> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 10:45 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Great press for Our Lord and Savior > > This ancestral theory that you are saying still does not totally > convince > me. If we are related to primates (which on the surface is not hard to > believe since primates and humans are very similar at the genetic > level), > then where is this primate that we are decedents of? This is what I am > talking about. I am not saying you are wrong and I am right. Obviously
In short it no longer exists. There are relatively few animals that have existed for long (geologic) periods of time essentially unchanged and many (if not all) of those are simpler animals (sharks, crocodiles, some insects, etc). All the others have evolved out of existence or just plain gone extinct. The fossil record for primates (being generally so young) is actually more complete that the record for many other branches and while (like all other fossil records) nothing near "complete" (many species are identified by only a very few lucky finds) it does show a remarkably well-defined picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_man Using genetic and molecular markers and other evidence we can trace primate evolution back over 80 million years (and there's strong evidence that we share a common ancestor with the bat). It's also worth understanding that we were not the only primates to evolve "this far". Every indication shows that Neanderthals were both a separate (but related) species and every bit as intelligent as us but died out relatively recently (fossils date to about 30,000 years ago). The recent (and still very controversial) called Homo Floresiensis was also rather recent (about 18,000 years ago). Those time periods are flashes in the pan evolutionary but socially are more than long enough for one species (namely, us) to gain dominance and drive the others to extinction (although there are plenty of other pressures that could have contributed as well). I also think it's worth noting that this is one of the examples of "Theory v. Fact". There is really no question amongst the scientific community that man and apes share a common ancestor. That's "fact". The questions of the mechanisms involved, when it actually happened, how quick or slow the change was, etc - they're all hotly debated and constantly being tweaked, updated and revised. That's "theory". One of the most prevalent myths that organized IDers (like the discovery institute) attempt to spread is that the facts of evolution are in any way controversial amongst the general scientific body. This just isn't true. One of my favorite examples of this is "Project Steve". To challenge the lists of "scientists who disagree with evolution" coming out of the various ID organizations - lists usually containing several dozen, perhaps as many as 50 names - a list was created of scientists that DO support evolution. Only to get on this list you had to be named "Steve" (or a variant, in honor of Stephen J Gould). They now have 844 "Steves" on the list. ;^) (Since the percentage of Scientists named "Steve" worldwide must surely be less than 1% it's clear that this list is representative of a much, much larger group. Also about two thirds of the Steve's are biologists where very few of the scientists on the IDers lists are.) The statement these Steve's signed is a good example of what I'm talking about with "Theory v Fact": "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools." > I > need to study up on this some more, but right now, with what I have > read it > makes perfect sense to me that if we did descend from a common species, > there should be some proof of this common species. And if there is and > I > have missed it, please guide me to where I can read about this. While the examples we all use to try and explain this stuff are simple the reality just plain isn't. Right now the most likely answer to your question falls in the genus Dryopithecus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dryopithecus And here's a nice overview of the generally accepted timeline which contains the points at which human ancestors probably separated from those of the other great apes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution But to point to THE common ancestor: that one specific population would be nearly impossible. However techniques have arisen that can be used to determine to some degree when species diverged. The "Molecular Clock" compares genomes against the predicted rate of change to determine when two related species split. For humans and chimps this (admittedly rough) measurement results in about 5 million years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock There's also the concept of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" which are respectively the most recent common female and male ancestors of all modern humans. "Molecular Phylogeny" is a technique used here (and in other evolutionary studies) that map similarities in Mitochondrial DNA (a much more resilient form of DNA than nuclear DNA that can sometimes be extracted from even very old fossils but which is generally only inherited from the female). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_phylogeny I'm sorry for spamming links but the point is that all of these lines of evidence (and many others) lead to the same conclusions. None of them are perfect and all of them have margins of error but all of them lead to the same places, to similar conclusions. One important point I'd like to end with is that there really hasn't been any new criticisms of Evolution in nearly 100 years. Transitional Fossils, Irreducible Complexity, randomness calculations, etc - they've all been around forever and have all been countered and addressed. The arguments you hear today aren't new - they're just being regurgitated in slightly newer clothes. When the same argument is raised and countered, raised again and countered again it's gets less and less attention. Creationists would like to spin this as "science has no answer" or "science won't respond" when in fact science is getting plain sick of repeating itself over and over. Here's just a sampling of some of the criticisms and some of the responses: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EE DF http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/refute.htm http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/darwinanddesign.html There are, of course, books by the score that deal with the topic as well. If reading isn't your thing you'd do much worse than listening to the "Evolution 101" podcast: http://www.drzach.net/podcast.htm It's (obviously) pro-evolution but it tries to teach exactly the concepts and aspects that I think you're missing or that have been misrepresented to you. Highly recommended if you really want to learn more but lack the time or inclination for deep study. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade to ColdFusion 8 and integrate with Adobe Flex http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJP Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:246624 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
