Humans are unique, not evolved

[QvQ]

Some have a mutation for not having tusks. A different allele of the gene. Because of the predation of hunters, that mutation is favored

"In well-protected elephant populations, tusklessness can be as low as 2 percent."

That is Not 0
Tusklessness is an existing variation within the Phenotype Elephant (2% expression, recessive)

Selective breeding uses Variations Within the Phenotype

That 2% tusklessness is a Recessive in Elephants.
When ratio changes within the population,, when 96% of the tusked elephants are taken out of the breed line,
Then that 2% tusklessness becomes Dominant.

This is Selective Breeding.
This is also simple math

 

[QvQ]

Ok so my question is how do they know that these weren’t just a different species that became extinct? How do they know that the similar species we have now didn’t exist before these became extinct?

Exactly!

@BNR32FAN
Question is:
"1) How do they know that these (fossils) weren't just a different species that became extinct?
2) How do they know that the similar species we have now didn't exist before these (fossils) became extinct?"

The fact is "they" don't know.
The usual answer is, "don't ask"

My opinion is:
The reason why those old bones are "ancestors" is because:
Even if "ancestor" doesn't fit the facts, those old bone "ancestors" do fit the Theory (narrative)

 

[The Barbarian]

Tusklessness is an existing variation within the Phenotype Elephant (2% expression, recessive)

Yes, the mutation preceded the change in environment. If you thought about it, I think you can see why this would have to be. Mutations don't appear in response to need. Luria and Delbruck got their Nobels for showing this.

Selective breeding uses Variations Within the Phenotype

There was no "selective breeding." The survivors bred as they would. No one planned any of this. Natural selection did it.

That 2% tusklessness is a Recessive in Elephants.
When ratio changes within the population,, when 96% of the tusked elephants are taken out of the breed line,
Then that 2% tusklessness becomes Dominant.

No. That's not what those words mean. "Recessive" means that two of the alleles must be present in the organism for the trait to be expressed. "Dominant" means only one of the alleles must be present in the organism to be expressed. So if T=tuskless allele, and t=tusk allele, then when two Tt elephants breed, about 1/4 of the offspring will have tusks.

This is Selective Breeding.

No, it's natural selection. No one intended to do this. It just happened by natural selection the tusk and tuskless alleles. This changed the allele frequency in the population, which as you know, is what biological evolution is.

 

[The Barbarian]

Exactly!

@BNR32FAN
Question is:
"1) How do they know that these (fossils) weren't just a different species that became extinct?

Which is like asking how do we know that you weren't alive at the same time your aunt was alive. Often that's the case. A species may live on for a very long time after giving rise to another species. Or a species may give rise to several species, only one of which appears to be much different. Humans and chimps, for example, evolved from a common ancestor at about the same time. So if some future paleontologist finds humans and chimps in the same strata, with other forest apes in older strata, he won't be confused.

2) How do they know that the similar species we have now didn't exist before these (fossils) became extinct?"

It would be remarkably lucky if we had a fossil of the organism that gave rise to a new species. Usually, we only know that the specific fossil is very close to the population that gave rise to a new species. This is why we have relatively few species-to-species transitions.
“Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”
— Stephen Jay Gould

There are a few such examples. Gould mentions horses, forams and ammonites.

 

[QvQ]

This changed the allele frequency in the population

Change in allele frequency in a population is not evolution.

That is merely recombination of existing genetic material in a Phenotype.
Here are some pictures for you to consider:
There aren't any changes in "allele frequency" except as redistribution of existing alleles
But there are variations in Phenotype:
POP QUIZ
IS this statue in Texas or Europe?

SO HERE WE HAVE HORNED AN DEHORNED (Phenotype) COWS
NOT EVOLVED
SO TUSK AND TUSKLESS ELEPHANT (Phenotype) ARE ELEPHANTS
NOT EVOLVED

 

[QvQ]

Which is like asking how do we know that you weren't alive at the same time your aunt was alive.

No, it is like asking, "Bones are dug up and claimed to be my aunt."
How do you know that is my aunt?
You Don't.

There are serious problems with the fossil record.
For Instance, Neandertal is the most thoroughly studied fossil in history. Supposedly we have a large pile of bones, millions of hours of study and research
Meanwhile, I cannot find one fossil contemporary with neandertal outside of Europe.
Does This Mean Man Did Not Exist in Africa When Neandertal Roamed Europe?
If man was in Africa during the years Neandertal roamed Europe, where are the bones? If there are bones, why aren't those bones being studied?

That is the problem with those old bones. You can prove anything. Make up any story you like which is why I pretty much blow off Evolution.

Genetics and organic chemistry are facts and math, genuine science.

 

[BNR32FAN]

All elephants have the alleles for tusks. All cows have the alleles for horns

Cows can be long horn, short horn , no horn and anything in between.
These are variations within the Phenotype,. This is a well known fact of Selective Breeding.
Cows do not evolve or change phenotype when Short Horn is dominant or Long Horn is dominant.

Selective Breeding has been practiced for thousands of years,
This Is a Fact.

Suddenly when elephants are being Selectively Bred by poachers
Somehow, selective breeding has "evolved" into "evolution" in selectively bred elephants
This is now evolution because it fits the Narrative.

Yes I agree because no actual mutation ever took place. Tuskless elephants being the majority of the population is merely a result of natural selection not evolution.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, it is like asking, "Bones are dug up and claimed to be my aunt."
How do you know that is my aunt?
You Don't.

There are serious problems with the fossil record.
For Instance, Neandertal is the most thoroughly studied fossil in history. Supposedly we have a large pile of bones, millions of hours of study and research
Meanwhile, I cannot find one fossil contemporary with neandertal outside of Europe.
Does This Mean Man Did Not Exist in Africa When Neandertal Roamed Europe?
If man was in Africa during the years Neandertal roamed Europe, where are the bones? If there are bones, why aren't those bones being studied?

That is the problem with those old bones. You can prove anything. Make up any story you like which is why I pretty much blow off Evolution.

Genetics and organic chemistry are facts and math, genuine science.

Yeah this is what I’m seeing about TOE they tend to bend the evidence to favor the theory when there is no conclusive evidence to support it. No offense to Barbarian, I’m not accusing him of doing this just TOE scientists.

 

[The Barbarian]

No, it is like asking, "Bones are dug up and claimed to be my aunt."

Wrong. It would be remarkable if we found the very individual that produced a new species. It almost never happens that way, anyway. Normally, a population splits off from the main population, and is somehow reproductively isolated (usually by geographic isolation), and then evolves away from the earlier one.

There are serious problems with the fossil record.
For Instance, Neandertal is the most thoroughly studied fossil in history.

No, that's wrong, too. While there are a lot of Neanderthal remains, there is far more paleontological literature on many other fossils.

Meanwhile, I cannot find one fossil contemporary with neandertal outside of Europe.

There were lots of them in Africa. Those were anatomically modern humans. Neanderthals never seem to have entered Africa.

DNA Suggests Modern Humans Emerged From Several Groups in Africa, Not One

Scientists used computer modeling and the genomes of several hundred living people to examine our prehistoric origins

www.smithsonianmag.com

Asia, too...
The DNA appears in layers—suggesting the Denisovans inhabited the cave as far back as 100,000 years ago, as well as at 60,000 years ago, and perhaps even as recently as 45,000 years ago—meaning the Denisovans might have overlapped in this region with modern humans.

The Denisovans Expand Their Range into China

Evidence of the ancient humans was limited to a cave in Siberia. But now scientists have found genetic remains of the Denisovans in China. Christopher Intagliata reports.

www.scientificamerican.com

If man was in Africa during the years Neandertal roamed Europe, where are the bones? If there are bones, why aren't those bones being studied?

Here's a list of some of the more important hominid fossils.

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As you see, it's not what you were told.

That is the problem with those old bones. You can prove anything.

As your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise observes, that's a false assumption.

Make up any story you like

That's the creationist way. As you see, science depends on evidence, and changes theories as evidence demands. Creationists are locked into their new doctrines, and must try to bend the evidence to fit the doctrines. A few creationists are honest about it:

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Faith should be enough. Dr. Wood's faith is strong enough to look the facts in the eye, and admit that they are evidence while saying he prefers his interpretation of Genesis. So many creationists lack that kind of faith, and merely deny the observed fact that populations evolve.

which is why I pretty much blow off Evolution.

You reject genetics and chemistry because you don't want to accept what they tell you about the way population change over time. It's not just biology and genetics. You've rejected science.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I agree because no actual mutation ever took place.

The mutation is there. No point in denying the fact.

Tuskless elephants being the majority of the population is merely a result of natural selection not evolution.

The change in allele frequency in the elephant population is, as you learned, evolution. It is the result of natural selection on a mutation that makes elephants tuskless. Interestingly, there is a similar mutation to the same gene in humans that causes dental deformities. In normal times, this would be a harmful mutation for African elephants, but since predation by ivory poachers is so widespread, natural selection has made this mutation favorable.

 

[The Barbarian]

Change in allele frequency in a population is not evolution.

That's the scientific definition.

Dictionary of Biology:
"Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations."

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. This definition encompasses everything from small-scale evolution (for example, changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next) to large-scale evolution (for example, the descent of different species from a shared ancestor over many generations).

An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution

The definition Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with inherited modification. This definition encompasses everything from small-scale evolution (for example, changes in the frequency of different gene versions in a population from one generation to the next) to large-scale evolution...

evolution.berkeley.edu

Biological evolution is defined as change in the heritable characteristics of a population over succeeding generations. In more technical terms, evolution is defined as change in the gene pool of a population, measurable as changes in allele frequencies in a population.

What is evolution? | Biological Principles

bioprinciples.biosci.gatech.edu

That is merely recombination of existing genetic material in a Phenotype.

It can be. Epistatic changes from new combinations of alleles is evolution, but more often a new mutation changes the population genome.

POP QUIZ
IS this statue in Texas or Europe?

From the horns, it appears to be Bos primigenius. So most likely Europe or just possibly South Asia. It's an extinct species of bovine, closely related to cows, which are Bos taurus.

It is suspected that Bos taurus evolved from these aurochs, in the same way that dogs evolved from a (likely extinct) species of wolf. Because the mutations that took place in the evolution of cattle can be sorted out by genetic analysis, and because we know the DNA of European aurochs, there is a possibility that the extinct aurochs might be reborn by careful breeding.

The Once-Extinct Aurochs May Soon Roam Europe Again

After a decade, scientists are getting close to bringing back the massive wild cattle.

www.atlasobscura.com

 

[The Barbarian]

"In well-protected elephant populations, tusklessness can be as low as 2 percent."

That is Not 0

The mutation isn't 0 in humans, either. It pops up from time to time. Since it can result in fatal infections in humans, it has historically been uncommon. With modern dentistry, it is likely going to increase in the population. And yes, that's evolution.

Tusklessness is an existing variation within the Phenotype Elephant (2% expression, recessive)

That's not what "recessive" means. It's not the frequency in a population. The frequency of Huntington's disease in humans is a bout 6 per 100,000. But it's a dominant mutation. A person with just one copy of the gene will get the disorder.

Selective breeding uses Variations Within the Phenotype
That 2% tusklessness is a Recessive in Elephants.
When ratio changes within the population,, when 96% of the tusked elephants are taken out of the breed line,
Then that 2% tusklessness becomes Dominant.

You still don't get what "recessive" and "dominant" mean in genetics. "Recessive" means that the organism must have two copies of the gene for it to be expressed in the phenotype. "Dominant" means that the organism only needs one copy of the gene for it to be expressed in the phenotype.

This is Selective Breeding.

No. No one planned for tusks to become rare in elephants. It was just natural selection.

This is also simple math

As you learned, the math shows this evolution has occurred due to predation by ivory poachers. This change in allele frequencies is evolution.

"Biological evolution is defined as change in the heritable characteristics of a population over succeeding generations. In more technical terms, evolution is defined as change in the gene pool of a population, measurable as changes in allele frequencies in a population."

 

[QvQ]

Here's a list of some of the more important hominid fossils.

@The Barbarian I do apologize for using "you" as I mean it generically. I understand that your use of "you" addressed to me is not specifically personal. It is conventions of our use of language rather than any specific "you, The Barbarian." You may continue to use "you" in reference to me, as generic audience. I understand it is merely a convention of speech.

Meanwhile. I went through that list. Almost all the homo sapiens contemporary with neandertal were found north of the sub Saharan line.
All the way from Europe, India, Asia, so if man migrated from Africa, why is the record so silent on men even being in Africa? Even the historical records are silent, however much the Asia India and Europe populations interacted, well knew each other as is well documented.

 

[The Barbarian]

@The Barbarian I do apologize for using "you" as I mean it generically. I understand that your use of "you" addressed to me is not specifically personal. It is conventions of our use of language rather than any specific "you, The Barbarian." You may continue to use "you" in reference to me, as generic audience. I understand it is merely a convention of speech.

I fall into that, too. I like to use "one" rather than "you", but I forget a lot. And yes, we should generally take it as a generic in the absence of other indications.

Meanwhile. I went through that list. Almost all the homo sapiens contemporary with neandertal were found north of the sub Saharan line.

I don't think any Neanderthals have been found in Africa. Closest they got was what is now Israel. The oldest anatomically modern human fossil in Africa is about 36,000 years old.

East Africa's Oldest Modern Human Fossil Is Way Older Than Previously Thought

Analysis of ash from a massive volcanic eruption places the famed Omo I fossil 36,000 years back in time

www.smithsonianmag.com

This is consistent with other evidence showing that anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread to Europe and Asia a long time after archaic humans had done so.

On the list of important hominid fossils, I found nine H. sapiens for Africa. And modern-looking human species such as H. ergaster were also found in Africa.

Rarely, there are Neanderthal genes in some people of African descent. Seems most likely to me that they were the result of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia interbreeding with some later emigration to Africa.

 

[QvQ]

I fall into that, too. I like to use "one" rather than "you", but I forget a lot. And yes, we should generally take it as a generic in the absence of other indications.

Agreed, then we can both continue to use our normal mode of expression, the generic "you" without taking offense where no offense was intended.

I will answer the rest of your Post #234 later as I am busy today.
It is an interesting topic, them bones, them bones....

 

[saved24]

This video (youtube) discusses evolution

 

[QvQ]

This is consistent with other evidence showing that anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread to Europe and Asia a long time after archaic humans had done so.

Artifacts Records; Population Density
1) Organism have the densest populations in the environment most favorable to that organism
2) Where the most evidence of humans is found is where the population was densest.
3) Where the population of man, around the world, has Always been densest in basically the same latitudes as the Mediterranean.
4) All the major innovations of civilization appeared around the world in those latitudes.
A) That includes America, However man arrived on the continent, the population density was centered approx. Mexico City

It would be reasonable to assume those latitudes are man's natural environment and man originated there.
It is possible that man originated deep in Africa and migrated to the climate that suited hm, however it is more reasonable to assume that those latitudes are man's natural habitat and man originated there.
Man thrives in those Mediterranean latitudes. That is man's natural environment.

Who started the story about man evolving in deepest Africa?

 

[Kale100]

The oldest anatomically modern human fossil in Africa is about 36,000 years old.

East Africa's Oldest Modern Human Fossil Is Way Older Than Previously Thought

Analysis of ash from a massive volcanic eruption places the famed Omo I fossil 36,000 years back in time

www.smithsonianmag.com

Uhh, probably want to actually read your article. Omo I was previously estimated to be ~195,000 years old. This article explains a new finding has changed that estimation to be 36,000 years oldER than the previous estimation. The new date is 233,000 years old.

 

[Kale100]

It is possible that man originated deep in Africa and migrated to the climate that suited hm, however it is more reasonable to assume that those latitudes are man's natural habitat and man originated there.

There was a study published fairly recently that the jungles of Africa were not the original homeland of humans, and that they were only inhabited rather late. There were a number of genes that had to develop to be able to withstand the pathogens of 'the malaria belt' I think they referred to it as. The oldest modern human fossil is in Morocco, Jebel Irhoud, 300,000 years. Then you have Omo Kibish at now 233,000 years, there's one in Israel 177,000 years ago. Man's original ecozone was probably grasslands.

 

[The Barbarian]

Who started the story about man evolving in deepest Africa?

Never heard of it. The evidence seems to indicate what is now Ethiopea and Somalia as a center of human evolution. But that could be an artifact of the strata being exposed there.

Some anatomically modern human fossils were found as far south as what is now S. Africa.