Go to LETTERS, ESSAYS & SHORTS
- Add a comment
- Go to WHAT IS EVOLUTION? BE AWARE THAT THERE ARE MANY DEFINITIONS!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Issue
To support my opinion, I offer the article by David Prothero in the latest edition of
New Scientist, in which he discusses the concept of 'missing links', and the growth of the fossil record. He says humans split from apes some 7 million years ago, according to known fossils and other evidence. Lucy is only one data point among a great many. But the very concept of a 'missing link' is questionable.
posted by
mousehop
on February 18, 2009 at 2:04 PM
| link to this | reply
A very interesting read indeed! sam
posted by
sam444
on February 18, 2009 at 6:34 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: An Issue
The entirety of your latest reply is simply your opinion and is by no means accepted by The National Acadamy of Science as fact. The latest hoped-for missing link was "Lucy," which is still hotly debated among scientists. But you, like everyone else, will believe what you wish to believe. That's fine with me, but please do not present your opinions ss facts. O.K.?
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 14, 2009 at 11:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Issue
You should take a closer look at the fossil record of hominids. There is no 'missing link'. There is more than one branch of hominids, some of which went extinct as far as we can tell.
But my comment about alleles was in response to your asking about the source of intraspecies variation, a phenomenon that is well characterized and explained. Such diversity began with simple organisms, and has continued through all of evolution. Dogs, for example, did not originate with a single pair of dogs or pre-dog canines, but from a population of wolves that was somehow isolated genetically from surrounding wolf populations, and so evolved in a different direction. But there was already a great deal of variation within the population, going all the way back to single-celled organisms. God is not necessary to this hypothesis.
posted by
mousehop
on February 14, 2009 at 11:19 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: An Issue ... Correction
Should be " primitive grunts and growls," and "this Creation does NOT end at our physical death." Sorry for the typos.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: An Issue
Yes! This variety of possible humans is nearly infinite! To me, this variety is due to the Wisdom and Carefull Planning of a Supremely Intelligent Being. After all, the Creator had literally billions of years to plan us before the first one of us came into being. There was no need to "drag us thru the mud" untill we reached our present state. We humans were born in dignity, not primitive grunts and grawls, and this Creation does end at our physical death.
(By the way, if you are saying that "the missing link" has been found, then maybe you should publish your findings in the Scientific American or something, because scientists worldwide are still looking for it!)
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 13, 2009 at 11:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: An Issue
The variety within a given species comes from mutations of individual genes, and the diversity of alleles for each gene. All humans have the same genes; that is, a gene for a given protein in a given location of a given chromosome. But the allele, the specific sequence of DNA bases in that gene, results in small but important variations in the function of the gene and the protein. As there are multiple alleles for most genes, the variety of humans, and possible humans, is nearly infinite.
posted by
mousehop
on February 13, 2009 at 10:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Re:
Um, we have, well, caught, every species in mid change. We are now a transitional species between our ancestors and our descendants. Look back at the hominid fossils over the last 2 million years or so, and you will see plenty of "half man/half apes".
posted by
mousehop
on February 13, 2009 at 10:23 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Key point!
You are on target, there! . . . and why do we not see millions of examples of this as we stroll the beaches each day? Good questions, each! Thanks, Soul!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 12, 2009 at 10:48 PM
| link to this | reply
The key point is why have we not caught evolutionary organisms in mid-stride! No half ape/half human? That effs the whole theory up!
posted by
Soul_Builder101
on February 12, 2009 at 9:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Interesting.
It is always good to hear from you, . . . and Bo!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 12, 2009 at 8:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Interesting.
A rose
from me
and from you know who!
=^. .^= &
Woof!
posted by
Whacky
on February 12, 2009 at 8:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: An Issue
Mousehop, please keep in mind that if you have an issue with any of the statements in this whole post, you are not taking issue with ME! In fact, none of the statements in this post are mine. I did this deliberately in order to get the input of some one completely indedependent and apart from any internal argument.
For the record, however, I will state the following as my opinion:
Any merit that the theory of evolution has rests entirely in understanding the method by which such a wide variety of variation may exist WITHIN a given species, within ANY given species. I further believe that this is the only merit that will ever prove to be attributable to "Evolution."
Thank you for your dissenting, tho courteous, reply. Variety makes the world go around.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 12, 2009 at 7:06 PM
| link to this | reply
This is a bunch of convoluted nonsense with only a superficial relationship to actual evolution. In fact, The Theory of Evolution does not expect increased complexity in most cases. The direction of evolution is random, or rather, the mutations are random, but the selection is non-random, based on environmental stresses, but may involve changes toward greater or less complexity. However, your statement that there is no accounting for increased information is wrong. Increased information due to mutation has been documented. But among the informed, there is no debate over the fundamentals of evolution. The Theory rests on a very firm foundation. All the mechanisms of evolution are based on physics and chemistry. The theoretical part, which no one has proved, is the historical part. We can prove how the diversity of life may have developed, but cannot prove how it actually did. That will remain theory, but sound theory.
posted by
mousehop
on February 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM
| link to this | reply