The Evolution Conflict

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, path of one!

Thank you for your post!

It's speculated humans once had observable sub-species too- Neanderthals. Most now think of Neanderthals as a sub-species of modern humans. I.e., we are Homo sapiens sapiens, and they were Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Folks used to think they were an entirely separate species (H. neanderthalensis) but most the folks I know now think they aren't.

Yes, I agree, in large part because of the find of the hybrid child. Now we have H. Floresiensis to factor in.

And thanks, lunamoth, for explaining how some stuff just is fuzzy in science right now. I'm no taxonomist, but I know these folks aren't trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. There's still just a lot of debate within biology between lumpers and splitters, and Linneans and cladists. And then the whole issue of populations that can interbreed, but never would in the natural world (without human intervention)- like the domestic house cat and the African Serval. There are more barriers to interbreeding than just absolute genetic isolation (or geographic barriers)- there are also behavioral barriers, and these are linking with genetics, thus constituting (for many scientists) a different species.

I did not mean to come across as some conspiracy theorist or something. By and large I do not think the confusion is deliberate. But that does not negate my position regarding the similarity with religion. Religion too, if one is truthful to oneself, is every bit as much an art as science is. And just as scientists debate nuances and meanings of terms and "evidence," so too do theologians (if that is the proper term to use across all religious expression). I would use the term "religionist," but in this context it just doesn't seem correct. I could say "seeker of truth," but science too seeks truth, just a different form, manner and definition of truth.

As for "lumpers and splitters," at least now I have a vague idea of what to look for when I read the scientific papers. And I also must presume that "species not interbreeding" is not a given, even when I read it in those same papers. Therefore, should anyone claim a new "species," I must first detect what it is precisely that they actually mean, that the animal in question may not actually be a new species as defined by not interbreeding. Now I'm rambling...I think I am more confused than ever on this.

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Juantoo3, Well, this is not my area of expertise, but I think where your confusion lays is in thinking of it as a ladder rather than as a tree with branches from a common anscestor. This is a rather common misunderstanding.*** So, 1) yes humans are much much much much more closely related to each other than to any other primate, and gorillas to gorillas, etc., 2) from my reading of the Mitochondrial Eve essay in Wiki, the 150,000 years ago date is a max estimate, and in fact it is likely that a "bottleneck" type experinece for humans occurred even more recently (either way, well after H. sapiens branched off). Other primates had their bottleneck episodes as well, but long after the different species had branched off from the common ancestor. The only reason I referred to the Mito Eve stuff was because you suggested that Neaderthals may have contributed to the present day DNA makeup of humans and the Mito Eve date would be one way of figuring out if that were possible. Seems that it could be, but I am not well versed in this area at all.

***Briefly, the common anscestor would be a primitive species like modern primates but neither a modern ape nor a human. At some point the population split with one going on to accumulate modifications over a long period of time leading to the apes and the other to humans. And, sometime long long long after the two populations stopped resembing each other and were now the separate species of humans and gorillas, etc., then the bottleneck episode resulted in just one or a very few breeding pairs (if you will pardon the expression to describe people) having offspring surviving to create all the humans now on earth.
This is simplistic and maybe path of one can point out any serious errors, but this is a basic model for descent from a common anscestor with a later bottleneck episode. Just for fun, we could still have a bottleneck episode with a new Mitochondrial Eve in the event of a world disaster in which only one family genetically survives. Seems like much more of a long shot now that we are at 6 billion and climbing. Applies more to endangered species.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Bandit!

Thank you for your post!

THE EURASIAN FOREBEAR of African apes and humans moved south in response to a drying and cooling of its environs that led to the replacement of forests with woodlands and grasslands. I believe that adaptations to life on the ground - knuckle walking in particular - were critical in enabling this lineage to withstand that loss of arboreal habitat and make it to Africa. Once there, some apes returned to the forests, others settled into varied woodland environments, and one ape - the one from which humans descended - eventually invaded open territory by committing to life on the ground.

Other than the part about moving into Africa (I had always heard Africa to be the source), I think this is pretty much in line with what Desmond Morris portrayed in "The Naked Ape." Of course, Morris put a great deal more emphasis on the point that the ancestor of humans turned to hunting meat for food, and adapted accordingly, whereas the rest of the apes (with rare or minor exception) remain frugivores for the most part.

Of course, it remains a mystery to me as to why the human hunter lost his "fangs" as a meat eater (in contrast to other natural examples), and vegetarian apes kept theirs? One has to admit, human canine teeth are no match for those of a chimpanzee.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your post!

with that view in mind, i cannot find any reasonable way to pit these two views against each other. they are, in my perceptions at least, complementary to each other.

I do not want to beat a dead horse. I know it is difficult to see, but I am in reality saying the same thing.

 

[nomanshake]

If according to Darwin, life started as a chance, then why did that chance occur? i mean it just makes me sick when im thinking abt it , coz there's no answer..

 

[bruceg]

If according to Darwin, life started as a chance, then why did that chance occur? i mean it just makes me sick when im thinking abt it , coz there's no answer..

I guess you've missed it from above... Darwin doesn't address the *origin of life*, the theory (which is now considerably tweaked from the original) addresses a *mechanism for change* - the origin of different species. Nothing to do with how it all got kicked off, just what's appeared to have happened since (and continuing to happen -e.g. that moth species in the UK that went from basically white to basically smoke during the advent of coal-fired everythings)

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

I think where your confusion lays is in thinking of it as a ladder rather than as a tree with branches from a common anscestor. This is a rather common misunderstanding.

I accept the premise of common misunderstanding. Believe me, I was already set straight about this way back in this thread.

So, 1) yes humans are much much much much more closely related to each other than to any other primate, and gorillas to gorillas, etc., 2) from my reading of the Mitochondrial Eve essay in Wiki, the 150,000 years ago date is a max estimate, and in fact it is likely that a "bottleneck" type experinece for humans occurred even more recently (either way, well after H. sapiens branched off). Other primates had their bottleneck episodes as well, but long after the different species had branched off from the common ancestor.

OK, now this begins to make sense. Bottleneck was mentioned in the past, but never elaborated on, although I seem to recall it mentioned together with "founder effect," a term that holds no meaning to me at this point. I don't know what it means.

The only reason I referred to the Mito Eve stuff was because you suggested that Neaderthals may have contributed to the present day DNA makeup of humans and the Mito Eve date would be one way of figuring out if that were possible. Seems that it could be, but I am not well versed in this area at all.

OK, now I think I see what you are getting at. Let's see, according to some of the sources I read, humans may have already had the use of natural fire by 150,000 years ago. Rude tools were to come along "soon." I'm trying to recall the time frame given for the split between H. sapiens and Neandertal...seems it was around 250 to 150 thousand years ago, so I suppose it is possible. Neandertal were considered to be well versed with tools, although some material I covered recently said they had dexterity problems compared with H. sapiens, something to do with the thumb. I think "they" were more proficient with grabbing and grasping, whereas "we" were better suited to wielding and swinging an implement. ("they" couldn't use an axe, for example). I might be a little off on this explanation, but not by much, the point being their thumb anatomy was definitely different from ours. Hmmm, you've given me some food for thought.

Briefly, the common anscestor would be a primitive species like modern primates but neither a modern ape nor a human. At some point the population split with one going on to accumulate modifications over a long period of time leading to the apes and the other to humans.

I understand...

And, sometime long long long after the two populations stopped resembing each other and were now the separate species of humans and gorillas, etc., then the bottleneck episode resulted in just one or a very few breeding pairs (if you will pardon the expression to describe people) having offspring surviving to create all the humans now on earth.

Hmmm, Adam and Eve?

This is simplistic and maybe path of one can point out any serious errors, but this is a basic model for descent from a common anscestor with a later bottleneck episode. Just for fun, we could still have a bottleneck episode with a new Mitochondrial Eve in the event of a world disaster in which only one family genetically survives. Seems like much more of a long shot now that we are at 6 billion and climbing. Applies more to endangered species.

Thank you very much, you have brought a little light into my understanding of this subject.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, nomanshake, welcome to CR!

If according to Darwin, life started as a chance, then why did that chance occur?

We do not know why that chance occurred. That is why we have religion, to try to understand why that chance occurred. We understood enough to question, "why?," long before we began to understand "how."

Humans have had religion for a lot longer than we have had anything that even resembled science.

 

[Aslan]

"His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?"

Looks to me like support for the Theory of Evolution. Man was created from dust (inorganic matter), then from a small seed (a simple organic lifeform), then became a perfect man (complex organic lifeform).

 

[Quahom1]

"His companion said to him while disputing with him: Do you disbelieve in Him Who created you from dust, then from a small seed, then He made you a perfect man?"

Looks to me like support for the Theory of Evolution. Man was created from dust (inorganic matter), then from a small seed (a simple organic lifeform), then became a perfect man (complex organic lifeform).

Interesting perspective.

 

[_Z_]

I’ll just jump in here as I am new & this thread is massive! so forgive if I am repeating what has already been said. also i am a philosopher not a scientist so please forgive ignorance.



The humanative: concerning creationism vs evolution & the current debate on intelligent design, I thought I would add yet another dimension.

Does evolution arrive at e.g. humanity just by chance? I don’t think so, for me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The universe surely has a set of laws and principles before it began or else there would be chaos. The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creature, plant, star planet etc. types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the belly of god – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!



Just an idea ladies and gentlemen, what do you think?

 

[Quahom1]

Interesting and logical.

v/r

Q

 

[Vajradhara]

The humanative: concerning creationism vs evolution & the current debate on intelligent design, I thought I would add yet another dimension.

Does evolution arrive at e.g. humanity just by chance? I don’t think so, for me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The universe surely has a set of laws and principles before it began or else there would be chaos. The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creature, plant, star planet etc. types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the belly of god – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!



Just an idea ladies and gentlemen, what do you think?

hi Z, welcome to CR, enjoy your stay!

sounds a bit like a varient of the Strong Anthropic Principle... though the whole pre-destined thing sort of undercuts that view.

of course the modern synthesis never teaches that evolution is by chance....

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Quahom1: thank you – does the humanative make sense to you then – at least as a loose principle roughly describing god’s method in a relatively crass manner [as I am only human].



Hello vajradhara. I’m looking forwards to a long stay, after looking around I think I have finally found my kind of forum!

I don’t know anything about the strong anthropic principle – I’ll look it up. Yes evolution isn’t about chance more chemical reactions primarily then survivalism etc. although I think animals just try to ‘live’ as we do then survival comes into it, thus we have different creature & plant archetypes that adapt to others that want to eat them. Yet for me looking at the big picture – all chemical reactions & every other kind of relative interaction, are pre-considered [very loosely speaking of course], to cut a long story short; it all works & there is not chaos! Everything from the big bang onwards [spacial evolution – if you will] clicks together in a round about way – well most of it ha. Basically I believe there are principles before existence, & this would infer ‘that which organises law’ a supreme intellect of some kind?

 

[juantoo3]

Bump for exposure.

 

[Vajradhara]

I don’t know anything about the strong anthropic principle – I’ll look it up. Yes evolution isn’t about chance more chemical reactions primarily then survivalism etc. although I think animals just try to ‘live’ as we do then survival comes into it, thus we have different creature & plant archetypes that adapt to others that want to eat them. Yet for me looking at the big picture – all chemical reactions & every other kind of relative interaction, are pre-considered [very loosely speaking of course], to cut a long story short; it all works & there is not chaos! Everything from the big bang onwards [spacial evolution – if you will] clicks together in a round about way – well most of it ha. Basically I believe there are principles before existence, & this would infer ‘that which organises law’ a supreme intellect of some kind?

Namaste Z,

why should the organizing "principle" be an intellect of some sort? why not the Strong Nuclear Force, for instance? or the, as of yet, unknown aspects of Quantum Gravity?

predicated on some of the modern theories regarding the singularity as demonstrated by Harwking, if something existed prior to the so called "big bang" (though i feel that this theory, in any of its permutations is insufficient to address all the questions) the effects of said "something" could not be passed into this universe.

if you have a chance to read it, both "A Brief History of Time" by Hawking and "The Nature of Space/Time" by Hawking and Penrose are quite excellent references for this sort of thing.

metta,

~v

 

[_Z_]

Namaste vaj



I have read those books and many similar. That which lies ‘outside the universe’ is infinity [there is no outside], it has an initial value of zero yet can become manifest as everything. There is no beginning or end, the whole thing is a universe melting pot of manifestation and unmanifestantion. I will post a thread soon [at the weekend probably] in the philosophy section concerning infinity, it is vast and I will question many misconceptions concerning the infinite – I think as a Buddhist you may find it interesting! In short there is no passing from one place to another – from the pre-universe to the singularity/universe – there is no such thing as seperateness! [or duality eh!]



Respect



Z

 

[wil]

The humanative: concerning creationism vs evolution & the current debate on intelligent design, I thought I would add yet another dimension.

Does evolution arrive at e.g. humanity just by chance? I don’t think so, for me it is a question of source. What comes first principle or events moulded by it! The universe surely has a set of laws and principles before it began or else there would be chaos. The humanative is a principle by which evolution is ‘pre-set’ [loosely meant] to arrive at humanity! This is not a rigid thing, it is an idea that there is universal human nature e.g. intelligent beings throughout the universe would develop human like features & or high intelligence & ethics + religion. All creature, plant, star planet etc. types would also have a pre-destined nature! The whole evolution tree would thence be within the belly of god – so to say, thus it is not mere co-incidence [which I find vague beyond belief] that we exist and are here debating our nature!

Is this the Peter principle in action?

 

[_Z_]

I think ‘the humanative’ notion needs a re-think, it is more something that points in a direction, than the final product.

Is this the Peter principle in action?

I don’t know is it – explain – sounds interesting.

Z

 

[DrFree]

And you might look at In Search of Darwin's God, by Kenneth Miller to learn why evolution is essential to modern science. Miller, by the way, is both a Christian and a biologist, and works hard to demonstrate the compatibility of both.

I doubt, however, that there is any point to a my-source-is-better-than-yours type of argument.
​