Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....

We also are far more dexterous than other apes. That is a positive evolutionary trait. We probably sacrificed strength for dexterity. They have identified one mutation that weakened our jaw. I will let you mull over how that could be a positive mutation.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....

Maybe this is why: 'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist | Mail Online

The human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, an American geneticist has suggested.

The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, who is also one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.

He points out that while humans have many features in common with chimps, we also have a large number of distinguishing characteristics not found in any other primates.


Dr McCarthy says these divergent characteristics are most likely the result of a hybrid origin at some point far back in human evolutionary history.

What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.

'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'

Dr McCarthy elaborates his astonishing hypothesis in an article on Macroevolution.net, a website he curates. He is at pains to point out that that it is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....

And your English is incorrect. You should have asked if we share a common ancestor with other apes why...... See we are apes. That was recognized long before Darwin's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe this is why: 'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist | Mail Online

The human species began as the hybrid offspring of a male pig and a female chimpanzee, an American geneticist has suggested.

The startling claim has been made by Eugene McCarthy, who is also one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals.

He points out that while humans have many features in common with chimps, we also have a large number of distinguishing characteristics not found in any other primates.


Dr McCarthy says these divergent characteristics are most likely the result of a hybrid origin at some point far back in human evolutionary history.

What's more, he suggests, there is one animal that has all of the traits which distinguish humans from our primate cousins in the animal kingdom.

'What is this other animal that has all these traits?' he asks rhetorically. 'The answer is Sus scrofa, the ordinary pig.'

Dr McCarthy elaborates his astonishing hypothesis in an article on Macroevolution.net, a website he curates. He is at pains to point out that that it is merely a hypothesis, but he presents compelling evidence to support it.

Yes, the internet is wide and you can find crazies that will claim almost anything.

Now what did I tell you about checking your sources? How do you tell if a claim is valid or if it is woo?

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

We also are far more dexterous than other apes. That is a positive evolutionary trait. We probably sacrificed strength for dexterity. They have identified one mutation that weakened our jaw. I will let you mull over how that could be a positive mutation.

So we didn't break our pearl whites doing the teeth gnashing monkey smile?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So we didn't break our pearl whites doing the teeth gnashing monkey smile?

No, be serious.

What positive result could come from a much weaker jaw?

 

[Loudmouth]

And your English is incorrect. You should have asked if we share a common ancestor with other apes why...... See we are apes. That was recognized long before Darwin's time.

Not that creationists will understand this . . .

If people want to exclude humans from the ape group then they must also admit that it is a paraphyletic group, and it as good as a descriptor as excluding chihuahuas from the dog group.

They could include humans (and all of the transitional species) in the ape group and that would make it monophyletic. Or, they could use a different monophyletic term, like Hominidae.

 

[Loudmouth]

So we didn't break our pearl whites doing the teeth gnashing monkey smile?

Notice any differences at the top of the skull?

Those big pieces of bone at the top fo the gorilla skull are called sagittal crests, and they serve as anchoring points for their massive jaw muscles. Guess what? Those massive muscles require a thick cranium, and a thick, supportive cranium needs to have a small radius so it doesn't break apart.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

No, be serious.

What positive result could come from a much weaker jaw?

Okay then...

I imagine; it might make speech more relaxed and articulate...smaller jaw muscles would require less anchorage....allow for skull expansion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Okay then...

I imagine; it might make speech more relaxed and articulate...smaller jaw muscles would require less anchorage....allow for skull expansion?

Winner Winner, chicken dinner.

 

[StormanNorman]

Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....

Our brain requires about 25% of our calorie intake ... I suppose some of that size went there. Also, because of our smarts, we don't need the size; size is only good when it is a net benefit ... because it also requires more food consumption.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Notice any differences at the top of the skull?

Those big pieces of bone at the top fo the gorilla skull are called sagittal crests, and they serve as anchoring points for their massive jaw muscles. Guess what? Those massive muscles require a thick cranium, and a thick, supportive cranium needs to have a small radius so it doesn't break apart.

Wow, that's totally obvious looking at skull structure! Thanks!

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

Grady

The problems is that if it cannot be measured in some way, science cannot deal with it.

How do we measure God? How do we measure the divine?

The divine foot in the door, so to speak, would be for you to find a way of measuring it. It doesn't mean that it can't be done but that no one to date has done it.

Good luck, I await your showing us the way.

Grady

so then being admittedly wrong is better?

I am not understanding what you mean by "admittedly wrong". Can you clarify?

Dizredux

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Multiple individuals from the same transitional species are still transitional.

No, they are variations of the same Kind. Still even the same exact species in your textbooks. There will NEVER be a mutation that you will classify as a completely separate species, but must ALWAYS be classified as a subscpecies, and then a subspecies of the subspecies, etc, etc, etc, forever.

I am not the one who believes in magical poofing. That would be you.

But you are, you magically go poof from one species to the next, while you play your imaginary gap game. You also go magically poof when creating life from non-life.

How am I doing it? I believe electric currents created the first life. I believe that energy which is in everything is responsible for it. How is that magical poofing, when we know energy merely transforms?

Based on what criteria?

The only criteria you have ever observed. When have you ever seen a dog become anything other than another "breed" of Canidae?????

What proof do you have that it happens ANY OTHER WAY?????

Show me the wild population of fertile hybrids. Show me that a tiger is just as likely to mate with a lion as they are a tiger.

Doesn't matter, we know for a fact they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore any locale specific traits requires they be a subspecies of one or the other, or of a common ancestor.

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Why isn't mammal a kind, or vertebrate? Why aren't humans a subspecies of the mammal kind?

Have you ever known a dog to produce fertile offspring with a cat, ot rat, or bear, or human, or anything other than another Canidae?

Then why even pretend it's possible, when everything we know about genetics says it isn't???

Snakes and humans are both subspecies of the Amniote kind.

Amniote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except that is not a valid definition of breeding Kinds. Kind after Kind remember????? Never seen a snake and human breed and produce any offspring, fertile or not. Have you???

Separated by what?

Those missing links that ain't actually missing, they just don't exist, but are just the divide between kinds.

And every time you say "it's still a Felidae" you are playing the name game.

You force me too, by wanting to play it with mammal, phylum, kingdom, species, genre, clade.... You got so many name games to play it's no wonder you are confused.

Whenever you fail to recognize that they don't interbreed, and do not have gene flow between their wild populations, you are playing the name game.

And yet I am not the one that named them all the same Kind, scientists are. Bobcat don't breed with Tiger, yet they are all the same Kind. Felidae.





What, didn't want to talk about mice and men? Don't want to admit that it is genetically impossible for my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, .... grandfather, to be a more closer match than my brother?

I thought you wanted to argue apes were our ancestor because they were such a close match genetically. What you used to preach as 99% and make a fuss over. But actually mice are closer, yet they are supposed to be far back in the tree.

But I guess we are to disregard everything known about genetics now, so we can preach Fairie Dust instead?????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Notice any differences at the top of the skull?

Those big pieces of bone at the top fo the gorilla skull are called sagittal crests, and they serve as anchoring points for their massive jaw muscles. Guess what? Those massive muscles require a thick cranium, and a thick, supportive cranium needs to have a small radius so it doesn't break apart.

And yet Chimpanzee's sacrificed what, since they didn't gain our dexterity.

Nor the monkey, orangutang, or any but the ape have those large skull bones for muscle attachment.

What you need to do is just be honest and erase the imaginary lines connecting 428, 583 and 965. Then you will have an accurate showing of the bushes, that make up the tree of life, or reality.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2164-8-339-5-l.jpg

 

[PsychoSarah]

Here's a question: If we evolved directly from apes....why are we 5 to 8 times weaker? Surely that is not a dominant evolutionary trait....

We are still apes, also, being an ape doesn't mean we should have all the same traits as a chimpanzee. And which ape are you referring to for that comparison, because there are many apes of various strengths.

Dominant as a genetic description has nothing to do with whether or not a trait is beneficial.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you need to do is just be honest and erase the imaginary lines connecting 428, 583 and 965. Then you will have an accurate showing of the bushes, that make up the tree of life, or reality.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/figures/1471-2164-8-339-5-l.jpg

Why does a bush refute the transitional features in these fossils?

Are you yet another creationist who doesn't understand the difference between transitional and ancestral?

 

[Mediate]

Humans evolved weaker muscles than chimps, for instance, firstly because dexterity, for whatever reason, gave better survivability than large muscle mass, thus the dexterous reproduced, and secondly because so much of our energy goes into feeding brain development and keeping the brain running that we simply don't metabolize protein and grow muscle mass (which requires a lot of energy) as efficiently as chimps do. Evolution isn't perfect, but a network of synapses capable of storing over 2 petabytes of memories (the equivalent of about 250 years of constant TV shows) that can process complex information faster than any supercomputer, which allows us to consciously examine both the thought process itself and the world outside our thoughts, seems a far more useful evolutionary trait than naturally monstrous jaw muscles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why does a bush refute the transitional features in these fossils?

Are you yet another creationist who doesn't understand the difference between transitional and ancestral?

Because bushes are all separate, unlike your tree which is being falsified. If it is transitional, it is still ancesteral. Transitional species must still come from the same ancestors, they do not magically appear out of nowhere in your theory. And later life must still come from those transitional ones, which they would still then be ancestral. Yet biology is starting to show with technological advancements that there is no genetic links between these bushes. Each bush is showing to be its own distinct Kind.

There is NO difference between transitional and ancestral, since every transitional species must also be an ancestral species, in the same exact ancestral line. Double-talk or lack of knowledge on your part will not foot the bill.

If we came from those transitional species they are our ancestors, and the species before them are their ancestors, as well as ours. I am not sure you understand there is no difference, except in your attempt to double-talk your way out of it. And on a subject of ancestry you apparently fail to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because bushes are all separate, unlike your tree which is being falsified. If it is transitional, it is still ancesteral. Transitional species must still come from the same ancestors, they do not magically appear out of nowhere in your theory. And later life must still come from those transitional ones, which they would still then be ancestral. Yet biology is starting to show with technological advancements that there is no genetic links between these bushes. Each bush is showing to be its own distinct Kind.

There is NO difference between transitional and ancestral, since every transitional species must also be an ancestral species, in the same exact ancestral line. Double-talk or lack of knowledge on your part will not foot the bill.

If we came from those transitional species they are our ancestors, and the species before them are their ancestors, as well as ours. I am not sure you understand there is no difference, except in your attempt to double-talk your way out of it. And on a subject of ancestry you apparently fail to understand.

No, you misunderstand the bush analogy.

No one is proposing separate bushes. Where did you get that idea from?