What is evolution?

[PHC1]

Evolution seems to be a very confusing topic.

NEW YORK — Cows are more closely related to whales than to pigs, says a genetic study that suggests a new place for whales in the evolutionary family tree.

Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep.

The previous studies implied that a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse.

But even-toed mammals were thought to be more closely related to each other than any of them were to whales. The new study challenges that idea. It says hippos and cud-chewing mammals like cows, sheep and deer are more closely related to whales, dolphins and porpoises than they are to other even-toed mammals like pigs and camels.

The work is presented in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Nature by scientists from Japan. They reached their conclusions by studying details of genetic material.

[PHC1]

Sorry, evolution does not explain differences in height. From the Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...etting-taller/

[GaryProtein]

Originally Posted by PHC1

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/re...instevolution/

That article is a disgrace and the author and publisher should be ashamed.

I have no further comment.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by GaryProtein

That article is a disgrace and the author and publisher should be ashamed.

I have no further comment.

Might want to read this one then from a different source. Evolution may indeed be an outdated theory. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

"While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!"

[PHC1]

If one watches the Nova: Dawn of Humanity available on Netflix now, one quickly realizes what stretch of imagination and a leap of faith in paleoanthropology is required to believe in evolutionary process between apes and Homo sapiens. The fossils indeed are few and far between and filling in the gaps with imagination does not exactly paint an accurate picture. Too many assumptions.

Sorry, I am not convinced.

As is often the case and just in the very recent past we were led to believe our biological, (not biblical) Adam and Eve came from Africa. That was the conclusion of many years of studies. Turns out that's not right.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...s-jebel-irhoud

[Antonmb]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Might want to read this one then from a different source. Evolution may indeed be an outdated theory. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

"While people used to think that there was a single line of human species, with one evolving after the other in an inevitable march towards modern humans, we now know this is not the case. Like most other mammals, we are part of a large and diverse family tree. Fossil discoveries show that the human family tree has many more branches and deeper roots than we knew about even a couple of decades ago. In fact, the number of branches our evolutionary tree, and also the length of time, has nearly doubled since the famed ‘Lucy’ fossil skeleton was discovered in 1974!"

A little further down in that same article:

"The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case. The debates concern the precise evolutionary relationships - essentially, ‘who is related to whom, and how.’"

They are not questioning the validity of evolution, we just continue to learn more about how it actually progressed.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

A little further down in that same article:

"The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case. The debates concern the precise evolutionary relationships - essentially, ‘who is related to whom, and how.’"

They are not questioning the validity of evolution, we just continue to learn more about how it actually progressed.

Correct, that is exactly what it says. What would you expect them to say if they are into paleoanthropology and evolution. At the same time, it is difficult if not impossible to actually point out "evolution" vs the different branches of the tree. We don't question the fact that there are many species of related birds coexisting as there are different animals. When it comes to homo sapiens and all the others, the fossils do not exactly point to evolution as much as they do to the different branches of the tree... Not to mention the fact that we still have chimpanzees and other apes around. What we have are jumps and leaps in what we think are the evolutionary stages leading up to the homo sapiens but not evidence of the actual evolution. Branches of the same tree. So what of the Denisovans and the Neanderthals then? We now know that they interbred with the Homo sapiens. How is that not evidence of co-existence of various branches of the tree vs evolution??? https://www.livescience.com/62036-mo...enisovans.html

[Antonmb]

Serge, are you saying having multiple branches of the tree precludes evolution? What caused the branching if not evolution? And isn’t it simply that one branch, i.e. homo sapiens, was the most fit to survive? At its core, evolution isn’t about species changing to adapt, but rather that those with characteristics (sometimes from random mutation) that are better adapted to the environment are more likely to survive and pass on those traits, while those less well adapted die out.

You can see evolution at work today in the increase of drug-resistant bacteria due to overuse of antibiotics.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Antonmb

Serge, are you saying having multiple branches of the tree precludes evolution? What caused the branching if not evolution? And isn’t it simply that one branch, i.e. homo sapiens, was the most fit to survive? At its core, evolution isn’t about species changing to adapt, but rather that those with characteristics (sometimes from random mutation) that are better adapted to the environment are more likely to survive and pass on those traits, while those less well adapted die out.

You can see evolution at work today in the increase of drug-resistant bacteria due to overuse of antibiotics.

The mutations in viruses is a different topic I think all together. Mutations also happen in human genes.

As to the theory of evolution. If we consider the fact that scientists "think" we have a common ancestor from which the apes and humans evolved that existed between 5 to 8 million years ago or so the story goes, it certainly would explain the apes and the humans but there is also no proof of what that actual ancestor was really. I don't find that explanation very likely for an ancestor to give rise to two very different branches. We have to keep in mind that evolution is not based on exact science either, there are a lot of gaps and questions and especially about the certain leaps during certain periods. We do the best we can to explain these things but its not like science has not been wrong before.

[oddeophile]

Well the mutations certainly explain me. LOL