Evolution Accelerating?

[Clue69Less]

http://www.dailytech.com/Life+in+the...ticle10003.htm

How can they be sure it's not just precancerous mutations?

Quote:

"Homely Homo sapiens are evolving hundreds to thousands of times faster than in their early history

Many who discredit evolution due to lack of evidence or theistic reasons may be powerfully startled by how much evolution is smacking humanity in the face. Humans are evolving at frenetic, previously unobserved pace according to a new paper titled "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution", which was published Monday in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal.

The paper, which was based on research spearheaded by University of Utah anthropologist Henry Harpending, examined 3.9 million gene segments of 270 individuals, 90 of European descent, 90 of African descent, 45 of Han Chinese descent and 45 of Japanese descent. The conclusion was that humans evolved rapidly, and apart from each other."

[flasher702]

...kill the mutants?

I think one of the parts of evolutionary theory is the "selection" part not just the "random mutation" part. As you said it could just mean that our DNA has become unstable for some reason...

[Gneisenau]

http://www.dailytech.com/Life+in+the...ticle10003.htm

How can they be sure it's not just precancerous mutations?

Quote:

.......
Many who discredit evolution due to lack of evidence or theistic reasons may be powerfully startled by how much evolution is smacking humanity in the face. Humans are evolving at frenetic, previously unobserved pace according to a new paper titled "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution", which was published Monday in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal.

...

That sentence would have been just fine without those words. Now all he did was put people's dander up. Does it mean that people who discredit evolution for other reasons won't be startled? Or maybe there isn't any other reason to discredit evolution? These are the types of statements that put me instantly on guard. Although in this case I personally have no doubt that there is evolution going on as we speak. It does however make me suspect of the motives of his paper and the voracity or the research behind it.

.......
Many who discredit evolution may be powerfully startled by how much evolution [is taking place right now]. Humans are evolving at frenetic, previously unobserved pace according to a new paper titled "Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution", which was published Monday in the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) journal.

...

Doesn't that say what he meant without all the posturing?

[flasher702]

But in this particular case would posturing really be uncalled for? The next strongest explanation after Evolutionary theory from a single organism is the hypothesis that the planet was repeatedly seeded with life by aliens over the course of hundreds of thousands of years (which is probably one of my favorites really... just need to find me some E.T.s to prove it xD). When the second most popular belief in the world is actually the 4th best (narrowly defined 'creationism' is also beat very slightly beat out by "we're a simulation") and most complicated explanation throwing Occam's Razor and any semblance of rationality to the wind can we really be too blunt about it?

[hergieburbur]

I saw that. There are some definite holes in evolutionary theory as it is currently defined, and more issues with it seem to be found lately. I am not saying its wrong (nor does it necessarily exclude creationism), merely that our understanding is flawed and we are continually finding out how much we don't know.

[tool_462]

I think one of the parts of evolutionary theory is the "selection" part not just the "random mutation" part. As you said it could just mean that our DNA has become unstable for some reason...

The theory of evolution is that DNA mutates over time and creates different species...(in a nutshell)

It was Charles Darwin that introduced progressive evolution by the mechanism of natural selection.

Just to keep them clear and seperate.

I can't say I agree with what the article is saying, there are plenty of broad statements that need some evidence and reminders that some claims they make are simply theories and there are countless other (comparably studied) theories.

I emailed it to my Human Evolution professor and am curious what she thinks.

[brentpresley]

The largest hole in evolutionary theory is MACROevolution vs. MICROevolution.

MICRO - small, noticeable, adaptable changes in a gene or set of genes that allows a species to adapt to it's niche (the birds of the Galapagos Islands are the best example of this). MICROevolution exists without a doubt.

MACRO - the outright evolution of one species into another, distinct, species. There are far too many "holes" in the chain for their to be proof-positive for MACROevolution.

[flasher702]

The largest hole in evolutionary theory is MACROevolution vs. MICROevolution.

MICRO - small, noticeable, adaptable changes in a gene or set of genes that allows a species to adapt to it's niche (the birds of the Galapagos Islands are the best example of this). MICROevolution exists without a doubt.

MACRO - the outright evolution of one species into another, distinct, species. There are far too many "holes" in the chain for their to be proof-positive for MACROevolution.

Not much evidence that we can point at and say "look, there" no. But the God of the Gaps isn't much of a theory either. God of the gaps is basically the alien seeding theory ram-rodded into a a creationist dogma outlook even though it's even more complicated and makes even less sense then Genesis.

I think a more likely scenario is that there wasn't "AN" organism at the top of the evolutionary chain. If conditions existed to introduce life on earth they probably introduced more than one thing (which is also compatible with Creationism + Evolution along the lines of what the Vatican said when they declared evolution and Christianity to not be mutually exclusive).

If "micro" evolution is possible than "macro" evolution is also possible. To state otherwise is the same as saying "You can walk 10 feet but you'll never be able to walk a mile... it's too far." Even then there are still a lot of questions unanswered but there is no "Micro vs. Macro" debate, at least not in the sense of "is it possible, did it happen?" It is possible, we're nearly certain it did happen at least a few times... but does it explain every living organism on the planet?
*cue twilight zone music*
Aliens I tell you!

[Clue69Less]

The largest hole in evolutionary theory is MACROevolution vs. MICROevolution.

MICRO - small, noticeable, adaptable changes in a gene or set of genes that allows a species to adapt to it's niche (the birds of the Galapagos Islands are the best example of this). MICROevolution exists without a doubt.

MACRO - the outright evolution of one species into another, distinct, species. There are far too many "holes" in the chain for their to be proof-positive for MACROevolution.

Some of the early macro publications were later found to be outright fabrication. For example, falsification of drawings used as part of the fossil record.

[MeltDown]

Divine being in control, aliens, random mutation where a lizard suddenly ends up with functional wings (and can transmit the mutation via reproduction) - they all seem to require quite a lot of faith to me. IMHO macro evolution is almost a religion itself and I call the practitioners "Darwin thumpers" as they are just as willing to ignore missing evidence as the literal Creationists and they view anyone who disagrees with them as heretics.

Personally I find all of the above theories lacking, don't call me a Creationist or ID practitioner (I find those "theories" lacking) please just because I also question macro evolution. One key to science in my opinion is to acknowledge sometimes that none of the theories under test seem to be adequate.

Is 2+2 equal to 5 or is it -13? No don't pick none of the above. That's how I view the current evolution versus Creation debate. If you're not with "us" you're against "us".

[tool_462]

Yeah, the fossil record is not complete enough to prove anything. Though some transitional species are very convincing that have been discovered.

Reference species are compelling from either side of the argument. Why are there placental mammals in North America that are remarkably similar physically and genetically to marsupial mammals located solely in Australia? (Save the opossum) I've seen creationists site that as saying "God put them there, obviously." But the way I see it is that at the beginning of the evolutionary tree, there was a species that was a marsupial and it evolved and branched off to become the variety of marsupial species that inhabit Australia today. As far as I know, the only marsupial fossils that trace the evolutionary path, are from Australia and both reference species (NA placental mammals and AUS marsupials) evolved around the same period of the late Mesozoic.

[Clue69Less]

Just shows you how powerful faith is?

[Clue69Less]

In my lingo, dropping the C-word is akin to saying Hitler in old Usenet:

Thread OVER!!!

j/k

[tool_462]

Divine being in control, aliens, random mutation where a lizard suddenly ends up with functional wings (and can transmit the mutation via reproduction) - they all seem to require quite a lot of faith to me. IMHO macro evolution is almost a religion itself and I call the practitioners "Darwin thumpers" as they are just as willing to ignore missing evidence as the literal Creationists and they view anyone who disagrees with them as heretics.

Personally I find all of the above theories lacking, don't call me a Creationist or ID practitioner please just because I also question macro evolution.

I don't think any real evolutionists will argue that any change occurred "suddenly."

Look at the panda's "thumb" for example. It isn't a digit (look at a panda's paw and count how many phalanges there are) but a heavily modified (evolved) sesamoid bone that has grown slowly over time due to it's advantageous effects on the consumption of bamboo. So much of their time is spent eating due to the lack of nutrition in their diet that a change like this was a great advantage allowing the species to proliferate.

[MeltDown]

Thus the endless search for the "missing link" specimens that are partially evolved between the starting point and the ending point.

[tool_462]

Just shows you how powerful faith is?

So powerful that people wholeheartedly agree and argue that dinosaur fossils are located where they are in the strata because:

A) God put them there to find out who really believes.

or

B) They are further down because during the flood the dinosaurs all sank to the bottom because they were dense and heavy.

[tool_462]

Thus the endless search for the "missing link" specimens that are partially evolved between the starting point and the ending point.

I feel that eventually the record will be complete enough to be proof, but it will take time and no single fossil discovery will be "groundbreaking" or as monumental as many hope.

For example, Archaeopteryx is an extremely good transitional species between reptiles and birds, and Tiktaalik is a great transtion from fish to land animals. Once these species are joined by more discoveries, I think evolution will have a stronger foothold.

/edit: sorry for double post

[MeltDown]

For example, Archaeopteryx is an extremely good transitional species between reptiles and birds

Archaeopteryx was actually what I was referring to when I said a lizard mutating with functional wings, I just can't spell it.

[tool_462]

Archaeopteryx was actually what I was referring to when I said a lizard mutating with functional wings, I just can't spell it.

Heh yeah, I don't even know if I spelled it right. When a transitionary fossil between fully reptilian creatures and Archaeopteryx is found, that would be as groundbreaking as a single discovery could hope for if you ask me.

[hergieburbur]

So powerful that people wholeheartedly agree and argue that dinosaur fossils are located where they are in the strata because:

A) God put them there to find out who really believes.

or

B) They are further down because during the flood the dinosaurs all sank to the bottom because they were dense and heavy.

But faith does not exclude stupid or closed-minded people, so of course you will get that. The same as when you get people manipulating fossil and bone records to fit their vision of development.

Neither view helps explain anything, or disprove the other. Using that faith by definition can't be proven isn't any better or worse than saying that the "missing link" exists, we just haven't found it yet. The truth is, we have an incomplete picture, and until we get a clear one, nobody can say for sure.

When it comes to this issue, even if God were to somehow prove he exists, or someone were to come up with a complete and direct line of evolution from one-cell to humans, AND prove the origins of Earth, there would still be doubters.

As for myself, I doubt that injecting my own views on the subject into the discussion would be productive.