Evolution: the Facts.

[ufology]

Little green men of the gaps. Instead of the Christian God going in to gaps in understandings of the world around us, and frequently these gaps are only gaps in the understanding of the speaker, we get aliens did it.

Really ... you do ( get it ) do you? Please explain then how you think alien intervention might be scientifically possible? Or explain my lack of accuracy with respect to the difference in the brain size between Homo Habilis and what came next? Or was that just another one of your glib remarks?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Really ... you do ( get it ) do you? Please explain then how you think alien intervention might be scientifically possible? Or explain my lack of accuracy with respect to the difference in the brain size between Homo Habilis and what came next? Or was that just another one of your glib remarks?

In some senses of the word, yes just a glib remark. All the same I think it is a fair portrayal of what is happening here. We have an alleged mystery into which we can insert an intelligent agent for which we have no supporting evidence. This time it is your UFO Jesus.

I have justified faith in others here arguing the science better than I could.

 

[carlitos]

That's a pretty good point to some extent, especially because some people say that Neanderthals, because of their large brain, may have been equally intelligent as we are, but just lacked the knowledge. The weakness however is that the brain itself isn't software. Using the computer analogy, it's the CPU, GPU, soundcard, memory and all the other hardware that would enable sensory input to be stored and analyzed. It's true that the 486 chip evolved rapidly into the Pentium, Core 2 and I7, but Moore's law has nothing to do with natural selection, it's computer engineering. So it makes sense that it would evolve so fast. But it doesn't make sense for the brain to have done so, and despite all the implied expertise of the posters here to the contrary, that is exactly the reason that scientists are at this very moment studying the problem. They don't know how to explain it. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Your conception that brain size suddenly and unexplicably completely jumped up is not something that the fossil record seems to show, nor is there any indication that there are insertions in the human genome that show the clear hallmark of genetic engineering.
And yes, that *would* show up and no even after all the human genomic sequencing and random other organism sequencing there is no indication at all that there is any instertion/mutation/gene duplication that is inexplicable except by genetic engineering, except for all the recently human made ones.

No.

 

[Dinwar]

No I'm not calling 200 miliions years sudden. You are. What I'm talking about is the span between Homo Habilis a species of the genus Homo, which lived until about 1.4 million years ago with a brain size around 600cc and the first proto-Neanderthals which had a brain size of around 1500cc, the traits which appeared in Europe as early as 600,000 years ago ). So we're not talking about a span of 200 million years. We're talking about a span under 1 million years, which in terms of the glacial pace of evolution is a flash in the pan.

No, it's not. People like to think that evolution moves extremely slowly, but it doesn't always. Speciation can happen in 10,000 generations. Assuming you start reproducing at 15, that means that 150,000 years can mean a new species of humans.

That means that there was enough time for TEN NEW SPECIES to evolve. And we're generally considered slow reproducers.

(Note that this doesn't mean that a new species evolves every 10k generations--only taht once speciation starts it can happen as quickly as 10k generations.)

Wrong. The gaps are very significant. The absence of intermediary samples increasingly suggests that there aren't any.

You've gone completely off into crackpotville here, ufology. I've personally found transitional forms. My brother-in-law has as well. Neither of us have found an astounding number of fossils (well, he lives near a concentrat lagerstten, but that doesn't include the taxa he found transitional forms in), so the fact that the two of us both found transitional forms proves you wrong.

Second, have you done ANY research into the REASON for the lackf of transitional forms (which isn't even CLOSE to the degree of absence you've implied)? Gould and Eldredge have. You should probably check that out.

As an aside, we've got a remarkably good record fo all the major transitions--from reptile to mammal, from therapod to bird, etc. We have so many human fossils that we're becoming less and less able to decide where one species ends and the next starts. We've got smooth transitions for a surprising number of taxa.

That is a very short span in evolutionary time to develop something as complex as the brain we have now.

You can't possibly know that. Again, the mammalian brain has been evolving for 200 million years. The ape brain has been evolving since the Oligocene, I believe (if you want to look at rapid evolution, look at the Eocene/Oligocene!). That means that the majority of the structures in our brains were present well prior to the evolution of humans--our brains are merely tweeked ape brains.

This was actually a pretty big issue in paleontology and physiology, by the way. Richard Owen, the guy that coined the term "dinosaur", was a bit of a wackadoodle, and tried to argue that human brains were physically different from ape brains (orangutan brains, specifically), among other things. The ape brain thing was the start of Owen's decline in terms of prestige--once it was proven that he'd manufactured the data (basically by showing there's no physical difference between orangutann brains and human brains in ways that couldn't be honestly refuted) Owen fell out of favor with the scientific establishment. So the fact that human and ape brains are essentially identical, except for size, is one of the more spectacularly proven concepts in science. (It's an area I've been looking into, as a I can get a copy of one of Owen's books on vert. anatomy for cheap and he's referenced by a LOT of people discussing postcraneal anatomy.)

1: a gap in the fossil record is commonplace, its not a harddisk with data saved for out convenience. Its animals that happened to die in a way that prevented normal breakdown. But the more we find, the more it seems to just go gradual.

To be specific, the field ufology is ignoring is called taphonomy. There are a number of issues with fossilization, ranging from where the animals live (marine organisms are more likely to be preserved than, say, mountain species), the weather there (deserts preserve stuff rainforests don't), parimortem and immediately post-mortem events (being eaten [which actually preserves some organisms, while destroying others] to being trampled to being washed down a stream), where that sediment is (alluvial fans eat bones, while deltas preserve them), and that thing we all joyfully remember from sedimentology: uplift and erosion. Then there's time- and space-averaging, which can be a nightmrae--I was once shown four identical shells that were identical, but were separated by millions of years, and which were all taken from the same location. It's an enromously complex field that we're only just now beginning to understand. Shipman published his book ("Life History of Fossils") in the 1980s I believe.

What ufology is doing is the equivalent of arguing that you know how to cure cancer because you've seen most of "House".

 

[Dinwar]

So we have the presence of this "unknown gene" which suddenly causes an unexplained burst in brain size that is not in keeping with with the normal theories of evolution.

This is either a lie or a remarkable failure of imagination for someone engaged in a discussion of science.

Here's one way how it can happen, all well within evolutionary procedures as they're currently understood:

1) A gene that controls brain development, and which addresses size, gets duplicated via a double-crossover event (not common, on a gene-by-gene basis, but common on a organism-by-organism basis).

2) The spare gene undergoes random mutation, but not expression (this can happen numerous ways--likely, the ones where it WAS expressed experienced no change or died before the mother knew she was even pregnant). One of those mutations dramatically expands brain size.

3) Organisms begin to express that gene and survive--resulting in organisms with larger brains. (As far as timing goes, it'd be random, but probably shortly after a survivable version of the gene arises.)

4) Evolutionary pressures present after birth continue to select for mutations to that gene that increase brain size (why is not something we need to speculate on--numerous perfectly natural pressures could explain it).

In four easy steps this new gene could produce exactly what you speculate is impossible without extra-terrestrial intervention.

 

[ufology]

No, it's not. People like to think that evolution moves extremely slowly, but it doesn't always.

You say evolution doesn't always move extremely slowly ... that's a switch from typical skeptical arguments because I've heard the "glacially slow" process of evolution described more than once to explain why evolution makes more sense than creation. Seems to me this "not always" is being invoked just to suit particular situations where standard theories of evolution fail. Lets consider this quote from Darwin:

Darwin: "Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps." Thus, If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
​

Speciation can happen in 10,000 generations. Assuming you start reproducing at 15, that means that 150,000 years can mean a new species of humans. That means that there was enough time for TEN NEW SPECIES to evolve. And we're generally considered slow reproducers.

We aren't talking about changing the species. We're talking about explaining how our brain size changed so dramatically in such a short evolutionary time span. If you keep disputing that this happened, then why are scientists trying to explain it? We've already posted a link to the article where genuine scientists are trying to figure out this mystery.

You've gone completely off into crackpotville here, ufology. I've personally found transitional forms. My brother-in-law has as well. Neither of us have found an astounding number of fossils (well, he lives near a concentrat lagerstten, but that doesn't include the taxa he found transitional forms in), so the fact that the two of us both found transitional forms proves you wrong.

Please don't start with the informal insults. All I've done is ask some questions and post some observations. I'm willing to adapt my views to suit the evidence. I've read several articles and a couple of books about brain evolution that don't explain the jump in brain size through any fossil records, but OK, you say you have fossil evidence. Presumably that would include sufficient skull fragments and archaeological evidence to show a relationship between samples that includes numerous very small transitions in brain sizes. Please point me to your evidence.

Second, have you done ANY research into the REASON for the lackf of transitional forms (which isn't even CLOSE to the degree of absence you've implied)? Gould and Eldredge have. You should probably check that out. As an aside, we've got a remarkably good record fo all the major transitions--from reptile to mammal, from therapod to bird, etc. We have so many human fossils that we're becoming less and less able to decide where one species ends and the next starts. We've got smooth transitions for a surprising number of taxa.

Again ... We aren't talking about changing the species, we're talking about explaining how our brain size changed so dramatically in such a short evolutionary time span. If you keep disputing that this happened, then why are scientists trying to explain it? We've already posted a link to the article where genuine scientists are trying to figure out this mystery.

You can't possibly know that. Again, the mammalian brain has been evolving for 200 million years. The ape brain has been evolving since the Oligocene, I believe (if you want to look at rapid evolution, look at the Eocene/Oligocene!). That means that the majority of the structures in our brains were present well prior to the evolution of humans--our brains are merely tweeked ape brains.

Merely tweaked ape brains? It seems to me that you are underestimating how significant the differences are, over exaggerating the similarities and again avoiding the question. We aren't talking about ape brains. Since we're getting a little more technical. The main focus is on the following:

• Homo Habilis: 2.33 to 1.4 million years ago. | 600 cc
• Homo Erectus: 1.8 to 1.30 million years ago. | 1000 cc
• Homo sapiens idaltu: 160,000 years ago | 1450 cc
• Homo Neanderthalensis: 80,000 to 30,000 years ago. | 1450 cc

Try to focus on the items above. We see a rapid expansion in cranial capacity between Habilus and Erectus and yet it looks like they coexisted between 1.4 and 1.3 million years ago. So when was there time to evolve? Where are the transitory samples that should be apparent during that 100,000 year period? Links please. The same goes for the next jump from Erectus to Sapiens.

This was actually a pretty big issue in paleontology and physiology, by the way. Richard Owen, the guy that coined the term "dinosaur", was a bit of a wackadoodle, and tried to argue that human brains were physically different from ape brains (orangutan brains, specifically), among other things. The ape brain thing was the start of Owen's decline in terms of prestige--once it was proven that he'd manufactured the data (basically by showing there's no physical difference between orangutann brains and human brains in ways that couldn't be honestly refuted) Owen fell out of favor with the scientific establishment. So the fact that human and ape brains are essentially identical, except for size, is one of the more spectacularly proven concepts in science. (It's an area I've been looking into, as a I can get a copy of one of Owen's books on vert. anatomy for cheap and he's referenced by a LOT of people discussing postcraneal anatomy.)

Interesting but straying from the point.

To be specific, the field ufology is ignoring is called taphonomy. There are a number of issues with fossilization, ranging from where the animals live (marine organisms are more likely to be preserved than, say, mountain species), the weather there (deserts preserve stuff rainforests don't), parimortem and immediately post-mortem events (being eaten [which actually preserves some organisms, while destroying others] to being trampled to being washed down a stream), where that sediment is (alluvial fans eat bones, while deltas preserve them), and that thing we all joyfully remember from sedimentology: uplift and erosion. Then there's time- and space-averaging, which can be a nightmrae--I was once shown four identical shells that were identical, but were separated by millions of years, and which were all taken from the same location. It's an enromously complex field that we're only just now beginning to understand. Shipman published his book ("Life History of Fossils") in the 1980s I believe.

Interesting. Perhaps this might be shown to apply in some way, but so far I don't see any specific examples that are related to the specific question we're dealing with. If you have any, again please post the links.

What ufology is doing is the equivalent of arguing that you know how to cure cancer because you've seen most of "House".

I've done no such thing. Again ... All I've done is ask some questions and post some observations. I'm willing to adapt my views to suit the evidence. If we already have the evidence then why are scientists trying to explain the anomaly? If you believe they are proceeding from a false premise, then perhaps you could elaborate some more on that with some specific and on-topic evidence.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Merely tweaked ape brains? It seems to me that you are underestimating how significant the differences are, over exaggerating the similarities and again avoiding the question. We aren't talking about ape brains. Since we're getting a little more technical. The main focus is on the following:

• Homo Habilis: 2.33 to 1.4 million years ago. | 600 cc
• Homo Erectus: 1.8 to 1.30 million years ago. | 1000 cc
• Homo sapiens idaltu: 160,000 years ago | 1450 cc
• Homo Neanderthalensis: 80,000 to 30,000 years ago. | 1450 cc

Try to focus on the items above. We see a rapid expansion in cranial capacity between Habilus and Erectus and yet it looks like they coexisted between 1.4 and 1.3 million years ago. So when was there time to evolve? Where are the transitory samples that should be apparent during that 100,000 year period? Links please. The same goes for the next jump from Erectus to Sapiens.


*clipped quote from ufology for brevety(

So in the space of about 1 million years, maybe more brain size increases from 600 cc to 1000 cc
If we assume a tiny 1% increase with a mutagenic round (which might be larger), it would take 52 mutations/alterations in expression to get to that size.
wich would amount to about 1200-1300 generations to get each jump in size increase.
If we take a general increase per mutation of a mere 5% we go down to 11 events in that time.
The truth will be somewhere in the middle.
So replace dramatic and impossibly short time frame with series of gradual mutations and thousands of generations.
And hey, suddenly the problem isn't.
Especially when you consider that on average the difference in brain size between human male and female is 10% and that individual variation in brain size is measured in several percents as well.

I'm sorry ufology, but the problem has more to do with your lack of understanding of genetics, the fossil record, brain anatomy in general and maths than an unsurmountable problem that needed ancient genetic engineering.

 

[ufology]

I'm sorry ufology, but the problem has more to do with your lack of understanding of genetics, the fossil record, brain anatomy in general and maths than an unsurmountable problem that needed ancient genetic engineering.

Simply saying I don't understand isn't the same as answering the questions. Let's just try one:

We see a rapid expansion in cranial capacity between Habilus and Erectus and yet it looks like they both existed between 1.4 and 1.3 million years ago. So when was there time to evolve? Where are the transitory samples in the fossil record that should be apparent during that 100,000 year period? Links please ... evidence ... isn't that what it's all about here?

Oh I found this site to be pretty interesting: http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

 

[Aridas]

Simply saying I don't understand isn't the same as answering the questions. Let's just try one:

We see a rapid expansion in cranial capacity between Habilus and Erectus and yet it looks like they both existed between 1.4 and 1.3 million years ago. So when was there time to evolve? Where are the transitory samples in the fossil record that should be apparent during that 100,000 year period? Links please ... evidence ... isn't that what it's all about here?

Oh I found this site to be pretty interesting: http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

Just as a point of curiousity... just looking at the numbers cited, don't you mean that the two co-existed from 1.8 million years to 1.4 million years, roughly speaking? If that's the case, you might want to rethink the numbers and concepts that you're using.

EDIT: Actually, even if I was/am wrong about that, your questions seem to be malformed, regardless. If we're dealing with speciation, you'll want to start looking at the period around the time when they became classified as different species, first of all, which would be roughly 1.8 million years ago, by the numbers you cited. The period from 1.4 to 1.3 million years ago is completely irrelevant to that.

That said, you might want to just take a day or two to take a step back and make sure that you are actually understanding the information that you're trying to use to justify your position.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Simply saying I don't understand isn't the same as answering the questions. Let's just try one:

We see a rapid expansion in cranial capacity between Habilus and Erectus and yet it looks like they both existed between 1.4 and 1.3 million years ago. So when was there time to evolve? Where are the transitory samples in the fossil record that should be apparent during that 100,000 year period? Links please ... evidence ... isn't that what it's all about here?

Oh I found this site to be pretty interesting: http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

Lets turn this around,
why don't YOU prove with links to genetics, population growth and human brain size biochemistry that such an increase in brain size is impossible by natural selection?
Because as a biochemist I see absolutely no problem in this.
Dinwar shot your whole 'no transitional' thing to pieces, so I'm not even going to go there unless you can prove to me that your knowledge of paleontology at least equals his.

 

[ufology]

Lets turn this around,
why don't YOU prove with links to genetics, population growth and human brain size biochemistry that such an increase in brain size is impossible by natural selection?
Because as a biochemist I see absolutely no problem in this.
Dinwar shot your whole 'no transitional' thing to pieces, so I'm not even going to go there unless you can prove to me that your knowledge of paleontology at least equals his.

So still no answers or evidence ... not even for just one question. Instead we see some transparent attempt to turn the tables while appealing to unproven authority. Really, this isn't getting us anyplace. I'll wait until the real scientists, like the one's in that article that was posted, come up with some more conclusive answers, and perhaps some real archaeologists will also find some missing transitional remains and write them up in a paper we can all see. In the meantime, people here can go on believing this mystery has already been solved ( when it hasn't ).

 

[Akhenaten]

I'll wait until the real scientists, like the one's in that article that was posted, come up with some real answers, and perhaps some real archaeologists will also find some missing transitional remains and write them up in a paper we can all see.

Maybe you could fill in some time while you're waiting by trying to learn the difference between archæology and paleontology.


ETA: Since you're going to go back and try to edit away the errors in your posts after people have pointed them out you may as well go back again and remove the redundant apostrophe from the word "ones".

 

[Sideroxylon]

So still no answers or evidence ... not even for just one question. Instead we see some transparent attempt to turn the tables while appealing to unproven authority. Really, this isn't getting us anyplace. I'll wait until the real scientists, like the one's in that article that was posted, come up with some real answers, and perhaps some real archaeologists will also find some missing transitional remains and write them up in a paper we can all see. In the meantime, people here can go on believing this mystery has already been solved ( when it hasn't ).

Real scientists do not believe that there is anything about human evolution, our technological development or the human genome that requires the involvement of an intelligent agent.

 

[ufology]

Real scientists do not believe that there is anything about human evolution, our technological development or the human genome that requires the involvement of an intelligent agent.

A real scientist couldn't tell you ( yet ) with absolute scientific certainty there hasn't been either. That's the whole point. There isn't enough evidence one way or the other, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The presumption is that some previously unidentified and natural process is at work, and that may be true, I have not disputed that at all. I've simply posed some questions about a genuine evolutionary anomaly that I'd like to see answered. Once I see the evidence, I'm good to go with it. I want to know the truth the same as anyone else.

 

[Akhenaten]

Real scientists do not believe that there is anything about human evolution, our technological development or the human genome that requires the involvement of an intelligent agent.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]A real scientist couldn't tell you ( yet ) with absolute scientific certainty there hasn't been either. That's the whole point.

Just like the whole point of Russell's teapot, actually.

Did you miss this, or just choose to ignore it because it's incompatible with your fantasy?

The only known way to avoid this is engineer the entire genome from scratch, which would be even more obvious, unless you engineer it in such a way as to be indistuingishable from everything else. In which case occam's razor would suggest that if its looks like natural evolution, then it is natural evolution.

Unless people who have actually *studied* this gene and its genomic surroundings say its inserted via ancient genetic engineering, why assume it is?

There isn't enough evidence one way or the other, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You think that this means the chances are equally good for both the existence and the non-existence of that teapot, don't you?

The presumption is that some previously unidentified and natural process is at work, and that may be true, I have not disputed that at all. I've simply posed some questions about a genuine evolutionary anomaly that I'd like to see answered.

Just asking questions, eh?

It's been explained simply enough that even I can understand that there isn't any anomaly.

Once I see the evidence, I'm good to go with it. I want to know the truth the same as anyone else.[/SIZE][/FONT]

There's considerable evidence that this claim is untrue.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

A real scientist couldn't tell you ( yet ) with absolute scientific certainty there hasn't been either. That's the whole point. There isn't enough evidence one way or the other, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The presumption is that some previously unidentified and natural process is at work, and that may be true, I have not disputed that at all. I've simply posed some questions about a genuine evolutionary anomaly that I'd like to see answered. Once I see the evidence, I'm good to go with it. I want to know the truth the same as anyone else.

True, we're only 99.99999% certain that the human genome has never undergone any form of non-natural intervention.
We can find transposons that have been conserved for 450 million years
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16864796
We can find retrovirusses that have been integrated into the genome before the primates diversified
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22214596
We can track even rapid and difficult to predict gene duplication events
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22859968

And yet there is not a single paper suggesting that there is a single locus in the human genome that cannot be explained via the theory of evolution.

Again, just because you, with your admitted lack of knowledge of genetics and paleontology, do not fully comprehend how the human brain increased in size does not mean the scientific community in general doesnt.

It would be the same as me claiming that because I do not understand the fundamental theories of quantum mechanics that it could also be that electronics are created by god pushing electrons around. After all its not 100% proven that that doesnt happen.

 

[Acleron]

A real scientist couldn't tell you ( yet ) with absolute scientific certainty there hasn't been either. That's the whole point. There isn't enough evidence one way or the other, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The presumption is that some previously unidentified and natural process is at work, and that may be true, I have not disputed that at all. I've simply posed some questions about a genuine evolutionary anomaly that I'd like to see answered. Once I see the evidence, I'm good to go with it. I want to know the truth the same as anyone else.

I'll add that there is never absolute scientific certainty about anything. However, we can know the error about the conclusions that are drawn and these allow us to have confidence about those conclusions.

You've been shown that evolution is not a constant rate of morphological change. You've been shown that your sudden leap in brain size is not so sudden.

These you've ignored, so it is difficult to see what evidence would convince you that there is no proven anomaly.

 

[Sideroxylon]

A real scientist couldn't tell you ( yet ) with absolute scientific certainty there hasn't been either. That's the whole point. There isn't enough evidence one way or the other, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The presumption is that some previously unidentified and natural process is at work, and that may be true, I have not disputed that at all. I've simply posed some questions about a genuine evolutionary anomaly that I'd like to see answered. Once I see the evidence, I'm good to go with it. I want to know the truth the same as anyone else.

That wouldn't be the neo-Darwinian synthesis that you are tossing aside there would it? You have not demonstrated that the modern synthesis is inadequate to explain human brain development. Even if there were a problem, parsimony would lead us to look at how the existing theory might need to be adapted or new observations explored before we go inserting agents for which we have no evidence.

 

[Paulhoff]

This bottom line is that ufology wants to feel important.


Paul

 

[cyborg]

The weakness however is that the brain itself isn't software. Using the computer analogy, it's the CPU, GPU, soundcard, memory and all the other hardware that would enable sensory input to be stored and analyzed.

No, the analogy is fine. The finest hardware in the world means nothing without appropriate software for it.

It's true that the 486 chip evolved rapidly into the Pentium, Core 2 and I7, but Moore's law has nothing to do with natural selection, it's computer engineering. So it makes sense that it would evolve so fast.

No, it's merely an observation on the ability to increase transistor density which has nothing to do with the abilities of computers increasing - running 1970s software on 2012 hardware would not give you Windows 7.