[ordinaryguy]

Sort of. Hominds are everything on the human side of the split from the rest of the apes, so technically, the other great apes (gorillas, chimps, orangutans) are not descended from a hominid. They and we are all "hominoids" however. But I don't think that word helps the average person understand anything. Technically, you are right that the ancestor wasn't an ape either, for the same reason. The apes are everything on the ape side of the split.

I based my usage of the term on this: Hominid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A hominid is any member of the biological family Hominidae (the "great apes"), including the extinct and extant humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. This classification has been revised several times in the last few decades. These various revisions have led to a varied use of the word "hominid": The original meaning of Hominidae referred only to the modern meaning of Hominina, including only humans and their closest relatives. The meaning of the taxon changed gradually, leading to the modern meaning of "hominid" in which it includes all great apes.

[asking]

I based my usage of the term on this: Hominid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You and Wikipedia are right. I was wrong. The terminology has changed multiple times recently. What used to be called a "hominid" (everybody in the human lineage, including Australopiths and Homo sp.) is now called a "hominin," and what used to be called a "hominoid" (humans and apes) is now called a "hominid."

Re: What is the difference between hominin and hominid when classify humans?
Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm an older biologist. :)
Hopefully, I'll get used to the new terminology!

Here's the currently accepted taxonomy as I understand it. It's really different from how I learned it... but the family tree looks the same, just a change in names.
Current System
ORDER: PRIMATES
Suborder: Haplorrhini
Parvorder: Catarrhini
Superfamily: Hominoidea

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Ponginae (orangutans)

Subfamily: Homininae (gorillas, chimps, humans and their ancestors)

Tribe: Gorillini (gorillas)
Tribe: Hominini

Genus: Pan (chimpanzees)

Genus: Homo (humans and ancestors-- Homo sapiens, H. ergaster, H. erectus, H. rudolfensis, etc.), about 7 species of Australopithecus.)

[brown_eyes_3546]

They actually have proven evolution... not necessarily to humans but of animals period. And well since all animals are made up of similar genetic patterns then if one animal can evolve they all can just some are slower than others because the need is not there.

There was an experiment done and because I haven't been in biology in 4 years I can't remember who it was done by so I am sorry for the lack of sources but anyway they took a flock of nonflying birds that bred together and lived together etc and separated them. Half of them were put on an island away from the other half. I can't remember the number but a set amount of years later the birds were brought back together in an attempt to get them to breed but they no longer could because they had evolved and were no longer the same species. There have been other similar experiments with soy bean plants if I remember correctly. The question is not of whether evolution happens the question is are people willing to stray from what a religion tells them. None the less there will always be arguments about if it is real or not even if science can prove it because evolution goes against the bible.

asking: you seem very educated on this matter I have enjoyed reading your posts here. Correct my input if it is not correct because as I said it has been quite awhile since I took biology I was surprised that you didn't use these experiments in earlier posts. So it makes me question if something has been found wrong with them to make them no longer accepted?

[Clough]

I would hope that some people posting to this question would find it interesting if not altogether perplexing that the original poster, atmisk has not chosen to respond or be a part of the discussion here.

[ordinaryguy]

I would hope that some people posting to this question would find it interesting if not altogether perplexing that the original poster, atmisk has not chosen to respond or be a part of the discussion here.

I do find it both interesting and perplexing. Nevertheless, I have really enjoyed asking's answers to cromptondot's question, and cromptondot's response to his answer is priceless:

That makes lots of sense. I had never thought of it that way.

A response like that is reward enough for going to the trouble to explain something.

So whoever atmisk is or what their motive was in posting or why they haven't come back to participate, something worthwhile came of it. Dontcha just love it?

[rpg219]

I would hope that some people posting to this question would find it interesting if not altogether perplexing that the original poster, atmisk has not chosen to respond or be a part of the discussion here.

I have been reading this thread since day one. Don't know many facts on the subject, so I'm just here to learn. I would imagine that the OP really was just asking a general question, but it became very intellectual. Some run from that... me on the other hand sit back and read. Great info you have provided here... thanks.

[ordinaryguy]

I'm an older biologist. :)
Hopefully, I'll get used to the new terminology!

Here's the currently accepted taxonomy as I understand it. It's really different from how I learned it ....but the family tree looks the same, just a change in names.

Well, I'm older too, but not a biologist, so I'm in over my head here and I appreciate your more professional expertise. Thanks for laying the tree out like that. All the levels and sublevels are far more complex than I realized.

[asking]

I really enjoyed that response too! "That makes sense. I never thought of it that way."

I think atmisk did thank early responders but the discussion probably went into too much depth. I have really enjoyed this thread too. Compared to other discussions I've seen, everyone has been respectful, interesting, and thoughtful. OrdinaryGuy doesn't sound like he is in over his head. :)

As for Brown Eye's question about speciation in flightless birds. This kind of thing has definitely happened in evolutionary time, repeatedly--a population gets separated on two or three different islands and then evolves into two or three different species. (It was seeing that exact pattern of closely related but different species on the Galapagos Islands that led Darwin to realize that evolution was real and made him try to figure out HOW it could happen.) But did a person actually divided a group of flightless birds on purpose, leave them separated for a long time, and have them evolve apart in historical time? I confess I've never heard of that. I tried to search for it and found lots of other discussions of evolution on islands--many whole books just about this one topic-- but nothing that sounds like your example. But I didn't look very long.

If you can think of any more details that would make it possible to find the example I'd love to know as it sounds like a cool example. It's possible that there was some mistake in what you heard; or maybe I have just not heard of it. If you remember what kind of bird or what islands or when it happened, or some specific detail that will make it easier to find, let me know.

[inthebox]

It does stand up. You ask lots of good questions. But there are answers to all of them if you take the time to listen to the answers and to read. (I recommend "One Long Argument," a book by Ernst Mayr, for example.) But whenever someone answers your question, it seems like you just come up with another one. There are practically an infinite number of questions you can ask about biology. Some of them people don't know the answers to yet. Many of them we do have answers for. But just asking a question doesn't prove evolution wrong. It just means that you have asked a question.



Of course not. No biologist thinks mutations are all good. That would be silly. A mutation is just a change in the information in the DNA. Its effects can be good or bad depending on lots of things, including the environment of the organism. So not only can a mutation be really bad, or really good, it can be bad in one situation but good in another. Some people think they can even be neutral, neither good nor bad. What happens in evolution is that the environment changes and mutations that were slightly bad or neutral suddenly can become useful and spread through a population. Then evolutionary change has occurred. (With lots of change you see species become very different fromone another and actually become different species--especially if they can no longer interbreed.)

Mutations themselves are random. But natural selection, the process that determines whether a mutation spreads through a population or not, is not random. This is an important distinction.



No! Natural selection changes species by acting on both new mutations AND preexisting variants. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "advancing" a species. They change, they adapt. But what's good for one particular environment may not be good in another. There is no progress. This is another important idea that is sometimes hard to grasp if you haven't studied evolutionary biology. (But you ask great questions.)



This isn't a complete sentence, so I don't know what your question is this time. It's not a good idea for me to try to guess. But I will say that humans evolved from ape like ancestors who were the ancestors of both modern apes and modern humans. We share great, great, great, great.......... grandparents. The australopiths who lived 2.8 million years ago were bipedal, they walked on two legs like us. In fact, their descendents, probably evolved to be runners--as their legs got longer and longer, their toes got shorter (they way horses' toes got smaller) and they developed other adaptations to long distancer running (but not sprinting).

Then about 2.5 million years ago ancient humans started using stone tools and butchering scavenged animals that they probably stole from leopards, lions, and hyenas, and saber toothed cats! Then their brains doubled and then tripled in size, and they seem to have gotten smart enough to hunt, even though we have no sharp teeth or claws (like most predators). All the while, they were still eating lots of fruits, nuts, and roots (like yams and carrots). Humans cannot eat more than about 50% meat in our diet because we evolved from fruit eating apes. So too much meat and protein is toxic to us and can make us sick and even kill us.



Just the opposite. All of biology supports the theory of evolution, and specifically also the idea that humans evolved from "lower" animals. Evolution is universally accepted by all practicing biologists. There are some high school teachers who teach creationism and there is one biochemistry college professor (to my knowledge), but all other biologists -- thousands upon thousands of them, and, importantly, ALL of the ones who actually do biology -- all accept evolution. Virtually any scientist who objects to the idea turns out to not be a biologist and hasn't actually ever studied evolution or biology. The "scientists who are creationists" are nearly all engineers, physicists, or chemists who know no more biology than the checker at your local grocery store. They may be good people, but they don't know about biology, let alone evolution.

There is one other person who is a creationist who went to UC Berkeley specifically to get a degree in biology because, he said, he wanted to "destroy evolution." He got a PhD in biology and was apparently a very good student there--I asked his professors! He did not attack evolution itself, but he did attack the way it was being presented in some textbooks--somewhat badly--so now the textbooks are better. So he actually made evolution stronger in the sense of improving the way it's being taught, which I think was a good thing. I don't know what he's up to anymore. He's a very smart guy. But he had no effect on research biology, real evolutionary biologists who study the intricacies of evolution every day in the real world.

By the way, medical researchers often do not understand evolution very well, as they are taught other things in medical school. It depends on the doctor, but don't assume that because they can't answer one of your excellent questions that there isn't an answer. They just may not have studied much evolution, if any.

I have asked questions that evolution cannot answer. This does prove that evolution is a thorey, not fact.

I have also posted links demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with current facts.

Look back on some of them.

Regarding mutations as a means of evolving - that in conjunction with natural selection -
would you consider irradiating fertile people to induce mutations to "speed up" evolution?
How about members of your own family - induce mutations in order to evolve?

If you don't want to do that - how can you believe that mutations are, on the whole a good thing?

Sickle cell anemia - caused by ONE BASE PAIR CHANGE - and mutation is good?

If computer operating systems are a very primitive analagy to the information in an organisms genetic code, would you let just any computer hack randomly alter your computer's code in the hope that it speeds it up or makes it more efficient or gives it new applications...

wait a minute that involves purposeful action.

[Fr_Chuck]

Often a post can take up a life of its own, grow, change some. Actually it is a farily fun topic, and a lot better of someone starting a new one similar where a lot of it has to be done again. Perhaps for the fun of the other posters without regard to the original poster

[Dana2007]

Over the years I have heard several news reports where human remains have been discovered that are older than apes and monkeys and chimpanzees. There are scientist and biologist, etc who don't believe we came from monkeys, chimpanzees, apes, etc. Could it be that they don't believe it purely out of convenience?

Maybe we should demand to see those human remains for proof.

Someone is lying.

Professionals of all kinds are territorial and have to protect their beliefs, their territory but especially their livelihood.

Scientist and all professions are known to make up theories just to get recognition and for financial gain.


I do find it interesting that monkeys and apes and baboons still exist. Why didn't they become human? Did nature or God punish some monkeys and apes and baboons, etc and did not make them become humans?

When you get right down to it, they are basically theories. Anyone can falsify their research to meet their needs. Many people today question all that is called "research" and would prefer instead to call it "theories."

[Dana2007]

Fr_Chuck

I started a new post asking for feedback regarding the human remains that some scientist claim to have found that are older than apes, monkeys, gorillas, etc.

[excon]

Hello Dana:

I think they're lying about gravity too. That's still a theory, you know. If gravity is true, how do they fly?? So there!

excon

[Dana2007]

Hello excon

You're still as funny as ever.

I came to this site in hopes of running into you.


Thanks for the laugh.

[Dana2007]

Here is the post I started.

Anyone have anything to add?

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-...tc-168085.html

[asking]

I have asked questions that evolution cannot answer. This does prove that evolution is a thorey, not fact.

First, I want to qualify: Evolution is a scientific theory that explains a lot of things about biology, but it can't necessarily answer every question anyone comes up with--even in principle. Also, if the relevant experiments haven't been done yet, or we don't yet have the technology to do certain experiments, again evolutionary biology may not be able to answer certain questions. None of that means it's wrong, especially in overall outlines. The theory of gravity can't explain why I didn't want to get up yesterday morning. A particular theory doesn't explain everything.

Second, if you provide evidence that is true AND is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution by natural selection, that's another thing. So far, to my knowledge, you haven't done so. Even if you do succeed, it's also incumbent on you to offer an alternate scientific theory that DOES explain both your particular fact (the one that supposedly disproves evolution) AND all the facts that evolution by natural selection already explains--a tall order.

"God did it" is, unfortunately, not a scientific explanation. It's a statement of faith, which is wonderful in its own way, but not a scientific argument. I hope it's obvious that I am NOT saying that if you don't come up with another scientific explanation for why there are millions of species on Earth that are obviously related to one another in the same way that families of humans are related to one another, that means there is not God. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that if you want to argue science, then, by definition, you have to propose an alternative scientific theory to explain your fact.

So, I'm eager to know: What is your fact that is in direct conflict with the theory of evolution by natural selection? You say it's in the thread, but I don't know which statement you made is the one you are thinking of. Many of your arguments have already been rebutted by one or more people. Was it one of those? And you feel that people were wrong? Or was there one that nobody responded to?

Regarding mutations as a means of evolving - that in conjunction with natural selection -
would you consider irradiating fertile people to induce mutations to "speed up" evolution?
How about members of your own family - induce mutations in order to evolve?

I have no idea why you are asking this, as it seems completely irrelevant to our discussion. But would I consider irradiating my kids? No! Not for a second. I don't want my kids to have damaged chromosomes. They would get sick from radiation poisoning and they might have children who are monsters, as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Irradiation causes really nasty mutations. But to make evolution go faster you also need "selection pressure." For example, some populations in Africa,where large numbers of children die of diarrhea, are experiencing selection pressure for any genes that will protect them from the effects of diarrhea. Evolution happens faster when more individuals die without reproducing. If there are more mutations, that can make evolution go a little faster maybe, but the direction of evolution and the speed is mainly determined by selection--some individuals reproducing more or less than others. Without selection, there's not likely to be much change, except by random drift.

If you don't want to do that - how can you believe that mutations are, on the whole a good thing?

I didn't say that mutations are all "good." :)

That's like saying that words are good (or bad). It depends on the word and what you do with it. We wouldn't be here without mutations, because the little differences between the DNA of apes and people is what allow you and me to argue about evolution. I hope that's a good thing! And people with sickle cell anemia have a mutation that protects them from malaria if they only have one copy of the gene. They only get sickle cell when they have two copies. So the gene is good if you have one, bad if you have two.

Sickle cell anemia - caused by ONE BASE PAIR CHANGE - and mutation is good?

Great minds! You were thinking about sickle cell too. But see my comment above. You be the judge. Is the sickle cell gene bad because it causes sickle cell disease? Or is it good because it protects against malaria? Mutations just are. Mutations can be good OR bad, or BOTH at the same time. The point is that mutations are part of what makes the world go round, whether we like them or not. My mother used to drop things in the kitchen and say, "Gravity!" in annoyance, but it was joke because there's nothing you can do about gravity. Same with mutations. We are stuck with them.

Recent research suggests that the genes that give Europeans pale skin may only be about 6000 years old. Are those good genes? If you get sunburned easily, you might think they are bad. But if you admire fair skin, you might think they are good.

The genes spread rapidly through Europe, and before long everyone was white, because white skinned people are better at making Vitamin D when there's hardly any sunlight than darker skinned people. So it was a useful trait that helpled people reproduce faster -- but only in northern Europe. Those genes weren't useful in Italy, Africa, or India, so they didn't spread there.

If computer operating systems are a very primitive analogy to the information in an organisms genetic code, would you let just any computer hack randomly alter your computer's code in the hope that it speeds it up or makes it more efficient or gives it new applications...

My own code is all set, so I don't need to worry about anything hacking into my code. But if my 47 great grandchildren carry a gene that makes them better adapted than my friend Paul's 56 great grandchildren, then I'll end up with more great, great grandchildren than Paul will. No one can know if that's going to happen until it happens. There is no plan. It could turn out, when the time comes, that Paul's great grandchildren are better adapted than mine because they happen to carry 6 genes that make them resistant to the high temperatures caused by global warming and it turns out to be very hot indeed. Darn! Paul "won!" Oh, well. He ends up with 90 great great grandchildren to my 77. He's ahead and his genes are over represented compared to mine. That's really all there is to evolution at the micro level. It doesn't mean mutations are good or bad or that anybody is trying to do anything bad to anyone.

The whole point of evolution by natural selection is that the environment selects for mutations that work better and selects against mutations that work not quite as well for whatever reason. All our "code" is buggy and filled with mistakes and little back up systems and redundancies. It's a LOT like Windows, which was badly designed from the beginning, but keeps getting fixed and made more and more complicated and yet somehow works anyway. Every living person is a mutant. We are each unique, as are other animals. Every chimpanzee is different from every other chimpanzee. But, for better or worse, there's no master gene hacker, no one at Microsoft or Genetech who is there to make it all "right," to issue security upgrades when things go wrong--at least not yet. We should just marvel at how well our code works, allowing us to have this discussion. To me, that's a miracle.

[ordinaryguy]

I have asked questions that evolution cannot answer. This does prove that evolution is a thorey, not fact.

No biologist or other scientist would deny that evolution is a theory, but you are using the colloquial meaning of the term here (the opposite of "fact") rather than its scientific meaning.

Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory."

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

[ordinaryguy]

All our "code" is buggy and filled with mistakes and little back up systems and redundancies. It's a LOT like Windows, which was badly designed from the beginning, but keeps getting fixed and made more and more complicated and yet somehow works anyway.

LOL. Great analogy.

[inthebox]

asking:


the op states that evolution is "fact" - I've posted to the contrary

if mutations are a major a means of evolving as you have stated the majority are "nasty"... nasty enough that you would not CHANCE it by intentionally subjecting your descendents to mutations. So if that were the case why would you think that pure random chance mutations would be "better" or not nasty.

The sickle cell is analogy is a base change - genetic information is not added it is altered..
How about adding a hundred base pairs and see what happens?

I am skeptical that mutations and natral selection would be able to add genetic information in a beneficial manner.

It is interesting that you use God, faith, miracle in your last post. Faith and belief in miracles would be consistent with believing evolution is a fact.

and the computer analagy validly proves a purposeful design.
even though windows may not be perfect , hundreds of intelligent human computer techs are tinkering with code to make it better.

whether it is Play station or windows or cell phones the thing that makes them run correctly is a specific code altered, modified, changed by intelligence - human that is.

Playstaion 1 did not just sit on a shelf and randomly become play station 3 ?

[brown_eyes_3546]

Doing anything to your dna alters it! The computer is a great example. Why don't you try to add a code to your software and see how it runs! And yea people tinker with them but we still don't know what every base code in dna does only the ones that don't appear in everyone <mutations if you will> and a select few others.

Oh and there are some laws against taking humans and rewriting their dna! YOU can't DO IT. It is considered inhumane. No one can know exactly what will happen. Who cares if one out of 5,000,000,000+ computers will never be able to be used again because of a code change gone wrong. If you do that to humans you might as well bring hitler back and start sowing peoples arms to other peoples backs just to see if it will work!

Faith and belief in miracles does not make evolution a fact. People who have faith typically believe in there GOD so much that anything that remotly questions it is evil wrong and can not be believed. I have a friend that is so afraid of his religion being disproven that he thinks da vinci is an " idiot that didnt deserve to be created. his parents should have killed him at birth!" he's never even read the book da vinci's code he just knows that it questions the truth to the bible. Da vinci was a great artist and to me that is a statement that a christian should never say anyway about anyone because it is against his religion anyway.

Oh and just a tidbit from my psychology class... most people that are truly religious and believe in god or w/e are considered insane by all psychological standards but they don't make that well known because then they will be a conspiracy against the church just like the biologists that have proven evolution!

asking you didn't say if my experiments were acurate or not? I don't want to have outdated knowledge posted on here. Like I said haven't had biology in a very long time.

Oh and your playstation one to three is kind of a good example for us. In this case of virtual evolution the humans used positive selection and choose the qualities of the ps 1 that they liked and kept them around then they did some tinkering and put in other desirable traits to make the ps2 then they again choose the positive features of them and tinker again to make ps 3. but by using that exaple playstaions don't catch colds or have diseases and don't reproduce so how can they just evolve from ps1 to ps 3 w/o human help??

Dna is much more complicated than a computers software because we can't just mess with it without possibly costing peoples lives. Maybe that is what the next <Hitler> will torture people with. Find out what each piece does of their DNA. Unless another person like that comes around it is and will remain unfeasable to just breakdown someone's dna and add more too it or take some away! We still don't know enough about it and probably won't for many years!