Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DNA Proves AGAINST Evolution

Comments Filter:
  • It just means there were multiple paths of evolution, and that one path (us) succeeded.
    • It's not even that -- the question is when the lineage that gave rise to modern Homo sapiens diverged from the lineage that produced Neanderthals. This result supports what I believe is the majority view. I predict some extensive flamage if your writeup gets accepted.
      • Its old news.
        The basic consensus is that neanderthals were a sub species of humans that split of from the successful lineage with homo heidlebergensis which was a find that made anthropolgists jump up and down saying YAY! pre-neanderthals!

        Also while there was some interbreeding between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal the genes were swamped and basiclly lost. Except for one of my professors who I swear looks like a neanderthal. Heavy brow ridges, receeding chin, long sloping head and all.
    • It just means there were multiple paths of evolution, and that one path (us) succeeded.
      Or rather, it just means that the divergence is so far back that we are separate species, like Dogs and Cats.

      Personally, I don't see why many Christians feel the need to "disprove" evolution. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
      • Or rather, it just means that the divergence is so far back that we are separate species, like Dogs and Cats.

        More like Chimps and Bonobos (or Gorillas). Dogs and Cats aren't extremely close as far as Mammals go.
      • Well, if you're of one of the idolatrous sects of "Christianity" that hold that the Bible (or any human) is inerrant or infallible (which [[most ]unfortunately] includes most who claim to be Christians), you can't exactly hold evolution to be true. It does contradict both of the [mutually incompatible] Creation stories in Genesis.

        The sad thing is that the vast majority of Christians ae Biblically ignorant....

        /me dons asbestos boxer briefs...

  • by Tet (2721)
    Firstly, this doesn't come close to disproving evolution[1]. All it proves (if anything) is that humans didn't evolve from Neanderthals, but from another proto-human race that existed at the same time. The BBC even had a programme on a few months ago about the life of the Neanderthals, and how they were an evolutionary dead end, wiped out by what went on to become humans.

    [1] BTW, evolution has now been proved IIRC by observing butterflies in the field, so it's no longer the theory of evolution, it's just

    • macro evolution is still just a theory. no human has ever reported giving birth to a non-human (except in the tabloids). farmers who have been planting for millenia have never reported growing anything other than the plant they sowed.
      • Lift an object off your desk and drop it.

        You just demonstrated the Theory of Gravity.

        As for giving birth to a non-human, that's absurd - evolution doesn't work that way (despite what you may have seen in the X-Men comics). Evolutionary change isn't quick and flashy - it takes many generations of very small mutations to have any noticeable change.
        • New theories are starting to question the old notion that evolution is a constant, slow process. In a ideal environment, evolution in a species is quite slow but if the enviornment becomes hostile, there is some evidence that the number of mutations in the species will increase.
          • My understanding of it was that the evolutionary rate doesn't change - just the selection is more brutal due to the harsh environment, thus selecting out the beneficial mutations more quickly than in an environment favorable to the organism.

            I could be mistaken, however.
            • I'll have to search the archives at Nature, but recall some new research that allows organisms to trigger more mutations when necessary. In any light, it's kind of a cool thing and blows my mind about the complexities of life.
      • In your farmer example, evolution is stopped by artificial selection. Not survival of the fittest, but survival of the status quo. If he sees somethign funny in his crops, it's a weed! A farmer is actively working against evolution.
        • The same can be said about bacteria. Humans are constantly working against evolution with our concepts of modern medicine.

          When we take an antibiotic, we kill the colony (like the farmer killing the weed), but sometimes a few remain with a defense against the antibody. These will then, in a short time, multiple and cause much more painful and fatal diseases (flesh eating bacteria is one good example).

          Over a long enough time and keeping the famer's weed killer constant, the weeds should evolve some defense
        • what do you mean by artificial selection? evolution has no requirement that the stimulus for mutation and selection meet any standard. selection is occurring every season on a farm.

          the farmer wants to maximize his output and minimize his input. tons of grain per acre with the least fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide and water. gallons of milk per cow with the cheapest feed, pounds of beef per steer.

          exceptional lines of crops and animals will yield higher market value and their genes are more likely to be
  • The current theory on the mitochondria in human cells points to an external organism adopted some time in the development of the human species. So the high varriance could be caused by evolution as well. Regardless, I'll just swipe my dad's copy of Nature to get the low-down.
    • And if you want to get really wild and crazy with some of the theories behind the "external organism" theory, there are the alien theories as well.

      The alien theories are actually convincing, if you believe that aliens could or actually have been visiting us. they also interweave with each other, and could all be connected if you look at it in terms of multiple visitations or regional visitations.

      One of them says aliens genetically modified early humanoids so we were more controllable and capable to perfo
  • Evolution remains the best explanation for the origin of man, assuming we restrict ourselves to openly reproducible facts - the kind of facts that science must work with.

    If you have extra information that means you believe in a different explanation (for example, that the Christian God created the Earth), then that is absolutely, soul-shakingly great. Anyone who begrudges you this or belittles you for this belief has problems.

    On the other hand, I don't understand the level of animosity many religious peo
    • Evolution remains the best explanation for the origin of man, assuming we restrict ourselves to openly reproducible facts - the kind of facts that science must work with.

      But evolution isn't openly reproducible. The only thing reproducible in science is that what is only begets what is. Therefore, if we base our interpretation on only what is openly reproducible, we'd have to concede that cats have always been cats, dogs have always been dogs, cows have always been cows, and humans have always been huma

      • by JMZero (449047)
        You don't need to reproduce the process, you only need to reproduce the experience of the evidence - in this case, that's primarily an appraisal of fossil records.

        Similarly, science can say things about the plate tectonics - because the source material for the theories is right there, peoples' experiences of it are reproducible. On the other hand, nobody is going to believe you have achieved cold fusion (even if you have), until they can reproduce your experience.
        • You don't need to reproduce the process, you only need to reproduce the experience of the evidence - in this case, that's primarily an appraisal of fossil records.

          Fossil records have produced no verifiable evidence of one species changing into another. Again, based just on fossils you'd have to concede that a cow has always and only been a cow.

          -Brent
          • Actually, that's not true. We have found fossils of a cow precursor from approximately 200,000 years ago - after that point, cows diverged into two evolutionary paths - one species in the Indian subcontinent, another species that is now found in Europe, Africa, and the Americas.

            So, based on fossils, I'd have to concede that a cow hasn't always been what we call a cow.

            Same thing goes for horses [ufl.edu]. But then again, it's probably all a conspiracy by the godless athiest scientists, right?
            • Same thing goes for horses

              You linked to a diagram of a "family tree" of horses. As far as I can tell, the first animal at the bottom of the tree is labeled as a horse, the last ones are labeled as a horse, and so is every one in between.

              You didn't link to the cow example you mentioned, so I'm going to extropolate. I'm guessing that the species in India is a cow, and the species in Europe, Africa, and the Americas is ... a cow. I'm also guessing that the precursor was also ... a cow. But again, you d

              • They are, however, different species of cows / horses. That means they can't breed with their predecessors.

                Your argument is like stating that humans are organisms, and that bacteria are organisms, and so they're the same thing - an organism.
                • They are, however, different species of cows / horses. That means they can't breed with their predecessors.

                  But they are still cows/horses/whatever. They just are less capable of changing, not more. To be able to *get* evolutionary change through breeding, you need the capability for animals to be able to breed with non-similar species. Not have them end up less capable of breeding with non-similar species.

                  A poodle probably can't breed with a great dane and produce little great dane-poodle babies.

                  • But they are still cows/horses/whatever.

                    You're using far too general terms. They may be what we call "cows", but they're still different species. The further you trace the evolutionary line back, the less and less "cow-like" they get and the more they start to resemble the other types of mammals - horses, primates, etc. Eventually, you find that lines merge, into common ancestors. That's evolution at work, and it's supported by the fossil record.

                    To be able to *get* evolutionary change through breedi
            • But then again, it's probably all a conspiracy by the godless athiest[sic] scientists, right?

              Not a conspiracy, but how can the same scientists who claim to follow a logical scientific process call evolution a theory?

              The key to the scientific process is the ability to observe a consistent behavior/process, create a hypothesis and then test the hypothesis. With evolution, we have the first two, but still lack any means to test our hypothesis. We can't observe millions of years of history or even speed up t
          • I was only saying that the evidence upon which it is based (even if you don't agree with how others interpret that evidence) is reproducible.

            I can't stress enough how little I want to debate the merits of evolution theory. If you have some other theory, I'm sure there's plenty of people who will want to hear about it.
      • You and others have seemed to say that in evolution, an ape one day woke up, gave birth, and had a fully formed human infant. That's just not the way it works. The changes are subtle.

        Look at the development of Siamese cats. (I wish I had some photos to demonstrate). ~100 years ago, Siamese cats had very round faces, blurred lines between to colors of fur, dull 'points', etc. Today, a Siamese has a skull that is perhaps 2/3 as wide for its body size as 100 years ago. The color borders are much sharper. They
        • the fact that physical traits can be passed on from one generation to the next by selective breeding does not prove trans-species evolution. it only proves that there are some features that can be passed. if you try to say that trans-species evolution happens so slowly that it cannot be observed, then how is this even a scientific theory. it is more of a hypothosis.

          furthermore, continuous subtle changes are not supported by fossil evidence. There are discrete species of skeletal remains.

          secondly, you
          • furthermore, continuous subtle changes are not supported by fossil evidence. There are discrete species of skeletal remains

            That'd be because there's absolutely no way to find a fossil of each and every generation - finding an intact humanoid skeleton is rare as it is.
          • if you try to say that trans-species evolution happens so slowly that it cannot be observed, then how is this even a scientific theory. it is more of a hypothosis.

            I never claimed otherwise.

            There are discrete species of skeletal remains.

            Simple. There's only a slim chance of a fossil being preserved. If you hit a 'cascade point', there will be a line before and after a change in a species.

            Just thought of something: I'm not 100% sure what various creationist theories espouse, how are fossil records expl
        • Look at the development of Siamese cats. (I wish I had some photos to demonstrate). ~100 years ago,

          100 years ago it might have looked different. I look different from one of my great grandparents too. There is nothing special about that. But genetically, 100 years ago, a Siamese was a cat.

          In another hundred years, will the animal even be recognizable?

          The Siamese cats may continue to inbreed. That will make them look different. However, in a 100 years, they will genetically still be a cat.

          Consid

      • But evolution isn't openly reproducible. The only thing reproducible in science is that what is only begets what is.

        Sure it is. We've successfully bred new species of fruit flies and evolving new bacterial species is a piece of cake.

        Ever since the beginning of time.

        There weren't any cows or dogs sixty or even thirty million years ago.
        • We've successfully bred new species of fruit flies

          Thanks for proving my point. You start with a few fruit flies, mate them together and end up with something different. Another fruit fly. Wake me again when you end up with a dragonfly, or a bumble bee. It just doesn't happen. A fruit fly will mate with different fruit flies and their offspring will *always* be different kinds of fruit flies.

          Another example like the fruit flies is if a Norwegian and a Korean have a child. The child won't look comp

          • Thanks for proving my point. You start with a few fruit flies, mate them together and end up with something different. Another fruit fly. Wake me again when you end up with a dragonfly, or a bumble bee.

            WTF? In other words, you acknowledge that evolution is capable of speciation but not of genus-creation.

            A fruit fly will mate with different fruit flies and their offspring will *always* be different kinds of fruit flies.

            No, a fruit fly wouldn't breed with different species of fruit flies. That's the
      • But evolution isn't openly reproducible.

        It is now, or at least it's right on the verge. I was wrong when I originally claimed field studies on butterflies -- it was cicadas. They've been observed mutating into a new species (i.e., creatures that can't interbreed with their progenitors) -- the very definition of evolution. While I don't yet believe anyone's formally claimed Darwin's theory to be proved, it's now looking very hopeful that the final proof will be delivered in the next few years.

    • think this represents a lack of faith on the part of these people. Is evolution really all that threatening? Many Christians say they would die for their faith.

      What I find very odd is that "biblical criticism" (the authorship of the Old Testament in stages over a thousand years) is treated as absolute fact in college relgious studies classes, and is far more threatening to religious doctrine and is on far weaker ground than evolution, but receives almost no attention. Most religious Christians, Jews and

      • That whole Genesis Ch1 is an interesting chapter. Who knows if when it says "and there was morning-the second day" they are referring to a 24 hour period, or as quoted elsewhere [biblegateway.com], a period of unknown time put into perspective that people reading it can understand.

        They (fundamentalists) have the unique problem of trying to fit the entire story of the universe into a box that they claim to understand completely. As soon as they say this, they attempt to be infinite in knowledge. Almost anyone that is not a
    • Evolution remains the best explanation for the origin of man, assuming we restrict ourselves to openly reproducible facts - the kind of facts that science must work with.

      The problem I see is that it (evolution) is a poor explanation, whose author in Chapter VI: Difficulties of the Theory of "On the Origin of Species" admitted...

      "Modes of Transition: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theo
      • Thanks to modern science, one of many examples exists in the existance of the bacterial flagella motor.

        I have no desire to clang heads on evolutionary theory. It may well be proved false one day. I actually don't care all that much - it's not very important to me. That was sort of my point - why is it so important to some people? My hypothesis: some people feel faith is too weak to survive the existence of a credible alternative, and some people who support evolution enjoy feeling superior to religiou
        • You're not reasoning "in good faith" here. I suspect you know the reasons this analogy is flawed as much as I do. It's impossible to have a serious discussion if you don't reason in a, well, reasonable, way.

          Hummm. Unfortunately for me, I thought I was really reasoning reasonably. :-) I thought that up with a minimum of deep thought, so no doubt it makes less than expected sense. If I think of something else, I'll reply with it.

          There's value to knowing what other people think, even if you don't think
        • I think you hit the nail on the head with this one:

          "My hypothesis: ... some people who support evolution enjoy feeling superior to religious people."

          There certainly is a meme within much of the religious community that our faith is held up for ridicule.

          Pardon me, while I go and chuckle at myself now. I was thinking how "Those evolutionists, with their superior attitude, are so arrogant! Argh!!!" - and then the humor of that struck me. Not very Christ-like, eh?

          It does get to be a drag though. It gets w

          • It does get to be a drag though. It gets worse, as the courts are used to make sure that public schools are purged of creationism as an alternate theory. So we don't see much likelyhood of growing tolerance.

            I'm sorry but "establishment clause". If you are not a Christian being taught "creationisim" is about as offensive as being taught about original sin, the holy trinity, or the resurrection.

            Creationisim is but some sects of one religion's view of how the world came to be and what role a higher power ma
            • The reason the theory of evolution is so controverial is due to its reason d'etre: where did living things (including people) come from? While most if not all religions generally give moral guidelines towards living, they also usually give a history of the creation of the universe (at least the ancient religions do). Historically, people felt that these histories required faith--as there isn't any way to go back in time to observe creation--and accepted each other's belief.

              While many people feel that evolu

            • First off, kudos to joggle and JMZero - their posts (seemed to me) are reasonable and contain insight that I had not come up with.

              Regarding the establishment clause, two comments: 1) For the first 150 years of the USA, the establishment clause existed to keep the government out of church. It was only in the 1920's that this was spun around to start kicking church out of government. 2) You have free will. I have free will. One of the great things about the USA is that we repect the rule of law that says an

          • by JMZero (449047)
            Modern science would suggest that Jesus would not have been able to bring himself back from the dead in 3 days, feed 5000 with a few loaves and fishes, or cure a blind man with spit and clay. Most people are happy to let these things rest outside of the purview of science. I don't think anyone protests in junior high science that no allowance is made for transmuting water to wine.

            I guess the problem with creation is that the miracle in question is still visible. Looking around at the amazing universe we
      • The problem I see is that it (evolution) is a poor explanation, whose author in Chapter VI: Difficulties of the Theory of "On the Origin of Species" admitted...

        I see your problem. You are treating Darwin the way one would treat a prophet revealing divine information. Unfortunately, that's not the way science works. One doesn't quote Dalton when discussing modern theories about the atom and neither does one quote Darwin when discussing modern theories about biological processes.

        Thanks to modern science

  • Q.E.D.

Old programmers never die, they just branch to a new address.

Working...