It's just a theory

[Dasanudas]

One plausible explanation I have heard was used in Greg Bear's sci-fi book, Darwin's Radio. The book was entirely fiction, but he's like Crichton in that he takes cutting-edge science for book ideas. I don't know the exact hypothesis but basically there are times when a species goes through uber-mutation but only in the womb - nothing actually born. This way, all the "defects" are weeded out in the space of a few years or decades and the old species actually gives birth to the new one. This is one hypothesis on why there seem to be missing links on the record, and I believe it was using something from our DNA or RNA that seems to carry information that isn't being used by the body, or something. I don't know the exact theory, but the book was cool.

Lets just say that I don't think that a scientific conspiracy on such a scale is plausible.

The implication isn't one of a massive conspiracy where seedy men in the dark control the fate of science, or anything less dramatic even. It is simply an effect of paradigms where many people each on a small scale decry or ignore evidence because it doesn't fit the current understanding instead of rethinking the current understanding. A great recent example is the understanding that stress and anxiety causing ulcers. Two men just won a Nobel Prize for showing that it is, in fact, bacteria caused. Of course, in this situation it is easily shown to be otherwise - although it took the guy such drastic measures as giving himself a major ulcer by drinking down the bacteria to do it. It's a little harder for something as nebulous as evolution. Usually things on this scale have no chance of convincing "old hat" scientists, but rather they become interesting to up and coming intellects who try them out. If they are better or just as valid as the old theory, they become slowly part of the standard.

I'm not suggesting that every wierd phenomenom should throw the current model out, there should certainly be scrutinizing study into each and every case, but when there's enough to fill a 900 page book, with more coming in (where in the chain of evolution do hobbits fit in?) it would just make sense to look at the theory and consider alternative possibilities.

As for the sensitivity thing, I have no idea, but I will posit a hypothesis. Humans have no hairs as sensitive as whiskers, but still have a need to know even subtle changes in wind direction for hunting, temperature changes, and various other things. It would certainly help to have very sensitive skin to better receive the small sensory information. The ability to detect minor surface changes is simply a side effect. Also, humans and other primates are the most dextrous with their forelimbs, sensitivity in these limbs would certainly help out in using them as best as possible. Any number of things could be suggested - like it might have been helpful in finding discriminating between types of leaves and rocks. I mean, the human eye can perceive over 200 shades of red, and women can statistically percieve more than men. Why would you ever need to tell the difference between brick red and apple red and cherry red and nosebleed red and pissed-that-the-dog-ate-the-cat-so-my-face-is-red red?

[ZAKtheGeek]

Incidentally, isn't carbon-14 dating inaccurate in some circumstances?

That it is. It's not really meant for accurate dating of anything over something like 50000 years old.

That necklace was supposedly dated by its location in rock strata, though. That's a fairly foolproof dating method...

As for mutations, and their potential to induce positive change... I can think of two reasons for why we can't really see this happening much today. The first is simply that it's less necessary. Obviously, today's organisms are much more evolved than those of millions or billions of years ago (assuming evolution is correct). As such, they are already adapted quite well, and generally have little reason to change any further. As such, most changes would only be detrimental.
The second reason is that mutations would have been much more common a long time ago. Why? Well, because there are proteins for ensuring that there aren't mistakes in the replication of DNA, where errors are just asking to be made, but those proteins most likely haven't been there forever. In fact, it's likely that they only became beneficial when life had become "sufficiently evolved" so that further change was more likely to detriment than to benefit. Certainly at this point it would helpful to stop mutating so much.
Still, that's probably not correct, since I'm quite certain that every single organism on earth has those proteins, they probably first came into existance really early in the timeline of life, when there was much more evolutionary "work" to do.

[TheSpacePope]

There is a theory involving the genome. Now when they mapped it, they only mapped the "active portions" or about 1.5% of the genome.

Junk DNA
Protein-coding sequence (specifically exons) comprise less than 1.5% of the human genome. Aside from genes and regulatory sequences, the human genome contains a vast amount of sequence the function of which, if any, remains unknown. This "junk" DNA in fact comprises the vast majority, by some estimates 97%, of the human genome size. Most of this is comprised of repeat elements and pseudogenes, but there is also a large amount of sequence that does not fall under any known classification. It is likely that further study will reveal presently unknown function for at least some of this sequence.

Now, biologicaly, we are 99.9999999% the same as the common primate. The other, non mapped parts of the genome were called introns. These are not used in any function. Now I can't remember where I was reading this, and bear with me, it sounds a little cokamamy, but apparently, occasionally the introns will activate and start a massive or minor change in the host, in this case primate to man. Now this is pretty silly, I agree with that, but the fact remains that we are genetically similar to primates. Although, to counter that we hardly get farther than 97% away from almost anything, just because the basics of DNA are all the same, Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and thymine, and uracil. I mean mostly your dealing with the same polynucleotides from bacteria up, however the genomes are what are important there and, The arangement is what is different and that is where the questions come from. And i am reaching here but bear with me
if atgucatgagatucg is a primate
then atgucaugagattcg is a human
Obviously that is a microcosim, however it is clear here that they have simply trasposed one base element, altering the genome, and making us human, and them damn dirty apes.
It is entirely possible, to speculate a ridiculous theory, that on a particularly sunny day, a primate was laying in the sun a bit to long and the radiation altered the DNA in her womb, and kablammo, birth of man right there, it is literally that close.
Hey and I am not sure on those figures, lets give it a standard deviation of +/- 5 %, and I could be wrong totally, but it is my understanding that the basic building blocks are the same, they are just arranged differently.
also, we could be the result of a random mutation....
But for me, an intelligent design theory holds alot of weight, even if it is not traditional.

Originally Posted by some damn encyclopedia

The cell's machinery is capable of melting or disassociating a DNA double helix, and using each DNA strand as a template for synthesizing a new strand which is nearly identical to the previous strand. Errors that occur in the synthesis are known as mutations. The process known as PCR (polymerase chain reaction) mimics this process in vitro in a nonliving system

[ZAKtheGeek]

Now, biologicaly, we are 99.9999999% the same as the common primate.

What do you mean by biologically? Last I checked, we were no more than 95% similar to chimps in terms of genetic code.

I mean mostly your dealing with the same polynucleotides from bacteria up.

Obviously. Arrangement is of the essence when it comes to DNA.

It is entirely possible, to speculate a ridiculous theory, that on a particularly sunny day, a primate was laying in the sun a bit to long and the radiation altered the DNA in her womb, and kablammo, birth of man right there, it is literally that close.

In theory. But that man would be screwed. He'd be unable to reproduce with his monkey brethren and his genetic information would never get passed down. That's why it has to be a gradual change: a species that instantly springs up from antoher species won't have anything to reproduce with.

[TheSpacePope]

What do you mean by biologically? Last I checked, we were no more than 95% similar to chimps in terms of genetic code.

i'd think we'd both have to find a source to be sure on that, and frankly, that is immaterial to me.

In theory. But that man would be screwed. He'd be unable to reproduce with his monkey brethren and his genetic information would never get passed down. That's why it has to be a gradual change: a species that instantly springs up from antoher species won't have anything to reproduce with.

actually I was talking about the change happening gradually, the primates giving birth to more man like creatures in a certian part of the globe, where they are cut off from other breeding stock. It's all speculation anyway, aparantly scientific american obtained partial evidence that we are all from the same genetic line originating in africa, but it is about 300,000 years older than scholars expected. So you know, we reeeeeally don't know.

[Krylo]

A couple of things.

Firstly, the law of thermodynamics is disproven by quantum mechanics. Small particles appear and disappear thanks to quantum fluxuations. Matter is created and then destroyed. The mathematics of the law still work because the matter is created and destroyed in equal proportions, but the law itself is widely accepted to be invalid. Considering that the law of thermodynamics was disproven by a few scientists seeing something underneath an electron microscope, I kind of doubt that there's this huge... thing...against accepting anything that could disprove old theories or laws.

Secondly: The earth itself is only 4.5 billion years old, and the most simple multi-celled fossils (trilobytes, ancient fishies, etc.) only appeared five hundred and seventy thousand years ago. Assuming a 99.9% fail rate at finding fossils, that's one in every 1000... and, well, all other difficulties included, we should have found more fossils than a few necklaces from that period, and we would have found non-human multi-celled creatures from it as well. The non-human ones, at least, would be easily accepted as the biological ancestors of various creatures from other periods.

Thirdly: Regardless of the religion, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Vedic, or even worshipping Zeus himself, as soon as a 'scientist' starts writing books about how x-theory could work with x-religion if x-thing was different, everything he or she says is immediately suspect. I'll believe that there's this movement to bury anti-evolution evidence when I see that evidence presented by someone with no background in religion.

Fourthly: There is one VERY good reasons for humans to develop extreme sensitivity in their fingertips (and every other body part), and this is that humans are, basically, free of instinct. We don't have to mate at certain times of the year (or at all). We don't instinctively hunt. We don't instinctively do anything. In fact, there are theories that we only like sex because those of us who had the genes for not liking sex didn't... you know... have sex.

Now, let's list the things that extreme sensitivity would be good for.

Crafts, including making weapons. Being able to feel the smallest of cracks would allow us to make much better spears, arrows, etc. Obviously, people who made poor weapons would starve and not get to procreate.

Foraging. Such sensitivity would make finding fruits, nuts, etc. amongst grass and foliage much much easier. Again, without it you starve, die, and don't do anything else.

Sexuality. Sensitivity in the hands, or anywhere else, makes it easier to be pleased... but also to please, and seduce, others. If you can please more wo/men you will have more opportunities to mate as the wo/men become more easily seduced, and if you have more opportunities to mate you will pass on your genes more easily, which means your genes progress to the next generation better than those who lack that sensitivity.

I could go on for quite some time, but, really, there's no further reason to question the biological advantage of sensitive limbs.

Fifthly: The space pope is correct: http://india.internationalreporter.c...ead.php?id=720

We are 99%

[ZAKtheGeek]

That article says up to 99% similar to chimpaneez. There's a big difference between up to 99 and

99.9999999% the same

[Azisien]

Oh my, I didn't know this was some discussion about evolution (or primarily that, anyway). I want in I want in!

Originally Posted by Nique

It's awfully convienient for evolution's main source of proof, the fossil record, to be so littered with 'explainable' holes - Most notably, the lack of fossils that link species.

Have you heard of punctuated equilibrium? It wouldn't be a fullproof explanational-concrete to patch up that hole, but it does bring up the idea that, intermediate species aren't there because: They are short-lived, as such, they probably did not 'get lucky' or 'fall under the proper circumstance' and fossilize. I know little of fossilization myself, but I've taken some courses in evolutionary biology.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

That it [carbon-14] is. It's not really meant for accurate dating of anything over something like 50000 years old.

The rock strata would be fairly accurate, yes. But, there are many other radioisotopes that can be used accurately, up to the highest I've seen of around 2.5-3.5 billion years, depending on what source you consult.

Originally Posted by ZaktheGeek

I can think of two reasons for why we can't really see this happening much today. The first is simply that it's less necessary. Obviously, today's organisms are much more evolved than those of millions or billions of years ago (assuming evolution is correct).

I don't think I understand how you first point relates to mutations. The mutation is, fundamentally completely random, whether it is 'needed' or not should have little bearing. I think what might have more bearing is the fact that the Earth is (currently) protected by a much thicker atmosphere than billions of years ago.

Originally Posted by ZaktheGeek

The second reason is that mutations would have been much more common a long time ago. Why? Well, because there are proteins for ensuring that there aren't mistakes in the replication of DNA

While I agree mutations may have been more common long ago, I doubt it has much to do with DNA and its respective polymerase repair enzymes. I wish I could get my lecture notes from last semester, so I could quote you the figure of how many errors occur in DNA replication on average. No organism would survive without some kind of repair mechanism (with near 100% efficiency) in place. Also, it is highly unlikely that DNA was the memory molecule of the earliest life forms.

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

It is entirely possible, to speculate a ridiculous theory, that on a particularly sunny day, a primate was laying in the sun a bit to long and the radiation altered the DNA in her womb, and kablammo, birth of man right there, it is literally that close.

It is entirely possible, to speculate a ridiculous theory, that at any moment the entire solar system save the Earth may disappear, because all the antiparticles of the particles making up all those stellar bodies instantaneously exploded into existence due to a massive, lucky quantum fluctuation in perfect arrangement to annihilate said stellar bodies. In theory.

Ok ok, sorry, I found that really funny (mine, I mean). Your situation sounds something like a butterfly flaps its wings in northern Canada and in a chain reaction causes a tsunami in...southeast Asia. I get what you're saying though (after reading your following post), and it's not all speculation.

No, really, it's not. Geological isolation, it's probably the best way for speciation to happen, aside from a global catastrophe. There are countless studies on other plants and animals becoming isolated from their 'main' groups (if you will), and becoming their own species. I'd almost say it's likely that was the case for us (and most other species ever).

Originally Posted by krylo

Firstly, the law of thermodynamics is disproven by quantum mechanics.

The second law should still remain intact at this point; I believe the predictions of entropy have held true even to the Planck distance scale (theoretically, of course, we can't probe that far). First is screwed now, yeah. Fucking information, ruins everything.

Originally Posted by krylo

We don't instinctively do anything.

I wouldn't give us that much credit. But I guess we're kind of biased, since we're, y'know, us.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by TheSpacePope

It is entirely possible, to speculate a ridiculous theory, that on a particularly sunny day, a primate was laying in the sun a bit to long and the radiation altered the DNA in her womb, and kablammo, birth of man right there, it is literally that close.

It's not really necessary though, considering as there were several known species between apes and modern humans.

Originally Posted by Dasanudas

The implication isn't one of a massive conspiracy where seedy men in the dark control the fate of science, or anything less dramatic even. It is simply an effect of paradigms where many people each on a small scale decry or ignore evidence because it doesn't fit the current understanding instead of rethinking the current understanding.

It could just be that the "evidence" was weighed, measured, and found wanting.

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/tarzia.html

Forbidden Archaeology : Antievolutionism Outside the Christian Arena
Wade Tarzia, Ph.D.

I confine my review to some basic categories of flawed scientific argumentation.

...

[I]f worthy ideas exist in Forbidden Archaeology , they are hidden under a mass of undisciplined details, lack of critical contextual information, leaps of logic, and special pleading.

...
Mass of Details

The mass of details with attached analyses would require book-length responses from specialized reviewers to confirm or critique. This style is a common diversionary tactic in pseudoscience. Since the authors have not aired their arguments previously through professional journals, as many scholars do before writing such a huge synthesis of material, the task of validation becomes a career itself. Such a style burdens an analysis with long leaps between broad assumptions (i.e., scientific cover-up) to the detailed evidence (i.e., minutiae of strata and dating from obscure sites) -- all on the same page.

Use of Old Sources
Quotations of the 19th-/early 20th- century material are copious -- comprising*, I would guess, at least 25 percent of the book. A few examples: (1) a 1935 work of Weidenreich is cited as opposition to a 1985 work of Binford and Ho (p. 553); was there no current reference to refute Binford and Ho, and if not, what does this mean? (2) a question is raised about the geological time-scale, and the latest reference on the matter cited is a lecture given by Spieker in 1956 (p. 16); surely additional and more recent work is available on the topic of such importance as this...

Assume Equivalency between Old and Recent Research
A foundation of the book’s arguments is that the research of the 19th- and early-20th-century scientists (esp. those presenting anomalous evidence for the antiquity of modern-type humans) should be considered equivalently factual relative to modern reports. (p. 22) The work further implies that modern scientists tend to accept one "set" of reports (modern ones) while rejecting another set (19th century ones); "it would be especially wrong to accept one set as proof of a given theory while suppressing the other set, and thus rendering it inaccessible to future students."

Well, maybe. But if the authors, who are not archaeologists, found these old reports, I hope archaeology students might do just as well. More to the point, we can argue whether scientists do reject early research -- which seems a rather simple statement covering a complex situation. Reliance on work of over a hundred years past is implicit in our accumulation of knowledge and refinement in understanding. But we are not belittling important groundbreaking when we do not a priori make direct use of the conclusions drawn in the good old days. Said another way: we should not make fools out of early doctors struggling with the few resources they had, nor should we rely on early medical texts or supply them to our doctors for consultation.

Rusting Occam’s Razor

Sensational ideas are not intrinsically bad -- plate tectonics was pretty astonishing at one point (Williams 1991, 132), but also true. However, the cautious investigator hopes that less sensational, or simpler, hypotheses are first proposed and well tested before more complex or less likely explanations are considered.

A typical example of this problem in Forbidden Archaeology is a discussion of a Miocene fossil bone purportedly incised with tools, which is supposed to indicate the existence of tool-making humans in the Miocene age (p. 67) -- an unusual idea. The authors call for further investigation into this possibility and in doing so skip over various alternatives to the ways a fossil could appear incised. For example, the bone’s markings, as depicted in the simple drawing, make me hypothesize that the bone was loaded lengthwise after the animal died, inducing tensile stresses along the side opposite the load, causing cracks around part of the bone’s circumference.

The critic goes on like this for some time, but the short version is that Forbidden Archaeology largely comprises** old, discredited evidence which becomes no more creditable in its current assemblage, and that the weight of a book bears no correlation to the intellectual weight of its contents.

For the sake of completeness, I note that Cremo evidently wrote a response to his critics, Forbidden Archaeology´s Impact, for which a review can be found at the following:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rnc...12_30_1899.asp

I'd pick out the relevant quotes and such from that as well, but I really do have to go finish yanking out my fingernails with this pair of rusty pliers, so, maybe once I'm done with that.



*I just have to point out that the critic's use of "comprising" is woefully wrong. He means to use the word composing, as comprise denotes the inverse relationship between the whole and its parts.

**Note the correct usage.†

†Yes I am a sick person, I know.

[Skyshot]

Originally Posted by krylo

Now, let's list the things that extreme sensitivity would be good for...

I'll accept those. I could question stuff like "where would those mutations come from?" but I'll take it on faith there's an answer beyond what I'm up to comprehending with my current knowledge of biology. Really, if that question had no answer, evolution wouldn't be as popular as it is now. I hope.

Originally Posted by krylo

Thirdly: Regardless of the religion, Baptist, Jehovah's Witness, Vedic, or even worshipping Zeus himself, as soon as a 'scientist' starts writing books about how x-theory could work with x-religion if x-thing was different, everything he or she says is immediately suspect. I'll believe that there's this movement to bury anti-evolution evidence when I see that evidence presented by someone with no background in religion.

Originally Posted by The Wikipedia Article on Argumentum Ad Hominem

Ad hominem circumstantial

Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, circumstantial ad hominem constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious is that it simply does not make one's opponent's arguments, from a logical point of view, any less credible to point out that one's opponent is disposed to argue that way. Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

Examples:

"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

"He's physically addicted to nicotine. Of course he defends smoking!”

The Mandy Rice-Davies ploy, "Well, he would [say that], wouldn't he?" is a superb use of this fallacy.

Besides, think about it for a moment. Where would we find out whether the person giving the evidence has "no background in religion?" Are there dossiers on the individual scientists for us to look at? I don't see any way to prove the people making the claims are religious or irreligious, so your statement essentially stands sans contest. I'd make a comparison to recent events, but you're not acting frothing-at-the-mouth-irrationally like the guy I'm only vaguely reminded of, so you don't deserve that comparison.

Also, it's cute how you put "scientist" in quotes. Because, after all, no person can be religious and a scientist.



I'm going to toss two more things into this discussion, just as extra loops for us to take into account. First up is something I heard on some generic talk show with two generic middle-aged talk show guys talking about evolution. Basically, evolution doesn't go in a straight line. The analogy they presented was a drunk staggering out of a bar and heading for the gutter. Being drunk, he doesn't make a beeline for it, he staggers back and forth. On the same note, evolution doesn't progress straight from primitive to advanced, it slips back on occasion. Curiously, they claimed we form the "gutter" as the highest stage of evolution. Isn't it cocky for non-creationists make that claim? We're the highest stage of evolution?

Second, on the general "conspiracy" discussion -- I remember reading that when Niels Bohr's planetary model of atoms was debunked, physicists struggled for ten years to find a way to make it still work. That could be used by either side to prove a point, so I'll just point it out, wait for someone to confirm whether it happened, and see where the discussion goes. Besides, the thread's technically about theories being arbitrarily taken as laws, not evolution specifically. See what happens when a theory's disproven?