Saw a TLC show last night that was I thought was interesting.

A skeleton of a Nean.-HomoSap hybrid has been found in Portugal and dated at 42,000 BC. The thesis then is it wasn't a warfare H.S. won, rather a genetic war that subsumed the more obvious Nean. physical characteristics. That is most if not all of us have Nean. in our genes.

Also pointed out was that Lisbon had 10% african slaves in the 1400's, but today thanks to intermarriage there is in fact today one indistiguishable 'race' of Lisbonites.

A final thought was that 200-400 years may be all the time it takes to smooth out outliers in the genetic pool.

Is this stuff all common knowledge on campuses today? Or has this been de-bunked by other scientific studies?

Uh, My boss is a Neanderthal!!!

Is there any course in school that would focus on genetic history?
I believe I watched the same documentary, it was very interesting.

a little off topic- some old fart working in politics in washington state, wants to halt the teaching of evolution in schools...

His defense for his opinion, he quotes tom jefferson- "...every man is created equal..."

****ing retard.

The professor is partially correct in that evolution as a theory has a lot of holes in it. The thing is the primitive humanoids seem to die out. There are no transitions. New creatures periodically appear and disappear. Conscious DNA manipulation by an outside source may be the explanation, but I don't see how evolution can explain the recent emergence of so-called humans or even why an organism evolved into oak trees and apple trees instead of a fruit fly.

Like humans, certain crops appeared to have no antecedent in the Earth's evolutionary chain. They just suddenly appeared, fully cultured 13,000 years ago according to archeological finds.

"There is no explanation for this botanogenetic miracle, unless the process was not one of natural selection but of artificial manipulation," commented Sitchin, noting that three critical phases of human development: farming 11,000 BC, prehistoric culture 7,500 BC, and civilization 3,800 BC, occurred at intervals of 3,600 years, the same period of time for a complete orbit by Nibiru.

Fine, get your facts from christian websites.

Originally posted by hammegk
Saw a TLC show last night that was I thought was interesting.

A skeleton of a Nean.-HomoSap hybrid has been found in Portugal and dated at 42,000 BC. The thesis then is it wasn't a warfare H.S. won, rather a genetic war that subsumed the more obvious Nean. physical characteristics. That is most if not all of us have Nean. in our genes.

Also pointed out was that Lisbon had 10% african slaves in the 1400's, but today thanks to intermarriage there is in fact today one indistiguishable 'race' of Lisbonites.

A final thought was that 200-400 years may be all the time it takes to smooth out outliers in the genetic pool.

Is this stuff all common knowledge on campuses today? Or has this been de-bunked by other scientific studies?
I think that a little intermingling of the races can be a good thing. When the gene pool is mixed, the results are that a stronger race comes out of the blender. This is evedent in the fact that inhabitants of remote island groups with little or no interrelationships with non natives will have a greater incidence of certain genetic defects. They will also have a lower resistance against illnesses.

Its also to note something else regarding Spanish and Portuguese attitudes towards race. In Spain and Portugal, and their colonies, marriages between europeans and africans were more common than in Britain and her colonies. This is not to say that slavery among the Iberian nations was any less cruel than that among northern europeans. In fact, Portuguese slave traders were notoriously cruel. All the same, the fact that most people of Latin America today are a mixture of many races, african, european and native american, is evidence of this tolerent attitude toward interracial union. In anglo america, by contrast, laws existed forbidding unions between races. This came even at a time when the absence of european women meant that many men were unable to find brides (as was the case of colonial Virginia).

Well 200-400 years for merging of humans is one thing. That isn't evolution. Humans are genetically so similar that the similiarities in DNA are moreso the same between people with same physical characteristics than skin color...

For example, a short african has more in common (DNA wise) a short white person than a tall afircan.

So 200-400 years to 'smooth' that out does make sense.

Originally posted by hammegk
Saw a TLC show last night that was I thought was interesting.

A skeleton of a Nean.-HomoSap hybrid has been found in Portugal and dated at 42,000 BC. The thesis then is it wasn't a warfare H.S. won, rather a genetic war that subsumed the more obvious Nean. physical characteristics. That is most if not all of us have Nean. in our genes.

Also pointed out was that Lisbon had 10% african slaves in the 1400's, but today thanks to intermarriage there is in fact today one indistiguishable 'race' of Lisbonites.

A final thought was that 200-400 years may be all the time it takes to smooth out outliers in the genetic pool.

Is this stuff all common knowledge on campuses today? Or has this been de-bunked by other scientific studies?

I wouldnt say that this hybrid stuff is common knowledge on campuses, bu if you talk to the right people I am sure they know. The time scales of evolution are common knowledge however. Microevolution takes place extremely fast (The Neanderthal data is probably an example of this type of evolution) Geneticists observe microevolution all of the time in real species. Macroevolution, or speciation, takes a much longer time. This would take hundreds or thousands of generations. However, the premier theoretical model for evolution predicts that on a geological timescale, even speciation is very fast. Small groups of a stable species "quickly" adapt to catastrophic environmental changes and become a new species. The original either dies out or evolves slowly on its own. Therefore, the chances of finding fossiles of an intermedite "missing link" species are very rare since these species are only around for a few hundred generations. Once a stable species evolves, it can remain for thousands or millions of years. This explains why we do not find many fossiles of intermediate life forms: they only exist for a short time compared to other species.

When you start learning the mathematics behind the theory of evolution, all of the fossile record begins to make sense. The mathematics of probability behind the theory are well understood, and the observation of microevolution gives good reason to support evolution as a viable scientific theory.

Originally posted by Thutmose

When you start learning the mathematics behind the theory of evolution, all of the fossile record begins to make sense. The mathematics of probability behind the theory are well understood, and the observation of microevolution gives good reason to support evolution as a viable scientific theory.

Probability of course is 'odds are', and as a theory, I have no problem w/ evolution. As a fact, species differentiation - micro - does nothing to convince me that I'm a monkey's uncle.(or in any way related).

For example, the Eocene horse went from 6" to 6' in height, w/ lots of fossil data. But undoubtedly, or even with reasonable probability, the 'NOT a horse' just isn't there to begin the sequence, nor does 'horse' become something else.

In the section just above the K-T boundary -- lot's of study & digging now available -- I'd be happier if evidence of some real speciation was available.

You presumably have faith in the theory, I don't.

IMHO, of course.....:p

I can't get into a detailed debate on the subject as I don't know TOO much about it...but...

Probability of course is 'odds are',
Not really. I can say 'odds are its going to rain tonight.' That is far from probability. Probability is a fairly exact science and lots of consideration and calculation goes into it...

Manu, thats true about probability. I did not mean it as the "probability" that the theory is true. Rather, the mathematical laws of probability when applied to genetics predict the results we see in "microevolution." Without changing the laws of either microevolution or probability, which we observe to work, we can apply these laws to macroevolution and produce predictions about evolution and speciation from inorganic molecules to life. This is the basis of most scientific work in, we do experiments and have observations that show certain laws to be true. Then, from these laws we deduce results about other situations. Ideally we could do an experiment for every situation and there would be no application of laws from one experiment to other situations, but we cannot always experiment to increase our knowledge.

You are correct however, I place faith in the theory of evolution, and others do not. However, my faith is different than religious faith because of the postulates that different people make. A religious person can postulate God and explain everything from there. Science (in general) performs an experiment to SEE how the world works. If an idea is wrong, it is abandoned. A scientific theory makes predictions, which can in principle be tested. That is also why religion is not a scientific theory. Postulating God has consequences that vary depending heavily upon the conception of God, and each conception is equally valid. From the point of view of (IDEAL, not real) science, (not the point of view of philosophy, religion, social science, and many other fields) religious postulates are inconsequential to understanding the world. This is not to say that religious issues are unimportant, but rather that alot can be learned from what we observe, rather than what we postulate without experimental basis.

I have gotten way off topic, but that is a quick summary why I put faith in the theory of evolution. It is based on a series of tested ideas and assumptions that work in many different observed ways. Regardless of what any priest, skeptic, believer, zealot, engineer, or lawyer says, some things work in well understood ways taht are predictable with mathematical laws. This is what science is trying to understand. It is also why science has gained such a prominent role in the modern era when compared to many other historical eopchs.

I am done now, sorry for rambling.

Yup, Newton's theories were bang-on 'til some edge effects got noticed.

General Relativity has sashayed into various 'computational methods' that do good predictions, well probabalistically:D . Yet, Bells Theorem indocates potental weirdness, and we all await: superstrings, ??, The Unified Field.

As another aside, I always loved Feynmann disgrams of now you see it now you don't.

Your comment on the probabalistic prediction from what? green algae? with a little DNA through every, random, additition of 'good' DNA code ending w/ homo sap is new to me.

One real problem I always had w/ evolution though, is boy, it's darn convenient a male-female pair of the macro step 'just happened' together. :p

Also BTW, religion doesn't really do it for me either, unless per A.Clarke, sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic/(miracles).

Originally posted by hammegk
Your comment on the probabalistic prediction from what? green algae? with a little DNA through every, random, additition of 'good' DNA code ending w/ homo sap is new to me.

One real problem I always had w/ evolution though, is boy, it's darn convenient a male-female pair of the macro step 'just happened' together. :p

Do a little more research on it, you might find it more acceptable if you understand the details.

Humor me a moment before I start to hit the books.

Would this be doctoral level biology? geology? anthropology? or ? Or is it undergrad level? If so, any particular course names?

Also, how DO current proponents explain evolving male-female pairs?

Does DNA by itself, from the simplest life, contains all the info (yes, I know w/ energy & environmental input ) to bootstrap to more and more complex forms?

Well, the most interesting and critical information is gentic.
I am not a genectic expert, but I have a general understanding.

DNA is the blueprint for each living being, and the DNA itself has evolved. We share simular DNA with a fly, but ours is a larger amount, and built in a more complex way. But sections are still the same- A scientist removed the section of dna in a fly that orders it to build a set of eyes. Then the scientist replaced it with the section that gives the same command, but from a mouse. The fly grew standard fly-eyes. This can deminstrate the continuated use of the same DNA.

But that does not mean a worm or other simple life contains all of the information needed to make a human. But it had the bulding blocks. And think of the Micro as a short span of time of evolvement, and Macro as the long-term. Many find it hard to grasp, because we live such short lives. And true evolution can not be seen by mankind, the closest is the old and incomplete fossils.

As for the reason of both male/female:
If I understand your question correctly, you want to know how some slime and simple life evolved to humans of both the male and female types. First off, not everything comes in male/female, there are asexual beings, but not many.

When life evolves, it requires more...for example, small bacteria and such can been seen under a microscope, and they multiply into a huge mob. But when a creating a larger, more complex being, you need a safe environment for development and to recieve nurishment- like an egg or womb.

Now, Im sure it could be possible for a complex being (like a human) to be asexual, and have all that is neccisary to reproduce. But it seems easier to have a male and female. By creating the two, many facotrs arise: less demand physicaly on the being. And better breeding, better results (breed with the bigger and stronger). And I am not sure, but I think complex being require genetic mixing- inbreeding just isn't geneticly stable.

I do not know where exactly the male/female step happened, but I would guess around the stage of worms. They are the closest thing between an asexual/male/female being, that i can think of.

I hope some of this made sense.

Alot of the reasons for male/female that I know of stem from it being a method of natural selection. Consider plants for example...they mostly have male and female parts. The male part (pollen) will be produced by the plants in abundance. The stronger and more viable plants will produce more pollen that spreads to a larger area. Mostly, plants are fertilized by their own pollen, but sometimes cross-fertilization occurs from pollen brought by another plant. The result is that the genetic information from the more viable plant line will cross-fertilize MORE, thereby spreading whatever is genetically favorable about it to other plants of the species. In this way, sexual reproduction is a means of increasing the effect of natural selection over asexual reproduction, which is akin to inbreeding, which as we all know tends to keep genetic information similar. The hemophilia of the British Royalty is an example of this: their inbreeding kept the bad gene in their DNA for a long time. In asexual reproduction, the only way to destroy a bad gene is to completely destroy a genetic line. Sexual reproduction allows natural selection to occur without necessitating the complete destruction of a line. Rather, good genes will out-breed bad genes, and sometimes even develop into dominant-recessive pairs, so the dominant gene will cover up the bad one.

Sexual reproduction appeared very early in the history of life, I believe, even earlier than worms i think. Plants have it and animals have it, but that is because it probably appeared before there was a distinction. Thus, it has evolved for a long time, leading to intricate methods of protecting the male sperm and the female egg, which is the topic of the everything forum.

Nate

My concern is about the 'lurch' from one species to another. Say from a common ancestor to cat-species vs. dog-species. The first cat-species had to have the macro evolution 'jump' with a male-female pair, same time, same place. Ditto for canus.

I certainly agree w/ Mendelian genetics, and what can be done w/ fruit fly DNA re-arrangement.

Again, it's all the needed species forerunners that seem difficult. If it isn't a lurch, rather some seamless transition I find it tough to believe the fossil record doen't so demonstrate.

Again the Eocene horse -- lots of fossil record of Mendelian change, but zero evidence of the species jump to 'equines' from 'some other mammal'. And how many of these jumps must evolution require?

Does plant biology ever demonstrate such a leap either?

I have as much luck w/ the Ark theory; i.e. very far-fetched (probly allegorical -- spaceship?? j/k:D )

See my problem?

My concern is about the 'lurch' from one species to another.

I recall from a distant memory a theory that these jumps in evolution were caused by mutations. There may have been reasons for increased mutations at various points in history.

We see mutations in today's world though the ones we notice are usually something undesirable and would not survive to pass on the characteristic if it weren't for our help. I believe there may be a warning within that last thought.

Originally posted by hammegk
My concern is about the 'lurch' from one species to another. Say from a common ancestor to cat-species vs. dog-species. The first cat-species had to have the macro evolution 'jump' with a male-female pair, same time, same place. Ditto for canus.

I certainly agree w/ Mendelian genetics, and what can be done w/ fruit fly DNA re-arrangement.

Again, it's all the needed species forerunners that seem difficult. If it isn't a lurch, rather some seamless transition I find it tough to believe the fossil record doen't so demonstrate.

Again the Eocene horse -- lots of fossil record of Mendelian change, but zero evidence of the species jump to 'equines' from 'some other mammal'. And how many of these jumps must evolution require?

Does plant biology ever demonstrate such a leap either?

I have as much luck w/ the Ark theory; i.e. very far-fetched (probly allegorical -- spaceship?? j/k:D )

See my problem?

I think I have had one or two posts on this subject at scattered points in the history of this board, but since I dont know what subject they are under I will repeat some of the ideas here.

The evidence: In the fossile record, we see remains of many species with evidence of microevolution or genetic variation in a speices, but with little evidence of so-called missing links between species.

The mechanism: Random genetic mutations passed on between generations under the influence of selection pressures.

The Timescale: We must take as given that the earth has been around for many years, about 4 -5 billion being the best geological estimate.

The Theory:
Given that mutations are random, it will take a long time for a given mutation, even if it is favorable, to propagate through a population. However, consider a large basic population that is physically separated from the rest. This small population is subject to higher rates of genetic drift, since the gene pool is smaller. This is a little bit like inbreeding. Thus, "inbreeding" can be a good thing. The difference from inbreeding is that we are talking about long times. This is not inbreeding in one family, but inbreeding over many generations among a population. This small population is much more subject to genetic variation than a larger population.

Now, consider an event occurs that changes the environment. Maybe a meteor hits the earth, or this small population migrates to an area in the mountains isolated from the rest of the population in the valley. Now, there is pressure from the environment favoring certain random mutations over others. That doesnt mean that the more fit ones immediately overtake the less fit, but there is a statistical improvement in fitness. This changes the gene pool for the next generation, meaning there is soem evolution to the environmental pressures and the next generation will have a different gene pool. Over many many generations, this leads to enough genetic change to say that the small population is different from the main population and speciation has occurred. During this time, very few if any fossiles are created.

Now, the species is well adapted to its environment. Very few large environmental changes occur, and the species exists for thousands of generations. During this time of stasis, occasionally a fossile is preserved. Fossilation is so rare that it almost never occurs in the hundreds of generations of speciation, but over the thousands with little major genetic change we accumulate fossiles. Thus, we have a fossile record as we see in nature.

This theory is not complete, but the rules of statistics applied to genetic mutations in computer and lab simulations verify the parts of it that have been tested. Thus, there is no single pair of a species that gave rise to everyone of the species, but rather a small isolated population.

Nate

Originally posted by Thutmose

This theory is not complete, but the rules of statistics applied to genetic mutations in computer and lab simulations verify the parts of it that have been tested. Thus, there is no single pair of a species that gave rise to everyone of the species, but rather a small isolated population.

I'm still trying to get a sense of what your saying. Is it something more than 'Mendelian genetics follow statistical distributions, i.e.microevolution'.

Still would like your comments on what non-horselike-mammals did the first 'horse-pair' mutate from? Note again '"mindless" major mutation' had to supply BOTH a male & a female as I understand things.

I personally do not know enough about the fossile record or evolutionary biology to even speculate on what horses came from. One thing I know, whatever species they "came" from certainly does not exist anymore. Its members have slowly evolved and been displaced by newer species.

However, as for your comment on BOTH a male and female needed by mindless mutations, if I understand what you are saying correctly then I think you are wrong. From my understanding, there is not one single mutation that both a male and female must have. Instead, say a male from animal A mates witha female with a mutation that we designate as B. A and B are still the same species. They mate fine. Their offspirng mate with more A's, but now the B mutation is in them since B is a favorable mutation. This continues for awhile, soon every animal in the SMALL group has mutation B. However, there has also during this time appeared a mutation C, and D, and E. C and D may die out becasue they are not good mutations, but soon (many generations) every animal in the group has mutation B and E. After awhile longer, every animal has mutations B, E, F, H, M, etc for example. Now, the animals meet up with members of (a slightly modified over time) A, but they cannot mate. Somewhere, with all these mutations, the new animals which we will call Z are no longer fertile with A. Its a slow cahnge, and some of the intermediate animals could still mate with A, but the final ones cannot due to too much genetic difference. This could be caused by an extra chromosome, which would be OK in animals that all have it, but would be fatal to offspring of animals with significant genetic differences.

Also, many mutations are occurring simultaneously, so there is some overlap of generations, with unfavorable combinations being lost through premature death or reduced fitness.

So, no mindless major mutation has to occur to produce two males and females in the same species. Rather, a single favorable mutation will increase in the gene pool as predicted from random mating. This gene will soon be present in all members of an isolated group. Thus, it is not one genetic trait that determines a new species, but rather an accumulation of genetic differences.

We have seen evidence of this in lizards I believe. Around a certain mountain range, the lizard population's genetic differences can be traced. The earliest lizards are i think at the foot of the mountain (after migrating from mexico i think). The population over many generations had spread its habitat around a mountain range and BACK to the original area of inhabitation. The new lizards CANNOT breed with the origianl inhabitants of the region, so maybe we should call them a new species. However, the new lizards can be bred with lizards a little bit around the mountain, and they can breed with lizards a little further back the mountain, and so on, until we get lizards taht can breed with the original lizards still living in the original lands at the foot of the mountain. This is speciation in progress, in real life, not some biologists mind. If the "new" group were to be completely isolated from the lizards living a little bit farther back on the mountain, they would accumulate enoguh genetic differences to not be able to breed dwith them too. Thus, this new group would be a completely separate species. I dont remember for sure, but I think that this lizard example had been traced by europeans in california, which means that the migration and partial speciation took about 500 years maximum.

Maybe that example will clear up some ideas about speciation, or maybe it will just be more confusing. In any case it is real and provides soem good evidence for how speciation happens.

Nate

It's actually salamanders, Nate, and I believe that they're somewhere in the southwest Americas, but I cannot recall exactly where. Mexico?

-Patrick

Hamme, I understand your hesitancy on this matter. I believe in evolution basically as it is fed to me, without doing much background research, because it just rings true to me. But archeology (or however you spell it, sorry, hung over) is not an exact science that is there to prove or disprove evolution. Think about the realities of archeology. For this eocene horse you're asking for explanations on, let me offer one that might explain why there were no forebearers to think particular species found. In no way am I saying this is what actually happened, just that there are many such explanations to thing like this. And I'm not sure if you've got all of your facts straight on them, as it is. Gleaned from the site, http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/agate/eocene.htm, The first horse-like creatures lived in Eocene forests. They were barely bigger than today's domestic cat. Throughout the Cenozoic Era their size increased; their legs became longer and their feet changed from many-toed to singlt-hoofed, for faster running. Their teeth became adapted from browsing to grazing. But imagine that the precursor to the Eocene horse species was numerically very small, and not well-adapted to the current conditions of where they lived, maybe they were in direct competition for a certain food source with another species. But they were holding out. Now imagine that's going on for a few thousand years, and then BAM! Some cataclysm or another wipes out their competition for food, the conditions change slightly, and all of a sudden this species is the best-adapted to their area. Numbers start to explode, and they start to migrate into the surrounding areas. And that goes on for hell, a few houndred thousand years. So you're asking for archeologists to find the "missing link" species, but their number was so small, and perhaps in a area that wasn't conducive to preserving fossils, that I see it as altogether possible that we never found it. Whew, my longest post, sorry if it rambled.

This link has some useful comments...

In my mind any reference to God relates to something that provides & provided Good Orderly Direction.:cool:

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/15sim03.htm

Speciation is not my problem. It's jumps from kingdom to genus and genus to species that bother me. And let's keep this just to mammals. I still like my Eocene horse that has clearly defined speciation in the geologic record. What did the 'first' horse derive from?

IF it was gradual the fossil record does not support it.

IF it was a 'jump', it's very convenient that a fertile male-female pair 'jumped' same-time/same- place to start the genus 'equus'.

OK, enough horse-beating for me....:)

Some of my favorite books accept evolution as a theory to some extent. Still, I do not accept it myself because even if it was true on Earth, why wouldn't it be true on all other planets? The environmental conditions supposedly cause the life forms to adapt so why would life on other planets not adapt to their specific conditions. If the exact environmental conditions on Earth provide the only way life can evolve, then there is seems like very little likelihood life is out there in space because as we know, no snowflake or grain of sand is identical. I have a feeling life on earth was planted by something much bigger than we can imagine.

Colin Patterson is senior paleontologist at the British Museum. He is an expert in fossil species, and has spent most of his lifetime comparing them with living species. Thoughout all those years of research, he has tried to figure out this imaginary evolutionary "family tree" of who was descended from whom. In an address given at the American Museum of Natural History on November 5, 1981, he expressed regret that he had been asked to speak on the topic, "Creation and Evolution"; for, he said, he had become so puzzled over his findings that he was ready to give up evolution. He said that, after 20 years of evolutionary research, he was unable to come up with even one thing that proved evolutionary theory. When he had asked other leading evolutionists for solutions, they glibly told him, "Oh, it's just convergence; convergence is everywhere," as if that answered the evolutionary problem: different creatures, totally unrelated to one another, having features in common—which it should be impossible for them to have! The problem is then solved by calling it "merely another form of evolution, and a disproof is magically changed into a proof.

Patterson concluded his talk by saying that evolution was an "anti-theory" that produced "anti-knowledge." He elaborated on this by saying that evolution is full of special words that explain nothing, yet give the expression that they explain everything. Something that produces "anti-knowledge," really produces ignorance. And surely we do not want that!

Originally posted by hammegk
IF it was a 'jump', it's very convenient that a fertile male-female pair 'jumped' same-time/same- place to start the genus 'equus'.


I think I have made my views on the horse issue in previous posts, considering I do not know any specifics about horses. First, a genus is a human's classification. There was never a jump into the genus. It gradually evolved, and the concept of genus was imposed by humans in the 19th century to classify the types of animals we see. Taxonomy is classification of a huge number of organisms and not evolutionary studies of how they evolved. I will repeat that evolutionary theory never suggests the presence of a male-female pair of some new species in some other genus. There is no jump in biological time, only in geologic time, which are two radically different timescales. The jumo took many generations of animals, but only a few millimeters of dust piled up during that time. It is slow evolution of a population into a new species that cannot be classified anymore as the previous one. Whatever these horses evolved from probably has no counterpart in modern animals.