are trying to employ an argument from ignorance, that is a logical fallacy.

Let's say that the Christian God exists. Why would he need to constantly meddle? If he was all powerful and all knowing could he have not simply have started the entire process in such a manner that it would have proceeded naturally? Arguing that he had to constantly tweak the system is actually an argument against his knowledge and power.

 

[ZNP]

You have entirely missed the point and that is likely down to my weak exposition.

Of course writing was essential to the development of civilisation, but:

• It would not have been possible without language.
• Without writing and with language we would still have been the smartest species on the planet.
• The transition from spoken to written language was arguably an order of magnitude easier than from no language to spoken language.

Yes, I have thought of that but we are learning that other animals have spoken language. Recent studies on penguins for example, Coco the gorilla is another good example, and there is a dog that has over 100 toys and knows them by name. With that dog they did an interesting experiment, they gave him a new toy (looked like Einstein) but didn't tell him the name. Then they told the dog to go get einstein. He chose the new toy. Whales have language. Dolphins have language, they did an experiment with them and told them -- go create a new jump, the dolphins then swam around a little and did a jump no one had seen before.

I am a long time fan of Wilson, but I am the first to acknowledge that not all of his ideas fit neatly in the mainstream of current biology. Here, specifically, he has modified the definition of eusocial to such an extent he has almost constructed a circular argument. If we run with his definition then there are other eusocial species, if we don't then man is excluded.

However, this is off-topic. If you wish to discuss it then start another thread, send me a pm and I shall participate. I shall not respond in this thread to any further posts on the concept of eusocial humanity.

Fair enough.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is why I keep referring to Foraminifera and not other creatures that might be much more difficult to find. These things float in the ocean, when they die they sink to the bottom, settle in the mud and are well preserved. Not only so, but worldwide they are used to date the rocks, so geologists, particularly oil geologists are looking at the rocks, particularly well cores from all over the world. Careful records are kept so that we can put as accurate a date on each one, so for them to disappear from tens of millions of years of rock record and then reappear is quite stunning.

I was looking at a few papers regarding the foram species you had mentioned above (Loftusia persica). I haven't seen anything that indicates that loftusia persica is any sort of single source index fossil used for dating strata. It looks like it was originally described as being of the early tertiary. Then later interpreted as being of the late cretaceous. Then there is the one paper above suggesting that it may have extended into the eocene.

Foraminifera Index fossils of late cretaceous strata, particularly in Iran, appear to number in the 20s or even 30s. Superpositionally we also have the extinction boundary (k-t) which has been dated radioactively by some 5-10 different radioactive methods, which in Iran also appears to be readily observable.

Collectively, if this foram species were a Lazarus taxa, I don't think it really would change anything, as the dating of strata around it, doesn't appear to depend on its presence.

The fossil may be dated based on the formation(s) around it, but the formations around it are not dated by the presence of this species.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1869.0031

 

[ZNP]

Collectively, if this foram species were a Lazarus taxa, I don't think it really would change anything, as the dating of strata around it, doesn't appear to depend on its presence.

The fossil may be dated based on the formation(s) around it, but the formations around it are not dated by the presence of this species.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstl.1869.0031

No, Foraminifera are very useful in dating rocks (not this particular species) which is why they are carefully catalogued and studied. They can also tell us about the chemistry of the ocean, the temperature of the water, etc. My point is not that this particular species can impact that (they use several foraminifera to date a rock, so that wouldn't really be an issue for any one of them) but rather how exactly does DNA work that a species that appeared to live and die in one epoch or even one period all of sudden shows up later. Is it really convergence (current explanation) or did some random mutation turn on genes that had been turned off causing an ancient version of the species to appear? Is our evolutionary history written in our genome?

 

[Job 33:6]

No, Foraminifera are very useful in dating rocks (not this particular species) which is why they are carefully catalogued and studied. They can also tell us about the chemistry of the ocean, the temperature of the water, etc. My point is not that this particular species can impact that (they use several foraminifera to date a rock, so that wouldn't really be an issue for any one of them) but rather how exactly does DNA work that a species that appeared to live and die in one epoch or even one period all of sudden shows up later. Is it really convergence (current explanation) or did some random mutation turn on genes that had been turned off causing an ancient version of the species to appear? Is our evolutionary history written in our genome?

Oh I see.

So in the case of ceolacanths, maybe their dna changed and they began looking like other species of fish, then after several million years, their dna turned back to make them look like ceolacanths again? Is this what you mean?

Still seems more feasible that their fossils simply weren't found.

Particularly after a mass extinction, it would make sense if there were a gap where we didn't have fossils if a species population were isolated and decreased in number. As opposed to suggesting some odd scenario where a species genes drastically jump around making it seem like a different animal.

 

[Job 33:6]

@ZNP And yes, our evolutionary history is written in our genome. That's why we have phylogenetic trees.

The summation of phylogenetic trees between paleontology (the fossil succession), comparative anatomy (Neil shubins your inner fish), endogenous retroviruses (herv-k in apes), paleogeographic distributions (think elephants and marsupials), genome sequencing, protein studies (sarich and Wilson on ramapithecus and the discovery of sahelanthropus), cytochrome C phylogeny etc.

Collectively, the synchronization of these trees presents our evolutionary history.

And paleontology might have minor setbacks (is a particular foram 50 million years old or 65?) But in the grand 650+ million years of evolutionary history of macro-vertebrate and invertebrates, this is a minor discrepancy.

 

[ZNP]

Oh I see.

So in the case of ceolacanths, maybe their dna changed and they began looking like other species of fish, then after several million years, their dna turned back to make them look like ceolacanths again? Is this what you mean?

Still seems more feasible that their fossils simply weren't found.

Particularly after a mass extinction, it would make sense if there were a gap where we didn't have fossils if a species population were isolated and decreased in number. As opposed to suggesting some odd scenario where a species genes drastically jump around making it seem like a different animal.

I think it is much more likely in the case of a fish that we simply lost it in the ocean.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think it is much more likely in the case of a fish that we simply lost it in the ocean.

Sure.

Until we have a reasonable alternative explanation, that's likely where the discussion will trend toward. Whether it's a fish, or a reptile or mammal, or a foram etc.

It's true we drill in many places on earth, but there are many places forams could be that we do not drill as well.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry about my auto correct. My phone plays guessing games with words. Updating now. I always re-read my posts confused at what I've tried to say.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I disagree. Without written language it is extremely difficult for a civilization to develop. Likewise it is impossible for you to do things like build structures, go to the Moon, develop telecommunications, philosophy, law, etc. Instead you are left with "hawk", "snake", "lion".

Writing certainly makes sustaining a "civilisation" (you haven't defined what constitutes such an entity) easier, but not impossible. The Kingdom of Benin had no writing system prior to contact with European traders. That demonstrates the falsehood of your assertion that major projects are reliant on writing. Spoken language is by far the more important development.

This of course brings the biggest and most amazing thing about man is what E.O. Wilson has posited that we are one of only 18 eusocial species. The other 17 were all genetically hard wired to be eusocial (most are insects and we can see evidence that this behavior has not changed for a hundred million years) but man is not hardwired to be eusocial, we have to teach it. So unlike every other species we have religion and law and school in order to teach our species to be eusocial.

And there you appear to be touching on why writing is so central to most large human social groups. Writing allows us to formalise and record the rules of society, without which we are reliant on oral traditions with all its associated drifts and changes.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In what way and how do rocks have design?

They exist, therefore they were planned and designed.

Faulty logic, or do I smell more special pleading?

If everything that exists was planned and designed, it must have been planned and designed by something that doesn't exist...

 

[ZNP]

Writing certainly makes sustaining a "civilisation" (you haven't defined what constitutes such an entity) easier, but not impossible. The Kingdom of Benin had no writing system prior to contact with European traders. That demonstrates the falsehood of your assertion that major projects are reliant on writing. Spoken language is by far the more important development.


And there you appear to be touching on why writing is so central to most large human social groups. Writing allows us to formalise and record the rules of society, without which we are reliant on oral traditions with all its associated drifts and changes.

By large projects I meant going to the moon, building satellites for telecommunications, learning to fly, building bridges and skyscrapers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think earth is a first rate planet, and happy to be here.

This is like the puddle saying how well the hole it's in suits it...

It's no surprise we find the Earth to our taste - natural selection tuned our ancestors to a fine degree of compatibility with the conditions on Earth, by a process of elimination.