Evolution's case evolves
By Ann Gibbons,
ANN GIBBONS is the author of "The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors," and a contributing correspondent for Science.
IT'S BEEN A TOUGH month for creationists. On April 6, evolutionary biologists announced the discovery of a fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a giant fish whose fins were evolving into limbs when it died 375 million years ago. This scaly creature of the sea was in transition to becoming a land animal, the discoverers wrote in Nature.
A day later, molecular biologists reported in Science that they had traced the origin of a key stress hormone, found in humans and all vertebrates, back 450 million years to a primitive gene that arose before animals emerged from oceans onto land.
Both teams of scientists stressed that their findings contradicted creationists - and demonstrated how small, incremental steps over millions of years could indeed produce complex life, ranging from the intricate mechanisms of a hormone molecule to the assembly of limbs from fins.
But even as they were touting their results as yet another validation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, biochemist Michael Behe, a leading advocate of "intelligent design," dismissed the hormone discovery as "piddling."
As if in response to Behe's challenge, paleoanthropologists raised the stakes last week with yet another example of evolution unfolding in our own lineage. In the journal Nature, a team of researchers from UC Berkeley and Ethiopia found an "intermediate" member of the human family that they say unambiguously fills the gap in the fossil record between two early types of human ancestors. Australopithecus anamensis was a creature the size of an orangutan that walked upright in the Rift Valley of eastern Africa about 4 million years ago, more than 2 million years after the human lineage split from the ancestor we share with chimpanzees
The team found the species in a mile-deep stack of sediment in northeastern Ethiopia, which has become the Comstock Lode of human evolution. Across 11 separate layers, researchers unearthed several types of early human ancestors, with the anamensis bones sandwiched between layers containing two other species - Australopithecus afarensis, the species whose most famous member was the diminutive skeleton Lucy that lived 3.2 million years ago; and the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. (They also found the oldest known member of our species, Homo sapiens, in a layer dating back 155,000 years.) When researchers compared the teeth and bones of these various human ancestors, they saw a clear path from primitive to modern.
But lest you assume that the transition inevitably yields "intelligent" design, just think about the more problematic aspects of our own anatomy: How about arthritic backs and knees? Or the size of the birth canal in modern humans. Lucy's species had an easier time 3.2 million years ago delivering babies who would grow up to have brains the size of a large orange, compared with modern mothers whose infants grow brains four times larger. We did evolve wider pelvises, but these also mean that more force is put on the sides of our knees, which any soccer player can tell you is not optimal design.
The point is that all these changes evolved over time in response to specific environments. The competing demands of an expanding brain and upright walking, for example, had to be balanced and accommodated in a basic body plan that persisted for millions of years in apes that spent most of their time hanging out in trees.
From what they have seen so far, the discoverers of these fossils think that the evolution from Ardipithecus to A. anamensis was a rapid affair. It took only 200,000 years, if they are right, for natural selection to refit one early hominid body into a new model. In the realm of deep time, that may seem like a blink of the eye. But in human terms, that would allow for at least 13,000 generations - enough time for genetic mutations to change the shape and size of teeth, and for individuals to learn how to use them. More of their offspring would survive as a result, and the trait would become fixed in later populations.
Although there are still gaps in the fossil record, many dots have already been connected on the branches of the human family tree, connecting Lucy to our own genus Homo, to our Neanderthal cousins and maybe even to a dwarf-like species that lived on an Indonesian island just 18,000 years ago. Together these species of human ancestors reveal different ways to become a human. You can see evolution's work in the fins of the ancient Tiktaalik or the stress hormones of the venerable lamprey fish. You can also look in the mirror.
ANN GIBBONS is the author of "The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors," and a contributing correspondent for Science.
IT'S BEEN A TOUGH month for creationists. On April 6, evolutionary biologists announced the discovery of a fossil of Tiktaalik roseae, a giant fish whose fins were evolving into limbs when it died 375 million years ago. This scaly creature of the sea was in transition to becoming a land animal, the discoverers wrote in Nature.
A day later, molecular biologists reported in Science that they had traced the origin of a key stress hormone, found in humans and all vertebrates, back 450 million years to a primitive gene that arose before animals emerged from oceans onto land.
Both teams of scientists stressed that their findings contradicted creationists - and demonstrated how small, incremental steps over millions of years could indeed produce complex life, ranging from the intricate mechanisms of a hormone molecule to the assembly of limbs from fins.
But even as they were touting their results as yet another validation of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, biochemist Michael Behe, a leading advocate of "intelligent design," dismissed the hormone discovery as "piddling."
As if in response to Behe's challenge, paleoanthropologists raised the stakes last week with yet another example of evolution unfolding in our own lineage. In the journal Nature, a team of researchers from UC Berkeley and Ethiopia found an "intermediate" member of the human family that they say unambiguously fills the gap in the fossil record between two early types of human ancestors. Australopithecus anamensis was a creature the size of an orangutan that walked upright in the Rift Valley of eastern Africa about 4 million years ago, more than 2 million years after the human lineage split from the ancestor we share with chimpanzees
The team found the species in a mile-deep stack of sediment in northeastern Ethiopia, which has become the Comstock Lode of human evolution. Across 11 separate layers, researchers unearthed several types of early human ancestors, with the anamensis bones sandwiched between layers containing two other species - Australopithecus afarensis, the species whose most famous member was the diminutive skeleton Lucy that lived 3.2 million years ago; and the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus. (They also found the oldest known member of our species, Homo sapiens, in a layer dating back 155,000 years.) When researchers compared the teeth and bones of these various human ancestors, they saw a clear path from primitive to modern.
But lest you assume that the transition inevitably yields "intelligent" design, just think about the more problematic aspects of our own anatomy: How about arthritic backs and knees? Or the size of the birth canal in modern humans. Lucy's species had an easier time 3.2 million years ago delivering babies who would grow up to have brains the size of a large orange, compared with modern mothers whose infants grow brains four times larger. We did evolve wider pelvises, but these also mean that more force is put on the sides of our knees, which any soccer player can tell you is not optimal design.
The point is that all these changes evolved over time in response to specific environments. The competing demands of an expanding brain and upright walking, for example, had to be balanced and accommodated in a basic body plan that persisted for millions of years in apes that spent most of their time hanging out in trees.
From what they have seen so far, the discoverers of these fossils think that the evolution from Ardipithecus to A. anamensis was a rapid affair. It took only 200,000 years, if they are right, for natural selection to refit one early hominid body into a new model. In the realm of deep time, that may seem like a blink of the eye. But in human terms, that would allow for at least 13,000 generations - enough time for genetic mutations to change the shape and size of teeth, and for individuals to learn how to use them. More of their offspring would survive as a result, and the trait would become fixed in later populations.
Although there are still gaps in the fossil record, many dots have already been connected on the branches of the human family tree, connecting Lucy to our own genus Homo, to our Neanderthal cousins and maybe even to a dwarf-like species that lived on an Indonesian island just 18,000 years ago. Together these species of human ancestors reveal different ways to become a human. You can see evolution's work in the fins of the ancient Tiktaalik or the stress hormones of the venerable lamprey fish. You can also look in the mirror.
0
-
doesn't mean anything. how can you trace the evolution of a hormone? genetics doesn't prove anything. and those monkey skeletons can't be 4 million years old, carbon dating is junk science. besids, it's impossible for the earth to be that old in the first place! it flies in the face of everything I want to believe, so I'll put a label on it... unimmportant... trifling... piddling.
if it would be any more, then it might be legitimate. and a threat to what I believe.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
if it would be any more, then it might be legitimate. and a threat to what I believe.Yep and a lot of others as well. [:D]0 -
While I am certainly a 100% believer in (Darwin) evolution, most modern creationists believe that species evolve amongst their own species, but not into another species. So this article would be acceptable to many modern creationists. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by buschmaster
doesn't mean anything. how can you trace the evolution of a hormone? genetics doesn't prove anything. and those monkey skeletons can't be 4 million years old, carbon dating is junk science. besids, it's impossible for the earth to be that old in the first place! it flies in the face of everything I want to believe, so I'll put a label on it... unimmportant... trifling... piddling.
if it would be any more, then it might be legitimate. and a threat to what I believe.
How old do you think the earth is?0 -
quote:it's impossible for the earth to be that old in the first place! it flies in the face of everything I want to believe, so I'll put a label on it... unimmportant... trifling... piddling.
if it would be any more, then it might be legitimate. and a threat to what I believe.
And there you have it. If it did not change from a zebra to a horse before my eyes, it never happened.
Gotta wonder though, why god created Darwin...0 -
The only "PROOF" that I see of evolution is George W Bush. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by prangle
The only "PROOF" that I see of evolution is George W Bush.
Or de-evolution...0 -
Here is another attempt by the religious to quieten science and its discoveries that run contrary to religious belief.
Evangelicals urge museum to hide man's ancestors
By Mike Pflanz in Nairobi
Last Updated: 12:54am BST 12/08/2006
Powerful evangelical churches are pressing Kenya's national museum to sideline its world-famous collection of hominid bones pointing to man's evolution from ape to human.
Leaders of the country's six-million-strong Pentecostal congregation want Dr Richard Leakey's ground-breaking finds relegated to a back room instead of being given their usual prime billing.
Dr Richard Leakey's finds are housed in a museum near Nairobi
The collection includes the most complete skeleton yet found of Homo erectus, the 1.7 million-year-old Turkana Boy unearthed by Dr Leakey's team in 1984 at Nariokotome, near Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.
The museum also holds bones from several specimens of Australopithecus anamensis, believed to be the first hominid to walk upright, four million years ago. Together the artefacts amount to the clearest record yet discovered of the origins of Homo sapiens.
They have cemented the global reputation of Kenya's Great Rift Valley as the cradle of mankind, and draw in tourists and locals to the museum's sprawling compound on a hill above Nairobi.
Permanent exhibitions cover Kenya's cultural and scientific history from pre-history to independence. A snake park was added in the early 1960s.
advertisement
As part of an ongoing expansion funded by the EU, the National Museums of Kenya, which manages the country's cultural sites, is conducting a survey to determine what visitors to its Nairobi headquarters most want to see.
Church leaders aim to hijack that process. "The Christian community here is very uncomfortable that Leakey and his group want their theories presented as fact," said Bishop Bonifes Adoyo, the head of Christ is the Answer Ministries, the largest Pentecostal church in Kenya.
"Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory."
Bishop Adoyo said all the country's churches would unite to force the museum to change its focus when it reopens after 18 months of renovations in June next year.
"We will write to them, we will call them, we will make sure our people know about this and we will see what we can do to make our voice known," he said.
Dr Leakey said the churches' plans were "the most outrageous comments I have ever heard".
He told The Daily Telegraph: "The National Museums of Kenya should be extremely strong in presenting a very forceful case for the evolutionary theory of the origins of mankind.
"The collection it holds is one of Kenya's very few global claims to fame and it must be forthright in defending its right to be at the forefront of this branch of science."
Calling the Pentecostal church fundamentalists, Dr Leakey added: "Their theories are far, far from the mainstream on this. They cannot be allowed to meddle with what is the world's leading collection of these types of fossils."
The museum said it was in a "tricky situation" as it tried to redesign its exhibition space to accommodate the expectations of all its visitors.
"We have a responsibility to present all our artefacts in the best way that we can so that everyone who sees them can gain a full understanding of their significance," said Ali Chege, public relations manager for the National Museums of Kenya.
"But things can get tricky when you have religious beliefs on one side, and intellectuals, scientists or researchers on the other, saying the opposite."0 -
Well, we have some people who take the man-written bible as a literal, historical and scientific document. This means they believe the world was created some 6,000 years ago, that bats are birds, there are seven heavens, that rain is water falling from holes in one of the spheres of the heavens, that one can see the entire world from a mountain top, etc. Gotta love 'em, though. [}:)][}:)] 0 -
Well it is actually exactly 4,382 years 11 months and 32 days, but who is counting? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Msut77
How old do you think the earth is?4-1/2 billion years. I was being sarcastic.
earlier, I thought I came up with quite a brilliant idea when arguing that the earth, along with the rest of "the universe", was older than 6000 years (that was the argument)- because if it was no older, then given the speed of light, every star you see could not be more than 6000 light years away, which can't be true. apparently other ppl had the same idea. here's a good web page on the age of the earth, using about the same logic.
http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve1.html0 -
Perhaps you are not into the study of radioactive elements and exponential decay. How about counting? You can certainly do that. If you were to cut down a tree and count 100 rings, you would know that this tree was 100 years old. We can do a very similar thing with the polar ice caps. The ice builds up another thin layer every year. People have drilled down through the ice and counted the layers. They find more than 50,000 distinct layers before they begin to fade together. Doesn't that prove that the earth is more than 6000 years old? 0 -
Here's where I think these types of discussions ultimately have to end up if explaining the universe by using "science".
Science's Big Bang theory, (if I'm correct that this is it's latest explanation of the beginning of the universe), says that everything comes from a speck the size of the one at the end of this sentence.
If that's not a MIRACLE I don't know what is.
And Who made that speck, ( the size of a . for cryin' out loud!!), from which all Creation came?0 -
OK who, and since we are talking science here, offer proof? The point is, you cannot, no one can. Science is about fact, religion is about faith. They are not the same at all. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
OK who, and since we are talking science here, offer proof? The point is, you cannot, no one can. Science is about fact, religion is about faith. They are not the same at all.
IMHO faith is the excuse people give when they believe in something that just isn't true. [}:)][}:)]0 -
And Having "FAITH" is admitting that what you believe has no viable facts to support it.. 0 -
Personally, I have done a lot of reasearch in this area, I did a research paper on this recently. There are two kinds of evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Evolutionists have taken micro-evolution, which is simply animals adapting to their environment, and put all of evolution into that category. Macro-evolution, which is species changing into a different species, is false. There is NO proof that species have changed from one into another. None.
As far as the age of the earth, it is impossible that the earth is however many billions or millions of years old. The dating of these fossils is very inaccurate. Anyone could take a fossil in and have one scientist age it, take it to 5 others and you would get 6 different ages. I would venture to say that the ages of the fossil would vary anywhere between 500,000 years and 500 million years.
One example that the earth can't be millions of years old is that Niagra Falls, at the current rate of erosion, would be all the way into the middle of the country. Another is that the Mississippi River delta would be so full of sediment that the entire Gulf of Mexico would be full. Evolution is as much of a religion as creation and the Bible. There is no proof either way which one is right or wrong. But even so, it takes just as much faith to believe in MACRO-evolution as creation.
Just a thought, when was the last time that anyone has seen one species evolve into another? Or even in the process of evolving?0 -
I don't worry anymore about evolution. I have to many worries for tomorrow!
Besides if man evolved from apes and monkeys then why are there still apes and monkeys... and yeah we already know about the liberal democrats!0 -
quote:Originally posted by alledan
I don't worry anymore about evolution. I have to many worries for tomorrow!
Besides if man evolved from apes and monkeys then why are there still apes and monkeys... and yeah we already know about the liberal democrats!
[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Huntingnerd33
Personally, I have done a lot of reasearch in this area, I did a research paper on this recently. There are two kinds of evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Evolutionists have taken micro-evolution, which is simply animals adapting to their environment, and put all of evolution into that category. Macro-evolution, which is species changing into a different species, is false. There is NO proof that species have changed from one into another. None.
As far as the age of the earth, it is impossible that the earth is however many billions or millions of years old. The dating of these fossils is very inaccurate. Anyone could take a fossil in and have one scientist age it, take it to 5 others and you would get 6 different ages. I would venture to say that the ages of the fossil would vary anywhere between 500,000 years and 500 million years.
One example that the earth can't be millions of years old is that Niagra Falls, at the current rate of erosion, would be all the way into the middle of the country. Another is that the Mississippi River delta would be so full of sediment that the entire Gulf of Mexico would be full. Evolution is as much of a religion as creation and the Bible. There is no proof either way which one is right or wrong. But even so, it takes just as much faith to believe in MACRO-evolution as creation.
Just a thought, when was the last time that anyone has seen one species evolve into another? Or even in the process of evolving?
Out of curiosity, since you did the paper, how do you explain dinosaur fossilized bones? Keep in mind that they are petrified, a process which takes many more than 6000 years. I asked this of a religious person once and was told by them that they were put here by the devil.
I get the jist from your post that you believe in the biblical age of the Earth.0 -
quote:Just a thought, when was the last time that anyone has seen one species evolve into another? Or even in the process of evolving?
WhaddItellya? There is always some flatearther who offers this as the standard. The answer is you see the process every single day, if you are looking. The rest of the answer is that it is a slow process, it takes a minimum of 10,000 years to occur, so if you wanna watch, you are going to have to take much better care of yourself.
quote:IMHO faith is the excuse people give when they believe in something that just isn't true.
That is disengenous nonsense Hairy. To believe science one must have faith that his/her sources are correct and honest. Whether you call it the big bang or goddidit, you make a leap of faith into events which cannot be understood or comprehended. Got a good handle on how long a million years is? If you live 100 years, that will be .01% of a miliion years. You have to have faith to deal with time spans like that, or just sort of pretend you understand.0 -
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
Out of curiosity, since you did the paper, how do you explain dinosaur fossilized bones? Keep in mind that they are petrified, a process which takes many more than 6000 years. I asked this of a religious person once and was told by them that they were put here by the devil.
I get the jist from your post that you believe in the biblical age of the Earth.
Petrifying does not take more than 6000 years. Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980, as I'm sure you're well aware. The eruption blew thousands of trees into the nearby lake. Within 20 years, the trees at the bottom of the lake were petrified. I would venture to say that if trees can become petrified within 20 years, bones would be the same.
Yes I believe in the biblical age of the earth.
Also, the earth is slowing down and the sun is slowly burning out. If the current rates of both of those events were occuring, the earth would be stopped and the sun would be too dim to support life on earth.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Huntingnerd33
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
Out of curiosity, since you did the paper, how do you explain dinosaur fossilized bones? Keep in mind that they are petrified, a process which takes many more than 6000 years. I asked this of a religious person once and was told by them that they were put here by the devil.
I get the jist from your post that you believe in the biblical age of the Earth.
Petrifying does not take more than 6000 years. Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980, as I'm sure you're well aware. The eruption blew thousands of trees into the nearby lake. Within 20 years, the trees at the bottom of the lake were petrified. I would venture to say that if trees can become petrified within 20 years, bones would be the same.
Yes I believe in the biblical age of the earth.
Also, the earth is slowing down and the sun is slowly burning out. If the current rates of both of those events were occuring, the earth would be stopped and the sun would be too dim to support life on earth.
So you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth within the past 6000 years? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with these questions, but I do enjoy talking with religious folks that are secure enough in their beliefs that they are able to converse without getting mad and leaving. There are painfully few of those.0 -
quote:Originally posted by slipgate
So you believe dinosaurs roamed the earth within the past 6000 years? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass with these questions, but I do enjoy talking with religious folks that are secure enough in their beliefs that they are able to converse without getting mad and leaving. There are painfully few of those.
Yes. I believe there are dinosaurs on the earth today. In Africa, there are natives when shown a picture of a t-rex or some other famous dinosaur and they immediately understand. They simply point over their shoulder and act like it's no big deal. I would encourage you to watch Kent Hovind's tape series. I don't have the title of it with me and I have to be getting to classes, but I will give you the title of them.
I notice you say you enjoy talking with "religious folks" about this topic. I'm not being mad or anything, but evolution is just as much as a religion as creationism.
Sidenote: Darwin was seasick and dillusional when he wrote the Origins of Species. He also tried to retract the statements he made, knowing they were false. No one seemed to believe him.0 -
quote:Sidenote: Darwin was seasick and dillusional when he wrote the Origins of Species. He also tried to retract the statements he made, knowing they were false. No one seemed to believe him.
Don't be silly, he was back in england before he started writing a good 6 years. Voage was 1831-1836. He began his research in 1842 and published in 1859 (I think I remember that one right). Wallace also presented his findings from Indonesia about the time Darwin published, and Wallace drew the same conclusions from islands across the Pacific. The difference was that Darwin was part of the English science establishment, and Wallace was not. Darwin's ideas were also promoted aggressively by Thomas Huxley. Darwin was not aggresive and would have withdrawn from the attacks by Owen and other leading scientific lights of the day.0 -
quote:Petrifying does not take more than 6000 years. Mt. Saint Helens erupted in 1980, as I'm sure you're well aware. The eruption blew thousands of trees into the nearby lake. Within 20 years,
Can you provide a reference for this assertion?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Huntingnerd33
Also, the earth is slowing down and the sun is slowly burning out. If the current rates of both of those events were occuring, the earth would be stopped and the sun would be too dim to support life on earth.
Recent studies have suggested that the sun is not a lump of coal, and probably has a few billion years left in her. Also, the earth has been discovered to be almost spherical. The wind resistance theorized to be slowing her down is much less on a spherical body than the flat model used in your calculations.[:)]0 -
Those trees in the lake are "Preserved" not petrified. There are lumber companies that purposely sink logs in water, some wood is transformed into something much better looking and durable after being submerged after a long periods of time.. There was a program on the History channel not long ago of logs being brought out of some rivers that were used in logging routes for a couple hundred years and some of the wood they were getting was extremely expensive. 0 -
quote:Classic095
Advanced Member
USA
13764 Posts
Posted - 01/25/2007 : 4:12:30 PM
Those trees in the lake are "Preserved" not petrified. There are lumber companies that purposely sink logs in water, some wood is transformed into something much better looking and durable after being submerged after a long periods of time.. There was a program on the History channel not long ago of logs being brought out of some rivers that were used in logging routes for a couple hundred years and some of the wood they were getting was extremely expensive.
Maybe the most interesting thing I've read in this thread!0 -
also some pool cue makers soak their wood for a few years in water plus some chemicals. (other mass producers just use straight dried wood)
since the theory of evolution is constantly getting more and more evidence to support it and the theory of creation is further disproved, I just thought of a catchphrase for the evolutionists.
"if you think that all meat is fresh, it's because you're fresh meat"0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
91 comments