Evolution: The Scientific Evidence

[ewmayer]

New York Times article about the relatively complete A. Afarensis skeleton of a young female newly announced in Nature. Excerpts:

An analysis of the skeleton revealed evidence of a species in transition, the scientists said in interviews yesterday.

The lower limbs supported earlier findings that afarensis walked upright, like modern humans. But gorillalike arms and shoulders suggested that it possibly retained an ancestral ability to climb and swing through the trees.
...
In an accompanying commentary in the journal, Bernard Wood of George Washington University, who had no part in the discovery, said the specimen was “a veritable mine of information about a crucial stage in human evolutionary history.”

Dr. Wood, a paleoanthropologist, also noted how rare it was for the fragile bones of infants to survive long enough to fossilize. “But if they do, they provide precious evidence about the growth and development of the individual and the species,” he wrote.
...
Although the fossils are still being studied, Dr. Alemseged and his colleagues noted several important findings and areas for further research. The Dikika girl’s brain size, for example, was about the same as that of a similarly aged chimpanzee, but a comparison with adult afarensis skulls indicates a relatively slow brain growth slightly closer to that of humans.

The presence of a hyoid bone was a surprise. It is a rarely preserved bone in the larynx, or voice box, that supports muscles of the throat and tongue. The bone in the infant appeared to be primitive and more similar to those found in apes than in humans, the scientists said, but is the first hyoid found in such an early human-related species and thus important in research about the origins of human speech.

The first relatively complete shoulder blades to be found in an australopithecine individual was one of the most puzzling aspects of the discovery, several scientists said. The lower body appeared to be adapted for upright walking by afarensis. But the shoulders and long arms were more apelike.

In the journal report, Dr. Alemseged and his team wrote that “the functional interpretation of these features is highly debated, with some arguing that the upper limb features are nonfunctional retentions from a common ancestor only, whereas others proposed that they were preserved because A. afarensis maintained, to some degree, an arboreal component in its locomotor repertoire.”

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

No, Mally, religion had nothing to do with it. As you'll see in a future posting from me, the way I resisted suicide was entirely secular.
# --@--#~
BTW, my following questions for you still stand unanswered:

"What evolutionary textbooks or other expositions by supporters of evolution have you ever read?"

"Just how much of the other side of this coin have you studied?"

Too many to mention them here. No textbooks, though, as I have done 'A' level in Health Science of the Univ. Camb.
However I took stock of my personal library and was amazed at the variety of topics dealt by authors like Desmond Morris, Carl sagan, Charles berlitz, Erich Von Danigen and I found a jewel- 'THe Ascent of Man' by J. Bronowski.
Its a book worth reading and benefitted me a great deal, so thank you for asking me those questions.
Though there was no consensus on what is the actual answer, pro or con I did learn that of the 193 species of man and ape, Man is the only hair free 'naked ape'. Also that the bear has a bone in his penis and that man has the longest penis on him, a comforting thought esp when urinating in the toilets at Grand Central stn. where perpetual homo's look over the divide and have to be shooed of by the cops.
Mally

[cheesehead]

I asked Mally

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"What evolutionary textbooks or other expositions by supporters of evolution have you ever read?"

"Just how much of the other side of this coin have you studied?"

to which Mally replied

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Too many to mention them here. No textbooks, though, as I have done 'A' level in Health Science of the Univ. Camb.
However I took stock of my personal library and was amazed at the variety of topics dealt by authors like Desmond Morris, Carl sagan, Charles berlitz, Erich Von Danigen and I found a jewel- 'THe Ascent of Man' by J. Bronowski.
Its a book worth reading and benefitted me a great deal, so thank you for asking me those questions.

Mally, I see that I should have been more exact in my first question. What I intended to ask about were books (or other expositions) whose primary subject was the explanation of general evolution and the mechanisms of natural selection, and whose authors were honestly trying to accurately depict current evolutionary theory in general, not just as it applies to humans.

I haven't seen a Desmond Morris exposition about evolution in general. He has written about evolutionary history and hypotheses of humans and other primates, but there he seems to assume that his readers know what general evolution is and does not actually explain it himself, according to my recollections and a quick look back through "The Naked Ape" and "Manwatching".

Perhaps Carl Sagan has written a bit more generally about evolution than Morris, but I haven't read such of his books in a decade. Which of his works explains evolution in general?

Charles berlitz: According to Wikipedia, he's written a lot about anomalous phenomena, but there's no mention of his having authored anything on evolution. You aren't thinking that "The Bermuda Triangle", "The Philadelphia Experiment", "The Roswell Incident" or "The Mystery of Atlantis" has anything to do with evolution, are you?

Erich Von Danigen: If you meant Erich von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken), well, you're listing an author who is famous for pseudoscience rather than real science, and who has a significant history of deception (see the "Von Däniken and forgery" section of the Wikipedia article).

If the chapters of 'The Ascent of Man' by J. Bronowski that are concerned with general evolution benefitted you, then why is it that the only descriptions of evolution that you write in this thread are either (a) jokes or (b) caricatures of evolution that one might find in a creationist's attack on evolution, but not in an honest and accurate depiction of evolution?

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I asked Mallyto which Mally replied
Mally, I see that I should have been more exact in my first question. What I intended to ask about were books (or other expositions) whose primary subject was the explanation of general evolution and the mechanisms of natural selection, and whose authors were honestly trying to accurately depict current evolutionary theory in general, not just as it applies to humans.

I haven't seen a Desmond Morris exposition about evolution in general. He has written about evolutionary history and hypotheses of humans and other primates, but there he seems to assume that his readers know what general evolution is and does not actually explain it himself, according to my recollections and a quick look back through "The Naked Ape" and "Manwatching".

Perhaps Carl Sagan has written a bit more generally about evolution than Morris, but I haven't read such of his books in a decade. Which of his works explains evolution in general?

Charles berlitz: According to Wikipedia, he's written a lot about anomalous phenomena, but there's no mention of his having authored anything on evolution. You aren't thinking that "The Bermuda Triangle", "The Philadelphia Experiment", "The Roswell Incident" or "The Mystery of Atlantis" has anything to do with evolution, are you?

Erich Von Danigen: If you meant Erich von Däniken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken), well, you're listing an author who is famous for pseudoscience rather than real science, and who has a significant history of deception (see the "Von Däniken and forgery" section of the Wikipedia article).

If the chapters of 'The Ascent of Man' by J. Bronowski that are concerned with general evolution benefitted you, then why is it that the only descriptions of evolution that you write in this thread are either (a) jokes or (b) caricatures of evolution that one might find in a creationist's attack on evolution, but not in an honest and accurate depiction of evolution?

Cheesehead first of all let me commend you for taking the pains of attending to posts rigorously and conscientiously unlike many others.
I will be honest with you that I believe religiously that man was created as a unique creation quite distinct from all the animals. Yes he does undergo evolution and adapt himself to his environment, so on and on forth but on the whole he does not evolve from any other being but himself as created.
I think I have expressed myself fully clearly in this regard. Other animals may follow from Darwin's theory and I am in perfect agreement to that but this does not apply to man.
So I am not against Darwin's theory for all animals. It is mostly and accurately true BUT not for man! Hence I dont bother arguing on Darwin's theory and dismiss bickering about it.
Now cheesehead let me ask you a simple question. If you are only interested in Analysis specialising in say differential equations and preparing to qualify in this would you bother buying or consulting expensive books on say topology which is not part of your chosen training? Obviously Not!
Similarly when I am fully convinced that man is the ultimate in creation of life I will not buy books on subjects which to me are totally erroneous, to me at least.
If evolution of man follows from animals and if yours is a sound scientific theory you should be able to predict the next form of man shouldn't you? I would like to know from you what your theory predicts is in store for man within the normal evolutionary limits, like size of brain (that so far is tending to increase, a height to a standard 6' etc.etc.) even though it may take 'n' years for the process?
I have asked this question before but have not even received an answer leave alone a satisfactory one.
No wonder then that I turn to humour when positors are not true to their science. I have reason to believe that there are posters in this thread who are using their replies as an excercise in the English Language. There are some using their debating skills as an excercise in logical sophistry etc,etc.
In Shakespeare's words ' A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing'. [Macbeth]
Mally
P.S. The book I am really referring from is 'Genesis and Evolution' By M.R. De Haan M.D. (Zondervan Publishing House). If you are interested I can request them to send you one free of charge or a nominal one for postage) . I look forward to your promised thread on a secular cure]

[retina]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Similarly when I am fully convinced that man is the ultimate in creation of life I will not buy books on subjects which to me are totally erroneous, to me at least.

Yes, that is known as "burying your head in the sand". You don't want to read things that put your beliefs in question, or disagree with your ideas. If one really wants to "prove" to themselves they are right, they should attempt to see all possible angles and competing ideas before proclaiming they "know the truth". Proper scientists form a theory and are prepared to alter their theory if it is shown that it does not fit the observed evidence. Religious zealots like to find bits of parchment buried for thousands of years and claim it must be true because it is very old.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

If evolution of man follows from animals and if yours is a sound scientific theory you should be able to predict the next form of man shouldn't you?

At the risk of answering a question that may be asked of someone else, it would seem you are asking cheesehead to predict the outcome of a random processes. My (limited) understanding of the theory of evolution tells me that the organisms change in random ways, some beneficial and some not. You might as well ask cheesehead to predict the outcome of next weeks lottery. Could anyone have predicted the rise of a naked ape with large brain?

However, that being said, I will try to predict anyway (just for fun of course). Man will, in general, become smaller, weaker, lighter and smarter. My reasoning is based upon the following three observations: 1) The population growth will require that the average food intake per person will decrease in order to make sure there is enough food to go around. 2) Persons less smart than most will become less socially desirable and thus produce, on average, less offspring. 3) With the ability to make tools and use knowledge to survive, physical prowess will no longer become necessary.

Now, I feel quite safe in making that prediction, because of two reasons: 1) It is, for the most part, untestable. 2) The time scale is very long and I will be long dead and forgotten before anyone can say for sure if I was on the right track.

So, is that what the sort of thing you were expecting from a prediction? How does that help you to believe (or not) in the evolution thoery? Is it just that you wanted to post a challenge because you think it makes you look smart?

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by retina

Yes, that is known as "burying your head in the sand". You don't want to read things that put your beliefs in question, or disagree with your ideas. If one really wants to "prove" to themselves they are right, they should attempt to see all possible angles and competing ideas before proclaiming they "know the truth". Proper scientists form a theory and are prepared to alter their theory if it is shown that it does not fit the observed evidence. Religious zealots like to find bits of parchment buried for thousands of years and claim it must be true because it is very old.

When an ostrich does that my advice is to watch out for the back kick.
My beliefs originate in the Word of God. You don't need old parchments to record the truth. I do not know where you stay but I hope the skies are not cloudy all year round like some countries I have visited. If you dont, then look up at the sky at night. You will see the handiwork of God Almighty.
It is written ' the heavens reveal the handiwork of God' Just look up Retina and you dont have to deal with random theories on randomness to understand the Might of God. Even in the randomness of stars man has framed the constellations on familiar themes. I presume the Great Bear and the North Star Polaris should be in view sometime if you are up North If not then try fathoming the Southern Cross. I have seen both in their glory.

'From the prison window two men looked around,
One saw the stars;the other the ground'

Thats appears to be your life's story. Forget the dust as thats is where you land up sooner or later whether man or ape. Look up man in humility and acknowledge the Creator with your elephant brain. You cant contain Him and never will.
I dont have to 'prove' anything to myself.
It is written in the first line of Genesis.'In the beginning God'- thats it. You dismiss Him you dismiss everything else. 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'- period!
'Let us make man in our image and likeness' Thats it -period.
It is foretold (unlike your evolutionary theory) 'Men will look like Gods' and today they almost do, miles away from your puny prediction of stunted human beings!. Well that IS the prediction from the Bible the Word of God. In my travels I have seen similarities of that prediction; its unbelievable but I will not describe it to the weak or impotent! They simply wont understand it. On the other end of the scale we want 'men not monsters' was a cartoon I saw on weightlifters - Americans vs. British. It was hilarious ! To think of 22" arms and 58" chest size- modern freaks on high protein foods. The ideal man is a mean and maintains the mean in evolution as God has decreed.
'Proper scientists'? huh not a patch to the Creator the ultimate scientist. No wonder they have to change their theories from age to age!.
By the way please dont classify me as a religious zealot or fundamentalist.
I am simply a follower of Jesus Christ but fall far short of His Humility. Contrary to him, I believe in calling a spade a spade when it is necessary.
Only once His zeal for His Farther overcame Him when he whipped the money changers and over threw their tables, those hypocrites!

At the risk of answering a question that may be asked of someone else, it would seem you are asking cheesehead to predict the outcome of a random processes. My (limited) understanding of the theory of evolution tells me that the organisms change in random ways, some beneficial and some not. You might as well ask cheesehead to predict the outcome of next weeks lottery. Could anyone have predicted the rise of a naked ape with large brain?

You have asked the question now please answer it.
What do you think what QT is all about? Yet we predict and it works out randomly or not. The theory of genetics is well on its way to completion. If not already done. The chances are if two blue eyed people procreate, the baby will also have true blue, and this can be predicted but I wont deal with trivia here.

Could anyone have predicted the rise of a naked ape with large brain?

The naked ape never rose to a large brain. He always had one. Those fossils are not direct ascendants of human beings. Yes as a believer I can predict that 'Man will look like Gods'

[Quote] However, that being said, I will try to predict anyway (just for fun of course). Man will, in general, become smaller, weaker, lighter and smarter. My reasoning is based upon the following three observations: 1) The population growth will require that the average food intake per person will decrease in order to make sure there is enough food to go around. 2) Persons less smart than most will become less socially desirable and thus produce, on average, less offspring. 3) With the ability to make tools and use knowledge to survive, physical prowess will no longer become necessary.

Now, I feel quite safe in making that prediction, because of two reasons: 1) It is, for the most part, untestable. 2)

The time scale is very long and I will be long dead and forgotten before anyone can say for sure if I was on the right track.

You are miserably mistaken. You will live after death as sure as I write this.
You will be forgotten, yes, if you dont change your way of thinking as you will not be found in the Book of Life.

So, is that what the sort of thing you were expecting from a prediction? How does that help you to believe (or not) in the evolution thoery? Is it just that you wanted to post a challenge because you think it makes you look smart?

Challenge? Haven't you learnt 'defiers are cowards and doers are fools'
Take a look at yourself and see how smart you are. You have an unconscious FEAR NOT to become the type of man you have predicted- you know egg heads with bulging eyes and stunted legs?
Hey Retina it looks like you are devolving back to the mud/slush age.
My apologies if by telling the Truth I have offended you.
'Look Smart'? I have been mistaken for Omar Sharif in the good old days many many times even in NY., Egypt and the Lebanon
Mally

[S485122]

I have known a few people who believe but also recognise the fact that it is a pure act of creed and that religious paradigms cannot be proven.

Trying to discuss rationally with somebody who believes in something because it was written in a book, and that it must be the truth because the book has been inspired by that something can be funny. It is indeed funny to see people confronted to the unknown, inventing a “meta” unknown. Let us suppose god exists, who created god ? Super god ? And who created him. The response “He has always been and will be forever” is not sufficient : who has created the realm where that god has always been ? I love discussing metaphysics. But don’t hope to be able to exchange arguments : reason is lost where creed enters.

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by Jacob Visser

reason is lost where creed enters.

This thread seems to demonstrate that quite well.

Let me highlight some things on Mally's post and comment, too.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

(...)
My beliefs originate in the Word of God. You don't need old parchments to record the truth. I do not know where you stay but I hope the skies are not cloudy all year round like some countries I have visited. If you dont, then look up at the sky at night. You will see the handiwork of God Almighty.
It is written ' the heavens reveal the handiwork of God' Just look up Retina and you dont have to deal with random theories on randomness to understand the Might of God. Even in the randomness of stars man has framed the constellations on familiar themes. I presume the Great Bear and the North Star Polaris should be in view sometime if you are up North If not then try fathoming the Southern Cross. I have seen both in their glory.

Notice the two things I put in bold. Also, let me comment: <irony> man is such a Perfect Being and the knowledge of the Almighty Creator is so deeply engraved on him that Every Culture in the World has always looked at the same stars and described them as the very same Constellations, with the very same Names, and they carry absolutely no Cultural Biases. That's because they were put there by the Most Powerful.</irony>

Originally Posted by mfgoode

(...)
It is written in the first line of Genesis. [etcetera, etcetera]
(..)
No wonder [scientists] have to change their theories from age to age!.

Why should they, since the reach of human perception doesn't change at all, isn't it so?

By the way, you keep saying "it is written". I suppose you don't need old parchments to know the Truth because It is written on papyrus not on parchment, right?

Originally Posted by mfgoode

By the way please dont classify me as a religious zealot or fundamentalist.

Well, that's what you get if you behave as one.

Originally Posted by mfgoode

I am simply a follower of Jesus Christ but fall far short of His Humility.

The latter statement is completely true. Perhaps you could improve on that if you didn't claim to have had the Truth revealed to you. But that is something I suppose you won't do, will you?

[cheesehead]

retina & Mally,

You're both missing factors in the future evolution of mankind that are far more important than any factor has been up until now: the combination of biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cybernetics will soon allow humans to largely direct their own evolution for the first time in history. While there is no evidence of an Intelligent Designer in the past (aside from the various directed breeding programs carried out by humans in the past few thousand years, such as in domesticating plants and animals), it will become possible for people to be their own "intelligent designers", though not in the sense that the creationist/ID movement means.

It may well be that a certain, perhaps large, portion of people alive today will have their decendants largely untouched by technology. But DNA manipulation and the other technologies I mention above have the potential of producing enormous changes such that there will not only be new species among the descendants of a few people now alive, but the future of intelligent beings derived from homo sapiens may take directions not even classifiable by current species-genus-family-... taxonomy. Such prospects can be scary, but there are already many risks in life (supervolcanoes, asteroids colliding with Earth, nearby supernovae whose intense radiation destroys all complex organisms, etc.) that the few folks who are even aware of them usually ignore in everyday life.

- -

Mally, this is not yet my answer to your challenge to predict the future. It's just a note to point out some factors.

[brunoparga]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But DNA manipulation and the other technologies I mention above have the potential of producing enormous changes such that there will not only be new species among the descendants of a few people now alive, but the future of intelligent beings derived from homo sapiens may take directions not even classifiable by current species-genus-family-... taxonomy. Such prospects can be scary, but there are already many risks in life (supervolcanoes, asteroids colliding with Earth, nearby supernovae whose intense radiation destroys all complex organisms, etc.) that the few folks who are even aware of them usually ignore in everyday life.

But we can do nothing against supervolcanoes or supernovae (asteroids would perhaps be a little more manageable - the overall picture of that "Armageddon" movie, even if without details like Bruce Willis and Liv Tyler, doesn't seem too absurd to me).

On the other hand, the scary experiments with human reproduction you mention can (and should, I think) be controlled in the same spirit as humane treatment of laboratory mice and other animals is enforced - only in a stronger way, since it's our very own species we're dealing with.

Bruno

[99.94]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Cheesehead first of all let me commend you for taking the pains of attending to posts rigorously and conscientiously unlike many others.
I will be honest with you that I believe religiously that man was created as a unique creation quite distinct from all the animals. Yes he does undergo evolution and adapt himself to his environment, so on and on forth but on the whole he does not evolve from any other being but himself as created.
I think I have expressed myself fully clearly in this regard. Other animals may follow from Darwin's theory and I am in perfect agreement to that but this does not apply to man.
So I am not against Darwin's theory for all animals. It is mostly and accurately true BUT not for man! Hence I dont bother arguing on Darwin's theory and dismiss bickering about it.
]

This is just not supportable. Mally, you cannot expect to be taken seriously when you argue that the process of adaptation proposed by Darwin applies to all other animals (in this case) but not to humans. You might say that as a religious dogma, but to pretend your position has a rational basis - such as by challenging Cheesehead to predict the next form of man - is a hoax.

Your choice of a quote from Macbeth is a very strange one.

For a start, it has been taken out of context. It has nothing to do with the sort of "logical sophistry" of which you complain. The full passage is:

"She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing"

Macbeth has been told that his wife is dead. His response (above) is to deny the very meaning or purpose of life itself, or the possibility of a hereafter. It is absolutely a denial of everything Mally has been saying both in this and in his Does God Exist? thread.