Here's Some Helpful Tips When Questioning Evolution

[mark kennedy]

Well if you studied evolution or even basic biology you'd understand we share a lot of traits with our brain structure and brain stem with many other animals from reptiles to birds to mammals.

Maybe that'd be a big clue?

The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees, that would be a big clue.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/allman1a.jpg

 

[mark kennedy]

Yeah, I'm a liberal when it comes to social rights as in the rights of Man. I'm all for "majority rule" when it comes to science. WHAT DO YOU THINK PEER REVIEW IS? LOL

I base most of my posts on peer reviewed scientic research into the genetic basis for human evolution. Guess what, they don't have one.

I think there are plenty and Teddy IS one of them. I think YOU think you are. So much so, that you can't look out of your own COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING of an "nonunified theory." You know, unified theories are much easier to understand. Evolution is very easy!

While I am in favor of a unified theory of knowledge I don't see one in this jumbled word salad. 'Evolution is easy', yea that is Nobel Prize stuff there. You forget that the modern sythesis joins two diametrically opposed views of evolution, one continuous and the other with fixed limits beyond which they cannot change.

 

[mark kennedy]

By the way, here is a tip for when you want to play the evolutionary apologist. Learn something about biology and genetics first and read a little on the subject before telling others they are ignorant.

 

[Chalnoth]

I base most of my posts on peer reviewed scientic research into the genetic basis for human evolution. Guess what, they don't have one.

No, you pick and choose specific quotes and results that you believe support your a priori assumption that humans and apes do not share a common ancestry. Unfortunately, you never bother to pay any attention at all to the mountains of evidence that do support a common ancestry.

And I guarantee you that while there may not be a consensus on the specifics of human evolution, there is certainly a consensus on the simple facts of common ancestry. This should be obvious if you pay any attention at all to the tone of the research that you are quote mining from: in every single case, the researchers in question aren't even bothering to address whether or not humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestry. They are asking about the specifics of our evolution from that time.

This isn't because they have any blind belief in our common ancestry: it's because the question was settled a long time ago. And furthermore, none of the current research into how humans evolved from apes would make any sense at all if humans didn't, in fact, evolve from apes.

 

[Kahalachan]

The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees, that would be a big clue.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/allman1a.jpg

Are you asking a question or saying Humans have a bigger brain than apes, we can't explain, therefore evolution is false?

The latter is a logical fallacy of ad ignoratum.

It is a good question as to why humans have evolved a larger brain so quickly. There are many interesting hypotheses about this. One is that bipedal locomotion has allowed the parts of the brain involved with hands to become advanced at a faster rate.

My 3rd tip expresses says that we aren't perfect. We may have gaps in evolutionary understanding, just like in all the sciences.

I feel psychology has as many holes, conflicting ideas, and problems as evolution. I won't discredit any of these ideas within psychology until I discover better theories and explanations. I feel they can be found in cognitive neuroscience and plan on expanding and improving upon existing ideas within psychology.



Continental Drift was a good idea, but it wasn't until Plate Tectonics came along, that we could say there was a better theory than Continental Drift. We were able to uncover how the continents moved.

The best way to discredit evolution is to find another better theory that explains more. ID does not do this, since it attempts to solve complexity with even greater complexity. Creationism doesn't do this because it simply states God did it.

Evolution is the most scientific idea standing. It is best to address scientific issues scientifically, and not through personal bias or beliefs.

 

[TheBear]

Mark is right. There is a difference between natural history and natural science. But they are inter-twined. One supports the other. The history part is what happened over time, the science part is how it happened.

 

[XTE]

The human brain is three times the size of a chimpanzees, that would be a big clue.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/allman1a.jpg

LOL, I got an actual Human Skull, protortional and all.



There ya go. Those perfect squares make it seem like it lived at one time!

 

[Chalnoth]

Mark is right. There is a difference between natural history and natural science. But they are inter-twined. One supports the other. The history part is what happened over time, the science part is how it happened.

True, but natural history, as a discipline, has largely gone the way of the dodo. Natural history was only ever about observation, not explanation, and people are, in general, much more interested in explanation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

That is not just wrong it is astonishing. If they are not actual laws then someone should let these people know:

Mendel's Laws are foundational but not exhaustive. They do not apply at all to linked traits and only weakly to polygenic traits.

Darwin thought the death of the less fit and the preservation of favored races produced improved fittness. He didn't know that the genes do not actually change and the through recombination the same traits would re-emerge in succeding generations.

Genes don't change? What?

Darwin's natural selection was supposed to explain everything when it in fact, explains nothing.

This is ridiculous. You know that natural selection has explanatory power, yet you make an outrageously false claim anyway. How does that help your credibility?

How would you know what their claims are, you never read your own source material.

I know they haven't eliminated random mutation as a source of genetic difference in HAR1 as you claim. You are misreading, although I don't expect you to admit it. Your flawed understanding is too supportive of your case.

 

[USincognito]

No it's not, alternatives are never explored, never have been, never will be. The single common ancestor model is universally applied throughout all living systems in infinate regress through primordial time. The only explanation is that it is an a priori assumption based on a conceptual intuition rather then an empirically demonstrated fact.

Why don't you quit being so disingenuous and tell everyone what your alternative is instead of beating around the bush? You would assert that human beings were created 6,000 years ago by the hand of God and your basis for doing so is the Bible, not science. All of your endless, overly verbose responses on the issue of human/chimp brain size are based on your personal incredulity and YECism.

Did you happen to see this post on human/chimp ancestry that sfs added to the quiet thread?

 

[Kahalachan]

I've decided to add another tip.

Look for original source material.

The beauty of science is seen through our source material. We know that social creatures such as dolphins can aid each other through survival via communication. The wonders of printed human language, allow even the absent or dead to give us insight via communication.


I have seen this quote misused to say that evolution is false.


"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Word for word, this is exactly what Darwin said, but the use of this quote is deceptive as he says immediately afterwards.........

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real"

 

[mark kennedy]

No, you pick and choose specific quotes and results that you believe support your a priori assumption that humans and apes do not share a common ancestry. Unfortunately, you never bother to pay any attention at all to the mountains of evidence that do support a common ancestry.

What I do is focus on genetics and how living systems actually function. The only a priori assumption that works in this area of thought is that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change into an altogether different one. You seem to think saying someone has an a priori assumption is somehow derogatory, nothing could be future from the truth:

"Mathematics and physics, the two sciences in which reason yields theoretical knowledge, have to determine their objects a priori, the former doing so quite purely, the latter having to reckon, at least partially, with sources of knowledge other than reason." (Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason)

The whole problem with Darwinism and his concept of continuous evolution is that it cannot make a priori predictions. It has been worthless in this regards and the researchers involved in trying to find a genetic basis for human evolution know this:

"Indeed, as first recognized by Charles Darwin, adaptive evolution must have played a key role in driving the acquisition of greater cognitive powers in humans (Darwin, 1871). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that positive selection on genes involved in nervous system biology should have operated more intensely during the descent of humans than in species showing less dramatic cognitive evolution. However, researchers have not been able to make a priori predictions regarding how intensified selection on the nervous system might have molded the molecular evolution of the primate genome. For example, it has remained a matter of speculation as to whether brain evolution involved a small number of key mutations in a few genes or a very large number of mutations in many genes (Carroll, 2003)." (Accelerated Evolution of Nervous System, Genes in the Origin of Homo sapiens. The Cell Sept. 29, 2004)

So since you obviously consider you grasp of the scientific data superior to my own, tell me this. Is it a small number of key mutations in a few genes or many mutations in many genes? It would also be nice if your abundant knowledge on the subject could be used to determine whether it was protien coding genes or regulatory genes most responsible for the evolution of the human brain.

And I guarantee you that while there may not be a consensus on the specifics of human evolution, there is certainly a consensus on the simple facts of common ancestry. This should be obvious if you pay any attention at all to the tone of the research that you are quote mining from: in every single case, the researchers in question aren't even bothering to address whether or not humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestry. They are asking about the specifics of our evolution from that time.

I am well aware of the naturalistic assumptions of the scientific community at large. I see 'selection' entered at crucial points of development where a demonstrated or directly observed mechanism rightly belongs. Creationism will and should remain the domain of religious thought unmolested and uncompromised with the secularist antirationalism. What I am expecting is the the fallacy of Darwinian philosophy will ultimatly be discarded and the other fallacies convoluting evolutionary biology.

Just saying 'natural selection' did it is not a scientific statement and it's worthless 'to make a priori predictions regarding how intensified selection on the nervous system might have molded the molecular evolution of the primate genome'.

This isn't because they have any blind belief in our common ancestry: it's because the question was settled a long time ago. And furthermore, none of the current research into how humans evolved from apes would make any sense at all if humans didn't, in fact, evolve from apes.

It was settled by never asking substantive questions with regards to an actual cause. Projecting over time the tomes of anecdotal evidence is worse then useless for finding demonstrative proof.

“For a long time, people have debated about the genetic underpinning of human brain evolution,” said Lahn. “Is it a few mutations in a few genes, a lot of mutations in a few genes, or a lot of mutations in a lot of genes? The answer appears to be a lot of mutations in a lot of genes. We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes—and even that is a conservative estimate.” (Bruce Lahn, http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html )

 

[TeddyKGB]

So since you obviously consider you grasp of the scientific data superior to my own, tell me this. Is it a small number of key mutations in a few genes or many mutations in many genes? It would also be nice if your abundant knowledge on the subject could be used to determine whether it was protien coding genes or regulatory genes most responsible for the evolution of the human brain.

You know about the HAR genes, determined as you are to make that research say something it doesn't.

I am well aware of the naturalistic assumptions of the scientific community at large. I see 'selection' entered at crucial points of development where a demonstrated or directly observed mechanism rightly belongs. Creationism will and should remain the domain of religious thought unmolested and uncompromised with the secularist antirationalism. What I am expecting is the the fallacy of Darwinian philosophy will ultimatly be discarded and the other fallacies convoluting evolutionary biology.

You are delusional. In fact, you sound just like Dembski, with these grandiose dreams of the demise of "Darwinism," but supported only with bad math, incredulity, and nigh-impenetrable rhetoric.

Just saying 'natural selection' did it is not a scientific statement and it's worthless 'to make a priori predictions regarding how intensified selection on the nervous system might have molded the molecular evolution of the primate genome'.

So let the researchers research. That has worked pretty well in the past, you know.

 

[mark kennedy]

You know about the HAR genes, determined as you are to make that research say something it doesn't.

From a previous study, "that accelerated protein evolution in a large cohort of nervous system genes, which is particularly pronounced for genes involved in nervous system development" (Cell 2004). So we already know that hundreds if not thousands of protein coding genes are very different. Now the HAR (Human Accelerated Regions) are being explored and lo and behold, a regulatory gene is dramatically different. I know you have no real interest in the actual science but this was one of 49 regions that they are going to explore.

You are delusional. In fact, you sound just like Dembski, with these grandiose dreams of the demise of "Darwinism," but supported only with bad math, incredulity, and nigh-impenetrable rhetoric.

Darwinism is worthless, it has provided absolutly nothing in the way of useful insights into evolution. It has nothing to do with Biology, it expains nothing, proves nothing and predicts exactly nothing. I am flattered to be mentioned in association with Dembski or any scientist that admits the obvious. Common ancestory presumes without proof a universally applied fallacy, the continuous evolution of species into an altogether different kind.

I will say this, TOE is better then you are presenting it. Some time you might try learning a little something about it.

So let the researchers research. That has worked pretty well in the past, you know.

Genetics has restored my confidence in natural science at large and continues to examine the uniqueness of the human condition. Evolving apes into human beings is not a problem solved with convolution satire and mythic imaginary ape men. The genetic basis does not exist and if all you have is natural selection then you have absolutly nothing.

 

[Baggins]

Why do some people find it so repugnant that they share a recent common ancestor with chimps?

Beats me

 

[Chalnoth]

Darwinism is worthless, it has provided absolutly nothing in the way of useful insights into evolution. It has nothing to do with Biology, it expains nothing, proves nothing and predicts exactly nothing.

Oh, come off it. Evolution makes a number of very explicit predictions. For example, it predicts the existence of nested hierarchies, a prediction that has been borne out over and over and over again.

Evolution also predicts that we will find a large number of transitional fossils if we look hard enough. Many such transitional fossils have been found. For example, the transition from reptiles to mammals is very well-documented. As is the transition from dinosaurs to birds. As is the trasition from more dog-sized animals to modern day horses. As is the transition from apes to humans.

Evolution also predicts that if we perform experiments in the laboratory with organisms that reproduce quickly, we will be able to find evidence of such things as beneficial mutations and natural selection. These experiments have been done and have been borne out.

 

[Grummpy]

Chalnoth

I agree with your inciteful posts, few are as knowledgable or as concise.

I have just one point to make concerning Human/ape descent.

Humans not only evolved from apes, we are apes still!!!

This view helps us understand that the only difference between us and Chimps is the direction our evolution took from the time we split from them.

The fossil record shows an upright stance came first, Lucy's brain capacity and form are little different from modern chimps, but the pelvis/leg structure resembles modern humans.

This frees the upper limbs to specialize for grasping/carrying, allows a longer line of sight, etc.

The development of the brain may have been spured by the more complex and dangerous environment of the plains vs. hiding in trees. Chimps use simple tools(Twigs to fish for termites, a handy stick to bash about in threat display, etc). so our total freedom of our upper limbs would logicly serve to enhance this ability(sticks chosen for suitability as weapons, tools fashioned to fit the job, etc). The best at choosing suitable weapons/tools would definitely have the advantage in raising young, thus survival of that geneset. And so began our rise in intelligence(in relation to other apes).

Just a thought, your opinion valued.

Grumpy