Evidence for Macroevolution (Common Descent)

[Thief]

Well, it proves that there was never an Adam and Eve.

in what manner?

 

[Thief]

OK. What's your point? There wasn't like a first homo sapien couple that existed all of a sudden. So, what's your point?

ok...Man as a species Day Six......

Man in the Garden ....Chapter Two
not the same event

 

[leibowde84]

in what manner?

The first humans didn't appear suddenly as a couple. The woman was not built from the rib of the man. There were more than two, most likely. They didn't look like modern humans. They certainly did not speak a language. Etc.

 

[leibowde84]

ok...Man as a species Day Six......

Man in the Garden ....Chapter Two
not the same event

The story of the Garden of Eden is what I am referring to. That did not happen as described in Genesis. No talking snake, not just two people, not like modern humans, didn't speak a language, etc.

 

[shmogie]

Each new generation is slightly different from the one that preceded it due to the way sexual reproduction works. Each new generation has ever so slight differences, and over very long periods of time these are compounded into (potentially) radical divergences.


Evolution is not a handful of large, radical mutations. Or at least, it is extremely rarely large, radical mutations. Instead, it's countless minute changes over huge swathes of time that

Each new generation is slightly different from the one that preceded it due to the way sexual reproduction works. Each new generation has ever so slight differences, and over very long periods of time these are compounded into (potentially) radical divergences.


Evolution is not a handful of large, radical mutations. Or at least, it is extremely rarely large, radical mutations. Instead, it's countless minute changes over huge swathes of time that coalesce into large differences on a species-wide scale. Remember, mutations are only passed down through reproduction, and even then that is only a few members of the species in the beginning. What has to happen is that these mutations, again over very long periods of time, filter down because these small changes allow for the individuals that have them to do slightly better than their competitors. They have a few more offspring.

But, over time, these things add up. Think of evolution like you would erosion. Wind and rain slowly whittle down a rock face, and while it's almost imperceptible to those observing it, over many, many years it adds up. Evolution is about the long-game.


The problem here seems to be that you're misinformed regarding what evolution is. This isn't your fault, but it makes it difficult to explain.

coalesce into large differences on a species-wide scale. Remember, mutations are only passed down through reproduction, and even then that is only a few members of the species in the beginning. What has to happen is that these mutations, again over very long periods of time, filter down because these small changes allow for the individuals that have them to do slightly better than their competitors. They have a few more offspring.

But, over time, these things add up. Think of evolution like you would erosion. Wind and rain slowly whittle down a rock face, and while it's almost imperceptible to those observing it, over many, many years it adds up. Evolution is about the long-game.


The problem here seems to be that you're misinformed regarding what evolution is. This isn't your fault, but it makes it difficult to explain.

No, I don't think I am misinformed. I was a strident evolutionist/atheist before I changed my world view. I was well educated in the theory. Yes, I understand the concept of time being the equalizer, Darwin himself found significant variations in finches ( micro evolution) that he used to support his theory of macro evolution. I mean, if he could find these ( and of course their are many many examples) it boggles the mind that just one species cannot be found in the process of turning into another, and of course, when all is said and done this is really what it is about, isn't it ?

 

[shmogie]

The first humans didn't appear suddenly as a couple. The woman was not built from the rib of the man. There were more than two, most likely. They didn't look like modern humans. They certainly did not speak a language. Etc.

Well, genetically all humans can be traced by mitochondrial DNA to one mother, one (1), whom they, they, call "Eve". Interesting, no? First, apes are apes, whatever species. Some of these alleged precursor humans are claimed to exist by a single piece of broken skull. As one trained in the laws of evidence, this is paltry and wishes other than evidence. Do you consider the Neanderthals as humans ? well, of course they were, though they were considered once as precursor humans by evolutionists. They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong. They were human beings who interbred with other human beings, your DNA will show what percentage of theirs makes up yours

 

[leibowde84]

Well, genetically all humans can be traced by mitochondrial DNA to one mother, one (1), whom they, they, call "Eve". Interesting, no? First, apes are apes, whatever species. Some of these alleged precursor humans are claimed to exist by a single piece of broken skull. As one trained in the laws of evidence, this is paltry and wishes other than evidence. Do you consider the Neanderthals as humans ? well, of course they were, though they were considered once as precursor humans by evolutionists. They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong. They were human beings who interbred with other human beings, your DNA will show what percentage of theirs makes up yours

The first humans were 1-2 million years ago. Neanderthals were 350,000 years ago. So, they aren't what we are discussing here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Did you read it. The common ancestor of all life is bacteria. All like traces back to bacteria.

LUCA


Universal ancestor of all life on Earth was only half alive

 

[leibowde84]

Well, genetically all humans can be traced by mitochondrial DNA to one mother, one (1), whom they, they, call "Eve". Interesting, no? First, apes are apes, whatever species. Some of these alleged precursor humans are claimed to exist by a single piece of broken skull. As one trained in the laws of evidence, this is paltry and wishes other than evidence. Do you consider the Neanderthals as humans ? well, of course they were, though they were considered once as precursor humans by evolutionists. They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong. They were human beings who interbred with other human beings, your DNA will show what percentage of theirs makes up yours

Mitochondrial Eve lived after neanderthals, so she wasn't the first human by any means.

 

[Altfish]

Please enlighten me, since you apparently mean me, what does the definition of a transitional form entail ?

Your father is a transitional form between you and your granddad.

 

[sayak83]

Well, genetically all humans can be traced by mitochondrial DNA to one mother, one (1), whom they, they, call "Eve". Interesting, no? First, apes are apes, whatever species. Some of these alleged precursor humans are claimed to exist by a single piece of broken skull. As one trained in the laws of evidence, this is paltry and wishes other than evidence. Do you consider the Neanderthals as humans ? well, of course they were, though they were considered once as precursor humans by evolutionists. They also were considered not to be able to speak, which we now know was dead wrong. They were human beings who interbred with other human beings, your DNA will show what percentage of theirs makes up yours

Your idea of what Mitochondrial Eve represents is faulty. In an older post I have described what M. eve is and what she is not. Please read at leisure

Glimpses of Pre-Historic South Asia

 

[Nietzsche]

No, I don't think I am misinformed. I was a strident evolutionist/atheist before I changed my world view. I was well educated in the theory. Yes, I understand the concept of time being the equalizer, Darwin himself found significant variations in finches ( micro evolution) that he used to support his theory of macro evolution. I mean, if he could find these ( and of course their are many many examples) it boggles the mind that just one species cannot be found in the process of turning into another, and of course, when all is said and done this is really what it is about, isn't it ?

Here's a whole mess of transitional fossils.

 

[shmogie]

A very interesting list, and some are problematic for creationists, I agree. Most are not though. Some are from scarce or even partial fossils. There is no way to tell if they represented a transitioning species, or simply genetic freaks from an established species. Anything that says "the earliest known ........" makes a subjective judgement that it is the earliest, but actually the fact is that we can only be sure it was early and is extinct. Further, the "earliest known" cockroach, is still a cockroach. So, I will look at your list in detail, especially the ones referred to as transitional, and do some research, should be fun

 

[shmogie]

Your idea of what Mitochondrial Eve represents is faulty. In an older post I have described what M. eve is and what she is not. Please read at leisure

Glimpses of Pre-Historic South Asia

Thank you, I re read it as I read it when you originally posted it. Your piece says much, but it doesn't firmly address the issue at hand. It can easily be done with a simple yes or no answer. Does the mitochondrial DNA present in each human trace back ultimately to a single female ancestor ? If your answer is no, I will research it for myself to confirm your conclusion.

 

[ChristineM]

Mitochondrial Eve lived after neanderthals, so she wasn't the first human by any means.

It is understood that mtDNA eve lived around 200,000 years ago. Neanderthal became extinct as a race about 40,000 years ago although we all have a small percentage of Neanderthal dna.

Its interesting to mote that mitochondrial (Y-MRCA) Adam lived about 275,000 years ago.

I bet the bible writers never saw that one coming

 

[sayak83]

Thank you, I re read it as I read it when you originally posted it. Your piece says much, but it doesn't firmly address the issue at hand. It can easily be done with a simple yes or no answer. Does the mitochondrial DNA present in each human trace back ultimately to a single female ancestor ? If your answer is no, I will research it for myself to confirm your conclusion.

Yes. It must. It's a necessary corollary of evolution through common descent.
And nothing further interesting follows from that yes answer. It provides no support whatsoever for a first pair.

 

[shmogie]

It is understood that mtDNA eve lived around 200,000 years ago. Neanderthal became extinct as a race about 40,000 years ago although we all have a small percentage of Neanderthal dna.

Its interesting to mote that mitochondrial (Y-MRCA) Adam lived about 275,000 years ago.

I bet the bible writers never saw that one coming

I am not even trying to make the case for a literal Biblical Eve here, I guess I could though. My point was, evolutionists originally considered Neanderthals as dim witted non speaking precursor humans that were slaughtered into extinction by the ultimate of evolution, cro magnon people. Their conclusions were all wrong, they were intelligent, they spoke, and their smaller populations were absorbed and diluted. They didn't become extinct by anything but blending. We could spend a whole lot of time on the entire concept of "dating"................. but we won't

 

[shmogie]

Yes. It must. It's a necessary corollary of evolution through common descent.
And nothing further interesting follows from that yes answer. It provides no support whatsoever for a first pair.

I wasn't trying to make that connection. I am quite satisfied to say that all humans are ultimately descendants of one female

 

[shmogie]

Your father is a transitional form between you and your granddad.

Cute ! Same species though.

 

[shmogie]

Mitochondrial Eve lived after neanderthals, so she wasn't the first human by any means.

No, she lived long before Neanderthal, who it is said were extinct by 40,000 years ago, long after M. Eve