Evidence for evolution.

[Botz]

I don't mind talking about ERVs, and I think they do support evolution. ERV fixation is quite rare, and the spot is random. So finding the same ERV (note: this doesn't mean the exact same nucleotide sequence as the link on evolutionfairytale suggests; once the ERV is fixated it is free to mutate as time goes on) in the same chromosomal locus is very good evidence for common ancestry given the astronomical odds for such to exist independent of common ancestry, especially once you add in mutations to the nested hierarchy.

Would these mutations that are mentioned be 'beneficial mutations'?

[MorningGlory]

The rest of your post is essentially garbage; this argument requires no transitional fossil record (which does, actually exist) and the ToE does not at all propose anything remotely like a "chimp hybrid". Such statements make one seriously question if you understand the ToE at all.

Lurker

Ah, your predictable (and pedantic) arrogance asserts itself once again. Now, let me explain to you in simple terms, Lurker......no way did chimps start having human babies at some point on the, presumably, long evolutionary road. If evolution of chimps to man is a fact then where ARE the transitional beings remains? Homo Sapiens Sapiens just appeared out of nowhere a few thousand years ago; I know it and so do you.

[MorningGlory]

I agree completely that no populations of chimp ever evolved into humans as we are cousins, some say siblings, on the evolutionary tree of life. Just as your cousin or brother/sister isn't your father or mother, humans never came from chimps. We have a common ancestor, which is what Lurker is referring to.

But as far as human evolution goes in terms of fossils, there's the Australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis, H. heidelbergensis and so on. We hardly appeared out of nowhere a few thousand years ago.

Yeah, I saw all of those homanids on that documentary with Alec Baldwin too.....it was very interesting and I really enjoyed it. They were not human however; they were human LIKE. In order for us to be descended from any of THEM....someone had to jump a very wide evolutionary divide somewhere. Humans are distinct even from beings that are very similar to us.....we have souls, other species do not. Surely you, and Lurker, know this.

[nebula]

just as the Earth being round is not proven,

OK, I need you to explain this one.

Satellites and people orbiting the Earth and sending back pictures is not proof of the Earth's shape?

That is correct. It is very good evidence that the Earth is spherical, and anyone who thinks otherwise I would say is either very ignorant or insane.

There is no proof in science, just very strongly supported observations and ideas. Because of the way science works the idea of "proof" is foreign. Only mathematics deals with proof in the math-science area.

OK, so according to science, nothing is real.

Got it.

[nebula]

As far as the evidence for evolution goes, some of the basics are things like speciation (including endemic species - i.e. those on islands), homology, the fossil record, transitional fossils, vestigial structures, biogeography and genetics. I'd say the greatest evidence for evolution is not a single one of these things, but the fact that all of these things and more support a single conclusion: Evolution.

Even these are subjective, though. For instance -

Speciation - Put a population of Rabbit A on two separate islands. Given enough time their populations become Rabbit B and Rabbit C. Sure, this has been observed. But, evolution will have given even more time, Rabbit B's descendants will eventually become something that would no longer be classified as a rabbit. Has this been evidenced anywhere?

Vestigial structures - the list is diminishing as supposed vestigial structures are being found to have use and purpose. Even the vermiform appendix is being found to be a part of the immune system rather than a was-a-cecum. (BTW, humans actually do have a cecum.)

[nebula]

But as far as human evolution goes in terms of fossils, there's the Australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis, H. heidelbergensis and so on. We hardly appeared out of nowhere a few thousand years ago.

Problem is, these fossils are more assumed to be ancestor species of modern humans. Last I heard, Australopithecines as an ancestor has been put into doubt.

[MorningGlory]

Ah, your predictable (and pedantic) arrogance asserts itself once again. Now, let me explain to you in simple terms, Lurker......no way did chimps start having human babies at some point on the, presumably, long evolutionary road. If evolution of chimps to man is a fact then where ARE the transitional beings remains? Homo Sapiens Sapiens just appeared out of nowhere a few thousand years ago; I know it and so do you.

Amazingly, your original error has not miraculously become anything other than wrong since the last time you wrote it. The ToE does not claim that chimps evolved into humans, and your mistaken opinion that it does only demonstrates that you haven't bothered to learn what the theory of evolution actually is.

Lurker

I'm quite aware of the TOE, thank you. I simply say it's garbage and get a bang out of anyone who swallows that line whole.

[Isaiah 6:8]

ERV stands for endogenous retrovirus, basically these are places where viral infections have become "fixed" into an organisms genome by infecting its germ cells and thus are passed on to it's progeny. Since viral infections insert themselves into genomes randomly, there is absolutely no reason why we should expect to find multiple overlaps between ERV's in humans as well as other great apes other than common ancestry. Even if the same virus was contracted by an individual human, or an individual chimp the entire population of present day chimps and humans should not have that ERV unless the entire present day populations of both chimps and humans are descendants of the originally infected organism.

You are doing what I thought you would. You are filtering the evidence through your lens and making statements as fact that are not as they are subjective.

As seen by the opposing view on them.

Endogenous retro viruses (ERVs) are some of the most cited evidences for evolution. They are part of the suite of 'junk DNA' that supposedly comprised the vast majority of our DNA. ERVs are said tobe parasitic retroviral DNA sequences that infected our genome longago and have stayed there ever since. These short DNA strands are found throughout the human genome, and make up about 5% of the DNA,1 orabout 10% of the total amount of DNA that is classified as transposable elements (i.e. 50%).2

However,the term 'endogenous retrovirus' is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions, which invalidates the 'random retrovirus insertion' claim. For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.3

Moreover,researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs.They act as promoters, starting transcription at alternative starting points, which enables different RNA transcripts to be formed from the same DNA sequence.

'

We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs).'

4

And,

'

Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome.'

5

Moreover, researchers have recently identified an important function for a large proportion of the human genome that has been labelled as ERVs.

Sowe're not just talking about a small scale phenomenon. These ERV said transcription in over one fifth ofthe human genome! 'These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome.'3 This again debunks the idea that 98% of the human genome is junk, and it makes the inserted evolutionary spin look like a tacked-on nod to the evolutionary establishment. These results support the conclusions of the ENCODE project, which found that at least 93% of DNA was transcribed into RNA.

Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in 'junk DNA' as 'proof' that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be,their argument evaporates.

It seems that evolutionist Dr John Mattick, director of the Institute for Molecular Bioscience at the University of Queensland, Brisbane,Australia, was spot on in his assessment of the gravity of the 'junk DNA' error:

'

The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information … may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'

6

Both biblical creationists7 andID proponents8 predicted that transposable elements, such as 'endogenous retroviruses',would have a function. In 2000, creationist molecular biologist Linda Walkup proposed that God could have created transposable elements to facilitate variation (adaptation) within biblical kinds.7

If the 'junk DNA' is not junk, then it puts a big spanner in the work of molecular taxonomists, who assumed that 'junk DNA' was free to mutate at random, unconstrained by the requirements of functionality. As Williams points out:

'

The molecular taxonomists, who have been drawing up evolutionary histories ("phylogenies") for nearly every kind of life, are going to have to undo all their years of "junk DNA"-based historical reconstructions and wait for the full implications toemerge before they try again.'

9

Source:

http://creation.com/...us-retroviruses

Both views are tainted by the world view of the person looking at them. So this is now no longer a "Smoking Gun" piece of evidence.

the rest of your post is essentially garbage; this argument requires no transitional fossil record (which does, actually exist) and the ToE does not at all propose anything remotely like a "chimp hybrid". Such statements make one seriously question if you understand the ToE at all.

Okay I admit, I used the Chimp to human comment. I understand the common ancestor and not necessarily a chimp. By my meaning of that, just to clarify a ape/chimp like creature that evolved into both humans and chips. I understand this, but to save time I just used the chimp to human.

I'll tackle the list of transitional forms in a moment.

[Isaiah 6:8]

But as far as human evolution goes in terms of fossils, there's the Australopithecines, H. habilis, H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. rudolfensis, H. heidelbergensis and so on. We hardly appeared out of nowhere a few thousand years ago.

okay I'll list the creationist viewpoint of each of the "transitional Men"

first

Australopithecines

That new 'missing link'

by Carl Wieland

News services around the world have carried stories of a 'sensational' missing link found in Africa. Dated by evolutionists at 4.4 million years, it appears to consist of some teeth, fragments of skull, and the bones of one arm, about the size of a pygmy chimp.

Early reports suggest that these fragments are similar to 'Lucy' (Australopithecus afarensis) and her kin, and are classed in the same genus, Australopithecus (the new fossil is called Australopithecus ramidus).

If indeed the australopithecines (including Lucy) were the evolutionary ancestors of humans, and the dating was reliable, then the hype would at least have some basis. This is because it would be 800,000 years (on the evolutionists' timescale) earlier than Lucy, and so should be closer to the alleged common ancestor between apes and humans.

However, the amazing thing is that the careful work of trained anatomists (themselves evolutionists) such as the late Lord Solly Zuckerman of Birmingham, and Professor Charles Oxnard of the University of Western Australia, on the australopithecines is being totally overlooked.

Using objective computerized multivariate analysis of many measurements on the bones, they (and an increasing number of other researchers who are not associated with the discovery of any of these creatures) invariably find that all of the australopithecines, grouped together anatomically, are further away from both apes and humans than these two groups are from each other.

They thus conclude that the australopithecines were a unique group of extinct creatures, not anatomically intermediate between apes and humans, so were not evolutionary 'links' at all.

Did australopithecines walk upright in the human manner, as evolutionists commonly claim? (The reports speculate that A. ramidusmight have—if only they could find the leg bones.) No, say these anatomists, and recent discoveries of other Australopithecus bones have highlighted this further. These creatures had long, powerful arms and curved fingers suited to tree-dwelling.

Some interesting new work has also helped to demolish the idea that the australopithecines habitually walked upright. Computerized X-ray scans are able to reveal the bony structure of the inner ear. The shape of this has been shown to directly reflect patterns of movement. Understandably, humans (the only creatures alive that walk habitually upright) have an inner ear structure which stands out from the rest. When this analysis is carried out on fossil skulls, the results are completely in line with modern creationist expectations. So-called Homo erectus (which even some evolutionists are saying should be reclassified as Homo sapiens) has an inner ear structure just like ours; whereas that of all australopithecines (and habilines) studied are 'decidedly ape-like'.

In summary, whether the fragments of ramidus (if indeed it even deserves a separate species name) turn out to be even more chimp-like (as evolutionists expect) than Lucy or not can give no comfort to their desperate search for 'missing links', since no matter how many more australopithecines are dug up, the evidence already overwhelmingly shows that the group was not ancestral to people anyway.

Source http://creation.com/...ew-missing-link

Again subjective and tentative evidence at best!

[Isaiah 6:8]

Next

Homo habilis hacked from the family tree

New hominid fossils have 'completely changed the story' of human evolution

by Philip Bell

Published: 14 September 2007(GMT+10)

the fossil evidence used to support human evolution from ape-like ancestors is so sparse that any new scrap of bone has the potential to force a rewrite of the secular history-tale

The cover of a recent issue of the journal Nature featured a photograph of two human-like skull caps, the smallest of which has upset the human evolution applecart. This skull is being hailed as the first female specimen of a Homo erectus cranium. Its small size (compared to other H. erectus skulls) is claimed as evidence that it was an ancestor species with much greater behavioural similarity to today's great apes than was thought.1

The same paper reports on a partial jawbone, assigned to Homo habilis, which the authors claim 'reliably demonstrates that this species survived until later than previously recognized … ' upsetting the human evolution story still further. While many evolutionists have long argued that H. habilis (sometimes dubbed 'handy man') evolved into H. erectus, this international team of palaeoanthropology experts is now saying that the two species lived side by side with one another for half a million years! The discoverer of the fossils, Frederick Manthi (of the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi) reportedly said: 'Homo habilis never gave rise to Homo erectus. These discoveries have completely changed the story.'2

The usual evolutionary story upset (summary)

The most common 'neat' story of human evolution has australopithecines (such as 'Lucy') evolving into Homo habilis, which evolves into Homo erectus, which evolves into Homo sapiens. Australopithecines have no clear connection to humans, but museums, popular articles and text-books for schools and universities commonly claimed that Homo habilis linked them with humans (Homo erectus and Homo sapiens). While one camp of paleontologists argued that Homo habilis was not a valid taxon, being a waste bin of mixed ape and human fossil bits, other evolutionists clung to H. habilis as being valid. Now even those who still claim it was valid are putting it aside. That effectively leaves a gaping hole in the story of human evolution, with nothing left to link humans with apes.

Of course, this all goes to reinforce the point made in many previous articles on this website:3 there are plenty of fossils, but the fossil evidence used to support human evolution from ape-like ancestors is so sparse that any new scrap of bone has the potential to force a rewrite of the secular history-tale. Accordingly, one commentary on the new paper states, 'Exciting new Kenyan fossils challenge established views on early evolution of our genus Homo.'4 That said, what other lessons can be learned from this latest report?

Certainly, it is pertinent to highlight the assumptions involved in all evolutionary reconstructions of the vanished past, chief of which is that humans and apes allegedly have sprung from a common ancestral lineage. Researchers constrained by this evolutionary belief are bound to view the fossils as fitting somewhere on a long-ages continuum between supposedly 'primitive' ape-like creatures and 'modern' humans. For instance, H. habilis has long been seen by many (though not all) palaeoanthropologists as a bridge species between the clearly ape-like australopithecines (such as the famous 'Lucy') and the human-like H. erectus. The latter fossils are considered by most creationist experts to represent the remains of fully human descendants of Adam.5

Within the evolution camp, the paucity of evidence leaves plenty of room for disagreement. So, while some have argued that H. habilis is really a taxonomic waste bin which should be discarded (containing a mixed bag of fossils from both Australopithecus and Homo6 ), others have clung to it as the only—albeit tenuous—link between extinct apes and humans. Creationists such as Lubenow have also argued that H. habilis is an invalid category.7

Spoor F. et al., Nature 448, 689 (2007)

The new fossil find comprises a skull, attributed to Homo erectus (top and left), and a fragment of upper jaw (lower right), attributed to Homo habilis. The fossil evidence for H. habilis remains fragmentary and scant.

This new paper—by a list of authors including leading lights such as Fred Spoor and Meave Leakey—represents a divergent opinion: the authors accept that H. habilis was a real creature in history but relegate it to a mere side-shoot off the main branch that led to ourselves—that is, it is not our ancestor. In support of this view, the authors report that the H. habilis maxilla8 was 'dated' at 1.44 million years old which is younger on the evolutionary timescale than the H. erectus skull ('dated' at 1.55 million years). Thus, whether H. habilis is seen as a junk category or a contemporary of H. erectus, the outcome is the same: the evolution of australopithecine apes into humans is an article of faith, unsupported by any fossil evidence—just speculation that an unseen common ancestor of these two 'sister species' lived in this part of Africa some two to three million years ago. Interestingly, well before this latest publication, creationist Lubenow had already pointed out the contemporaneousness of H. erectus and H. habilis, based on the evolutionists' dating of existing fossils:

'On the far end of the Homo erectus time continuum, Homo erectus is contemporary with Homo habilis for 500,000 years. In fact, Homo erectus overlaps the entire Homo habilis population … '9

It's good to see the evolutionists catching up with their own reality.

The new report should prompt another salutary reminder, repeated many times over during the dubious history of palaeoanthropology: 'Wait and see!' Doubtless there will be responses to these new ideas from other experts who interpret the skull and jawbone evidence very differently. For instance, it seems very premature for these scientists to be confidently challenging the current wisdom on the behaviour of H. erectus based on the discovery of what they claim is the first female skull of this species.

Firstly, it is very likely that other researchers will challenge the assigned gender of the individual to whom this skull belonged—this happened most recently with Homo floresiensis, aka the 'hobbit'.10 Not only do the authors claim (on the basis of a single specimen11 ) that this demonstrates pronounced sexual dimorphism12 within H. erectus, they offer the baseless speculation that, since male apes are distinctly larger than females and mate with multiple females, H. erectus likely was sexually promiscuous (rather than monogamous)!

'Handy man' has now been irrevocably removed from any place in the evolutionary human lineage (whichever 'camp' of evolutionists one looks to).

Secondly, we are all familiar with the wide range of variation in size and shape of skeletal and cranial features among people in the human population today—this is blindingly obvious from even the most cursory observation of a crowd of people from any cosmopolitan city. Human skull capacity is reported to show a 700 to 2,200 cm3 variation in normal individuals.13 Moreover, consider dwarfism and giantism in human beings, for example the recently reported marriage between a giant 236 cm (7'9") man and his 168 cm (5'6") bride.14 It is small wonder that when evolutionary palaeoanthropologist Owen Lovejoy published his findings of 1,000-year-old native American bones, he concluded that the marked size differences could lead some to conclude that they represented different species or even genera.15 Thus it is extremely premature to claim that the discovery of one small skull points to H. erectus being less human-like than once thought. Indeed, one has to wonder if this story about the H. erectus skull has been included to encourage the faithful that all is not lost; there are still potential candidates to at least partially fill the void left by the exit of H. habilis. That is, this gives breathing space for the acceptance of the demise of Homo habilis.

It is likely that those who follow the 'progressive creationist' model of Hugh Ross and his associates will seize on this new interpretation as evidence for their contention that H. erectus represented a pre-Adamic soul-less race of man-like creatures, unrelated to Adam.16 Yet to do so, they must continue to ignore the wealth of evidence to the contrary—not least the continuity of erectus-like features up to the present day (seen in certain people) and the fact that evolutionists' dates for a number of H. erectus skulls mean that they were also contemporary with 'modern' humans.17

This new paper strengthens the view that there are fossils of apes (including extinct varieties) and fossils of humans but nothing in between, just as a straightforward reading of Genesis implies: 'So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.'18 'Handy man' has now been irrevocably removed from any place in the evolutionary human lineage (whichever 'camp' of evolutionists one looks to). As for the controversial claims concerning sexual dimorphism in Homo erectus, 'watch and wait' would seem to be wise counsel.

Source http://creation.com/homo-habilis-hacked-from-the-family-tree