|
|
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Sapiens |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 01-Nov-21, 21:29 |
To me personally, the book was very good, but somewhat repeating itself and therefore a bit boring (to me). I need to get 'Lucy's child', which I haven't read yet. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Nov-21, 03:39 |
A great talk about the 'gills in humans' www.youtube.com |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Nov-21, 03:59 |
www.youtube.com made no claim that developing humans would show gills. |
||||||||||||||
|
Stal The recapitulation theory has long been debunked. Embryos do NOT go through their prior evolutionary stages!!! It was a cool idea, but obviously flawed. No. Embryos go through similar stages because were all related. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Nov-21, 05:24 |
Zorro The evolution of whales (and related) in the video I posted (above) is an amazing story, and shows clear examples of intermediary animals i.e. evidence of so-called macro-evolution. And there is quite a lot of it. The comparison between present day hippos and whales is astounding in my opinion. |
||||||||||||||
|
Stal The whale example in that video is stunningly convincing |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Nov-21, 05:50 |
Zorro It seems to me that the present data speaks strongly against the 'gill structures' of human embryos having anything to do with fish gills. I am of course no expert in the area, so perhaps we can give this the benefit of some doubt? That's just because it IS a cool idea. |
||||||||||||||
|
It’s complicated Do Human Embryos Have Gills? Casey Luskin May 5, 2021 During the premiere of The Paradigm Project last night we had over 1,400 viewers, which led to a lively online chat during the initial stream. The documentary features pro-intelligent design scientists such as Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, and Douglas Axe arguing that the best explanation for much of the complexity we see in nature is intelligent design. We’re excited to see where this project goes in the future! As soon as Dr. Wells appeared on camera one naysayer in the chat attacked him personally, claiming that in the book Icons of Evolution, he “lied his head off about the evidence for gills in human embryos” because he purportedly “left out all the evidence and then said there wasn’t any.” Let’s review what Wells says in the book and see if it’s backed by the evidence: Midway through development, all vertebrate embryos possess a series of folds in the neck region, or pharynx. The convex parts of the folds are called pharyngeal “arches” or “ridges,” and the concave parts are called pharyngeal “clefts” or “pouches.” But pharyngeal folds are not gills. They’re not even gills in pharyngula-stage fish embryos. (p. 105) So Wells fully acknowledges the evidence that humans possess structures in the neck region midway through development. As we’ll see below, he notes that these structures even have a “superficial” similarity to structures found in fish embryos. But he also points out that in humans and other mammals they aren’t gills at all. Defining “Gills” How do we know they aren’t gills? Well, let’s define a gill (from Wikipedia): A gill is a respiratory organ found in many aquatic organisms that extracts dissolved oxygen from water and excretes carbon dioxide. The gills of some species, such as hermit crabs, have adapted to allow respiration on land provided they are kept moist. [Emphasis added.] Thus, a gill is a respiratory organ — i.e., something that you breathe through. Do humans ever use their pharyngeal ridges to breathe? No, they don’t. This is noted by Britannica.com: The embryos of humans and other nonaquatic vertebrates exhibit gill slits even though they never breathe through gills. [Emphasis added.] Imposing an Evolutionary Interpretation Of course this latter quote imposes an evolutionary “gills slits” interpretation and is therefore somewhat self-contradictory: if we “never breathe” through the structures, then in what sense is it appropriate to call the structures “gill slits,” since something can only be a “gill” if it’s being used as a respiratory organ? It isn’t appropriate because humans don’t breathe through these structures and therefore they can’t be gills. We could go round and round on this, but the question is what does the evidence say? Here, Dr. Wells provide us with quotes from leading embryologists discussing how these pharyngeal folds in humans only have an “illusory” similarity to fish gills — which “never exist” in humans: In a fish, pharyngeal folds later develop into gills, but in a reptile, mammal, or bird they develop into other structures entirely (such as the inner ear and parathyroid gland). In reptiles, mammals, and birds, pharyngeal folds are never even rudimentary gills; they are never “gill-like” except in the superficial sense that they form a series of parallel lines in the neck region. According to British embryologist Lewis Wolpert: “A higher animal, like the mammal, passes through an embryonic stage when there are structures that resemble the gill clefts of fish. But this resemblance is illusory and the structures in mammalian embryos only resemble the structures in the embryonic fish that will give rise to gills.” In other words, there is no embryological reason to call pharyngeal pouches “gill-like.” The only justification for that term is the theoretical claim that mammals evolved from fish-like ancestors. Swiss embryologist Günter Rager explains: “The concept ‘pharyngeal arches’ is purely descriptive and ideologically neutral. It describes folds which appear [in the neck] region … In man, however, gills never exist.” (pp. 105-106) Facts About Gills So according to the evidence, yes, human embryos have structures that are superficially similar to what we find in fish embryos. But there’s a major difference: in fish it’s appropriate to call them gills because they develop into a respiratory organ. In humans these structures are never used for respiration and they develop into something entirely different from gills. To call them gills is to impose an evolutionary interpretation that is in no way required by the data. Wells thus concludes: The only way to see “gill-like” structures in human embryos is to read evolution into development. But once this is done, development cannot be used as evidence for evolution without plunging into circular reasoning — like that used to infer common ancestry from the neo-Darwinian concept of homology. To put it bluntly: There is no way “gill-slits” in human embryos can logically serve as evidence for evolution. (p. 106) So no, Wells didn’t lie his head off. But he did teach us some facts about gills. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Nov-21, 06:07 |
Zorro |
||||||||||||||
|
Fraud Nebraska Man is a much less well known example. The discoverer of the tooth had written a prior paper on the danger of misidentifying peccary teeth as human teeth, making his "find" all the more problematic. Thankfully that error was not long lived. Creationists insist it was willful fraud, not simply an honest mistake. Science is not conducted by machines, but by human beings. Humans are prone to error. We leap to judgment, draw connections where none exist, and are particularly susceptible to fallacious reasoning, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc and replacing logic by the disjoint religious ramblings of meditteranean goat herders. The former error is how we get hydrochloroquine and the horse dewormer ivermectin as cures for Covid, and reject vaccines as ineffectual Chinese hoaxes created to implant sterilizing GPS tracking chips in all of us and to convert us into homosexuals. |
||||||||||||||
|
Tree of Life When you look at the modern tree, it becomes so abundantly obvious. The earliest fossils we find all rest at the base of the tree. Marine organisms predate terrestrial fauna by hundreds of millions of years. This whole thing only works by the very simple and straightforward evolutionary mechanisms we have demonstrated work in radically differing environments, such as the genetic algorithms in computer simulations. Linnaeus missed evolution by just that much in the development of his classification system which laid the groundwork for Darwin's discovery. Would we have the modern theory of evolution had Darwin never lived? Of course. We might use a different word, but the concept and underpinning science would remain the same. Linnaeus was prone to accepting the musings of long dead goat herders as gospel, instead of starting from scratch and thinking for himself. Not to just knock goat herders. They can be commended for inspiring literacy, which is the means by which scientific thoughts are recorded, preserved, and passed on both to peers and to future generations. Science rulz. tolweb.org |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva That is so cool. And the fact that, at the root of things, we’re star stuff. And like stars, we’re born, live and die and get recycled again and again and again forever. Beautiful |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva |
||||||||||||||
|
dmaestro 02-Nov-21, 14:32 |
The mindset that produces such a anti science perspective produces troubling results. www.yahoo.com But it’s healthier to live with atheists, agnostics and humanists! |
||||||||||||||
|
Z |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 02-Nov-21, 21:31 |
Scientific fraud Yes, it is unfortunate that fraud indeed happens in science, too. Not least because it weakens the community's trust in science. But it just reflects that scientists are humans. The causes/reasons for it vary a lot, and often includes very sad stories. Looking for fame is of course one of the causes, but even though it sounds simple, it is not. Basically, such a cause for scientific fraud would be sheer stupidity because (as Z pointed out) scientific fraud is always revealed, usually quite quickly and more quickly the more important the claim. The fraudulent scientists know this very well! However, in combination with a strive for fame, there is nearly always in these cases a very strong belief in 'knowing how this works', arrogance and egoism, an immense self-confidence and true belief in one's own hypothesis/theory. Combined with a complete lack of self-criticism. So, since they know how this will work they can simplify and speed up matters by faking the results of experiments into the 'right' direction. Another type example of the roots of scientific fraud is very different, and yet not so different. A younger scientist works in a group led by a very strong personality. The leader is in many ways much like the 'fraudster' I described above, except that they would never produce fraudulent science themselves. However, they KNOW how 'things work' and then 'demand' their younger group member to 'get the correct results'. Such group member younger scientists are often completely dependent on the group leader in terms of progress in their work, job, salary, etc. So, under such pressure, they indeed 'obtain the right results'! Very sadly (and cruelly), when such fraud is established (and it inevitably will be), it is all blamed on the young researcher and the group leader goes free! This has often enough led to suicides. The above are but two 'model examples' of scientific fraud. In practice there are of course a much larger variety of causes/reasons. The above two are perhaps the most prominent. And what lesson do we get from this? I think the lesson is very simply - and extrapolated from scientific research into a more general domain - that we should constantly (and very honestly) criticise our own convictions and beliefs. The worst case occurs when we disregard 'stuff' that disagrees with our current conviction. Finally, I'd like to say that I have tried hard to follow this principle in this thread. The above paragraph explains why I have continued to seriously consider 'stuff' about evolution that main stream science has debunked years ago. Yet, I am sad to say, I have utterly failed. |
||||||||||||||
|
Stal 21:31 Somehow this sounds like someone I know... |
||||||||||||||
|
Chimps - our cousins In fact, chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas. But the similarities we share go beyond our genetic makeup. Check out these some ways chimpanzees and humans are the same! Though the human brain is larger, it is structurally identical to a chimpanzee’s. This means that chimpanzees are capable of reasoned thought, abstraction and generalization. They can even recognize themselves in a mirror—most other animals cannot! One of Dr. Jane Goodall’s most important discoveries was that chimpanzees use tools. While we may not use them to forage for tasty termites like our primate relatives, they sure do come in handy for just about everything else! And chimps are ticklish |
||||||||||||||
|
The above |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 03-Nov-21, 06:55 |
Zorro (see academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu) Comparison is namely not a completely straightforward simple task, as this article explains. The crux of the matter is to use the same methodology all the time so that the results become better comparable. I don't care if the resemblance to human is 99% or 89% as long as it very clearly is the closest among forms of life on Earth. I don't even find this very surprising. What IS surprising is that when looking at DNA sequences (or the corresponding amino acid sequences in the proteins coded for) one finds 100% identity in catalytically central domains of key enzymes from humans and radish! Incidentally, whilst chimps use tools, so do many of the more intelligent birds, crows, raven (!), and many other mammals. |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 03-Nov-21, 07:00 |
Genome similarity but different fenotype Just a very small reminder: the DNA genome of a nerve cell in a human individual is exactly the same as the DNA genome in a liver or fat cell of the same individual! These three cell types are VERY different, look different, and work differently! |
||||||||||||||
|
Stal So cool. We share an ancestor with eagles, whales snd spirochetes. Only I’d like a divorce from religious dogmatists 😎 |
||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 03-Nov-21, 07:21 |
Zorro I know what you mean, but let's not generalise. Most of us become dogmatics of some sort, especially as we grow older. But to consciously neglect straightforward data - and to do that with a straight face - is something else. Just one example being the repeated claim that there are no 'intermediary' fossils in the evolution of whales and hippos. I mean ignorance is one thing, but failing to read, or neglecting, the evidence put under the nose is quite another. Similar thing about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, which first was a 'big issue' but when the interpretation was shown to be completely wrong, it was conveniently forgotten. |
||||||||||||||
|
Evolution of kindness Some Generous Apes May Help Explain The Evolution Of Human Kindness Jon Hamilton Some Generous Apes May Help Explain The Evolution Of Human Kindness It's feeding time at Lola ya Bonobo, a sanctuary for bonobos in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. "Allez," caretaker Bernard Nsangu shouts in French as he gets ready to distribute a morning snack. The air fills with piercing shrieks as bonobos nearby tell their friends in the forest that pineapple is coming. Soon, more than a dozen bonobos have assembled near the grassy perimeter of their enclosure. With chimpanzees, the prospect of food can lead to aggression. But bonobos take a different approach, says Suzy Kwetuenda, a biologist at Lola, for whom English is a third language. "As you see, there is many action of sex, many negotiation," she tells me. "So that make peace." This sort of harmony is why, for more than a decade, scientists from around the world have been coming to this sanctuary just outside Kinshasa, along the banks of the Lukaya River. The researchers think bonobos may help explain how humans evolved the capacity to be nice – at least some of the time. Same genes, different behavior Bonobos look like smallish chimpanzees, with whom they share 99.6% of their DNA. And both of these great apes share 98.7% of their DNA with humans, making them our closest living relatives. What intrigues scientists is that bonobos and chimps often behave very differently, despite their genetic similarity. What's more, human behavior seems to incorporate aspects of both species. For example, chimps tend to rely on cunning and competition, while bonobos emphasize cooperation and sharing. The two species also diverge when it comes to leadership, says Dr. Jonas Mukamba, the head veterinarian at Lola. "Chez bonobo," he tells me, "it is the females who dominate and it is a female who is chief of the group." That's one reason meals at Lola ya Bonobo are so peaceful, Kwetuenda tells me as we watch a group of bonobos gather for what will soon turn into a sort of polyamorous picnic. She points to the alpha female. "This is Semendua, big mom, tough mom," she says. "And as you can see she is in the front just to show that she is very concerned by all organization in the group." Semendua is smaller than many of the males around her. But if a male were to become aggressive, all the females would rally around her to chase him into the forest. Sharing with strangers One way that bonobos differ from other great apes is in their eagerness to share, something that has been documented in a series of experiments here at Lola. The experiments were carried out by a team that included Kwetuenda and Brian Hare, a professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University. They were done in Lola's "bonobo lab," a building that features room-size cages and a place for scientists to observe what happens inside them. In one experiment, the scientists put two bonobos in adjacent rooms. Then they gave one of the animals a plate of prized food, like bananas or apples, which have to be imported. The fruit plate was topped with a type of cream Kwetuenda calls "bonobo sauce." The bonobo with food was given a choice: eat alone, or use a special key to let in their neighbor. "In our mind, we thought that because of nice food they would first eat," Kwetuenda says. "But we were surprised to see that roommate is more important than favorite food." Later, the scientists repeated the experiment with three bonobos, one of whom was a stranger. This time, the bonobo with food usually shared with the stranger first, then invited the friend to join in. In another study, scientists showed that bonobos are willing to help one another obtain food even if they know they won't get to share it. This generosity with food does not extend to tools, though. Apparently selfless behavior may seem odd from an evolutionary perspective. But scientists believe it paved the way to the sort of large-scale cooperation that has helped Homo sapiens outlast other early humans, like Homo erectus. And this sort of cooperation has allowed our species to share new ideas, create vast nations and explore other planets. A lab in the forest Research at Lola ya Bonobo has produced more than 75 published studies. Scientists keep returning because the DRC is the only place on earth where these animals still live in the wild, and this sanctuary provides a unique place to study their behavior in a naturalistic setting. Lola was founded nearly 30 years ago by Claudine André, a Belgian whose father was a veterinarian in Kinshasa. In 1991, while working at the Kinshasa Zoo, André looked into the eyes of a bonobo and, she says, "fell in love with this species." After Lola moved into its current home (once a summer residence for former president Mobutu Sese Seko), André began hosting scientists from countries including the U.S., Japan and Germany. Over the years, scientific research has been able to document many of the bonobo behaviors that André and the Lola staff see every day. For example, André has often said that bonobos are "full of empathy." And sure enough, an Italian team found that if one bonobo yawns, others will yawn too — a behavior closely associated with empathy. Research also support André's belief that bonobos have a keen understanding of what's going on in another individual's mind, and when that individual wants to help them. In their book Survival of the Friendliest, published in 2020, Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods describe an experiment in which a researcher would hide a treat under one of two upside-down cups. Then they invited several different animal species to figure out which cup hid the treat. Chimps, despite their cleverness, just kept choosing one of the cups at random. But bonobos (and dogs) almost immediately learned to look to the scientist for a gesture indicating the right cup. One study even found a structural difference between the brains of bonobos and chimps. The difference involved circuits controlling social and emotional behaviors. What all the science suggests is that bonobos have evolved in a way that predisposes them to sharing, tolerance, negotiation and cooperation. Those are all traits you can see in humans, on a good day, André says. "Humans can be a fantastic bonobo with a big heart or a very dangerous warrior," she says. "We are mixed." Lessons from a close relative It's been about 6 million years since the death of the last common ancestor we shared with chimps and bonobos. Since then, we humans have channeled our inner bonobo to share and cooperate on a massive scale. But we've often acted more like chimps — whose murder rate in the wild is comparable to our own — when it comes to behaviors like violence against members of our own species. Humans do not share bonobos' assumption that every stranger is a potential friend. Studies show we may not even consider a stranger fully human if they belong to a group perceived as other and threatening. When that happens, scientists say, we tend to suppress empathy and embrace cruelty. Human cruelty is something Yvonne Vela Tona, a caretaker at Lola ya Bonobo, has seen up close. Vela Tona fled Angola more than 20 years ago to escape a civil war that would eventually kill more than 500,000 people. Since then, she's lived in the DRC, a nation where decades of armed conflict has led to millions of deaths. Vela Tona has raised children of her own and served as a surrogate mother to more than 20 bonobos. She's seen both the chimp and bonobo sides of human behavior. What people can learn from bonobos, she tells me through an interpreter, is that war and violence are not inevitable, that we, like bonobos, have the capacity to resolve conflicts through other means. |
||||||||||||||
|
@zoro : empathie, goodwill, antipathie, fight Hobbes (Philosopher) considered that the human being is naturally selfish, aggressive, evil... and that our kindness and empathy is due to the society we live in and the education we have received. For Rousseau, we are "naturally good" but the society perverts this goodness. For the psychoanalysts, we all have those 2 instincts in our personality and, depending on our education and on the context, we behave differently. We are more complex than the Bonobos, because our social systems are complex and many parameters determine our behavior, particularly education. In Afghanistan, all the people under 30, have only known war. In Lebanon, some people have lived in refugee camps since they are born, 40 years ago. How can we expect that those people will react like us ? |
||||||||||||||
|
Ptit |
||||||||||||||
|
But Ptit Humans have been fighting long enough to have evolved to perpetuate AND cope with violence? |
||||||||||||||
|
Zorro At least, it could be if the "natural selection" selects the most aggressive or ambitious ones and the lazy and peaceful human has disappeared for a long time, maybe when we began to be numerous and therefore to fight for the territories - but the species evolution is dependant from the environment. |
||||||||||||||
|
Co-operation or competition for evolution. Every clan in our history needed to be able to work together for the clan to survive. One brave, aggressive hunter can't fight off a pride of lions of pack of hyenas by himself. Teamwork is needed. That's co-operation. But hunter-gatherers can't just set up camp and stay there. They need to move around a large territory, looking for refreshed hunting and gathering grounds as they deplete the immediate area of their current camp. In doing so, they need to be able to discourage other clans from moving into one part of their territory while they are foraging in another. That's where competition and clan warfare starts. It's also where the barrier between 'My People' and 'Those Others' starts to be defined. Interestingly, this tended NOT to happen among Australian aborigines. Each clan had its own territory; but in times of drought (a regular occurrence in Australia), clans less severely affected would usually provide refuge for neighbouring clans for the duration. In the next drought, the boot might be on the other foot! This didn't mean eternal peace and harmony, though. There were still some wars and clashes, but usually over breaches of customary law or perceived insults. Not about territory. Each clan saw itself as part of the land they occupied, rather than thinking of the land as a possession. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
