Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[6days]

There are numerous examples of useful mutations. Would you like to learn about some of them?

I didn't say otherwise... Strawman. What I said, and is in the example provided is that these 'beneficial' mutations are not shown on the graph. Reason they are not shown is that they are considered rare...one in several hundred thousand. Would you like to learn why geneticists don't consider "useful" mutations to be the answer to the problem of genetic load?

 

[Ktoyou]

The fossil record clearly shows gradual evolution of legs. But fish didn't climb up on land and grow legs. Legs on fish existed long before vertebrates were able to walk on land.

Are there any fossils that clearly show how humans adapted to cold climates? You do know the first people did not live in a cold place, right? How did they get used to so cold? If we were meant to live in a cold climate, why no fur. God made us to live in warm weather, but some darkness moved man into the north winterlands.

 

[Ktoyou]

The fossil record clearly shows gradual evolution of legs. But fish didn't climb up on land and grow legs. Legs on fish existed long before vertebrates were able to walk on land.

you learned that from a class or reading books. i read books on dinosaurs when i was six years old.

 

[gcthomas]

Didn't read past this, nor will I.

Good bye.

Excellent. You keep promising not to read or respond to my posts but you just can't resist usually. But since most of your posts either consist of name calling while moaning about name calling, or they are long winded avoidance of debating details, resorting to assertions and insults, your responses are pointless.

As I said before, I'd prefer that you didn't reply, since you are such an arrogant an ill informed windbag. Let my posts stand as quiet rebuttals for anyone silly enough to still be following this thread.

:wave:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The fossil record clearly shows gradual evolution of legs. But fish didn't climb up on land and grow legs. Legs on fish existed long before vertebrates were able to walk on land.

you learned that from a class or reading books.

These things were found long after I was out of grad school. But the data and findings are available in the original journals if anyone cares to look.

i read books on dinosaurs when i was six years old.

And I read journal articles on the transitions from fish to tetrapods in my 40s and 50s. Life goes on.

 

[The Barbarian]

Are there any fossils that clearly show how humans adapted to cold climates?

Yes, but when the climate warmed again, they died out. Genetic analysis shows that Neandertals are of our own species, but a different race than the one modern human race. As the climate got colder, we see a number of adaptations in Neandertal populations like longer noses, squatty, compact bodies, and the like, that make them more adapted to cold. Notice that these adapatations are also found in the Inuit and Aleut populations who also live in polar regions.

You do know the first people did not live in a cold place, right? How did they get used to so cold?

Gradually, if the fossil record is an indication. Early Neandertals looked more like us than later ones. Over time, they became more and more adapted to cold. Of course, humans seem to have very early on, worn clothes to keep warm.

Man started wearing clothes 170,000 years ago enabling him to successfully migrate out of Africa, according to a new study following the evolution of lice...'Because they are so well adapted to clothing, we know that body lice or clothing lice almost certainly didn't exist until clothing came about in humans.'

The study also shows humans started wearing clothes well after they lost body hair, which genetic skin-colouration research pinpoints at about one million years ago,.

Man therefore spent a considerable amount of time without body hair and without clothing, Dr Reed said.

'It's interesting to think humans were able to survive in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years without clothing and without body hair, and that it wasn't until they had clothing that modern humans were then moving out of Africa into other parts of the world.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-170-000-years-ago-according-study-LICE.html

If we were meant to live in a cold climate, why no fur.

If we were meant to take down mammoths, why no big teeth and claws? We had something much better. Sufficient intelligence to rig up ways to get around our physical limitations.

God made us to live in warm weather, but some darkness moved man into the north winterlands.

Until clothing was invented, we were pretty much confined to those warmer areas.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes, but when the climate warmed again, they died out. Genetic analysis shows that Neandertals are of our own species, but a different race than the one modern human race.

:rotfl:
That is hilarious. How many different ways do you have to deny the truth? Too many.

 

[The Barbarian]

What I said, and is in the example provided is that these 'beneficial' mutations are not shown on the graph.

That data was not included in your graph for a good reason. I bet, if you thought about it, you could figure out why.

Reason they are not shown is that they are considered rare...one in several hundred thousand.

Let's use your number. That means in a population of 100,000 individuals, each with about 125 mutations, there will be about 25 useful mutations per generation. Natural selection (as even creationists admit) tends to spread these through a population,and to remove the harmful ones.

So in 100 generations, (maybe 2,000 years) we have about 2,500 useful new alleles in a genome of about 24,000 total.

Before the completion of the human genome project, many scientists were expecting to find 100,000 or more genes in our genome. This was based on the assumption that because we are one of the most complex creatures on Earth we should have lots of genes. However, it turned out we only have around 24,000 genes.
http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/...ehumangenomeprojectfind/howmanygenesdoyouhave

One percent change in 2,000 years seems to be about right, given that we are only a few percent different than chimpanzees.

Would you like to learn why geneticists don't consider "useful" mutations to be the answer to the problem of genetic load?

Your comment suggests that you're a little unclear on what "genetic load" means. Just so we know, how about telling us the scientific definition, and explain how it's calculated?

And a question, since you offered to explain:
When the Black Plague hit Europe it killed millions of people. Then a mutation that provided immunity to the disease appeared, and quickly spread through the population. A large number of people of European descent still have it.

Here's the question:
When the allele first appeared, did it increase or decrease genetic load in the population? Show us your numbers. If you'd like to simplify it, assume that there was only one allele for that gene before the mutation.

Let us know what you got.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Genetic analysis shows that Neandertals are of our own species, but a different race than the one modern human race.

:rotfl:
That is hilarious. How many different ways do you have to deny the truth? Too many.

Modern humans and Neanderthals share 99.7% of their DNA[21] and are hence much more closely related than to their closest non-human relative, the chimpanzee (98.8%). Compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were stockier, with shorter legs and a bigger body. In conformance with Bergmann's rule, this likely was a Darwinian adaptation to preserve heat in cold climates. Male and female Neanderthals had cranial capacities averaging 1,600 cm3 (98 cu in) and 1,300 cm3 (79 cu in), respectively,[22][23] extending to 1,736 cm3 (105.9 cu in) in the male Amud 1.[24] This is notably larger than the 1,250 to 1,400 cm3 (76 to 85 cu in) typical of modern humans. Males stood 164 to 168 cm (65 to 66 in) and females 152 to 156 cm (60 to 61 in) tall.[25]

The Neanderthal genome project revealed in 2010 that, through interbreeding, Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of modern humans, likely between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago.[26][27][28][29] Today, this is apparent in the genome of most people living outside sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in some sub-Saharan Africans. Subsequent studies suggested there may have been three episodes of interbreeding. The first would have occurred soon after non-African modern humans left Africa. The second would have occurred after the ancestral Melanesians had branched off—these people seem to have thereafter bred with Denisovans. The third would have involved Neanderthals and the ancestors of East Asians only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

By the usual definition of species (population of interbreeding organisms) we are the same species, although a different race, compared to Neandertals. Humans and Neandertals interbred often enough to contribute maybe 2.5% of the genome of humans other than Africans (who seem to have never encountered Neandertals).

Surprise.

 

[Jose Fly]

Let my posts stand as quiet rebuttals for anyone silly enough to still be following this thread.

Well, count me among the "silly".

I read through the thread this weekend, and I have to say it's been quite entertaining. Clete starts it off with his "how did legs evolve" thing. Then Barbarian, as if he were approaching a timid baby deer, tiptoes up to Clete and tries to present him just a tiny little bit of the evidence for the evolutionary history of legs.....while constantly apologizing, hoping not to make any sudden movements that might threaten Clete and cause him to run away.

But it was for naught. Clete didn't even look at what Barbarian posted. All he could muster was "my eyes glazed over" and "I stopped reading"....basically the online equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "La, la, la, la....I can't hear you!!"

And then Clete finally gets to the end game. This was never about the evolutionary history of tetrapod legs at all! That was just a ruse! The real, real argument is something like "Look at these molecular 'legs'. Evolutionists haven't explained how they evolved, therefore not only is the entire evolutionary theory disproven, that populations even evolve is disproven!"

And finally the thread winds its way down as Clete descends into name-calling and bluster.

Quite the spectacle. I gotta give props to Barbarian for making such a valiant effort at trying to show scientific data to a creationist without scaring him away. It didn't work, but it was a really good try.

I think the funniest part of this whole thing is how Clete is ending the discussion by declaring himself victorious and patting himself on the back for a job well done. Kinda makes one wonder just how he thinks science works and how he things scientists go about their jobs. Apparently he thinks that in a scientific setting (e.g., a conference or workshop), saying "my eyes glazed over" and "I stopped reading" are valid responses to data.

As I said....very entertaining.

 

[Right Divider]

Barbarian observes:
Genetic analysis shows that Neandertals are of our own species, but a different race than the one modern human race.

Modern humans and Neanderthals share 99.7% of their DNA[21] and are hence much more closely related than to their closest non-human relative, the chimpanzee (98.8%). Compared to modern humans, Neanderthals were stockier, with shorter legs and a bigger body. In conformance with Bergmann's rule, this likely was a Darwinian adaptation to preserve heat in cold climates. Male and female Neanderthals had cranial capacities averaging 1,600 cm3 (98 cu in) and 1,300 cm3 (79 cu in), respectively,[22][23] extending to 1,736 cm3 (105.9 cu in) in the male Amud 1.[24] This is notably larger than the 1,250 to 1,400 cm3 (76 to 85 cu in) typical of modern humans. Males stood 164 to 168 cm (65 to 66 in) and females 152 to 156 cm (60 to 61 in) tall.[25]

The Neanderthal genome project revealed in 2010 that, through interbreeding, Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of modern humans, likely between 50,000 and 60,000 years ago.[26][27][28][29] Today, this is apparent in the genome of most people living outside sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in some sub-Saharan Africans. Subsequent studies suggested there may have been three episodes of interbreeding. The first would have occurred soon after non-African modern humans left Africa. The second would have occurred after the ancestral Melanesians had branched off—these people seem to have thereafter bred with Denisovans. The third would have involved Neanderthals and the ancestors of East Asians only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

By the usual definition of species (population of interbreeding organisms) we are the same species, although a different race, compared to Neandertals. Humans and Neandertals interbred often enough to contribute maybe 2.5% of the genome of humans other than Africans (who seem to have never encountered Neandertals).

Surprise.

Define your TERMS. What is a RACE?

The Bible says that there is ONE RACE.... the human race.

Acts 17:26 (AKJV/PCE)​

(17:26) And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

​

Mark 10:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
​

Just keep believing your "science", though actual science it is not.

 

[The Barbarian]

Define your TERMS. What is a RACE?

It's another name for "subspecies." Note that some scientists think that Neandertals are a different species. It's debatable, but the clincher for me is that they and anatomically modern humans could interbreed.

The Bible says that there is ONE RACE.... the human race.

There is, and there was when the Bible was written.

 

[The Barbarian]

Quite the spectacle. I gotta give props to Barbarian for making such a valiant effort at trying to show scientific data to a creationist without scaring him away. It didn't work, but it was a really good try.

I was merely trying really hard to put myself in a YE creationist's place. I was not trying to trick Clete into listening to me. I assumed he was making a good faith effort to do so, and I don't see that he wasn't.

That we failed to find any common ground is unfortunate, but not necessarily a sign that he was dishonest.

 

[Right Divider]

It's another name for "subspecies." Note that some scientists think that Neandertals are a different species. It's debatable, but the clincher for me is that they and anatomically modern humans could interbreed.

So your "species" cannot interbreed?

You're a hoot with your "terminology".

There is, and there was when the Bible was written.

How so?

Did you just completely ignore this one?

Mark 10:6 (AKJV/PCE)​

(10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. ​

​

 

[Jose Fly]

I was merely trying really hard to put myself in a YE creationist's place. I was not trying to trick Clete into listening to me. I assumed he was making a good faith effort to do so, and I don't see that he wasn't.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that your approach was to avoid just showing Clete the data outright, challenging him to address it, and calling him out when he didn't. It also seemed to me that your reason for avoiding that approach was you knew that it would only generate a reflexive fight-or-flight reaction from Clete. So you went with the light-touch approach.

Like I said, it was a good try. Even though he didn't look at any of the data you presented, at least he replied to your posts. That's one step up from him simply calling you names and putting you on ignore.

That we failed to find any common ground is unfortunate, but not necessarily a sign that he was dishonest.

True. Clete's dishonesty is instead evidenced by his requests for people to look up and post explanations of data that he knew he was never going to look at in the first place.

 

[Clete]

Right, so effectively you're arguing this from a "creationist" perspective then. That being that the earth was created in six literal twenty four hour days as we know them now. So, inevitably you will dismiss anything that contradicts your faith in a literal reading of the creation account, science or otherwise, correct? However, what you must surely acknowledge is that theological thought on the original texts allow plenty of room for allegory and poetical narrative where it comes to Genesis. You might not agree with it but plenty of Christians find no cognitive dissonance with an old earth/evolution and belief as evidenced on here. I'm not 'wanting' people to question the existence of God whatsoever here in light of that.



Sure, but if someone posts something that gives pause for thought then great.



Well, that's up to you of course.



My point there was in regards to evolution, not electric universe theory.



Well, that's taken from a conservative Christian website so there's already a bias in play no? Look, if you start off with a concrete notion that the age of the earth and the universe has to be no older than 'X' amount of years then it's inevitable that any theory that doesn't comply with that belief has to be discarded yes? However, that's not how science works and given that scientific theory is constantly under test, review, due process etc it's not like evolution could hold up if it were in fact a load of absolute bunk.



Sure, I won't deny it but science has a habit of rooting out erroneous theories that don't pass muster due to continual peer review process.



Well, no, I'm not and who are you to say that global scientific consensus is 'wrong' when you're effectively arguing from a position of religious faith, a particular one that renders a reading of creation as uncompromisingly literal? That's your entrenchment right there. From a logical, objective and rational perspective it makes far more sense to acknowledge that the reason evolution is accepted as fact across the board is because of the evidence. Otherwise, what? There's some sort of conspiracy going on to hide the real age of the universe etc?



Yes, and there's plenty others that make similar claims or that there's proof that boogeymen live under the Vatican etc. It's just not evidence. If there were irrefutable proof that evolution was bunk it would be uncovered as that's how the process works. Look, even if there were those that were desperate to keep to such a theory the peer review process would root it out as it's ongoing and subject to ongoing testing across the board. You'd have to be one heck of a conspiracy theorist to think that could happen.



You have your own paradigm Clete and you won't entertain anything that contradicts it yourself, no matter how much evidence is presented. You have a belief that precludes anything that possibly could. See how this works both ways?



How do you suppose the theory came into being in the first place? Because of the evidence. That's how science works. From a 'creationist' perspective you have your own paradigm that's pretty much set in stone and works the opposite of science.



Um, yeah, you kinda have...you've pretty much declared evolution is impossible.



Then neither do you.



Well, yes they did, Barbarian for one but no matter what you were presented with you'd have dismissed it anyway. Look, if evolution could be proven to be false then I'd welcome it from an objective perspective but so far all you really have is an objection to it based on your literal reading of the creation account.



Sure, and if there's falsity it gets dumped or amended accordingly.



Well, no to the former and yes to the latter. That is the scientific community.



Which is where peer review process comes in and across the board. 'Dr Egghead' from Siberia may be personally convinced he's found a cure for measles in vegemite. Unless he has verifiable findings and tests that corroborate that theory then Dr Egghead's passions, beliefs etc mean precisely bugger all.



No, it isn't and as above.



Which again, is where peer review process comes in. I think you seriously underestimate just how stringent that is.



Sure you have, in the above no less.



Well, no it isn't. That's just assertion on your part and one I'll wager you can't substantiate outside of subjective opinion. Else define "logic".



'FTR' stands for 'for the record'. That you assume people to be atheists for accepting evolution is not entirely unexpected but it's rather assumptive given how many Christians have no issue with it.



The power indeed, your own is staring right back at you.



You should if you're going to call theirs into question.



Oh, I don't, I recognize it in those who's parameters won't allow them to see such in themselves even...



Well, if it were merely an argument appealing to popularity then you'd be correct, but it isn't. An understanding of how scientific review process works ironically precludes it.

Still, a civil conversation (I hope)

:e4e:

Author,

I have not made any theological or otherwise religiously based arguments. The fact that I happen to be a Christian does not alter the veracity of the arguments I've made one way or the other. If my arguments are in error then refute them on that basis. My worldview is irrelevant because the arguments are not predicated on nor, as best I can tell, are they influenced by the fact that I am a Christian. If you think that my Christianity has altered the veracity of my arguments then make that argument but just pointing out the fact that I'm a Christian doesn't do anything by itself to refute any argument I've made.

Clete

 

[Clete]

I read some of this when first posted. Sort of a trick question.

What God created with legs, has legs.

All the speculation about fish climbing up on land and the growing legs is a lot of hooey!

It is all a rebellious alternative explanation to exclude God. Stupid really.

Oh, I agree entirely! Totally delusion nonsense.

That's why you don't typically see me on evolution threads. I really have a hard time taking any of it seriously enough to spend the time to debate it.


Clete

 

[SUTG]

They are the spindle diagrams or phylogenetic trees. How I love them so because they show ghost lineages joining actual fossil finds. the ghost lineages are all speculation which folks hope, in time, fossils will be found to confirm this speculated ghost lineage. Ghost lineages are missing links.

The trouble for evolutionists is that the rate of finding new fossils falls off and can be accurately determined statistically. For instance they are still finding significant numbers of new dinosaur fossils, but very few and insignificant catarrhine primates (Old World monkeys and apes) fossils. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025669/

I don't know why you think this is "trouble for evolutionists". There could be far fewer fossils and evolutionists (scientists) would still not be in any type of trouble. The trouble is on the side of the Young Earth Creationists to explain why the fossil record looks the way it does.

I suspect the fossil record is nearly complete, and that the ghost lineages are there due to God creating new species through geological time.

What an odd position to take (you alluded to this earlier).

 

[Clete]

Undoutably we will continue to marvel as new layers of sophistication is discovered in the genome.


The rate may be higher than 150 But I get your point. However, the only way you can determine if there was absolutely zero effect, was to know that the nucleotide effected was totally useless... and even then it still might cause harm. Geneticists graph mutation rates in humans and the graphs usually show most of the mutations piling up at near neutral... none that are totally neutral, (and in the zone where selection can't detect them) and none on the beneficial side. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16592684/

:up:

No...Theoretically You would never reach 0% fitness, but in any case... Genetist J.F.Crow in PNAS article linked above says "The decrease in viability from mutation accumulaion is some 1-2% per generation"

I was laying in bed last night when my error here struck me.
Dropping 1% a year would approach zero but never get there because the previous year's level is the new 100% that you're deducting the 1% from. It would have a half life of about 69-70 years. If my math is right, the fitness percentage would drop below 2% after 400 generations or so. That's 10,000 years given an average 25 years between generations.

That's a lot longer than 2500 years! :doh:

I still think that the 1% number is way too big though because even after only 250 generations (slightly more than 6000 years) human fitness will have dropped below 9% of whatever the original level was. That is, of course, assuming that it has always been 1%. Perhaps the decline is accelerating and was much much slower at the beginning than it is now.


Clete

 

[Arthur Brain]

Author,

I have not made any theological or otherwise religiously based arguments. The fact that I happen to be a Christian does not alter the veracity of the arguments I've made one way or the other. If my arguments are in error then refute them on that basis. My worldview is irrelevant because the arguments are not predicated on nor, as best I can tell, are they influenced by the fact that I am a Christian. If you think that my Christianity has altered the veracity of my arguments then make that argument but just pointing out the fact that I'm a Christian doesn't do anything by itself to refute any argument I've made.

Clete

Well, it actually has and as regards your comments about bias or being entrenched in a position one way or the other then to be fair, and by your own standards, it had to. Your words:

"The secret is to have dug your trench honestly and to have provided a means for escape from the hole you've dug if error is detected. There is one and only one single way to accomplish that. Sound reason! Unfortunately for you, logic is intellectual ground that atheists haven't earned and cannot use without borrowing from the Christian worldview. That alone disproves evolution but I almost never make or use that argument because it implies that I really ought not even be having the conversation in the first place because to do so implies your right to use the logic that rightly only belongs to my side of the argument.".