Piltdown and the search for Human Ancestors

[Baggins]

Has it every occured to you that there has to be a genetic mechanism that accelerates evolution at key periods in natural history? The Cambrian explosion, Dinos to birds and the expansion of the human brain being the most dramatic examples. .

I am interested to know why you would think that the Cambrian "Explosion" would need accelerated evolution. as far as I am aware there is a 60-70 million year gap between the evolution of the bilateral, multicellular body plan and the rise of fossilisable skeletons and hence the increase in fossils seen in the lower Cambrian.

Is 60-70 million years not long enough in your view to move from simple bilateral animals to the fauna we see after the evolution of fossilisable skeletons in the Cambrian?

 

[Valkhorn]

Is 60-70 million years not long enough in your view to move from simple bilateral animals to the fauna we see after the evolution of fossilisable skeletons in the Cambrian?

Especially since compared to other evolutionary changes we have evidence for in shorter time spans this isn't exactly that big of a step.

 

[Edx]

Dinos to birds .

As has been already pointed out to you most notably by Aron Ra, birds are still dinosaurs in the same way as we are still mammals and still apes.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know if this is semantics or what but Homo habilis is placed withing our lineage in the Human Family Tree graphic at the Smithsonian website. Homo erectus for all intents and purposes is human as well as Neanderthals. Homo habilis (handy man) was so named because of the supposed tool use.

Australopithecus afarensis is obviously an ape...

And with a little snipping we have summed up the main point I made in our Piltdown formal debate - Creationists accept every fossil found since, say, Taung as being a legitimate find, not a hoax or fraud, and then play the semantic game (see bold in quote above for irony) by saying they're either "fully ape" or "fully human." This is nothing more than a red herring to distract from the fact that these fossils are morphologically exactly what we'd expect to find in chimp/human common ancestor transitionals. Homo is a genus, not a species despite Mark's handwaving. There's a reason for that classification.

 

[Edx]

And with a little snipping we have summed up the main point I made in our Piltdown formal debate - Creationists accept every fossil found since, say, Taung as being a legitimate find, not a hoax or fraud, and then play the semantic game (see bold in quote above for irony) by saying they're either "fully ape" or "fully human." This is nothing more than a red herring to distract from the fact that these fossils are morphologically exactly what we'd expect to find in chimp/human common ancestor transitionals. Homo is a genus, not a species despite Mark's handwaving. There's a reason for that classification.

Or as Aron would ask it, "What is an ape?"

Ed

 

[USincognito]

I'm sorry to snip the rest of your rheroric, but it's just a red herring so I'm going to concentrate on your two most telling statements.

The content of the papers don't discuss the ERVs much at all and I really don't have much interest in them.

Actually the papers, if you read them, not just the abstracs are about nothing but ERVs. And the conclusion is exactly what I cut and pasted from the posted content. I can't help but wonder if you really don't understand this issue as much as you think you do. It seems like you quote mine for what suits you and you run with it. Two examples I can think of is your recent citation of Francis Collins (whom sfs pointed out accepts chimp/human common ancestry) and one of Jonathan Marks (who also accepts chimp/human common ancestry) ostensibly to support your assertion that common ancestry isn't valid.

Shared ERV insertions are unexplainable apart from common ancestry.

Nevermind that there is no known way for things to evolve at this rate, it's only important that God be left out of the explanation.

And here we go again with something I pointed out to you about a year ago - you don't have a problem with evolution (since your fantasy requires hyperevolution since the flood) your problem is with the scientific method itself which has proven astoundingly effective for 200 years. You don't have a beef with biology, you have a beef with all science itself. I posted a thread asking how God should be included in the scientific method, but I don't recall you responding to it. Could you do so?

Also, this get's back to your personal incredulity problem. Instead of just handwaving and saying "no no no.." about the genetic evidence of chimp/human common ancestry, how about you just admit openly that you can't handle the truth because you think humans were specially created seperately from all other animals 6,000 years ago and stop with the disingenuousness?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

All very interesting but you overlook one very important thing, this is in the human family ancestory section. There are a lot of ape acestors in there mixed with humans.

Actually, Mark none of the species depicted on that diagram are ancestral to any living ape. All, except for one lineage are dead.

 

[sfs]

I am not trying to change the subject, this is what you presented in your Quiet Post submission
[snip evidence from single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees]
That would come to about 34 million mutations, do you still expect me to believe that this takes into account the indels?

No, Mark, I don't expect you to believe that this takes into account the indels. That's because I'm not talking about indels, just as I am not talking about hair color, Earl Grey tea and the cost of brie. Single-base substitutions and indels are different subjects. I was talking about one of them. You ignored what I said about it and started talking about the other one. That's called "changing the subject". It's what you did.

I call them polymorphisms because the HGP refers to SNPs frequently so I was under the impression that they were the same thing.

Polymorphisms are variants within a population. "Polymorphism" means "multiple form"; it describes something that occurs in different forms within a single species. Most differences between humans and chimpanzees are fixed, not polymorphic.

Mostly you are focusing you evidences on non-functioning parts of the genome. What I am most interested in right now is the genetic mechanisms thought to be responsible for human evolution. Random (chance) mutations does not account for major alterations of highly conserved genes.

What you're interested in isn't relevant. The original poster asked for evidence asked for evidence of common ancestry, not for an explanation of the mechanism for human evolution, and that's the request that we're responding to. (The fact that you and the original poster are the same person suggests a problem, but it's not one I have to solve.)

You see, common ancestry, and how specific human traits arose, are also different subjects. Common ancestry could be true even if the human brain was the result of genetic engineering by interplanetary pixies. When you respond to a discussion about common ancestry by talking about how certain changes happened, you're changing the subject again.

Evidence for common ancestry has been pointed out to you (not for the first time, of course.) You could agree that, yes, there is strong evidence for common ancestry. Or you could dispute the facts or the reasoning involved. Either of those responses would suggest that you were actually interested in the evidence you requested. What you have done, however, is simply pay no attention to the evidence.

 

[sfs]

What physical characteristic do we have that other great apes don't have?

Big boobies

Hey, speak for yourself.

 

[Mystman]

/me notices a distinct lack of Human Chromosome #2 related responses.

 

[Mystman]

Oh, and I have to agree with sfs: having evidence that something happens/has happened is something else than knowing how it happen(s)(ed)

I have evidence that Steve Irwin (RIP) was killed by a stingray, I don't know exactly how it happened (yet). Just because I don't know how it happened, you can't go claiming that it actually was a giant emu.

It was a stingray (evidence: news reports). How it happened exactly? Dunno yet.
Humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor (evidence: Human Chromosome #2, amongst others..). How it happened? Dunno yet.

 

[JohnR7]

I have evidence that Steve Irwin (RIP) was killed by a stingray, I don't know exactly how it happened (yet). Just because I don't know how it happened, you can't go claiming that it actually was a giant emu.

Stingrays can effectively defend themselves against sharks. Him and his producers did not think that a Stingray was as much of a threat as it was.

Sort of like Evil Knievel use to complain that he would crash because the people that he hired to set up his ramp did not design it correctly.

 

[Chalnoth]

Stingrays can effectively defend themselves against sharks. Him and his producers did not think that a Stingray was as much of a threat as it was.

Sort of like Evil Knievel use to complain that he would crash because the people that he hired to set up his ramp did not design it correctly.

And what you have just proposed is a plausible explanation. But we don't know the exact details.

The same is true with human evolution. We have quite a lot of information, and have many plausible explanations, but we don't yet have all of the exact details.

 

[JohnR7]

we don't yet have all of the exact details.

I was just looking at what could have happened and also the comment of the guy who was working with him at the time.

 

[USincognito]

I just noticed a Freudian slip in the poll. The third option is "multiple disciples" not "mutliple disciplines."

The only reason I point that out is that Mark makes such a big deal about semantics while his whole POV is based on the fossil evidence classifying hominid fossils as either "fully ape" or "fully human" as he ignores, misunderstands or handwaves away the genetic evidence.

 

[mark kennedy]

I just noticed a Freudian slip in the poll. The third option is "multiple disciples" not "mutliple disciplines."

The only reason I point that out is that Mark makes such a big deal about semantics while his whole POV is based on the fossil evidence classifying hominid fossils as either "fully ape" or "fully human" as he ignores, misunderstands or handwaves away the genetic evidence.

The fossils like genetics are largely ignored in these discussions, I still don't know why. Did you notice that no one selected biology and genetics, talk about a Freudian slip.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The fossils like genetics are largely ignored in these discussions, I still don't know why. Did you notice that no one selected biology and genetics, talk about a Freudian slip.

2:
Biology and genetics as represented in scientific publications

3:
Multiple disciplines in science that support it conclusively

i would not expect anyone to answer #2 for it is a proper subset of #3

 

[mark kennedy]

No, Mark, I don't expect you to believe that this takes into account the indels. That's because I'm not talking about indels, just as I am not talking about hair color, Earl Grey tea and the cost of brie. Single-base substitutions and indels are different subjects. I was talking about one of them. You ignored what I said about it and started talking about the other one. That's called "changing the subject". It's what you did.

The level of random mutations needed for human evolution does not happen. You can keep avoiding the issue but it will still be the biggest problem evolutionists have in trying to support their ill-conceived a priori assumption of universal ancestory. No one was predicting indels of the size that were found, everyone was saying we are 99% ape. We are not and that is going to get even more signifigant as the actual genes involved are looked at closer.

Polymorphisms are variants within a population. "Polymorphism" means "multiple form"; it describes something that occurs in different forms within a single species. Most differences between humans and chimpanzees are fixed, not polymorphic.

Ok Steve, you made your point. There is a big difference between a substitution and a polymorphism. It's gotten on your nerves and I won't use the terms interchangably any more, ok?

What you're interested in isn't relevant. The original poster asked for evidence asked for evidence of common ancestry, not for an explanation of the mechanism for human evolution, and that's the request that we're responding to. (The fact that you and the original poster are the same person suggests a problem, but it's not one I have to solve.)

Yes it is relevant, no demonstrated mechanism or one that won't work is what this is all about. What I called for and none of you are capable of producing is a mechanism that can produce the level of adaptation nessacary. You keep telling me that random mutations account for the rate of change and it's just not true. Your not interested in this and could care less what my interest is but this is a growing problem whether you want to admit it or not.

You see, common ancestry, and how specific human traits arose, are also different subjects. Common ancestry could be true even if the human brain was the result of genetic engineering by interplanetary pixies. When you respond to a discussion about common ancestry by talking about how certain changes happened, you're changing the subject again.

The subject I suggested was wide open to any evidence that you care to suggest. All I asked for is a substantive basis and how the human brain evolved is the crucial demonstration that modern science has failed to produce. Rationalize it away as much as you like but it will continue to be a problem whether you realize it or not.

Evidence for common ancestry has been pointed out to you (not for the first time, of course.) You could agree that, yes, there is strong evidence for common ancestry. Or you could dispute the facts or the reasoning involved. Either of those responses would suggest that you were actually interested in the evidence you requested. What you have done, however, is simply pay no attention to the evidence.

You do realize when someone does not answer a question like what is a telemere and a centemere doing there, it really concedes the point. I don't have an answer for you, I'm not saying there isn't one I just don't have one, ok?

The real reason I do this is because it is evolutionary mechanisms that I am looking for. I don't care about ERVs because, frankly, they don't do anything. What is more I am not the only one who is ignoring serious questions, if the human brain can't evolve at the level it would have had to this debate is over. If it can then there has to be a demonstrated mechanism and I am still waiting to hear what it is.

 

[mark kennedy]

/me notices a distinct lack of Human Chromosome #2 related responses.

That's because it's beside the point, I have noticed a lack of interest in this crucial peice of the puzzle:

"I am very impressed with the number of substitutions on the human lineage compared with other vertebrates. The region is highly conserved: only two bases are different between chimpanzees and chickens. In contrast, there have been 18 substitutions on the human lineage! It's like every other species is driving the same Plymouth Reliant, and humans are driving a Ferrari!"

For 310 million years this gene is highly conserved and then suddenly has 18 substitutions. Why Mystman do you think this happened?

 

[mark kennedy]

I realize you might have been pressed for time last night, but you're going to need to come up with something more than hand waving dismissals, rhetoric and your own incredulity to make all the evidence for chimp/human common ancestry go away.

I was a little disappointed that I didn't get much in the way of arguments to tell you the truth. You know all the clutch phrases but you, like everyone else, don't want to look at the lack of a demonstrated mechanism for this in modern biology. What is the genetic basis is squarely established as the key question and you can ignore it or you can think about it, it's you choice. Talking in circles is not going to solve this problem for TOE as it relates to natural history.