Evolution Tests With Bacteria

[alextemplet]

Well, Linn, if beng religious makes us stupid, then I'm about as dumb as a brick. So perhaps we can stupidly get back to science. What were we talking about again?

[Linn]

Alex:

Australopithecus - apes to humans
Ambulocetus - land mammals to whales
Archaeopteryx - dinosaurs to birds
Ichthyostega - fish to amphibians

I will just take one at a time to examine
Is any one going to actually read this with an
OPEN mind?

1) Australopithecus

BTW I did a presentation about it in front of my class.
I had every one laughing It was fun.

The Random house College Dictionary
defines Australopithicine
as "a primate of the extinct genus
Australopithecus of the Pleistocne epoch
found mainly in southern Africa."

There seems to still after all these years
be a bit of confusion and disagreements
as to what it really is.

Here is a link to read:

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/afri.html

As you read the above article notice the key words:

[uSome[/u][/u] researchers

Now believe

Confuse

Unknown

enigma

Unsure

Incorrect

More ape-like

The jury on Austraopithecus is not out yet
so you cant say it is definetly a missing link
it is a matter of interpretation.

Here are some quotes from scientists;

It's skull 'differed from that of humans in
more ways than it's smaller
brain capacity." -[u]The New Evolutionary Timetable,
Stanley, Steven M, 1981, P.142[/u]


"When compared with human and simian skulls,
the Australopithcine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian-not human. The contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white."

"Our findings leave little doubt that ...Australopithecus resembles not homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes."
-Anatomist Zuckerman

"Australopithicines...were (not) men"- Donald Johnson

"Unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary decendants of the Austalopithecines"

RE: LUCY

" This brain was not large in absolute size, it was a third the size of a human brain"
-Robert Jastrow (one of my favorites)

A skull "Very like a chimpanzees" -New scientist

I could go on but I think you will

Any way the point it is speculative
that Australopithicus
shows a mising link. I dont see it myself.
there are apes and there are humans.
The evidnce is very flimsy.

modern human types appear suddenly
in the fossil record
In his book the Mismeasure of man,
Gould brings out that "We have no evidence
for biological change in brain size or structure
since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record.."

Why are there still apes? If they are inferior
why are they still in existence? How did they
stay the same? Shoulnt they have progressed
up the evolutionary scale also?
Lynne[/quote]

[Linn]

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter10_1.php

[alextemplet]

quote=Linn

Is any one going to actually read this with an
OPEN mind?

I read it with an open mind, and I'll be honest. I'm going to have do a little homework before I make a response. I won't make a full response now because I'm way too tired after a hard day's work, and I also think I'll need to do some more research of my own first. But I just wanted to post this to let you know that at least someone is giving what you've said a fair chance. You've obviously done your homework and deserve to be treated credibly; give me a day or two to recover and I'll be able to do exactly that, instead of just passing out from exhaustion like I am now. There needs to be a sleepy emoticon.

[mith]

cool beans, I looked over a couple chapters but didn't see much that hasn't been answered before at http://www.talkorigins.org.

Johanson claimed that Lucy's locomotion was very human-like, but not Lucy as a whole. Many scientists now believe that Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") spent a significant amount of time in the trees; their hands and feet seem adapted to climbing. That does not mean she was "hardly distinguishable from an ape or monkey", and I would be very surprised if any reputable scientist has said any such thing. The pelvis of Lucy, for example, looks a lot more like a human pelvis than a chimp pelvis. There appears to be near universal agreement that when on the ground, Lucy was predominantly bipedal, to a far greater extent than any living ape or monkey.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/momevol.html

[quote=Linn]
Why are there still apes? If they are inferior
why are they still in existence? How did they
stay the same? Shoulnt they have progressed
up the evolutionary scale also?
Lynne
[/quote]
And why the hell are bacteria still around? All those lazy uni-cellular creatures should have evolved by now according to evolution....right?

[canalon]

[snip]" This brain was not large in absolute size, it was a third the size of a human brain"
-Robert Jastrow (one of my favorites)

A skull "Very like a chimpanzees" -New scientist

I could go on but I think you will

So? That fit with the evolution theory. Even if Australopithicus is not in direct like with us, keep in mind that Homo neanderthalensis had a very simian skull... and a larger brain than Homo sapiens

Any way the point it is speculative that Australopithicus shows a missing link. I dont see it myself. there are apes and there are humans. The evidence is very flimsy.

modern human types appear suddenly
in the fossil record In his book the Mismeasure of man, Gould brings out that "We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record.."

Beware with Gould, whom had his own agenda when it comes to evolution and wanted to prove saltation. His point was thus not that Australipithicine were not our ancestors, but taht the evolution leaped. True or not, his theory shaped his way of reasoning.

But if you look at apes and at humans, the difference is not that big, at least in my eyes (obviously not in yours ) and if you compare that to the variation you find, say between dogs, who are nonetheless consisting in only one species, you should be arefull with look as a determinant for species.

Why are there still apes? If they are inferior why are they still in existence? How did they stay the same? Shoulnt they have progressed up the evolutionary scale also?
Lynne

This is the more important I want to add: creation of a new species does not mean that the original species was inferior, simply that a group diverged enough to isolate itself and then evolved independantly. There is no need for the new species to take over its ancestor niche. In fact the use of a new niche can be a determinant for speciation.
There isnothng as absolute inferiority or superiority in evolution, there is just higher fitness of some individual in a given location at a given time (and sometimes simple genetic drift too). And the idea of a progress in evolution is not good, there is no such thing. And apes are probably better adapted to THEIR environment than us, they never stop evolving.

[Linn]

[quote="Canalon[

Beware with Gould, whom had his own agenda when it comes to evolution and wanted to prove saltation. His point was thus not that Australipithicine were not our ancestors

,


What is saltation?

[This is the more important I want to add: creation of a new species does not mean that the original species was inferior, simply that a group diverged enough to isolate itself and then evolved independantly. There is no need for the new species to take over its ancestor niche. In fact the use of a new niche can be a determinant for speciation.
There isnothng as absolute inferiority or superiority in evolution, there is just higher fitness of some individual in a given location at a given time (and sometimes simple genetic drift too). And the idea of a progress in evolution is not good, there is no such thing. And apes are probably better adapted to THEIR environment than us, they never stop evolving.

[/quote]

Actualy
I had commented previously
about how to me, it would be more
believable to say we evolved from Apes
than from dogs, only because we are so similar,
and close geneticaly.

However.
I firmly believe that Apes are Apes
humans are humans
and sterility is the limiting factor.

Scientists with all of their knowledge
can not recreate evolution.
Not even a little bit? Or have they?
Of course it would take years of experiments.

I know of some failed experiments
where they tried to create mutations.

Does any one know of any studies
being done currently?

The point is, Again, that if scientists
are having trouble recreating evolution then
how much more improbable it is for amino
acids or genes or what have you to just
self assemble or self mutate , a mutation
that progressesI and makes the organism fitter
and of which would breed true continually.
mutations are what? about 99.9%of the time
detrimental and not beneficial?

Just as there is variations in humans ie: size
(PIGMYS AND HOBBITS OF INDONESIA)
as well as tall (7 ft ) and large boned
and other features.
There is difference among Ape species.
Australopithicine was just one variation
of ape that we have thus found.

[Linn]

mithrilhack"]And why the hell are bacteria still around? All those lazy uni-cellular creatures should have evolved by now according to evolution....right?

[/quote]

yes those damm bacteria and virus
my family and I have ben battling the flu all week!

[alextemplet]

Linn, scientists have been able to observe evolution occur naturally, without having to be "recreated" by them. The studies already mentioned with fish and bacteria are such examples, and both of those studies produced rates of adaptation much faster than what we see in fossils. So yes, we can see evolution happening, and we know for a fact it happens.

As for humans and apes, according to your definition, we're both the same "kind." You said a kind is a family, and humans and apes are both classified in the family Hominidae. The genetic difference between apes and humans is actually less than that between dogs and wolves. We know the larger change is possible, so why not the smaller?

[mith]

saltation sounds like punctuated equilibrium

about 99.9%of the time
detrimental and not beneficial?

Due to redundancy in genetic code(i.e. more than one sequence codes for one amino) most mutations are benign

[canalon]

saltation sounds like punctuated equilibrium

Yep, sorry, my mistake. I shouldn't post before having finished my breakfast (mostly my cup of tea to wake up...) Thanks mithril for the correction.

[Linn]

Know what kind of Evolution I think is going
to happen to humans?
As we get smarter our frontal lobes will
expand and our heads will get bigger and bigger.
And we will look like the aliens on that old episode
of star trek with the big heads.

Seriously,
have you ever observed the genius' heads?
Like Einstein etc? they have bigger than average foreheads.
Any ways
thought I would mention something fun to think about.

BTW that episode about Einstein is going
to be on this Saturday 3/12 (not sure of the time)
on the Science Ch 227 or whatever it is in your area.
if any one is interested it was a good program I think
you will enjoy it.

Alex
I am confused about the tests of evolution
can you post them/link and results for me to read? thanx