Evolution

Human balance, the evolution of bipedalism and dysequilibrium syndrome.
Med Hypotheses. 2006 Mar 10;

 

The Family That Walks on All Fours
BBC2 Fri 17 Mar, 9:00 pm - 10:00 pm 60mins

The inside story of a remarkable anthropological find - the discovery of living human quadrupeds in a remote part of Turkey.

Filmed in secret over the past year, the programme is an intimate portrait of an extraordinary family, and an examination of the intense scientific debate the familys existence has fuelled.

This could be hugely important from the point of view of telling the evolutionary history of our species, says Professor Nicholas Humphrey, one of the scientists leading the research into the family.

But the only thing the scientists agree on is that this is not a hoax. American paleoanthropologists think their skeletons could hold vital clues about the origin of man. A Turkish neurophysiologist believes they are wholesale genetic throwbacks - a living missing link. German geneticists believe that they hold the key to a breakthrough gene for bipedality. UK researchers, though, contend that no single faulty gene could produce the first human quadrupeds the modern world has ever seen.

They raise profound questions about what it is to be human, says producer Jemima Harrison. They walk like animals and thats very disturbing at first. But we were also extremely moved by this family's warmth and humanity.

See also:
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/archive/00000463/

 

Secondary centers of ossification of the human toes: Exceptional polymorphism and evolutionary perspectives.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Aug 29;
Billmann F, Le Minor JM

 

Colin,
You said:
"The Angel might just have spread the story around of course when their brains developed but since I wasn't there? Who knows!"

Reincarnation is widely accepted in many religions - I suppose you could have been there and just not remembered?

Regards,
david

 

The Laetoli footprints and early hominin locomotor kinematics.
Raichlen DA, Pontzer H, Sockol MD.
J Hum Evol. 2008 Jan;54(1):112-7.

 

I tried to attach an image. If it does not show, please go to this site and view the graph.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

Note that this graph contains not only homo-foot types, but facultative bipeds; bipedal walkers with feet very, very similar to ours. So, while the initial post is about ancient man, or homo sapiens, we see that facultative bipedalism goes back at least 4 million years to Australapithecus. Not shown here are the laetoli footprints at 3.1 million years old who were made by a fully upright, bipedal familial group. (one large adult, one small adult, and a sub-adult)

So, homo sapien is way on the upper end of the emergence of bipedal gait, making it seem academic that early homosapiens did, in fact, move every bit the same as ourselve...with the exception of concrete.

 

The first ray of the hand and the foot in the primates (II). Functional anatomy
Kuhlmann JN.
Morphologie. 2008 Jul 31. [Epub ahead of print]

 

Hi Kevin, (its good to re-join a 3 yr-old thread).

That is the point. The successful bits of hominids (limbs) didn't need to genetically adapt much more.

Our lower limbs are very effective over varying terrains, different speeds and carrying varying loads.
Its only when we spend most of our time on concrete, shod, and exceed our physiological "sell by" date that the problems we treat daily occur (systemic disease excepted).

Regards,

 

Hi All

In Nov 2005 Con wrote

Eric replied

Con
Creationists/Believers in a God and science/scientists both ultimately search for the reason for being and both rely on faith. Creationists have faith that is unfalsifiable or untestable in terms of proof. As you point out the scientist uses inductive reasoning to 'prove' his theory but he also relies on some basic statement that is unproven or unprovable eg your example.Perhaps this could be termed infinite reductionism.

I sometimes find it difficult to understand why the argument of faith is undermined by the scientist when scienc is also built on faith.

C Bain made the point that science often is wrong and has to burn its books and strat again. Maybe this is the difference. The creationist could never burn their books since the theory, being unfalsifiable, does not allow a change of faith, whereas science allows, even demand a change in faith occassionally.

Con also mentions logic and says science is logical wheras faith is not. Is this what Eric is alluding to in his "intelligent design" quote?
If you, as a scientist came across an intricate mechanical or electronic article for the first time and you could see the work and design that had gone into it. Would you make the assumption that the object had just appeared from nothing, that it evolved oever millions of years from a spark made by two rock glancing of each other (for instance) or would it be more logical to assume that some intelligent being had designed it. What an intricate machine the human body is and yet it evolved from a pool of water with some random chemicals. (or was it intelligently designed.

Logic is as logical as you want it to be when it suits your theory.

Cheers dave

 

Extrapolating forward we might propose that the next evolutionary 'twist' might be to allow the metatarsophalangeal joints to become capable of 'laterality movements' of up to 40 degrees which then become 'steady' (big toes like thumbs).

Are our shoes the right shape? Might we be denying evolution an experiment that could change our way of life (we might be better walking sideways!)?

Could be useful on a crowded planet

What does come next? Will we move over for it? What if we lose our place at the top of the food chain?

Presumably 'creationists' don't have to worry about such things!

Johnpod

 

All

I wrote

Does this mean that science is fickle and spiritual faith is consistent. Which is stronger or more real the capricious or the steadfast? Is science doomed to forever quest for ultimate knowledge but never attain its goal. If attained what then - end of science? If Adam, egged on by Eve, had never taken the fruit of knowledge, would we all live in spiritual harmony with no reason to search for ultimate truth since we would already know it. Ironically to answer this requires spiriual faith in the first place. But without faith there can be no science however faith can exist without science at least the empirical inductive science. The deductive science based on pure reasoning (eg intelligent design) may be metaphysical and be the basis of faith.

Cheers Dave

 

Hi All and Dave,

A good point, ""Does that mean science is fickle and spiritual faith is consistent!"" David says?

Well my view as a Creationist that I only wish it was. So what do we have,

1. Science a fickle beasty! Well not really oh that it was that simple. I would rather say that pure science is more like a philosophical instrument designed to answer questions we humans have in respect to our interaction with the interface of the world at the other side of my eyeballs!

Applied science on the other hand is forced to come to a conclusion on what is and what is not so we don't stop the world going round? I am good at stopping the world going round you know!

2. The main element of science is not what we think is happening but what we can measure is happening! I know it's there because I can weigh it. see it and feel it! Etc.!

3. Creation on the other hand requires a Metaphysical knowledge and creative feeling that what is is and what is not is not! Metaphysics has needed answers too with respect to knowing that something is there or not but we have a better bite at the cherry than science for they need to know by their measurements and their sensory perception. Some of us just need to ask the LORD and duck.

Hang on David while I have a look down there to see what you actually said? Well there is a thing! Trust is the answer in what I have experienced rather than what I have experienced intellectually!

Science when it steps over into the Pseudo-science realm tends to need more faith to believe in what we experience than the Christian! When I worshiped science I was always been lead on in the evolutionary process to answer the latest one.

I suppose Christians have not got that problem when our knowledge of Creation is based on that which is to be found in the sufficiency of Scripture. I open the book and look. (If it tells me to jump off the nearest cliff I tend to look again! Then jump!).

Evolution, now I am sure I have seen that word somewhere, a good theory and a measuring stick which can be used to observe creation accurately with! Good for six thousand years. Can be projected back another six thousand years perhaps with accuracy is not so good and I have a problem when someone tells me they have measured just under fifteen billion years. But you never no Dr. Who might pay me a visit!

A big toe at forty degrees and no little piggy, interesting. Only trouble is by the time we have invented that one there wont be any trees left to climb up and fall off! But this is yet another act of faith. I can not imagine my wife as an a**. Then again!

How are we on the big bang these days. And how will I apply it in a couple of minutes when I creep up on my next patient with a loaded scalpel behind my back??? ....

Yours in His Name,

Colin.

 

Colin


You wrote

Is this exactly true?
The singular existential statement is not good enough for the scientist. The fact that it exists is of no significance but the nature and quality of existence, how its existence interact, affects and changes others is much more significant.
We measure what we can percieve and perception becomes prediction.
Empirical inductive science takes the singular statement and applies it to the universal statement. This is validated by the use of statistical science and the faith that the universal statement is true is rooted in probabilty.
The measure of how much faith you place in the probability depends on your predilection for the basic statement that the premise for the singular statement was based on. If you choose not to believe in the basic statement, ie the axiom or convention, then the statistical probability is invalid.

This then is scientific knowledge or head knowledge, fickle and illusive, ever changing, never ending. Spiritual knowledge is not fixed in the brain or confined by statistics it is undefinable and unfalsifiable, therefore consistent and unchanging but when you know it you know and it will fulfill your hunger like no amount of scientific endeavour for head knowledge can.
Religous faith that is induced by dogmatic indoctrination of a belief system does not neccessarily result in spiritual knowledge but only intellectual understanding of man's interpretation of that spirtiual knowledge.

Cheers Dave

 

Hi All,

Interesting discussion - I don't have much of a comment on the evolution vs creationism component of this thread - I think the evolution of biological organisms on this planet is beyond a theory, it's supported by a very convincing body of evidence in palaeoanthropology, in addition to both geological and biological sciences. I tend to think of evolution as a fundamental principal of biology - but as an atheist I guess I have nothing to lose !

I have a response to the very first post on this thread by Atlas:

"Did ancient man run anywhere near as much as modern (sub athletic) man? No doubt they were probably on their feet more, but other than short bursts in fight'n'flight situations, did they run and propel as much?"

I'm currently a podiatry hons student, and have recently written about the evolution of specific morphological characteristics that enable H. Sapiens to run for long periods of time. I've pasted in an excerpt of this below based on the following 2 references:

Bramble M, Lieberman D. Endurance running and the evolution of Homo. Nature 2004;432:345-352.

Carrier D, Kapoor A, Kimura T, Nickels M, Satwanti A, Scott E, et al. The Energetic Paradox of Human Running and Hominid Evolution. Current Anthropology 1984;25(4):483-495.

"In relation to other ground-dwelling mammals, humans have a relatively slow maximum running velocity of approximately 10.2 msˉ¹, which is sustainable for a relatively short period of time. However, humans are unique among primates in their capability of sustaining running at moderate speeds for long periods of time.

Fossilised remains of the hominid genus Homo have provided evidence for the evolution of specific morphological characteristics that enable Homo sapiens to be the most highly efficient endurance runners in primate history. These fossilised characteristics have been discovered in both H. habalis and H. erectus species from between 1.8 and 2.8 million years ago, and include many structural adaptations for energy storage and stabilisation. Examples of these developments include the spring mechanisms of the plantar arch and Achilles tendon, an increase in lower limb articular surface area, and a reduction in distal lower limb mass. Theories of the behaviour patterns that favoured the evolution of bipedal endurance running are more speculative, however, most theories relate to an increased likelihood of obtaining food, either by hunting or scavenging."


The above articles also point out that humans have evolved with increased sweat gland innervation and hairlessness - favouring thermoregulation during prolonged periods of running.

Hope this is of some relevance / interest !

Andrew McMillan

 

Here is a link to a podcast on evolution and creationism that some might find interesting.

It's a recording of an address by Professor Steve Jones during a Royal Society conference ... hope it works !

http://royalsociety.org/podcast/audio/LFP2006_jones.mp3

 

Descriptions of the lower limb skeleton of Homo floresiensis.
Jungers WL, Larson SG, Harcourt-Smith W, Morwood MJ, Sutikna T, Awe Due R, Djubiantono T.
J Hum Evol. 2008 Dec 3. [Epub ahead of print]

 

Look up 'the aquatic ape theory' for an interesting alternative view.
Lots of Roman sandals at 2000 years old-/+ exist. I believe the oldest sandal is Ancient Egyptian at 5000BC.

 

Homo erectus

Paleoanthropology - now this is interesting!
Haven't got the article reference yet (do it later)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/africa/foot.php

 

Earliest complete hominin fifth metatarsal-Implications for the evolution of the lateral column of the foot.
Zipfel B, Desilva JM, Kidd RS.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Jun 15. [Epub ahead of print]

 

Revisiting the "midtarsal break"
Desilva JM.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology; Published Online: 11 Aug 2009

 

Combining prehension and propulsion: the foot of Ardipithecus ramidus.
Lovejoy CO, Latimer B, Suwa G, Asfaw B, White TD.
Science. 2009 Oct 2;326(5949):72e1-8.

 

Apparent density of the primate calcaneo-cuboid joint and its association with locomotor mode, foot posture, and the "midtarsal break"
Nowak MG, Carlson KJ, Patel BA.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2009 Nov 16. [Epub ahead of print]

 

"The last common ancestor of hominids and chimpanzees was therefore a careful climber that retained adaptations to above-branch plantigrady"
Assistance please, what exactly does "ABOVE BRANCH plantigrady" refer to?
thanks, mark

 

I find it quite bizzare that is a scientific arena such as this, we are face with such an incredibly purile debate such as "evolution vs creation". Simply visit any creationist website to find the most wonderful examples of half-truths, misquotes and frank lies. Come on guys - the debate as outlined above went down with the ark. Evolution is a fact - get over it and move on (Oh - and anyone who says that evolution is only a theory needs to go back to science school and find out what a theory is). The debate we should be having is about the various mechanisms of evolution - some of which are adaptory, some of which are not. This would answer many of the questions above such as explaining the differences between evoltion (as a concept), and adaption (as a process). Then, one can use these mechanisms, coupled with genetics, to explain the foot's structure, function, evolution, and indeed dysfunction. By way of example - go and look at a case of Holt oram syndrome, ask your self "why?", then look at the OH8 fossil foot (Kidd, O'Higgins and Oxnard, Journal of Human Evolution, September 1996) - and start thinking sonic hedgehog systems. Then, look at pronatory feet with adductus formation (whatever that is), look at the foot assemblage stw573 (Kidd and Oxnard, Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 2005), and ask about Hox genes. YES: the fossils tells us about our genetics. Ask real questions, not obstructive ones. Rob

 

Well said Rob Kidd
... and the post before this where i sought a definition of "above branch plantigrady", would that be walking (upright balancing with arms/tail) upon branches??

 

Hi Mark - shamefully, I am not sure. I am at the human biologuy conference in Perth next week - and one of our key notes (a Canberran) will know. Clearly plantigrady is that process of locomotion bipedally or semi-bipedally in which the calcaneus makes ground contact. I suspect, but need to check, that the process you are referring to is a similar process, but in the tree, along branches. Orangutans move like this. The lab at the forefront of this stuff is Robin Crompton's at The University of Liverpool in the UK. I will find out and get back to you. Certinainly there is clear evidence from the "order" of humanisation of an archetypal ape foot that we did not go through a knuckle-walking phase. That is, we came down from the tree and walked away. Thus - it is highly plausible that we were in some manner adapted for bipedal function arboreally, so to speak, before terrestrially. My work on the habiline foot from East Africa supports this notion. Rob

 

Locomotor anatomy and biomechanics of the Dmanisi hominins.
Authors: Pontzer H, Rolian C, Rightmire GP, Jashashvili T, Ponce de León MS, Lordkipanidze D, Zollikofer CP
J Hum Evol. 2010 May 4;

 

Talar morphology, phylogenetic affinities, and locomotor adaptation of a large-bodied amphipithecid primate from the late middle eocene of Myanmar.
Marivaux L, Beard KC, Chaimanee Y, Dagosto M, Gebo DL, Guy F, Marandat B, Khaing K, Kyaw AA, Oo M, Sein C, Soe AN, Swe M, Jaeger JJ.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Oct;143(2):208-22.

 

.....

 

Brief Communication: Shape analysis of the MT 1 proximal articular surface in fossil hominins and shod and unshod Homo.
Proctor DJ.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2010 Oct 5. [Epub ahead of print]

 

I have only just noticed this thread & I will confess I haven't read through the whole thread - but I will respond to you Rob.

Frankly people here can debate/discuss whatever they want to Rob, providing it falls within the realms of the topic... & hijacking doesn't take place. This thread has been titled “evolution” & has common evolutionary reasoning riddled throughout - so why do you question the questioning of the validity of evolution... why you find it "bizarre" that this takes place in a “scientific arena such as this”. After all, is this not one of the essences of science... to question ideas?

Freedom is the essence of human equality. Freedom has allowed us to create, explore & overcome challenges. Freedom is needed to explore the boundaries of the unknown in various fields of study. One of the most ambiguous fields of study has been the area of the origin & function of life – not just human life but all living creatures which inhabit the planet we live on.

Academic freedom is just as important as social freedom – particularly in the various fields of science. Many scientists have used an intelligent design perspective to get the research done but they feel uneasy to voice such views in public in fear of intimidation or even losing their jobs/tenure (this has happened to researchers & university lecturers). Subsequently some scientists have learned to keep their mouth shut on expressing the validity of their Intelligent Design perspective as part of their research.

This isn’t solely a religious Christian argument (as alluded to via your "ark" note); there are scientists which are Agnostic, Jewish, Moslem & from various other backgrounds who feel (unlike say Dr Dawkins) that Darwin’s conjecture (or if you prefer, theory) or evolution itself is failing. Ironically, it is this which is hindering the absolute enlightenment of science. The idea that science will be reduced to “Biblical fairy tales” is a red herring... used by individuals who don’t have an argument & are reduced to throwing sand in our eyes.

Did life arise & develop by a purely undirected process or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance & design. Now it seems the rules of science are being applied to actually foreclose one of the two possible answers to this very important & fundamental question. Therefore the rules of science are saying we will consider any possibility i.e. primordial soup -> inanimate material -> animated material -> simple organisms –> acquisition of increase genome information via random mutations (i.e. gene duplication) -> more complex larger organisms... but will not except the one that is guided by any source of intelligence.

Precisely which sense of evolution has been so thoroughly tested & confirmed that it is held with great confidence & can even be regarded as fact? Evolution is not a fact... at best it is a theory... or a conjecture. Now, by this I mean... evolution is not a proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. However, the science view or explanation of a “theory” is... “well-substantiated explanation of data e.g. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity & Newton’s Theory of Gravity” etc... Subsequently, a “theory” is quite a compliment to pay to evolution. But by all means call it a “theory”, however, it sure aint a “fact” – event or thing known to have happened or existed – provable truth. Of course, I do believe you have a vested interest in promoting evolution as a “fact” in relation to your field of interest.

Scientists are supposed to question things, to keep an open mind, not allow personal presumptions/philosophies sway their judgement. One might feel safe in going with the flow & following the perceived majority of scientists/researches... the real issue is that the knowledge (debate or argument) on the topic isn’t going to be settled with numbers... but by the evidence that comes to hand.

The manner in which Neo Darwinism &/or evolution corrupts/distorts the evidence is bad for science. There needs to be a disturbance in this area because the evidence is being distorted to prop up a theory (a failing paradigm) that just does not fit it.

There has been discussion on this to some degree in the “Barefoot Running Debate” thread (starting here)... with so called ‘evolution evidence’ of which has been riddled with fraud & deception. Thus the debate we should be having is about the various mechanisms of known testable & observational sciences of physiology/biomechanics etc... (not the presumptions of historical ‘science’ such as those of the realms of evolutionary thought).

Science & metaphysics should not be at war with each other. We have distinguished scientists on both sides of the ‘origins of life’ fence saying exactly opposite things; this tells me that the conflict is not between science & metaphysics (i.e. a belief in God - otherwise you’ll expect all scientists to be atheists) but it is a world view conflict – it is between scientists with a differing world view/philosophy. Unfortunately some people are so deeply entrenched in their own world views that they will not countenance alternatives. Meeting our biases is the best way towards rational discussion.

What we seeing happening in science today is the erecting of a wall to keep an alternative idea out. It was/is erected by people who hold an ideology who were/are afraid from other ideas that would come into their ‘society’ – this is a strategy to prop up/protect a failing ideology from competition due to the possible implications associated with the alternative. There only seems to be academic freedom as long as you are on the right side of the wall.

We just may be able to encounter this intelligent information source through science... if we have the freedom to go there. We need to follow the evidence... wherever it leads.

I believe you have the above definition close to the mark. However "above branch plantigrady" is far different to bipedal walking 'upright' over the earth's surface... to the eventual running & hunting down of prey. Thus the following statement makes little sense to me...

There is a big difference in regard to the physiological components needed to be acquired before we can see the biomechanical/functional necessities needed for this to take place. I however do agree that ... "orang-utans move like this" (i.e. above branch - arboreal plantigrady)... & that's where the similarities end between arboreal & terrestrial ambulation... to the potential running of a sub 8min. 3000m steeplechase or a sub 2.04 marathon.

 

The reduction of evolution as a scientific fact to one of opinion bolstered by prejudice is the red herring here...

The previous post includes the phrase, "We need to follow the evidence... wherever it leads." This cry for open-mindedness fails to recognise that it is the overwhelming scientific evidence that has brought science to recognise evolution as a fact.

Genetic and epigenetic mechanisms unequivocably explain common yet distinctive features of our species and other apes. This includes the regulatory mechanisms (e.g. Hox genes) referred to by Rob Kidd. Alterations in the sequencing, timing, duration and targeting of these mechanisms change morphology... fact.

If evolution could be undermined by 'intelligent design', why not replace the effects of gravity with 'intelligent falling'?

Rob is quite correct... move on.

 

To try to actually suggest Evolution is conjecture is beyond belief. Intelligent design is the exact opposite of reality. Look at the human foot and I think you'll find a distinct lack of intelligent design!!!

The "Theory" of Evolution is a misnomer - its a Theory in the sense that it is impossible to prove a negative and thus it is philosophically correct to call all scientific concepts theories even if there may be sufficient evidence to regard them a fact.

Nobody has actually travelled to a fixed point in the Universe millions of miles away to literally see the Earth orbit around the Sun. The facts of the matter are such that it is possible to theoretically to show the Earth is static and the Sun orbits us but the maths is enormously convoluted compared to the simplitcity of the Earth orbiting the Sun. Thus both theories could be true but it is the case that when presented with two possible truths invariablly the simplest is virtually always the correct one.

So, either Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor a few million years ago and beacuse of this they share 99.2% of their genotype including the same 90 % they also share with other speices and these genes serve no purpose whatsoever being baggage from previous eons but are exactly what we would predict if they had descended from common ancestry.

Or an undefined intelligent designer deliberately made them virtually identical including all the same defunct genes exactly so as to make it look like they evolved rather than making them distinct. He/she also chose to not make them perfectly formed so they suffer with inherrent human faults like bad backs, flat feet and short-sightedness because it's better to design in those faults as it only further makes the case for evolution and thus increases the mystery.

Like I said when presented with 2 possible truths the simplest answer is almost always the correct one.

You're an Aussie I thought it was only Americans that still recite that kind of nonsense?

 

Thanks Greg for your opinion.

Yea right. You may want to rethink this.

It is the biased & wishful interpretations of the evidence which has placed the hypothesis of evolution as a theory... it is not a fact.

Hox genes are hardly conclusive evidence to substantiate your views of evolution being a “scientific fact.”Hox genes do control the expression of other genes – as they are basically switches. However, there is obviously more to the differences between different animals than just switches. Evolution requires some way of generating the new information that’s to be switched on or off. The information needed has to be already present in the genome thus to build a fish fin is vastly different from that needed to build a leg or arm. Just because the skeletal structure may look similar, doesn’t mean they are or will function the same (of cause you know this).

In fact, actual mutations in Hox genes have been shown to be harmful i.e. an extra functionless pair of wings on flies, or a functionless leg where the antenna should be. Changes to homeotic genes can cause weird mutations (two heads, a leg where an eye should be, etc.); they do not change an amphibian into a reptile, for example. The mutations do not add any information; they just cause existing information to be misdirected to produce a fruit-fly leg on the fruit-fly head instead of on the correct body segment, for example.

It is all about unbiased interpretation of the evidence.

Hardly that of an intelligent comment.

Yes thanks, I will. It seems best to leave the “evolution” thread to the evolutionists. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Thanks Lawrence for you opinion.

No I certainly do not. I personally feel that the human foot has a remarkable design. My feet work perfectly well. What I see in my clinic is usually the result of unintelligent (ignorant) lifestyle choices on the whole. Sure there are some structural issues, also some congenital issues, but these were certainly not part of the original design of the foot. I see little sense blaming the design of the foot on these foot types whilst there are people walking/running around with structurally sound feet.

Well, I see this as a simple analogy. There is actually reference that the Earth orbits the Sun thousands of years ago.

You mention the genome between human & apes are similar - hence common ancestry. Besides there still being an enormous difference in genome information with a small percentage difference, the phenotype is a lot different (at least when I look at myself in the mirror)... not to mention the functional i.e. biomechanical difference.

There are many reasons why some people have "bad backs, flat feet & short-sightedness". I do not have a bad back, 'flat' feet or short-sightedness; thus I feel it is “short sightedness” to blame the design just on the reasoning that some have these ailments.

Yes, sometimes... but rather subjective. Depends who deems what "simplest". I prefer to focus the possibility of an event based on factors that do not violate known scientific laws & principles... as well as laws of logic i.e. the law of causation.

A generalised statement. You're from? I can understand why some English don't choose to critique evolution.

 

You seem to be describing genetic experiments out of context here. Of course the introduction of a 'leg building' genetic switch into other areas of the body has this dramatic change on the phenotype. You can (of course) describe this as harmful. You are quite right to point out that this will not create a new species on its own. No right thinking biologist would.

However, biologically normal genetic regulation of leg ontogeny will vary with mutation generally producing local effects. Most will be neutral, some disadvantageous, some beneficial. Benefit is derived if the variation in timing, location and duration of tissue growth etc. reaches a threshold effect where function is altered in a way that enhances survival (or breeding success) within that environment.

This phenomenon offers the simplest evidence based explanation for accumulating diversity between isolated groups culminating in speciation over time. Such changes do offer a satisfactory explanation for the similar yet distinctive osteology of extinct and extant apes, including us.

Now clearly you are well versed with this subject and have an alternative viewpoint. Rob's point was that this is a science based thread. A rational alternative view with supporting evidence would be very welcome.

 

If design was intelligent how come all the dead species??????????

 

Thats the problem in a nutshell. Evolution not only has enormous evidence it is also testable ie one can form a hypothesis based on what one would expect to occur via evolution and then through evidence prove or disprove one's hypothesis. For instance if one were to predict that a certain species evolved between 100 and 120 million years ago then it should be possible to find fossil evidence to support this. This has been done time and time again.

Intelligent design is not a science or a proper theory because it is impossible to formulate a testable hypothesis based on the concept.

 

No, I have no intentions to. I am reviewing the findings/evidence from a different perspective... which is different.

I find the science very interesting; however I (& others) interpret the findings & evidence differently. Primarily because I am reviewing the research from a different perspective. Now this usually wouldn't be an issue in most areas of science or in life general for that matter (i.e. various views on running training), but this particular area involving the origins or the development of life has a lot of baggage attached (i.e. religious baggage, religious nuts saying stupid things, pseudo-scientific reasoning, deception, discrimination etc...). It is an important topic & I doubt the controversy surrounding issues of this nature will settle down. I can foresee that the years ahead will prove to be the most exciting/interesting for both camps.

Yes Greg, I thoroughly agree.

Well Mark, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that most of the extinctions of species has been at the hand of man - either directly (i.e. killing the animal) or indirectly (i.e. environmental changes via habitat destruction or pollution).

I certainly believe in speciation within the boundaries of natural selection (characteristics changes from the original population gene pool). Speciation seems to occur at only the genus level, while in other organisms (often to simpler classes) this may occur as high as the family level. There is no doubt this process occurs because of complex selection pressures brought on by the interaction within the genetic make-up of the organism. As a process, we should be very comfortable with the concept of change within & between species. This is an important inbuilt system necessary to provide the variety of living organisms adaptable to the world’s complex & changing ecosystems. If it were not possible for animal species to change in this way, it is highly likely that extinction on a global scale would have occurred soon after humans transitioned to an imperfect world & started messing things up.

Ironically, this here is the problem in a nutshell. There is no way that anyone can, as you put it... "predict that a certain species evolved between 100 and 120 million years ago". You can speculate on the history of the data found i.e. anthropology, palaeontology, comparative anatomy, radiometric dating etc... but the hypotheses are based on assumptions which are in themselves potentially gained/determined from pre-existing philosophies or world views on the subject matter. This has lead to fraud & deception in the past in the associated fields.

As far as dating (radiometric dating) is concerned, one shouldn't have too much faith in this either. Certain radioactive atoms decay spontaneously into different non-radioactive atoms after a certain time. Due to circumstance, normally due to cosmic radiation/thermal occurrence etc.., there can be a change in the atomic makeup - it can have extra nutrients that it shouldn't have which increases its mass thus it wants to get rid of it & when it does we call this being radioactive. This is in principle what it is all about. This is very important because in certain types of rocks you have what is called isotopes & they consist of this type of atoms.

However, there are 3 assumptions (i.e. not a proven fact, thus in the realm of speculation) based on the outcome...

1/ The speculated original status: The presumed original system status. You presume you know what it was like at the beginning but we don't know as nobody was there to test the original state of the matter i.e. you are just assuming what its original state was. For example let’s take one of the popular methods of radiometric dating - Uranium to Lead. A rock has a certain amount of Uranium. When Uranium decays it becomes Lead. Does it mean that Lead always comes from Uranium? No it doesn't (which is another factor). Now I might test this rock & find a combination of 50/50 of Uranium/Lead. I could use the normal parameter that is the 1/2 life of an isotope. The 1/2 life of Uranium to Lead is apparently 4.5 billion years. So if you have a state where you have 1/2 Uranium & 1/2 Lead the scientists could come to the conclusion that the rock is 4.5 billion years old... however, that is assuming that all the Lead found was from Uranium which is impossible to know as we don't know its original status (starting point).

2/ A closed physical system: A closed physical system should be used. However, some time during the apparent millions of years it must have rained upon the matter or been exposed to water. Rain/water is just one example that can affect the status of Uranium. Others would include various outside environmental influences such as cosmic radiation, cataclysmic events, thermal influences etc... all of which can affect the rate of Uranium decay. Rain/water is just one example that can have a dramatic effect on the Uranium to Lead ratio thus affect the perceived rate of decay & the assumed quantity of Uranium in the first place... thus its estimated age!

3/ The rate of decay must have always been constant: We don't know the rate (it could have been faster at one period compared to another) of decay particularly in relation to factors stated in point 2/. There are outside (open system) factors which affect the original state to begin with as well as status up to the point of testing.

The same principle also applies to Carbon 14 to Carbon 12. This method is used for young (relatively speaking) organic material such as wood, shells & bones. Carbon 14 apparently has a half life of around 5730 years old. There have been C14 tests on freshly slaughtered seals as being 1300 years old. Fragile shells between 1000-2300 years old as well as shells on living snails to be 2700 years old. These are just an example of the stranger results that have been obtained through this method. Other notable examples of inaccurate radiometric dating have included Potassium - Argon dating of newly formed Hawaiian Lava fields to being millions of years old when they were observed to have occurred in 1801 & 1959. Another famous example is the radiometric dating of the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption site in the June of 1992 with dates ranging from 340 000 to 2.8 million years old (massive discrepancy in itself)... yet it was observed 12 years previously (thus 12 years old). Why do they insist on the use of these dating methods as a means to find the age of matter when they are aware of its inaccuracies?

Thus the science regarding the chemical analysis (i.e. Uranium to Lead; Potassium to Argon) is correct but the prepositions are incorrect hence the conclusion is wrong!

 

You dont explain why there is the genotype similarity. Crucially why do chimpanzees and humans share the 90% of their genetic material that is useless - the same genes found in other spieces that in them perform a useful function. Evolutionary thinking can explain this as it shows common ancestry. Intelligent design has no answer to this, do you? Your point on phenotype is a strawman argument.

Are you seriously suggesting that virtually all extinct species were made so by humans??? No you are not I think, it is another diversionary argument. Again evolutionary thinking is the simplest explanation to the diversity of life and the diversity of completely different lifeforms millions of years ago.

You responded to my point on forming hypothesis and then testing them with a further diversionary argument on the reliability of carbon dating technique which is a common "intelligent design" tactic. I'm not going there as I dont debate young-earth creationism.

Please formulate a testable hypothesis using the concept of "intelligent design".

 

Sorry I didn’t pick up on these questions before. I now gather these are important thus I will answer them. Is it a case for “common ancestry” or could it be a common designer/Creator as to the reasoning for similar genome traits? This is the questions we should be open to finding the answers to & not foreclosing a possible avenue. You may not have heard answers/explanations to your above query but they certainly do exist.

You have stated that... “90% of their genetic material useless”. You are thus questioning the purpose of “useless genes” – junk DNA or pseudogenes? Are these genes really useless? What is the latest research revealing about the nature of these genes that are often regarded as “junk”? Scientists are finding the answer to these questions in places they least expected, specifically, in the parts of DNA they thought were useless leftovers from random evolution.

At one time, the distinction between a functional & non-functional gene copy seemed virtually self-evident. The disabled state of certain gene copies (pseudogenes) were characterised by:
1) the inferred absence, or mutational alteration of the structure.
2) the apparent absence of a suitably situated initiator codon.
3) an open reading frame (ORF) containing several inferred mutations... &/or
4) an ORF interrupted by one or more frameshifts and/or premature stop codons.

However, none of these seeming disablements can any longer be trusted as conclusive indicators of a pseudogene’s inactive status.

Early analyses of all that "junk" revealed that it was not random, and later studies showed patterns in the non-gene-coding DNA, although at the time there were no known functions for them. (The ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 447 (7146): 799-816.).

A new study published in Nature disclosed the discovery of a totally new mechanism for gene regulation that uses pseudogenes (false genes). These look very similar to actual genes, but contain enough differences that they could not be used to properly code for proteins. For example, they often have a genetic "stop sign" buried in the middle of the sequence instead of at the end, where the coding gene has it. (Poliseno, L. et al. 2010. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature. 465 (7301): 1033-1038.)

These types of genes were referred as pseudogenes because they were considered to be broken, useless copies of real genes that harboured coding errors from a long evolutionary history of genetic mistakes. But what if pseudogenes had those coding differences not because they were broken-down versions of the real genes, but because they were purposefully designed with specific similarities to help regulate their corresponding genes?

The researchers found exactly that in two gene-pseudogene systems. They documented direct evidence that the pseudogene PTENP1 can regulate cellular levels of its corresponding gene PTEN and exert a growth-suppressive role. Not only is the pseudogene PTENP1 not useless, it has two previously unknown functions. PTENP1 acts as a decoy to attract smaller regulatory molecules. When these small molecules attach to PTENP1 instead of PTEN, the PTEN gene becomes more accessible and is translated into protein more often. (Poliseno, L. et al. 2010. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature. 465 (7301): 1033-1038.)

The distinction between functional gene copies and supposedly non-functional ones (pseudogenes) is becoming ever harder to determine. The unexpected discovery of a human retropseudogene that codes for a tumour antigen recognized by T cells follows earlier discoveries of protein-encoding genes that exhibit the secondary capability of producing short antigenic peptide segments from alternative reading frames. Tumor antigens themselves enjoy mixed success in enabling the organism to destroy tumour cells, & one major research objective is to increase their effectiveness for the creation of therapeutic anti-cancer vaccines.

Even more surprising is the fact that a human pseudogene, NA88-A, conventionally deemed incapable of producing anything even resembling a biologically meaningful peptide, has also been found to produce a tumour rejection antigen from an alternative open reading frame. This & related discoveries open up a whole world of previously unsuspected potential immunological functions for various types of junk DNA.

Furthermore, there are two snail pseudogenes that are functional in spite of containing such seeming disablements, & such is also the case for a recently described murine pseudogene. (Woodmorappe, J., Pseudogene function: regulation of gene expression, TJ 17(1):47–52, 2003.)
This, of course, does not include the cases where so-called pseudogenes are simply relabelled as genes upon the discovery of function, or genes that contain pseudogenic features that are circumvented by genomic recoding processes.

For quite a while, evolutionists had supposed that only genes’ DNA is functional. The apparent lack of sequence conservation (from organism to organism) that is generally true of pseudogenic DNA and intergenic DNA was taken as proof that it is merely ‘junk’ that has been steadily accumulating random mutations. The latest evidence provides a further basis for rejecting this common belief. Noncoding DNA can have one or more immunological functions despite having a low degree of sequence specificity. In the case of pseudogenes, a very short open reading frame can produce potentially useful peptides.


I also did some reading a while ago into Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) & the claims that these are also evidence for common descent. ERV integration points within chromosomes are typically located at the identical position (loci) of related species – thus assumed common descent. Evolutionists claim that a virulent strain of ancient viruses called Retroviruses plagued vertebrates (& most non-vertebrates) as they evolved throughout time. After their initial outward communicable infection (Exogenous Retroviruses), evolutionists also claim that these viruses were able to insert their DNA into their host’s germ cells, which are all sperm & egg related cells. Any viral DNA that integrates into the DNA of a host’s germ cell would be automatically passed down (inherited) to all offspring & that type of transmission, & is called Endogenous.


Later research has discovered that these ERVs not only have a functional role to play but more importantly they will tend to gravitate to the same area of the genome. Retroviruses have been shown to have highly targeted insertion points, meaning that the virus selects very specific segments of the genome for insertion. Consequently, it is entirely possible that the same virus infected both humans & apes, as well as targeting the same location. This seems especially plausible in light of the fact that humans & apes have tens of thousands of endogenous retroviruses in their respective genomes. In other words, given so many thousands of different types of ERVs all targeting fairly specific locations, it is actually likely that at least a few of these retroviruses will infect both humans & apes at the very same location within the respective genomes without any need to invoke the common descent hypothesis.

The question that was asked...

I thought my answer was quite clear. Please don’t submit a red herring here. I didn’t state “all extinct species” was the result of man, but I do believe a large percentage certainly is. I can’t see the issue here... we have certainly been irresponsible as custodians of this planet as a result our careless & selfish behaviour. Some of the major causes of extinction have been related to:

1/ Taking Animals for Profit: i.e. for particular types of clothing & pets.
2/ Hunting and Trapping: i.e. for sport or food.
3/ Overharvesting.
4/ Introduced Species.
5/ Destruction of Habitat.
6/ Pollution.
7/ Environmental changes.
8/ Disasters/catastrophes.

The diversity of the information within the genetic pool of organisms is the most logical & scientifically sound explanation to the diversity of life expressed in nature via natural selection... not random unguided events of mutations/gene duplications over assumed eons of time which has somehow acquired more complex traits thus increased information from who knows where.

Lawrence, you are the one consistently alluding to time & having the clock/time as part of your substantiation of your “testable hypothesis”. I do not agree with the time periods you are putting forward & subsequently reasoning & validity to substantiate this aspect of your “testable hypothesis” of which you (& others) heavily rely on. Thus I am naturally going to comment on this aspect as you have likewise done with aspects of my viewpoint. The issue of time/dating is very much a part of the discussion as it is closely interwoven into the evolutionary premise. I made a valid point based on science & logic regarding the dating methods used as a form of evidence to substantiate figures that fit within the evolutionary premise. Once again, please don’t bring up a red herring.

Ironically, this is a tactic regularly used by evolutionists to deflect scrutiny from the real issues, i.e. the “science” (or lack of it). To draw the sympathy vote they portray themselves as moderate, clear-thinking rationalists being critiqued by a “young- earth” Creationist.

I have been formulating the outline of my hypothesis over the past few posts. In the process I have refuted the hypothesis you put forward – do you have any others?