Oldest primate fossil rewrites evolutionary break in human lineage

ESRF (European Synchrotron Radiation Facility) ^ | June 6, 2013 | Kirstin Colvin

[BroJoeK]

katana: "I understand natural selection and remain open to the possibility of trans species evolution, although nobody has observed nor can they, to my limited knowledge, logically explain how such mutation could happen and still result in viable offspring."

Sorry FRiend, but your use of the term "trans species evolution" identifies you as brainwashed with anti-science propaganda, and lacking in any serious scientific understanding.

These are not problems anyone can correct in a few FR posts, but perhaps some basics would help?

First of all, there is no "trans species evolution" in the sense you imagine it -- no population suddenly begins giving birth to a brand new species.

What happens instead is that a breeding population often becomes isolated from other populations of the same species -- typically by oceans, deserts or mountains.
Separate populations then become more & more adapted to their particular environments, and over many generations -- hundreds of thousands -- their DNA becomes so distinct interbreeding can no longer produce viable offspring.

So, at the point where we see obvious differences in populations, but they still eagerly interbreed, we call them different "breeds" -- i.e., breeds of dogs.

When they reach the point of no longer normally interbreeding in nature, we call them different "species" -- i.e., species of, say, zebras.

When they become so distinct in DNA they physically cannot interbreed, we call them different "genera" -- i.e., African versus Indian Elephants.

A good example is Polar Bears versus Brown Bears (grizzlies).
Once considered to be distinct genera, Polar/Brown hybrids have been found in nature, and so now they are re-classified as just separate "species" in the genus Ursus.

All of this happens at the rate of a few DNA mutations per generation, which responding to natural selection can cause significant changes in appearance in relatively short order (i.e., breeds of dogs), but take much longer for degrees of separation needed to be considered a new "species".

That's evolution theory.

[BroJoeK]

Dutch Boy: "There have been quite a few human-like species in the fossil record.
I would like to know when did Species X turned into modern human and what is the evidence that one came from the other?"

First, you have to begin by understanding that the word "species" is a scientific construct which generally means: populations which do not normally interbreed in nature, but still physically can, on occasion.

The term "species" falls on a continuum from "breed" to "species" to "genus" to "family"... etc.
Where "breeds" (i.e., dogs) interbreed eagerly, "species" (i.e., different zebra species) do not normally interbreed in nature; and "genera" cannot be forced to interbreed, even in captivity -- i.e., African versus Indian elephants.

I'll cite again a great example of the distinction: Polar Bears were once considered a separate genus from Brown Bears (grizzlies), but were recently found to have produced viable hybrid offspring and so are now re-classified as different "species" within the "genus" Ursus.

With human beings: we now famously know of three other pre-human populations which may have been different "species" (meaning very little interbreeding) but possibly just different breeds of homo-sapiens.

Those three are Neanderthals (Europe), Denisovans (Siberia)and Floresiens (aka "Hobbits", Indonesia).
Two others are less well understood: Red Deer Cave People (China) and Idaltu's (Ethiopia).

Second, DNA analysis of Neanderthals and Denisovans shows them both to be slightly related to each other, and to modern humans, via interbreeding.
No results yet on the others.

Third, the fossil record is incomplete in the extreme.
Consider there are today roughly 5,000 species of mammals, but we have fossils of barely 50 mammals from, say, 10 million years ago.
So, what we don't know is still overwhelmingly greater than what we do know.

As for "missing links", here is a pretty good summary of pre-humans dating all the way back to near-chimpanzee days:

•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
•(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[Dutch Boy]

Thanks for the info. I’ll dig into this for a while and see where it leads me.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
Thanks EveningStar. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[Sawdring]

Do evolutionists know the precise genes, in progressive sequence, corresponding with each gradual change between progressive species in the line of descent leading from lower primates to to humans?

Probably not, but they don't accept the Good just made it that way and this species is probably one that couldn't get to the Ark fast enough theories.

[Sawdring]

Supposed to be:

Probably not, but they don't accept the God just made it that way and this species is probably one that couldn't get to the Ark fast enough theories.

[reasonisfaith]

“this standard is met by the evolution hypothesis”

But no evolutionary theorist has ever met this standard.

They have never identified the phenotypes and genotypes of the process of speciation.

And to claim that nature can “select,” as though nature were an agent rather than a mechanism, is nothing but a slight of hand.

You’re like the audience member who believes the stage magician doing his trick and then proclaiming “I speak the truth: he rabbit came out of the hat because he appeared, from nowhere, in the hat.”

[reasonisfaith]

Naturalists, in their zeal to replace logic with naturalism, forget the fact that if the existence of God the Creator is ontologically true, then the events of the story of Noah are logically possible.

The point here is that the only way to discount the story of Noah and his ark is to first establish that God doesn’t exist.

[MortMan]

I figured this was another Obama thread...

[tacticalogic]

The point here is that the only way to discount the story of Noah and his ark is to first establish that God doesn’t exist.

Do you discount the creation stories from other religions?

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "But no evolutionary theorist has ever met this standard.
They have never identified the phenotypes and genotypes of the process of speciation."

You clearly don't really know what the theory of evolution is, do you?
You seem to fantasize that whatsoever you thought it might have been, that's what it is, right?

Sorry to disillusion you, FRiend.

Here's the truth: the basic evolution confirmed-hypothesis combines two observations:

1. Descent with modifications, meaning that offspring are frequently somewhat different from their parents.
   When Charles Darwin first noticed this, he knew nothing of Gregor Mendel's genetics experiments or DNA -- all Darwin knew was that offspring frequently have characteristics not found in their parents.

   Today we know that descent-modifications come from several sources, including recessive genes and a few DNA mutations every generation.
   These DNA mutations can be used to track our common ancestries back to a mutation's point of origin.
   That is, for example, how they estimate a "Mitochondrial Eve" from 200,000 years ago.

2. Natural selection, meaning that creatures better adapted to their environments naturally survive and reproduce more often than others.
   This can be seen in innumerable examples, some quite famous.

The evolution hypothesis simply takes these known facts and extends them over time, concluding that such changes long-term can account for variations we call new breeds, species, genera, families, etc.

The evolution hypothesis is confirmed (thus making it a theory) by many falsifiable predictions, and by data from virtually every other branch of science.
So, much of what we call evolution "theory" is in fact: fact.

Indeed, so far as I know, there is no example of a confirmed experiment falsifying the evolution hypothesis.

reasonisfaith: "And to claim that nature can “select,” as though nature were an agent rather than a mechanism, is nothing but a slight of hand."

Of course, the term "mother nature" is a metaphor, commonly used to represent more complex natural processes.
If we say, "mother nature selects the fittest for survival", we're really just talking about the observed fact that in nature creatures which are slightly stronger, faster, smarter, see, hear or smell better, take better care of their young, etc., -- they tend to survive more than others.

Of course, "mother nature" is decidedly not a scientific term and since most people are not "fooled" by it, there is no, in your expression: "slight of hand".

reasonisfaith: "You’re like the audience member who believes the stage magician doing his trick..."

I suppose you could consider all of science to be a "magic trick", since it has explained the inexplicable, and produced so much amazing technology.
But of course, there's no real "magic" to it, it's just observed science and theory applied to various questions.

You are, of course, free to reject as much as you wish of scientific knowledge, and many do.
But it would seem to me just a little hypocritical if you're using all the latest scientific gadgets, while loudly proclaiming you don't believe in scientific "tricks".

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "Naturalists, in their zeal to replace logic with naturalism, forget the fact that if the existence of God the Creator is ontologically true, then the events of the story of Noah are logically possible."

Events of the story of Noah are logically possible on a number of grounds:

1. Geological evidence shows many floods in the past, and the Noah story could describe one of those.

2. Boat building and sea-trade are as old as (perhaps older than) civilization itself, though Noah's ark does seem a bit oversized for its era.
   Still, transporting animals in boats doubtless began very early.

3. Theologically speaking, the Noah story could be precisely true (as translated), but then we would have to ask some difficult questions.
   For example: why is there geological evidence of many floods at different times, but no such evidence of one Great Flood every-where at the same time?
   Or, to put it another way: if God made the Flood exactly as described, then why did he destroy all the physical evidence?

4. The key point of the Noah story is to illustrate a great disaster which utterly changed the world, and destroyed most of what had been before.
   The Noah story tells us that God brought this disaster as punishment for mankind's corruption and violence, but promised not to do it again -- thus the rainbow.
   The story tells us that God could, but He won't.
   I'd say: that's good to know.

reasonisfaith: "The point here is that the only way to discount the story of Noah and his ark is to first establish that God doesn’t exist."

I don't think anyone needs to discount God's promise, which is the reason for the Noah story.
The Promise remains, regardless of how confirmable the story's details may or may not be:

"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth...

So God said to Noah, 'This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.' "

[tacticalogic]

In theory, you are correct. In practice not discounting the story of Noah as scientifically plausible would mean including it (and every other creation story that exists) on equal footing and demanding equal time in any geology textbook alongside the theories that we do have physical evidence to support.

[reasonisfaith]

The evidence you state here only establishes that different species have the same genes.

This is logically consistent with Darwin’s idea of species origin.

But it is also logically consistent with a different kind of origin which simply uses the same genes while excluding the process of descent with modification.

As I said earlier—nobody has ever demonstrated this process.

[reasonisfaith]

“why is there geological evidence of many floods at different times, but no such evidence of one Great Flood every-where at the same time”

I must counter your claim here—there seems to be greater evidence for catastrophism—and indeed a single, world wide flood—than there is for uniformitarianism.

[reasonisfaith]

Multiple different accounts which exclude each other logically cannot all be true.

The laws of logic tell us only one can be true.

This fact doesn’t establish any particular account as true, but it does establish that we can’t rationally believe all of them.

For example, if I accept the pagan (Greek) account of creation, then I can’t accept the Christian account and vice versa. (So my answer to you is no, I do not.)

How one arrives at a particular belief is a separate process.

[tacticalogic]

In order to choose one over the other, you must count one and discount the other. Do you discount those creation accounts without disproving the existence of whatever supernatural force or diety was involved?

[BroJoeK]

tacticalogic: "In practice not discounting the story of Noah as scientifically plausible would mean including it (and every other creation story that exists) on equal footing and demanding equal time in any geology textbook alongside the theories that we do have physical evidence to support."

No geology textbook has a shortage of regional floods which might, somehow, have been the root cause of the Bible's Noah story, or many others similar -- including "outburst floods" in the Persian Gulf and Black Sea circa 6,000 BC.
These were certainly large enough floods that people of that time might well have considered them "worldwide".

And, by the way, while we're discussing this, in the King James translation, Genesis 7:20 reads:

"Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

Of course, other translations put it differently, but I read this one to say the waters rose "15 cubits", which is roughly 23 feet.
Now, I'd say a flood of 23 feet in the regions of the Tigris, Euphrates and Persian Gulf is entirely realistic, but then the point of the story would be negated, wouldn't it?

So here is a case where a "literal" translation of the bible is necessarily rejected in favor of a more, ahem, metaphorical understanding, right?

;-)

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "The evidence you state here only establishes that different species have the same genes.
This is logically consistent with Darwin’s idea of species origin.
But it is also logically consistent with a different kind of origin which simply uses the same genes while excluding the process of descent with modification."

Of course, I totally grant you that God could have created the Universe and Earth exactly whenever it is you think He did, and according to whatever interpretation you give the Bible's words.

But then we'd have to ask: why does scientific evidence tell us a very different version of events?
Why did God create the Earth to look as if it is billions of years old, with life descending through evolutionary processes from much simpler forms?

To me, these are not difficult questions and the answers are simple and obvious:
An Earth four billion years old, in a Universe 13 billion years old, holding a hundred billion galaxies, containing 10 sextillion stars plus unimaginable "dark matter" and "dark energy" and "dark whoknowswhat" is obviously intended to impress our scientists with how tiny & puny they are, compared to God's majesty and power.

God is obviously trying His best to keep us humble, often without success, but if we reduce the whole Universe to a matter of a mere few thousand years, then our importance in it seems to me grossly exaggerated beyond what God obviously intends.

God is telling our scientists that mankind's importance to the great Universe is zero, zip, nada -- except, except in accordance with our relationship to Him who created it.

Of course, that's just my opinion, your results may vary.

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith: "I must counter your claim here—there seems to be greater evidence for catastrophism—and indeed a single, world wide flood—than there is for uniformitarianism."

Sure, the geological record is chock-full of evidences of great catastrophes, including mass-extinction events, asteroid strikes, huge volcanos spewing lava over thousands of square miles for millions of years, floods that in a matter of months turned a million square miles of dry land into ocean, and on and on.

But there is no geological evidence -- zero, zip, nada -- of a single world-wide flood in recent times which covered every mountain to the depth of 23 feet, and then somehow receded again to current levels.

So, if God actually did that, then along with His promise never to do it again, He also removed all the scientific evidence of His previous actions.

No confirmed scientific evidence contradicts our understandings of the workings of evolution, indeed just the opposite.