Wholly Natrualistic Alternative To Neo-Darwinism?

[Fast Eddie B]

One common way to speciate/evolve as a population is to retain immature traits into adulthood. The reduced rostrum, the more domed forhead, the proportion of the limbs--humans really do look remarkably like immature members of other ape species.

I'm currently about half way through Dawkins' "Greatest Show On Earth".

Not the best Dawkins I've read so far, for reasons I may go into elsewhere.

But he discusses neotany again, and provides this illustration*:

As a disclaimer, both of these chimps were dead, and posed, and the pose for the juvenile example is unnatural, especially the posture of the shoulders and neck. But the faces are correct, and show how we kept juvenile ape features from our common ancestor, or that chimps found a niche where an elongated face and sloping forehead and brow ridges were advantageous, again with the possibility that we are more similar to the common ancestor than the chimp. That the chimp may have "devolved", as it were.


*I hope this is OK. I think what I was warned about was not to post links to external sources not my own. So I copied and pasted this image and then put it in my own Flikr acc't for posting. I still don't get why this site is the only one that's finicky about this - I'm on about a dozen others regularly and there's no problem posting image links.

 

[Dinwar]

It's a useful figure. Thanks.

The reason I specifically mentioned the rostrum and the skull shape was to avoide the issue of posing--you can't pose a skull to not have a rostrum, not without a band saw or a chissle.

While your idea--that we may be the more primative version of some lineage--is certainly valuable to keep in mind, unfortunately it doesn't hold true with this aspect of human evolution. It's pretty well shown that our ancestors looked more like adult apes. Human ancestors share many traits with chimps, including the relatively elongate rostrum, the strong axial ridge, limb portions, and the like. Your idea of evolution is certainly true--it's just that it's from the ape's perspective in this case, not our own.

 

[Reality Check]

Well of course they do arise from the same ancestral gene....

That said, other mechanisms, in the case of my example, doubling, are required to explain why the gene sequences are not reflective of one gene "moving" to the next. There is no clear lineage. This was the original question/puzzle as posed to nomuse.

You are once again bringing up a strawman (or just displaying your ignorance). It is duplication + mutation that evolved α-globin in hemoglobin to β-globin.
A good blog article on this: Hemoglobin: A Molecule Connecting Us All

You are also wrong: There is a lineage.
(the vague 'clear' bit of your question is a typical creationist tactic, i.e. demanding that every single step be listed)

Also read this 1999 American Scientist article: The Evolution of Hemoglobin (PDF).

 

[Dinwar]

That said, other mechanisms, in the case of my example, doubling, are required to explain why the gene sequences are not reflective of one gene "moving" to the next.

Wait, I missed this the first time 'round. Patrick1000 is claiming that the duplication of genes is evidence that the modern theory of evolution is wrong?

It's not like scientists didn't bring this up at the start of the discussion or anything....

 

[Complexity]

Anyone else share my skepticism?

I think you need to learn more biology and learn it better.

Evolution works, and if you think that it doesn't or can't be all there is, you need to learn to think better.

 

[Complexity]

Present your evidence then MG1962. I find there to be none. There is no evidence, no empiric confirmation for the neo-Darwinian mechanism as proposed.

This isn't our job.

Educate yourself. There are resources out there.

Get off your duff and get to work.

 

[Patrick1000]

Where have you been Dinwar????

Wait, I missed this the first time 'round. Patrick1000 is claiming that the duplication of genes is evidence that the modern theory of evolution is wrong?

It's not like scientists didn't bring this up at the start of the discussion or anything....

Where have you been Dinwar???? Quite the contrary. Duplication I claimed/claim is one of the mechanisms available to drive the dynamic of evolution, whatever that may be.

 

[Patrick1000]

That fact of evolution has never been in dispute here in this thread

I think you need to learn more biology and learn it better.

Evolution works, and if you think that it doesn't or can't be all there is, you need to learn to think better.

That fact of evolution has never been in dispute here in this thread. Of course it works. Where did I say that it did not?

 

[Patrick1000]

No one has the slightest notion as to how Hgb "evolved"

You are once again bringing up a strawman (or just displaying your ignorance). It is duplication + mutation that evolved α-globin in hemoglobin to β-globin.
A good blog article on this: Hemoglobin: A Molecule Connecting Us All

You are also wrong: There is a lineage.
(the vague 'clear' bit of your question is a typical creationist tactic, i.e. demanding that every single step be listed)

Also read this 1999 American Scientist article: The Evolution of Hemoglobin (PDF).

No one has the slightest notion as to how Hgb ACTUALLY "evolved" with respect to details. There are dozens and dozens of acceptable, credible paths from one molecule to the next.

These articles are useful nonetheless. I've always liked the Scientific American presentation.

 

[AdMan]

That fact of evolution has never been in dispute here in this thread. Of course it works. Where did I say that it did not?

You've repeatedly said that evolution cannot account, in your mind, for the observed changes.

An argument from incredulity (and from ignorance) ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

You really think most people can't see through your trolling and lying, Patrick?

Or are you honest, and really lack the ability to comprehend modern evolutionary theory?

And please--learn how to use commas. Your continual grammatical errors are grating.

 

[abaddon]

No one has the slightest notion as to how Hgb ACTUALLY "evolved" with respect to details. There are dozens and dozens of acceptable, credible paths from one molecule to the next.

"we don't know" does not equate with "therefore my hypothesis must be correct"

 

[Patrick1000]

I have no explanation for evolution's mechanism abaddon, nor does anyone else.

"we don't know" does not equate with "therefore my hypothesis must be correct"

I have no explanation for evolution's FULL mechanism(s) abaddon, nor does anyone else. That is the theme of the thread.........

Do you know how it is that life began?

Have you ever seen an acceptable hypothesis?

 

[abaddon]

I have no explanation for evolution's FULL mechanism(s) abaddon, nor does anyone else. That is the theme of the thread.........

Do you know how it is that life began?

Have you ever seen an acceptable hypothesis?

I have often seen yours. godidit.

Your creationist arguments won't fly. They have no wings.

 

[Reality Check]

usual creationist stupidity in insisting that every step be listed

No one has the slightest notion as to how Hgb ACTUALLY "evolved" with respect to details. There are dozens and dozens of acceptable, credible paths from one molecule to the next.

Oh dear - the usual creationist stupidity in insisting that every step be listed wich leads to the god of the gaps fallacy .

Your title is either a lie or an abysmal display of ignorance (No one has the slightest notion as to how Hgb "evolved"): I cited articles where people do have notions on how Hgb evolved.

You are once again bringing up a strawman (or just displaying your ignorance). It is duplication + mutation that evolved α-globin in hemoglobin to β-globin.
A good blog article on this: Hemoglobin: A Molecule Connecting Us All

You are also wrong: There is a lineage.
(the vague 'clear' bit of your question is a typical creationist tactic, i.e. demanding that every single step be listed)

Also read this 1999 American Scientist article: The Evolution of Hemoglobin (PDF).

Some of the 13,700 Google Scholar results for "evolution of β-globin":
A member of a new repeated sequence family which is conserved throughout eucaryotic evolution is found between the human δ and β globin genes
A history of the human fetal globin gene duplication
The structure and evolution of the human [beta]-globin gene family
Evolution of the primate β-Globin gene region: Nucleotide sequence of the δ-β-globin Intergenic region of gorilla and phylogenetic relationships between African Apes …
Contribution of gene conversion in the evolution of the human β-like globin gene family
Evolution of the [beta]-globin gene cluster in man and the primates

 

[Wowbagger]

I have no explanation for evolution's FULL mechanism(s) abaddon, nor does anyone else.

I have one! I outlined it in this thread, earlier! You even admited it was possible, you just didn't think it was "probable", at the time.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7748796#post7748796

So, what's all this nonsense about no one having a "full explanation"?!

Natural Selection builds its variety through accumulated probability, making it immensly probable that life forms will adapt well to their niches, over many generations!

Do you know how it is that life began?

Have you ever seen an acceptable hypothesis?

I have seen a few acceptable hypotheses. The ones with the most complete chain of events, so far, seem to fall under the category of "RNA World". Though, the mechanism differs from Natural Selection in that there is more exacting replication of systems, and fewer modifiable sections early on. Think of it as a "proto-natural-selection", if you'd like (though that may seem like an oversimplification to some of the scientists working on it).

 

[Aridas]

Do you know how it is that life began?

Have you ever seen an acceptable hypothesis?

Why, exactly, are you trying to change the topic to abiogenesis vs. creation?

 

[AdMan]

I have no explanation for evolution's FULL mechanism(s) abaddon, nor does anyone else. That is the theme of the thread.........

Do you know how it is that life began?

Have you ever seen an acceptable hypothesis?

Seriously? "How life began?"

Do you know that evolutionary theory deals with how species evolve, not how life began?

Why are you continuing to pull your "arguments" straight out of the Creationists' guidebook? Do you think you are credibly helping build your arguments with this transparent ignorance of actual science?

 

[Lowpro]

Seriously? "How life began?"

Do you know that evolutionary theory deals with how species evolve, not how life began?

Why are you continuing to pull your "arguments" straight out of the Creationists' guidebook? Do you think you are credibly helping build your arguments with this transparent ignorance of actual science?

It's because he reads Denton, King Goalpost Mover/Strawman Erector in the Most Ass Way Possible.

 

[Dinwar]

Where have you been Dinwar???? Quite the contrary. Duplication I claimed/claim is one of the mechanisms available to drive the dynamic of evolution, whatever that may be.

So....You accept that the mechanisms work. You accept that evolution happens. You accept that things change through time.

You don't accept that small changes can add up to large changes.

And you've yet to provide any evidence to support any notion whatever, or even propose any viable alternatives, and have chosen instead to take the Creationist path of poking holes at a theory you've repeatedly described erroniously, and to lie about the evidence presented.

Sorry, but are you trying to destroy all your credibility? It's a serious question--you honestly couldn't do more damage to your credibility if you honestly set out to do so as your goal in this conversation.

I have no explanation for evolution's FULL mechanism(s) abaddon, nor does anyone else.

I would LOVE to see evidence of this.

Do you know how it is that life began?

Yet more ignorance on your part. Abiogenesis is not evolution. In fact, I've heard it argued that what we call evolution likely didn't start until well after life arose.

Have you ever seen an acceptable hypothesis?

Yup. As a matter of fact, I've seen several. The issue with abiogenesis isn't coming up with a viable hypothesis--it's figuring out which of numerous viable hypotheses is the one that actually happened. I won't claim to be an expert, though--biogeochemistry in Hadean oceans makes me sleepy.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Abiogenesis? Honestly that has nothing to do with evolution at all.

But as others have mentioned. No, we do not know how life began, we do have a large number of hypotheses, some more credible than others.
And we will never know, unless theorethical physics is totally wrong and it IS possible to travel backwards in time to take a look.
All we can do is theorize about it and perform experiments to try and see which hypothesis becomes more likely the more we know.
As is the same with every other theory requiring geological or stellar timespans (we've never seen a planet form, so until we do, do you believe that we cannot ever know how it happened?)

Contrary to what you believe we have seen evolution in action in the lab, the most famous one being the e.coli long term experiment from Richard Lenski.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

en evolution that happened in 1 of 12 running experiments happened after 30000+ generations and is enough to blur the distinction between e.coli and salmonella.
This is not the result of a single gene change but rather due to an accumulation of neutral mutations that only when taken together have a beneficial effect.
Explain to me when exactly this stops so that it never becomes a new species.

I (and the majority of biologists and molecular genetists) cannot find the 'species barrier' you seem to insist exists to prevent small changes mounting to larger changes over time.