|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
The Undeniable Science of Biology
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 I don’t think open-minded questioning is sacred and holy; I think it’s the way science is supposed to operate. <<It’s dedication and faith in the scientific method. The opposite of dogmatic thought.>> I don’t think the theory of evolution - at least its central claim, that one species turned into another species by random mutations and natural selection - follows the Scientific Method of observation, hypothesis, replicable experiment and confirmation or refutation of the hypothesis. And I acknowledge it doesn’t follow the Scientific Method because it can’t - the time required for one species to turn into another species is too long. <<<“Why do you think 1,000+ scientists formed an organization (dissentfromdarwin.org) saying there is scientific dissent from Darwinism that deserves to be heard and that careful examination of the evidence fo”>>> <<1000+ out of millions. Don’t you realize that thus letter is a cry in the woods from a tiny, lost minority of scientists?!?! It’s as if I pointed to 2000 Christians who believe Christ was a mushroom! You’d be wise to discount them as fringe dwellers. Like the <1% of scientists who seriously doubt evolution.>> But these scientists are saying scientific dissent from Darwinism exists (which it does) and deserves to be heard and that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. They’re advocating for science, the examination, not the refutation, of Darwinian theory. |
|||||||||||||
|
Andrew And so it has!!! In spades! And Darwin, to the greatest degree, has been the best explanation that fits the evidence in multiple sciences over almost two centuries. “They’re advocating for science, the examination, not the refutation, of Darwinian theory.” Yes! That’s exactly what science is about. Proving things wrong. When it can’t be done, you’re on to something. |
|||||||||||||
|
<<And so it has!!! In spades! And Darwin, to the greatest degree, has been the best explanation that fits the evidence in multiple sciences over almost two centuries.>> The 1,000+ scientists who signed the statement on dissentfromdarwin.org - and more scientists who haven’t - disagree that dissent from Darwinian theory has been heard and that careful examination of the evidence has happened. It should have but hasn’t. You’re not a scientist and neither am I. The people expressing their opinion that scientific dissent from Darwinism has not been adequately heard and that it hasn’t been closely examined are scientists. Are there scientists who think dissent’s been heard and careful examination of the theory has happened? Sure. And I’m sure they’re firmly and inextricably in the evolutionist camp. <<<“They’re advocating for science, the examination, not the refutation, of Darwinian theory.”>>> <<Yes! That’s exactly what science is about.>> Agree. <<Proving things wrong. When it can’t be done, you’re on to something.>> When evidence emerges that appears to contradict the theory of evolution, such as the Cambrian explosion and complexity of DNA and cells, “scientists” search for an evolutionary explanation for the seemingly contradictory evidence. The theory itself is never questioned and never doubted. The theory is presumed to be true and contradictory evidence must be evaluated on that basis and with that assumption. That’s not science. Not by a long shot. But I’m not going to further debate this point with you only to have you claim I’m “managing to avoid” discussing Archaeopteryx. There are only so many hours in a day I can devote to discussions on here. |
|||||||||||||
|
Andrew |
|||||||||||||
|
I don’t feel comfortable letting go unchallenged statements you’re making about me and what I believe - or statements Bob and others are making about what I believe. Just don’t direct posts at me outside of that thread dedicated to only the two of us. Or don’t claim I’m avoiding talking about Archaeopteryx because I haven’t gotten to it in 24 hours. Thanks. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 9:45, 11:16 and Zorro 11:27 [Christianity is defined by a foundational text, the New Testament, not by the behavior of fallible men.] Agreed! But exactly what does the New Testament teach? That is where all interpretations of it are the work of 'fallible men'. The Bible has been interpreted many ways through the centuries. You would be amazed at some of Origen's interpretations. For example, he read Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is presented as saying "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven". So he castrated himself. But he still had an open mind; in his commentary towards the end of his life he said only a fool would take that literally. His Christology also is directly contradicted by the later Chalcedonian Definition, so he would be considered 'heretical' today. Yet Origen is one of the most influential of early church writers. Then try Aquinas. You might object to him because his writings are the basis of formal Latin Rite doctrine (i.e., 'Catholics'), but he was the most highly considered theologian in all Christendom for centuries, and still holds that position today in the 'Catholic' Church. So having a foundational text does not guarantee that all doctrines drawn from it by 'fallible men' are indisputable. The book itself is meaningless until a fallible human reads it. This is why the Historical-Critical method of Biblical study is the consensus approach to theology today. (At least, it is outside the southern states of the United States). This aims to determine what the writer meant when writing, not what a modern reader understands when reading. [<<And any scientist knowingly falsifying results isn’t a scientist because the holy spirit of honest inquisition where ever it leads is absent.>> If you’re going to engage in this kind of mockery, don’t expect me to participate in conversations with you.] That is not mockery, Vic. It is using your own argument in his favour, and thereby showing that the argument is hollow. If you are going to forbid fraudulent Christians from being considered in Zorro's 'evidence', then applying that same criterion allows fraudulent scientists from being excluded from your evidence. Zorro I realise that you are sometimes using words for dramatic effect, and other times deliberately drawing parallels. That's understandable. But words like 'holy' can be offensive to some ears if used out of proper context. And words like 'inquisition' instead of the equivalent 'enquiry' also tend to poison the well. I know that I am guilty of this same fault; but I know it is not helpful. |
|||||||||||||
|
You would be amazed at some of Origen's interpretations. For example, he read Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is presented as saying "there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven". So he castrated himself. But he still had an open mind; in his commentary towards the end of his life he said only a fool would take that literally. His Christology also is directly contradicted by the later Chalcedonian Definition, so he would be considered 'heretical' today. Yet Origen is one of the most influential of early church writers. Then try Aquinas. You might object to him because his writings are the basis of formal Latin Rite doctrine (i.e., 'Catholics'), but he was the most highly considered theologian in all Christendom for centuries, and still holds that position today in the 'Catholic' Church. So having a foundational text does not guarantee that all doctrines drawn from it by 'fallible men' are indisputable. The book itself is meaningless until a fallible human reads it. This is why the Historical-Critical method of Biblical study is the consensus approach to theology today. (At least, it is outside the southern states of the United States). This aims to determine what the writer meant when writing, not what a modern reader understands when reading.>> I think the Holy Bible and the passages and even verses within it mean different things to different people based on their circumstances and where they are in their walk with Christ. I don’t agree with the idea that one interpretation is best or valid for everyone in s one size fits all way. I think the best way to read and understand verses and passages in the Bible is by asking God’s Holy Spirit beforehand to open your spiritual eyes and lead you in understanding what you are reading. Surely a wealthy and successful businessman, a rebellious teenager, and an elderly man who is an invalid and near the point of death are in need of different balms from God’s Word. I’ve heard more than a few Christians say they read a verse or passage from Scripture at one point in their life only to read the same verse or passage years later and have it mean something completely different to them. <<That is not mockery, Vic.>> It absolutely is mockery, though I suppose mockery, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. But if you believe in the Trinity and that the Holy Ghost is God, then zorroloco claiming there is a holy spirit of open inquisition (or whatever he said) is absolutely mockery. But I don’t know what you believe, Bob. <<It is using your own argument in his favour, and thereby showing that the argument is hollow. If you are going to forbid fraudulent Christians from being considered in Zorro's 'evidence', then applying that same criterion allows fraudulent scientists from being excluded from your evidence.>> My issue is that the theory of evolution is not legitimate science in that its central claim was never proven by the Scientific Method. And scientists who are dogmatic on the theory, who, when contradictory evidence emerges, question the evidence and not the theory, who assume the theory is true no matter what and that contradictory evidence must somehow be incorporated into it, are, in my book, not legitimate scientists - at least not when it comes to that theory. |
|||||||||||||
|
“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12) Other translations indeed use the word “living” or “alive” in that verse. For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. New Living Translation For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. English Standard Version For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Berean Standard Bible For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it pierces even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Berean Literal Bible For the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, penetrating even as far as the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrows, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 17:30 I think we are talking about slightly different things here. I hold to a three-step approach. The first step is to understand, as well as we can, the original meaning in the mind of the writer. That means understanding the context. That's not just the rest of the book, but his mental world. What was his culture, his personal experience, the needs of the people his writing was intended to serve, the other writings or cultural memes that would interact with the writings, etc. I know we can't do that perfectly, our understanding will be imperfect. But I want to get as close as I can. Then, when I have some idea of what it meant to the original writer, I seek out the fundamental principles that are being taught through that specific example. This often involves comparison or contrast with other passages. When that work is done, I ask "How would those principles apply in my context?" Let's take a very brief example from Leviticus 23:22 = "Furthermore, when you harvest the produce of your land, you are not to harvest all the way to the corners of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and resident alien. I am the Lord your God.” Dos this mean that I shouldn't mow to the corners of my lawn, or rake up the grass clippings the mower doesn't collect in the catcher? Let's adopt my approach.. Step One - context 1. In those times, as today, everyone wanted to get the most productive benefit from their land. Ancient agriculture was not a high-yield business, and virtually everyone went back over a harvested field and gathered any scattered stalks. Every grain could mean the difference between hunger or plenty. 2. The landless, poor, orphans and widows were very vulnerable in ANE society. Most were day-laborers when they could get work, beggars or prostitutes when they couldn't. 3. Gleaning was hard work. It was a much less profitable use of time than the first-through harvest. But it could provide enough for survival. Step Two - principles Be content with ample! Don't strive for excess! And don't worry about whether or not you will have enough; for "I am YHWH your God", and your trust should be in ME, not your own labour. This consideration is specially important if your demand for excess is at the expense of the poor and vulnerable who face starvation. But nor should you provide for them by gathering all the gleanings and then handing them out. Doing that is a way of making them dependent upon your whim, and of making yourself appear generous. It is a way of exercising control over others, rather than them making their own choices and maintaining their own independence. You should allow everyone the scope to support themselves by their own labour, gathering what YHWH has provided for them. They, like the landowner, are to depend on YHWH, and not the landowner. If the landowner wants to be more generous, then nothing prevents him! (read Job 31: 16 - 22) But it must not be the sole hope for the vulnerable. Step Three - application Those who have power and influence in society should ensure that everyone can live with a modicum of dignity and self-esteem. Nobody should be dependent upon the arbitrary whim of others for their survival. This means that there should be a public policy that allows all who are able to work to actually work. There should NOT be a public policy that 'recognises' (i.e., ensures) that a pool of unemployed is required to control inflation, wages, macro-economic stability, etc. This obligation to provide full employment need not be overly generous; it should indeed be only a 'safety net' or 'employment of last resort'. But it must be enough and provided in such a way as to maintain their basic human dignity, self-respect and future options. And of course, personal generosity above and beyond public policy is not prohibited! So I agree with you that the 'application' part will "mean different things to different people based on their circumstances". Of course different specific applications will be appropriate in different circumstances. I certainly agree with you on that point. But these different applications should be rooted in what the writer meant, not in how some modern reader likes to interpret the text to suit his own preferences. Otherwise, Scripture can be used to 'support' ideas and practices completely opposite to the original intent. As I have said in other posts, the aim is to let Scripture set its agenda, and the reader to follow it; not for the reader to take his agenda to Scripture and impose it. |
|||||||||||||
|
@Bob Let me ask you a question, and this is not at all meant as a “Gotcha” type of question or anything like that. I’m just trying to better understand your thoughts and beliefs regarding the Bible. Do you believe the Bible was written under the inspiration of God’s Holy Spirit? That is, obviously men did the physical and actual writing, but do you believe they did so under the guidance, inspiration and even control of God’s Holy Spirit? My understanding is the Holy Spirit was not a permanent possession of man in the Old Testament - but I believe He did at times dwell within man. One of King David’s requests in Psalm 51 when he’s lamenting his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and his arranging the death of Bathsheba’s husband was for God not to take His Holy Spirit from him. “Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.” (Psalm 51:11) I think the Holy Spirit permanently indwelt Jesus Christ’s disciples (later apostles) in the New Testament so I believe the authors of the New Testament absolutely had God’s Holy Spirit. I believe all sincere Christians have God’s Holy Spirit as well. So I guess my questions are, Do you think God’s Holy Spirit had any role in the writing of the Holy Bible and do you think the Holy Spirit has a role in a Christian reading the Holy Bible? |
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 14-Sep-22, 20:35 |
Vic Do you - first of all - realise that accusing the scientists behind evolution theory of not following the scientific method is not only very serious but also deeply insulting? I thought we had at least implicitly agreed not to go back to those earlier times in these clubs. I also think you should realise that, as far as I know, you are not qualified to make such a statement. Of course, you have the (1A ) right to make it anyway, but I hope you see what I mean and that you'd stop this way of reasoning - at least if you'd like to keep me in the discussion. Back to the issue. It seems to me that you have not (at least not sufficiently) 'listened' to the comments already made in these threads about the nature of the process where 'one species turns into another'. I have myself dwelled extensively on that already, but it has 'gone to deaf ears' (as we say in Swedish). Having said that, how do you think one can continue a discussion when there is no response to comments from the oter 'side'? |
|||||||||||||
|
Vic 18:49 The short answer is 'yes'. Or should I say "YES!" The long answer needs discussion about what 'inspiration' means. Several different concepts are common, depending on who uses the word. I list some of the more common ideas below. Sometimes more than one meaning can be applied simultaneously to the same text. 1. 'Literal Inspiration'. This is that God inspires every letter of what is written. It still leaves open what 'inspired' means and how that inspiration occurs. 2. one which I call 'Divine Dictation', in which the writer effectively transcribes what he hears or sees in a vision. This is the form of Inspiration as understood in Islam, and the reason why the Quran can't legitimately be translated out of classical Arabic. That would mean substituting God's words for what some fallible human thinks they mean. An English version of the Quran is not strictly a 'translation', but an 'interpretation'. 3. Essential Inspiration. This holds that the ideas are imparted divinely, and the human writer expresses the 'essence' in his own words. This is what most Evangelicals really mean when they talk about 'literal inspiration'; otherwise they would not accept an English translation, because it changes the letters from what the writer originally wrote. 4. one which I call 'life experience Inspiration'. This is that God has so ordered and controlled the life experiences and thoughts of the writer so that he spontaneously writes as God would have him write. This is a very 'Calvinist' understanding of how God controls all aspects of life. Whether what is written is 'literal inspiration' or 'essential inspiration' is still an open question. My personal opinion is that different parts of the Bible have been inspired in different ways. For example, parts of Ezekiel and the Apocalypse seem to have been written during or immediately after an ecstatic experience, and would therefore be almost 'divine dictation'. Some of the Old Testament prophets also hint at this, such as Isaiah chapter 6. But I think most of the Bible fits more reasonably into either 'essential inspiration' of 'life experience inspiration'. <Do you think God’s Holy Spirit had any role in the writing of the Holy Bible> Yes, as outlined above. <do you think the Holy Spirit has a role in a Christian reading the Holy Bible?> Yes, but that does not guarantee the reader's understanding will be correct or appropriate. Often categories broadly similar to the different ideas of 'inspiration' come into play. Some understandings come in a flash, others come only if the reader has consciously lived a life that lends itself to being receptive. I'm sorry that these are not simple answers, but real life and mature faith are never simple. |
|||||||||||||
|
Anpmerican and German paleontologists always viewed Piltdown with suspicion. Only English paleontologists bought into the hoax, wanting an early ancestor from their own island. As the evidence agaisnst Piltsown grew, it became increasingly obvious a closer examination was necessary. Honest scientists discovered it was a fraud. <<They represent neither science nor scientists.>> <Totally agree. Science is an honorable and legitimate field of study, but far too many in that field don’t have the characteristics of true scientists. And this is seen when it comes to the theory of evolution.> Most scientists in biology are decent, honest folks. The charlatans are primarily the ones signing things like dissentfromdarwin. It is possible we simply don't see eye to eye on this, but I'd wager a good many of those "scientists" have no degree in biology and conduct no research in their field. Last time I checked many so-called "scientists" were nothing more than computer programmers, medical device salesmen, and the like. |
|||||||||||||
|
Raul Leguizamon, Pathologist This is from the dissentfromdarwin front page. You would think they could find a better spokesperson--someone with better credentials. This is like having Trump hawk hydroxychloroquine. It reeks of fraud. Michael Egnor, professor of pediatrics. Color me impressed. How many times does Rebbecca Keller's signature count? |
|||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 14-Sep-22, 23:29 |
L_S This may be true, but we must not ignore that there are also examples of fraud among formally highly educated scientists. The background of those cases is often very sad (for example a 'demand' by the boss to 'produce the right result' otherwise risking to lose the job). The only good thing is that science has an automatic or inbuilt mechanism of finding out the truth, which usually happens sooner rather than later, especially if the issue is of great importance. |
|||||||||||||
|
Philip Skell |
|||||||||||||
|
Transitional Fossils and Triangulation Proof is for mathematics, and distilled spirits. <<However, the second part of what you wrote seems to leave out, or consider not valid, the simple position of, “We don’t know.” If there are two competing thoughts or ideas to explain a phenomena, and one idea has very little evidence and the other even less, I don’t think the idea with very little evidence should be considered a theory simply because it’s a better explanation than the second idea. I think the only response to the phenomena should be, “We don’t know” and to wait for someone to propose a more credible idea.>> A theory in science is an explanation that has been successfully tested. Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity have passed every test we have conceived so far. Somhas Darwin’s theory of evolution. Andrew harps on the fossil record, but if that record did not exist, the theory of evolution would be hardly any different. The reason is that all life shares common DNA. We can take any two species on Earth, and triangulate backwards in time towards their common ancestor. The fact we frequently find fossils of organisms dating back the angle apex only speaks to the correctness of the theory. Before we could genetically type organisms there was much more guesswork in identifying relationships between species. We were sometimes wrong, just basing estimates off anatomical similarities, which ignores convergent evolution. Now that we can compare gene maps the pathways are much clearer. << <<3. 'Transitional' fossils is a term that seems to change meaning every time it is raised.>> >> <<And that’s very unfortunate. What do you suppose the reason is that the definition of a transitional fossil changes so often?>> <<<<We have a very large number of fossils that are described as 'transitional', but as soon as they are studied, someone demands a 'transitional' fossil either side, and then more either side of them, as though a continuous record needs to be made available.>>>> <<That’s why it’s crucial to have a definition of transitional fossil that is agreed upon by both evolutionists and creationists (or at least scientists who are skeptics of Darwin’s theory) and stick to it.>> Why should antiscience creationists get any say? If there are members of the plumbers union critical of evolutionary biology, why give them a say? Biologists get to determine the definitions they use, not philosophers, theologians, or vacuum salesmen. |
|||||||||||||
|
Shiva 16:45 There are a few good reasons for that. 1. Because Andrew doesn't understand what he is talking about, other than the Anti-evolution for Dummies"-style publications and websites he knows. These are mostly written by people with not much more understanding than he has himself, but are the same memes being passed around an endless loop. Most of them were put on the sushi train fifty years or more ago, when fossils were more prominent and DNA techniques were barely getting started. 2. Everyone knows what a fossil is! Actually, everybody THINKS he knows what a fossil is, but most of them know of only the more famous or more photogenic ones. They think it's 'normal' for whole animals to be fossilised, but only a miniscule fraction of a miniscule fraction meet this fate. And only a tiny fraction of them have been discovered. I was once challenged by a Young Earther with the question "If life has been around for millions of years, then why isn't the whole planet covered in bones?" Most also have no idea of the science that goes into analysing a fossil. If they are observant they might notice a bump on a bone, and pass over it. That have no sense that this indicates muscle attachment point, from which a substantial amount of anatomical knowledge can be gained. "What? From that bump?" 3. Using DNA is "not fair" because Darwin didn't know about it! They sometimes insist that if it wasn't in 'Origin of Species' (a book very few of them have read), then it can't be used in evidence. This is primarily because they don't know how Science works. They seem to think it is someone having a guess, and he is either right or wrong. In this regard, an education is a BAD thing in their eyes, because all it teaches you is "what other people think". Real advances in Science come from those who show that 'what other people think' is wrong. This gives their ignorance a head start! They don't even have a good enough grasp of Science to realise that you have to understand the shortcomings in the current theory PROPERLY (not some half-witted website!) to see a solution. |
|||||||||||||
|
Andrew vs. Darwin Kind of like, “we cannot use LED light because Edison only invented incandescent bulbs.” |
|||||||||||||
|
Shiva 12:00 & 16:45 A bit like saying that we now know that the planets move in ellipses, not circles, so Copernicus' theory about the Sun being in the centre of the Solar System has been 'proved wrong'. I once challenged him on this, saying that I had no interest in defending "Darwin's Theory" as though it was absolute truth. What can he say that 'disproves' the current understanding? His response to that was a bit garbled, but it implied that if the original theory is wrong, then later adjustments are working from a false base and can't be true either. Thus he shows that he has no idea about how Science works or what it is. I'm unaware of ANY scientific theory that has ever sprung fully-formed, complete and without gaps on a first attempt. But back to your 8-Aug 16:45 post... You quote Andrew(?) as saying "If there are two competing thoughts or ideas to explain a phenomena, and one idea has very little evidence and the other even less, I don’t think the idea with very little evidence should be considered a theory simply because it’s a better explanation than the second idea." I totally agree! The problem is that this statement assumes that Evolution 'has very little evidence'. This dismissal of inconvenient evidence is one of the earmarks of pseudo-science, pseudo-politics, virtually any belief based more on confirmation bias than on data. |
|||||||||||||
|
Fully Formed Theory General relativity also emerged fully formed, though it is possible it may get modified as we try to incorporate it into a GUT or TOE. That may come sooner than previously thought if we are successful in detecting the incredibly elusive graviton, and we may uncover tricks to facilitate its detection. DE/DM may also impact GR, though just how that might be remains unknown. So far GR has held up really well, and we have not tweaked it. QM has undergone substantial modification over time, as has atomic theory. Lots of revisions, I believe even more than have occurred in plate tectonics or evolutionary biology. But yeah, relativity could be the sole exception proving your general rule, unless you can shed light on mods or extensions to either theory—neither of which netted Einstein a Nobel, curiously. |
|||||||||||||
|
Evidence for Evolution Darwin published multiple volumes of work on evolution, becoming its earliest most prolific author. I think Ernst Mayr eclipsed him, publishing papers and books over a career spanning six plus decades. I just started reading Dawkin’s The Ancestor’s Tale,” which talks about genetic triangulation to convergence points. Completely absent any fossil confirmation whatsoever, a modern theory of evolution would bear remarkable resemblance to Darwin’s original proposal, and would be essentially no different from what we currently have. Genetics irrefutably reveals ancestral relationships. But what is most telling is that we can pick two species at random and triangulate their point of divergence. Then we search strata of that geologic epoch and, lo and behold, we find a fossil matching the proposed description of the common ancestor. So the very thing Andrew demanded, satisfied predictions, has occurred multiple times. Sometimes the specimen is found in museum collections instead of out in the field, but Tiktaalik is one example of a proposed specimen found in specific strata absolutely matching required details. A great example, but there are plenty of others. Archaeopteryx is one. Absolutely a bird, but with so many “reptilian” features some fossils were misclassified as dinosaurs until closer examination revealed the feather signature. There are other feathered dinosaurs that are NOT birds, so feathers are now an imperfect diagnostic, given the evolutionary trend in scale modification. In addition to these two, Gemini offers: Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") and the evolution of bipedalism Proposed Ancestor: Before the discovery of Lucy, scientists debated whether the evolution of intelligence (large brains) or upright walking (bipedalism) was the primary driver in early human evolution. Discovery: The 1974 discovery of "Lucy", a 3.2-million-year-old partial skeleton of Australopithecus afarensis in Ethiopia, significantly advanced our understanding. Her pelvic and leg bones, particularly the angle of her knee joint, clearly indicated she was bipedal, despite her small brain size. Impact: Lucy's discovery provided compelling evidence that bipedalism evolved before the significant increase in brain size, challenging previous assumptions about human origins. She also demonstrated the existence of early human ancestors adapted to walking upright over 3 million years ago. Gemini also reminds us of whales: Whale ancestors: Mesonychids, Pakicetus, and Ambulocetus Proposed Ancestor: Early hypotheses suggested whales descended from ancient carnivorous mammals, initially creodonts and later mesonychid condylarths, based on dental similarities. Discovery: A series of fossil discoveries in the late 20th century in India and Pakistan provided a clearer picture. Sinonyx, a wolf-sized mesonychid from the Paleocene, showed initial adaptations suggesting an aquatic lifestyle. Later finds of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Rodhocetus documented a gradual transition from land-dwelling mammals to fully aquatic whales, showcasing the development of features like streamlined bodies, powerful tails, and blowhole evolution. Impact: These discoveries confirmed the terrestrial origins of whales and provided a detailed fossil sequence illustrating the evolutionary changes as whales adapted to life in water. This provided strong evidence for macroevolutionary transitions documented in the fossil record. |
|||||||||||||
|
Cats and Dogs Gemini: The fossil of a small, tree-dwelling mammal called Miacis is considered a likely ancestor to both cats and dogs. These animals lived around 55-60 million years ago and are part of the group called carnivoraformes, which includes modern cats, dogs, bears, and weasels, according to GMA Network. Gemini (on the most recent common ancestor to bears and weasels): he most recent common ancestor of bears and weasels is likely to be found within the broader group of Arctoids, specifically within the Carnivora order. While there isn't one specific fossil that is universally accepted as the absolute ancestor, the fossil record points to early forms resembling small, weasel-like mammals, such as those found within the Miacidae family, as likely ancestors. These early carnivorans are believed to have given rise to both the bear lineage (Ursidae) and the weasel lineage (Mustelidae). Here's a more detailed explanation: Arctoidea: Bears and weasels, along with other groups like seals and raccoons, belong to the Arctoidea infraorder, which is characterized by shared skull and teeth features. Carnivora: Arctoids are part of the larger Carnivora order, which encompasses all meat-eating mammals. Miacids: The Miacidae family is considered a key group in the evolution of carnivores, with members resembling small, weasel-like animals. Early Diversification: Over time, the Miacids diversified, giving rise to various lineages, including the ancestors of bears and weasels. Fossil Evidence: Fossils like Dormaalocyon latouri, a 55-million-year-old species, provide clues about these early carnivorans and their relationship to modern bears and weasels. Amphicynodontids: Some early bear-like forms, like those in the Amphicynodontidae family, are also considered close relatives or early branches of the bear lineage. |
|||||||||||||
|
Gemini on Aardvarks Here's a more detailed look at their ancestry: Early Tubulidentates: Fossil evidence suggests that Tubulidentata, the order that includes aardvarks, originated in Africa. Miocene Epoch: The oldest confirmed aardvark fossils, including those of the genus Myorycteropus, are found in Miocene deposits in Kenya. Geographic Spread: During the Miocene, aardvarks spread from Africa into Eurasia, with fossils found in locations like Greece and Pakistan. Extinct Relatives: The Ptolemaiida, an extinct group of mammals with uncertain affinities, are considered potential relatives of aardvarks, possibly being either a sister group or an ancestor. Plesiorycteropus: The mysterious Plesiorycteropus from Madagascar was once thought to be an aardvark, but recent research suggests it evolved its aardvark-like features through convergent evolution. Living Fossil: The modern aardvark, Orycteropus afer, is the only surviving member of the Tubulidentata order, and its lineage has remained relatively unchanged for millions of years. Unique Features: Aardvarks possess several unique characteristics, such as a gizzard-like stomach and peg-like teeth, which are also found in some of their fossil relatives. |
|||||||||||||
|
Shrews and Rabbits (very distant) While a specific fossil directly representing the most recent common ancestor of shrews and rabbits has not been identified, evidence suggests that the ancestral placental mammal may have been a small, shrew-like creature that lived around 145 million years ago. Further analysis indicates that Lagomorphs (rabbits, hares, and pikas) are more closely related to Primates and Scandentia (tree shrews) than to rodents. This revised understanding of the evolutionary tree challenges previous classifications that grouped rabbits and rodents as sister groups within a superorder called Glires. The divergence of this ancestor likely occurred around the time of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary (65 million years ago) or shortly thereafter. Early rabbit relatives, such as Gomphos elkema, have been found in the fossil record dating back approximately 53 million years ago. The oldest well-supported total-group soricoids, a group including shrews, are found in North America and likely originated during the Palaeocene or early Eocene. It is important to note that the fossil record for this period is incomplete, and research is ongoing to refine our understanding of the evolutionary relationships and common ancestors of placental mammals, including shrews and rabbits. |
|||||||||||||
|
Roses and Dandelions Roses and dandelions, despite their apparent differences, share a common ancestor within the group of eudicots, a major clade of flowering plants. The first intact fossil of a mature eudicot, a representative of this lineage that includes both roses and dandelions, was discovered and dates back 125 million years. This finding suggests an even earlier origin for eudicots and potentially for flowering plants in general. While a specific fossil directly representing the most recent common ancestor of roses and dandelions isn't identified, the eudicot fossil provides a glimpse into a very early ancestor of both groups. Further research and discoveries may refine our understanding of the specific lineage and the point at which these two plant groups diverged. |
|||||||||||||
|
Douglas Fir & Ponderosa Pine The fossil record suggests that conifers, including those in the Pinaceae family, first appeared around the Late Carboniferous period, more than 300 million years ago. The Pinaceae family itself is known in the fossil record since the Cretaceous period. While it's difficult to identify a specific "most recent common ancestor" fossil, given the long evolutionary history of conifers, it's believed that the common ancestor of Douglas fir and ponderosa pine would be a member of the Pinaceae family, likely appearing during the Mesozoic Era, perhaps the early Cretaceous or Jurassic Period, according to the University of California Museum of Paleontology. More specifically, the oldest known fossils attributable to the genus Pinus (pines, including ponderosa pine) have been found in the Early Cretaceous period (around 133–140 million years ago). The genus Pseudotsuga (Douglas fir) is believed to have originated in North America and its oldest known fossil is from Oregon, dating back to around the Eocene/Oligocene transition. Therefore, the common ancestor would have existed before these documented appearances, placing it at an earlier point in the evolution of the Pinaceae family. End quote. Both of these species exist on my property, hence the basis for the question. Because the common ancestor is so ancient, identifying a specific common ancestor becomes problematic. I will try another… |
|||||||||||||
|
Australian Fauna (Another Miss) This ancestor likely inhabited woodlands and resembled the modern swamp wallaby. During this period, Australia's forests began to open up, giving way to grasslands, which new species, including red and grey kangaroos, adapted to thrive in. While it's not [currently] possible to definitively identify a single fossil representing the direct ancestor, the fossil record of early macropods dates back to around 23 million years ago (Early Miocene). However, the most recent common ancestor specific to modern kangaroos and wallabies is likely closer to the 5-7 million year range suggested by genetic studies. |
|||||||||||||
|
Thylacine and Wombats Thylacines (Tasmanian tigers) and wombats, despite their vastly different appearances, are both marsupials and are more closely related than one might initially think based on looks alone. Their last common ancestor was a much earlier marsupial, likely resembling a possum-like creature. The thylacine belongs to the order Dasyuromorphia, which includes other carnivorous marsupials like the numbat (its closest living relative) and the Tasmanian devil. Wombats belong to the order Diprotodontia, a diverse group that also includes kangaroos, koalas, and possums. The divergence between these orders, Dasyuromorphia and Diprotodontia, occurred tens of millions of years ago, with some estimates suggesting around 40 million years ago. While the exact fossil representing the most recent common ancestor remains elusive, the discovery of Mukupirna fortidentata, a 25-million-year-old "toothy wombat", provides a glimpse into the evolution of wombat-like marsupials. Mukupirna is thought to have shared a common ancestor with modern-day wombats and is as different from a modern wombat as a wombat is from a koala. Researchers also believe that Mukupirna probably evolved from a wynyardiid-like common ancestor that it shares with wombats. Recent fossil discoveries have shed light on the early diversification of the thylacine family (Thylacinidae) as well, with species like Badjcinus timfaulkneri and Nimbacinus peterbridgei being among the oldest thylacinids found, dating back around 25-23 million years ago, indicating an earlier diversification than previously understood. Nimbacinus peterbridgei is thought to be the oldest direct ancestor of the modern thylacine. Therefore, while there's no single definitive "most recent common ancestor fossil" identified for both thylacines and wombats, these fossil discoveries contribute to our understanding of the independent evolutionary paths that ultimately led to these distinct marsupial lineages. |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
