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.

[Cathar1950]

I just wanted to add the male dna came up with the same trail. Jose may have some info I this all I have is what I read in some artical and a program on the discovery channel or tlc or history don't remember.

[jcrawford]

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.

That's incorrect. Your mtDNA interpretation is based on mtDNA theory which is premised on 4 unfounded assumptions.

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.]

They're not my assumptions. They're the unfounded assumptions upon which you are basing your mtDNA theory or "interpretation" on.

The Eve in Eden model was invented entirely on its own, with no knowledge of genetics, and no paleontological information.

Not at all. The Adam and Eve Model is premised on the same scientific data geneticists and paleoanthropologists use. Creationists just have a different interpretation of the data.

It's a fine story, but as my friend Rev. Locke has put it, "it's a story."

Yes, but as my friend, Reverend Lubenow puts it, the Out of Africa Model is just an old neo-Darwinist racial theory.

[jcrawford]

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.

May we assume then, that the population the data was culled from is of the species, Human speciens, except for the chimp, of course?

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.

Eves have everything to do with mtDNA models since Eve is the biblical name for 'mother' and African Eve is the popular name for the African version of the mother of all living.

It is an oversimplification and a bit of an inaccuracy (maybe it was African Francine, not Eve).

How could African Eve be named Francine before the French arrived on the scene?

The data drive the interpretation. Period.

"It is the theory which decides what we can observe." - Albert Einstein. [As quoted by Marvin Lubenow in Bones of Contention, 2004 edition, pg 108; from Physics and Beyond by Werner Heisenberg, trans. Arnold J. Pomerans, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1971), 63.

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.

Wait a minute. Since when is your data the only data that can be examined? We've got two sets of data to look at on this combined thread of ours, the fossil data and the genetic data. Your data isn't showing any more evidence of human evolution than my data is up to this point. When are we going to move on to some relevent data that shows human beings evolving out of Africa?

[jcrawford]

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.

Neo-Darwinist 'macroevolution' theory implies the gradual emergence and creation of entirely new 'species' out of former ones. Since no new 'species' of human beings have 'evolved' from other 'species' since the time either African Eve or Adam and Eve began the propagation of the human race, (Human speciens) neo-Darwinist theorists are forced to racially admit that the macroevolution of human 'species' out of non-human ape ancestors only took place in Africa amongst primitive African populations.

The real issue is that macroevolution, even by your definition, occurs by the mechanisms of microevolution.

Even so, neo-Darwinist microevolution by genetic mutation and 'natural selection' can't account for non-human primates in Africa gradually becoming human any more than Michael Behe can.

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.

Yes, but he thinks the same thing about DNA theories based on 'natural' neo-Darwinst selection.

[Jose]

Neo-Darwinist 'macroevolution' theory implies the gradual emergence and creation of entirely new 'species' out of former ones. Since no new 'species' of human beings have 'evolved' from other 'species' since the time either African Eve or Adam and Eve began the propagation of the human race, (Human speciens) neo-Darwinist theorists are forced to racially admit that the macroevolution of human 'species' out of non-human ape ancestors only took place in Africa amongst primitive African populations.

You have conflated two different issues here. One is the explanation of the pattern of life, after a few billion years of evolution--along with genetic mechanisms that can fully account for this pattern. The other is the extremely recent appearance of our species, and the simple fact that we haven't been around long enough for those same genetic mechanisms to produce dramatic morphological diversification. You cannot negate a billion years' worth of genetics by noting that a few thousand years' worth of genetics hasn't done the same thing.

Even so, neo-Darwinist microevolution by genetic mutation and 'natural selection' can't account for non-human primates in Africa gradually becoming human any more than Michael Behe can

This is a bald assertion. Please provide your reasoning. [uhh...let's skip the discussion of why Behe can't explain anything, and stick with your evidence to support your assertion.]

Alas, we have gotten off topic with respect to the first, simple question we posed. I'll simplify it for you: do we agree with my interpretation of the genetic data? You have been unable to refute it; you have offered several caveats that apply to certain interpretations from similar data, but that do not apply to my interpretation. In the absence of any other caveats, I suggest we accept my interpretation and move on.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

Yes, but as my friend, Reverend Lubenow puts it, the Out of Africa Model is just an old neo-Darwinist racial theory.

I think your old friend might be senile. Eve(the mother of all living) is a composite rewritten from other old stories and myths. Which version do you want to go with there are two of them in Genesis and they are not that coherent.

Not at all. The Adam and Eve Model is premised on the same scientific data geneticists and paleoanthropologists use. Creationists just have a different interpretation of the data.

You do not have any data! You have stories.

[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.

That's incorrect. Your mtDNA interpretation is based on mtDNA theory which is premised on 4 unfounded assumptions .

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.]

They're not my assumptions. They're the unfounded assumptions upon which you are basing your mtDNA theory or "interpretation" on.

Ah. So, your reasoning for insisting that assumptions #1 and #2 are relevant to what I said is that they are not your assumptions. How can you possibly imagine that this explains anything at all about their relevance?

You seem to forget things [a more charitable suggestion than the idea that you refuse to listen], so I'll remind you:

1. There is greater diversity in Africa than elsewhere suggesting that African populations have been around longer.
2. The diversity is "deeper" in Africa than elsewhere (i.e. the vertical lines are longer), indicating that more mutations have occurred, further suggesting that African populations are older.
3. Non-African populations are very closely related to one group of Africans suggesting that it was this group, and not the others, that migrated to Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world.
4. It is possible to determine the root of the tree indicating that there are other species that are genetically-related to humans. Genetic relationship reflects "being part of the same family," with common great-great-great etc grandparents.
5. The species with the closest DNA sequence to humans is chimps suggesting that they are our "cousins" and our nearest relatives in our family tree.

For comparison, here are your restatements of assumptions #1 and #2:

As previousl posted by myself, the unfounded assumptions upon which interpretations and conclusions about genetic data, human relationships and human origins are premised are:

1. That mtDNA is passed on only by the mother. - refuted by John Maynard Smith, Richard Hudson and Henry Harpending. (Lubenow)

2. That mtDNA mutations are regular and serve as a molecular "clock." - refuted by Neil Howard. (Lubenow)

Good. Now: can you find where my interpretation depends upon strict maternal inheritance? It does not. My interpretation is not that we've found our universal mother. It is that humans are related in this particular pattern. As I said before, if you insist that assumption #1 underlies my interpretation, present your reasoning.

Can you find where my interpretation depends upon a defined molecular clock? I say nothing at all about how old any of the inferred ancestors lived. You may, if you like, choose to quibble with my statement that deeper diversity "suggests that African populations are older" but you will note that the pattern of relationships alone makes this inevitable, unless you can find a way for ancestors to be younger than their descendents. Again, if you insist that the assumption #2 underlies my interpretation, present your reasoning.

Not at all. The Adam and Eve Model is premised on the same scientific data geneticists and paleoanthropologists use. Creationists just have a different interpretation of the data.

This makes no sense whatsoever, especially in conjunction with your prior statement that one of the models (A&E) has been around longer. Interesting. The model existed generations before the discovery of genetics or paleoanthropology, and yet you claim that it is premised upon data from those fields. How the heck did they come up with the model, if it is premised upon information that was unknown when they developed the model? This is just silly.

Creationists may interpret the data differently now that it exists--for which I can see no justification whatsoever--but they had the model handed to them, and as you said, the model existed before the data.

I think that what you are really trying to say here is that creationists have a different vision of what science is. We've run into this before on these forums. It seems to be that for something to be scientific, it has only to be an explanation that uses scientific terminology and incorporates some natural processes. Consistency with a larger body of data is irrelevant. Unfortunately, this turns out not to be science, except insofar as it might count as a first-level hypothesis that awaits testing. It is rendered non-science by failing to look at data that already exist, and that provide the answers to the obvious tests.

Wait a minute. Since when is your data the only data that can be examined? We've got two sets of data to look at on this combined thread of ours, the fossil data and the genetic data. Your data isn't showing any more evidence of human evolution than my data is up to this point. When are we going to move on to some relevent data that shows human beings evolving out of Africa?

At this point, mine is the data that can be examined because I have presented the data. One good reason to examine it is that you chose not to interpret it, claiming insufficient background; yet, when I interpret it, you claim (at least by your actions) that you have sufficient background to know it's wrong. This makes no sense. If you are going to say it's wrong, I'm going to hold you to it. Prove that it's wrong. Don't just use your canned phrases, saying "it's neo-Darwinist racism" or that there are assumptions in making some inferences from DNA sequence data, and therefore all inferences must be equally wrong. Those are not analyses of the data or the interpretation. Either address the interpretation, or let us accept it and move on.

Now, in terms of the macroevolutionary pattern seen in the nested hierarchy of the diversity of life, you're right that mtDNA from a single species does not provide evidence. There is evidence of evolution, according to the real definition of the word. But it's "just microevolution," resulting in "variation in kind," so it doesn't get at the issues you really want to address here. So, when are we going to move on? It seems to me we should be ready to move on any moment now--as soon as we accept an interpretation of the relationships revealed by the DNA sequence analysis.

You may note that the interpretation I've offered does not state categorically that we evolved from non-human ancestors. It does not state categorically when or where this occurred, or how long it took. It does not seem to contradict what you've been arguing about. It merely says "this is the pattern of genetic diversity." Can we accept my interpretation and go on, or should we rehash these same questions for another few dozen pages?

[jcrawford]

Neo-Darwinist 'macroevolution' theory implies the gradual emergence and creation of entirely new 'species' out of former ones. Since no new 'species' of human beings have 'evolved' from other 'species' since the time either African Eve or Adam and Eve began the propagation of the human race, (Human speciens) neo-Darwinist theorists are forced to racially admit that the macroevolution of human 'species' out of non-human ape ancestors only took place in Africa amongst primitive African populations.

You have conflated two different issues here. One is the explanation of the pattern of life, after a few billion years of evolution--along with genetic mechanisms that can fully account for this pattern.

Wait a minute. You're just introducing evolutionist rhetoric when you start talking about "a few billion years of evolution--along with genetic mechanisms that can fully account for this pattern." On one post you're chastizing me for moving beyond the context of your diagramatic "data," and on the next post expect me to believe that your genetic chart indicates anything about genetic mechanisms accounting for evolutionist patterns a few billion years ago. Unfounded assumptions #2, 3 and 4 certainly seem to be applicable in any case of genetics involving a few billion years.

The other is the extremely recent appearance of our species, and the simple fact that we haven't been around long enough for those same genetic mechanisms to produce dramatic morphological diversification. You cannot negate a billion years' worth of genetics by noting that a few thousand years' worth of genetics hasn't done the same thing.

Unfounded assumptions #s 2 and 4 may be appropriately applied here regarding genetic mutations and distinguishing one human 'species' from an other.

Even so, neo-Darwinist microevolution by genetic mutation and 'natural selection' can't account for non-human primates in Africa gradually becoming human any more than Michael Behe can

This is a bald assertion. Please provide your reasoning. [uhh...let's skip the discussion of why Behe can't explain anything, and stick with your evidence to support your assertion.]

My reasoning is based on the 4 unfounded assumptions that geneticists rely on to prove anything about human evolution.

Alas, we have gotten off topic with respect to the first, simple question we posed. I'll simplify it for you: do we agree with my interpretation of the genetic data? You have been unable to refute it; you have offered several caveats that apply to certain interpretations from similar data, but that do not apply to my interpretation. In the absence of any other caveats, I suggest we accept my interpretation and move on.

Yes, but one obvious caveat must be borne in mind as we move on. If we start out with racial assumptions based on a racial interpretation of your data, it will, of logical necessity, set the framework and stage for other racial interpretations of subsequent data.

The reason I say this is because any genetic data which gives one racial group an evolutionist advantage over other racial groups in the neo-Darwinist 'struggle for survival' by 'natural selction' is obviously racially prejudiced and tainted from the outset, since it implicitly and inherently denies racial equality in its very premise.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

Yes, but as my friend, Reverend Lubenow puts it, the Out of Africa Model is just an old neo-Darwinist racial theory.

I think your old friend might be senile. Eve(the mother of all living) is a composite rewritten from other old stories and myths. Which version do you want to go with there are two of them in Genesis and they are not that coherent.

Not at all. The Adam and Eve Model is premised on the same scientific data geneticists and paleoanthropologists use. Creationists just have a different interpretation of the data.

You do not have any data! You have stories.

You seem to be unaware of recent genetic studies about time estimates based on a molecular 'clock' in dating the first common human ancestral progenitors of the human race, Cathar1950. Lubenow quotes Anne Gibbons as saying "Using the new clock, Mitochondrial Eve would be a mere 6,000 years old." - "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock," Science 279 (2 January 1998): 28.

[jcrawford]

Good. Now: can you find where my interpretation depends upon strict maternal inheritance? It does not. My interpretation is not that we've found our universal mother. It is that humans are related in this particular pattern. As I said before, if you insist that assumption #1 underlies my interpretation, present your reasoning.

Sure. mtDNA theory is strictly dependent on maternal genetic inheritance, so finding an ancestral or genetic "universal mother" is the most that can be logically expected of mtDNA theory.

Can you find where my interpretation depends upon a defined molecular clock? I say nothing at all about how old any of the inferred ancestors lived. You may, if you like, choose to quibble with my statement that deeper diversity "suggests that African populations are older" but you will note that the pattern of relationships alone makes this inevitable, unless you can find a way for ancestors to be younger than their descendents. Again, if you insist that the assumption #2 underlies my interpretation, present your reasoning.

Your neo-Darwinist interpretation of the genetic 'data' in your graphic art work assumes that genetic mutations are regular and can serve as a molecular clock indicating the evolutionist age of a certain population of human beings who are 'naturally' selected to be racially representative of that population to start with. That's unfounded assumption #2 with a vengeance.