13-05-2003 16:54									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

When someone says, "don't read whatshisname but read so-and-so" that is a pretty good indication that they are brainwashed. Why not weigh the evidence from all sides instead of measuring everything to fit into an preconceived mindset? I believe in creation and evolution as far as it has been proved. Objective thinking frees your mind. Discarding the very thorough research from a dreaded "creationist" only shows a fear of being proved wrong in your original view of the matter in question. Almost all the talkorigin objections are refuted and argued elsewhere. Of course if talkorigins is someone's Bible then I can understand why they would think of it as the last word.

	13-05-2003 17:12									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Lincoln, how can you believe humans are spawned from two naked white people 6,000 years ago... AND... that evolution has merit? I'm confused... again...

I don't believe in either one as a universal law of nature or anything. I do think evolution has merit as it is based on years of research and impirical evidence. I don't think creationism myths in any religion have much merit. The most important thing when putting such ideas in perspective is the credibility of the author. Religious literature was written by humans. The question is: Who is more credible? Ancient religious leaders? Or scientists? I choose scientists because their methods for discovery are sound, logical, and well documented. Sure, nothing is 100%... but the theory of evolution makes sense and fits in line with years and years of research.

	13-05-2003 17:12									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

In essence, you have a functioning hearing system which has gone through several iterations of improvement, a new system would have to start off as superior to the old system otherwise there would be no reason to be selected for...and I suspect the novelty factor would likely mean it was selected against. Mutations don't really work like that (in big leaps at one go), they're cumulative.

For the human family tree, we weren't static for a million years, since the branch heading towards us (separating from erectus) produced ergaster about 800,000 years ago, and the archaic us about 150-200,000 years ago. It wasn't a sudden big leap. The archaic "us" went through changes brought on by a population collapse around 90,000 years ago (possible volcanic eruption in Indonesia), and then by the ice age.

	13-05-2003 17:13									#34
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Rogan Josh Once again, I am going to ask the old chestnut: how could free-will evolve?

Because intelligence evolved long before factual knowledge did, thereby leaving ample room for guessing!!!!!

	13-05-2003 17:14									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

On the free will issue: Assuming free-will does exist... Does anyone think animals have free will?

	13-05-2003 17:19									#36
	Suffering from ads?

Lincoln:

There is a rather fundamental problem with creationist articles: they tend to cite "evidence" that does not actually exist. While many creationists are honest but ignorant, the movement is driven by fraud.

When engaging in debate, there is an assumption that both sides are presenting factual information. Christians, in particular, seem to have problems grasping the fact that a fellow Christian is lying to them.

What is the scientific explanation of the "vertical whale", for instance (a whale found fossilized in a vertical position, cutting straight through strata representing millions of years of deposition)? What about the "Hovind mammoth" (radiocarbon dating of the head end and the butt end give results thousands of years apart)? The explanation isn't a "scientific" one: these are creationist lies.

And so it goes...

	13-05-2003 17:22									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Right, and evolutionists are always honest. I have seen lies and half-truths from both sides. Discarding research because it comes from someone who believes in God is simply biased.

	13-05-2003 17:35									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Right, and evolutionists are always honest. I have seen lies and half-truths from both sides. Discarding research because it comes from someone who believes in God is simply biased.

Dishonest scientists will be turned on and roundly condemned by honest ones. Creationists have never exposed any dishonest scientists: their fellow scientists do that.

Whereas the admission of error and deceit is virtually unheard of among creationists. "Answers in Genesis" eventually produced a list of arguments that creationists should not use, but this was only because creationists using them kept getting shot down in flames.

And this has nothing to do with "belief in God". Plenty of theistic scientists do honest and worthwhile research. But none of those are creationists.

	13-05-2003 17:37									#39
	Got spare money?

Is what is considered to be "free will" not just the ability to make an abstraction of our surroundings and then use that abstraction to make choices. What I mean is that you need to be able to make an abstraction of a your surroundings in order to create a hypothtical situation resulting from a certain choice ?

	13-05-2003 17:43									#40
	Tired of ads?

Well I don't know what you are calling a "creationist" Jack. If you are talking about fanatics who reject all evidence then you have a point. But I believe that life was created by God and there is a great potential in that life to adapt and change over time. Does that make me a creationist or what?

	13-05-2003 17:50									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Dishonest scientists will be turned on and roundly condemned by honest ones. Creationists have never exposed any dishonest scientists: their fellow scientists do that. Whereas the admission of error and deceit is virtually unheard of among creationists. "Answers in Genesis" eventually produced a list of arguments that creationists should not use, but this was only because creationists using them kept getting shot down in flames.

Now why do you assume that the corrections on one hand are motivated by truth and honesty and the other because they got caught? AIG did what you say only "honest" scientists do yet you say that their motives are impure while the other is the epitome of integrity (OK I exaggerated here

	13-05-2003 17:50									#42
	Increase Your PM Length

The term "creationist" generally means someone who believes that species were independently created ex nihilo in accordance with Genesis. They reject, not just evolution, but any form of common descent from shared ancestors over millions of years.

Many (though not all) also refuse to accept that the Earth is more than a few thousand years old.

	13-05-2003 17:56									#43
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Yes, they are. And as a random rearrangement of organs would almost certainly be fatal, mechanisms have evolved which tend to keep organs in pretty much the same configuration relative to each other: a configuration which works. This would be a better argument against "intelligent design" rather than evolution.

I think you are missing my point. Why is there no drastically different animal able to fill the same niche as mammals and be just as good as it? I suppose one has to go back much further to talk about this. For example, you point out that the ear mechanism comes from fish gills. Fair enough, but why was it only fish that were able to fill the niche of turning into mammals (eventually)?

Imagine two completely separate 'creation events' - ie. two points of origin for self-replicating organisms. Would they not have developed (evolved) completely different mechanisms for surviving in the various environments on Earth. Would you really expect them to look, externally and internally, the same? I would, so I think one has to come up with a mechanism to prevent this. For example, maybe the event is so rare that the first will always be sufficiently evolved to kill off the second.

But given only one 'origin' we still have a similar problem: why do very early branchings not produce equally successfull mutations to end up with 2 (or more) equally successfull species, filiing a similar niche, which are completely different? We have convergent evolution, but only between recently separated species.

To give even a relatively recent example: why not have an insect which fills the same role as a grazing mammal? The only problem I see with this would be the breathing mechanism, but presumably that is not too hard to get round.

To put my objection in other words. Why is there only one 'origin' of life on Earth, and why are all 'similar' enviromental niches filled by very closely related species?

	13-05-2003 17:59									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Now why do you assume that the corrections on one hand are motivated by truth and honesty and the other because they got caught? AIG did what you say only "honest" scientists do yet to say that their motives are impure while the other is the epitome of integrity (OK I exaggerated here )

Because creationists have never succeeded in "catching" anyone. And it's highly unlikely that they ever will, given that real scientists are MUCH better equipped to catch scientific fraud.

...Whereas bogus creationist arguments circulate for years (and are still circulating).

	13-05-2003 18:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well I am not one then according to your definition. But anyway my eyes are getting blurry so I will have to go.

To answer Elok's question I can just say that no one will ever no for sure what is a true species transformation and what is not because the definition evolves as well! Even talkorigins admits this fact. As far as one kind of creature evolving into another the potential is obviously there. Their is greater potential in some more than others. A tadpole "evolves" into a frog and a moth "evolves into a winged flying creature. So it is foolish to say that some particular creature in past ages did not also make some equally spectatular transition.

	13-05-2003 18:03									#46
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

If anyone want to borrow my time machine they can go and have a look

	13-05-2003 18:16									#47
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Because creationists have never succeeded in "catching" anyone. And it's highly unlikely that they ever will, given that real scientists are MUCH better equipped to catch scientific fraud. ...Whereas bogus creationist arguments circulate for years (and are still circulating).

Elok doesn't want us to argue here.

I have read several books on the deceptive arguments of Darwinists and the presentation of "fact" for years that were spurious. Some were in school textbooks for generations. One example is Darwins moths. Another was the horse story. Creationists exposed the lies. Strive for objectivity Jack... And I have to go so see you all later...

	13-05-2003 18:19									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: I think you are missing my point. Why is there no drastically different animal able to fill the same niche as mammals and be just as good as it? I suppose one has to go back much further to talk about this. For example, you point out that the ear mechanism comes from fish gills. Fair enough, but why was it only fish that were able to fill the niche of turning into mammals (eventually)?

Competition with the existing occupants of the niche. For instance, mammals were basically rodentlike critters while the dinosaurs ruled: they filled the "big herbivore" and "big carnivore" niches (and the marine reptiles filled the "whale" niche too).

quote: But given only one 'origin' we still have a similar problem: why do very early branchings not produce equally successfull mutations to end up with 2 (or more) equally successfull species, filiing a similar niche, which are completely different? We have convergent evolution, but only between recently separated species.

This happens on different continents. For instance, marsupials and placental mammals are separate branches of the evolutionary "Tree of Life": the thylacine (marsupial wolf) isn't a wolf, the koala bear isn't a bear, the opossum isn't anywhere near the lemur, and so forth.

And an armadillo isn't a tortoise either.

quote: To give even a relatively recent example: why not have an insect which fills the same role as a grazing mammal? The only problem I see with this would be the breathing mechanism, but presumably that is not too hard to get round.

They would have to evolve lungs, ours were buoyancy bladders in fish. And then they'd have to survive predation by mammals until the next "dinosaur killer" hits (and survive that too, of course).

	13-05-2003 18:53									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Competition with the existing occupants of the niche. For instance, mammals were basically rodentlike critters while the dinosaurs ruled: they filled the "big herbivore" and "big carnivore" niches (and the marine reptiles filled the "whale" niche too).

But many mammals compete with one another. There is no reason why one cannot have more than one species filling the same 'niche' and surviving. The question is, why do they have to be so similar?

Your later comment on 'dinosaur killer' events may be the answer to this. Perhaps there were other species filling these roles, but they were killed off by some unusual event, and have not had time to recover....

quote: This happens on different continents. For instance, marsupials and placental mammals are separate branches of the evolutionary "Tree of Life": the thylacine (marsupial wolf) isn't a wolf, the koala bear isn't a bear, the opossum isn't anywhere near the lemur, and so forth. And an armadillo isn't a tortoise either.

This is what I meant by convergent evolution among recent relatives. The thylacine is pretty close to a wolf on the scheme of things. But still, Australia strengthens my objections rather than weakens them. Why, for example, did the rabbit (or something similar) never evolve in Australia - it seems perfectly adapted for survival there.

quote: They would have to evolve lungs, ours were buoyancy bladders in fish. And then they'd have to survive predation by mammals until the next "dinosaur killer" hits (and survive that too, of course).

Not really. I am sure mutations would be imaginative enough to come up with something else to let them breathe. For example, they could develop crennelated carapaces with a larger surface area allowing them to continue taking enough oxygen directly through the surface. And this can happen slowly (just like for mammals) - they can start off small and just get bigger over millions of years. The same mechanisms which allow the zebra to coexist with the antelope (or whatever) should, in principle, allow them to coexist with mammals.

Interesting thought experiment: if we were to genertically resurrect a dinosaur herbivore (eg triceritops), a la Jurrasic Park, and plonk a big enough colony of them down in a suitable environment, would the local mammalian population kill them off? Or would they kill off the local mammals? Or would both coexist and evolve?

	13-05-2003 19:01									#50
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Elok doesn't want us to argue here.

Well, that's too bad. My lack of free will makes me unable to stop.

quote: I have read several books on the deceptive arguments of Darwinists and the presentation of "fact" for years that were spurious. Some were in school textbooks for generations. One example is Darwins moths. Another was the horse story. Creationists exposed the lies.

Are you referring to the peppered moth and Jonathan Wells?

I suggest you read Icon of Obfuscation

As for horses: no, there was no "lie" exposed by creationists. And, in my experience, creationists are suspiciously hazy on what the "lie" was supposed to be about in the first place. It's true that the "tree" of horse evolution has been adjusted as more fossils come to light, but that's just the normal progress of science.

Here's an article describing one man's quest to investigate a "lie" about horses.

	13-05-2003 19:16									#51
	Increase Your PM Length

Rogan:

The thylacine, being a marsupial, is about as far from a wolf as it's possible to get and still be a mammal (only the egg-laying mammals, the platypus and echidna, are more distant from wolves). Even a blue whale (or a human) is closer to a wolf than a thylacine is: these are fellow placental mammals. A clear case of convergent evolution, from a relatively distant separation. For an entirely non-mammalian "wolf", there's the Komodo dragon...

As for the rabbit: well, Australia has smallish herbivores, such as the wombat.

And a big insect would just be a crunchier and easier-to-find snack for an insectivore, it probably wouldn't survive long enough to get really big. I expect that's what kept mammals small during the dinosaur age.

	13-05-2003 19:23									#52
	Tired of ads?

If you want long distance convergent evolution, how about dolphins and sharks?

Both are streamlined ocean predators that occupy similar parts of the ecologies they are in.

As for Aussie rabbits, they have a large number of small kangaroo-like marsupials that occupy the rabbit niche (of sorts)...I say "of sorts" since the niche rabbits occupy involves the creatures that surround them as well...

"Bilby, or Rabbit-eared Bandicoot, so named because of their long rabbit-like ears and their habit of building and living in long burrows. They are the only bandicoots that burrow, going down as much as 5 feet or more, and are most active at night. They use their burrows for shelter during the day.

They eat small mammals, insects and lizards. fungi, bulbs, and some fruit."

...as an example (pulled from some site about Australian beasties).

Last edited by Tolls on 13-05-2003 at 19:29

	13-05-2003 20:14									#53
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Tolls If you want long distance convergent evolution, how about dolphins and sharks? Both are streamlined ocean predators that occupy similar parts of the ecologies they are in.

That's a good example!

But why aren't there more examples like this? Maybe ones even furtherfrom each other on the family tree? Or even not related at all (ie. why only one 'origin')?

	13-05-2003 20:17									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

The hummingbird, and the hummingmoth?

	13-05-2003 20:20									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

.

Attachment: images.jpg
This has been downloaded 65 time(s).

	13-05-2003 20:21									#56
	Increase the size of your Attachments

,

Attachment: hummingbirdhawkmoth_rpf.jpeg
This has been downloaded 62 time(s).

	13-05-2003 21:15									#57
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I would expect them to be rare, for much the same reason that developing another "ear" type organ is unlikely...you have to overcome the existing occupant to some extent, and if you succeed in overcoming them then it is more than likely you'll supplant them in that environment.

"why only one 'origin'."

This is where we get into bacteria and their habit of absorbing DNA material from each other. Until the evolution of multi-celled organisms genetic material was pretty free flowing...throw in a couple of billion years of this and you would find it rather difficult to pinpoint the start.

Now if we're talking about multi-celled, I'd have to do some looking...

	13-05-2003 22:44									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Is is true that according to evolution the first human had to reproduce with less evolved humans?

	13-05-2003 23:01									#59
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Nice discussion going on here

One of the reasons that mammals fill many of the niches today is, as one of you mentioned, competition. Early mammals have an extremely high rate of reproduction, which means faster evolution. Also, mammals are endotherms (warm-blooded) so they can tolerate more extreme temperatures. Reptiles of any kind are very unlikely to found in arctic regions, for example.

quote: But given only one 'origin' we still have a similar problem: why do very early branchings not produce equally successfull mutations to end up with 2 (or more) equally successfull species, filiing a similar niche, which are completely different? We have convergent evolution, but only between recently separated species.

Because when one species has become adapted to succeed in its niche, then it will evert a lot of selective pressure against the species that shares the same niche. Timing of the rise of the two species plays a big factor too in determining their eventual niches or extinction. Again like most of biology, there are lots of possible factors to consider here.

It is possible that there were more than 1 origin events. We can trace our evolutionary history among animals by looking at the development of our embryos and genes. However, when we get to the genetic level and cellular levels, things start to get fuzzy. I'm not really an expert in microbial genetics history so I won't say anything about it.
The hypothesis that I learned in class was that many organic molecules, most importantly amino acids and nucleotides, were formed around 4 bya (billion years ago). During this time, we think that the Earth was basically a large, hot stew of rocks and organic molecules, and a thin oxygen-less atmosphere. Self-replication probably arose when nucleotide polymers called RNA appeared. RNA was likely the nucleic acid used then since it's much simpler to maintain. RNA is single-stranded and linear. The modern DNA->RNA->protein sequence is far too complex for early life.
It's possible that another 'origin of life' arose and then was outcompeted and died off.

A few points I'd like to make that many non-biologists usually don't understand:

There are a few terms that may be unfamiliar to some of you. Do a search on google, I'm sure there are websites that can explain the concepts much better than I can.

1. Evolution is the change in gene frequencies over a period of time.

2. Natural selection is the differential reproductive success among a population. "Survival of the fittest" is somewhat misleading; It should be survival of the genotypes that produce the most offspring. Of course, survival is an obvious prerequisite to reproducing.

3. Many traits were not specifically evolved in response to a changing environment. This is the folly of the Adaptionist Paradigm -- that every trait was evolved for a purpose. A change in a specific gene(s) will most likely have side effects that change an individual's phenotype.

4. Evolution at the molecular level is selectively neutral [Kimura] -- mainly affected by mutation and genetic drift. These neutral mutations, if they manifest themselves as a change in phenotype, as then subject to selective pressures.

	14-05-2003 03:40									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Azazel -

quote: there is nothing surprising about it. It's not easy to reach Java from africa. You have to develope map making first.

It was easier during the ice age when the Sunda shelf - Indonesia and current islands - were all connected because sea levels were lower. It is strange that homo erectus "evolved" into anatomically modern humans ~200,000 years ago in Africa while homo erectus were still living "unevolved" in other parts of the world for another 150,000 years. I suppose one group of a species can leap forward leaving the rest behind, but what caused the leap forward? The differences between homo erectus and modern humans is quite amazing, maybe as much as between habilis and erectus. Brain size doubled from afarensis (Lucy types 3.5 mya) to erectus, and jumped by 50-100% to us in a matter of a few tens of thousands of years or less.

Rogan -

quote: For example, why do all mammals have eyes on the front/side of their faces?

Depth perception vision is advantageous.

quote: Wouldn't antelopes benefit from having one on the top of their head so that they could have vision when they are grazing?

Hehe, they rely on numbers so someone is usually looking. But I imagine they evolved from creatures that didn't have this problem so the hardwiring for vision didn't sprout new vision receptors to every convenient part of the body.

quote: Predators have them on the front to give them ability to judge distances - but why not also have one behind?

Same reason they go forward faster than backward, they chase prey, not back up to it.

quote: Hearing is another example. Why are all hearing systems basically the same? There must be thousands of ways of detecting vibrations, but only a few of them have evolved. Why?

I believe all life in the universe is similar to the life we have here. Certain designs are just better than others, so why wouldn't they appear everywhere.