New discoveries of 'missing links.'

[Heyo]

Most of those that consider themselves as creationists on this forum do not accept evolution.

Most - but not all. I try to use "YEC" whenever I talk about those who follow Ken Ham and the like to avoid confusion.

 

[firedragon]

Well, there was no such thing as evolutionary biology before Darwin. But when Linne proposed his classification of life a century before Darwin it didn't make a big fuss. Some people felt their ego scratched when they were put into the same category as the other apes but that was accepted theory long before Darwin.

Then probably some peoples ego was pretty mild to propose that humans evolved from apes in like the 14th century.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, there was no such thing as evolutionary biology before Darwin. But when Linne proposed his classification of life a century before Darwin it didn't make a big fuss. Some people felt their ego scratched when they were put into the same category as the other apes but that was accepted theory long before Darwin.

If people think that humans are not related to apes they have not really accepted the theory of evolution and are denying the evidence as well.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then probably some peoples ego was pretty mild to propose that humans evolved from apes in like the 14th century.

Was that proposed at that time?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Most - but not all. I try to use "YEC" whenever I talk about those who follow Ken Ham and the like to avoid confusion.

I am used to referring to them as creationist out of habit from years of using that blanket term. Though I do recognize the differences between YEC and OEC versions.

Of course, Ham's adaptations to YEC are pretty well off the wall.

 

[firedragon]

Was that proposed at that time?

You mean in the 14th century?

1. It was minerals and it progressed in a gradual but an ingenious manner
2. Progressed to plants and animals
3. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
4. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch.
5. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.
6. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in agradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and toreflect.
7. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking.
8. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys).

This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.

 

[firedragon]

Theistic evolution from a Christian perspective is a concept that applies what we know from biology to a belief in God. Inclusion of that which has no evidence renders it outside of science.

Agreed, but you said that one is not the other. Now you seem to be saying they are different names for the same concept. Is that the case?

Its just evolution. Thats it. Evolution is not Theistic evolution. You have said this too. So thats it. Evolution.

Theists also study and accept evolution. Just like other sciences and philosophies.

Just evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You mean in the 14th century?

1. It was minerals and it progressed in a gradual but an ingenious manner
2. Progressed to plants and animals
3. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
4. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch.
5. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.
6. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in agradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and toreflect.
7. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking.
8. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys).

This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.

This reads more like the 'great chain of being', which is not evolution in any modern sense. It reflects direction and purpose that is not part of evolution. However, it is change over time, so I suppose it qualifies as a step in the evolution of the idea.

I have actually read some of the history of this, now that I recognize it from seeing it written down. It is a recognized part of the history of science and the concept of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Its just evolution. Thats it. Evolution is not Theistic evolution. You have said this too. So thats it. Evolution.

Theists also study and accept evolution. Just like other sciences and philosophies.

Just evolution.

I agree that evolution is simply the scientific explanation as it stands. Not requiring modification or qualification to make it more palatable to some theistic view.

You are aware that concepts of evolution stretch all the way back to ancient Greece? The 'scala naturae' I mentioned was formulated by Aristotle about 1,000 years before the work you have been referring to.

 

[firedragon]

This reads more like the 'great chain of being', which is not evolution in any modern sense. It reflects direction and purpose that is not part of evolution. However, it is change over time, so I suppose it qualifies as a step in the evolution of the idea.

I have actually read some of the history of this, now that I recognize it from seeing it written down. It is a recognized part of the history of science and the concept of evolution.

Actually they are also students of older writers on evolution who were probably inferior in advancement. And i quoted verbatim just to be authentic. But i must say that these people a millennium ago were far superior to some modern day creationists who flatout deny any kind of evolution, believe the universe was born 5 thousand years ago, and we were all created the way we are, along with adam, the man, was made a few days after the universe was created.

Far far superior. And of course, maybe years from now humans will be far superior than today.

Well. Thats how it works.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

I agree that evolution is simply the scientific explanation as it stands. Not requiring modification or qualification to make it more palatable to some theistic view.

You are aware that concepts of evolution stretch all the way back to ancient Greece? The 'scala naturae' I mentioned was formulated by Aristotle about 1,000 years before the work you have been referring to.

Of course. Maybe it goes even beyond.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No matter how much evidence is found, there will always be gaps. But gaps do not have to be a problem when the overall course is very well mapped out and explained. Creationists should consider that there is a huge gap between London and Los Angeles, but travellers starting in London still make it to LA, even if they know nothing about what is in between.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually they are also students of older writers on evolution who were probably inferior in advancement. And i quoted verbatim just to be authentic. But i must say that these people a millennium ago were far superior to some modern day creationists who flatout deny any kind of evolution, believe the universe was born 5 thousand years ago, and we were all created the way we are, along with adam, the man, was made a few days after the universe was created.

Far far superior. And of course, maybe years from now humans will be far superior than today.

Well. Thats how it works.

Cheers.

I find the history of the development of these concepts fascinating. I wish I could devote more time to reading on the details of the development over time and through different cultures than I have.

Modern creationists, at least in the US, have reverted to an anti-intellectual position that disregards or rewrites history. They do not hold a candle to some of our intellectual ancestors.

 

[firedragon]

No matter how much evidence is found, there will always be gaps. But gaps do not have to be a problem when the overall course is very well mapped out and explained. Creationists should consider that there is a huge gap between London and Los Angeles, but travellers starting in London still make it to LA, even if they know nothing about what is in between.

What about creationists who accept evolution?

 

[Heyo]

You mean in the 14th century?

1. It was minerals and it progressed in a gradual but an ingenious manner
2. Progressed to plants and animals
3. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants.
4. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish which have only the power of touch.
5. The word "connection" with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.
6. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in agradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and toreflect.
7. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of the monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking.
8. At this point we come to the first stage of man after (the world of monkeys).

This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.

If this an actual quote (as you claim below) it would be nice to acknowledge the author(s).

 

[firedragon]

If this an actual quote (as you claim below) it would be nice to acknowledge the author(s).

Al Mukaddhima by ibn Haldhun al hadhramiy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What about creationists who accept evolution?

It appears that this can cover a sizable group of varying views, but those we have been talking about should have no problem.

 

[firedragon]

It appears that this can cover a sizable group of varying views, but those we have been talking about should have no problem.

I agree with that.

 

[shunyadragon]

New discovery concerning the mitochondrial division is consistent and conserved over time between species.

From: https://phys.org/news/2019-12-closer-evolution-mitochondrial-division-species.html

A step closer to understanding evolution: Mitochondrial division conserved across species
by Tokyo University of Science

Exciting new research describes how mitochondrial replication is similar in the simplest to most complex organisms, shedding light on its origin. Credit: Tokyo University of Science
Cellular origin is well explained by the "endosymbiotic theory," which famously states that higher organisms called "eukaryotes" have evolved from more primitive single-celled organisms called "prokaryotes." This theory also explains that mitochondria—energy-producing factories of the cell—are actually derived from prokaryotic bacteria, as part of a process called "endosymbiosis." Biologists believe that their common ancestry is why the structure of mitochondria is "conserved" in eukaryotes, meaning that it is very similar across different species—from the simplest to most complex organisms.

Now, it is known that as cells divide, so do mitochondria, but exactly how mitochondrial division takes place remains a mystery. Is it possible that mitochondria across different multicellular organisms—owing to their shared ancestry—divide in an identical manner? Considering that mitochondria are involved in some of the most crucial processes in the cell, including the maintenance of cellular metabolism, finding the answer to exactly how they replicate could spur further advancements in cell biology research.

In a new study published in Communications Biology, a group of scientists at Tokyo University of Science, led by Prof Sachihiro Matsunaga, wanted to find answers related to the origin of mitochondrial division. For their research, Prof Matsunaga and his team chose to study a type of red alga—the simplest form of a eukaryote, containing only one mitochondrion.

Specifically, they wanted to observe whether the machinery involved in mitochondrial replication is conserved across different species and, if so, why. Talking about the motivation for this study, Prof Matsunaga says, "Mitochondria are important to cellular processes, as they supply energy for vital activities. It is established that cell division is accompanied by mitochondrial division; however, many points regarding its molecular mechanism are unclear."

The scientists first focused on an enzyme called Aurora kinase, which is known to activate several proteins involved in cell division by "phosphorylating" them (a well-known process in which phosphate groups are added to proteins to regulate their functions). By using techniques such as immunoblotting and kinase assays, they showed that the Aurora kinase in red algae phosphorylates a protein called dynamin, which is involved in mitochondrial division.

Excited about these findings, Prof Matsunaga and his team wanted to take their research to the next level by identifying the exact sites where Aurora kinase phosphorylates dynamin, and using mass spectrometric experiments, they succeeded in identifying four such sites. Prof Matsunaga says, "When we looked for proteins phosphorylated by Aurora kinase, we were surprised to find dynamin, a protein that constricts mitochondria and promotes mitochondrial division."

Having gained a little more insight into how mitochondria divide in red algae, the scientists then wondered if the process could be similar in more evolved eukaryotes, such as humans. Prof Matsunaga and his team then used a human version of Aurora kinase to see if it phosphorylates human dynamin—and just as they predicted, it did. This led them to conclude that the process by which mitochondria replicate is very similar in different eukaryotic organisms.

Prof Matsunaga elaborates on the findings by saying, "Using biochemical in vitro assays, we showed that Aurora kinase phosphorylates dynamin in human cells. In other words, it was found that the mechanism by which Aurora kinase phosphorylates dynamin in the mitochondrion is preserved from primitive algae to humans."

Scientists have long pondered over the idea of mitochondrial division being conserved in eukaryotes. This study is the first to show not only the role of a new enzyme in mitochondrial replication but also that this process is similar in both algae and humans, hinting towards the fact that their common ancestry might have something to do with this.

Prof Matsunaga concludes by talking about the potential implications of this study: "Since the mitochondrial fission system found in primitive algae may be preserved in all living organisms including humans, the development of this method can make it easier to manipulate cellular activities of various organisms, as and when required."

As it turns out, we have much more in common with other species than we thought, and part of the evidence lies in our mitochondria!

 

[tas8831]

New discovery on the evolution of the beak in birds:

From: Scientists make new discovery about bird evolution | Stock Daily Dish

Scientists make new discovery about bird evolution

Imagine - scientists actually learning new things.
And creationists? Just the usual - defending the same old nonsense.