Human Evolution

[Jose]

jcrawford and I have been having some interesting discussions in other threads, which have led to the notion that we really need a thread on human evolution. So, here it is.

The Rules
We want to work from data. Data that is discussed must be accessible in the scientific literature. Personally, I would prefer the peer-reviewed literature, because, as those of us in science know all too well, the peer reviewers are usually one's competitors. Thus, they are typically extremely critical of what we write.

Any other information that is brought to bear must also be accessible to everyone. Where requested, direct quotes from the sources will be important.

The questions for discussion

1. What is the current best understanding of human origins?

2. What "confounds" are there in the interpretation of data?

3. Given that there is always genetic diversity within populations, how easily can we assign hominid fossils to different groups? Here, the term "form-species" is probably most useful, referring to similar fossils with similar forms, but in the absence of information on the capacity for interbreeding. In many cases, different form-species are different species (fossil trees vs fossil insects), but sometimes they are not (fossil leaves vs fossil roots of the same tree).

4. Does information based on fossil data mesh with information based on genetic data? The true history must be genetically feasible. The fossils must have been left by individuals who were produced by normal genetic methods. To be valid, any explanation of origins must incorporate both fossil and genetic data.

5. What are the parts of human history that are most at odds with (some) Christian views, and what suggestions can we offer for reaching a reconciliation?

I will begin by posting the following genetic data, which is pictorial representation of the differences and similarities in mitochondrial DNA sequence of a whole bunch of people. Relative difference/similarity is proportional to the lengths of the vertical lines. Horizontal lines merely separate the vertical lines so we can see them.

How do we interpret these data?

[If appropriate, I will edit this post to ensure that the OP of this thread lists the important questions.

[Jose]

DNA sequence file

I make this point only to indicate that finding fossils of two contemporaneous species does not rule out the idea that one might have been the ancestral species of the other.

Lubenow documents Homo erectus co-existing contemporaneously with all other humans for almost 2 million years, according to the human fossil record as dated by neo-Darwinists themselves.

So what if they were contemporaneous? What difference could it possibly make? It says nothing at all regarding whether one of the species was the ancestor of the other, or whether they are unrelated. It is irrelevant to the issue of evolution.

As we said at the outset, we require data. Mere opinion won't cut it.

http://www.designinference.com/document ... ltdown.htm
http://www.myfortress.org/evolution.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... darwin.asp

Links to others' random ramblings are not data.

Whether your conclusion is valid, or whether it is hogwash, is irrelevant at this point in this thread. The purpose of the thread is to examine the data.

What data? Yours or mine?

This logic applies to all conclusions, obviously. I suggest that it applies particuarly to your claim of racism, since you have given us nothing upon which to assess whether we might reach the same conclusion when we evaluate the data.

All you've presented for us to examine so far is a computer generated chart. You call that data?

Virtually all scientific illustration is done on computer these days. I usually use Canvas for my graphics. But, if you object to the pictorial representation of the numbers, you might prefer to have the numbers themselves. Or, you might prefer some 125 or so files like this, but much, much longer:

Would that make you happier? Would it be easier for you to interpret if you had all of the files?

Until we have [looked at the data], your conclusions--and my conclusions--amount to mere gibberish.

So your conclusions about your chart amount to mere gibberish. I agree with that data.

No, the diagram presents the data. If you prefer to call it gibberish without offering any rationale whatsoever, that's up to you. I note, by the way, that in this particular quote of yours, you used "data" to mean "conclusion."

The interpretation is clear, and has not been refuted.

Your data isn't even clear so how could anyone's interpretation or refutation of it be clear? Besides, Wolpoff and others discount genetic interpretations of the human fossils.

The data I presented are abundantly clear. You will need to come up with explicit reasons that individual portions of the interpretation aren't valid, if you want to have any credibility in your claim that the interpretation doesn't stand. What, if I may ask, do Wolpoff and others have to do with this? None of the datapoints are from fossils.

If you have data you'd like us to evaluate, bring it forth.

What do you think I've been presenting with every post? Personal opinions?

For your constant repetition of "racism," yes. That is exactly what it is. It will remain such until you give us some data that support your claim. Otherwise, you have given us some links to other sites, which don't count as data either. You have mentioned several times someone else's interpretation of the data on the Atapuerco fossil assemblage, but you haven't given us any of the data themselves. If you interpret the data in the way that you do, then you need to bring forth the data and explain to us why it forces you to the conclusion that it does--and why it forces you to reject the interpretation that you dislike.

We especially don't want to classify people as different 'races' on the basis of skin color, physical characteristics, mental abilities and attributes, ...Historically documented biographies and testimonies of national or natural geographic origins are the sole arbiter and determinant in establishing modern ethnic and racial origins.

What are you talking about? "Race" has a clear genetic definition.

Really? What is it?

[continued from above]You ignored it in the Bones of Contention thread, so I'll assume the same would occur here, but what kind of silliness justifies using geographical origin as the criterion? Even if you can justify it, it is still too vague to be workable.

See, you did ignore it--but, to make it easy, I'll summarize what I said in Bones of Contention. Genetically, a "race" is a genetically-related group that is more distinct from other groups than a "variety" and less distinct than a "subspecies." This has nothing to do with geography--which is why I refer to it as a genetic definition.

Not that they or their ancestors were ever separate races, but all racial groups can trace their ancestral origins to some disinct geopraphic part of the globe. Geographical origins is the only criteria that truly distinguishes and dertermines an individual's racial background. You don't know of any Eskimos or Innuit whose ancestors came from the Carribean, do you?

So, you define "race" as "having recent ancestors in a particular part of the world." As I asked before, how far back do you go?. You didn't answer this last time, so I bet you won't answer it this time.

Yes, most neo-Darwinists would preach that one mustn't take the fossils out of the neat evolutionary continuum in which they have been carefully sequentially arranged by date and classification in order to show gradual morphological change from ape-like African features to more human ones with Homo erectus being intermediate in those evolutionary transitions of one 'species' into another. Just try to include the African skulls of KNM-ER 1470 (H. rudolfensis) and "Turkana Boy," KNM-WT 15000 (H. ergaster) in the same racial category and class as European Neanderthals or more advanced Cro-Magnon specimens. Might I predict a little "preaching" on your part regarding my suggested inclusion of all human fossils under the banner of one human species and one human race with plenty of racial variation within, but no speciation?

So, you would advocate trying to reconstruct a lineage by taking the different fossils and ignoring which ones are older? You'd be surprised, I bet, if someone tried to tell you that your great, great grandfather is descended from your son. Yet, you think there'd be a reason to sort fossils in a way that would be biologically impossible?

As for your apparent desire to have all human ancestors classified as a single species with genetic variation, rather than as separate species, sure, why not? You'd have a heck of a time trying to communicate with others on the topic, since you'd have to refer to each form of fossil by catalog number. Wouldn't it be more convenient to give different forms different names, to make the conversations easier?

Ho, ho, ho, you've got it backwards, Jose, since the fossils are dated according to radiometric dating of the geological strata in which they are found which in turn is dated by the sequencing of the fossils in a pre-supposed, assumed and imagined evolutionary time-frame.

You actually believe that old creationist saw about how dumb scientists must be if they date the fossils by the strata, and date the strata by the fossils? What an amazing thing. Maybe you'll learn some geology some day.

The botton line, Jose, is that all theoretical interpretations of genetic data which support Darwin's original racial theory that all human beings originated from more primitive human and non-human species in Africa, are simply modern forms of neo-Darwinist racism in biology.

*sigh* Data really are irrelevant for you, aren't they?

Your so-called 'data' isn't even evident. Someone put your so-called 'data' into a computer and churned out whatever sort of graphic chart they intended the 'data' to show in the first place, and you want to call this resulting diagram 'data?' Puleeeze.

You support my inference yet again. Rather than address the data themselves, you make fun of it, and pretend that it has no basis in logic. Tell you what: how about actually addressing the data, and trying to convince us that the interpretation we offered isn't valid?

The assumptions you've listed are not pertinent to the conclusions I gave you (and which, I will remind you, you said you could not figure out on your own).

You said that any conclusions made before the 'data' was examined amounted to mere gibberish though, so it seems that your assumptions about the conclusions of well-respected scientists which I presented as evidence and data refuting your genetic theories and conclusions, are more gibberish.

I explained why those assumptions aren't pertinent.

Oh, really. So you just dismiss peer-reviewed critiques of your genetic assumptions as impertinent or irrelevent. Hmmm. Interesting scientific method you're using here, Jose.

You still don't get it. The critiques of the assumptions are perfectly fine. The guys you quoted made valid points. It just turns out that their valid points address interpretations about different things than I mentioned. I took those criticisms into account, knowing that the data are silent on the issues they raised. They say that such data cannot be used to determine age from last common ancestor; I didn't do that. They day the mtDNA data cannot be used to distinguish species from one another; I didn't try to do that either--and I explained to you why. I can only conclude that you didn't follow what I wrote before. The alternative--that you choose willful misrepresentation--would be beneath you.

I won't consider it an ad hominem comment about a fellow-hominid in the same taxonomic family.

Most excellent. Very droll.

You're the one "hiding in the closet of unexamined opinion," regarding Lubenow's examination and assessment of the human fossil record with over 1000 scientific quotes, references and footnotes plus a detailed compendium of 371 human fossil specimens which indicate no signs of having evolved from any other species but are obviously geographically representative of the ancestors of various racial groups living on the planet today.

It doesn't matter how many quotes Lubenow or any other author presents. Nor does it matter how many fossils he describes. The important question is whether he did it right. Show us some data.

As I said before, if you have objections to the interpretation of the genetic data in the OP, present them--but make sure you have actual reasoning behind your alternate suggestions. It's no good to refer to "unfounded assumptions" and claim that they prove the whole thing wrong (pardon me, racist) unless you can at least show that those assumptions went into the interpretation.

Since we can only assume that your computer graph was generated using data from mtDNA sequencing, we may also assume that the use of mtDNA as a dating system and as a species-distinguishing system is loaded with unproven and unprovable assumptions which render scientific objectivity in such testing non-existent.

Your interpretation of your computer printout is based on all four of the unfounded assumptions that I listed and you just dismissed these peer-reviewed scientific criticisms of your interpretive techniques as impertinent.

The problem with splitting up coherent paragraphs and quibbling with each bit separately, is one has trouble presenting a coherent argument. You've repeated yourself here, and had you read what I'd said, wouldn't have had to say it at all.

I'll try to be more clear.
1. You say mtDNA makes a lousy dating system. It does. I didn't use it for one. This assumption that underlies mtDNA is irrelevant to what I conclude.
2. You say mtDNA cannot distinguish between species. It cannot. I didn't attempt to do so. this assumption that underlies mtDNA is irrelevant to what I conclude.
3. You say mtDNA may not always be passed on solely by the mother. I didn't conclude anything about the sex of the inferred ancestors. Presumably they were male or female. This assumption that underlies mtDNA is irrelevant to what I conclude.
4. You say mtDNA is unreliable for determining relationships between humans and other primates. I used the information only for assessing relationships among humans. This assumption that underlies mtDNA is irrelevant to what I conclude.

On the other hand, this time you did manage to attack the interpretation using scientific reasoning--the idea that the assumptions are bad. The assumptions aren't a problem for the conclusions I offered, so your objection fails to alter the conclusions. (Last time, as you recall, you simply waved off the interpretation as neo-Darwinian racism, so this is far superior.)

If you are unable to show that the interpretation is wrong, then I fear we're going to have to accept it.

Who's "we," Jose, and why do you fear accepting your own interpretation? Do you fear that some of the other posters might not even accept the original 'data' upon which the computer simulation was programmed and generated?

The "we" included myself, you, and any others who have been following the thread and have not refuted the interpretation of the data. If an interpretation is what one comes up with, and one cannot shoot it down, then one is kinda stuck with it, whether one likes it or not. If one doesn't like it, then one might seek ways to disprove it. Until it can be disproved, it remains the current best interpretation.

Why do I say "I fear we'll have to accept it"? Why not? Besides, the fun part of science is wrestling with the data. Once the interpretation is clear, it becomes boring old information that we think we know. Then, it's time to move on to something we don't know yet, so we can get new puzzling data to interpret. The worst possible thing in science is to figure something out so completely that there's no science left in it.

It's a long way from Darwin's original assumptions and premises about the origins of different human races and species to "science," Jose. I know good science from junk science when I see it and neo-Darwinist racial theories about human origins aren't good science.

Can you provide support for this assertion?

You make some weird assumption that biologists feel compelled to "prove" Darwin's hypothesis about human origins. ... Why would anyone want to do that? What good would it do?

It would perpepuate the neo-Darwinist myth of human origins from African ape ancestors.

You haven't answered my question, really. Why would anyone want to perpetuate any such myth if we could prove it wrong? You seem to have developed some sort of complex about Evil Racist Scientists trying to foist some sort of Wonkiness on the world. We're just trying to figure out history. We don't care a hill of beans what the answer is, but we do care that the answer is as correct as we can make it. If it turns out that we evolved from apes in Africa, OK. If it turned out that we grew from pea seeds planted on the beach in the Bering Sea, OK.

Given the personalities in science, I'd think it far more likely to hear "dang! he was right after all" than to hear "success! I've proven the old guy was right, and thereby earned myself a place in history as a forgotten dimbulb who couldn't think of anything new to do."

That's just an unsubstantiated personal opinion on your part, Jose, and not backed up by any scientific evidence or peer-review by your scientific fellows. However, since we are both as human as any Neanderthal ever was, we are entitiled to express our opinions...

hee hee. Opinions are the easy part. As for the preceding imaginary quotes, you won't find them in the journals because the journals publish science, not people's feelings about what they've done. So, consider it anecdotal evidence, coming from several decades of conversations with scientists, and a great many examples, both mine and others, from the anonymous reviews of manuscripts by one's peers. "Don't publish this junk. It merely confirms what [some prior author] has already done." Confirmation of our predecessors' work leads to total anonymity.
 

Gee, QED, I was just providing Jose with some evidence that my "assertion" was not based on my "private opinion" alone, but is shared by many other reliable sources.... because the links demonstrate that many scholars other than myself hold similar opinions about the mythological nature of neo-Darwinist theory.

Wrong kind of evidence. We have plenty of information that many others share your views. It is not, by any means, your opinion alone. But who cares? We aren't after opinion here, whether yours or those of AIG or any other website. We don't care if a bazillion people think evolution is a religion, or if they don't understand it or science in general. We don't care if a bazillion Steves support evolution. It's not a vote. Science doesn't use a democratic process to determine whether water flows downhill. We want the data.

[jcrawford]

I still don't see any physical data or evidence which conclusively demonstrate neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution out of African ape and monkey ancestors in Africa more than 100 tya, nor do I think that such theories of racial diversity, ancestry and origins can ever be scientifically demonstrated to the satisfaction of the American public.

Of course, neo-Darwinists can continue to theorize about the human fossil record and to make up new names for imagined human 'species,' as they are 'discovered,' but non-Darwinists like myself and others can also invent species names for ourselves and for our human ancestors in the fossil record. We'll just call all living members of the human race Human speciens and all human fossils Human speciensis.

Neo-Darwinist theorists can continue to label themselves as Homo sapiens if they care to as long as they don't call any Human speciens or Human speciensis Homo this or Homo that.

[Jose]

I still don't see any physical data or evidence which conclusively demonstrate neo-Darwinist racial theories of human evolution out of African ape and monkey ancestors in Africa more than 100 tya, nor do I think that such theories of racial diversity, ancestry and origins can ever be scientifically demonstrated to the satisfaction of the American public.

Nor would I expect you to. We have, thus far, presented only the simplest data. It is silent about the species that is ancestral to ours, nor is it 100% conclusive inasmuch as it samples the population instead of examining everyone alive today.

I suspect you are right that the American public will be reticent to accept the implications of the data concerning racial diversity. Most Americans are too convinced that skin color is the determinant of "race." The honkies/gringos/Europeans/whatevers (ie, the "white" ones like me) will mostly deny the conclusions for the simple reason that they indicate that their oppression, and their ancestors' oppression of darker skinned peoples lacks justification. [Of course, they can plead innocence concerning their ancestors' behavior, but that's another issue.]

Of course, neo-Darwinists can continue to theorize about the human fossil record and to make up new names for imagined human 'species,' as they are 'discovered,' but non-Darwinists like myself and others can also invent species names for ourselves and for our human ancestors in the fossil record. We'll just call all living members of the human race Human speciens and all human fossils Human speciensis.

A clever tactic that--implying that there is an intellectual parallel between anthropologists' serious study and your satire thereof. I find it intriguing that you've chosen to suggest that we "continue to theorize about the human fossil record" when we haven't been doing so. We have merely asked you for your interpretation, or your refutation of my interpretation, of very simple genetic data. No fossils involved.

Neo-Darwinist theorists can continue to label themselves as Homo sapiens if they care to as long as they don't call any Human speciens or Human speciensis Homo this or Homo that.

...by which you indicate that we have had a recent speciation event, separating The Human Race into at least two species, creationists and scientists. I think it would be very interesting to examine the genetic relationships among these different groups. Do you suppose being a creationist is heritable? DNA analysis could give the answer.

[jcrawford]

Of course, neo-Darwinists can continue to theorize about the human fossil record and to make up new names for imagined human 'species,' as they are 'discovered,' but non-Darwinists like myself and others can also invent species names for ourselves and for our human ancestors in the fossil record. We'll just call all living members of the human race Human speciens and all human fossils Human speciensis.

A clever tactic that--implying that there is an intellectual parallel between anthropologists' serious study and your satire thereof.

I trust you are not implying that my anthropological observations, experiences and studies are not of the same high intellectual quality as possessed by certain other human beings.

I find it intriguing that you've chosen to suggest that we "continue to theorize about the human fossil record" when we haven't been doing so. We have merely asked you for your interpretation, or your refutation of my interpretation, of very simple genetic data. No fossils involved.

But, Jose, you can't even begin to prove human evolution without making some reference to the fossil record, and since I am not even an amateur geneticist, asking me for an opinion of some genetic chart is like asking a baby for candy.

Neo-Darwinist theorists can continue to label themselves as Homo sapiens if they care to as long as they don't call any Human speciens or Human speciensis Homo this or Homo that.

...by which you indicate that we have had a recent speciation event, separating The Human Race into at least two species, creationists and scientists.

I see you are not taking my anthropological suggestion for a new human species name for the human race seriously, but would rather regard neo-Darwinists and creationists as separate species.

I think it would be very interesting to examine the genetic relationships among these different groups. Do you suppose being a creationist is heritable? DNA analysis could give the answer.

I seriously doubt it, but go ahead with your analysis anyway, just like neo-Darwinst race theorists will always naturally select most African and Eurasian tribes for extinction in order to promote their racist theories of human evolution in Africa.

The amazing thing about the Mitochondrial Eve Model of human evolution out of Africa is that by the time African Eve and her tribe migrate to Eurasia, all human evolution from African ape and monkey ancestors has basically been accomplished in Africa and the rest of the people in the world have just descended from neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens look-alikes in Africa. No evolution there.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

The amazing thing about the Mitochondrial Eve Model of human evolution out of Africa is that by the time African Eve and her tribe migrate to Eurasia, all human evolution from African ape and monkey ancestors has basically been accomplished in Africa and the rest of the people in the world have just descended from neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens look-alikes in Africa. No evolution there.

Very good! You caught on. That is what we have been telling you all along.
There are veriations but those are just due to the enviroment and a narrowing gene pool as people moved farther away from home and of course other people in groups joining groups.

[Jose]

I trust you are not implying that my anthropological observations, experiences and studies are not of the same high intellectual quality as possessed by certain other human beings.

Not at all. I imply only that we have been attempting to deal with one bit of genetic data, and therefore, bringing in conclusions based upon as-yet unpresented fossils is premature. I would be happy to discuss the anthropolgy and palenotology once we get there. But as we have no data on the table here, there is nothing to discuss.

But, Jose, you can't even begin to prove human evolution without making some reference to the fossil record, and since I am not even an amateur geneticist, asking me for an opinion of some genetic chart is like asking a baby for candy.

Indeed, the genetic evidence is not the whole story, and cannot address certain aspects of evolution that palenogology can--and vice versa. However, whether any of us are amateurs or experts in any field, the fact remains that the data exist. If you, or anyone else, is unwilling to learn enough of the subject matter to evaluate the data, then it seems that you are unable to evaluate it--and therefore cannot claim, as you have, that the conclusions are invalid. [Note that I say "unwilling" and not "unable." I am confident that you can learn anything you want to learn.]

When we say "so-and-so said this about the interpretation," it is necessary to evaluate so-and-so's claims. Once the claims have been evaluated, then we see whether the claims are valid, or whether they are not. If they are not, it's "not fair" to fall back on those same claims. For example: you suggested that I was not accepting the statements of my colleagues in reaching my conclusions. When I explained that I was, indeed, accepting their statements, but that their statements did not apply to my conclusions, you nonetheless replied that their statements rendered my conclusion invalid. They did not, and they still do not, because my conclusion takes their caveats into account.

At first blush, it is appropriate to recognize that there is criticism and that there are caveats. Now that we have examined those caveats and taken them into account, those caveats no longer apply. We have taken them into account.

As a not-even-amateur-geneticist, you certainly see the logic here. Presenting "confounds" is appropriate, but once those confounds have been shown not to affect the interpretation, then, well, those confounds don't apply. If you don't have enough background to come up with potential confounds, that's fine. You nonetheless have sources that have proposed them. We can evaluate any of them that you care to put forward.

But, if we evaluate the proposed caveats, and find that they fail to negate the interpretation, then we must accept the interpretation...at least, until some other caveat comes along, and we have to re-evaluate the interpretation in the light of the new considerations. So far, the interpretation stands.

The amazing thing about the Mitochondrial Eve Model of human evolution out of Africa is that by the time African Eve and her tribe migrate to Eurasia, all human evolution from African ape and monkey ancestors has basically been accomplished in Africa and the rest of the people in the world have just descended from neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens look-alikes in Africa. No evolution there.

As Cathar said, you have caught on. The genetic data (both mtDNA data and Y chromosome data) tell us about the very recent evolutionary history of humans. The common ancestor implied by the data is most likely perfectly human. As I've said, those particular data do not tell us anything about where that particular ancestor came from. Rather, the data tell us about the diaspora of modern humans from an original location to the rest of the world. Even creationists accept that there had to be a diaspora of this kind. Their model would give very similar data. The only difference might be the location where the greatest diversity exists, and where the "deepest" diversity is found--in the vicinity of the location that the original population lived.

You are incorrect, however, in claiming that there's "no evolution there." Even Eve in Eden would have produced a diaspora with accompanying evolution. Needless to say, people tend to be different from each other. There are regional groupings (which some people like to call "races"), and within those groupings there is still more variation. The development of that kind of variation over time is called "evolution." Creationists like to say it's not "real" evolution because we didn't turn into whales or armadillos, but that's a false caricature based on a misconception. Creationists like to say that it's "just microevolution" and therefore doesn't count. The fact is, evolution works by the mechanisms of microevolution; microevolution IS evolution. There's even plenty of natural selection going on. There just hasn't been enough time between the diaspora and the invention of intercontinental travel for speciation to have occurred.

[jcrawford]

The amazing thing about the Mitochondrial Eve Model of human evolution out of Africa is that by the time African Eve and her tribe migrate to Eurasia, all human evolution from African ape and monkey ancestors has basically been accomplished in Africa and the rest of the people in the world have just descended from neo-Darwinist Homo sapiens look-alikes in Africa. No evolution there.

As Cathar said, you have caught on. The genetic data (both mtDNA data and Y chromosome data) tell us about the very recent evolutionary history of humans. The common ancestor implied by the data is most likely perfectly human.

I'm certainly glad I've caught on to the fact that "the common ancestor implied by the data is most likely perfectly human," even though the 'data' is based on unfounded assumptions #1 and 2. At least we're both talking about a "perfectly human" common ancestor here and not some imperfect or inferior neo-Darwinist 'species' of Africans. That's the good thing about the African Eve Model. It's the same as the Adam and Eve Model.

As I've said, those particular data do not tell us anything about where that particular ancestor came from. Rather, the data tell us about the diaspora of modern humans from an original location to the rest of the world. Even creationists accept that there had to be a diaspora of this kind. Their model would give very similar data.

Yes. It's amazing how identical the two models of Eve are up to this point.
I wonder who based their model on whose since the first model has certainly been around a lot longer than the latest one.

The only difference might be the location where the greatest diversity exists, and where the "deepest" diversity is found--in the vicinity of the location that the original population lived.

There are also differences regarding the biological and ancestral origins of the two Eves besides mere geographic origins and which 'ancestor' had the most potential for genetic diversity in their very human genome. In the first case, Eve had no African monkeys or apes in her family tree while in the latter, being of African descent according to neo-Darwinist race theorists, is said to have evolved from former primitive African 'species' who themselves originated from African ape and monkey ancestors.

You are incorrect, however, in claiming that there's "no evolution there."

No evolution where? We'll have to follow through and investigate which side of the human fence evolution actually occured on the next post.

tbc:

[jcrawford]

You are incorrect, however, in claiming that there's "no evolution there." Even Eve in Eden would have produced a diaspora with accompanying evolution. Needless to say, people tend to be different from each other. There are regional groupings (which some people like to call "races"), and within those groupings there is still more variation. The development of that kind of variation over time is called "evolution."

Yes, you could call common racial descent from Adam and Eve a form of biological evolution since we certainly don't live as long as they and their early descendents did, but in no way would that biological form of human evolution from the Garden of Eden approximate neo-Darwinist racial theories that some sub-human ancestors of the Order of non-human African primates evolved into a sub-Family of Hominidae from which Homo habilis tool-making handy men in Africa originated in order to further mutate by neo-Darwinst racial 'selection' into the tribe which beautiful African Eve belonged to about 150 tya.

Creationists like to say it's not "real" evolution because we didn't turn into whales or armadillos, but that's a false caricature based on a misconception.

That statement is a stereotypical false characterization and misconception of what modern creationists like Lubenow do say when they they are not being improperly misrepresented.

Creationists like to say that it's "just microevolution" and therefore doesn't count. The fact is, evolution works by the mechanisms of microevolution; microevolution IS evolution.

Creationist microevolution is not the same thing as neo-Darwinist macroevolution, and you know it.

There's even plenty of natural selection going on.

Yes, but as Michael Behe testified in federal court the other day, Darwin's 'mechanism' of "natural selection" can't account for DNA processes and functions, immune systems, blood-clotting or even the intelligent and purposeful design of bacterial flagellum.

[Jose]

Yes. It's amazing how identical the two models of Eve are up to this point.
I wonder who based their model on whose since the first model has certainly been around a lot longer than the latest one.

Maybe you don't get it after all. No one based their model on anyone else. The mtDNA interpretation is based on the mtDNA data, and nothing else. None of your assumptions are valid here, despite your claim that they are. [If you want to insist that #1 and #2 are relevant, then present your reasoning.] The Eve in Eden model was invented entirely on its own, with no knowledge of genetics, and no paleontological information. It's a fine story, but as my friend Rev. Locke has put it, "it's a story."

You may note, by the way, that the interpretation I gave you doesn't mention anyone named Eve. The data, strictly interpreted, tell us about the relationships of current humans and about the most likely place of origin. They give no personal names. They give no species names. The mtDNA model has nothing to do with "Eves" but has been labeled "African Eve" as a way to popularize the concept for non-geneticists. It is an oversimplification and a bit of an inaccuracy (maybe it was African Francine, not Eve).

The data drive the interpretation. Period.

There are also differences regarding the biological and ancestral origins of the two Eves besides mere geographic origins and which 'ancestor' had the most potential for genetic diversity in their very human genome. In the first case, Eve had no African monkeys or apes in her family tree while in the latter, being of African descent according to neo-Darwinist race theorists, is said to have evolved from former primitive African 'species' who themselves originated from African ape and monkey ancestors.

You are extrapolating beyond the data. The mtDNA data do not speak to what you complain about. The data tell us is that there is more diversity in Africa. This is not, I point out, the potential for diversity, but is actual diversity. The potential for diversity is identical for every population; actual diversity depends on how much time there has been to accumulate mutations. I realize that you want to jump ahead and criticize the overall theory of human origins, but if we want to do this right, we have to work through the data. We are not progressing very fast...primarily because someone keeps bringing in issues that are not addressed by the data before us. The data are genetic relationships, and are wholly independent of what your so-called neo-Darwinist race theorists might say about other data that we have so far not presented for discussion.

[Jose]

No evolution there.

Creationists like to say it's not "real" evolution because we didn't turn into whales or armadillos, but that's a false caricature based on a misconception.

That statement is a stereotypical false characterization and misconception of what modern creationists like Lubenow do say when they they are not being improperly misrepresented.

You'll have to explain more here. You said "no evolution there." I'm trying to figure out what the heck you mean. There's been a lot of evolution. You don't recognize it as such. Why not? What do call "evolution"? I'm using the scientific definition, not a popular misconception of it.

Creationist microevolution is not the same thing as neo-Darwinist macroevolution, and you know it.

Irrelevant. Creationists don't say "it's just microevolution, so it's not macroevolution." They say "it's just microevolution, so it's not evolution." Of course, what I've just said may also be irrelevant. The real issue is that macroevolution, even by your definition, occurs by the mechanisms of microevolution.

Yes, but as Michael Behe testified in federal court the other day, Darwin's 'mechanism' of "natural selection" can't account for DNA processes and functions, immune systems, blood-clotting or even the intelligent and purposeful design of bacterial flagellum.

He's wrong, of course. What he means is that he doesn't understand it. His so-called math that proves his point is wrong. This is covered in another thread.

Behe also testified today that his "theory" of Intelligent Design is actually not a theory, but a mere hypothesis, and that according to his definition, ID is exactly as scientific as astrology.