evolution

[garysibio]

what parts of chemistry are you talking about?

Biochemistry.

Many of the processes that take place at the cellular level are very complex. They require many steps to do what must be done. I’m talking about things like photosynthesis, the ADP-ATP cycle, even blood clotting.

Here’s the problem. One mutation would not cause any of these processes to appear in an organism. It would require quite a few. All of these mutations would have to occur in a single organism simultaneously. If all parts of the process did not appear simultaneously, there would be no advantage to them so natural selection would not select for it. (That assumes they would not be detrimental in their partial state.)

Needless to say, the mathematical odds against all of the right mutations occurring simultaneously are astronomical. Keep in mind that this would have to occur for every single biological process which is going on, and there are many, even in a single-celled organism.

Behe lays all this stuff out very nicely with diagrams in his book Darwin’s Black Box. Definitely worth reading if you are at all interested in this issue.

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

warpspeedpetey,

What Gary is discussing is irreducible complexity. Gary is wrong that it cannot evolve.

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Peace

Tim

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Biochemistry.

Many of the processes that take place at the cellular level are very complex. They require many steps to do what must be done. I’m talking about things like photosynthesis, the ADP-ATP cycle, even blood clotting.

Here’s the problem. One mutation would not cause any of these processes to appear in an organism. It would require quite a few. All of these mutations would have to occur in a single organism simultaneously. If all parts of the process did not appear simultaneously, there would be no advantage to them so natural selection would not select for it. (That assumes they would not be detrimental in their partial state.)

Needless to say, the mathematical odds against all of the right mutations occurring simultaneously are astronomical. Keep in mind that this would have to occur for every single biological process which is going on, and there are many, even in a single-celled organism.

Behe lays all this stuff out very nicely with diagrams in his book Darwin’s Black Box. Definitely worth reading if you are at all interested in this issue.

Gary

ok so i understand the atp cycle, protein synthesis, and cellular chemistry in general.

what are the arguments against this?

 

[garysibio]

This just isn’t true. There are no human groups around that have the heavy brow ridges, large jaws and small cranial carrying capacity of *Homo Erectus. *There are no human groups with a small cranial carrying capacity ranging from 800-1000cc (except perhaps Pygmies). I don’t know where you heard that. Please provide a credible reference if you have one, because it sounds bizaare.

You said it yourself, the Pygmies. Your exclusion of them was rather gratuitous.

Australopithecus seems to have lived much earlier than Homo Habilis.

If you believe that the dating methods are accurate. I’ve already shown that P-Ar is faulty.

“australopiths shared several traits with modern apes and humans, and were widespread throughout Eastern and Northern Africa by a time between 3.9 and 3.0 million years ago”

"species of the genus Homo, which lived from approximately 2.2 million to at least 1.6 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene.[1] "

One is *thought *to be ancestral to the other. Er, which anthropologists again?

It seems we were both right and both wrong regarding the relationship between Australopithecus and Homo habilis, at least based on what I found on the Web. According to the evolutionists, the last Australopithecine form (A. robustus) was a contemporary of H. habilis which obviously rules him out as an ancestor.

If you go to wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

you will see that they claim that H. habilis sprung from A. africanus, an earlier Australopithecine.

Now go to anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html

and you will see that they show H. habilis coming from A. afarensis, an even earlier Australopithecine and A. africanus leads off to a dead end like I said.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

ok so i understand the atp cycle, protein synthesis, and cellular chemistry in general.

what are the arguments against this?

You lost me. What are the arguments against what?

Gary

 

[Orogeny]

If you believe that the dating methods are accurate. I’ve already shown that P-Ar is faulty.

Well, Gary and I actually agree on something. P-Ar dating doesn’t work. K-Ar, on the other hand, works well.

Peace

Tim

 

[rossum]

Many of the processes that take place at the cellular level are very complex. They require many steps to do what must be done. I"m talking about things like photosynthesis, the ADP-ATP cycle, even blood clotting.

Yes, many things in the cell are complex.

Here"s the problem. One mutation would not cause any of these processes to appear in an organism. It would require quite a few. All of these mutations would have to occur in a single organism simultaneously. If all parts of the process did not appear simultaneously, there would be no advantage to them so natural selection would not select for it. (That assumes they would not be detrimental in their partial state.)

You are correct in that such a complex system will not arise by direct evolution, however such systems can, and do, arise by indirect evolution. Here is a complete list, mutation by mutation, of such an irreducibly complex system evolving from a non-IC starting point.

Needless to say, the mathematical odds against all of the right mutations occurring simultaneously are astronomical.

Correct, which is precisely why biologists are looking for indirect routes to IC systems. For example, here is a piece about the evolution of the bacterial flagellum (yes, the one the Behe talks about). You will notice that the proteins used in the flagellum also can have alternative functions: they can evolve to fulfil the other function and then be co-opted into the flagellum later.* Total number of proteins listed: 42

• Total number thought to be indispensable in modern flagella: 23 (55%)
• Total number “unique” (no known homologs): 15 (36%)
• Total number of indispensable proteins that are also “unique”: 2 (5%)

Behe lays all this stuff out very nicely with diagrams in his book Darwin"s Black Box. Definitely worth reading if you are at all interested in this issue.

Oh dear, I am afraid you are behind the times. Behe has changed his argument since DBB. Even Behe himself has produced evidence that IC systems can evolve: see Behe and Snoke (2004). To quote from the abstract:We conclude that, in general, to be fixed in 10[sup]8[/sup] generations, the production of novel protein features that require the participation of two or more amino acid residues simply by multiple point mutations in duplicated genes would entail population sizes of no less than 10[sup]9[/sup].
What Behe is saying here is that a simple IC system (“two or more amino acid residues”) can evolve in a population of a billion bacteria in about 20,000 years (“10[sup]8[/sup] generations”). There are about ten million times as many bacteria in a single ton of soil (10[sup]16[/sup]). It is absurdly easy for IC systems to evolve in real populations and in real timescales.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey,

What Gary is discussing is irreducible complexity. Gary is wrong that it cannot evolve.

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Peace

Tim

i see the point both sides seem to be making, but i would like to see some math on the issue.

mostly it seems to be a math problem.

 

[cynic]

You said it yourself, the Pygmies. Your exclusion of them was rather gratuitous.

Yet they don’t share any of the other features of early hominids (post #135), and if they do have smaller cranial carrying capacity it is by virtue of their overall size. Homo Erectus wasn’t much smaller than modern humans.

If you believe that the dating methods are accurate. I’ve already shown that P-Ar is faulty.

Perhaps dating methods are so innacurate, that dinosaurs , along with these ape-men hominids, also lived along side early humans. If you can believe that sort of thing.

It seems we were both right and both wrong regarding the relationship between Australopithecus and Homo habilis, at least based on what I found on the Web. According to the evolutionists, the last Australopithecine form (A. robustus) was a contemporary of H. habilis which obviously rules him out as an ancestor.

If you go to wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

Robustus is already thought of as a dead-end, not an ancestor, much like Neanderthals They have now been given their own genus

"the robust australopiths (which are now given their own genus). "

you will see that they claim that H. habilis sprung from A. africanus, an earlier Australopithecine.

Now go to anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html

and you will see that they show H. habilis coming from A. afarensis, an even earlier Australopithecine and A. africanus leads off to a dead end like I said.

Gary

So there are competing claims over which species of Australopithecine Homo Habilis evolved from. No-one ever said that there was universal agreemant or conclusive proof of one ancestral line.

 

[hecd2]

Actually, I have a BA in anthropology so I am quite familiar with the fossils you have mentioned.

We’ll get to that in a moment…

First of all, you have to remeember that, if you were to gather all of the hominid fossils that we know of, they’d fit very nicely in the back of your average pickup truck. We’re not working with a lot of evidence one way or the other.

Whether or not that is true, what has the volume of evidence got to do with the confidence with which we reach our conclusions? What is the volume of evidence for the top quark, for example? Or if we want to stick with palaeontology, what about the volume of evidence for the fish to tetrapod transition? This volume question is typical of biased creationist arguments - it is not the sort of argument you will find in a respectable palaeontology or anthropology journal. The evidence stands or falls in its merits independent of its volume.

If we limit ourselves to the fossils belonging to the genus Homo, it turns out that there is much more variation in the skulls of people living today than there is in the fossil skulls. That wouldn’t be the case if they were our evolutionary parents.

[Edited] It’s nonsense to say that extant humans show more cranial variation than fossils in the Homo genus. Just consider the cranial capacity of H habilis specimen. The type specimen, OH7, is 674cc and other Olduvai holotypes vary between 594 and 673cc. H habilis at Koobi Fora vary between 510cc to 582cc, from Sterkfontein 460cc - 680cc and from Swartkrans 460cc. None of these are remotely within the range of extant humans. It’s not just the obvious thing like cranial capacity that is outside the extant human range. Other critical diagnostic measurements are also outside the extant range for H habilis and H erectus. In the case of H neanderthalensis, even if the cranial capacity is the same as or more than extant humans other diagnostic measurements are outside the range of extant humans, as is Neanderthal DNA. [Edited]

Australopithecus is most likely an ape (based on its jawbone).

Really? Focusing on A africanus, do they have the typical rectangular shape of non-human ape jaws and the large canine of apes? And what about post-cranial anatomy, particularly in the pelvis, knee and foot? I don’t think that many trained palaeoanthropologists would say that the various species of Australopithecus are just another set of apes.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Namesake]

We did not evolve from monkeys!

Right. We did not evolve from monkeys.

We did not evolve from modern day apes either. What we have in common in a primordial ape ancestor, one branch of which eventually became bipedal and evolved a larger brain.

We are apes. It’s a fact and no one knowledgeable in science will dispute that.

 

[hecd2]

Aside from that I already answered your question in the negative. While they would most likely see a volcano as a distinct possibility, maybe even a probability, unless the observers were omniscient they could not rule out the possibility of some other process, even an unknown one, producing a result indistinguishable from a volcano.

So your argument is that no science such as palaeontology, geology, cosmology or palaeoclimatology can ever reach confident conclusions, because it is always possible that some bizarre unknown phenomenon was the cause for the evidence we observe. But that is true of laboratory science too. However, we can put forward explanations, in the laboratory, and in the field, that we are confident in beyond reasonable doubt. Since the evidence to support the hypothesis that a large volcanic eruption occurred on Mt St Helens goes way beyond pure morphology such as the crater and the new lava dome (which are pretty compelling in their own right) to examine the geographic, physical and chemical signature of the ejecta, such as multiple pyroclastic flows, lahars etc, our hypothetical aliens, provided they were fully conversant with terrestrial phenomena could conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mt St Helens was the site of recent volcanic eruption.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

OK. I should have explained this a bit better. The point is that we can find human beings living today that have skulls exactly like those of our Homo habilis and H. erectus fossils.

Absolutely not true. Have you got a respectable reference for this? You are wrong, and that is not a mistake that I would expect someone with a degree in anthropology who had taken classes in physical or palaeoanthropology to make.

When anthropologists look at fossil skulls and compare them, they say “See. The skull is increasing in size until we get to modern man. This is evolution.” However, that idea goes right out the door if there are people whose skulls are the same size or even smaller than our supposed ancestors.

Well, H neanderthalensis is the only non-sapiens species with an equal and greater mean cranial capacity than extant humans, but there are other anatomical differences in H neanderthalensis that fall outside the human range and, of course, H neanderthalensis DNA falls outside the extant human range. No professional comparative anatomist would look at the skulls of H habilis or H erectus and say that they fall within the range of extant humans.

An anthropologist who believes in evolution would say that Homo habilis and Australopithecus share a common ancestor but the latter represents a limb of the family tree that died out and left no descendants.

Really? Are you referring to robust or gracile Australopithethicenes? To A ramidus, A anamensis, A afarensis, A africanus or A robustus? I think you’d be hard pressed to find a professional palaeoanthropologist who would claim that no Australopithecius species can be ancestral to Homo. What is your source?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Orogeny,

Since you insist on using ridicule as a discussion technique, I’m adding you to my ignore list. Don’t bother wasting your time responding to me.

Gary

That’s a pity. You have chosen to ignore an erudite guy with a great sense of humour who also happens to be a Catholic and a perfect gentleman; *and *the only professional geologist who regularly posts here. You could learn something from him.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Mitochondrial DNA / mtDNA study through the female lineage shows we came from one woman, dubbed “Eve.” Jumpy scientists, nervous about the gene study through the male lineage showing we came from one man, have named him “Scientific Adam.” Saying “scientific” makes it politically correct. Move on.

I think that you, like many others, are confused about the meaning of mitochondrial Eve or our Most Recent Common Ancestor in the strictly female line. Similarly with Y-chromosome Adam or our MRCA in the strictly male line. Neither equate to a biblical Adam and Eve, ie sole ancestors of humans from the same generation. These two MRCAs did not live at the same time. Moreover living humans have many other ancestors whose lineage is neither strictly through the male or female lines. The molecular evidence (what you call “gene studies”) shows that the lineage leading to living humans has not dropped below a few thousand since it diverged from the lineage leading to chimpanzees.

Don’t feel bad about getting it wrong. Many do. But do try to learn the actual science before you post confident, but utterly erroneous claims in future.

Alec
evolutionpages.com/Mitochondrial%20Eve.htm

 

[cynic]

Absolutely not true. Have you got a respectable reference for this? You are wrong, and that is not a mistake that I would expect someone with a degree in anthropology who had taken classes in physical or palaeoanthropology to make.

I was also surprised by that statement. There aren’t any humans about that have skulls that resemble those of Homo Erectus or Habilis. Not in Australia, not in New Guinea, not in East Africa. Nowhere.

It’s amazing the lengths some people will go…

 

[narrowpath]

Of course humans didn’t evolve from monkeys. Humans and monleys evolved from a common ancestor.

 

[hecd2]

You said it yourself, the Pygmies. Your exclusion of them was rather gratuitous.

No - Extant humans, including all groups of pygmies have a minimum cranial capacity at about 950cc, way above Homo habilis.

If you believe that the dating methods are accurate. I’ve already shown that P-Ar is faulty.

Phosphorus-argon?? Perhaps you mean Potassium-Argon: that would K-Ar. Do you think that we should give any credibility to someone who claims to have “shown” that a radio-dating method is faulty who can’t even get the right species of parent element?

It seems we were both right and both wrong regarding the relationship between Australopithecus and Homo habilis, at least based on what I found on the Web. According to the evolutionists, the last Australopithecine form (A. robustus) was a contemporary of H. habilis which obviously rules him out as an ancestor.

If you go to wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/timeline/timeline.html

you will see that they claim that H. habilis sprung from A. africanus, an earlier Australopithecine.

Now go to anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/a_tree.html

and you will see that they show H. habilis coming from A. afarensis, an even earlier Australopithecine and A. africanus leads off to a dead end like I said.

Gary

I thought you were a graduate anthropologist. Why are you looking this stuff up on the web? What you said was that no anthropologist would propose Australopithecus as an ancestor of Homo. I see that you are retracting that now.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Whether or not that is true, what has the volume of evidence got to do with the confidence with which we reach our conclusions?

it would seem that the more data points one has the more accurately one can map his evidence to his argument

so it would seem that the volume of evidence has a lot to do the amount of confidence one can have about his conclusions

The evidence stands or falls in its merits independent of its volume.

it would seem that your above statement is incorrect, but i would expect someone with a degree to know that

:thankyou:

And this is where we get back to this claimed BA in anthropology. Either you never had one, or you’ve forgotten everything you ever learned. It’s nonsense to say that extant humans show more cranial variation than fossils in the Homo genus. Just consider the cranial capacity of H habilis specimen. The type specimen, OH7, is 674cc and other Olduvai holotypes vary between 594 and 673cc. H habilis at Koobi Fora vary between 510cc to 582cc, from Sterkfontein 460cc - 680cc and from Swartkrans 460cc. None of these are remotely within the range of extant humans. It’s not just the obvious thing like cranial capacity that is outside the extant human range. Other critical diagnostic measurements are also outside the extant range for H habilis and H erectus. In the case of H neanderthalensis, even if the cranial capacity is the same as or more than extant humans other diagnostic measurements are outside the range of extant humans, as is Neanderthal DNA. I would expect someone with a degree in anthropology to know this.

maybe i could call the university and get his degree yanked for having a different opinion than other posters. how dare he!

 

[hecd2]

“be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention”

i wasnt confused when i wrote that, i wrote the whole post exactly as i meant it

Right. So you meant that: “there are gaping flaws” (in evolution)

further if i was making a serious argument, why wouldnt i support it?i dont have a problem making and supporting arguments, as you have seen before.why would i choose not to do so here?

Well, you don’t have a problem taking a position.You do, on this evidence, have a huge problem in supporting it.

simple, because i made no such argument, assertion, claim, et al.

Right. So you wrote the whole post exactly as you meant it, including the statement that there are gaping flaws in evolution, but then again you didn’t make that argument, assertion or claim. Is your thinking always as incoherent as this?

i observed the the existence of counter arguments to evolution, thats it

No, that’s not what you did. You said “there are gaping flaws”. You didn’t say “Some people, not me, think there are gaping flaws.”

There is a difference, you know, that everyone else can see, even if you can’t.

Alec
evolutionpages.com