|
|
#31
09-16-2007, 06:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] certainly..but whether it happens (or had happened or can happen) is NOT one of the issues. [/ QUOTE ] This is true. Evidence doesn't matter on this issue. [/ QUOTE ] If scientists disagree on something like...to what extent populations must be isolated (not exactly the easiest thing to measure) in order to speciate rather than converge genetically through "inter"breeding (inter is in quotes because it refers to populations that may become separate species), does this mean that there is insufficient evidence that sufficiently isolated populations can speciate at all? 
|
|
#33
09-16-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If scientists disagree on something like ... etc [/ QUOTE ] You're talking theory, I was talking evidence, like fossils for instance. [/ QUOTE ] then I suppose my initial response should read.. [ QUOTE ] certainly..but whether the evidence is sufficient to show that it happens (or had happened or can happen) is NOT one of the issues. [/ QUOTE ] there may be a number of scientists that disagree...but it is not even close to a "split" (or at least what I imply "split" to mean...close to 50/50)
|
|
#34
09-16-2007, 08:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
See if you can find anything on the next latest direct ancestor of man. Or the next before that. [/ QUOTE ] You keep saying things that demonstrate your cluelessness about the theory you think you're debunking. As with most things related to evolution, we are talking about a slow and gradual process. There is not a binary distinction, going back in time, where we say, "This species ends precisely here, and this one begins here. I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical. Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis. The wikipedia page on Human Evolution is pretty good. Have a look.
|
|
#35
09-16-2007, 08:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] See if you can find anything on the next latest direct ancestor of man. Or the next before that. [/ QUOTE ] You keep saying things that demonstrate your cluelessness about the theory you think you're debunking. As with most things related to evolution, we are talking about a slow and gradual process. There is not a binary distinction, going back in time, where we say, "This species ends precisely here, and this one begins here. I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical. Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis. The wikipedia page on Human Evolution is pretty good. Have a look. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know where it originally comes from, but this example was used in The Ancestor's Tale by Dawkins.
|
|
#37
09-17-2007, 03:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical. [/ QUOTE ] That's a beautiful theory. Too bad the facts get in the way so badly. If it happened like you say there should be many, many fossils that are mostly similar but with notable differences. What we actually have is a relatively few "species" into which all of the fossils fit with little difference between individuals. And we have individuals of distinct "species" (for instance, erectus), spanning 1 million years or more with little or no changes. In other words, what the fossil record actually shows, and I believe this is mostly true for all macro evolution, not just humans, is long periods of stasis with inexplicable radiations interspersed, appearing suddenly, almost as if, oh, I don't know, somebody had magically caused them to appear, like a Creator, for instance. [ QUOTE ] Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's mostly accepted now that erectus did not evolve from habilis, which means habilis isn't our ancestor if erectus is. "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis," says Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Says a Leakey
|
|
#38
09-17-2007, 05:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I forget where this thought experiment comes from, but think about your mother holding hands with her mother, who's holding hands with her mother, etc., back for, say, 6 million years. While it will be clear that the women on either end of the chain belong to different species, there's not a single place along the chain where you could say, "a-ha! here's a mother of species x who gave birth to a daughter of species y!" It doesn't work that way, and this is perfectly in line with the theory. So your request to come up with the precise 2 species that preceded our own is nonsensical. [/ QUOTE ] That's a beautiful theory. Too bad the facts get in the way so badly. If it happened like you say there should be many, many fossils that are mostly similar but with notable differences. What we actually have is a relatively few "species" into which all of the fossils fit with little difference between individuals. And we have individuals of distinct "species" (for instance, erectus), spanning 1 million years or more with little or no changes. In other words, what the fossil record actually shows, and I believe this is mostly true for all macro evolution, not just humans, is long periods of stasis with inexplicable radiations interspersed, appearing suddenly, almost as if, oh, I don't know, somebody had magically caused them to appear, like a Creator, for instance. [ QUOTE ] Having said all that, maybe the simplistic answer you're looking for is H.erectus and H.habilis. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's mostly accepted now that erectus did not evolve from habilis, which means habilis isn't our ancestor if erectus is. "Their co-existence makes it unlikely that H. erectus evolved from H. habilis," says Meave Leakey, one of the lead authors of the paper. Says a Leakey [/ QUOTE ] I don't think you understand how rare fossils are. It's not like we get fossils for every decade of Earth's existence or anything. And I also think you should familiarize yourself with the term "punctuated equilibrium". It deals with your objection about periods of stasis followed by sudden speciation.
|
|
#39
09-17-2007, 09:14 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you understand how rare fossils are. [/ QUOTE ] I understand that position. It means there is little or no evidence. [ QUOTE ] And I also think you should familiarize yourself with the term "punctuated equilibrium". [/ QUOTE ] I know this theory. It's not exactly the gradualism touted by qwnu. So which is it? Darwin or Gould?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
