More than a little head - they have bodies

[JerseyJoe]

While you kids discuss aliens, misinterpreted geolocal finds and artifacts, and other assorted nonsense, I'll leave some info for those actually willing to learn...

The historical reality of evolution (descent with modification) is a scientific fact. It has over 150+ years been so supported and resisted all challenges that is become fundamental fact (' proven beyond a reasonable doubt'). To this day, Darwins original hypotheses are continuing to be more and more supported.

And a point: science is a process of acquiring and undestanding natural phenomena and then testing it and observing experimental evidence. It's the very foundation of science and glossing over that fact is incredibly ignorant.

Science questions belief. It's constantly testing its views against the observed evidence around us. Creationism/Intelligent Design (by "god" or Aliens) does not use evidence to test its claims and thus can't explain natural phenomena. Natural science can at least attempt to address questions; creationism/ID can't; no research ideas are created in the proposals of ID.

The absolute #1 key for the valid scientific hypothesis is it must be testable either by direct observation or through inference by comparing the outcome of observations with predictions made from the competing hypothis(es).

Science also depends on the consistency of natural laws. Supernatural ideas - untestable, unobservable ones - violate natural laws and thus science can't compete or infer anything about those supernatural ideas. Science can't judge it's validity. Example: Science can't test the hypothesis that god exists. Example 2: Biological diversity as the result of intelligent design is not testable.

Let's discuss some key points and criticisms of evolution:

1) The fossil record
The fossil record is incomplete but does provide for intermediate forms. A classic example is feathered dinosaurs as the intermediate to today's birds. There is countless evidence across all species for character evolution and gradual change of individual features. And the fossil record also matches well with predicted phylogenetic sequences. As an example, wingless insects precede winged insects, fishes precede tetrapods, etc)

cont'd next post

 

[JerseyJoe]

</ignore>

brilliant retort, ignoramus

 

[JerseyJoe]

2) Phylogenetic & comparative studies
Moelcular phylogenies support morphological ones. For the laymen that means changes "seen" are defined by your DNA. Therefore there is a high level of confidence that the relationships - lineages descended from COMMON ANCESTORS - is real, valid, and supported by current science studies. Biochemistry, genetic code, etc all confirm that life came from a single ancestor. This is indesputable scientific fact and arguing against is akin to arguing the world is flat.

3) Genes & Genomes
Common molecular biology & ancestry is the reason why studying other organisms can help us understand human biochemistry. The entire basis for most of medical studies - ie testing on chimpanzees and mice and a host of other animals - is evolution. If the suggestion is that humans do not share common ancestors with other animals in the animal kingdom, then you're by extension suggesting that modern medicine is a farce.

 

[JerseyJoe]

4) Biogeography
The geographic distribution of fossils is direct evidence in favor of evolution. The distribution of taxa correspond beautifully with geological events such as the formation and dissolution of land masses. For example, phylogeny of hawaiian species matches the sequence of island appearances in the Pacific. That is, more recent species tend to arrive with more recent islands. Further, isolated regions (islands) don't have all species that could survive there. Entire groups are missing (contrary to what the intelligent "designist" would proclaim).

5) Failures of the design argument are many
Proposal: the "design" evident in organisms implies and supports a designer of life.
Real World: Natural selection as a whole is proof enough that organisms have imperfections and anomalies that only can be explained if natural selection has produced them.
"Inferior design" - imperfect species ill suited for their environment or certain conditions, if evidence of an intelligent designer indicates that said designer is unkind, incompetent or handicapped.
Examples:
- the uselses vestigial pelvis & femur in whales
- the reduced but still present wings in flightless beetles
- nonfunctional stamens of plants
- or at the DNA level, the "fossil" genes which have entirely lost their function
Bottom line: characteristics evolve fromp pre-existing features and often undergo changes in function.
Animals would be better off if we could synthesize our own food. Yet our "designer" didn't provide this ability?

On Competition, predation and parasitism, I'll invoke Darwin: "what a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of Nature!"

The fact is that life as we know it does not fit with the concept of an intelligent designer, but are PERFECTLY explained by natural selection

cont'd

 

[JerseyJoe]

6) Mechanisms of evolution
I get a kick out of people when they propose that if evolution were true, we'd see changes daily or in our life time. Speciation takes a long ass fucking time. But the processes can be observed. Reproductive isolation - that is, inability for sub-species to produce offspring, or produce infertile offspring - has been observed in the lab and in nature.
Further, species of plants which originated by polyploidy (2 sets of chromosomes) and hybridization (joining of two strands) has been recreated in the lab. Anagensis (new species formation without branching off the known phylogenetic tree) and cladogensis (that is, branching of new species at the point of a common ancestor) is abundantly supported and not an arguable point.

Since we've gone this far let's jump into the inevitable, uneducated arguments against evolution

argument: Evolution is outside the realm of sciene it can't be observed and directly studied
counter: Evolutionary changes have been observed repeatedly. Science depends on testing hypotheses against the predictions and proposals made about what we SHOULD see an observe, not direct observation. Observation is a basic process that is not required by science and the scientific method. Most processes can't be observed and in fact are seen and studied by means other than direct observation

argument: evolution can't be proved
counter: nothing in science is ever absolutely proven. However there is absolutely positively a fucking abundance of evidence supporting evolution. But that's not the fun part. Where it really gets fun - and puts the twist in many a panty - is that there is no contradictory evidence. Any proposals of contradictory evidence or ideas are quickly squashed with real science.

cont'd

 

[JerseyJoe]

argument: the order in the known universe - including that which is shown in our (organisms) adaptions - is very clear evidence of ID
counter: Holy fuck. Natural order comes from natural causes, not a fucking designer. Adaptions are a consequence of natural selection acting on genetic - and by extension phenotypic - variation. And both random (mutations for example) and nonrandom processes account for these adapations.

argument: It's super duper impossible that the root common ancestor of all life - the simplest life form - arrived from non living matter. And omg, we've never done in a lab so it's not possible!!!11
counter: It's foolish as fuck to assume that because we haven't done it in a few decades that we won't ever be able to do it. But that point is inconsequential because that doesn't imply a supernatural intelligent designer. The critical elements of life (RNA & amino acids) have been created under the conditions the earth was in 1B years into its existence. But that's neither here nor there because the ORIGIN OF LIFE is different from the ORIGIN OF SPECIES (modification and diversification of life and the ensuing speciation).

argument: chance could not produce complex structures such as wings and eyes
counter: Chance doesn't. Natural selection does. When the "pressures" of natural selection are relaxed, structures which had arisen by that process have been seen to degenerate due to fixation ("locking" of the genome preventing modification) of what had been neutral mutations. Genetic drift also plays more of a role.

shall i continue?

 

[bodiddley]

lolwut



IFrom that perspective I venture it takes more assumptions to hypothesize no alien intervention in the natural evolution of life here on earth than it does to hypothesize the contrary.



edit ^^^yeah what he said

Working from a viewpoint that takes all of the ET evidence into consideration, from ancient times up until today, the simpler of the competing hypothesis is that their existence is indeed most likely real.

Occam's Razor is so misused around these parts it's probably better served chopping up cocaine or sticking it up your ass while you fap to Ron Paul vids. And this is coming from a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[bodiddley]

Just last week Obama volunteered "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of aliens".

Notice what he didn't say: "that's a bunch of crazy conspiracy talk", or "project blue book was closed years ago, but feel free to refer to it."

No, instead it was "I can neither confirm nor deny". Telling, eh?

 

[bodiddley]

Please continue, Jersey Joe. The longer your head is stuck in the sand, the more you get used to it

 

[JerseyJoe]

Please continue, Jersey Joe. The longer your head is stuck in the sand, the more you get used to it

i'm not sure why i expected anything more than this type of response here despite the content which i posted - and which will go ignored.

you win again, wickedfire. thanks for reminding me my expectations were far too high.

 

[Moxie]

We can dig up more dinosaur bones and ancient crustaceans than we can pre-humans. Why is that?

800 species of dinosaurs over 150 million years vs. 6 million years for hominids

How is it that we're so unique among all of the species on this planet,

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dadT-14FkSY"]Michael Gazzaniga - What We Are - YouTube[/ame]

that we have very little physical variation within the species, and yet a high degree of inter-species differentiation?

How so and/or in comparison to what? Ants, dolphins, horses?

If you are asking a variation of "why are there still apes on the planet?", that's covered on thousands of websites and in basic science courses.

The gap from man to monkey is enormous. Why is that?

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

 

[lukep]

So because we can create life in a lab, some other species couldn't?

I absolutely agree that they can. I just don't think it's as likely, since clearly evolution is happening to everything around us on this planet too... Why would we be the only ones not evolving?

Lol; Just like this vid:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvrmZLGWfFs]Evolution In 5 Minutes - YouTube[/ame]

That's the point. We don't. There is no missing link. We can dig up more dinosaur bones and ancient crustaceans than we can pre-humans. Why is that?

I have no idea what you're talking about.... I agree there are no missing links, though. All have been filled to my satisfaction.

Here's a short vid of what some anthro student put together, taking us from fish to modern human:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zohMSNpW91k]Human Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

Keep in mind the time between each of these critters was likely tens of millions of years... Given the amount of change that dogs have seen in the last pitiful period of one thousand years, I'd say that evolution has been WAY UNDERACHIEVING to only change us as much as it has between each of the fossils represented in that vid. (And the pros know of way more steps inbetween than this student put together.)

How is it that we're so unique among all of the species on this planet, that we have very little physical variation within the species, and yet a high degree of inter-species differentiation? The gap from man to monkey is enormous. Why is that?

Intelligence... Which seems to have been a consequence of Cooking... Which required Fire. So any animal that picks up a burning stick one day and uses it to further his offsprings' advantages in this world would be well on its' way to follow us.

Physically, our variation between races is not nearly as different as say, the variation of Cats. From housecat to lion, wow, that's some variation... Humans? Not so much. And yet we evolved from a chimplike state over a much longer period of time than a lion did from a smaller cat.

Would you deny that housecats and Lions had the same common ancestor?

 

[lukep]

Working from a viewpoint that takes all of the ET evidence into consideration, from ancient times up until today, the simpler of the competing hypothesis is that their existence is indeed most likely real.

Although I think it is indeed extremely unlikely that aliens have thusfar failed to exist, it's also pretty extremely unlikely with our current understanding of science that they could have traveled here. (Not saying they didn't, just using Occam's Razor correctly.)

Occam's Razor is so misused around these parts it's probably better served chopping up cocaine or sticking it up your ass while you fap to Ron Paul vids. And this is coming from a Ron Paul supporter.

Misused by you, apparently. In a nutshell, Occam's Razor states that simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex explanations. It's a really great, practical tool for observing your universe on all levels, and I've been practicing it since I was literally 6 years old.

So, let's put it to the test on evolution. Two scenarios:

A. Given mind-bogglingly large amounts of time, a fish can eventually spawn a human with nothing more but random environmental chances.

B. Alien beings (who by the way probably had to come from somewhere themselves) learned how to travel faster than light and thought it prudent to plant some intelligent humanoids here that just happened to be 96% genetically similar to other animals that are already here. (Or would be one day.)


While I admit that Scenario A can be described as "unlikely" by people who have a poor grasp on the vastness of time, Scenario B should look, to any sane human not fit for the funny farm, as the less likely scenario of the two.

Therefore, Occam's Razor points to Scenario A as the better, or more likely scenario to have happened.

 

[MSTeacher]

Occam's Razor is so misused around these parts it's probably better served chopping up cocaine or sticking it up your ass while you fap to Ron Paul vids. And this is coming from a Ron Paul supporter.

i lol'd hard +rep

The historical reality of evolution (descent with modification) is a scientific fact. It has over 150+ years been so supported and resisted all challenges that is become fundamental fact

aaaand you lost me.

it's also pretty extremely unlikely with our current understanding of science that they could have traveled here. (Not saying they didn't, just using Occam's Razor correctly.)

asdlkfjhlkasjhaklj

Even assuming evolution has its dates right 500 million years from fish to humans is not that long. A 15 billion year old universe and a five billion year old planet. That means fish to humans took 10% of earth's lifespan and 3% of the universe's lifespan. But whatever it was just an example.

More to the point our planet is five billion years old in a universe with planets forming 12 billion years ago that we know of. Which means other planets with similar environmental conditions would have had roughly a seven billion year head start. Given what you know of human beings, if we haven't blown ourselves up by then do you think we'll be fucking with the inhabitants of other planets in seven billion years?

Math. Physics. Exploration. Seven. Billion. Years.

 

[MSTeacher]

only on wickedfire do a bunch of hack marketers debate alien intervention in a thread filled with memes and stone penises inspired by random old news.

 

[guerilla]

800 species of dinosaurs over 150 million years vs. 6 million years for hominids

I don't trust any of the dating. None of it seems consistent or accurate.

I will say that it is truly bizarre that we can find more dinosaur bones from 10s of millions of years ago and struggle to find more recent examples of human evolution.

How so and/or in comparison to what? Ants, dolphins, horses?

Actually, those are good examples. What I am saying is that a diverse system that is constantly diversifying per evolution, should have more minor variants, and yet that isn't the case. Humans, by and large, are the same with exceptions for skin tone and some other superficial features. Biologically, the innards of a chinaman are no different than a Peruvian Indian. I'm not just talking about the layout or the number of organs, but their actual size shape and function.

I find it fascinating that humans have such moderately different external characteristics, like almond eyes, skin color, body hair, and yet again, there is very little variance such that humans have sub-species the ways dogs do.

If you are asking a variation of "why are there still apes on the planet?", that's covered on thousands of websites and in basic science courses.

On the contrary, I want to know why there aren't more biological variants between us and apes still on the planet. And as you indicated, perhaps not just us, but so many other species.

The (lack of) variety of life on earth, at least for several species including humans, leads me to believe we're much earlier in our evolutionary curve than later.

But that's all just spit balling. I am much more interested in the future than in the past. I'm hoping for aliens. There isn't much intelligent life down here.

 

[lukep]

More to the point our planet is five billion years old in a universe with planets forming 12 billion years ago that we know of. Which means other planets with similar environmental conditions would have had roughly a seven billion year head start. Given what you know of human beings, if we haven't blown ourselves up by then do you think we'll be fucking with the inhabitants of other planets in seven billion years?

Math. Physics. Exploration. Seven. Billion. Years.

Oh, I get the longview argument too, I was reading novels like Ringworld when I was 10 years old. However if you want to take the longview with alien civilizations, then you will inevitably wind up with a narrow band of "goldilocks zone" in which every intelligent species goes spacefaring... The years between travelling outside of their home system and ending their interest in other life will also be a short blip on the radar of Billions of years... Because no matter how big they get and how many star systems they conquer, they will eventually advance to the point where they do something else like become shut ins, moving to a new dimension, drinking the mass kool-aid out of boredom, Ascending, or simply becoming un-interested with all other life.

The Drake equation shows that we can't possibly have a galaxy like the one in Star Wars... But perhaps if you took the total time since the big bang and got all the races therein together at the same time, it might look more like that. -But 15 Billion years is a damn long time so it's quite possible that none have ever met any others yet.

 

[guerilla]

Regardless Luke, there is very little evidence (if any) of human evolution.

 

[lukep]

Regardless Luke, there is very little evidence (if any) of human evolution.

What would register as evidence to you? Perhaps some blueprints of future evolution plans carved into the stones by monkies, carbon dated to 50 million years ago?

Oh yeah, that's right... You don't trust carbon dating either, so that is obviously not acceptable evidence too...

But what I don't understand is if you don't accept carbon dating as evidence, they why do you believe that any of those "artifacts" MST linked to before are older than your daddy?

 

[Moxie]

I don't trust any of the dating. None of it seems consistent or accurate.

I will say that it is truly bizarre that we can find more dinosaur bones from 10s of millions of years ago and struggle to find more recent examples of human evolution.

If the dating is wrong then dinosaurs could have been around even longer, making it even more likely to find their bones.

Bones and fossils are not looked for randomly, as they are found in sediment formations that preserve them. Sediments happen in what were once things like river basins and mud flats. Dinosaurs, like elephants today, probably spent more time congregating in these areas than early humans did.

Actually, those are good examples. What I am saying is that a diverse system that is constantly diversifying per evolution, should have more minor variants, and yet that isn't the case. Humans, by and large, are the same with exceptions for skin tone and some other superficial features. Biologically, the innards of a chinaman are no different than a Peruvian Indian. I'm not just talking about the layout or the number of organs, but their actual size shape and function.

I find it fascinating that humans have such moderately different external characteristics, like almond eyes, skin color, body hair, and yet again, there is very little variance such that humans have sub-species the ways dogs do.

"Subspecies are animal groups that are related, can interbreed, and yet have characteristics that make them distinct from one another. Two basic ingredients are critical to the development of separate subspecies: isolation and time. Unlike most animals, humans are a relatively young species and we are extremely mobile, so we simply haven't evolved into different subspecies.

The earliest hominids evolved from apes about 5 million years ago, but modern humans (Homo sapien sapiens) didn't emerge until 150,000-200,000 years ago in eastern Africa, where we spent most of our evolution together as a species. Our species first left Africa only about 50,000-100,000 years ago and quickly spread across the entire world. All of us are descended from these recent African ancestors.

Many other animal species have been around much longer or they have shorter life spans, so they've had many more opportunities to accumulate genetic variants. Penguins, for example, have twice as much genetic diversity as humans. Fruit flies have 10 times as much. Even our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, has been around at least several million years. There's more genetic diversity within a group of chimps on a single hillside in Gomba than in the entire human species.

Domesticated animals such as dogs also have a lot of genetic diversity, but this is mostly due to selective breeding under controlled conditions. Humans, on the other hand, have always mixed freely and widely. As a result, we're all mongrels..."

RACE - The Power of an Illusion . Background Readings | PBS

there is very little evidence (if any) of human evolution.

If humans can choose who they mate with (selective breeding), then by definition, human evolution is occurring.


Human evolution - evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia