What the Hobbit has done to evolution.

[MorningGlory]

I actually didn't really want to talk about DNA evidence for evolution in too much detail because I think the complexities therein far exceed the general level of discussion I've witnessed on this forum. . .which is really just a fancy way of saying that I don't think most posters here can handle it.

I think you're on the wrong forum....the Inflated Cranium Symposium is down the hall, to the right, by the Wikipedia Hut.

[Fez]

I actually didn't really want to talk about DNA evidence for evolution in too much detail because I think the complexities therein far exceed the general level of discussion I've witnessed on this forum. . .which is really just a fancy way of saying that I don't think most posters here can handle it.

I think you're on the wrong forum....the Inflated Cranium Symposium is down the hall, to the right, by the Wikipedia Hut.

That made my morning!!!! Now if someone would only show me the monkey, it would be a perfect day!

[artsylady]

Cro magnon refers to essentially early modern humans from 40,000 to 10,000 years ago, as far as I know the only difference in skulls is that they had a slightly larger skull casing

Would a modern pygmy or dwarf have a slighty smaller skull casing?

[WolfBitn]

Would you say then that there is not only evolution but DEevolution shown in fossile evidence?

No, although some Neanderthal braincases are known have a larger volume than that of modern humans. We did not evolve from them so you could not call this de-evolution. There is no evidence for de-evolution in the fossil record.

WolfBitn, where do Neanderthals fit in the scheme of things according to the Genesis model?

If there is no DEevolution then you are forced to correct your statement that evolution DOES NOT presuppose a graduation form the simplest to the most complexd, because it certainly does... i think youre just trying to avoid what you see as a trap

from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...cgi?artid=94481

As this minireview is concerned with the importance of the environment in directing evolution, it is appropriate to remember that Lamarck was the first to clearly articulate a consistent theory of gradual evolution from the simplest of species to the most complex, culminating in the origin of mankind (71). He published his remarkable and courageous theory in 1809, the year of Darwin's birth. Unfortunately, Lamarck's major contributions have been overshadowed by his views on the inheritance of acquired characters. In fact, Darwin shared some of these same views, and even Weismann (106), the father of neo-Darwinism, decided late in his career that directed variation must be invoked to understand some phenomena, as random variation and selection alone are not a sufficient explanation (71). This minireview will describe mechanisms of mutation that are not random and can accelerate the process of evolution in specific directions. The existence of such mechanisms has been predicted by mathematicians (6) who argue that, if every mutation were really random and had to be tested against the environment for selection or rejection, there would not have been enough time to evolve the extremely complex biochemical networks and regulatory mechanisms found in organisms today. Dobzhansky (21) expressed similar views by stating

[WolfBitn]

so tell me something... evolution presupposes life evolves from simplest to the more complex... yes or no

No.

Wrong... see my post above, this presents a very serious problem for you... in the first place why are you afraid to admit this?

I provide links for a reason, these process' can be very complicated and you appear to want an answer with a high level of detail. It's hard to put these things into laymans terms because everything becomes kind of vague but here it goes. This is a chromosome, it's basically like a filing cabinet for genetic information, that red dot in the middle is called a centromere, that's not a gene it's kind of like a trailer hitch in that when a chromosome needs to get moved around during cell division proteins latch on to the centromere and drag it around. These anchor points can also fuse together so if you get two chromosomes with breaks at the right places (at or near their centromeres) they can fuse. If you'd like to know why this occurs in a little more detail I suggest you follow the link I provided here.

How long would it take this to happen on an evolutionary scale? How long does it take for fusion to occur throughout a species? Can a primate with 48 chromosomes crossbreed with a primate who has 46 naturally?

i would like to see ANY other instance the bolded takes place other than in a human... can you provide that?

Are you under the impression that chromosomal fusion is a uniquely human trait? That would make absolutely zero sense given the process' involved. But, since you asked, here you go:

Induced Robertsonian fusions and tandem translocations in mammalian cell cultures

I said NATURALLY occuring... this was manipulated and induced... show me somethng NATURALLY occuring in ANY other instance other than the human being

How long would this fusing take on an evilutionary scale?

The fusion of human chromosome #2 would occur very quickly during reproduction on an individual scale, but it would take quite a while for this fusion to take root in an entire population. I don't know how long this took as it would depend on environment, nor do I see how this really matters. . .perhaps you could explain your thoughts here a little more.

Yes but dont we learn that the evolutionary process takes millions of years for one thing to be transformed into another?

HOW did it fuse naturally?

The same way chromosomes get fused today. I've provided a detailed description of one of these cases already, but one out of a thousand people are born with some kind of Robertsonian translocation.

but NOT a total fusion of chromosomes. Also your case doesnt apply because its UNnaturally induced... So you are left not being able to tell me how this occurs naturally OR giving me an example in ANYTHING other than a human

[WolfBitn]

The theory of evolution explains how life started out simple and diversified into numerous complex forms. The general trend in evolution is toward more and more complex forms as beneficial traits are "stacked" and selected for by natural selection however, it is NEVER a straight simplistic line from simple to complex. What you need to wrap your head around is that evolution is driven by environment which affects different populations in different ways. Go ahead and make your pseudo-point about a primate with 48 chromosomes being "more complex" than a primate with 46, I'm very interested to see just how you will substantiate it.

I'm afraid youve yet to prove what youre saying... its not only an opinion, its wrong unless you can counter scientists who make the claim that evolution processes life from the simplest to the more complex... Youre avoiding the issue and not taking responsibility to back your claim with anything BUT your opinion despite the concensus of science

You already admit 'deevolution DOESNT exist in the fossile record... only progression

So then WHY is the human the ONLY species to show natural DEevolution in the chromasomes, fusing to make a simpler and less complex number? Why cant you produce ANY OTHER single instance of this fusing occuring naturally??

This question makes no sense, what is an "evolutionary scale"?

Avoiding another issue? I want to know how long it takes for this to occur and what causes it

Can a primate with 48 chromosomes crossbreed with a primate who has 46 naturally?

In this case yes, remember it's not that one whole chromosome has been thrown away, it's just been cut and pasted together with another one to form one big chromosome instead of two smaller ones. If we harken back to my analogy of chromosomes as filing cabinets for genetic information you could think of it as just re-organizing your files from two small cabinets into one big one - all the files are still there, we've just changed how they are stored.

So then youre saying a human can naturally procreate with a chimp or an orangutang? Why must chromosomes match numericly and in base pairs for procreation to occur naturally?

I said NATURALLY occuring... this was manipulated and induced... show me somethng NATURALLY occuring in ANY other instance other than the human being

Are you under the impression that other animals don't have chromosomes? This is not that difficult to grasp.

No, I am under the impression youre avoiding the hard issues for you. Ive made it clear this isnt what i believe at all, so lets guit playing the 'i dont understand you' game

show me ANY other instance of this fusing of chromosomes happening naturally... ANY... just ONE... please

Yes but dont we learn that the evolutionary process takes millions of years for one thing to be transformed into another?

If you were paying attention you would have probably learned that very large changes take millions of years. . .it's kind of like walking from LA to New York. Each step represents a very small change but if you keep taking those very small steps eventually you will end up traveling a very long distance. The fusion of Human Chromosome #2 is just one of those steps.

And you dont think the fusing of chromosomoes are a HUGE RARE step when in fact you cant point me to a single instance of it occuring naturally in ANY other instance other than a human?

but NOT a total fusion of chromosomes. Also your case doesnt apply because its UNnaturally induced... So you are left not being able to tell me how this occurs naturally OR giving me an example in ANYTHING other than a human

Your responses are only reinforcing my beliefs about that ability of this forum to handle evidence of this detail. Even the simplest of Google searches would introduce you to numerous non-human examples of these kinds of fusions. And seriously, what on earth does "NOT a total fusion of chromosomes" even mean? Take your time with this material, it is complicated and your insistence that somehow animals wouldn't be affected by chromosomal fusions even though 1 out of 900 people are reveals just how little you understand about the process' involved here. I mean, good grief man if you had even looked up the definition of Robertsonian translocation you would know that it was named for W.R.B. Robertson who described it in grasshoppers!

No no... these all show either MANIPULATED FORCED fusing, or only a PARTIAL transfer, but NEVER a total fusing occurring naturally... nice attempt to distract... but it doesnt work with me... SHOW ME just ONE instance of total fusion naturally occuring in ANYTHING but a human, or just conceded to the fact that you cant do so

Also show me where humans can crossbreed with other primates naturally... something besides from the national enquirer please lol

[WolfBitn]

If there is no DEevolution then you are forced to correct your statement that evolution DOES NOT presuppose a graduation form the simplest to the most complexd, because it certainly does... i think youre just trying to avoid what you see as a trap

So why do you disagree with scientific concensus in this case? Just to avoid a serious issue?

I don't disagree with the scientific consensus. I told you that the old view was that evolution was like a ladder. The ineviteble result was progression. The new view states that it is like a bush with both horizontal and vertical branching. If there was no increased complexity in evolution then higher life forms obviously would not evolve, but complexity is not inevitable. I stated that more complex forms are not inevitable. That was my point. There is evidence of bacterial life on Earth going back billions of years, and for all the bacterial life still present there has been no upward evolution. Another example: frogs. Frogs have been on Earth since before the dinosaurs, and there are still frogs. No upward movement there either. Evolution does not guarantee increased compexity. Stephen J. Gould wrote that people often assume the evolution of humans was inevitable. He was at pains to stress this was not the case. Gould said that if the experiment on Earth could be run a second time there was no guarantee evolution would produce humans a second time. In case you doubt what I told you the first time, below is the statement I fired off to you quickly before heading off to bed the other night.[.quote]

Yes i understand your point about the frogs BUT this isnt what im talking about... im talking about a step BACKWARD, not being stationary or unchanging... Moving from the more complex to the more simplistic

Sorry Wolfbitn, but I don't understand the following:

If there is no DEevolution then you are forced to correct your statement that evolution DOES NOT presuppose a graduation form the simplest to the most complexd, because it certainly does... i think youre just trying to avoid what you see as a trap

I have

never heard of fossil evidence for de-evolution

and I don't see the connection you are trying to make.

WolfBitn, where you planning to answer my question on where Neanderthals fit in the scheme of things according to the Genesis model?

Exactly, thats my point... there isnt any So then HOW can our dna SIMPLIFY, taking an actual step BACKWARD, yet we advance

Also i want you to touch on the reproduction issue

WHY is it a human cant mate with another primate to bring forth offspring? What do Chromosomes have to do with it?

..and yes we are about to go into the neanderthal

Edited July 29, 2009 by WolfBitn

[WolfBitn]

Quote mining a couple phrases here and there isn't a good way to represent a complex theory like evolution, while scientists agree that the general trend in evolution is toward more complexity this trend is not absolute. Instances do exist of prolonged stasis and even loss of traits depending upon the environment. For instance, just about all amphibians have eyes as they provide a increased survival ability, the Texas blind Salamander is, however, an exception. Because of their environment (caves) they have no need for eyes, thus eyes provide no survival ability, and thus they have evolved to the point where they no longer have them.

Pulling definitions from sites dealing with evolution isnt quote mining, its putting before you proof of what im saying... i dont want to appear to be pulling things from air

The point being that every text i read state that evolution NEVER DEvolves from a complex organism to a simpler organism

The texas salamander isnt becoming simpler organism either... not in any sence of the word, its only traded one sence for the other 4 heightened sences. On the other hand youve still not produced anything to back your allegation that there are more examples of fusing of Chromosomes naturally in ANY other animal but man either... im waiting for your cources on both lol

You already admit 'deevolution DOESNT exist in the fossile record... only progression

No, I said that the fossil record shows a progression of traits. This should not be confused with saying that evolution always takes the simple and makes it more complex in every single case, it's just the general trend.

no this is what you said...

I have never heard of fossil evidence for de-evolution

Youve never seen an example of the complex becoming a simpler life form... which is a point we will work with shortly i hope

So then WHY is the human the ONLY species to show natural DEevolution in the chromasomes, fusing to make a simpler and less complex number? Why cant you produce ANY OTHER single instance of this fusing occuring naturally??

The recurrence of chromosome fusion in inter-population hybrids of the grasshopper Atractomorpha similis

Enjoy.

sorry... you KNOW im asking for something that occurs naturally and the very first line in that abstract disqualify this

Abstract Single-pair matings of the grasshopper Atractomorpha similis (2n=19 ; 20 ) were set up in the laboratory.

So you have nothing my friend... nothing showing this occuring naturally

It doesnt occur without ASSISTANCE... hence my point

Why must chromosomes match numericly and in base pairs for procreation to occur naturally?

No, actually, they don't. The Przewalski horse, for example, has 66 chromosomes and can produce fertile offspring with the 64 chromosome domestic horse.

This one ill give you, it happens but is extremely rare asnearly every instance, any crossbreeding of this sort either produces nothing at all, or else the offspring it infertile, therefore not able to produce such a line... we find this in mules for instance... so at least im sure we can agree its rare

Also in this case the mitochrondial dna is nearly a perfect match between the 2 types horses which leads some to believe its just another breed, and not another species... If the mitochondrial dna wasnt so close a match the chances are there would be no exception in this case

But you ARE right, in this case it happens but its rare

[Guest HIS girl]

I just wanted to butt in and say I watched a fraction of a documentary tonight - commentary by David Attenborough called "The Link".

What do you fellows think of "Ida"?

http://www.thenaturewatch.com/2009/05/link...on-ida-and.html

[Guest HIS girl]

I have to say - I didn't think the presentation was of high standard -

Question - is David Attenborough more "celebrity evolutionist" than intellectually serious?

Just curious.