Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;106546 wrote:

Why has evolution stopped with apes but not with Homo Sapient?

Firstly - humans are apes, just as gorillas are, or gibbons are, or whatever.

We're also monkeys.

Those are taxonomic catagories that biologists all agree we belong to - just as we are animals, vertebrates, tetrapods, etc...

Secondly, if you think evolution "stopped" with gorillas but didn't in man you must think evolution's "purpose" is to reach sapience.

But evolution doesn't imply any such thing. Firmicute bacteria are thought to have been subject to evolution since relatively close to the beginning, and they are no more human than they appeared to have been in the pre-Cambrian.

What evolution does broadly imply is that animals will adapt to their given niche, or opportunities to new ones.

Specialist niches can be rewarding - but specialist animals (or plants or other lifeforms) can be at greater risk of extinction than niches that allow for flexibility.

The ancestors of humans, able to exploit a niche of "smart tool maker" have done ever better at it. (It allows for lots of flexibility).

Whereas gorillas adapted to a different niche - "not so smart consumer of low energy food in mountainous forest" - if you like.

This specialist niche has proved much much less rewarding than "smart tool maker" - which might explain why there are hardly any gorillas left, whilst humans are all over the place.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;106546 wrote:

Why has evolution stopped with apes but not with Homo Sapient?

Evolution hasn't stopped with any organism that continues to reproduce. The influenza virus is evolving, which is why it hits us again every year. Insects are evolving, trees are evolving, and monkeys are evolving.

Jackofalltrades;106566 wrote:

As far as the conversation we are having, i would like to point out that you had mentioned about 'a bacteria' ..... now my common sense told me that if 'a bacteria' is subjected to some kind or method of experimentation, then the most likley surmise would be that you are talking about a strain or specie or subspecie of bacteria.

Yes, in fact you can take a single genetically identical clone of bacteria to do this experiment, and the species doesn't matter, whether E. coli or Bacillus subtilis or Staphylococcus aureus, doesn't matter. When you see bacterial colonies on a petri dish, these have all arisen from a single solitary bacterium, so any genetic variability within that colony will all be brand new and very minor.

Molecular biology techniques make it very easy to detect genetic changes at the level of the DNA sequence -- that's not a problem. Just something like DNA fingerprinting (more properly known as restriction fragment length polymorphisms RFLP) could give an idea, and you can sequence certain segments of the genome to identify the genetic change.

Quote:

But i did use the word delibartely, as it used to mean a deliberate administeration of a anti-pathogen, or anti-biotic to create anti-bodies, with the objective of increasing protection or tackling diseases.

So this kind of intervention will protect its recipient, but it will not cause any genetic protection of offspring. However, recipients who are protected may be more likely to reproduce, i.e. they may have a selective advantage just by virtue of having been protected against the disease.

Quote:

As far as, the genetic modification of species is concerend, please tell us how do you know that the bacteria has been genetically modified. Meaning, what proof do you have that the genetic code is altered in someway or the other.

See above. These are common laboratory techniques. My fellowship research characterized a novel genetic alteration in malaria that was present in the majority of field isolates (we knew it was novel because there was a loss of the parent sequence). Basic stuff -- PCR and sequencing -- were all that we needed in the lab. The assumption is that it's advantageous, because it's come to predominate. So the next question was why this was advantageous, and that meant doing experiments with parasites of the two different genotypes that were meant to characterize the behavior of the "wild type" versus novel versions of that gene.

Quote:

Even so, how does it prove evolution of species?

Because traits are mediated by genes, and evolution as most accurately defined is the change in population gene frequency over time.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

The opening post is a gem.
Random mutation is an oxymoron.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;106594 wrote:

We're also monkeys.

Hi Dave,

I am now embarking on difficult grounds, i know. I tend to disagree with such kind of assertiveness, with all humility. Similar level of assertive ness is expressed by aedes herein above.

Statements such as these are difficult to prove. please do not misunderstand me, i am on your and aedes side of the fence. I am a naturalist, an amateur one to say. And have been a student of life sciences and natural science, apart from studying social science.

We often use exaggeration and emphasis in our arguments to stress upon a point. We often overdo some of our assertions just to prove a larger point is correct.

If the present day taxonomic studies are to be believed than we are no longer monkeys. Then, why do we keep on making the same mistakes that the puritans and conservatives of the Darwanian period did to condemn Darwin theory. They repeatedly said that Darwin said our ancestors were monkeys, just to rebutt, repudiate and ridicule him and his works. In the origin of species he never really said that we humans have evolved from monkeys.

Yes, we are from a category called primates in which apes, homos, gibbons, and monkeys derive their ancestory. Well, if i can say anything i can say, from the pure naturalistic perspective, that being cousins in a taxonomic table does not mean we are monkeys..... just because taxonomy these days are shown on a tree, as when sketched.

Monkeys and us may not be closely related if we look at the paleontological life history. The ancestors of our ancestors, and their ancestors may have been cousins at some point of time. That does not mean we are common. Related, perhaps yes, but today we are definitely not closely related. And that academic relation is a theoretical relationship. The Common descent theory and recent anthropological finds does indicate our indirect relationship with extinct homo species, and apes. But not with monkeys.

Please understand, If i say, the bears and dogs are cousins, any sane person today will describe me as insane. You also may be surprised. But if we study or follow natural history, scholars and mammalogists having studied the bone structure and other physical features and anatomical capabilities and configurations; and while using the common descent theory surmise that Bears and dogs are related.

But to call them cousins today is a bit harsh on both the beautiful mammals on earth. We therefore cannot say, that Bears are also dogs. Similarly, we cannot say that homo sapiens sapiens are monkeys of some kind.

Secondly, one can well argue, if bacterias changes its genetics in every subsequent generation, and some are having life s of 20 minutes, reportedly, and if evolution means the way towards sapience, than bacteria, arguably would have been sapient by this point of time. This does not happen and therefore there is a logic which says that there is something more than what meets the eye.

Again to assert myself, i say that i am a great follower of the common descent theory, and evolution. But let us also understand its limitation. All i am saying is that it is a difficult theory to prove beyond doubt for some, (although, iam clear on how the evolution theory works in real, as evidences keep on piling up). But, let us argue from a more logical and balanced out look.

2 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106672 wrote:

Statements such as these are difficult to prove.

In terms of DNA homology, morphological taxonomy, 16S ribosomal RNA sequence, shared biology, and the fossil record, the statement is as true as ANY statement in taxonomy is. We are no less related to colobus monkeys and lemurs than is a chimp.

We are in the taxonomic subfamily homininae, along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Our family is hominoids. That puts us in the same taxon as orangutans, chimps, gibbons, baboons, and gorillas. We are in the taxonomic order primates. That puts us in the same taxon as all monkeys. And we are in the taxonomic class mammalia -- which puts us with whales and mice and kangaroos.

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106672 wrote:

Hi Dave,

I am now embarking on difficult grounds, i know. I tend to disagree with such kind of assertiveness, with all humility. Similar level of assertive ness is expressed by aedes herein above.

In this instance it's not about any sort of theory or argument, but purely the science of taxonomy.

Taxonomy is like a set of Russian Dolls, the biggest doll is called "Organism" but to get to the smallest doll "Homo sapiens" you have to go through a series of ever decreasing dolls to get there.

So humans are animals.

And we are vertebrates.

We are tetrapods.

We are mammals.

(None of the above seems to bother many people).

We are primates.

We are dry-nosed primates.

We are narrow-nosed monkeys.

We are apes.

We are great apes.

We are humans.

(I'm not using scientific terms - just the ones that we tend to use colloquially).

Such categories aren't determined by what we might like to think of ourselves, but by the characteristics shared by living things (and all living things are placed into such categories in the eyes of biologists).

The system predates Darwin and evolution - invented by Carl Linnaeus.

Quote:

Yes, we are from a category called primates in which apes, homos, gibbons, and monkeys derive their ancestory.

All these things you mention are monkeys.

There's a vid about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri20shBEsls

Quote:

Secondly, one can well argue, if bacterias changes its genetics in every subsequent generation, and some are having life s of 20 minutes, reportedly, and if evolution means the way towards sapience, than bacteria, arguably would have been sapient by this point of time. This does not happen and therefore there is a logic which says that there is something more than what meets the eye.

Evolution does not lead to sapience - sapience is just one result of evolution, a pretty hard one to reach, it would seem, seeing as only one line has apparently managed to exploit it thusfar.

If evolution led to sapience, there'd be nothing worth remarking on about human intelligence.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;106680 wrote:

We are no less related to colobus monkeys and lemurs than is a chimp.

We are in the taxonomic subfamily homininae, along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Our family is hominoids. That puts us in the same taxon as orangutans, chimps, gibbons, baboons, and gorillas. We are in the taxonomic order primates. That puts us in the same taxon as all monkeys. And we are in the taxonomic class mammalia -- which puts us with whales and mice and kangaroos.

Which puts us in the category called animals, and why should we stop there, we are then related by our vertebrae's with birds and reptiles too, isn't it. By the common descent theory we should continue the association until we had a common heritage with Bacteria, Protists, Archeabacteria etc....., Why stop the logic at a particular period of time.

Please do not rely to arbitrary classification techniques of a ever changing taxonomic table or tree. As further evidences come' s through, these classifications will further change. Having said this, we are certainly not discussing the theories of classifications, but whether we are monkeys or not.

We are definitely related to chimps and more less to monkeys, ....this is my position in contrasts to yours. Even, genetically it is corroborated.

Comparisons has to stop at a point. We do need to stop it somewhere, shouldn't we? Should we stop at the Order level, Family, Genus or take it to higher levls of domains, kingdoms etc. This is where, i differ with you or the we-are-monkeys kind of arguments. Because it would be ridiculous to say that my distant distant n times cousin is a bacteria of sorts, if i have to take it to its logical conclusion. Thank Whoever, for not finding those missing links. Let it remain a theory, as it is, and will be?

2 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106889 wrote:

Which puts us in the category called animals, and why should we stop there, we are then related by our vertebrae's with birds and reptiles too, isn't it.

Sure, in different ways. Mammals split off from the reptile line some time before the age of the dinosaurs, and the age of the dinosaurs has not yet stopped (we just call them birds now).

All these things are vertebrates.

Quote:

Please do not rely to arbitrary classification techniques of a ever changing taxonomic table or tree.

I'm not.

What about a taxonomic tree that was invented in the mid 18th century and, insofar as primates go, has been pretty much unchanged since then aside from the addition of newly discovered animals alive or dead?

The arbitration of which is dictated by geological columns and distributions, phylogenetics, morphological appearences and comparisons at the genetic level?

All of which corroborate one another.

In other words - not very arbitrary at all.

Quote:

We are definitely related to chimps and more less to monkeys, ....this is my position in contrasts to yours. Even, genetically it is corroborated.

Chimps (a type of primate, or monkey as they are colloquially referred to) and men (a type of primate, or monkey) are more closely related than they are to Gorillas (primates - monkeys) and even more so than Gorillas are to Spider monkeys (primates - monkeys).

Just because a spider monkey has the word "monkey" as part of it's common name, it doesn't change the fact that we're any less part of the primate group than it is.

Quote:

Comparisons has to stop at a point. We do need to stop it somewhere, shouldn't we? Should we stop at the Order level, Family, Genus or take it to higher levls of domains, kingdoms etc.

Well, the comparisons vary in importance depending on what you're looking at. You've more in common with a chimp than a spider monkey, but you've much more in common with a spider monkey than a squid.

Compared with a giant redwood or a fly ageric, you and a squid are very similar indeed.

Quote:

Thank Whoever, for not finding those missing links. Let it remain a theory, as it is, and will be?

We are spoilt for choice in regards to missing links, and theories in the sense of "theory of evolution" do not mean ideas or hypotheses, but bodies of explanation to account for the apparent facts.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;106695 wrote:

categories aren't determined by what we might like to think of ourselves, but by the characteristics shared by living things (and all living things are placed into such categories in the eyes of biologists).

The system predates Darwin and evolution - invented by Carl Linnaeus.

All these things you mention are monkeys.

They are not monkeys......... please understand, We are all primates. AND NOT MONKEYS.

IF you read the Common Descent theory carefully (any versions of it and the most modern too), it merely speculates our split from the family of macaques, and other old world monkeys having taken place about more than 55 million years ago. What was the link which, made us same by descent is not known. Or please let me know, if you know. I will be glad
to correct myself. All these are theories that you are harping on.

To elaborate, my position is simple. We human are different than monkeys, as it is now. Let me explain, all monkeys are primates, but not all primates are monkeys. This a logical statement. In which case, we humans are not monkeys. Is my conclusion. You are welcome to dispute this, but explain your position.

My worry is that you would somehow persist my looking up to some linkages or connections and say we are them. I agree with you, on a metaphysical plain we all are same. But on a more material, and scientific plane we are different (monkey and me), by family and genus.

For me, and while keeping an eye on the taxonomic tree, i would say that my fellow homos of my genera could be my cousins, while chasing my ancestors tale and tail both. Unfortunately, no other homos exist (no signs of them today, as per records).

So i take the liberty, of calling the Great Apes found only in the tropical, as my substitute cousins. They are physically, anatomically, structurally, cranially, behaviourally, nearer to me in the animal world than any other.

Perhaps, i may look more closely related to them than to you, if observers disregards my spectacles and the language of english i am using..... ha ha A joke.... in a lighter vain.

Dave Allen;106695 wrote:

There's a vid about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri20shBEsls

please, i would not rely on a tattooed, long haired, wwf wrestler like pseudo-scientist who publish their half thoughts on a youtube upload.

Dave Allen;106695 wrote:

Evolution does not lead to sapience - sapience is just one result of evolution, a pretty hard one to reach, it would seem, seeing as only one line has apparently managed to exploit it thusfar.

If evolution led to sapience, there'd be nothing worth remarking on about human intelligence.

Apparently, yes. I agree. Thanks

1 Reply

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106891 wrote:

They are not monkeys......... please understand, We are all primates. AND NOT MONKEYS.

"Monkey" is a colloquial catch-all for primates.

Some primates are called monkey as part of their common name - like Howler Monkey, or Spider Monkey.

But just because these particular species of monkey get labelled so, it doesn't mean chimps, gibbons, gorillas or humans are less monkey-like.

A Great White Shark isn't less of a fish than a Flying Fish - even though it doesn't get labelled a fish in terms of it's common name.

Quote:

So i take the liberty, of calling the Great Apes found only in the tropical, as my substitute cousins. They are physically, anatomically, structurally, cranially, behaviourally, nearer to me in the animal world than any other.

Yes, and all of them are monkeys.

Quote:

please, i would not rely on a tattooed, long haired, wwf wrestler like pseudo-scientist who publish their half thoughts on a youtube upload.

He's one of the best biology advocates on there, I think.

But I tend not to judge people on their appearance.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 02:09 PM ----------

EDIT

Actually I think I'm incorrect here on some technical grounds.

So I take it back.

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;106889 wrote:

Which puts us in the category called animals and why should we stop there, we are then related by our vertebrae's with birds and reptiles too, isn't it. By the common descent theory we should continue the association until we had a common heritage with Bacteria, Protists, Archeabacteria etc....., Why stop the logic at a particular period of time.

I'm not, it's all valid.

Jackofalltrades;106889 wrote:

Please do not rely to arbitrary classification techniques of a ever changing taxonomic table or tree.

Some things aren't going to change. They reclassify various microogranisms as molecular techniques grow to supercede morphology, but believe me humans are not going to be reclassified as protozoa, vascular plants, or rodents.

Jackofalltrades;106889 wrote:

Having said this, we are certainly not discussing the theories of classifications, but whether we are monkeys or not.

We are a highly derived member of the same taxonomic order as monkeys. I would not use the term "monkey" to include humans, to be honest, but that is because all living monkeys occur in taxa that are different than ours. Historically we share common primate ancestry with monkeys, but that doesn't make monkeys hominids anymore than we are monkeys.

Jackofalltrades;106889 wrote:

We are definitely related to chimps and more less to monkeys, ....this is my position in contrasts to yours.

"Related" means relative, i.e. I'm more related to my brother than I am to my cousins who share fewer ancestors. So I don't see how we're disagreeing.

Jackofalltrades;106889 wrote:

Comparisons has to stop at a point

We have some genetic homology with bacteria and with yeast, particularly in certain highly conserved genes like cytochromes, RNA polymerase, and 16S ribosomal RNA. We are closely related enough to yeast that we can actually use these cells as models for human biology. So the comparison is useful for certain applications, and it doesn't interfere with our ability (by contrast) to categorize and differentiate.

---------- Post added 11-29-2009 at 03:07 PM ----------

Dave Allen;106892 wrote:

"Monkey" is a colloquial catch-all for primates.

Perhaps, but we should probably avoid colloquialisms, I mean there ARE taxonomic monkey groups -- Old World monkeys and New World monkeys are different taxa from one another, and properly do not include prosimians or apes.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;105969 wrote:

You are referring to element such a Plutonium?, these elements are formed from other existing elements by nuclear fusion ext not created, again other in the field of art man creates nothing only manipulates what already exists

Something greater than man can imagine created the universe, but if evolution is an example of its work it cannot be omni-all

Yeah, I find it incredibly interesting that you make a claim in which you have absolutely NO evidence for, it is just a complete and utter guess. You have nothing to back that a god created the universe so how can you make the argument? You can't honestly do it but you do it anyways.

The way I like to view the universe is like an image that really isn't even there.

Imagine your eye has a defect on the lens that makes it appear as though you can see an object that really isn't there. Without actually trying to touch it or examine it, you would believe that it was a real thing because you can experience it.

I just think, the reality in which we experience is not exactly as we make it out to be. We call it real or substantial but it is only due to our experience of it which we label it such. I would not be surprised at all that it is not anything at all. But this is nearly impossible to prove and wildly outside what people would accept rationally.

If there was a creator, things would be a lot different than they are.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;106962 wrote:

If there was a creator, things would be a lot different than they are.

For example......?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106963 wrote:

For example......?

Our DNA wouldn't be crappy and error-prone and full of garbage, including a whole library of dead DNA from our distant ancestry. For instance. People who invoke a creator to explain the majesty of our genome need to somehow rationalize these things.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Pity there's not a return policy:bigsmile:

So you reckon if humans were able to re-make our species, we would all be better off? There might be unanticipated consequences, or hidden dependencies, that would be difficult to anticipate. But then I suppose if you're going to 'play god' then you might as well go the whole hog (although results from robotics and AI are not that encouraging to date I would suggest).

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106967 wrote:

Pity there's not a return policy:bigsmile:

So you reckon if humans were able to re-make our species, we would all be better off? There might be unanticipated consequences, or hidden dependencies, that would be difficult to anticipate. But then I suppose if you're going to 'play god' then you might as well go the whole hog (although results from robotics and AI are not that encouraging to date I would suggest).

In my opinion why we haven't gotten good AI yet is because the current people working on it are doing it all wrong. Remember seeing those movies of flying inventions and ideas? They all were trying to mimic birds but none of them flew, or if they did not very well or far. It wasn't until we understood exactly what is happening with lift and thrust that we developed a machine that was capable of actual flight. I am drawing the same conclusion with AI. All the current designs are off of how we view ourselves, with choices and reactions, but that is not intelligence. I bet that when good AI is invented it will be drastically different than the current models.

But going back to the whole statement I made. It is not just with humans that I am referring to being different. The earth itself would be different. The way in which the solar system works would be different. How would I know? I don't.

But microwave background radiation? What's the point? Stars that explode over thousands of light years away? What's the point? Other galaxies? What's the point? Making the universe so SUPER MASSIVE in size compared to this little tiny almost insignificant planet, whats the point if it's for your only human made testing ground? Seems like you wasted a whole lot of what ever for such a small thing. It would be like building a hundred story factory size house for an ant to live in. Actually even that metaphor doesn't even come close the scale of the size of the universe compared to the earth. So what is the point of making so big for something so small? Huge waste of space.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;106967 wrote:

Pity there's not a return policy:bigsmile:

Hey, it's good enough. THAT is the story of survival. It's not what's perfect that perseveres -- it's what can outlast that perseveres.

jeeprs;106967 wrote:

So you reckon if humans were able to re-make our species, we would all be better off?

No way. First of all, just because we recognize problems doesn't mean that ANY solution is better. Secondly, you're absolutely right about "hidden dependencies", or, the way I'd put it is that things have multiple functions and innumerable interactions.

The way our genome is is not perfect for humans or perfect for any other organism. But it works for the diversity of life on earth -- the sheer diversity of the different organisms in the world is exhibited in these features of the genome.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Well, all valid points, but considering the mess we have gotten the planet into, we ought to think twice before taking on the design of life, the universe and everything.

Although I agree it is good to 'think big'.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Nothing we ever do with genetic engineering in a lab is going to really muck around with the human race -- at least not by itself. You need to throw in sterilization / culling / some sort of prevention of normal human reproduction. This is simply because the amount of sex and babies taking place au naturale in the world dwarfs the capabilities of any lab enterprise at changing population genetics.

As is, I'm fine with screening babies for genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis and phenylketonuria and sickle cell, and treating them to make their lives as normal as possible and perhaps letting them have their own families, and I'm fine with gene therapy even if it affects germline cells. It will make people's lives better, and it's not enough to weaken humanity when you do it case by case.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

It's the theory of evolution. Of course it could be wrong.

1 Reply

Could the theory of evolution as it stands be wrong??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know