Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Science and Human Origins conclusion: It IS possible we came from just two parents

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a just-published book, Science and Human Origins, Ann Gauger et al took issues with some popular beliefs. Some asked whether their work commits the sin of creationism.

Well, as noted earlier, if it is legitimate to ask whether all life descended from a primordial cell, it is legitimate to ask whether all human life came from two parents. You can call them Adam and Eve or Ada and Evan. Or Geek and Granola..

The principle question is whether the bottle’s neck is so narrow. Here is Gauger et al’s conclusion:

Reconsidering the Evolutionary Story

I chose to look at the HLA-DRB1 story because it seemed to provide the strongest case from population genetics against two first parents. If it were true that we share thirty-two separate lineages of HLA-DRB1 with chimps, it would indeed cause difficulties for an original couple. But as we have seen, the data indicate that it is possible for us to have come from just two first parents.

See also: Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions

Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?

Moreover, the data indicate that DNA similarity is not going to be a simple story to unravel. There are already regions of human DNA known to more closely resemble gorilla sequences than chimp sequences.22 Now we have sequences that resemble macaque DNA, a primate not part of the hominid group. Furthermore, when adjacent regions of DNA yield different evolutionary trees, linked to species that diverged well before the putative most recent common ancestor of chimps and humans, something unusual is going on.

This result was a surprise to me, and threw me back into a consideration of the whole story of our common descent from ape-like ancestors. I already knew from my own research that similarity of form or structure was not enough to demonstrate that neo-Darwinian common descent was possible. I knew that genuine protein innovations were beyond the reach of naturalistic processes. I therefore began to re-examine everything
I knew or thought I knew about human origins. I reviewed paleo-anthropology, evolutionary psychology and population genetics research articles, I reviewed popular books and textbooks. I applied strict logic to the story of what would be required for our evolution from great apes.
As a result of all this reading and reflection, although I was always skeptical about the plausibility of human evolution by neo-Darwinian means, I have now come to wonder about the extent of common descent as well.

Currently, neo-Darwinism is the accepted explanation for our origin. It may be, though, that as we continue to investigate our own
genomes, the Darwinian explanation for our similarity with chimps—namely, common descent—will evaporate. We may discover additional features in our genome that defy explanation based on common ancestry. As evidence of common descent’s insufficiency as a theory grows, alternate theories will need to be tested.

But one thing is clear right now: Adam and Eve have not been disproven by science, and those who claim otherwise are misrepresenting the scientific evidence. [emphasis in original]

Note: In this and in previous excerpts, journal reference numbers have been omitted.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
CLAVDIVS- Design explains the origin of life. And you have no idea what you are even saying. It's as if you are just posting to post. You keep asking for an alternative yet your scenario is a non-starter.Joe
July 5, 2012
July
07
Jul
5
05
2012
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Joe @ 106 Thanks for bothering some more :-)
In YOUR scenario organs and nerves did NOT exist in the first population(s). So how the heck did ordinary means of reproduction create and knit them into organisms? You keep forgetting to tell us that. Also ordinary means of reproduction requires exiisting living organisms so it cannot explain them, duh.
Okay -- My scenario doesn't explain the origin of life and neither does yours, right? So we're both on the same footing there, right? We just have to both acknowledge we don't know where the original organism/s came from, just like everybody else on the planet, although I have already granted to you that however first life came about it involved intelligent design. What I'm saying is, subsequent to the origin of life, we've got a pattern of similarities and differences that is explained by common design + common descent. Design explains the telic nature of body plans and descent (biological reproduction) explains the mechanism for how organisms are constructed according to the designer's plan. Do you agree with this theory? If not, what is your alternative explanation for how organisms are constructed according to the designer's plan? If your answer is "I don't have an alternative explanation", that's fine, please just say so. CheersCLAVDIVS
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- In YOUR scenario organs and nerves did NOT exist in the first population(s). So how the heck did ordinary means of reproduction create and knit them into organisms? You keep forgetting to tell us that. Also ordinary means of reproduction requires exiisting living organisms so it cannot explain them, duh. And as I told you, science is what we use to help us figure out how the designer did it. As I said you are ignoring what I post and prattling on like a little child despite yourself. From comment 100: As I have been saying, CLAVDIVS, figuring out how to ancients constructed structures that are allegedly within our capability is proving to be difficult. Seeing that the design of living organisms is well beyond our capability it is going to be even more difficult. That said a targeted search could be used.Joe
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Joe @ 104
Common Design is NOT Common Descent- you have design and common descent but Common Design is an alternative to UCD that explains the same evidence. But as I said you have ignored too much of what I have posted so I am not going to bother any more.
Seriously, Joe, I have spelled it out for you at a kindergarten level and you're still not getting it. Of course common design is not common descent - that's why my theory has two parts (i) common design and (ii) common descent. You say common design is an alternative to common descent. So your theory has a common designer who designs body plans etc. but who doesn't use the processes of common descent to actually assemble the physical bodies of organisms, right? That's what you're saying. So, my question is - for what must be the 5th time - on your theory, how does the common designer actually physically implement the body plans? It's one thing to design something in your mind, or on paper; it's another thing entirely to actually construct something out of physical materials. Your theory has got the design part (just like mine) but it's lacking the construction part. That's what I've been saying all along -- there's only one empirically confirmed process, based on uniform experience, that even comes close to the capability of constructing living organisms, and that's the process of common descent via ordinary reproduction. It doesn't necessarily have to be unguided and it doesn't necessarily have to be universal. Your inability to describe any alternative, even in broad outline, really makes it clear that your position doesn't measure up to the standards of objective, empirical reasoning. So thanks, and cheers.CLAVDIVS
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- Common Design is NOT Common Descent- you have design and common descent but Common Design is an alternative to UCD that explains the same evidence. But as I said you have ignored too much of what I have posted so I am not going to bother any more.Joe
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Joe @ 102
ID is OK with UCD but a Common Design explains the SAME evidence without UCD.
Great, we agree common descent does not contradict ID. You can have a theory of common design + common descent, without contradiction. But what I have been asking and asking but you have never answered is: What's your alternative theory to common design + common descent. You keep answering 'common design' which is already part of my theory, so all you are really saying is you agree with part of my theory, without ever putting forward any alternative theory of your own. If you're going to explain biological origins you'll need to explain at least two things: (i) the telic arrangement of body plans; and (ii) the mechanism by which organisms are physically assembled. In my theory, (i) common design explains the telic arrangement of body plans, and (ii) common descent is the mechanism by which organisms are physically assembled. What you have never yet done is give us your alternative for (ii) the mechanism by which organisms are physically assembled. We already agree on (i), so there's no need to keep repeating it. What we want to hear is Joe's explanation for (ii).
And how do you know universal common descent explains the pattern you imagine you see?
Well, Joe, in terms of hypothesis testing it actually makes a difference whether you have a viable alternative hypothesis or not, in terms of the statistical methods to be used. Which is why I've been asking for the alternative. In any case, the hierarchical pattern of similarities and differences between organisms is not imaginary but can in fact be rigorously established by statistical methods. It can also be strongly inferred from statistical, genetic and fossil evidence that the pattern observed is due to common ancestry. One key argument, for example, is that common descent is a branching process, and a hierarchy of groups-within-groups, which is the observed pattern amongst organisms, is the mathematically necessary result of a branching process. I know you don't appear to agree with this line of reasoning (which is a puzzle because you acknowledge common descent is compatible with ID, so, I ask, where's the beef?) -- but I put that down to your selective hyperskepticism, because the inference is based on standard statistical techniques that apply equally across engineering and medicine as well a biology. So my question still stands: If you don't accept common design + common descent, what is your alternative? CheersCLAVDIVS
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS- I am the result of common descent from my ancestors, all iof which were HUMAN. Also it has been clear for ages that universal common descent did not, ever, contradict ID. ID is OK with UCD but a Common Design explains the SAME evidence without UCD. And how do you know universal common descent explains the pattern you imagine you see? But anyway you are ignoring my posts so good luck with ever producing any evidence to support your imagination.Joe
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
Joe @ 100
CLAVDIVS: What I’m saying is that the designer could have made use of the process of biological reproduction, by influencing or directing, for example, intergenerational variation over many generations in an incremental, branching manner. The reason I suggest this is because it matches the pattern of morphological and genetic evidence that we can observe. JOE: Yes, that is a possibilty. I have asked you how you test it to the exclusion of others that explain the same evidence and could produce the same pattern, and you have refused to answer.
Finally, something we can agree upon -- directed variation over many generations in an incremental, branching manner i.e. common descent, is a possibility. In other words, common descent does not necessarily contradict intelligent design. You ask: How do we test common descent "to the exclusion of other[ theories] that explain the evidence and produce the same pattern."? Any my question to you -- which I have been asking all along and which, by the way, I asked first -- is what other theories explain the evidence and produce the same pattern? Please don't just answer 'common design' because my proposed theory of guided common descent already includes common design operating alongside and through the process of common descent. Your answer would have to be something like: "Another theory that explains the evidence and patterns is common design operating alongside and through X" <-- "X" being the part that needs to be filled in by you. Knowing the alternative X, if there is one, makes a difference to the kind of empirical test required to answer your question.CLAVDIVS
July 4, 2012
July
07
Jul
4
04
2012
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
Thinking about the cetaceans and ilk — like pakicetus, ambulocetus, kutchicetus, dolphins etc. — where did their physical bodies come from?
It is a loaded question as I do not accept pakicetus nor ambulocetus as being cetaceans.
The question is about the actual physical process by which the organisms’ physical bodies were constructed. Saying ‘design’ and ‘body plan’ doesn’t tell us anything about this process.
That is what science is for. If we knew all the answers we wouldn't need science, would we? As I have been saying, CLAVDIVS, figuring out how to ancients constructed structures that are allegedly within our capability is proving to be difficult. Seeing that the design of living organisms is well beyond our capability it is going to be even more difficult. That said a targeted search could be used.
What I’m saying is that the designer could have made use of the process of biological reproduction, by influencing or directing, for example, intergenerational variation over many generations in an incremental, branching manner. The reason I suggest this is because it matches the pattern of morphological and genetic evidence that we can observe.
Yes, that is a possibilty. I have asked you how you test it to the exclusion of others that explain the same evidence and could produce the same pattern, and you have refused to answer.
If you don’t agree with this suggestion, then what is your alternative for how the physical bodies of organisms like the cetaceans originated?
Alternative to what? You ignored just about everything I posted- Ordinary means of reproduction does not explain the differences observed. That means that there isn't any genetic nor morphological evidence that puts Pakicetus with cetaceans. as Ordinary means of reproduction does not explain the differences observed. So again I ask, alternative to what? Your imagination?Joe
July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
Joe @ 98 Do you not understand the question, Joe? Or is it just that you don't want to answer it? Here it is again: Thinking about the cetaceans and ilk -- like pakicetus, ambulocetus, kutchicetus, dolphins etc. -- where did their physical bodies come from? The closest you came to answering this was to say "As far as anyone knows their body plans came from the designer(s)". But I've already stipulated that a designer was involved in the process. The question is about the actual physical process by which the organisms' physical bodies were constructed. Saying 'design' and 'body plan' doesn't tell us anything about this process. Did the designer assemble every single organism atom by atom, like lego? Or something else? What I'm saying is that the designer could have made use of the process of biological reproduction, by influencing or directing, for example, intergenerational variation over many generations in an incremental, branching manner. The reason I suggest this is because it matches the pattern of morphological and genetic evidence that we can observe. If you don't agree with this suggestion, then what is your alternative for how the physical bodies of organisms like the cetaceans originated? CheersCLAVDIVS
July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
Where did various organisms come from, if not by ordinary reproduction from ancestors?
Right humans gave rise to other humans, chimps gave rise to other chimps.
Take the cetacea and their ancestors, such as pakicetus, ambulocetus, kutchicetus, rodhocetus, basilosaurus, durodon, and the extant cetacea like dolphins.
Only wishful thinking places Pakicetus with cetaceans. The same goes for Ambulocetus.
Common descent claims that the pattern of similarities and differences between these organisms shows that they descended from a common ancestor with variations – which we have stipulated to be designed – stacking up and branching out over many generations.
Common descent can claim all it wants. It can live with just about any pattern and imagination will fill in the branches.
If you don’t think these organisms are descended from a common ancestor, by ordinary means of reproduction, then where did their bodies come from?
Ordinary means of reproduction does not explain the differences observed. And you said we weren't talking about origins. As far as anyone knows their body plans came from the designer(s)- no one knows what determines a body plan. So how can we test that changes to their genomes produced the alleged transformations required? What makes an eye a human eye as opposed to a chimp eye? Is a human eye a trait? Or is it just the happenstance outcome of some certain combination of biochemistry? How can we test your common descent scenario to the exclusion of the other alternatives- design, special creation and convergence?Joe
July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
08:17 PM
8
08
17
PM
PDT
Joe @ 95
CLAVDIVS: Let’s just stipulate, for the sake of this discussion, that evolution operates under common design and/or convergence. How does that affect the conclusion of common ancestry? JOE: That conclusion could be wrong. Ya see common design and convergence explain the same evidence. CLAVDIVS: We observe similar, but not identical, species. They had to come from somewhere — they didn’t just spontaneously assemble out of raw atoms, right? JOE: No one knows how organisms originated. The Origin of Species did not cover the ORIGIN of species.
Joe, we're still dancing around the point of common descent. Let's get origin of life, common design and/or convergence off the table, and grant to you - just for purposes of this discussion - that the origin of life and its subsequent development required intelligent design. Now the question that remains is: Where did various organisms come from, if not by ordinary reproduction from ancestors? Take the cetacea and their ancestors, such as pakicetus, ambulocetus, kutchicetus, rodhocetus, basilosaurus, durodon, and the extant cetacea like dolphins. Common descent claims that the pattern of similarities and differences between these organisms shows that they descended from a common ancestor with variations - which we have stipulated to be designed - stacking up and branching out over many generations. If you don't think these organisms are descended from a common ancestor, by ordinary means of reproduction, then where did their bodies come from? We know they existed - we have the fossilised remains - so they must have come from somewhere. We know the atoms in their bodies did not spontaneously assemble by accident, because its too unlikely. So if you don't accept common descent with designed variation, then what is your alternative? How did the atoms and molecules that make up these dolphin-like organisms come to be assembled together, if not by ordinary biological reproduction? CheersCLAVDIVS
July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT
The book cometh, finally...Joe
July 3, 2012
July
07
Jul
3
03
2012
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
Let’s just stipulate, for the sake of this discussion, that evolution operates under common design and/or convergence. How does that affect the conclusion of common ancestry?
That conclusion could be wrong. Ya see common design and convergence explain the same evidence.
We observe similar, but not identical, species. They had to come from somewhere — they didn’t just spontaneously assemble out of raw atoms, right?
No one knows how organisms originated. The Origin of Species did not cover the ORIGIN of species.
Where did the organisms’ bodies and organs and nerves come from, if not from the ordinary process of reproduction?
Prokaryotes don't have them- organs nor nerves. And there still isn't any evidence that a prokaryote can evolve into something other than a prokaryote so that would be a huge problem for your scenario. It would make it a non-starter, uniformitarianism and all.
This doesn’t make logical sense to me. The whole point of uniformitarianism is extrapolation.
Your position doesn't have anything to extrapolate from.Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
paulmc:
The nearly neutral theory is now 40 years old and models the limits of purifying selection in small populations.
So what? It sure as heck dioesn't support the evolution of humans from knuckle-walkers. Nothing you have posted supports that.
So you reject this study solely on the basis that it is laboratory-based,
I didn't reject anything. Obviously you have other issues. But anyway 600 generations plus- put that in perspective of chimps and humans. Do the math and you lose.Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
Joe @ 88
CLAVDIVS: Exactly, and that is why we don’t need to personally observe macro-evolution, we can infer it from the evidence left behind. JOE: And I can use that same evidence to support and common design and/ or convergent evolution.
Please try to pay attention, Joe. We're discussing common descent. Let's just stipulate, for the sake of this discussion, that evolution operates under common design and/or convergence. How does that affect the conclusion of common ancestry? We observe similar, but not identical, species. They had to come from somewhere -- they didn't just spontaneously assemble out of raw atoms, right? So what's the only empirically confirmed process we know of that can create organisms? It's biological reproduction, right? Perhaps you're correct that it's guided or front-loaded or whatever. But, even so, it's clear from the pattern of similarities and differences between organisms, and from our uniform empirical experience, that most were descended from common ancestors via ordinary reproduction. What's the alternative? Where did the organisms' bodies and organs and nerves come from, if not from the ordinary process of reproduction?
JOE: And given uniformitarianism, the processes of today cannot be extrapolated to produce the changes required.
This doesn't make logical sense to me. The whole point of uniformitarianism is extrapolation. CheersCLAVDIVS
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Yet some persist- not so purifying after all.
Is that meant to be some sort of a revelation? This is a well-studied area and we understand the probability of fixation and extinction of different mutations, given their fitness coefficients, rather well. The nearly neutral theory is now 40 years old and models the limits of purifying selection in small populations. So what, if anything, is your point?
Sorry, meant to say 1000, but his populations fix due to artificial selection, ie design.
Right. So you reject this study solely on the basis that it is laboratory-based, while uncritically accepting the laboratory-based example of Burke et al. (2010) that you give in your next sentence. If everything else was the same except that Burke happened to identify a hard selective sweep in their Drosophila populations, you would be rejecting that paper too, even though nothing in their methods would have changed.
Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590
Burke et al. didn't observe fixation of any newly arising mutations in 600 generations, which implies that strongly selected variants were rare so no immediately arising mutations caused a hard selective sweep. This absolutely doesn't mean fixation doesn't happen - as they state, 600 generations may have been insufficient for fixation, and they did detect evidence consistent with incomplete sweeps.paulmc
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
paulmc:
Yes, it was made up to describe the phenomenon of the bias against reproductive success of deleterious alleles.
Yet some persist- not so purifying after all.
Because I know you only accept direct observations rather than inferences when it comes evolution, let’s take an obvious example. Do you think that Lenski’s E. coli populations are larger than 100 or not?
Sorry, meant to say 1000, but his populations fix due to artificial selection, ie design.
Could you elaborate on who ‘they’ were? Also, how many generations? What population size? What fitness effects of the mutations?
5.Burke, M. K. et al. 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature. 467 (7315): 587-590Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
Joe:
“Purifying slection” is a made-up term.
Yes, it was made up to describe the phenomenon of the bias against reproductive success of deleterious alleles.
They [mutations] can [fix] in a design and/ or severe bottle-neck scenario. But once population size > 100, all bets are off.
Because I know you only accept direct observations rather than inferences when it comes evolution, let's take an obvious example. Do you think that Lenski's E. coli populations are larger than 100 or not?
As I said there are experiments with fruit-flies under controlled lab conditions and they couldn’t get fixation.
Could you elaborate on who 'they' were? Also, how many generations? What population size? What fitness effects of the mutations?paulmc
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
It’s obvious you have no explanation for the pattern of similarities and differences amongst organisms, and your entire argument against common descent consists of substanceless, hyperskeptical, reflexive nay-saying.
Common design and/ or convergence explains the similarities and differences amongst organisms. For example building codes make sure that houses are similar on some level- the basic structure, stud spacing, joist spacing, rafter spacing- and personal touches of the developer makes the difference- different demands. Then there are computers and there peripheral devices- have to have common communication ports. And if the devices have a micro then there would be some common design there too. The differences would be due to the different functions.
So how does evolution theory explain how organs are produced and knit together into a living organism? Well, of course, by means of biological reproduction which is a well understood and empirically confirmed process that can make new organisms.
Umm biological reproduction requires existing organisms complete with organs that are already knitted together. IOW CLAV, that was more than a tad dishonest as you do not get to use what requires an explanation in the first place.Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
Exactly, and that is why we don’t need to personally observe macro-evolution, we can infer it from the evidence left behind.
And I can use that same evidence to support and common design and/ or convergent evolution. And given uniformitarianism, the processes of today cannot be extrapolated to produce the changes required.Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
OK PaulMC- what is the testable hypothesis for humans evolving from knuckle-walkers via accumulations of random mutations?
You earlier stated that you don’t even accept that there is evidence for purifying selection acting on deleterious mutations,
"Purifying slection" is a made-up term.
or that mutations can fix in a population.
They can in a design and/ or severe bottle-neck scenario. But once population size > 100, all bets are off. As I said there are experiments with fruit-flies under controlled lab conditions and they couldn't get fixation. So add in a changing environment and you should see the problem. Cooperation really fights against fixation also as mildly deletrious traits that would be eliminated can get passed on.
With this level of denial, there is no possibility that we can discuss hominin evolution meaningfully.
Given your inability to produce a testable hypothesis for your position, there isn't anything to discuss. I smell chicken...Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
Joe @ 83
PAULMC: Actually, much of science is about inferences made from evidence other than direct observations. JOE: Exactly and that is why we don’t need to see the designer, we can infer one existed due to the evidence left behind.
Exactly, and that is why we don't need to personally observe macro-evolution, we can infer it from the evidence left behind. Plus there's a complete absence of any other empirically confirmed explanation based on uniform experience. CheersCLAVDIVS
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
Joe @ 80
CLAVDIVS: What is the empirically confirmed process by which ‘design’ produces organs and nerves and knits them into a living thing? JOE: What is the empirically confirmed process by which ‘common descent’ produces organs and nerves and knits them into a living thing? Why don’t you answer that?
And you've ducked the question again. It's obvious you have no explanation for the pattern of similarities and differences amongst organisms, and your entire argument against common descent consists of substanceless, hyperskeptical, reflexive nay-saying. So how does evolution theory explain how organs are produced and knit together into a living organism? Well, of course, by means of biological reproduction which is a well understood and empirically confirmed process that can make new organisms. So what process, other than biological reproduction, does your 'design' hypothesis propose? CheersCLAVDIVS
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
OK PaulMC- what is the testable hypothesis for humans evolving from knuckle-walkers via accumulations of random mutations?
You earlier stated that you don't even accept that there is evidence for purifying selection acting on deleterious mutations, or that mutations can fix in a population. With this level of denial, there is no possibility that we can discuss hominin evolution meaningfully.paulmc
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
paulmc:
Actually, much of science is about inferences made from evidence other than direct observations.
Exactly and that is why we don't need to see the designer, we can infer one existed due to the evidence left behind. Also the fossil record assumes common descent. Hey, using the "dog" example, looking at the cranial difference between chihuahua and St Bernard, we could draw all sorts of evolutionary stories to explain it, if we didn't actually observe reality. OK PaulMC- what is the testable hypothesis for humans evolving from knuckle-walkers via accumulations of random mutations?Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
And how do you know that Schulz et al., are not just speculating given the evolutionary scenario?
In the famous words of several people in this thread - have you read it?
Ya see they cannot provide a history because they were not around so they can only speculate given a certain scenario.
So, the standard of your critique has dropped to a Ken-Ham-styled "Were you there?" Actually, much of science is about inferences made from evidence other than direct observations. When I walk into a forest, I do not simply assume that those trees have grown from seeds of other trees (or coppiced or reiterated from them) I infer they have from observations of seeds, seedlings, saplings and juveniles. Schultz et al. use the fossil record of brain size and vocal anatomy evolution, paired with archaeological evidence of language evolution. They are not simply speculating, as you accuse. Their timeline would need to be off by many millions of years to accommodate the claims by Luskin and Gauger.paulmc
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT
OK PaulMC- what is the testable hypothesis for humans evolving from knuckle-walkers via accumulations of random mutations?
It’s called the theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection.
Call it whatever you want, that is not a testable hypothesis.Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
CLAVDIVS:
Well, then, you’ve conceded my point: that dogs are highly phenotypically plastic, and this is observational evidence that small intergenerational changes stack up over time into much larger changes.
They are all still dogs.
What is the empirically confirmed process by which ‘design’ produces organs and nerves and knits them into a living thing?
What is the empirically confirmed process by which 'common descent' produces organs and nerves and knits them into a living thing? Why don't you answer that?Joe
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Joe @ 77
OK PaulMC- what is the testable hypothesis for humans evolving from knuckle-walkers via accumulations of random mutations?
It's called the theory of the origin of species by means of natural selection. It's already been properly tested, Joe. So it's not an hypothesis any more; it's a theory. What test of this theory do you propose that we haven't done yet? CheersCLAVDIVS
July 2, 2012
July
07
Jul
2
02
2012
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply