AgnosticWeb.com - Proteins, Apes & Us: dhw look!!!

Proteins, Apes & Us: dhw look!!! (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 22:29:44 +0000

> I'm delighted with this reply. I see little difference between the inventive drive of DNA and the intelligence and cooperation of cells. Your inventive DNA will get nowhere if it doesn't suit a particular environment, and my inventive cell gets going when the environment is suitable. I agree that Darwin's random mutations seem the least likely of the three, and in view of all the unanswered questions I would say that all three theories are (still) in their infancy. That is where they will remain until science comes up with some direct evidence of how innovations are caused.-Deepak Chopra reviewing Dawkins latest book on science for tennagers has the following paragraph which fits our discussion:-"He ignores, either willfully or through ignorance, the evidence for directed mutagenesis first put forward by John Cairns of Harvard in 1988. John Cairns showed that if you grow bacteria with the inability to metabolize lactose, they evolve that ability in petri dishes tens of thousands of times faster than would be predicted if mutations simply occurred randomly. Professor Rudolph Tanzi of Harvard Medical School further points out that mutations in the human genome do not occur randomly but cluster in "hot spots" that are hundreds of times more likely to undergo mutation. Could these hot spots be driving the evolution of humans according to our current need for survival? Tanzi and others are eager to speculate and thus expand Darwinsim, where Dawkins uses evolution merely as a club against superstition and organized religion -- this does a disservice to young readers and betrays the hollowness of Dawkins' allegiance to scientific objectivity. Recent evidence from whole human genome sequencing has shown that in a newborn there are roughly 30 new (de novo) mutations that were not present in mom or dad. So, for the first time, we can earnestly begin to ask whether human DNA undergoes directed mutagenesis that has been already observed in bacterial genomes. (Tanzi and I have had several conversations on how the mind may influence the flow of energy and information in living things, and beyond that to the universe as a whole.) (my bolds)-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/dawkins-magic-of-reality_b_1004216.html

Proteins, Apes & Us: dhw look!!! (reply)

dhw — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 19:25:09 +0000

Dhw: Design versus chance? No-one knows how the intelligent cell came into being, so that remains wide open. Proxies? Every species you can think of. If you believe in common descent, there has to be an internal mechanism (the "intelligent" cell) that governs innovation, and there has to be a trigger to set it in motion: your trigger is God's will, Darwin's is random mutation, and mine is the environment. All theories involve joining the dots of whatever information we have. Does this one leave out any of the dots?-DAVID: I think your triggers are correct, but least likely Darwin. My version of God's will is within DNA: a drive to become more complex and to be inventive; the environment calls forth epigenetics; and Darwin is luck of the draw, and occasionally something works. Your cell intelligence and cooperation is reasonable, but is still a theory in infancy.-I'm delighted with this reply. I see little difference between the inventive drive of DNA and the intelligence and cooperation of cells. Your inventive DNA will get nowhere if it doesn't suit a particular environment, and my inventive cell gets going when the environment is suitable. I agree that Darwin's random mutations seem the least likely of the three, and in view of all the unanswered questions I would say that all three theories are (still) in their infancy. That is where they will remain until science comes up with some direct evidence of how innovations are caused.

Proteins, Apes & Us: dhw look!!! (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:48:25 +0000

> Design versus chance? No-one knows how the intelligent cell came into being, so that remains wide open. Proxies? Every species you can think of. If you believe in common descent, there has to be an internal mechanism (the "intelligent" cell) that governs innovation, and there has to be a trigger to set it in motion: your trigger is God's will, Darwin's is random mutation, and mine is the environment. All theories involve joining the dots of whatever information we have. Does this one leave out any of the dots?- I think your triggers are correct, but least likely Darwin. My version of God's will is within DNA: a drive to become more complex and to be inventive; the environment calls forth epigenetics; and Darwin is luck of the draw, and occasionally something works. Your cell intelligence and cooperation is reasonable, but is still a theory in infancy.

Proteins, Apes & Us: dhw look!!! (reply)

dhw — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:39:10 +0000

David has proposed a scenario in which tree-dwelling monkeys undergo a mutation leading to uprightness, and then descend to the savannah. I proposed a scenario in which the trees have disappeared, and monkeys are forced to adjust to the savannah by becoming upright. I quoted two articles, one of which cast doubt on whether Lucy was bipedal or arboreal, and the other recorded two totally opposing views by teams of experts who had studied the same evidence and concluded (a) that Ardi was up in the trees, and (b) that he was down in the savannah. I think this leaves ample scientific latitude for my scenario.-DAVID: All paleo scientists whether it is evolution or climate work with proxies. No direct evidence. -Clearly the proxies that we do have allow for either interpretation.-DAVID: Find a proxy that fits your scenario! And you are all set to turn the world on its ear!-I don't understand why my scenario is so revolutionary. I thought it was your own that was turning the world on its ear!-DAVID: I found it for you. Some rare chimps are ground sleepers.-You are a true sportsman and gentleman. But wouldn't gorillas ... which spend most of their time on the ground ... also count as proxies? In any case, even the uprightness theory is part of a much bigger idea which started with Lynn Margulis's symbiotic relationships.-So please be patient with me ... as you always are ... and pick this argument to pieces, not by demanding direct evidence for (as you say, there is none for any of the theories), but by citing direct evidence against.-Cells cooperate. That is a fact. We have no idea how they do it, but their ability to form working communities indicates some kind of intelligence. (You may attribute that to God if you like.) Thanks to epigenetics, Lamarckism ... inheritance of acquired characteristics ... seems to be making a comeback. One of the weakest of all factors in the evolutionary theory is innovation. We know that major changes in the environment coincide with major changes to flora and fauna, with species becoming extinct and new species emerging. This suggests a possible link between environment and innovation. There are in fact two possibilities here, one of which I think has been proven: some species survive by adapting to environmental change. (I remember you giving us the example of a fish that did just that within a couple of generations.) This can only mean that organs undergo changes in order to preserve the status quo, and organs are communities of "intelligent" cells. But supposing we go one step further, to changes in the environment that allow for new ideas ... i.e. that allow cell communities to form totally new combinations. -To illustrate this, and stay within our uprightness framework, let me slightly revise my original thesis. Maybe the monkeys didn't HAVE to stand upright. After all, there are plenty of quadrupeds that manage perfectly well in the savannah. Supposing instead, some monkeys found that standing upright simply gave them an advantage ... to get a better view of predators, to reach the tops of bushes...in fact, whatever advantages your own brand of hominin had from its lucky or pre-planned mutation. Greater success would bring a greater survival rate, and the cell communities would adjust accordingly, with all the necessary changes to the pelvis, the shoulders and the rest of the anatomy (again, the same process that your own brand of hominin had to undergo). These acquired characteristics would then be passed on Ã la Lamarck. Such a scenario gives evolution two different types of impetus: not only NECESSARY but also USEFUL adaptations and innovations, all in accordance with what the environment demands or allows, and all organized by the cells within existing organisms. The beauty of this is that instead of Darwin's random mutations and unrelieved gradualism, and your pre-planned mutations with no necessity other than God's will, we have an intelligent response ... adaptive or innovative ... dictated by variations in the environment. If the Cambrian Explosion*** coincided with huge environmental changes (e.g. increase in oxygen), it may be that the cell communities found hitherto impossible ways of combining ... again bearing in mind that all species must evolve from existing species apart from the very first (unless you believe in special creation). -Design versus chance? No-one knows how the intelligent cell came into being, so that remains wide open. Proxies? Every species you can think of. If you believe in common descent, there has to be an internal mechanism (the "intelligent" cell) that governs innovation, and there has to be a trigger to set it in motion: your trigger is God's will, Darwin's is random mutation, and mine is the environment. All theories involve joining the dots of whatever information we have. Does this one leave out any of the dots?- *** Thanks for the latest reference. The website is currently "experiencing difficulties".

Proteins, Apes & Us: dhw look!!! (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:19:33 +0000

> > Would you still say that science leaves no room for the scenario I have put forward? > > Find a proxy that fits your scenario! And you are all set to turn the world on its ear!-I found it for you. Some rare chimps are ground sleepers:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120416113058.htm

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:04:39 +0000

DAVID: The first hominins were tree-dwelling and entered the savannah when their uprightness allowed it. Key alteration in evolution theory: Upright BEFORE savannah. > > dhw: However, supposing the innovation (i.e. the mutation to uprightness) was not random but was a direct response to environmental pressure? Then we have a very different scenario. As I've suggested in earlier posts, one or more localized events in isolated areas might have destroyed the forests and changed them into savannahs. In order to survive, the monkeys HAD to come down from the trees. > The authors of the research in 2009 have already responded in another article, defending the methodology and validity of their analysis and indicating that the area where the rdipithecus ramidus lived was very diverse and that it is wrong to generalize about a single type of environment. [/i]-Note the 'defense of methodiology'. All paleo scientists whether it is evolution or climate work with proxies. No direct evidence. > > Would you still say that science leaves no room for the scenario I have put forward?-Find a proxy that fits your scenario! And you are all set to turn the world on its ear!

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

dhw — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:07:26 +0000

DAVID: The first hominins were tree-dwelling and entered the savannah when their uprightness allowed it. Key alteration in evolution theory: Upright BEFORE savannah.-dhw: However, supposing the innovation (i.e. the mutation to uprightness) was not random but was a direct response to environmental pressure? Then we have a very different scenario. As I've suggested in earlier posts, one or more localized events in isolated areas might have destroyed the forests and changed them into savannahs. In order to survive, the monkeys HAD to come down from the trees. -DAVID: And having to stoop over to walk on their knuckles how would that work in the savannah? The arms remained long until Lucy at two-three million years ago. You must think of whole body adaptations. The fossil hunters also study paleoenvironment. No one has proposed your scenario of an earlier savannah. I think your thinking has taken you down a rabbit hole. Granted your reasoning is reasonable, but, if we can trust the science, it didn't happen your way.-Can we trust the science? We have a whole thread now devoted to that very subject. Besides, what science? Is there any scientific consensus on what happened? How do you know that Lucy was the first short-armed hominid? Is the fossil record complete? Even Lucy's locomotion is a matter of controversy:-Wikipedia: There is considerable debate regarding the locomotor behaviour of A. afarensis. Some believe that A. afarensis was almost exclusively bipedal, while others believe that the creatures were partly arboreal. The anatomy of the hands, feet and shoulder joints in many ways favour the latter interpretation.-But more to the point, you have argued that the first hominins went down into the savannah after a mutation that led to uprightness. Are you now suggesting that their uprightness was also accompanied by short arms? Clearly not if Lucy really was the first to have short arms! How upright is upright? All the scenarios are based on the same premise that a degree of uprightness conveyed an advantage. No matter whether it came via a random (or divinely planned) mutation or via an adaptation to new living conditions, the rest of the body would still have had to adapt to the new position (= your whole body adaptations). There is no way round this development if we believe in common descent. I'm pleased that you find my reasoning reasonable, because your alternative seems to me less reasonable: a chance or pre-planned mutation which leads the ex-monkey (still with long arms) to look for a new environment, versus my change in the environment which forces monkeys to adapt or die. I've done some googling, and as usual found nothing but "may", "might", "perhaps". I copied and pasted the article below (but then couldn't find it again!) as an example (a) of scientists disagreeing, and (b) of some researchers favouring the theory that the expansion of the savannah forced early hominids to leave the trees and walk upright.-Did the first bipedal hominids live in the savannah or the forest? Last year, a team of scientists announced that Ardi, a pre-human fossils dating back 4.4 million years ago, had lived in a wooded area, an idea that was revolutionary because it contradicted previous theories. However, according to new findings from another team of scientists who examined the exact same data, the environment of the first bipedal primates was more likely a savannah. -In 2009, a team from the University of California at Berkeley in the U.S. published in the journal Science data suggesting that the hominids of the species Ardipithecus ramidus, to which the Ardi fossil belongs, had lived in the woods of Africa. But recently another study published in the same magazine and based on the very same data contradicts this theory.-"Our team reviewed the data published by White and his colleagues last October [2009] and found that their data does not support this conclusion," said Naomi Levin, co-author of the new study, adding that the data indicated the opposite, that Ardipithecus ramidus lived in a savannah composed of mostly herbs and low-lying plants. -The environment in which these pre-humans lived is important to understand their evolution. The call of the savannah theory says that the expansion of this type of terrain was the reason these early hominids left the trees and began walking upright. The theory of life in a wooded setting, however, would require finding a new explanation for the developmental changes. -"If the habitat of Ardipithecus ramidus were savannahs where grass made up 60% of the biomass," says Levin, "we can not rule out the possibility that the open environment play an important role in human origins and, in particular, the origin of bipedal walking." He concludes: "Neither the public nor the scientific community should accept an exclusively forest habitat for Ardipithecus ramidus and the origin of bipedal walking because the data does not support it."-The authors of the research in 2009 have already responded in another article, defending the methodology and validity of their analysis and indicating that the area where the Ardipithecus ramidus lived was very diverse and that it is wrong to generalize about a single type of environment. -Would you still say that science leaves no room for the scenario I have put forward?

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:35:57 +0000

DAVID: The first hominins were tree-dwelling and entered the savannah when their uprightness allowed it. Key alteration in evolution theory: Upright BEFORE savannah.->dhw: However, supposing the innovation (i.e. the mutation to uprightness) was not random but was a direct response to environmental pressure? Then we have a very different scenario. As I've suggested in earlier posts, one or more localized events in isolated areas might have destroyed the forests and changed them into savannahs. In order to survive, the monkeys HAD to come down from the trees. -And having to stoop over to walk on their knuckles how would that work in the savannah? The arms remained long until Lucy at two-three million years ago. You must think of whole body adapations. The fossil hunters also study paleoenvironment. No one has proposed your scenario of an earlier savannah. I think your thinking has taken you down a rabbit hole. Granted your reasoning is reasonable, but, if we can trust the science, it didn't happen your way

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

dhw — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 11:12:13 +0000

DAVID: The first hominins were tree-dwelling and entered the savannah when their uprightness allowed it. Key alteration in evolution theory: Upright BEFORE savannah.-This certainly does have enormous implications for the theory of evolution. You may disagree with some of what follows, but let's just see where it leads us. A random, back-straightening mutation would fit in with Darwinian evolution: when the "fledgeling" hominin goes down into the savannah, it finds the mutation beneficial, undergoes additional refinements, and Natural Selection ensures that the upright savannah-dweller survives and flourishes. Exactly the same process would apply if the whole thing was pre-planned by your designer God. -However, supposing the innovation (i.e. the mutation to uprightness) was not random but was a direct response to environmental pressure? Then we have a very different scenario. As I've suggested in earlier posts, one or more localized events in isolated areas might have destroyed the forests and changed them into savannahs. In order to survive, the monkeys HAD to come down from the trees. And by dint of epigenetic mechanisms, directed by the intelligent cells that form all the communities of our different organs (Margulis), some monkeys straightened their backs, and the rest of the body adjusted accordingly, in due course creating the hominins we believe to be our ancestors. Maybe different forms of hominins in different areas (convergence), but all brought into being by the pressures of the environment, as opposed to the randomness (Darwin) or pre-planning (David) of mutations. This scenario has no bearing on the chance v. design debate, because of course it doesn't settle the all-important question of how such an adaptive, innovative mechanism could have originated. I'm only putting it forward because I find it more convincing if we attribute the change to a RESPONSE required by the environment rather than to an out-of-the-blue innovation that then has to seek a new environment to accommodate itself. But that means savannah before uprightness.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:57:45 +0000

> DAVID: See my last entry correcting the links posted a few minutes ago. You will see his reasoning, especially in his introduction on page 2.http://www.uprightape.net/Homeotic_Evolution.pdf > or google all of this next line: > PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org October 2007 | Issue 10 | e1019 > > Thank you, David. Initially I thought it said "homoerotic", but that must have been the influence of the book I'm translating at the moment, entitled RODIN AND EROS! > > I've read the introduction, and I can see what you're getting at. He really doesn't need the "hype", does he? The line he's following is clearer to me now, and I'm happy to leave it at that, if you are.-Note tongue in cheek review of all our recent ancestors from the last 7-8 milion years. Neanderthals not so brutish:-http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo20/disappearing-link.php

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

dhw — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 12:18:04 +0000

Dhw: However, it is indeed the hype that has put me off, and "existing apes have a human ancestor" are his own words, not someone else's. Sadly, I can't get the article you've referred to. I only get "Article not found" ... and I have far too much respect for you to push this issue. If you think the original paper makes a good case for "the start of a line that leads to upright humans", that's fine with me. After all, there has to be such a line if we believe in common descent.-DAVID: See my last entry correcting the links posted a few minutes ago. You will see his reasoning, especially in his introduction on page 2.http://www.uprightape.net/Homeotic_Evolution.pdf or google all of this next line: PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org October 2007 | Issue 10 | e1019-Thank you, David. Initially I thought it said "homoerotic", but that must have been the influence of the book I'm translating at the moment, entitled RODIN AND EROS! -I've read the introduction, and I can see what you're getting at. He really doesn't need the "hype", does he? The line he's following is clearer to me now, and I'm happy to leave it at that, if you are.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:37:32 +0000

> However, it is indeed the hype that has put me off, and "existing apes have a human ancestor" are his own words, not someone else's. Sadly, I can't get the article you've referred to. I only get "Article not found" ... and I have far too much respect for you to push this issue. If you think the original paper makes a good case for "the start of a line that leads to upright humans", that's fine with me. After all, there has to be such a line if we believe in common descent.-See my last entry correcting the links posted a few minutes ago. You will see his reasoning, especially in his introduction on page 2.-http://www.uprightape.net/Homeotic_Evolution.pdf or google all of this next lineLoS ONE | www.plosone.org October 2007 | Issue 10 | e1019

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:34:39 +0000

> > Filler's "discovery" (not theory?) supports Darwin if you classify the hominins as hominins (which you do) or as apes (which Filler does), but it brings in a sensational new dimension if you classify them as humans (which Filler does). > > No he doesn't: See his original paper. He is describing the start of a line that leads to upright humans: > > Try this link to see his original paper: -http://www.uprightape.net/Homeotic_Evolution.pdf , or google the entire line below:LoS ONE | www.plosone.org October 2007 | Issue 10 | e1019-> > > > > You have hit the nail on the head when you say Filler is locating what we both used to call "the missing link". If we replace his "ape" and "human" with "common ancestors", his four bipedal fossils fit in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent. > > Yes. > > > Then instead of his sensational "existing apes have a human ancestor" and Amazon's even more explicit "apes descended from humans and not the other way round", we have "humans and modern apes have common ancestors". But that means goodbye to the self-proclaimed "revolutionary" dimension of Filler's theory. > > Forget the hype. Filler himself is reasonable as I have said, and if he is correct, it is sensational: his proposal is an ancient ape started on the road to upright bipedalism and every one else branched off. Since humans are the only truly bipedal survivors of the process of evolution, everyone branched off the 'human line'. Not an unreasonalbe viewpoint. > > > > ******* > > David: Nobel scientist, Dr Phillips, and his thoughts: > > > > http://uip.edu/en/articles-en/ordinary-science-ordinary-faith > > > > Thank you for this wonderful article, which I'm sure Tony and Casey will love too. > > We theists can be human.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

dhw — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:28:06 +0000

Dhw: Then instead of his sensational "existing apes have a human ancestor" and Amazon's even more explicit "apes descended from humans and not the other way round", we have "humans and modern apes have common ancestors". But that means goodbye to the self-proclaimed "revolutionary" dimension of Filler's theory. DAVID: Forget the hype. Filler himself is reasonable as I have said, and if he is correct, it is sensational: his proposal is an ancient ape started on the road to upright bipedalism and every one else branched off. Since humans are the only truly bipedal survivors of the process of evolution, everyone branched off the 'human line'. Not an unreasonable viewpoint.-Who is "everyone"? Monkeys and apes are still with us, and a single fossil from 21 million years ago plus three other bipedal fossils don't mean there weren't other, different monkey/ape/hominin/hominid lines (convergence comes to mind). As you say in your post to Tony: "The specimens are so sparse, it will be another 50 years before we have enough to really follow the lines without lots of guessing."-However, it is indeed the hype that has put me off, and "existing apes have a human ancestor" are his own words, not someone else's. Sadly, I can't get the article you've referred to. I only get "Article not found" ... and I have far too much respect for you to push this issue. If you think the original paper makes a good case for "the start of a line that leads to upright humans", that's fine with me. After all, there has to be such a line if we believe in common descent.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:34:18 +0000

> Evolutionary biology looks at hominid and ape specimens, but recent and ancient, looking to prove evolution. So, that is the evidence that they find. -The specimens are so sparce, it will be another 50 years before we have enough to really follow the various lines without lots of guessing. Gould said it was the trade secret of paleoanthropology that all we had were the 'tips and nodes' of the branches. -I still follow the 'third way': guided evolution, the only interpretation which makes any sense.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:42:05 +0000

> Filler's "discovery" (not theory?) supports Darwin if you classify the hominins as hominins (which you do) or as apes (which Filler does), but it brings in a sensational new dimension if you classify them as humans (which Filler does). -No he doesn't: See his original paper. He is describing the start of a line that leads to upright humans:-http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001019)--> You have hit the nail on the head when you say Filler is locating what we both used to call "the missing link". If we replace his "ape" and "human" with "common ancestors", his four bipedal fossils fit in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent.-Yes.-> Then instead of his sensational "existing apes have a human ancestor" and Amazon's even more explicit "apes descended from humans and not the other way round", we have "humans and modern apes have common ancestors". But that means goodbye to the self-proclaimed "revolutionary" dimension of Filler's theory. -Forget the hype. Filler himself is reasonable as I have said, and if he is correct, it is sensational: his proposal is an ancient ape started on the road to upright bipedalism and every one else branched off. Since humans are the only truly bipedal survivors of the process of evolution, everyone branched off the 'human line'. Not an unreasonalbe viewpoint. > > ******* > David: Nobel scientist, Dr Phillips, and his thoughts: > > http://uip.edu/en/articles-en/ordinary-science-ordinary-faith > > Thank you for this wonderful article, which I'm sure Tony and Casey will love too. -We theists can be human.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

dhw — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:45:56 +0000

DAVID: A final species has to start somewhere, and have some directionality. If you have my viewpoint of pre-planning, it all makes sense.-How do we know that any species is "final"? What would you expect the Earth and humans to be like in, say, 3 million years' time? But if you mean the species we have now, including ourselves, your God must also have pre-planned chimps, sparrows, ants, the duck-billed platypus, and every other species in existence. How does this prove that humans are the "chosen" species? In this context, your previous arguments concerning the uniqueness of human consciousness and achievements strike a very real chord in me, but I cannot see any relevance to your beliefs in Filler's extraordinary thesis that bipedal apes = "humans" = humans, and therefore humans evolved into modern apes. See below.-DAVID: Your problem is your allegiance to Darwin.-No, my problem is Filler's use of language. On 06 April at 16.18 you wrote: "Monkeys first, then a vertebrae change to indicate a hominin line, from which a gorilla line and a chimp line branches off. Of course Darwin was correct. Filler's discovery supports this."-Filler's "discovery" (not theory?) supports Darwin if you classify the hominins as hominins (which you do) or as apes (which Filler does), but it brings in a sensational new dimension if you classify them as humans (which Filler does). You have hit the nail on the head when you say Filler is locating what we both used to call "the missing link". If we replace his "ape" and "human" with "common ancestors", his four bipedal fossils fit in perfectly with Darwin's theory of common descent. Then instead of his sensational "existing apes have a human ancestor" and Amazon's even more explicit "apes descended from humans and not the other way round", we have "humans and modern apes have common ancestors". But that means goodbye to the self-proclaimed "revolutionary" dimension of Filler's theory. -******* David: Nobel scientist, Dr Phillips, and his thoughts:-http://uip.edu/en/articles-en/ordinary-science-ordinary-faith-Thank you for this wonderful article, which I'm sure Tony and Casey will love too. Beautifully written and argued, and a tonic in this day and age of strident irrationality. I'm particularly struck by his absolute honesty ... he makes no pretence at knowing the answers to the mysteries that we've all been puzzling over. Even if he is a practising Christian, David, you may well be blood brothers! Although I can't share his faith, he made me immensely proud to be human, and my seat on the fence is all the warmer and softer for reading his thoughts.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

Balance_Maintained — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 00:39:37 +0000

I remember debates about the missing link from my childhood. My take on it was not "What is the missing link?", but rather, "Is there a missing link at all?"-This is the problem I have with Evolutionary theory and fundamentalist creationist alike: If you are looking at the data with the intention of proving a theory, you will find the proof you are looking for, regardless of whether or not it proves anything or has any explanatory power.-Evolutionary biology looks at hominid and ape specimens, but recent and ancient, looking to prove evolution. So, that is the evidence that they find. Creationist look at those same specimens looking to prove creation, so that is what they find. My understanding of science was that the process was supposed to occur somewhat in reverse. You look at the data without blinkers and blinders, and build a hypothesis based on what you find. Then you try to DISPROVE that hypothesis, not prove it. Science today seems to work the other way around. They come up with a hypothesis, perhaps based on data, perhaps on someone elses interpretation of data, or perhaps based on a personal agenda, and then try to PROVE that hypothesis instead of disprove it.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:05:38 +0000

> "First there was one. Now there are four upright bipedal species of apes before the chimp-human split." > > "Paleoanthropology as a field has not yet come to grips with the revolutionary implications. The first "human" was probably Morotopithecus and probably lived 21 million years ago. The existing apes have a human ancestor." > > "For fifty years we have defined the first humans by the acquisition of upright bipedal posture in creatures like Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) who had brains like other apes. However, it now appears that based on this definition human history must reach back to the Miocene of 21 million years ago." > > Human history must reach back like every other history to the earliest forms of life. If bipedalism has been the criterion for 50 years, maybe it's time we changed the criterion in view of the confusion it seems to cause. Within just a few lines Filler himself refers to the upright bipedal species as apes, then as "human", and then as human, which gives him his sensational, "revolutionary" conclusion. May I suggest that what he has shown is that both humans and existing apes have various species of apes as their ancestors (hardly revolutionary, as it = Darwinism, which you acknowledge). Filler's theory then depends partly on language ... i.e. whether we call the earlier bipedal species apes (which he does) or humans (which he does) or hominins (your humans that are not like us). -A final species has to start somewhere, and have some directionality. If you have my viewpoint of pre-planning, it all makes sense. > > However, David, you say: "We can only go by the fossils we find." Since the fossil record is so sparse, do we really know what lines followed what lines? How can anyone say for sure that modern gorillas and chimps are descended from any of those four bipedal species of apes, which were all presumably contemporary with other species of four-legged apes? When I was young, the in vogue expression was "the missing link". It seems to me, as Tony has indicated, that there are countless missing links in every theory. Filler's "revolutionary" one makes less and less sense the more I look at it, but then so does everything else in this sweet mystery of life.-You and I are are too old. My childhood friends discussed the missing link also. Filler is locating it. Your problem is your allegance to Darwin. He did not get it right, and he couldn't help it. His upperclass position had him rely on Alfred Russel Wallace's observations, but he never caught onto the implications Wallace appreciated being in the field. Wallace was closerto the truth. See my answer to Tony just previous.

Proteins, Apes & Us (reply)

David Turell — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 14:47:05 +0000

I have not seen enough evidence to convince me of speciation via evolution. I have not seen enough evidence to convince me that there has been enough TIME for all of the crap they expect us to swallow about evolution. Punctuated equilibrium and Epigenics make sense, but I still have not seen any evidence of speciation via these mechanisms, so I am stuck.-That is why I think evolution is guided. If you read Michael Denton's two books: Evolution & Nature's Destiny; and add Simon Conway Morris' Life's Solution, you will begin to understand my viewpoint. Morris makes a powerful point in his discussion of 'convergence'. Six different kinds of eyes is an example.-Having traveled the Grand Canyon by oared raft with one of the world's leading canyon geologists, head of a major university geology department, I really appreciate the layer cake the Earth is. From your background I'm sure you do also. The ages of those layers are pretty specific. The complexity of the fossils increases as you travel up in time from the Vishnu Shist. Evolution by some method must have happened. By chance mutation, no way. The origin of life falls into the same category. The books above are the best threesome I have encountered to suggest pre-plannng.-And it is OK to be a scientist and believe in God. Any reasonable person looking at science can see the pointers to God:-Nobel Scientist, Dr. Phillips, and his thoughts: -http://uip.edu/en/articles-en/ordinary-science-ordinary-faith