One major question about evolution (may involve ignorance)

[Truth be Told]

Hello everybody,

Most of you should be able to tell that I'm not an opposer of evolution, but there are at times holes in evolutionary logic, consider this one:

If our ancestors descended from Africa, why do we consider Aborigines to be the oldest human species alive today?

That is all.

[DarwinianJihadi]

Hello everybody,

Most of you should be able to tell that I'm not an opposer of evolution, but there are at times holes in evolutionary logic, consider this one:

If our ancestors descended from Africa, why do we consider Aborigines to be the oldest human species alive today?

That is all.
Huh. That's the first time I heard that. I was under the impression that the African Bushmen were likely candidates for being the oldest group on earth.

Anyway, I'm no anthropoligist, but if it is true that Australian aboriginals are the oldest population group in Earth, then I would imagine the reason to be that older racial population groups living in Africa were possibly destroyed by or assimilated into newer population groups to explain why the oldest human races wouldn't be there.

Of course, I'm not sure that Australian Aboriginals are the world's oldest race. Someone with a background in anthropology might be able to better explain this.

[lao tzu]

Hello everybody,

Most of you should be able to tell that I'm not an opposer of evolution, but there are at times holes in evolutionary logic, consider this one:

If our ancestors descended from Africa, why do we consider Aborigines to be the oldest human species alive today?

That is all.

Hiya, TbT,

The quick answer is that we don't consider Aborigines to be the oldest human species, as far as I can follow your meaning. I believe you're speaking of the Australian aboriginal peoples and when you speak of "oldest human species" you are referring to the most ancient lineage found in our genomes, as measured by the diversity of genetic markers.

The most diverse genetic markers in human mitochondrial DNA that have been identified are haplogroups L1 and L0. Their diversities date their origins to more than 100,000 years ago. They are found at highest frequency — that is, at the largest proportion of the population — in central African pygmies and the southern African Khoisan people.

In comparison, the two oldest mitochondrial haplogroups found in Australian aboriginal populations are haplogroups M and B, both of which are thought to have originated perhaps 60,000 years ago. Haplogroup M, in particular, is thought to have been carried by the first wave of humans to have traveled out of Africa. Haplogroup B is thought to have originated in the Asian steppes.

The picture that is emerging is of a common ancestor of all anatomically modern humans perhaps 200,000 years ago in east central Africa that first moved out of Africa about 60,000 years ago.

Summarized from: The Genographic Project (https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html)

As ever, Jesse

[Mountain Man]

Naturalism 101 is for non-theists only. Thread moved to Natural Science 301.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by Truth be Told
Hello everybody,

Most of you should be able to tell that I'm not an opposer of evolution, but there are at times holes in evolutionary logic, consider this one:

If our ancestors descended from Africa, why do we consider Aborigines to be the oldest human species alive today?

That is all.
Hi TbT. Can you tell us where you got the impression that the Aborigines (Australian I assume) are the oldest human species alive today?

[Dr.GH]

As others have pointed out, the Australian native population is not considered the "oldest human species." First of all, there is only one human species in the world today. Second, the archaeological data points to modern human (Homo sapian) expansion out of Africa about 100,000 years ago, and human populations in Australia about 45,000 years ago.

No humans populations have been "standing still" in evolutionary terms, and there is considerable evidence that the pace of human evolution has increased over the last 10,000 years.

[Dr.GH]

Huh. That's the first time I heard that. I was under the impression that the African Bushmen were likely candidates for being the oldest group on earth.
.

Some linguistic studies indicate that the "click" languages of Africa are the oldest language groups still spoken, and I find this persuasive. However, this cannot be directly related to biology. The best biological data in my opinion would be mitochondrial DNA studies. There are some interesting data, but nothing I consider conclusive.

[lao tzu]

Glad to see some experts showing up. "Truth beTold," if Dr. GH's opinions differ from my own, I'm much more likely to change my opinion than to argue against him.

[Tladatsi]

The native Australians are not the "oldest" people on Earth. They just as "old" as as say the Austrians or Alsatians. They are probably one of the more conservative groups in terms of similarity in outward appearance as compared to the groups of people who left Africa about 100,000 years ago is all. Australia, it has been thought, was populated by people pretty much in a single wave, about 50,000 years ago or so which is somewhat unique.



Hello everybody,

Most of you should be able to tell that I'm not an opposer of evolution, but there are at times holes in evolutionary logic, consider this one:

If our ancestors descended from Africa, why do we consider Aborigines to be the oldest human species alive today?

That is all.

[FreezBee]

Hi TbT. Can you tell us where you got the impression that the Aborigines (Australian I assume) are the oldest human species alive today?

Ummm, Ernst Haeckel operated in The Natural History of Creation (Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1868) with 12 human species divided into 36 races. He considered the Australian aboriginals to be the oldest human species alive today, so that may be the source for Truth be Told's claim. Haeckel suggested that there in Indonesia had to have lived a transitional between apes and humans for that same reason, which is why Java Man was so important at a time.


- FreezBee

[Truth be Told]

Ummm, Ernst Haeckel operated in The Natural History of Creation (Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte, 1868) with 12 human species divided into 36 races. He considered the Australian aboriginals to be the oldest human species alive today, so that may be the source for Truth be Told's claim. Haeckel suggested that there in Indonesia had to have lived a transitional between apes and humans for that same reason, which is why Java Man was so important at a time.


- FreezBee

That could be very well what I was referring too, thanks.

[xevolutionist]

As others have pointed out, the Australian native population is not considered the "oldest human species." First of all, there is only one human species in the world today. Second, the archaeological data points to modern human (Homo sapian) expansion out of Africa about 100,000 years ago, and human populations in Australia about 45,000 years ago.

No humans populations have been "standing still" in evolutionary terms, and there is considerable evidence that the pace of human evolution has increased over the last 10,000 years.

And exactly what evidence is that, doctor?

[Dr.GH]

And exactly what evidence is that, doctor?

Mostly the comparison of mitochondrial DNA, but a few papers on NDNA as well- even a few articles on the Y chromosom, so we men are not totally ignored. :lol:

[lao tzu]

Gary, I remember seeing a collection of links to modern research on abiogenesis you'd posted somewhere, but I can't find it now. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind posting it again?

I promise I'll copy it down this time.

[Dr.GH]

Here is one;

http://www.rantsnraves.org/showpost.php?p=123805&postcount=8

It is about 3 years out of date. I keep planning to up date it from my main abiogenesis bibliography (which runs over 40 pages long these days, and is at least a year out of date).

[lao tzu]

Thanks, Gary, it's copied now. Is Fry still the best overall reader? I'm thinking I'd like to pick up one book. Is that the one you'd recommend?

[Dr.GH]

Sad to say, Fry is still the best. Her tentative conclusions are now much more solid, and the entire reduced v. oxidated atmosphere is a non-issue.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by xevolutionist
And exactly what evidence is that, doctor?
I saw this a couple weeks ago:
Utah scientists believe human evolution could be accelerating (www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7689622)
From the article:

"Rapid population growth has been coupled with vast changes in cultures and ecology, creating new opportunities for adaptation," says the study co-authored by U. anthropology professor Henry Harpending. "The past 10,000 years have seen rapid skeletal and dental evolution in human populations, as well as the appearance of many new genetic responses to diet and disease."
Apparently they used new genomic technology to demonstrate that the pace of human evolution has dramatically accelerated just in the past 40,000 years. The researchers think that as humans expanded out of Africa the new landscapes and climates brought new selective pressures on the human genome. Coupled with the birth of civilization, especially the development of agriculture and the resultant changes in ur diet caused humanity to evolve rapidly.

[xevolutionist]

I saw this a couple weeks ago:
Utah scientists believe human evolution could be accelerating (http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7689622)
From the article:

Apparently they used new genomic technology to demonstrate that the pace of human evolution has dramatically accelerated just in the past 40,000 years. The researchers think that as humans expanded out of Africa the new landscapes and climates brought new selective pressures on the human genome. Coupled with the birth of civilization, especially the development of agriculture and the resultant changes in ur diet caused humanity to evolve rapidly.

Of course you realize how ridiculous this is? Unless of course you define evolution as deterioration. I noticed absolutely no specifics about our skeletal evolution. I think probably a more correct term would be degradation, as the genome continues to deteriorate. Lots of mutations do not prove evolution. They show degradation of our genome.

I think this probably reveals a difference in our thinking as relates to stories like this. The evolution believer sees any change, no matter how deleterious, as evolution. Creationists like me see this overall gradual degradation of our genome as evidence that the theory of evolution is seriously flawed and cannot account for increasingly complex life forms.

You can take these phylogenic studies and interpret them any way you like, but it will not change the observed reality. Again, let me present as evidence the number of animals that have disappeared from existence in the fossil record and recent history [millions] as opposed to the new animals we have witnessed evolve from other animals [zero].

[wattsr1]

[snip]


You can take these phylogenic studies and interpret them any way you like, but it will not change the observed reality. Again, let me present as evidence the number of animals that have disappeared from existence in the fossil record and recent history [millions] as opposed to the new animals we have witnessed evolve from other animals [zero].

Out of curiosity Xevo, what do you mean by the words "observed" and "evidence"?

You talk of "observed reality" and appear to associate it with disappearance of animals from existence in the fossil record as well as the recent disappearance of animals. But you also make the claim that we have not observed new animals evolving.

On the one hand you appear to accept inferential reasoning - with respect to disappearance. On the other hand you appear to reject it - with respect to appearance.

So let us start with the fossil record - who has observed such animals disappearing such that you can equate this with a deterioration in the genome?



Regards, Roland

[lao tzu]

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/52/20753)


Abstract:

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

Full text (PDF) (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/52/20753)

Perhaps, rather than gifting us with yet another barrage of creationist canards about how evolution is supposed to be defined, you might consider reading the paper before you begin misrepresenting it, xevo.

As ever, Jesse

[xevolutionist]

Out of curiosity Xevo, what do you mean by the words "observed" and "evidence"?

You talk of "observed reality" and appear to associate it with disappearance of animals from existence in the fossil record as well as the recent disappearance of animals. But you also make the claim that we have not observed new animals evolving.

On the one hand you appear to accept inferential reasoning - with respect to disappearance. On the other hand you appear to reject it - with respect to appearance.

So let us start with the fossil record - who has observed such animals disappearing such that you can equate this with a deterioration in the genome?



Regards, Roland

We have observed [seen] evidence [actual fossil remains] of many animals in the fossil record that are not living today. They exist in the fossil record as evidence of extinctions. They haven't disappeared from the fossil record. Of course they are evidence that they appeared on earth, but not as a result of evolution, simply that they were created and did exist.

So I accept inferential reasoning within reason, not in defiance of logic, as the evolutionary believers do.

Regards, xevo

[xevolutionist]

Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/52/20753)
Abstract:

Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.

Full text (PDF) (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/52/20753)Perhaps, rather than gifting us with yet another barrage of creationist canards about how evolution is supposed to be defined, you might consider reading the paper before you begin misrepresenting it, xevo.

As ever, Jesse

I read it and didn't see any evidence of the claims made. in particular, the claim about our skeletal and dental evolution presented no evidence. I looked up the references and they only referred to vague claims made by someone else about the evolution of the human body. Really, if there is some evidence that human physiology is changing as a result of evolution then I haven't been able to find it. See my signature.

If there are any canards present here, it is the one about there being some evidence of evolution actually existing.

persistently, xevo

[Tiggy]

Of course you realize how ridiculous this is? Unless of course you define evolution as deterioration. I noticed absolutely no specifics about our skeletal evolution. I think probably a more correct term would be degradation, as the genome continues to deteriorate. Lots of mutations do not prove evolution. They show degradation of our genome.-
Er...Xevo, evolution doesn't mean humans have to sprout a pair of wings or an extra set of legs. Where do you get these ridiculous cartoon ideas? Sadly, I probably can guess.


I think this probably reveals a difference in our thinking as relates to stories like this.
You got that right. The researchers in the article studied the phenomena for years, performed tests and gathered data, and backed up their hypothesis with concrete evidence. You are completely clueless on the topic, but had a knee-jerk negative reaction because the results disagree with your ignorance-based ideas of how things should be.



The evolution believer sees any change, no matter how deleterious, as evolution.
Change in the genetic makeup of a population is the DEFINITION of evolution Xevo, whether that change is good, bad, or neutral.


Creationists like me see this overall gradual degradation of our genome as evidence that the theory of evolution is seriously flawed and cannot account for increasingly complex life forms.
Quite untrue. There are many studies and simulations that show imperfect self-replicators can and do increase their complexity over time. Here are but a few:


Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9):

Abstract: To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase.

4463-4468. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463

Predictions of Gene Family Distributions in Microbial Genomes: Evolution by Gene Duplication and Modification
Itai Yanai, Carlos J. Camacho*, and Charles DeLisi
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Abstract: A universal property of microbial genomes is the considerable fraction of genes that are homologous to other genes within the same genome. The process by which these homologues are generated is not well understood, but sequence analysis of 20 microbial genomes unveils a recurrent distribution of gene family sizes. We show that a simple evolutionary model based on random gene duplication and point mutations fully accounts for these distributions and permits predictions for the number of gene families in genomes not yet complete. Our findings are consistent with the notion that a genome evolves from a set of precursor genes to a mature size by gene duplications and increasing modifications.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2641–2644 (2000)
[Issue 12 – 18 September 2000 ]

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v85/i12/p2641_1

Structural Evidence for Evolution of the B/A Barrel Scaffold by Gene Duplication and Fusion
Dietmar Lang,1 Ralf Thoma,2 Martina Henn-Sax,3 Reinhard Sterner,234 Matthias Wilmanns1

Abstract: The atomic structures of two proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of B/A barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. It is likely that these proteins evolved by twofold gene duplication and gene fusion from a common half-barrel ancestor. These ancestral domains are not visible as independent domains in the extant proteins but can be inferred from a combination of sequence and structural analysis. The detection of subdomain structures may be useful in efforts to search genome sequences for functionally and structurally related proteins.

Science 1 September 2000:
Vol. 289. no. 5484, pp. 1546 - 1550
DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5484.1546
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...;289/5484/1546




You can take these phylogenic studies and interpret them any way you like, but it will not change the observed reality. Again, let me present as evidence the number of animals that have disappeared from existence in the fossil record and recent history [millions] as opposed to the new animals we have witnessed evolve from other animals [zero].

And the fossil record of life extends back over 3.3 BILLION years. Humans have been studying living biology for a few HUNDRED years.

Tell me Xevo, how many mountains have you seen form from scratch? How many mature redwood trees have you seen grow completely from a seed?

- T

[Tiggy]

I read it and didn't see any evidence of the claims made. in particular, the claim about our skeletal and dental evolution presented no evidence. I looked up the references and they only referred to vague claims made by someone else about the evolution of the human body. Really, if there is some evidence that human physiology is changing as a result of evolution then I haven't been able to find it. See my signature.

If there are any canards present here, it is the one about there being some evidence of evolution actually existing.

Have you looked up the data on Apo-AI Milano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein_A1) mutation yet as I suggested? Plenty of evidence for human evolution exists, but first you have to overcome your fear of being wrong and actually read some of it.

- T

[lao tzu]

I read it and didn't see any evidence of the claims made. in particular, the claim about our skeletal and dental evolution presented no evidence. I looked up the references and they only referred to vague claims made by someone else about the evolution of the human body. Really, if there is some evidence that human physiology is changing as a result of evolution then I haven't been able to find it. See my signature.

If there are any canards present here, it is the one about there being some evidence of evolution actually existing.

persistently, xevo

Your bolding of explicit evidence presented in the abstract, while simultaneously claiming you did not see evidence, is contradictory. Try reading it again. The abstract addresses what we should expect to see if the recent evolution rate was constant, rather than accelerated:


(i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans,


Thus site heterozygosity is observed evidence of a recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution.


(ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans,

[emphasis yours!]

The lack of a strong relation between heterozygosity and local recombination rates is observed evidence of a recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution.


(iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and

The implausibility of the required number of adaptive substitutions needed to explain the observations is evidence of a recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution.


(iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks.

The lack of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks is observed evidence of a recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Unless of course you define evolution as deterioration.

FYI, this was the creationist canard I referenced earlier. "Deterioration" of genomes implies some earlier pristine state which is unreasonable given observed evidence of changes in environment. A "best" genome for one particular environment is not "best" for any other.

As ever, Jesse

[wattsr1]

Gidday Xevo,



We have observed [seen] evidence [actual fossil remains] of many animals in the fossil record that are not living today. They exist in the fossil record as evidence of extinctions. They haven't disappeared from the fossil record. Of course they are evidence that they appeared on earth, but not as a result of evolution, simply that they were created and did exist.

But Xevo, you demand direct observation when it comes to an evolution that you do not accept. Inference is not allowed.

You have no direct observation that the animals became extinct because of genetic deterioration. They could just as well have become extinct through divine command, just as they supposedly came into existence by divine command.

(And on that latter point, do you have any extraordinary evidence? Are you suggesting that the creator did not create an animal resistant to decay?)



So I accept inferential reasoning within reason, not in defiance of logic, as the evolutionary believers do.

As for “defiance of logic”? Hardly. The kind of inferences done, point directly to the macroevolution of those animals (think nested hierarchies, phylogenetics, objective groupings, etc).

OTOH, you still have to produce an explanation (with evidence) for evolution below the level of subspecies that does not defy your own logic. All you did yesterday in the other thread was give me an argument, which, if you believe it demonstrates the reality of microevolution, also demonstrates the reality of macroevolution.



Regards, Roland