Evolution of humans

[Stranger]

So it's decrease in genetic information?

No. Evolution may increase or decrease information (and you also have to properly define what you mean by information - something creationists rarely even attempt). You really do need to understand that AiG is full of lies and/or astounding ignorance.

See Claim CB102.

[jeremyp]

Except evolution is not 'increase in genetic information' so not even that.

The sentence was plausibly true except for the very last bit.

[jeremyp]

So it's decrease in genetic information?

It can be either.

[Spud]

Woo, and we have a winner in a false dichotomy contest.  Misrepresenting evolution as answersingeneneis do doesn't mean the opposite is what it is.  So if I say  cheese is high tannins, and you say it isn't, it doesn't you are saying cheese is low tannins. It's irrelevant.

Yes I get that AIG tend to define evolution in terms of increase in complexity, microbes to man, but that it fundamentally means change over time.

[Stranger]

Yes I get that AIG tend to define evolution in terms of increase in complexity, microbes to man, but that it fundamentally means change over time.

So why do you go back to a site that lies to you? They are not only lying about how evolution is defined, they are also lying about variation and selection not being able to increase information or complexity.

[Spud]

So why do you go back to a site that lies to you? They are not only lying about how evolution is defined, they are also lying about variation and selection not being able to increase information or complexity.

Glad you used the word complexity.
In lactase persistence, genes are modified so that lactase persists through adulthood. This doesn't seem any more or less complex than if it didn't persist. Agreed, it may be beneficial, but is not adding any new processes or structures to the organism. So it can't be used to illustrate the theory that all life shares common ancestry.

[Stranger]

In lactase persistence, genes are modified so that lactase persists through adulthood. This doesn't seem any more or less complex than if it didn't persist. Agreed, it may be beneficial, but is not adding any new processes or structures to the organism. So it can't be used to illustrate the theory that all life shares common ancestry.

It illustrates one of the processes involved (the evidence as a whole is encyclopaedic) but that's not really the point. I was asking why you would refer to a site that lies. AiG lies about evolution being an increase in information and it lies when it says random variation and selection cannot increase information.

[Outrider]

So it's decrease in genetic information?

Sorry to be a pedant, but it's neither an increase or decrease in information, it's a change in the amount of data. It only becomes information when it's interpreted.

Simple patterns of data, when interpreted, can lead to inordinately complex expressions, and conversely very broad ranging datasets can be interpreted into tightly defined information bundles - that's the essence of statistics, after all.

O.

[Stranger]

Sorry to be a pedant, but it's neither an increase or decrease in information, it's a change in the amount of data.

If you really want to be pedantic, it might not even be that. It might just be a change in the data, not the amount of data.

[Outrider]

If you really want to be pedantic, it might not even be that. It might just be a change in the data, not the amount of data.

There is that instance, too, of course.

O.

[SusanDoris]

I wonder if Spud really, actually, deep down, thinks that God intervened in evolution somewhere and did a bit of gene manipulation or something. I wonder if he has really read anything that explains clearly the basics of our evolution. He could try 'The Ancestor's Tale' by Richard Dawkins, I suppos, but I doubt if even the clarity there would impress.

[SteveH]

For the record, answersingenesis says that lactose intolerance is 'normal' and that the mutations for lactase persistence are not an increase in genetic information but a decrease, and so are not 'evolution'.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

[Spud]

It illustrates one of the processes involved (the evidence as a whole is encyclopaedic) but that's not really the point. I was asking why you would refer to a site that lies. AiG lies about evolution being an increase in information and it lies when it says random variation and selection cannot increase information.

Which process involved in common descent does it illustrate?

[Stranger]

Which process involved in common descent does it illustrate?

Natural selection but, again, that wasn't the point. Why do you go back to a site that tells you lies?

[Spud]

Natural selection but, again, that wasn't the point. Why do you go back to a site that tells you lies?

So does natural selection create new structures or processes then, because lactase persistence sure doesn't.

[Stranger]

So does natural selection create new structures or processes then, because lactase persistence sure doesn't.

Random mutation and natural selection together do. See the link I gave before (Claim CB102). Mutation provides novelty (new information to work on) and natural selection filters out the harmful and amplifies the useful.

[SusanDoris]

I wish I could navigate quickly and efficiently through the Talk Origins web site!

Anyway, today the pages I have been reading deal with a 55 million years ago warming period which was followed by a period of gradually cooling taking about 200,000 years. During the warm period - can't remember how long this lasted - and the following coolling period, the grasses and animals humans domesticated evolved, fortunately for humans. Once the domestication had started, it moved quickly which enabled rapid population growth. It's all very fascinating.

Apparently Eurasia had six of the grass species which were the cereals, north America, and some other regions had 4 and others, had only 2, so Eurasia had a distinct advangtage. The animals we domesticated had various sorts of cloven hoofs.

Regarding the lactose tolerance/intolerance question, I wonder whether, since large changes in the biology of species can only really be observed and analysed maybe thousands of years after they have become thoroughly established, I wonder whether that particular mutation is still in the process of being selected for or not.


What would have happened to human evolution if these facts had not beenin place, godness  knows where we'd be!

[torridon]

The warming period referred to is known as the Paleocene/Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM for short, when a massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere over some tens of thousands of years raised global average temperatures by 5 to 8 degrees celsius, melting the ice caps and raising sea levels considerably.  This warming period is used as a case model in climate science for what happens if you inject a vast amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as currently we are emitting a similar amount, only over a couple of centuries rather than over 20,000 years or so. 

The proto-mammals liked the warmer conditions, it would seem, it resulted in a massive radiation of new mammal species across the globe; after 200 million years being predated and suppressed by the dinosaurs, the mammals were free and with all the ice gone, they had a whole new world of opportunities to explore and niches to adapt into. This massive mammalian radiation laid the ground work for the lineages that would eventually lead to us - primates, arboreal apes, genus homo, and then homo sapiens around 200,000 years back.

[SusanDoris]

Thank you, Torridon.  The most difficult thing I find is to try and visualise, say, 20,000 years and then to think of how many mutations would have to have taken place over how many  generations and places for new species to emerge.

The latest thing is about horses. I must look it up today, but apparently there were horses before the last Ice Age , but when humans crossed the Baring Strait landmass into the north American continent during the  IceAge, they caused the extinction of the species and horses then were absent from America until the Spanish arrived in the 15th century.

I think the bibliography at the end of the book is going to be very long and I'd need another two lifetimes to read them all!!

[Sriram]

https://www.ndtv.com/science/nesher-ramla-homo-new-type-of-early-human-found-in-israel-2471919?pfrom=home-ndtv_trendingtrending

[SusanDoris]

https://www.ndtv.com/science/nesher-ramla-homo-new-type-of-early-human-found-in-israel-2471919?pfrom=home-ndtv_trendingtrending

I think they are probably wrong about the Neanderthals evolving in europe. Just because they have found evidence of Neanderthals there, does not mean they evolved there. They more likely evolved in East Africa and then migrated out.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Dragon Man..... Perhaps closest ancestor...

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/dragon-man-scientists-say-new-human-species-is-our-closest-ancestor-2472621?pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll

[SusanDoris]

This is not directly associated with the book, but the article I am going to link to here could well have happened in similar fashion a billion or so years ago. I found it very interesting.

A friend was telling me about a programme she had listened to. It was about explosive cylindricrical craters in 'siberia. I googled it and the first link was to
this extremely interesting article.

Anybody know anything more about this, or studied it at all?

[Nearly Sane]

This is not directly associated with the book, but the article I am going to link to here could well have happened in similar fashion a billion or so years ago. I found it very interesting.

A friend was telling me about a programme she had listened to. It was about explosive cylindricrical craters in 'siberia. I googled it and the first link was to
this extremely interesting article.

Anybody know anything more about this, or studied it at all?

There is a section on it n this edition of the Travel.Show that I watched yesterday


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000ybmd/the-travel-show-30-tokyo-olympics

[SusanDoris]

There is a section on it n this edition of the Travel.Show that I watched yesterday


https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000ybmd/the-travel-show-30-tokyo-olympics

Sounds as if there are some interesting programmes to watch. Did the one you saw interview any of the people living in that area?  I wonder how much their daily lives use modern technology.