B14-Evolve-B1
Graham L. Kendall
Modified 12/2/2007
Email grahamkendall74135@yahoo.com
I am found on IRC Efnet/Undernet as glk
Files on science and religion are found at
http://www.grahamkendall.net/
All are free to use any of this material without limit.
*******************************************************************************
==
trilobites.

They certainly share a common arthropod ancestor, but
horseshoe "crabs" are probably cousins rather than
offspring of trilobites, which have derived traits
lacking in the chelicerates, such as their remarkable,
unique crystalline eye lenses:

http://www.trilobit es.info/eyes. htm

http://www.austmus. gov.au/palaeonto logy/research/ trilobites02. htm

That trilobites are arthropods is beyond doubt, but
the exact position of Trilobita in the evolutionary
tree of the arthropods is more controversial. Early
workers took the geological antiquity of trilobites as
evidence that they were the most primitive kind of
arthropod, and may have included the ancestors of
crustaceans and chelicerates.

A single pair of antennae is likely a primitive
feature for all arthropods, and the similarity of leg
structure along the trilobite body (e.g., without the
specialised leg-derived mouthparts of crustaceans or
insects) can also be interpreted as primitive. Most
recent workers consider that, among living arthropods,
the closest relatives of trilobites are the
chelicerates. The similarity of these groups may not
be obvious when we make comparison with the
land-dwelling spiders, mites, or scorpions, but
becomes more apparent when we examine the most
primitive living chelicerates, the horseshoe crabs.

Trilobites, horseshoe crabs and sea scorpions have
similar spine rows along the inner margin of their
legs. The lamellae on the outer leg branch of
trilobites are similar (and thought to have the same
evolutionary origin) as the filaments of the book
gills of horseshoe crabs and book lungs of arachnids.

The eyes of trilobites penetrate the dorsal surface of
the head shield as in horseshoe crabs. Nonetheless,
trilobites are not the direct ancestors of horseshoe
crabs or other chelicerates. All trilobites share
certain unique features (like the calcite mineralogy
of the exoskselton and calcified eye) to indicate that
they are a separate branch of Arthropoda.
==
Felis silvestris, the ancestor of the domestic cat, is usually a tabby
because of its forested habitat.
==
http://us.f806.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter?Search=&Idx=0&YY=86133&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0   hominids
==
 "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers,
having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and
that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed
law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most
beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." 
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species 
==
*Parasites and Other Demons *
The Nature of Nature
Life is simple in it's complexity. We talk about being in charge of our
destiny, but some things are just destined; not by supernatural forces,
but by the natural consequences of biological selection for survival and
reproduction. Charles Darwin put it in terms of "modification by
descent", evolving by natural selection of mutations which provide the
best fitness. It seems mindless and in a whole lot of ways it is. It
does not take conscious determination but it does take alteration and
mutations which offer the best chances for adapting to an organism's
environment are the changes which survive - and we don't even have to
think about it because we don't have a conscience choice - anymore than
the Dicrocelium dendriticum in Dennett's Breaking the Spell. That is
destiny.
Daniel Dennett describes an ant whose brain is "commandeered by a tiny
parasite, a lancet fluke" which is programmed by thousands of years of
evolution to get inside another host in order to reproduce and uses the
ant to do it. The ant, like Sisyphus, keeps climbing to the top of the
grass so it can be eaten by a cow or a sheep. Obviously there is no
benefit to the ant's reproductive success to die by being consumed by
cows or sheep, but it has been driven to do it by the parasite which has
commandeered it's brain. And this happens throughout the animal kingdom
with fish, with mice, with other hosts driven to their death by the
parasitic organism which now inhabits it's body. It even happens to us.
And as Dennett points out it happens to Homo sapiens who are consumed by
their belief in religions, the memes which they are so convinced of,
they are willing to die for and believe they're going to heaven if they
do. Or will have their way with 72 virgins. Islam means "submission" and
indeed that is what it is.
There is another world and it lives in us. That world has caused more
death and devastation than all the wars ever fought and will bring down
on us the next plague. It is the world of viruses, bacteria, protozoa
and lancet flukes.
Bacteria of composed of loose DNA and loosely assembled proteins,
whereas protozoa are multicellular and more like us with their DNA
intact. Microbial infectious parasites are everywhere.
"Modern medical science has increasingly implicated microbes in coronary
artery disease, diabetes, autism, multiple sclerosis, chronic lung
disease, and certain types of cancer. In fact, microbial infections
account for more deaths worldwide than any other single cause, and the
cost to treat them exceeds $120 billion a year in the United States
alone." (Benjamin Reese, Your Immune System - A Defense against Hostile
Invaders from the Dana Sourcebook of Immunology)
Ticks are insects commonly found in wooded areas. Some species carry the
bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, which causes Lyme disease. Like
mosquitoes, they feed on the blood of other animals, but unlike
mosquitoes, they hook into the animal's skin for extended periods of
time. (CDC)
Plasmodium, the parasite which causes malaria is a protozoan and there
are multiple species which get into humans when musquitos (spanish for
"little flies") vampirishly suck human blood. Tsetse flies dose their
human victims with the sleeping sickness. In Europe and the Americas
bacteria and viruses have caused tuberculosis and polio. Protozoa hang
out mostly in the tropics and poor people suffer the most from
parasites. During the period of colonization a whole new field of
medicine sprang up to study these diseases, which was called tropical
medicine.
According to Laurie Garrett in The Coming Plague (1994), in the second
year of WWII, penicillin was dispersed to ARmy doctors to use for
malaria and even in the small dose which was used then it was highly
successful. Army doctors, she says, were so impressed with it that they
"collected the urine of patients who were on the drug and crystallized
excreted penicillin for reuse on other GIs." That small dose in 1993
would have been in inadequate and today the plasmodium parasite has
evolved a resistance to penicillin.
Carl Zimmer writes in Parasite, Inside the Bizarre World of Nature's
Most Dangerous Creatures (2001): "Europeans came to look upon parasites
as robbing them of native labor, of slowing down the building of their
canals and dams, of preventing the white race from living happily at the
Equator. When Napoleon took his army to Egypt, the soldiers began to
complain that they were menstruating like women. Actually they had been
infected with flukes..."
These flukes lived in snails and attracted to humans they would infect
their victims by attaching themselves to their legs and feet in the
lakes and ocean and enter their veins and stomachs, finding their way to
the bladder where they lay their eggs. Those infected would urinate blood.
"Blood flukes attacked people from the western shores of Africa to the
rivers of Japan; the slave trade even brought them to the New World,
where they thrived in Brazil and the Caribbean. The disease they caused,
known as bilharzia or schistosomiasis (mentioned a few times on Dr.
House), drained the energy of hundreds of millions of people who were
supposed to build European empires." (Zimmer)
Vaccines were not successful and other meds did little good. The better
method to control them was not to encourage their habitation at all, to
kill the cause rather than treat the symptoms.
Burma has been in the news lately for it's political unrest, but not so
much is reported about the debilitating parasite causing diseases and
death where 75% of those seeking medical health care each year in that
country alone was because of malaria and other parasites - where the
mosquito became resistant to DDT and other insecticides. And other high
death and disease causing parasitic diseases break out, such as the
filariasis, cholera and dengue hemorrhagic fever, killing thousands
throughout the region.
And these parasitic diseases are not all class based infections. Many of
them attack everyone. As pointed out by Robert Desowitz in New Guinea
Tapeworms and Jewish Grandmothers, Toxoplasma gondii (a protozoan
parasite that can cause blindness and severe neurological disease in the
newborn) infect citizens without regard to race, creed or economic class."
Parasites are becoming increasingly prevalent and problematic because
they are the result of human exploitation of resources and land,
building dams, destruction of rain forests, and what feels like
progress, but turns out to be very harmful in the long run. Life can't
be happier if you are dead.
We are in a _middle_ world and we are just discovering there is another
world out here; a very small world. The big world is also mysterious to
us; it is the world of the universe which is so huge we have difficulty
wrapping our minds around concepts like dark matter and dark energy -
and we really don't know what it is and it may have it's own natural laws.
And in the middle and small worlds anything which contains DNA has the
tools therein to replicate itself using a blueprint of some of genetic
code and some of it is essentially the same for every living thing on
the planet - or else it did not originate here on the planet - and the
earliest life did not in fact originate on this planet. The first life,
our ancestors, arrived here from somewhere out there in the universe, in
the bigger world.
But much closer to us in genetic similarity are not the single celled
molecular extremeophiles which started it all; they are the creatures
which evolved to live in us and every species on the planet. They
outnumber other species about four to one and some parasites even have
their own parasites. They are the majority of the species on this planet.
They live in other animals and in us with ease. Many of them change our
personalities, manage our immune systems, reproduce inside of us, and
sometimes they kill us, and coexist with us. Some of them castrate us
and some take over our minds.
There are snake-like roundworms "Ascaris lumbriocoides" in the
intestines of about 1.5 billion humans. And in 1.3 billion humans there
are blood-sucking Hookworms. One billion have whipworms.
Some of them cause a disease called malaria. Some of them will give you
a fever. Some will cause bloody urine. And some of them are quivering
strings of flesh looking worms which spool out of your skin and some put
you to sleep -- (for good).
There are leaf-shaped parasitic flukes that live in a person's liver and
blood. If infected, you can accumulate so many you will glitter and your
skin will appear transparent.
Some of us will have single-cells and are called trypanosomes. If bitten
by a tsetse fly - which drinking your blood as these little creatures
entering the wound where you have been bitten and there it steals oxygen
and glucose and slips into your brain, which and they call that the
"sleeping sickness." The poison to rid a person of them is so potent,
that 20% of it is arsenic and it will melt ordinary plastic IV tubes.
When it gets on your skin it will burn and cause a painful mass of
melted swollen flesh.
The Onchocerca volvulus, which enters the body from the bite of the
black fly looks liked coiled long snakes thin as threads and travels
through your skin where it often triggers a violent immune response and
causes leopard spot-like rashes on your skin. It is so itchy you may
scratch yourself to death. It causes a disease which is called river
blindness. In some places in Africa every person over forty is blind
from this unfriendly parasite.
The Guinea worms are two-foot long creatures which causes blisters on
your legs. The parasite crawls out of the blisters in a few days.
And there are filarial worms which which cause a disease you may have
heard mentioned on Dr. House. It is elephatiasis and your scrotum can
swell up so large it can fit in a wheelbarrel. And then there are the
eyeless, mouthless tapeworms, which live in our guts and can grow as
long as 60 feet.
Everything living has some parasites living inside of them. That is a
world you may be barely aware of but it is there and it is killing us.
As you get older chances are you will acquire more and more of these
creatures which are often there for more than just the ride.
As we learn more about parasites we're finding out they may be the
dominant force in evolution. We evolve defenses against them, but they
seem to be winning.
Those who caution against dire predictions of doom and gloom ignore the
reality which does demand not only our awareness, but action to prevent
it. Climate change is a procursor to more disease and so is the evolving
resistance of microbial infectious agents to antibiotics. So is the
evolution of new infections, new parasites in this battle for life on
the planet - which they are winning. There has already been five major
extinctions and there are scientists who tell us we're in the sixth
extinction level now. Sure, some will say the planet can survive this,
but what about humanity? It is with high probability that we will not
survive the onslaught and will lose this war to emerging diseases.
"Your body's first line of defense against any hostile invader is
something you probably take for granted: your skin, the body's largest
organ. Among other health-related duties, the skin protects against
biological predators in several ways. Skin has three layers, providing a
formidable physical barrier to bugs. Sweat, oils, and other skin
secretions help neutralize and wash away invaders. And our skin is
populated by harmless bacteria that consume nutrients that would
otherwise feed enemy invaders." (Benjamin Reese, Your Immune System - A
Defense against Hostile Invaders from the Dana Sourcebook of Immunology)
"But the barrier that skin provides isn't foolproof: the eyes, nose, and
mouth all provide openings where invaders can sneak in. For this reason,
your body has a second set of biological barriers, located in the mucous
membranes that line these openings. Every time you blink your eyes, for
example, your eyelids wash away microbes much the way windshield wipers
sweep away debris. Inhale something that your body knows doesn't belong,
like pollen, and you'll sneeze the invader out. Saliva and tears both
contain the enzyme lysozyme, which destroys bacteria. Any harmful
bacteria that somehow manage to sneak down your throat plunge into a
deadly acid bath in your stomach." (ibid)
"Unfortunately, wily bugs are sometimes able to breach these multiple
barriers.... ..." (ibid)
As quickly as we develop new methods of defense, ways to destroy the bad
bacteria and the protozoa and other parasites which enter our bodies as
unwelcome guests they do their dirty deed and leave us debilitated and
near death or dead.
==
Take for example, the claim that intermediate species have never been
observed, and therefore macroevolution is false. There are actually many
intermediate species, such as eohippus and mesohippus in the case of the
modern horse, and there is even more evidence of intermediate species in the
case of primitive plants and trees, since their parts fossilize more easily.
Anyone who doesn't believe this should read the great botanist, K.R. Sporne's
book on paleobotany, The Morphology of Gymnosperms, one of the very
fascinating botanical books on this subject. Because of this fact, for many
gymnosperm genera (which is the group that contains pines, firs, spruce,
larches, redwoods, sequoias, hemlock, etc.) we actually know of more extinct
species than extant ones, making the evolutionary sequence much easier to see.
In any case, even if intermediate species didn't exist, we have species whose
genes still contain intermediate developments, such as cetaceans which are
occasionally born with a leg rather than a flipper or a fin. Evolution handles
this easily, whereas the anti-evolutionary theories cannot, since cetaceans
are thought to be land mammals that returned to the sea. They didn't lose the
genes for legs and arms, however,; they were merely repressed, and sometimes
something goes wrong in the gene transcription process and a leg is produced.
This is one difficulty Creationism has never been able to overcome. 
However, this is now many centuries later, and although it took some time for
all the details of the scientific method to be fully worked out and its power
appreciated, there is no doubt at this point that science has far surpassed
philosophy and theology in demonstrable results and knowledge, both practical
and theoretical. And most of that knowledge has been gleaned in only the last
100 years. Contrast that with what has been achieved in the previous 4000
years of philosophy and theology. There's simply no comparison. 
In a word. 'creation science' is not science in any sense of the word, but
'evolution' is science. A scientific model or theory must be falsifiable,
meaning that it must be possible to prove it wrong, if it is wrong, via
repeatable identical experiments or observations made by competent skeptics (a
first requirement for a 'competent skeptic' is that she has adequate scientific
training to carry out the required experiments or observations). Until
'creation science' can produce falsifiable claims, it is not science, it is
mere ideology. Evolution, on the other hand is falsifiable: we see it at work
daily in the effects of mutations.
As for the notion of 'intelligent design', it is not needed. We understand
from physics how the universe evolved into galaxies from the rapid expansion
of a 'hot' gas of fundamental particles. We understand from physics how the
solar system formed via condensation. We understand how life evolves via DNA.
There is no need, at any point, to assume that God (if she exists, whatever
'God' might mean) intervenes at all. The notion of intervention by a god is
not a falsifiable idea, is not science. One can legitimately and intelligently
express lack of understanding about the details of how life evolved initially
from the formation of complex molecules like RNA and DNA (scientists certainly
do), but religious fundamentalism can only thrive in a society that is
scientifically ignorant.
What was there before the Big Bang? Where did the initial energy come from?
Very interesting questions, but we don't know and can't find out. We don't
even know if those questions make any sense. There is quite a lot that we
don't understand, and with good reason. Science doesn't answer all questions,
it only answers falsifiable claims. And hard questions can't simply be
answered 'on demand' but require years of smart, dedicated effort, the hardest
questions will not be answered in our lifetime or in many lifetimes. We do not
yet understand the details of fluid turbulence very well, e.g, and turbulence
is not a complex phenomenon. You can believe what you want about religion, but
unless your claims can be tested then don't try to pass them off as 'science'.
One thing is certain: where science may leave gaps in the description of
complicated details of the evolution of the universe and life, religion or
other ideology cannot provide us with any competent or reliable answers.
==
"Remnants of a human settlement in Monte Verde, Chile 
dated to 12,500 years B.P. (another layer at Monteverde 
has been tentatively dated to 33,000-35,000 years 
B.P.) suggests that southern Chile was settled by 
peoples who entered the Americas before the peoples 
associated with the Bering Strait migrations. It 
is suggested that a coastal route via canoes could 
have allowed rapid migration into the Americas."
==
This was a bug you couldn't swat and definitely couldn't step on. British
scientists have stumbled across a fossilized claw, part of an ancient sea
scorpion, that is of such large proportion it would make the entire creature
the biggest bug ever.
How big? Bigger than you, and at 8 feet long as big as some Smart cars.
The discovery in 390-million-year-old rocks suggests that spiders, insects,
crabs and similar creatures were far larger in the past than previously
thought, said Simon Braddy, a University of Bristol paleontologist and one of
the study's three authors.
"This is an amazing discovery," he said Tuesday.
"We have known for some time that the fossil record yields monster millipedes,
super-sized scorpions, colossal cockroaches, and jumbo dragonflies. But we
never realized until now just how big some of these ancient creepy-crawlies
were," he said.
The research found a type of sea scorpion that was almost half a yard longer
than previous estimates and the largest one ever to have evolved.
The study, published online Tuesday in the Royal Society's journal Biology
Letters, means that before this sea scorpion became extinct it was much longer
than today's average man is tall.
Prof. Jeorg W. Schneider, a paleontologist at Freiberg Mining Academy in
southeastern Germany, said the study provides valuable new information about
"the last of the giant scorpions."
Schneider, who was not involved in the study, said these scorpions "were
dominant for millions of years because they didn't have natural enemies.
Eventually they were wiped out by large fish with jaws and teeth."
Braddy's partner paleontologist Markus Poschmann found the claw fossil several
years ago in a quarry near Prum, Germany, that probably had once been an
ancient estuary or swamp.
"I was loosening pieces of rock with a hammer and chisel when I suddenly
realized there was a dark patch of organic matter on a freshly removed slab.
After some cleaning I could identify this as a small part of a large claw,"
said Poschmann, another author of the study.
"Although I did not know if it was more complete or not, I decided to try and
get it out. The pieces had to be cleaned separately, dried, and then glued
back together. It was then put into a white plaster jacket to stabilize it,"
he said.
Eurypterids, or ancient sea scorpions, are believed to be the extinct aquatic
ancestors of today's scorpions and possibly all arachnids, a class of
joint-legged, invertebrate animals, including spiders, scorpions, mites and
ticks.
Braddy said the fossil was from a Jaekelopterus Rhenaniae, a kind of scorpion
that lived only in Germany for about 10 million years, about 400 million years
ago.
He said some geologists believe that gigantic sea scorpions evolved due to
higher levels of oxygen in the atmosphere in the past. Others suspect they
evolved in an "arms race" alongside their likely prey, fish that had armor on
their outer bodies.
Braddy said the sea scorpions also were cannibals that fought and ate one
other, so it helped to be as big as they could be.
"The competition between this scorpion and its prey was probably like a
nuclear standoff, an effort to have the biggest weapon," he said. "Hundreds of
millions of years ago, these sea scorpions had the upper hand over vertebrates
- backboned animals like ourselves."
That competition ended long ago.
But the next time you swat a fly, or squish a spider at home, Braddy said, try
to "think about the insects that lived long ago. You wouldn't want to swat one
of those."
==
http://www.philosophyforum.net/HistTimeline_files/HistTimeline.htm
==
Difference between fish, humans defined
Oct 11 12:00 PM US/Eastern
British scientists say they have solved a century-old
evolutionary question: what makes a fish and a human embryo evolve differently?
University College London embryologists have identified a key mechanism in the
initial stages of an embryo's development that helps differentiate more
highly evolved species, including humans, from less evolved species, such as
fish.
Early during development, the mass of undifferentiated cells that make up the
embryo must take the first steps in deciding how to arrange themselves into
component layers to eventually form a fully developed body.
In higher vertebrates, such as mammals, two main layers are generated from an
axis running through the center of the embryo. However, in lower vertebrates,
such as amphibians and fish, the two layers are generated around the edge of
the embryo.
Using chicken eggs and modern imaging technology, the researchers discovered
the reason higher vertebrates form their axis at the midline of the embryo is
because during evolution they acquired a new mechanism of "cell
intercalation," which positions the axis at the midline.
They also discovered the molecules used by the embryo to control those cell
movements.
=======
Human ancestors and relatives (See Jan 2000 Scientific American)
http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/
timeline/timeline.html

http://parallel.park.org:8888/Canada/Museum/man/ *
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/ *
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/typespec.html *
http://www.cbv.ns.ca/marigold/history/evolution/evolution.html *
http://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm *
http://www.msu.edu/~heslipst/contents/ANP440/index.htm *
http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm *
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ *
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html *
http://www.anthro.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mchenry/kwjhe.pdf *
http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/toumai2.html *



Order of first appearance in the fossil record:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (320380cc)
Ardipithecus ramidus (dental and postcranial remains)
Orrorin turgenesis (postcranial)
Australopithecus anamensis (cranial capacity unknown)
A. afarensis (mean of 470cc, range 375-540cc)
A. bahrelghazali (cranial capacity unknown)
A. africanus (440-480cc)
A. garhi (c. 450cc)
A. robustus (c. 475cc)
A. boisei (c. 450cc)
A. aethiopicus (c. 410cc)
H. habilis (c. 500-800cc)
H. erectus (c. 725-1250cc)
H. heidelbergensis (c. 1300cc)
H. neanderthalensis (c. 1350-1600cc)
H. sapiens (c.1300-1500cc)

=====
Orrorin tugenensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
=========

Ancestors and close relatives.
----------
Homo sapiens sapiens: 190,000 Years ago
Homo floresiensis 13,000 years ago
Homo sapiens idaltu 160,000 years ago
Cro-Magnon 128,000 years ago
Homo georgicus, erectus
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis: 200,000-30,000 Years ago
Homo Heidelbergensis 500,000 Years ago
Homo sapiens (archaic): 200,000 to 400,000 Years ago
Homo antecessor 800,000 Years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.3 -1.3 million years ago
( Not an ancestor of modern humans)
Homo erectus: 2 million to 400,000 Years ago

Homo ergaster 1.7 million-year ago
Homo habilis: 2.5 million to 1.8 million years
Homo rudolfensis 2 million-year ago
Australopithecus garhi 2.5 million Years ago
Australopithecus africanus 2.8 to 3 million years ago
Paranthropus aethiopicus 2.5 to 3 million years ago
(was Zinjanthropus boisei)
( Not an ancestor of modern humans)
Australopithecus aethiopicus 2.5 million years ago
Kenyanthropus platyops 3.3 Million years.
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.75 years
Ardipithecus ramidus 5.3 mya.
Australopithecus anamensis 3.9 to 4.2 million years ago
A. bahrelghazali 3.5 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus 4.5 million years ago
Ardipithecus kadabba 5.2 to 5.7 million years old
Orrorin tugenensis 6 million years
Sahelanthropus 6-7 mya. (SA Jan 2003)
Nakalipithecus nakayamai 7-13 million years old
Kenyapithecus africanus 15 million years (not ancestor)
Kenyapithecus wickeri 15 million years (not ancestor)
Equatorius africanus 15 million years (ancestor)
Dryopithicus africanus 18 million years ago( Proconsul africanus )
Morotopithecus bishopi 21 million years ago.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070715/sc_nm/humans_walking_dc
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1541283-8,00.html
discusses human evolution in great detail
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~palanth/nate_files/young_maclatchy_2004.pdf

Dryopithecus Middle Miocene
Aegyptopitecus 30 million years
Amphipithecus mogaungensis(anc?) 40 Million years
Eosimiidae 45 Million years Middle Eocene
Carpolestes simpsoni 55 million years old
moused sized fruit eater
(March 2003 Sci. Am.)
The common ancestor of mammals and marsupials is the recently
discovered Eomaia, tiny, hairy 125-million-year-old shrewlike species that
scurried about in bushes and the low branches of trees.
Fossil evidence dates the earliest mammals to 220 million years ago.
===
Plesiadapis may not be a primate.

Plesiadapis
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Plesiadapiformes
Superfamily:	Plesiadapoidea
Family:	Plesiadapidae
Genus:	Plesiadapis
Gervais, 1877
Type species
Plesiadapis tricuspidens
Paleospecies[2][3]

Plesiadapis walbeckensis Russell, 1964
Plesiadapis remensis Lemoine, 1887
Plesiadapis tricuspidens Gervais, 1877
Plesiadapis russelli Gingerich, 1976
Plesiadapis insignis (Piton, 1940)
Plesiadapis praecursor Gingerich, 1975
Plesiadapis anceps Simpson, 1936
Plesiadapis rex (Gidley, 1923)
Plesiadapis gingerichi Rose, 1981
Plesiadapis churchilli Gingerich, 1975
Plesiadapis fodinatus Jepsen, 1930
Plesiadapis dubius (Matthew, 1915)
Plesiadapis simonsi Gingerich, 1975
Plesiadapis cookei Jepsen, 1930

Plesiadapis is one of the oldest known primate-like mammal species which
existed about 60 mya in North America and Europe.[2] It looked a little like a
squirrel. Plesiadapis still had claws and its eyes were located on each side of
the head, making them faster on the ground than on the top of the trees, but
they begin to spend long times on lower branches of trees, feeding on fruits
and leafs.
===


Ardipithecus ramidus 5.3 mya.

Sahelanthropus is dated at 6-7 mya.




5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 .0
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
| | | | | |
| | A.robustus ****** | |
| | A.boisei ***********| |
| A.aethiopicus **** | | |
| | | | | |
A.ramidus * | | | | |
A.anamensis **** | | | |
A.afarensis ********** | | |
| A.africanus *********** | |
| | | | | |
| | H.habilis ********** | |
| | | H.erectus **************** |
| | | archaic H.sapiens *****|
| | | | Neandertals **|
| | | | modern H.sapiens **
| | | | | |
|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990827/sc/science_ancestor_3.html
----
Before 8 my ago our closest relatives seem to have
lived in Eurasia (Dryopithecus, Ourano-, Ankarapith...).
-------------------------
**************************************************************Tarsiers
|
| ****************************Old World Monkeys
| |
| | *************************Gibbons
| | |
| | | ****************Orangutans
**********************************************| |
| | | | |**************Humans
| | | | |
| | *******************African Apes
| |
| ***********************************New World Monkeys
|
| ******************************Lemurs
| |
******************************************************************Lorises

==


Why Darwin Matters

The Facts of Evolution

"Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that
variations useful to man have undoubtedly
occurred, that other variations useful in some
way to each being in the great and complex battle
of life, should sometimes occur in the course of
thousands of generations? If such do occur, can
we doubt (remembering that many more individuals
are born than can possibly survive) that
individuals having any advantage, however slight,
over others, would have the best chance of
surviving and of procreating their kind?"--Origin of Species, Ch. 4.

It's such a simple idea. It's so small and
innocuous. Why are people afraid of it? Things
change. Duh. Things adapt to their environment
slowly over time. That's a good thing. If
evolution didn't exist there would be nothing
live on earth. The earth is not heaven. It's not
a static place that is always kind to us
struggling organisms. Things change so we must
change. The earth warms. The earth cools.
Continents-- like South America and Africa--drift
apart, sometimes--like India and Asia--they smash
together. Often these changes happen too rapidly
for evolution to meet the challenge. There are
estimates that 99.9% of species that ever lived
are now extinct. Sometimes when the changes
happen suddenly organisms can evolve rapidly.

Due to poaching, about 10% of Chinese
elephants are now born without tusks. Normally
the percentage is about 2%. The gene pool is
changing. This represents extremely rapid
evolution and it may save the Asian elephant from extinction.

So all this is good stuff. Why don't people
embrace it gladly? Why does it matter so much? I
plan to talk about that in a bit, but first I'd
like to talk a little more about what evolution is.

I know to some extent I'm preaching to the
choir here. Even those of you who don't have a
deep understanding of evolution accept that it
took place. When people ask me what's the most
important evidence for evolution and I have to
get it out in one sentence, I usually say "You're
a mammal." If the person is a woman I say "You
are a mammal and if you don't believe me, look
down." If I have a little more time I say that
and then I say "Look at your hand." First of all,
you have fingers. We are tetrapods because we
have four limbs. There's a 360 million year old
fossil fish called A-can-tho-stega that has four
legs and fingers on each hand. It's one of those
transitional fossils the creationists say don't exist.

Almost all tetrapods have five fingers. Why
five? Why not six? Why not three fingers and a
thumb? It works well for Disney characters! Six,
five, or four would all work about the same, so
the number of fingers is invisible to natural
selection--most of the time. Bats, horses and a
few other tetrapods have fewer, but they develop
five fingers as embryos and then absorb the ones
they won't need before they are born. So why do
we have five? Because our common ancestor had
five. And we've got the DNA and the fossils to prove it.

Ok, now take a look at your fingernails.
They are flat. All tetrapods have fingernails of some kind, many of
them have
claws. Only we have flat fingernails. By "we" I
mean all hominids--monkeys, apes and humans.

I could take up the entire talk with the
evidence for evolution. It's a vast topic. It
would take more than your lifetime to examine all
the evidence in detail and I've only got twenty minutes.

So Why People Do Not Accept Evolution?

Adam Sedgwick was a very good friend of Darwin's.
The passage I'm about to read you is frequently
quoted by creationists. Like a lot of creationist
quotes it's out of context. If you read the
entire letter, you can see Sedgwick isn't
attacking Darwin, but is a good friend pointing
out what he thinks is a problem with the theory:

Sedgwick writes: "There is a moral or
metaphysical part of nature as well as a
physical. A man who denies this is deep in the
mire of folly . . . You have ignored this link;
&, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have
done your best in one or two . . . cases to break
it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not)
to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a
damage that might brutalize it-& sink the human
race into a lower grade of degradation than any
into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its
history."

In his book "Why Darwin Matters" Michael
Shermer builds the case for why people object to
evolution. Sedgwick's quote is a pretty good
representation of the entire problem. Shermer puts it this way:

"The syllogistic reasoning behind the general
fear of evolution is as follows: Evolution
implies that there is no God, therefore Belief
in the theory of evolution leads to atheism,
therefore Without a belief in God there can be
no morality or meaning, therefore Without
morality and meaning there is no basis for a
civil society, therefore Without a civil
society we will be reduced to living like brute animals."

Shermer goes on to say: "What people want to know
is this: If my kids learn about evolution in
school are they going to become atheists? Will we
lose all meaning and morality? Will society go to
hell in an immoral handbasket?"

The answer is, of course, "no." Countries which
teach evolution more aggressively than the US and
where evolution is more widely accepted, in
general have a lower crime rate, a lower infant
death rate, a lower out of wedlock birth rate and
a generally higher standard of living. Now I know
there are a lot of cultural and other reasons why
Germany and Sweden, for example, are better than
we are at some things. But broad acceptance of
evolution has clearly not made them less peaceful, cooperative or
law abiding.

Knowledge of the animal origins of human beings
does not make us less human. Nor does such
knowledge make us less moral. I would like to
briefly touch on the idea that "Without a belief
in God there can be no morality." I have also
heard it expressed as "if we are mere animals
what is the point of morality?" That is such a
rich topic I will probably base a future sermon
on it. However, I'd like to say now that the
point of morality is to live a happy life. A
happy life is not possible without morality. If
you behave in a moral way only because you
believe God will punish you--or even for the sole
reason that you wish to please God--I contend
that you do not have a personal morality at all.
You have borrowed moral principles which you
acknowledge are foreign to you. You are following
God's laws, for whatever reason, not your own moral principles.

In addition to the fear about a belief in
evolution causing moral decay, there is also a
fear that science is a threat to specific
religious tenets. Of course, that depends.
Evolution contradicts a literal reading of
Genesis--sort of. But I could make a case that
Genesis makes constant veiled references to evolution and
abiogenesis.

This is the first book of Genesis, verses 1-4,
from the King James Version of the Bible:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and
void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and
there was light." Is this a metaphor for the Big Bang?

Here's Genesis 6-7:
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament,
and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it
was so."
The early Mesopotamians believed there was water
above the sky. Nobody, not even Pat Robertson,
believes that now, but otherwise doesn't this sound like stellar
evolution?

How about this: Genesis 9:
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together unto one place, and let the dry
land appear: and it was so" Plate tectonics anyone?

What about abiogenesis? First life? Here is Genesis 2 verse 7:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the
ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
of life; and man became a living soul." There is
not a single molecule of our bodies that is not
also some constituent of the earth. We are
literally and truly formed out of the dust of the ground.

So what's the problem? Well, there's the thing
about original sin. If there was no original
sin--the fall of man in the garden of Eden, then
there was no point to the sacrifice of Jesus. I
could talk about the abysmally bad morality of
substitutionary atonement--that would fall on
deaf ears, I assure you. But that's okay, no
creationist that I know of has embraced my
interpretation of scripture either. It's their
problem and I'll have to let them work it out.

Meanwhile it's not just evolution in particular
that is under attack but science in general. The
current pack of creationists- -the Intelligent
Design proponents-- have tried to redefine science
so that it would cover whatever it is they are
trying to do. In fact I had a creationist
complain to me--and this was in person to my
face--that scientists were "trying to define
Intelligent Design out of existence." Frankly,
since science is an investigation of only the
natural world ID lost the race before it left the
starting gate. But the attempt to redefine
science to include supernatural intervention is
an attack on all science everywhere.

This is from the Wedge Strategy, an intelligent
design manifesto believed to have been written by
Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial:
"Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of
Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the
overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from
the natural sciences and those from the
humanities and social sciences, the Center
explores how new developments in biology, physics
and cognitive science raise serious doubts about
scientific materialism and have re-opened the
case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature."

The Wedge Strategy clearly contradicts the idea
that Intelligent Design is science and makes it
clear that the entire thing is a religious
enterprise. In the lexicon of Intelligent Design
"materialism" and "Darwinism" are both code words
for "atheism." Therefore it is not just evolution
that must be eliminated but all of
"materialistic" (that is, "atheistic") science.
Creationists are horrified when you point that
out to them. They enjoy the medical advances, the
technological toys and the wealth that science
brings them. They don't want to believe they are
sawing off the limb upon which they sit. They
hotly insist that they are not doing that. But
the sound of the saw is very chilling to the rest of us.

Why Science Matters.

"What science tells us is that we are but one
among hundreds of millions of species that
evolved over the course of three and a half
billion years on one tiny planet among many,
orbiting an ordinary star, itself one of the
possibly billions of solar systems in an ordinary
galaxy that contains hundreds of billions of
stars, itself located in a cluster of galaxies
not so different from millions of other galaxy
clusters, themselves whirling away from one
another in an expanding cosmic bubble universe
that very possibly is only one among a near
infinite number of bubble universes. Is it really
possible that this entire cosmological multiverse
was designed and exists for one tiny subgroup of
a single species on one planet in a lone galaxy
in that solitary bubble universe? It seems unlikely.

". . . If religion and spirituality are supposed
to generate awe and humility in the fact of the
creator, what could be more awesome and humbling
than the deep space discovered by Hubble and the
cosmologists and the deep time discovered by Darwin and the
evolutionists?

"Darwin matters because evolution matters.
Evolution matters because science matters.
Science matters because it is the preeminent
story of our age, an epic saga about who we are,
where we came from, and where we are going."
==
Pressured By Predators, Lizards See Rapid Shift In Natural Selection
Countering the widespread view of evolution as a process played out over the
course of eons, evolutionary biologists have shown that natural selection can
turn on a dime -- within months -- as a population's needs change. In a study
of island lizards exposed to a new predator, the scientists found that natural
selection dramatically changed direction over a very short time, within a
single generation, favoring first longer and then shorter hind legs.
The predator lizard Leiocephalus carinatus.
The findings, by Jonathan B. Losos of Harvard University and colleagues, are
detailed this week in the journal Science. Losos did much of the work before
joining Harvard earlier this year from Washington University in St. Louis.
"Because of its epochal scope, evolutionary biology is often caricatured as
incompatible with controlled experimentation, " says Losos, professor of
organismic and evolutionary biology in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences
and curator in herpetology at the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology.
"Recent work has shown, however, that evolutionary biology can be studied on
short time scales and that predictions about it can be tested experimentally.
We predicted, and then demonstrated, a reversal in the direction of natural
selection acting on limb length in a population of lizards."
Losos and colleagues studied populations of the lizard Anolis sagrei on
minuscule islands, or cays, in the Bahamas. They introduced to six of these
cays a larger, predatory lizard (Leiocephalus carinatus) commonly found on
nearby islands and known as a natural colonizer of small cays. The scientists
kept six other control cays predator-free and exhaustively counted, marked,
and measured lizards on all 12 isles.
Anolis sagrei spends much of its time on the ground, but previous research has
shown that when a terrestrial predator is introduced, these lizards take to
trees and shrubs, becoming increasingly arboreal over time. Losos and his
colleagues hypothesized that immediately following a predator's arrival,
longer-legged -- and hence faster-running -- Anolis lizards would be favored
to elude capture. However, as the lizards grew ever more arboreal in habitat,
the scientists projected that natural selection would begin to favor shorter
limbs, which are better suited to navigating narrow branches and twigs.
Their hypothesis was borne out. Six months after the introduction of the
predator, Losos found that the Anolis population had dropped by half or more
on the islands with the predators, and in comparison to the lizards on the
predator-free islands, long legs were more strongly favored: Survivors had
longer legs relative to non-survivors. After another six months, during which
time the Anolis lizards grew increasingly arboreal, selective pressures were
exactly the opposite: Survivors were now characterized by having shorter legs
on the experimental islands as compared to the control islands.
The behavioral shift from the ground to higher perches apparently caused this
remarkable reversal, Losos says, adding that behavioral flexibility may often
drive extremely rapid shifts in evolution.
"Evolutinary biology is by its nature an historical science, but the
combination of microevolutionary experimentation and macroevolutionary
historical analysis can provide a rich understanding about the genesis of
biological diversity," the researchers write.
==
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives /2006/11/ denton_vs_ squid.html# more

Denton vs Squid; the eye as suboptimal design.

Trackback URL: http://degas. fdisk.net/ cgi-bin/mt/ mt-tb.fcgi/ 2712
In a recent article in Touchstone Magazine, Jonathan Witt, fellow for the
Discovery Institutes Center for the renewal of science and culture, has
written a review of Francis Collins book The Language of God: A Scientist
Presents Evidence for Belief. Amongst other things in this review he claims
that Michael Denton has demonstrated that the backwards wiring of the
mammalian retina improves oxygen flow and is good design.
Denton of course, has done no such thing. Since I am on a role with things
visual, I am reposting an updated version of an earlier article on this topic.

Just to recap, vertebrates (like ourselves), and the invertebrates Squid and
Octopi have camera eyes. They differ in how the photoreceptors in the retina,
the part of the eye that receives the image, is wired up to the brain. The
vertebrate wiring system is often cited as an example of bad, or at least
quirky, design that is explainable by evolution.
The vertebrate retina is wired backwards. That is the photoreceptors point to
back of the retina, away from incoming light, and the nerves and blood vessels
are on the side of the incoming light, this means that any image formed on the
vertebrate retina has to pass though layers of blood vessels and ganglion
cells, absorbing and distorting the image.
To get decent visual acuity, vertebrates must focus light on a small patch of
retina where the blood vessels and nerves have been pushed aside, the fovea.
This patch must be small because of the nutrient requirements of the retina.
Also, the construction of the vertebrate retina means that blood vessels and
nerves must pass through the retina, creating a blind spot, where no image is
formed. Finally, the backwards retina means that vertebrates have a high risk
of retinal detachment. Altogether this shows that having the nerves and blood
vessels in front of the photoreceptors is less than optimal design.
Imagine taking a pane of glass, then smearing it thickly with vaseline, then
wiping a tiny hole in the vaseline. That is what the vertebrate retina is like.
Now consider the eye of squids, cuttlefish and octopi. Their retinas are
rightway round, that is the photoreceptors face the light, and the wiring and
the blood vessels facing the back (1). Squid and octopi have no blind spot;
they can also have high visual acuity. The octopus also has a fovea-equivalent
structure, which it makes by packing more (or longer) photoreceptors into a
given area (1). Because it doesnt have to create a hole in the supporting
tissue it can have arbitrarily large fovea, and greater visual acuity.
Cuttlefish have better visual acuity than cats (2) and because of their
rightway round retinas; this level of acuity covers nearly the entire retina
(1,2) unlike vertebrates where it is confined to the small spot of the fovea.
The vertebrate retina is a prime example of historically quirky design. The
vertebrate retina is backwards because the development of the retina was first
elaborated in rather small chordates, where issues of acuity and blind spots
were non-existent; all subsequent vertebrates got stuck with this design.
Vertebrates do very well with the limitations of the design of the eye, but it
is clear that this is no system a competent designer would make. Naturally,
this annoys the proponents of an Intelligent Designer, and they have been
looking for ways to put a better spin on the kludged design of the vertebrate
eye.
ID advocates have a hard time dealing with the quirky design of the eye, both
Witt and Behe have used the better blood flow argument in order to show the
backwards retina really is good design.
This invokes an argument that has been doing the rounds of creationists for a
while. The True.Origins site (which is a rip-off of Talk.Origins) has a page
that claims that the backwards retina improves the blood supply. It is
probably the canonical page where these claims come from. Dentons argument is
slightly different, but follows on from the canonical creationist argument, so
I will deal with the creationist argument first.
In vertebrates, underneath the photoreceptors is a layer of pigment and
pigment cells called the choroid (the squid, cuttlefish and octopus have
similar arrangements - more on this later), this layer of pigment absorbs
stray light that is not caught by the photoreceptors, which might reflect back
and fuzz up the image.
In terrestrial vertebrates, the amount of light landing on the retina produces
a significant amount of heat, enough to damage the retina itself (3,4). The
True.Origins page gives the impression that it is light focused on the retina
that produces the heat. The article implies that by having the most thermally
sensitive bit of the photoreceptor bang up against a heat sink (the blood
vessels of the choroid, whose rapid blood flow removes the heat, see below),
vertebrates can tolerate light intensities that right way round retinas could
not.
However, when one reads the paper they reference (3), a completely different
picture emerges.
It is the choroid itself that generates the heat that threatens the retina! As
noted above, the pigments in the choroid absorb light that is missed by the
photoreceptors. This light is re-radiated as heat. 25-30% of the light falling
on the retina ends up being absorbed by the choroid and re-radiated as heat
(3,4). So we have the most thermally sensitive part of the photoreceptors bang
up against the bit that generates the most heat. Good design? I think not.
To cool down the choroid, very fast blood flow through the tissues below and
in the pigment layer is needed (3,4). But lets be clear about this, the
Creationists have it back to front. The backwards arrangement of the
vertebrate retina does not make possible fast blood flow, it requires fast
blood flow to cool the tissue down. This is yet another area where vertebrate
design is flawed, with the fragile photoreceptors hard up against the source
of the damaging heat.
Of course, the question of why fish, which have more species than all
terrestrial vertebrates combined, must suffer with a backwards retina so that
terrestrial vertebrates can have high blood flows to an area that wouldnt need
them if the system was designed correctly in the first place, is never
addressed. The other question is why terrestrial gastropods which have camera
eyes have a right way round retina if invert retinas are important for
terrestrial vision? Their camera eyes are relatively small compared to
terrestrial vertebrates, and so should loose heat readily. However, arthropod
eyes of this size are subject to light-induced retinal damage. See the
references in this paper.
In squid, octopi, cuttlefish and terrestrial gastropods, the pigment layer is
below the photoreceptors, in an area of dense blood vessels (1). This
arrangement blocks stray light and provides sufficient blood flow to cool the
tissue and provide nutrients without the added layers of ganglion cells over
the top of the photoreceptors that distort and absorb the image. Even better,
squid, octopi and cuttlefish do not have the most thermally sensitive part of
the retina next to the source of waste heat, as it is in vertebrate eyes,
needing an outrageous amount of blood flow to cool the system.
The vertebrate eye does very well indeed, but it is a kludge. The fovea is a
cute trick to squeeze greater acuity out of a flawed design, but octopi and
squid do it better. The cooling blood flow to the choroid is needed as the
pigments of the choroid generate waste heat, but this is irrelevant to whether
the photoreceptors are forward or reverse facing. The arrangement of the
vertebrate eye does not improve the blood supply, and it looks like the
vertebrate eye has to kludge up a high blood flow to the choroid because the
vertebrate inverted retina is poorly designed to get blood to where it is
needed.
This brings us to Dentons argument. This is that the blood flow through the
choroid needs to be high for the metabolic requirements of the retina. This is
a variant of the cooling bath concept, and has exactly the same problems. The
retina is an energy hungry system, but it doesnt need to be inverted to get a
high blood flow. In fact, the way the vertebrates do it is just plain silly.
Molecules used for providing the energy to run light detection are formed in
the mitochondria in the cell body from blood born nutrients, then passed along
to the photoreceptors in the modified cilia projecting from the cell body (see
diagrams in links above). As the retina is invert, the cell bodies are further
away from the choroid, with the light harvesting disks between them and the
choroid. Consequently, all blood born nutrients delivered by the choroid in
vertebrates must diffuse from the choroid, through the pigmented epithelium,
then past all the photoreceptor disks to the mitochondria in the cell body to
be used (and all waste diffused in the reverse direction). Delivery from the
cell body end would result in a shorter diffusion distance through less
restricted space; ie, more efficient delivery. This point is born out by the
fact that choroid oxygen tension drops by only 3% from artery to vein. In
consequence, the retinal artery, though it only carries 5% of the blood
supplied to the retina, carries 40% of the oxygen used by the retina.
Denton says
Blood absorbs light strongly, . From this we can immediately discount one
possible way of supplying the photoreceptors in a non-inverted retina where
the photoreceptor would form the inner layerpointing directly towards the
light, i.e., by placing a choriocapillaris- type system of blood vessels in
front of the photoreceptor cells, i.e., between the photoreceptors and the
light. While such an arrangement might well deliver sufficient quantities of
oxygen to the photoreceptors, the sensitivity and acuity of any such
hypothetical eye would be greatly diminished by the highly absorbent complex
of blood vessels positioned between the light and the photoreceptor layer

This is pretty silly, with the current arrangement, the photoreceptors have a
range of ganglion cells, supporting cells, nerve cells and blood vessels
already piled thickly on top of it (when you look into the eye with and
ophthalmoscope, you can see the superficial blood vessels on top of the
retina, there are also capillaries that dive deep into the cell layer as well.
The retina already has a mass of blood, and lots of other things, getting in
its way. Of course there is a better way to do it, the way cephalopods do it.
In cephalopods the blood vessels are right next to the terminal parts of the
photoreceptor process, the photoreceptor cell bodies and the pigment cells
where it is needed. You can see the blood vessels and pigments in this paper
on the octopus retina. It is far more efficient than the vertebrate system for
both cooling and nutrient delivery. No wonder cephalopods require a much
smaller blood supply to the eye.
Both the cooling bath and the nutrient/oxygen delivery arguments actually
reveal that the vertebrate eye is a kludge. The high flow rates are required
because the quirky design means more efficient methods cant be used.
Denton brings in other arguments for the superiority of the vertebrate
back-to-front retina, but they are irrelevant. Fore example, vertebrate
photoreceptors can detect a single photon as he claims, great, but so can
cephalopod photoreceptors, and they are not covered with gunk that absorbs or
scatters the incoming photons. Cephalopods occupy many niches, from shallow
water tidal zones with high light intensities to the abyssal depths where
every photon counts, some are ambush predators, and some are active hunting
predators. Some see in black and white, some see in colour, some see polarized
light (which vertebrates cant). Many have visual acuity equivalent to many
vertebrates; cuttlefish have equivalent visual acuity to cats as befits their
status as active hunters. All this without an invert retina. When Denton says
that in redesigning from first principles an eye capable of the highest
possible resolution (within the constraints imposed by the wavelength of
light16) and of the highest possible sensitivity (capable of detecting an
individual photon of light) we would end up recreating the vertebrate eye

he is just plain wrong.
The pre-adaptation concept Denton prattles on about is nonsense. We are to
expect that an intelligent designer will give the marine vertebrates, which
are significantly more numerous in species and population than the terrestrial
vertebrates, a poorly designed retina so that a very few percent of all
terrestrial vertebrates can have supposedly superior vision? This is a
definition of good design of which I was not previously aware. And again,
cephalopods do it better.
Lets be clear, the vertebrate eye works, and works rather well given its
limitations (one merely has to contemplate the visual acuity of the eagle to
see that the design works well). But it is a suboptimal Heath Robinson design
where the limitations of the original invert retina setup (which were
irrelevant to amphioxus and the small chordates in which the vertebrate eye
evolved) are worked around by kludges. It is like claiming that the misground
Hubble mirror with its correcting lenses is the best possible design because
it gives clear pictures.
Once again, the vertebrate eye fails as Intelligent Design. ID proponents
loudly proclaim they are not creationists and one is left to wonder why they
have appropriated a bad Creationist argument.
(1) Matsui S et al., Adaptation of a deep-sea cephalopod to the photic
environment. Evidence for three visual pigments. J Gen Physiol. 1988
Jul;92(1):55- 66
(2) Schaeffel F, Murphy CJ, Howland HC Accommodation in the cuttlefish (Sepia
officinalis) . J Exp Biol. 1999 Nov;202 Pt 22:3127-34.
(3) Parver LM. Auker CR. Carpenter DO. The stabilizing effect of the choroidal
circulation on the temperature environment of the macula. Retina. 1982,
2(2):117-20.
(4) Parver LM. Temperature modulating action of choroidal blood flow. Eye.
1991;5 ( Pt2):181-5.
(5) Denton, M The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation? Origins &
Design 19:2

Its worth noting that certain aspects of cephalopod eyes are a bit of a kludge
as well. Most cephs have holes in the middle of their lens. Why? Because they
evolved from primitive pinhole eyes as found in modern Nautilus. Its a really
stupid system that just happens to work better than no lens at all.
But if you could combine a vertebrate lens and iris with the cephalopod retina
and related structures, you might actually get an eye that could seem
intelligently designed.
Seem being the key word, but its irrelevant because we still dont have any
eyes remotely like that. We just have really stupid ones.
==
If two species branched from a Toumai-like ancestor 6.3 MYA, neither was a
chimp and neither was a human. I
==
Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on

IT STARTED with a biologist sitting on a grassy river bank in York, eating a
sandwich. It ended in the discovery of a scruffy little weed with no
distinguishing features that is the first new species to have been naturally
created in Britain for more than 50 years.
The discovery of the York groundsel shows that species are created as well as
made extinct, and that Charles Darwin was right and the Creationists are
wrong. But the fragile existence of the species could soon be ended by the
weedkillers of York City Councils gardeners.
Richard Abbott, a plant evolutionary biologist from St Andrews University, has
discovered evolution in action after noticing the lone, strange-looking and
uncatalogued plant in wasteland next to the York railway station car park in
1979. He did not realise its significance and paid little attention. But in
1991 he returned to York, ate his sandwich and noticed that the plant had
spread.
Yesterday, Dr Abbott published extensive research proving with DNA analysis
that it is the first new species to have evolved naturally in Britain in the
past 50 years.
Ive been a plant evolutionary biologist all my life, but you dont think youll
come across the origin of a new species in your lifetime. Weve caught the
species as it has originated it is very satisfying, he told the Times. At a
time in Earths history when animal and plant species are becoming extinct at
an alarming rate, the discovery of the origin of a new plant species in
Britain calls for a celebration.
The creation of new species can takes thousands of years, making it too slow
for science to detect. But the York groundsel is a natural hybrid between the
common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort, which was introduced to Britain from
Sicily 300 years ago. Hybrids are normally sterile, and cannot breed and die
out.
But Dr Abbotts research, published in the journal of the Botanical Society of
the British Isles, shows that the York Groundsel is a genetic mutant that can
breed, but not with any other species, including its parent species. It thus
fits the scientific definition of a separate species.
It is a very rare event it is only known to have happened five times in the
last hundred years Dr Abbott said. It has happened twice before in the UK the
Spartina anglica was discovered in Southampton 100 years ago, and the Welsh
groundsel, discovered in 1948.
The weed sets seed three months after germinating and has little yellow
flowers. The species, which came into existance about 30 years ago, has been
called Senecio eboracensis, after Eboracum, the Roman name for York. According
to the research, it has now spread to spread to several sites around York, but
only ever as a weed on disturbed ground.
However, more than 90 per cent of species that have lived subsequently become
extinct, and its future is by no means certain.
It is important for it to build up its numbers rapidly, or it could get rubbed
out which would be sad. The biggest threat to the new species is the
weedkillers from the council, Dr Abbott said.
===
Bacteria, by and large, don't have sex. They do, however, have
genetic transfer. Bacteria will pick up stray bits of DNA floating
in the environment, incorporating it into their own genome. This
accelerates evolution and allows them to adapt to changing
conditions faster than they would otherwise.
Some bacteria take this a step further. They take advantage of
other bacteria picking up stray DNA and incorporating it by
injecting other bacteria with their own DNA! This bit of bacterial
rape spreads the genes of the rapist bacteria, a clearly successful
example of Dawkin's selfish gene concept. It is probably from a
system like this that sex proper evolved.
It's important to note that, for bacteria, sex (gene transfer) and
reproduction aren't related concepts. They remain separate into the
single-celled protists, but by this point at least the sex is
usually formalized into systems. Paramecium, for example, swap
genetic material between them. You can easily see how this could
have evolved from the bacterial rape scenario simply by having a
species where each bacteria sent genetic material to the other at
the same time (double rape, as it were).
This simple exchange of genes works well for a single-celled
organism, but it gets trickier with colonial forms. Some
filamentatious algae get by just by being a long chain of single-
cells, all of which can mate with another long chain of single-
cells. More complex structures require more complex solutions.
Consider Volvox. Volvox is a motile green algae where the colonies
form hollow, spherical balls. It would be extremely difficult for
two spherical Volvox colonies to meet and swap genes across their
entire surface. Of course, the Volvox colony is formed from an
individual cell, so all of it's members, baring any mutations or
mating that might occur, are genetically identical. So, in a sense,
mating at any point of connection becomes just as good as all of
them mating, it's the same amount of genetic recombination.
Volvox have mastered another important genetic trick, which they do
poorly but which would become extremely important in the development
of life: Cellular specialization. In an algae, like Spyrogyra, all
the cells are identical in any one filament. In Volvox, while the
cells are genetically identical, their _expression of those genes is
not. Some cells are better at moving the colony around. Some have
more chloroplasts. And some are specialized for reproducing. Mix
the specialized reproducers with the possibility of mating with
another colony (and only the reproducing cells make any sense for
mating at this point) and for the first time, sex and reproduction
finally become linked.
It's important to note that this didn't have to happen all at once.
Volvox aren't very specialized at all. Some may be better at
moving, but all retain flagella and contribute to moving. Some may
be specialized for reproducing new colonies, but all of them are
capable of it, they just do it less. Nothing demands absolute
matching at this point. This will change.
The simplest animals keep most of the Volvox system intact. (Not
that we're evolved from Volvox, I'm just using them as an example of
a stage.) Sponges have a difficulty that Volvox do not, however:
They aren't motile. Primitive animals had already solved that
problem, however, by further specializing the reproductive cells
into break-away, motile organisms that could swim out and find
another, similar colony of cells. In other words, sperm. Sponges
shed sperm into the water. These sperm swim until they run into
another sponge of the same species, whereupon they combine with a
cell in that sponge to produce a new genotype, which is then shed
into the water. Other sponges shed both sperm and egg cells (or
clusters of same) into the water for the same ends. No great
specialization required yet.
Motile animals, however, can afford a slightly more complex system.
Shedding eggs and sperm into the water works well for most of them,
though, it requires massive production of gametes, which is somewhat
wasteful. Some, however, pick up on a new trick: Proximity based
sexual release. Rather than just dumping gametes into the water
randomly and hoping they meet, or doing it in response to some
global timer (many corals release on a schedule timed by full
moons), releasing when one is near a member of one's own species is
far less wasteful. And, again, it doesn't even require both members
of the species develop the proximity response at the same time,
since it's the delay portion of the response that's beneficial. A
proximity response worm will still mate successfully with
a constant release worm, but waste less material!
Once the proximity response is established in a species, further
specialization becomes possible. A mating ritual can develop to
signal if the organism is ready for mating and prevent even more
waste.
Still, shedding sperm and eggs into the environment entails quite a
bit of waste, even if you're in sight of another member of your
species. The closer you get to the other, however, the less waste
there is. In fact, if you're in contact with the other member,
you'll have very little waste indeed. Sexual pleasure develops
simply as hormones encouraging shedding-gamete-type animals to be as
close to each other as possible when shedding gametes into the
environment.
This is about the level of development you'll find in the average
fish or amphibian, with one other change: Males and females tend to
be separate. How did that come up?
Consider a hermaphroditic organism. It has organs we consider male
and female in the same animal (like earthworms do). It has a sexual
response and needs not only the presence of another earthworm, but
an actual sexual ritual. One worms sperm meets the other's eggs and
vice versa. The fertilized eggs are then shed into the environment
and the worm isn't suitable for mating until it can develop new eggs.
But making eggs takes a lot longer than making sperm. It's also
more expensive in terms of energy and material costs. If an
organism could get away with just donating the sperm half of
reproducing, it could reproduce more often and with less expense to
itself! These are called Parasite males because they operate at a
cost to the species as a whole, but to the benefit of the success of
their own genes.
Once the parasite male genes have become established in the
population, the pure hermaphrodites in the population find
themselves in a position of wasting energy and materials making
sperm. If most of your matings take place with organisms that
aren't producing eggs, there's no point in making sperm. As a
result, the male-aspects will tend to fade from the animals without
the parasitic male genes.
In other words, the genders separate.
This catches us up to most fish and amphibians.
When you mate in the water, this mode of reproduction is good enough
(though some fish have gone on to do better). The male frog clasps
the female, their cloacal vents are brought near each other, and
then sperm and eggs are shed into the environment. The very close
proximity prevents a lot of waste.
But the move onto land made the system a bit taxing, since it
required return to the water. When the early amphibians developed
hard-shelled eggs for defense from predators, they also opened up
the possibility of moving onto land full time, but in order to do
so, they had to get rid of the last need for water in reproduction,
facilitating egg and sperm meeting. Well, that's easy enough, just
change the male's cloacal vent so that it has a short tube. Now it
can get REALLY close to the females vent...
And there you have it. Human style reproduction in a number of easy
steps, all beneficial to someone and none of them requiring any
great coincidence of parallel mutations, and each step occurring in
living creatures we can see today.
==
Most Neandertals lived to about 35. 40 was an old man. The broken, half
blind, crippled and arthritic old man of Chapelle aux Saints, obviously
taken care of and supported by the "clan," was about 40.
==
Best current evidence suggests that Ramapithecus was not in the
hominid lineage, and is a likely a junior synonym of Sivapithecus,
which may have been early in the orang lineage (although
Gigantopithecus is an alternative possibility for the orangs), after
their split from the African apes. Equatorius is more likely the
ape/OWM MRCA, and Dryopithecus and Ouranopithecus are currently
equally likely Hominoid MRCAs.

http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar02.html#run has a list of
likely candidates for the various MRCAs of the various living primate
==
The Skull of Australopithecus Afarensis (Series in Human Evolution) by
William H. Kimbel, Yoel Rak, Donald C. Johanson, Ralph L. Holloway,
Michael S. Yuan
ISBN: 0195157060
(Published by Oxford University Press, USA, April 2004) 272 pages
==
A monkey is any haplorhine primate not belonging to the family
Tarsiidae, Hylobatidae, Pongidae, or Hominidae. This does not
correspond to any taxon; it is divided into Old World monkeys
(Cercopithecidae) and New World monkeys (Callitrichidae and Cebidae),
but the catarrhines include the apes as well as the Old World monkeys.
==
Fossils suggest that lemurs, bush babies, lorises, aye-ayes, and their
relatives
(the prosimians) spilt off from the ancestors of monkeys and apes around 55
million years ago. Therefore studying the brainpower of these seemingly
primitive
animals might offer insights into the earliest primates' mental abilities.
Scientists have discovered what they believe is the oldest known lemur fossils
in the Bugti Hills of central Pakistan. The finding is controversial because
the new evidence suggests that lemurs originated in Asia, not in Africa as
commonly believed.
The fossil remains consist of a collection of tiny teeth that resemble the
teeth
of Madagascar's modern dwarf lemur, Cheirogaleus. The 30-million-year-old
fossils
predate all lemur fossils found in Africa. Lead scientist Laurent Mariveux, of
Universite Montpellier, in France, said the find was "totally unexpected."
The team dubbed the new lemur Bugtilemur mathisoni. The findings are published
in the October 19 issue of the journal Science.
Today lemurs live primarily in Madagascar and some nearby islandsit is thought
that they may have migrated to the islands on floating vegetation. The question
now is where did the migration begin?
Geological evidence shows that Madagascar separated from India about 88 million
years ago, long before the origin of lemurs about 62 million years ago, making
Asia an unlikely point of origin.
The trademark feature of a lemura tooth "comb", which juts out on the lower
jawwas not among the fossils discovered by the team.
A more likely explanation, says paleontologist Richard Kay, also of Duke
University, is that the fossil teeth belong to a family of Eurasian
primatessivaladapisthat are now extinct. The sivaladapis family of primates
which lived in India about 13 million years ago have similar teeth to lorises,
a close relative of the lemur, but the two are unrelated.
Lemurs are found only on the large island of Madagascar off the southeastern
coast of Africa and on the small neighboring Comoro Islands.
Lemurs, like apes, monkeys, and humans, belong to the primate order.
Because of their isolation, lemurs have little competition for their food and
only a few enemies. Today the large-eyed animals remain relatively unchanged
from their ancestors.
Lemurs move about in the trees by leaping and climbing. They use their hands
and feet to grip the branches.
There are many species of lemurs and they vary greatly in size. The mouse
lemur, one of the smallest of the primates, measures only 5 inches (13
centimeters) long, not including its tail. The indri is the largest lemur. Its
body measures more than two feet (61 centimeters) long.
Mouse and dwarf lemurs usually feed alone and scurry along tree branches at
night. Their big ears help them search for food and hear such enemies as
catlike fossas. All lemurs eat plants, but mouse and dwarf lemurs also feed on
insects.
Typical lemurs usually grow as big as house cats. Nearly all typical lemurs
live in groups.
Lemurs may live up to 40 years in captivity. They usually produce one to three
young.
About two thirds of the 30 species of lemur are threatened or endangered.
There are two main branches in the primate tree. Anthropoids include
monkeys, humans, apes, and others. The other branch is the Prosimians and
that's where lemurs fall. Currently there are over 60 recognized species,
and more than half of those are endangered. They are endemic to Madagascar
and found really only on Madagascar, though one population was introduced
elsewhere.
The largest of the lemurs are the first to go extinct and 15 species have
become extinct since humans arrived on the island. One of them we know from
the fossil record was the size of a gorilla. They've been gone for a long
timebut those early explorerswhat a sight.
==
The family Hominidae.
Current evidence implies that humans share a common, extinct,
ancestor with the chimpanzee/bonobo line, from which we separated
more recently than the gorilla line. All living members of the
Hylobatidae and Hominidae are tailless, and humans can therefore
accurately be referred to as bipedal apes. However there are also
primates in other families that lack tails.
==
In the late Cretaceous and early Palaeocene had some
proto-primate dentition but true card carrying primates
emerged in the late Paleocene around 60mya. It is the Eocene (56-35 mya)
where we see increased adaptive radiation of placental mammals including
adapid and omomyid pro-simians. The Oligocene (34.4-23.3 MYA) saw the first
anthropoids and monkeys appear to have overcrowded the pro-simians. This is
when Aegyptopithecus rose up. Now comes the Miocene (23-5 MYA)
when apes and our ancestors, the Dryopithecines, appear in
evolution. It is toward the end of this era that humans and chimps split
from a common ancestor to go each others separate ways. The Pliocene and
Pleistocene, of course, you know about with the Australopithecines and
emergence of Homo.
==
Frayer, D. 1997. Perspectives on Neanderthals as Ancestors. In Clark, G.A.
& Willermet, C.M. (eds.) Conceptual Issues in Modern Human Origins
Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter
==
Testing of mitocondrial DNA indicates that 95% of all Europeans descend
from 7 women who lived between 10,000 and 45,000 years ago.
==
The last common ancestor of great apes IS a human
ancestor: the human clade is within the ape clade. Indeed
humans are the closest living relatives of the chimp/bonobo clade
followed by gorilla clade. This is why zoologists put the
apes into the human family.

___________________________ Gibbon
|
---| ________________________ Orangutan
|__|
| _____________________ Gorilla
|__|
| _________________ Human
|___|
| _________ Bonobo
|_______|_
|
|_______ Chimp

====
"I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic
character ... by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself
most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me.
But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen
under the ban of all ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I
ought to have done so."
--Carolus Linnaeus,
Letter to J. G. Gmelin, February 14, 1747
==
Modern scientific usage includes as apes the families Hylobatidae (6 species
of gibbons and the siamang), which are known as lesser apes, and the family
Pongidae or great apes, consisting of Gorillas (Gorilla gorilla),
Chimpanzees (common chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes and bonobos, Pan paniscus),
humans (Homo sapiens), and Orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus). Chimpanzees,
gorillas, humans and orangutans are all more closely related to one another
than any of these four genera are to the gibbons and siamangs. On cladistic
grounds it is correct to include humans in the Pongidae, and most scientists
now do this - the family would otherwise be paraphyletic. Some authors adopt
the alternative of including the great apes in the family Hominidae, which
is the grouping for humans and their extinct ape-like ancestors, while
others use a subfamily to separate the hominids from the extant non-human
apes. Current evidence implies that humans share a common, extinct, ancestor
with the chimpanzee/bonobo line, from which we separated more recently than
the gorilla line. All living members of the Hylobatidae and
Pongidae/Humanidae are tailless, and humans can therefore accurately be
referred to as bipedal apes. However there are also primates in other
families that lack tails.
The apes are a group within the infra-order Catarrhini that also includes
the Old World monkeys of Africa and Eurasia. Apes can be distinguished from
monkeys by the number of cusps on their molars (apes have five - the \Y-5\
molar pattern, monkeys have only four in a \bilophodont\ pattern). Apes have
more mobile shoulder joints and arms, ribcages that are flatter
front-to-back, and a shorter, less mobile spine compared to monkeys. These
are all anatomical adaptations to vertical hanging and swinging locomotion
(brachiation) in the apes.
The original usage of \ape\ in English may have referred to the baboon, an
African monkey. Two tailless species of macaque are commonly named as apes,
the Barbary Ape of North Africa (introduced into Gibraltar), Macaca
sylvanus, and the Sulawesi black ape or Sulawesi crested macaque, M. niger.
http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
==
Some 23 million years ago, there was the split between New World monkeys
and the Old World monkeys and apes
==
Here is an outline of the hominid fossil record:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (320-380cc), ca. 6-7mya.
Ardipithecus ramidus (dental and postcranial remains), ca. 5-6 mya.
Orrorin turgenesis (postcranial), ca. 5mya.
Australopithecus anamensis (cranial capacity unknown), ca. 4.9-5.2 mya.
A. afarensis (mean of 470cc, range 375-540cc), ca. 3.8-2.8 mya.
A. bahrelghazali (cranial capacity unknown), ca. 2.8-3.2 mya.
A. africanus (440-480cc), ca. 2.2-2.6 mya.
A. garhi (c. 450cc), ca. 2.3-2.6 mya.
A. robustus (c. 475cc), ca. 1.4-1.8 mya.
A. boisei (c. 450cc), ca. 1.2-1.8 mya.
A. aethiopicus (c. 410cc), ca. 2-2.4mya.
H. habilis (c. 500-800cc), ca. 1.8-2.1 mya.
H. ergaster (c. 1100-1434), ca. 1.3-1.8 mya.
H. erectus (c. 725-1250cc), ca.250kya. - 1.3 mya.
H. heidelbergensis (c. 1300cc), ca. 300-170 kya
H. neanderthalensis (c. 1350-1600cc), ca. 200-35 kya.
H. sapiens (c.1300-1500cc), ca. 170 kya-present

==
Tiny genetic changes add up to huge differences when
human DNA is compared to that of chimpanzees, researchers said on Wednesday
in a report that explains how people and apes can be so close, yet so far
apart.
Genetically, chimpanzees are 98.5 percent identical to humans. But the
differences between the species are clearly profound and geneticists have been
laboring to find out how such subtle variations in DNA can be so important.
"Clearly, the genomic differences between humans and chimps are much more
complicated than conventional wisdom has portrayed," Asao Fujiyama of the RIKEN
Genomic Sciences Center in Yokohama, Japan, and colleagues in Japan, Taiwan and
China wrote in their report, published in this week's issue of the journal
Nature.
Fujiyama's team compared chromosome 22 on three different chimpanzees to its
counterpart in humans, chromosome 21.
They looked for differences that would help separate the human sequence from
the
chimp sequence.
Fujiyama's team found just 1.44 percent of the DNA was different at the level
of single letters of genetic code.
Fujiyama's team found differences that may be more important than the
single-letter changes.
"There is also an impressive number (68,000) of small to large stretches of DNA
that have been either gained or lost (these are called 'insertions or
deletions',
'indels' for short) in one species or the other," the researchers wrote.
"These differences are sufficient to generate changes in most of the proteins:
indeed, 83 percent of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally
important genes, show differences at the amino-acid sequence level,"
they added.
"Our data suggest that indels within coding regions (genes) represent one of
the major mechanisms generating protein diversity and shaping higher primate
species."
In other words, while the genes and other DNA may look the same in chimpanzees
and humans, the proteins they eventually code for can be very different.
The researchers tried to calculate what the genetic code of the original
ancestor of both looked like, 6 million to 7 million years ago.
It looked to them as if the original ancestor of human chimps had a larger
genome, and each species pared it down differently as they evolved.
Some of the genetic differences they found may have direct implications for
disease. They found differences between chimp and human immune system genes,
for instance, and molecules involved in early brain development.
==
The Lucy bones were discovered in 1974 in the Afar region of Ethiopia by
Donald Johanson. Johanson's team named her after the Beatles song Lucy in
the Sky with Diamonds.
Ethiopians refer to Lucy as Denkenesh or Dinqnesh. Her official designation is
Australopithecus afarensis, Southern ape of the Afar.
Johanson's team found about 40 percent of Lucy's bones. When casts are put on
display, mirror images of the bones are created to show about 70 percent of her
skeleton.
Lucy's skeleton is believed to be 3.2 million years old. Her bones indicate she
walked upright, making her the oldest known hominid to do so. Lucy stood about
3-foot-8 and weighed about 60 pounds, about the same as a modern chimpanzee.
While scientists do not classify her as human, many believe she may be
humanity's earliest ancestor.
Since the discovery of Lucy, though, scientists have found a skull
in Kenya that may be an even older hominid species known as Kenyanthropus
platyops.
===
Subject: New oldest humans in Europe?
Human fossils set European record
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3129654.stm
Fossils picked up in a Romanian bear cave are the oldest specimens yet
found of modern humans in Europe, scientists say.
One of the items - a male, adult jawbone - has been dated to be between
34,000 and 36,000 years old.
The discoverers argue that they may be Us/Neandertal hybrids
==
Nakatsukasa, Masato (2004) Acquisition of bipedalism: the Miocene hominoid
record and modern analogues for bipedal protohominids.
Journal of Anatomy 204 (5), 385-402.

Abstract
The well-known fossil hominoid Proconsul from the Early Miocene of Kenya
was a non-specialized arboreal quadruped with strong pollicial/hallucial
assisted grasping capability. It lacked most of the suspensory
specializations acquired in living hominoids. Nacholapithecus, however,
from the Middle Miocene of Kenya, although in part sharing with Proconsul
the common primitive anatomical body design, was more specialized for
orthograde climbing, 'hoisting' and bridging, with the glenoid fossae of
the scapula probably being cranially orientated, the forelimbs
proportionally large, and very long toes. Its tail loss suggests
relatively slow movement, although tail loss may already have occurred in
Proconsul. Nacholapithecus-like positional behaviour might thus have been
a basis for development of more suspensory specialized positional
behaviour in later hominoids. Unfortunately, after 13 Ma, there is a gap
in the hominoid postcranial record in Africa until 6 Ma. Due to this gap,
a scenario for later locomotor evolution prior to the divergence of Homo
and Pan cannot be determined with certainty. The time gap also causes
difficulties when we seek to determine polarities of morphological traits
in very early hominids. Interpretation of the form-function relationships
of postcranial features in incipient hominids will be difficult because
it is predicted that they had incorporated bipedalism only moderately
into their total positional repertoires. However, Japanese macaques,
which are trained in traditional bipedal performance, may provide useful
hints about bipedal adaptation in the protohominids. Kinematic analyses
revealed that these macaques walked bipedally with a longer stride and
lower stride frequency than used by ordinary macaques, owing to a more
extended posture of the hindlimb joints. The body centre of gravity rises
during the single-support phase of stance. Energetic studies of
locomotion in these bipedal macaques revealed that energetic expenditure
was 20-30% higher in bipedalism than in quadrupedalism, regardless of
walking velocity.
==
What sorts of structures might evolve by mutation and natural
selection, but I suppose that in the foreseeable future they would be
very simple structures in a limited number of cases. Besides, surely the
question is not, what will natural selection produce in the future, but
could it produce, in the past, what we see around us today? The mechanisms
of the modern synthesis could be falsified if the construction of any actual
structure could be shown to require a type of mutation that could not occur
(e.g. if gene duplications did not occur, any evolutionary sequence that
required an increase in the number of genes would be impossible for known
mechanisms). If all mutations in fact were harmful, that would falsify the
mechanism. If genetic variations did not correlate with reproductive
success, that would falsify the mechanism.
All life forms have limited evolutionary potential. Given the biochemical
and morphological structures with which one starts, and the constraints of
any plausible environment, there are evolutionary directions one simply
can't take. That does not imply that progress in all directions is equally
constrained.
Again, you seem to be assuming that if something can't be shown to evolve
before the grant money runs out, ther is some intrinsic barrier to it
evolving at all, no matter how much time is available.
I *think* what you're saying here is that natural selection can't select a
mutation on the grounds that, while it's useless here and now, when some
other mutation (to the same or a different gene) is added to it, the
combination will be useful. This is correct, as I understand it. Is it
relevant? Are there any actual biochemical systems for which you can
demonstrate that something like this would have to happen?
You seem to be working under a model by which living organisms construct new
proteins _de novo_, by randomly stringing together amino acids to construct
new proteins (if that's *not* the model you're suggesting, then I can't
figure out what you *are* suggesting). This is not, of course, a
"Darwinian" model at all; once life actually gets started, virtually all new
proteins originate as modifications of older proteins (actually, the only
alternative that springs to mind is frame-shift mutations; that some of
these have been beneficial, or at least harmless, suggests that the ratio of
useful proteins to useless ones may be larger than you suspect).
For what it's worth, proteins tend to have some sections that are chemically
active, in which modifications tend to have significant effect on their
function, and other sections (like the handle of a tool) that can vary much
more with slight effects on function. Note, also, that many genes and
proteins are recognizably similar in humans and bacteria. It isn't a matter
of \randomly walking\ across huge stretches of genetic space. The genes
simply don't seem to have changed that much.
We observe living things grow. They have parents. They have
lineages. They spontaneouly mutate and pass on the changes
to children. The changes can be adaptive; they can *fix* an
organism to be better suited to its environment. This all goes
on, before our eyes, right now. As well, the geological signs
are unambigous that life has existed continuously on Earth
for hundreds of millions of years; billions, in fact. It is
seen to have existed in many forms that vary from era to era
but retain clear relationships with each other.
None of this is even remotely like any designed artifact.
Well, that's your null hypothesis, and it has been soundly and
thoroughly rejected for a long time now. Indeed, what functional
complexity can't be adequately explained as the product of mindless
processes? Don't forget that scientists already spent centuries trying
to fit a creator into their observations. In the end, it just didn't work.
Of course, evolution could be disproved without question as soon as your
Intelligent Designer stood up and testified as to his whereabouts on the
morning of October 28, 4004 BC.
There is no reliable test for design when faced with unknown objects.
==
Arthur Holme's 'Principles of
Physical Geology'
==
People are using "intelligent" cause as a pure _virtus dormitiva_, a set of
words waved like a magic wand and treated like an "explanation" when it's
really just "unknown cause" under a new name.
==
Australopiths have the foramen
magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord
enters the skull) at the bottom of the skull, as in
humans, not at the back of the skull, as in chimps. In
bipeds like humans and australopiths, the skull is
perched right on top of the spinal ciolumn, so the
spinal cord enters the skull from directly beneat. In
quadrupeds like chimps, the skull is perched at an
angle to the spinal column, so the quadruped can
see in the forward direction when the spine is held
straight. That means the spinal column enters at the
very back of the skull.
Chimps also have a sagittal crest for attachment of
the jaw muscles --- australopiths (and humans)
don't.
Chimps have a lower jaw which is broad at the chin
and parallel at the sides, to make a U shape.
Humans (and australopiths) have lower jaws which
are narrow at the front and diverge away from each
other towards the back, to form a parabolic shape
like a non-pointy V.
==
If they weren't fully complete animals, they would have been instantly
extinct and not transitions at all. A transitional is something that has
most all of the derived characteristics of a precursor along with at
least some of those of its successor(s).
For example, australopithecus afarensis has many chimplike features,
especially in the upper body and head, though the arms are a tad shorter
and the head a tad larger. But the pelvis and limbs are adapted for
walking erect, something chimpanzees do only with difficulty. Thus we
find reason to term afaransis \transitional\ between chimps and later
hominids even though we know that it's not the common ancestor and not
the ancestor of any chimp.
Homo habilis is MUCH more clearly a transitional between gracile
australopithecines like afarensis and the earliest homo erectus
(ergaster) specimens (I'm a lumper, not a splitter, when it comes to
chronospecies). The braincase is now much larger than any non-human ape,
the arms much shorter than in apes, though the skull shape and dentition
are still somewhat ape-like.
And this sequence goes on, through erectus to sapiens, with a branchoff
into neandertalis.
Can we ever prove conclusively that fossil A is ancestral to species B?
Not really. Only we CAN show that it has a larger or smaller number of
features that we would expect in such an ancestor (or its immediate
evolutionary sibling branches).
===
http://www.whozoo.org/mammals/Primates/primatephylogeny.htm primate family tree
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/pelvis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/jaws.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/crania.html
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

==
Evolutionary Anthropology journal
==
Dinosaurs lived through the Mesozoic era, 225 million to 65 million years ago.
By the time that era ended, the dinosaurs were gone.
==
Last week population geneticists set dates on two important changes in the
human form.
Dr. Alan R. Rogers of the University of Utah figured out that the ancestral
human population had acquired black skin, as a protection against the sun, at
least 1.2 million years ago, and therefore that it must have shed its fur some
time before this date.
Clothing came long after we were naked. Dr. Mark Stoneking, of the Institute
for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, managed to address this question by
calculating when the human body louse (which lives only in clothing, not hair)
evolved from the human head louse. That proud event in human history dates to
between 72,000 and 42,000 years ago, Dr. Stoneking reported
Considering that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees lived only 5 to
6 million years ago, human evolution seems to have been quite rapid. The chimp,
our closest living relative, is still a standard ape, whereas we have become a
truly weird one. And our evolution put on an extra spurt just 50,000 years ago,
the date when we may have perfected language, made our first objets d'art and
dispersed from our ancestral homeland some place in northeast Africa.
Despite the medical advances and creature comforts that shelter people in rich
countries, natural selection is still hard at work. Microbes and parasites
still nip at our heels, forcing the human genome to stay in constant motion. It
is clearly in the throes of adapting to malaria, a disease that seems to have
struck only in the last 8,000 years, and the protective gene that has sickle
cell anemia as a side effect is a sign of a hasty patch.
Though features like the peacock's tail are chosen for aesthetic, or arbitrary,
reasons, they often seem to be correlated with health, and indeed their owners
are chosen as mates because these features subliminally advertise a good immune
system or freedom from parasites. So if sexual selection in people becomes more
intense as people have a wider choice of mates, that suggests a terribly
Panglossian forecast: we will become more healthy and ever more beautiful.
==
Stratification level is not that much of an assumption. The
stratigraphy was well worked out by creationist geologists before
Darwin's time. When an accurate date is required, a number of
methods will usually be applied, depending on just how old (or not
old) the remains are. The more difficult period to date, at least
until recently is the period from about 100kya back to about 1mya.
That gap has recently been bridged by methods based on
electroluminescence, uranium uptake by teeth and uranium-thorium
decay. The older remains can often be dated by fairly reliable,
consistent means like Ar-Ar, sometimes corroborated by K-Ca.
==
Sarich, V. M., and A. C. Wilson. 1967. Rates of albumin evolution in
primates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 58:142-148.
Felsenstein, J. 1987. Estimation of hominoid phylogeny from a DNA
hybridization data set. J. Mol. Evol. 26:123-131.
Hayasaka, K., T. Gojobori, and S. Horai. 1988. Molecular phylogeny and
evolution of primate mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:626-644.
==
Evolution is defined as the heritable genetic change in a reproducing
population over time. That this happens is a fact.
I can point to thousands of \transitional\ species between
us and the first multicellular lifeform, but all of those are species in
their own right. Nothing exists solely to be a transition. It's an
evergoing, ever continuing process. You can't think of it as stages or
links in a chain. It's continuous.
I oppose that term transitional species. There are no organisms in
intermediate stages of development. There are just organisms, period.
By looking at the fossil record we can trace entire lineages of
where species smoothly and gradually changed into those that came after.
==
Biological classification of humans
Eukaryota; Metazoa; Chordata; Craniata; Vertebrata; Mammalia;
Eutheria; Primates; Catarrhini; Hominidae; Homo, sapiens, sapiens
==
National Graphic Oct 1988
Great issue on human evolution and culture
==
early hominids (such as Australopithecus and
Paranthropus), were rapid and correlated with shifts
between wetter and drier conditions.
=====
"Origin of hominid bipedalism", Nature 325:305-306, 1987:
==
Stephen J. Gould's famous remark on the lack of transitional fossils referred
to interspecies transitionals within genera. In contrast, whales with legs,
birds with teeth and theropod skeletons, hominids with a mix of human and
ape-like features, would certainly seem to be transitionals
==
During the 90's the were a few Homo erectus crania found...many
were from Dmanisi.
The Ceprano cranium was found by an Italian road crew.
There was a cranium found in a bone store in New York,
There are a few more from Africa.
==
Scientists like Gould have said that evolution can be called a fact,
not because they were being dogmatic, but because the evidence so
overwhelmingly supports evolution that it just wasn't productive to
challenge it any more. The current debate among scientists is how it
happened, not whether it happened.
==
A BRAIN FOR ALL SEASONS: HUMAN EVOLUTION AND ABRUPT
CLIMATE CHANGE
By William H. Calvin
==
Hall of human Ancestors.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/ances_start.html
==
Lucy is 40% complete (allowing for symmetry, 60% complete).
Australopithecus afarensis
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
==
By zoological nomenclature, hominids are members of the family
hominidae. Traditionally, the great apes had their own family.
But since it started to become clear just how closely humans
and the great apes are and that humans are NOT a seperate clade
from the apes. Thus many started classifying the great apes
as members of hominidae. Thus the great apes are now technically
hominids. This has lead to using the terms hominin or hominine as
a replacement term for hominid.
==
See what the basic make-up of Homo sapiens are, aside from the bulk being
water.
C - Carbon
H - Hydrogen
O - Oxygen
P - Phosphorus
K - Potassium
I - Iodine
N - Nitrogen
S - Sulphur
Ca - Calcium
Fe - Iron
Na - Sodium
Cl - Chlorine
Mg - Magnesium
Mn - Manganese
Zn - Zinc
Others -Trace amounts of Selenium (Se), Cobalt (Co), Chromium (Cr), Copper
(Cu) and probably some others.
Nucleic Acids (DNA and RNA) are composed of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen
(O), nitrogen (N), and phosphorus (P).
Bone is made of calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), oxygen (O), and hydrogen (H).
The other elements are used by protein \enzymes\ to run most of the body's
chemical reactions: magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn) are important for DNA
synthesis; Iron (Fe) is required for carrying oxygen in the blood and using
it in the cell; many proteins need calcium (Ca) and zinc (Zn) to stay \
folded
properly for them to work; and iodine (I) and the trace elements have more
specific jobs in making hormones and coordinating other reactions.
as these are the things that make up a human being,
==
In a recent interview, Urey said he had expected it to take days, even weeks
to show any signs of chemicals, and he expected mere traces at that.
He was very surprised to see the clear mixture he had started with was dark
by the next day.
==
The common ancestor is the Anthropoidea, or "pre-monkey" sometime around the
Eocene. Supposedly during the Oligocene epoch, our ancestors diverged fron the
"New World Monkeys", to form the "Old World Monkeys", apes and, humans. Then,
during the Miocene, one group of apes, the Ramapithecinae or "great ape"
diverged from the rest of the apes to evolve into Humans.

From a genetics point of view, we are only a tiny bit different from
chimpanzees - less than 1% at the level of DNA. The difference is mainly in the
timing and expression of genes. We are a "distinct" species as humans in that
we have one LESS chromosome than the chimpanzees and other "great apes" - this
is because two of their smaller chromosomes have fused together to form a
larger chromosome. This would mean that humans could no longer produce fertile
offspring with other members of chimpanzee family, thus creating reproductive
isolation. This is exactly the type of thing predicted and expected from
evolution.
====
'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I
freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said
that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common
sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of
Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted
in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple
and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist,
each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if
further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is
likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to
any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of
believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural
selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be
considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be
sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself
originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in
which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it
does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their
sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves,
endowed with this special sensibility.'
[Darwin, 1859, _The Origin of Species_]
==
Stephen J. Gould, who did a lot to popularize evolution and intermediates,
himself described the transitional series between two
species of the snail genus _Cerion_ -- there are intermediate forms
that don't clearly belong to either species. There are other examples
in the fossil record, especially among the single-celled foraminifera.
And there are cases of living \ring species\ in which two distinct
species exist at the ends of a chain of intermediate forms, with no
point (except the ends of the ring) where one species is replaced by a
clearly different one.
To some extent, the \lack\ of transitional forms is a result of the
rules of taxonomy. Every organism *must*, under the rules for
classifying living things, belong to one and only one species. No
matter how transitional it might be, you can't stick in a slot
\transitional between species X and Y.\ It has to be put in either X
or Y, one or the other. But that is a fact about classification more
than about the things classified.
Note that species are \fully-formed\ only in the sense of being able
to make a living in their environment. The wings, beak, and other
features (other than the flight feathers) of _Archaeopteryx_ were
hardly \fully-formed\ by comparison with modern birds (indeed, the
skeleton of _Archaeopteryx_ is pure theropod dinosaur). The skeleton
of _Australopithecus afarensis_ is chimp-like in many respects, but
the pelvis, spine, and legs are as adapted for erect walking as ours.
Later species of hominins are more and more like modern humans in the
shape of their skulls, the form of their teeth, and brain size; each
is \fully-formed\ in the sense of being some distinct species, but
ONLY in that sense. None are \fully-formed\ apes, if you take chimps
or gorillas as your model, and none before _Homo sapiens_ are exactly
like us.
==
For decades paleontologists have been searching for vital clues in Africa --the
remains of creatures nearest to the event that changed the world, the split
between man and ape.
In November 2000, Martin Pickford and Brigitte Senut from the College de France
and a team from the Community Museums of Kenya make a remarkable discovery. In
the Tugen Hills of Kenya they unearthed a group of fossils they believe sheds
light on the origins of humankind. The team called their find Orrorin
Tugenensis. It seemed like the discovery of a lifetime.
The bones are older than any hominid bones found before. They are a staggering
six million years old.
Today, Orrorin is unleashing one of the greatest controversies the study of
human origins has ever seen. But is it really a hominid?
The defining feature of the human race is the ability to walk upright. So this
is what paleoanthropologists look for. They search for fossilized clues that
can tell them whether the creature spent most of the time walking on two legs
rather than four.
If Martin and Brigitte find these clues and Orrorin was, indeed, walking on two
legs six million years ago, scientists will have to rethink their ideas about
how we split from the apes. The standard theories on how, when, and why we
learned to walk on two legs would have to be reexamined.
Martin and Brigitte also make a claim about one of the most famous
discoveriesof all time: "Lucy," a hominid from just over 3 million years ago in
Ethiopia.Donald Johanson, who discovered her in 1974, claimed her to be our
directancestor.
Fossilized bones belonging to Orrorin tugenensis The fossils from Orrorin have
led Martin and Brigitte to the revolutionary conclusion that Lucy and her t
branch that became extinct.
Orrorin has created incredible debate, but what else could we expect from a
candidate for our earliest ancestor, the first human?
==
Note that some of the irrelevant genes are activated. For example,
the chimp hair growth stimulator gene that gives them such nice
furry coats exists in us in a mutated form. That gene is activated
regularly in your body. However, thanks to the mutation, the
resulting protein is only a few amino acids long, far to short to
actually do anything. In computer terms, a stop instruction has been
inserted early, so that the processor (RNA in this case) doesn't go
any further and process the rest of the gene. The result, you're
making rather large numbers of tiny proteins of no value in an effort
to grow a coat of fur.

==
16 May, 2001 Gene data underline primate link
The Chimp: Our closest genetic relative
Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than we thought.
Scientists made the reassessment after studying 53 stretches of DNA scattered
throughout the human genome, and comparing them with similar stretches in the
genetic codes of a chimp, a gorilla and an orang-utan.
The research also suggests that the human line diverged from the chimp
evolutionary line between 4.6 and 6.2 million years ago.
The team looked at DNA from an Asian male that was not associated with active
genes. After finding the equivalent sequences in other primates, the scientists
looked for differences in the two codes.
The researchers discovered that human and chimp DNA differs by just 1.24%, half
a per cent less than had been thought. Humans differ from gorillas by 1.62% and
from orang-utans by 1.63%, again less than had been believed.
The genetic differences studied by the researchers arise through mutation -
they are errors that creep into the code as it is copied. Because these errors
occur, on average, at a steady rate, they can be used to "look back" in genetic
history and provide an estimate of how long ago the primates diverged into
separate species.
Orang-utans were the first to separate, between 12 and 16 million years ago;
gorillas between 6.2 and 8.4 million years ago and finally humans and chimps
went their different ways between 4.6 and 6.2 million years ago.
Our closest relatives are already beginning to show some fairly impressive
intellectual and rational abilities. Chimps are capable of at least some sort
of limited symbolic communication. They can use tools. They show
self-awareness. Who is to say, with the right conditions, that chimps might
not themselves in the next million years evolve some sort of higher
intelligence?
==
Fossil Teeth Reveal How Modern Humans' Growth Patterns Differ from Other
Primates'
It's often said that teenagers today just can't wait to grow up. But humans'
long period of growth and development18 years or moreis one of the things
that sets us apart from great apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas, which
mature in only 11 or 12 years. Now new research, published in this week's issue
of Nature, suggests that our long period of development arose quite late in our
evolutionary history.
Christopher Dean/Pennsylvania State UniversityChristopher Dean of University
College, London and colleagues examined 13 fossil tooth fragments from
specimens dating between four million and 120, 000 years ago. "Dental
development is a good measure of overall growth and development," co-author
Alan Walker of Pennsylvania State University explains. "Teeth grow in an
incremental manner like trees or shells, preserving a record of their growth
with daily marks along the prisms that make up the enamel." By examining
patterns (see image) within the enamel of both the fossil and modern teeth, the
scientists calculated and compared rates of growth.
The first dental evidence for a modern human-like growth period, the
scientists
discovered, was in a Neanderthal fossil from around 120,000 years ago. What's
more, the researchers found that Homo erectus, despite its complement of many
modern human characteristics such as body proportions, weight and small teeth
and jaws, did not exhibit a slow growth period. They suggest this finding may
be linked to the fact that, compared to modern humans, Homo erectus still had
a small brain, which would not require as much time to grow and learn. "It
seems our prolonged period of growth and development may be a more recent
evolutionary acquisition that arose in step with our comparatively recent
development of a larger, modern, human-sized brain," Walker says.
In an accompanying commentary in the same issue, Jocopo Moggi-Cecchi of the
University of Florence writes, "it is becoming increasingly clear that many
features thought to be typical of modern humans may have evolved more than
once." The present study he adds, "raises new challenges in the search for
fossil evidence of those characteristics that define both our genus and our
species.
Humans have a shorter period of reproduction than other primates.
==
There are instances of mice, frogs and plants that have double the number of
chromosomes than their ancestors.
==
What evidence refutes the claim of Design in nature?
Different structures in different
organisms? Designed that way. Same structures in different organisms?
Designed that way. It makes no falsification possible.
Common descent, on the other hand predicts that closely related organisms
will have common structures, and distantly related organisms will have
less commonality. This is confirmed by analysis of organisms, and makes
some discoveries that are counter-intuitive at first glance.
No, that is a measured time frame.
Actually, we do have fossils of the miacids. We also have a nice
progression of fossils indicating the relationships between the miacids,
canids, felines, vivverids, and ursids. These relationships have been
largely confirmed by analysis of related proteins and DNA segments.
The data is the data. The conclusions are reached by analyzing the data
==
One of the human chromosomes looks like two chimp chromosomes that have fused
together. How does creationism explain that?
==
A New Human Ancestor?
Researchers working in Kenya have unearthed fossils that could upset a
long-held view of human origins. According to a report published today in the
journal Nature, the remains represent a previously unknown hominid genus and
species from which modern humans may have descended. For decades that
distinction belonged to Australopithecus afarensisa species typified by the
famous 3.2-million-year-old Lucy skeleton. But the new discovery, dubbed
Kenyanthropus platyops, comes from roughly the same time interval and thus
renders Lucy's ancestral status far less certain.
Meave Leakey of the National Museums of Kenya and her colleagues recovered the
Kenyanthropus remainswhich include jaws, teeth and a skull dated to between
3.2 and 3.5 million years oldfrom mudstone sediments in northern Kenyas
Turkana basin. (The skull is apparently the oldest almost complete early human
cranium known.) Subsequent analysis revealed a creature rather different from
Lucy and her kin. In particular, Kenyanthropus has a far flatter face and
smaller molar teethfeeding-related differences that suggest the two groups
could have coexisted without competing for food resources.
"Now that we have a new form of early hominid from the same time period that is
quite distinct from afarensis, the anthropologists will have to decide which of
these forms of early human actually lies in our ancestral tree," University of
Utah geologist Frank Brown, who dated the fossil, remarks. "It cannot be both."
==
"Who Were the Neandertals?" by Kate Wong (Scientific American, April 2000)
==
chimp bonobo human gorilla orang gibbons
\\ / / / / /
genus PAN / / / /
\\ / / / /
\\/ / / /
\\ / / /
\\/ / /
\\ / /
family HOMINIDAE /
\\ /
superfamily HOMINOIDEA
\\
[Compare this with the similar part of
http://www.skarstein.no/frode/phyl.html ]
In the more difficult style of those litoptern links the same
simple tree will look something like:

<==o HOMINOIDEA
|-- gibbons [family Hylobatidae]
o HOMINIDAE
`--+-- orangutan
`--o [AFRICAN GREAT APES GROUP]
|-- gorilla
`--+-- human
`--o PAN
|-- chimp
==
Anthropologists debunk another myth of evolutionary progress
Science has, over the centuries, humbled humans, gradually forcing us to
abandon the illusion that our species represents the ultimate end of creation.
Copernicus and Galileo displaced Earth from the center of the universe; Darwin
dashed the conceit that humans originated in a special way, distinct from all
other species. Now a group of researchers--Christopher B. Ruff of Johns Hopkins
University, Erik Trinkaus of the University of New Mexico and Trenton W.
Holliday at the College of William and Mary--throw cold water even on the
notion of steady "improvement" within the human line.
In their recent study, Ruff and his colleagues thoroughly analyzed the fossil
record to determine the evolving body mass and brain size of the Homo species
leading up to us. The results, published in the May 8 issue of Nature, show
just how far from the truth is the stereotypical image of a straight
progression from small, pea-brained ancestors to the technologically adept
egghead Homo sapiens who inhabit the world today. The truth is quite a bit
more complicated.

NEANDERTHAL SKULL housed a brain larger than that of a modern human,
representing a kind of peak in homonid evolution.
Hominid brains appear to have remained fairly constant in size for a very long
stretch from 1.8 million years ago until about 600,000 years ago--a "period of
stasis" whose reality has long been debated by scientists. An abrupt break
occurred during the Middle Pleistocene epoch (from 600,000 to 150,000 years
before the present), when fossils show that the cranial capacity of our
ancestors skyrocketed. This trend peaked roughly 75,000 years ago, when
archaic Homo sapiens fossils (a category that includes the well-known
Neanderthals) indicate a brain mass of about 1,440 grams. Since then, brain
mass has actually drifted downward to the 1,300 grams that is typical today.
Brain size alone does not tell the whole story, of course. Intelligence seems
to have less to do with brain size per se than with the brain's proportion to
the body it must care for and control (and even that link is rather tenuous).
Here, too, the results of the Nature paper are telling. Over the nearly
two-million-year span that Ruff and his co-authors examined, ancient hominids
were on average about 10 percent more massive than modern humans. Body size
peaked about 50,000 years ago: Neanderthals were muscular brutes who weighed
upwards of a quarter more than modern humans. Since that time, humans have been
marching steadily downhill in both stature and cranial capacity (with the
exception of some recent gains due to improved nutrition and reduced disease).
The good news is that the steeper decline in body mass over the past 50,000
years has raised our ratio of brain to body above Neanderthal levels, even
though total brain mass has dipped.
Calculating the size of our progenitors' brains and bodies from a few
scattered bones is a tricky process. Many of the bones vary too much from one
individual to another to use for such estimation. Teeth wear differently
depending on diet, for example.
Eye sockets have changed in proportion over the years, and
skulls have grown thinner. Past estimates of the body masses of human ancestors
have sometimes disagreed by as much as 50 percent. These disparities made it
difficult to assess the changing nature of the human line. But in their
methodical survey, Ruff, Trinkaus and Holliday found two variables that appear
closely tied to body size in even the most ancient humans: the width of the
ball joint on the top of the thighbone (which bears much of our weight when we
stand) and the breadth of the pelvis. Measuring these dimensions for 163
fossilized hominids, the scientists were able to plot our genus's changes in
brain and brawn.
JOHN KAPPELMAN of the University of Texas ponders why our bodies are so small
rather than why our brains are so large.
These improved data are already prompting anthropologists to re-evaluate their
assessment of the environmental and cultural transformations that shaped human
evolution. In an accompanying commentary in Nature, John Kappelman of the
University of Texas at Austin offers some intriguing speculations along these
lines. The long, dry spell of constant brain size suggests to him that among
our ancestors, as in modern apes, competition among males for access to females
may have created an evolutionary pressure favoring continued large bodies.
Behavior that was "more dependent on brawn than brains," Kappleman writes,
evidently was successful enough that there was little evolutionary pressure
toward a bigger cranium.
In considering the new reconstructions of Homo over the past 90,000 years,
Kappelman is struck less by the roughly constant brain size than by the rapid
decrease in body size, which runs quite counter to the earlier steady or upward
trends. He suggests that this decrease in overall bulk was favored "by a social
structure that relied on more cooperative foraging and better communication
skills." At the same time, a better and more reliable food supply could support
the metabolic demands of a large brain. "The increase in relative brain size of
modern humans may then be, in part, an effect of selection for smaller body
mass," Kappelman rather ignominiously concludes.
So this is what it has come to.
==
Homo erectus
This was an extinct hominid living between 1.6 million and 250,000 years ago.
Homo erectus is thought to have evolved in Africa from H. habilis, the first
member of the genus Homo. Anatomically and physiologically, H. erectus
resembles contemporary humans except for a stouter bone structure. The size of
its braincase (8501000 cc), approaches that of H. sapiens, but the cranial
bones are more massive than either those of H. habilis or modern humans.
The material culture of H. erectus was significantly more complex than that of
its predecessors, including Achuelian stone tools (see Paleolithic), a variety
of tools fashioned from wood and other perishable materials, the use of fire,
and seasonally occupied, oval-shaped huts. Evidence of extensive cooperative
behavior is abundant in a number of European habitation and hunting sites,
including Terra Amata, France, and Terralba and Ambrona, Spain. H. erectus
populations occupied these sites seasonally, while pursuing an annual
subsistence cycle based on a combination of big-game hunting and the gathering
of shellfish and plant foods.
H. erectus dispersed into Asia by at least one million years ago, and into
Europe by at least 400,000 years ago. Fossils of this species were first
discovered in 1891 by French anatomist Eugene Dubois in Java. The specimen,
which came to be known as Java man, was at first classified as
Pithecanthropus erectus. H. erectus remains, originally dubbed Peking man
(Sinanthropus pekinensis), were also found in China at the Zhoukoudian cave
near Beijing in the late 1920s. Some scientists classify Heidelberg man
(500,000-year-old remains found near Heidelberg, Germany, in 1907) as H.
erectus, but others place it with archaic H. sapiens.

See also human evolution.
See B. A. Sigmon and J. S. Cybulski, Homo erectus (1981); N. Eldredge and
I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution (1982); M. H. Day, Guide to Fossil
Man (4th ed. 1984); G. P. Rightmire, The Evolution of Homo Erectus (1990);
D. Johanson, L. Johanson, and B. Edgar, Ancestors (1994).

A BRAIN FOR ALL SEASONS: HUMAN EVOLUTION AND ABRUPT
CLIMATE CHANGE By William H. Calvin
==
Modern humans more likely evolved from Homo erectus via archaic sapiens
and there are plenty of candidate fossils for this process: Swanscombe,
Arago, Petralona, Kabwe, Mauer, Bodo, LH 18, Florisbad and Steinheim.
==
Kenyanthropus platyops (the flat faced man of Kenya) was discovered on the
western shore of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya. The strata from which the
fossil skull has been removed are dated to between 3.5 and 3.2 million years
old. It is claimed that Kenyanthropus platyops represents a completely new
branch of the family tree.
==
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a
Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking
nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such
an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a
Christian and laugh it to scorn.\
-- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
==
Ethiopian Fossil Discovery Prunes Human Family Tree
Scholars of human evolution have long debated just how many branches and twigs
make up the human family tree. Some place the known human fossils into numerous
genera and species, creating a bushy tree. Others tend to see more similarities
between fossils and opt for trees with fewer offshoots. Now newly described
fossils from Ethiopia indicate that for at least one part of the human
pedigree, less is more.
Announcing their findings today in the journal Nature, a team of researchers
led by Ethiopian paleoanthropologist Berhane Asfaw reports that the
million-year-old fossils, which belong to Homo erectus, lay to rest the idea
that that species should be split in two. Some experts have argued that earlier
African representatives of the group, which dates back as far as 1.7 million
years ago, look so different from later examples from Asia that they warrant
their own species, H. ergaster. In this scenario, Asian Homo erectus went
extinct and H. ergaster spawned modern humans. But the newly recovered
remains--including a complete skull cap (see image)--exhibit an intermediate
anatomy that, according to Asfaw's group, bridges the gap between the two
proposed species.
"Before this time, we really haven't had a good comparison between African and
Asian forms from the same time window," says team member W. Henry Gilbert,
a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley. "We've had early
African forms and late Asian forms, and people have used the differences
between them to generalize about all African and Asian specimens. Now that we
have a later African form for comparison, we are finding that they are very
similar in a lot of the features that people were formerly using to separate
early African from late Asian ones."
"The anthropological splitting common today is giving the wrong impression
about the biology of these early human ancestors," asserts Berkeley
paleoanthropologist Tim White, another study co-author. "The different names
indicate an apparent diversity that is not real." Homo erectus, he says, was a
biologically successful organism, "not a whole series of different human
ancestors, all but one of which went extinct." --Kate Wong
==
A spectacular advance in biochemical technology has been applied to Neandertal,
the fossil find hailed as proof of human evolution from primates, and the
findings point in the opposite direction. Analysis of Neandertal DNA leads
researchers to conclude that homo sapiens, the human race, is neither descended
from nor related to the Neandertal species.1

As one of the great ironies of the century, the DNA sample used in this
breakthrough study was recovered from the very first Neandertal skeleton ever
found. That skeleton was dug from a limestone quarry in Neandertal, Germany,
in 1856, and its impact on the tide of history has been enormous.
The search for a Neandertal DNA sample has been long (about 30 years long!) and
difficult. When an organism dies, its DNA degrades. Water, oxygen, and microbes
break it up. Typically, all the DNA is destroyed in less than 50,000 years.
Aware of the difficulties they faced, a team of German and American
paleoanthropologists decided to focus their efforts on a particular locale, the
tochondria (specialized structures in the cell, outside the nucleus). While
only two copies of each DNA molecule reside in a cells nucleus, the
mitochondria, outside the cells nucleus, hold between 500 and 1000 copies of
each of their DNA molecules.
The research team located about 50 copies of the Neandertal skeletons
mitochondrial DNA, in strings of about 100 nucleotide pairs each. Painstakingly
atching pieces of the strands with other pieces, they ended up with a DNA
fragment about 379 nucleotide pairs long. That fragment came from a part of the
DNA that is not subject to "recombination" in the reproduction process. It is
a portion passed from mother to daughter without a contribution from the
father. Therefore, it can be used as a valid indicator of natural process
(mutational) change.
When the Neandertal DNA fragment was compared with a DNA sequence of 986
nucleotide pairs from living humans of diverse ethnic backgrounds, the
difference was enormousan average of 26 nucleotide links in the DNA chain
differed completely. Modern humans differed from one another in an average of
eight links of the chain, and those differences were independent of the 26
observed for the Neandertal fossil. The researchers conclusion: Neandertals
made no contribution to humanitys gene pool.
Corroborating evidence comes from analysis of mitochondrial DNA from an ancient
humans. A British team analyzed a portion of mitochondrial DNA in a 10,000 year
old human skeleton found near Cheddar, England.2 Only one nucleotide base pair
differed from the DNA of modern Europeans.
==
The earliest eutherian, Eomaia scansoria, as a small and agile mammal
capable of climbing and branch-walking in low bushes.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/mammal020424.html
The earliest eutherian, Eomaia scansoria, as a small and agile mammal
capable of climbing and branch-walking in low bushes.
Furry Mamal
A Mouse-Like Fossil Suggests Mammals Have 125-Million-Year-Old Ancestor
April 24 03 Scientists say they've found the earliest known ancestor of
an evolutionary lineage that includes most of today's mammals, a
mouselike creature that lived 125 million years ago.
The fossil, found in northeastern China, is so well-preserved it shows
traces of fur, giving researchers some of their best evidence yet on how
mammals evolved during the age of dinosaurs.
"For scientists studying early evolution this is a dream come true,"
said Zhe-Xi Luo of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh,
who led the team that discovered the fossil.
Agile Insect-Eater
It's an early ancestor of placental mammals, which nourish their young through
a placenta during an extended pregnancy, Luo and colleagues report in a recent
issue of the journal Nature. Most of today's mammals use a placenta, but not
marsupials like kangaroos or egg-laying monotremes like the platypus.
"It's the first branch of the entire placental mammal tree," Luo said. He and
colleagues named the creature "Eomaia scansoria" Eomaia is Greek for "dawn
mother" and scansoria is a Latin term reflecting the creature's apparent
climbing ability.
The tooth and bone structure suggests Eomaia ate insects and was well adapted
to climbing trees and bushes, keeping it out from underfoot of the enormous
dinosaurs that roamed the Earth during that period.
"It's a very small, agile mammal," Luo said, "part of a revolutionary era
in evolution."
Eomaia's climbing ability may have given it an advantage over other mammals
in its environment, although that's just speculation, said Anne Weil,
a Duke University paleontologist.
Date Disputes
Despite its place in the lineage leading to placental mammals, Eomaia
probably reproduced more like today's kangaroos, with some development
outside the womb, Weil added.
The Eomaia fossil may help reconcile two camps of scientists who use
different methods for dating the age of animal ancestors.
Molecular biologists study the details of DNA collected from living
animals to measure how long they have been evolving, the so-called
"molecular clock" method.
Paleontologists, in contrast, use fossils to track when new animals first
appeared.
The previous fossil record for ancestors of placental mammals had extended
back about 85 million years while the molecular clock suggested a longer
evolutionary time scale dating back at least 104 million years closer
to the 125 million year age the Eomaia fossil suggests.
"We're getting more and more agreement with timing based on fossil
morphology and on molecules," said J. David Archibald, a San Diego State
University biologist.
"And as we collect more and more data, they're converging on one another,"
he said. "That's important."
Scientist: Not Our Ancestor
But Michael Novacek, senior vice president and provost of science at
the American Museum of Natural History in New York, disagreed, saying the
Eomaia fossil "doesn't change the discrepancy significantly between the
fossil record and the molecular clock."
Novacek said he doubts that Eomaia was a direct ancestor of any modern
placental mammals but the skeleton is evidence their common ancestor is
"more ancient than we thought."
==
1.9 million years ago to 1.99 m.y.a.: Olduval Hominid 24 cranium,
Tanzania
Olduval Hominid 52 cranial fragment, Tanzania
KNM-ER 1802 mandible, tooth, Kenya
Swartkrans SK-68 tooth, South Africa
KNM-ER 1590 partial cranium, Kenya

2.0 Million years ago to 2.1 m.y.a.: KNM-ER 1470,1481 cranium, leg
bones, Kenya
KNM-WT 15001 cranial fragment, Kenya
Here are some examples older Homo Erectus fossils which have been
found:
1.85 million years ago to 2.1 million years ago:
KNM-ER 1809
Java (Djetis)
KNM-ER 2598
KNM-ER 3228
Damiao (2 million years old)
There are plenty more 1.8, 1.7, 1.6, 1.5 million year old Homo erectus
fossils that have been found as well. Homo habilis and Homo Erectus
lived as contemporaries. In fact there's significant evidence that
Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens lived as contemporaries (for supposedly
hundreds of thousands of years-- according to evolutionist
chronology).
The evolutionary steps of these 'predecessors to today's humans' tend
to crumble apart when you realize that Homo erectus didn't come from
Homo habilis, and that Homo Erectus lived (and worked) alongside not
just Homo habilis, but Homo Sapiens. The Australian Cohuna cranium of
Kow swamp (1925) and Talgai cranium (1886), the Mossgiel cranium
(1960), and the Cossack skull (1972) of Kow swamp have an appearance
of Homo erectus fossils.
==
http://search.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastweb?getdoc+site+site+23417+
Neanderthals

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/vwsu/gened/learn-modules/top_longfor/overview/
overvw1.html Human evolution
==
Stern and Sussmann (1983) The locomotor anatomy of Australopithecus
afarensis, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 60: 297-317.
==
Until recently, scientists have recognized only three groups of
hominids. The genus Homo evolved more than two million years ago and
led to modern humans. Paranthropus was a robust contemporary of Homo that
became extinct about one million years ago. Both groups were presumed
to have descended from an early species of the other hominid genus,
Australopithecus.
Ever since its discovery in 1974 in Ethiopia by Dr. Donald Johanson,
the australopithecine known as Lucy, or afarensis, has been generally
regarded as the most likely common ancestor of all subsequent hominids,
including humans.
In the absence of any other hominid fossils between about 3.8 million
and 3 million years ago, it seemed to be the only tentative conclusion
scientists could draw. "I suspect the chief role of K. platyops in the next
few years will be to act as a sort of party spoiler, highlighting the
confusion that confronts research into evolutionary relationships among
hominids."
The issue becomes an Australopithecus afarensis vs. Kenyanthropus
platyops debate. The newly discovered skull "almost certainly" represents a
new species. The fossils definitely did not resemble the genus Homo, which
evolved much later, and that the teeth were too small and the face too
distinctive to belong to a member of the Paranthropus genus. And she said she
resisted placing the species within the Australopithecus genus simply because
they were contemporaries. "Australopithecus has become too much of a dumping
place," Dr. Leakey complained.
In particular, she said in the team's report that the fossils' "unique
pattern of facial and dental morphology" probably reflected the fact
that the species occupied a new habitat and ate different foods than
the afarensis.
For two decades, afarensis stood alone as the earliest hominid species.
Then Dr. White in 1994 discovered fossils in Ethiopia that are thought
to be 4.4 million years old and have been named Ardipithecus ramidus;
details of the fossils remain scant. A year later, Dr. Leakey identified the
earliest known australopithecine, the four-million-year-old anamensis.
==
All four species of great apes -- chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and
orangutans have an identity of at least 96.4 percent with human DNA.
Human DNA and chimp DNA are 98.4 percent identical.... All four
species of great apes -- chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans --
have an identity of at least 96.4 percent with human DNA.
With approximately thirty million nucleotides, 1.6 percent accounts for
roughly 500,000 points of difference between the average human genome and
the average chimp genome.
When considering the macrobiotic world -- multicellular organisms, including
all animals and plants -- there have been only four really revolutionary
genetic changes in the history of life. The first was of course life itself,
simple one-celled organisms called prokaryotes, which emerged around three
and a half billion years ago. Two billion years later, the second revolution
occurred: the fusing of two or more prokaryotic cells into symbiotic units,
the more complex cells called eukaryotes. Five hundred million years after
that, eukaryotes developed sexual reproduction, and finally, four hundred
million years later (or about six hundred million years ago), eukaryotes
were able to join together to create multicelled organisms. Note that the
later changes took less time to occur -- two billion years to go from
prokaryote to eukaryote, but only 400 million years for multicellular
creatures to develop once sexual reproduction had occurred.
==
In hominids alone, by 1976, over 200 Neandertal fossils were classified,
100 Homo erectus, etc. A 1976 estimate gave a figure of approximately 4000
hominid individuals alone.
==
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Some of the early branchings are now
identifiable, and correspond to the migration patterns inferred from the fossil
evidence. The bottleneck size as about 2000 individuals.
==
Book 'Kanzi the ape at the brink of the human mind' from Roger Lewin
In the linguistic department of Georgia State University a group of scientists
investigated the ability of apes to learn a language. They found that bonobos
have a good ability to learn language. They used symbols for each word and
pictures for this word which show the real object. One day Kanzi was born, but
the scientist thought if was to early to teach Kanzi language. But there came
a time when Kanzi, who was just there during the investigations took a real
apple and the symbol for that object and just grinned to say: Hello guys you
didn't notice me, but I am learning (like a child learns language). After that
day all the attention was paid on Kanzi. Some times later he was able to
fullfil all the requirements of language; to use symbols (words)for non-
essential things (foodlike) like tools, to generate new symbols, to express
feelings with symbols, to make sentences, to remember what he has said and
much more. Moreover he was able to play pacman, drive an electrical car and
now the most important thing, he was told to open a box in which there was
food he liked, but the problem he could not get the food because he needed a
knifelike thing to open that box. What he did was he took a stone and made a
knife from it like we did it in the stone age. Then he tried to teach
language to other bonobos, but he had not succeed
==
ape
1.a. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family
Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.

hominid
1. A primate of the family Hominidae, of which Homo sapiens is the only
extant species.

hominoid
Etymology: New Latin Hominoidea, from Homin-, Homo + -oidea, suffix of
higher
taxa, from Latin -oides 2-oid
Date: 1949
: any of a superfamily (Hominoidea) of primates including recent hominids ,
gibbons, and pongids together with extinct ancestral and related forms (as of
the genera Proconsul and Dryopithecus)

monkey.
1. Any of various long-tailed, medium-sized members of the order Primates,
including the macaques, baboons, guenons, capuchins, marmosets, and tamarins
and excluding the anthropoid apes and the prosimians.


==
A famous British evolutionist, Sir Arthur Keith,
"The evidence of man's evolution from an ape-like being,
obtained from a study of fossil remains, is definite and
irrefutable, but the process has been infinitely more
complex than was suspected in
--
The title which Darwin gave to his 1859 book ("On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life") was not the title that Darwin gave it. The publisher
changed the title, and in particular, the publisher was responsible for the
words after the comma."Races" in Darwin's day and circle meant variations
up to and including species."Favoured races" in the subtitle means the variants
that have an advantage over alternatives. It has nothing to do with human
racial classifications
--
race (ras) n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a
more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical
characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of
common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Human beings considered as a group.
5. Biology.
a. A population of organisms differing from others of the same species
in the frequency of hereditary traits; a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
Note that, when discussion biology, definition 5 is appropriate.
--
Our older and discarded conception of man's transformation was depicted
in that well-known diagram which showed a single file of skeletons, the gibbon
at one end and man at the other. --"
"The Evidence for Darwin is Summed Up"; for full text see
The New York Times, September 4, 1927, sec. 8, pp. 1, 10
==
Some H. erectus left Africa about 1.8 million years ago. Meanwhile, back in
Africa the H. erectus that were there underwent sympatric speciation and became
H. heidelbergensis (archaic homo sapiens in the old terminology). Some of them
also migrated out of Africa. In Europe some H. heidelbergensis evolved to
H. neandertal. In Africa, some of the H. heidelbergensis evolved to
H. sapiens. Then some of the H. sapiens left Africa and encountered
H. heidelbergensis, H. neandertal, and H. erectus. Best data says that
H. erectus were in Indonesia as little as 20,000 years ago.
Discoveries at Mt. Shkul in Syria show that H. sapiens and H. neandertal shared
that mountain for over 30,000 years.
==
Lucy's Legacy: Uncovering Hadar's Most Famous Hominid
Book
From Lucy to Language
By Donald Johanson, Blake Edgar

by John Boddie
On November 30, 1974, paleontologists Tom Gray and Donald Johanson were driving
back to camp after mapping a site in Hadar, Ethiopia when Dr. Johanson
suggested they steer through a nearby gully instead of taking the usual route.
When Johanson spotted a forearm bone, he halted the truck, only to spot a skull
bone, ribs, a pelvis, and a lower jaw. That night, while celebrating the
discovery, someone listening to the Beatles's "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds"
on the radio suggested naming the find "Lucy."
Her skeleton was the first of 13 discovered in the gully, each around 3.2
million years old--the oldest evidence of human-like primates living in groups.
Formally known as Australopithecus afarensis number 288-1, Lucy is among
the oldest of 300 individuals discovered at the Hadar site, all of the
zoological family Homindae, a group of animals, including humans, characterized
by an upright stance. Johanson could tell Lucy was bipedal for several reasons:
her femurs were structured to let her balance on one leg at a time; her knee
joints could support her full weight; and her vertebrae showed she had the
curved spine essential for bipedalism. Her small size--Lucy would have stood
3 1/2 feet tall and weighed about 65 pounds--led researchers to conclude she
was female, while her wisdom teeth proved she was adult.
At the time of Lucy's discovery, Johanson was regarded as an "upstart
American" in a traditionally European field; his assertion that Lucy walked
upright and could be classified as Australopithecus sparked fiery debates
among paleoanthropologists. Some thought that Australopithecus Africanis
was the "missing link," while other scientists disputed that Lucy walked on
two legs. This debate cooled in 1976, when Mary Leaky discovered A. afarensis
tracks in volcanic ash. Questions about Lucy's reconstruction were cleared up
in 1991, when Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak discovered a 70 percent complete
A. afarensis skeleton.
==
Consciousness is an attribute that
we would expect to find in animals that collectively (socially) manage
external resources so as to maximize their value over time (and also with
respect to their location). Incidently this observation provides us a clue
as to the evolutionary origins of human consciousness--all we have to do is
look at the environment at that period of time, 4 to 6mya, and find some
aspect of the environment that would necessitate management of resources
over time. Lo and behold, if one looks at the paleoclimatic record at about
5 to 6mya the occurrence of seasonal dessication (A significant dry annual
season) began to occur in the parts of Africa where humans originated.
==
The erectus-grade hominids of Asia are the
only species that is formally recognised as /Homo erectus/, in the strictest
sense. The African erectus-grade hominids are technically called /H.
ergaster/, and their European cousins are known as /H. heidelbergensis/.
However, it's not clear whether the morphological differences between the
three regional populations are sufficient for these hominids to be
considered distinct species, or just regional variants. _If_ one decides
that the variation is not enough to be described as speciation, then /H.
erectus/ is the correct term for all three populations, since it has
priority. In any case, anatomically modern humans descend only from the
African variant, whether that variant is called "/H. ergaster/" or "African
/H. erectus/." Neandertals evolved from the European /H. erectus/-like
cratures (/H. heidelbergensis/) and the Asian erectus-grade hominids, /H.
erectus/, went extinct.
==
Paleontologists in Africa have found a 3.5 million-year-old skull from what
they say is an entirely new branch of the early human family tree, a discovery
that threatens to overturn the prevailing view that a single line of descent
stretched through the early stages of human ancestry.
Now it seems that the fossil species Australopithecus afarensis, which lived
from about four million to three million years ago and is best known from the
celebrated Lucy skeleton, was not alone on the African plain. Lucy may not even
be a direct human ancestor after all.
Indeed, the family tree, once drawn with a trunk straight and true, is
beginning to look more like a bush, with a tangle of branches of uncertain
relationship leading in many directions.
The skull discovery was made in 1999 by a research team led by Dr. Meave G.
Leakey excavating on the western side of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya.
Only after careful analysis did the scientists conclude that the nearly
complete skull and partial jaw represented a completely different genus and
species. The flattened face and small molars were strikingly different from
those of the contemporary afarensis, or Lucy, species.

In a report in today's issue of the journal Nature, Dr. Leakey formally named
the new member of the hominid family Kenyanthropus platyops, or flat-faced man
of Kenya. The dates for the fossils, ranging from 3.2 to 3.5 million years old,
were derived from volcanic ash buried at the site. The sex of the individual
has not been determined.

"Kenyanthropus shows persuasively that at least two lineages existed as far
back as 3.5 million years," Dr. Leakey said in a statement issued by the
National Museums of Kenya in Nairobi, where she is the principal
paleoanthropologist. "The early stages of human evolution are more complex than
we previously thought."

Until recently, scientists have recognized only three groups of hominids. The
genus Homo evolved more than two million years ago and led to modern humans.
Paranthropus was a robust contemporary of Homo that became extinct about one
million years ago. Both groups were presumed to have descended from an early
species of the other hominid genus, Australopithecus.

Ever since its discovery in 1974 in Ethiopia by Dr. Donald Johanson, the
australopithecine known as Lucy, or afarensis, has been generally regarded as
the most likely common ancestor of all subsequent hominids, including humans.

In the absence of any other hominid fossils between about 3.8 million and 3
million years ago, it seemed to be the only tentative conclusion scientists
could draw.
The newly discovered skull "almost certainly" represents a new species. None of
its main characteristics is in itself new, he noted, but "the combination of
features is not found in any other known species." But he said he was less sure
that the fossils belonged to a new genus, a broader grouping.

Defending her decision, she said that the fossils definitely did not resemble
the genus Homo, which evolved much later, and that the teeth were too small and
the face too distinctive to belong to a member of the Paranthropus genus. And
she said she resisted placing the species within the Australopithecus genus
simply because they were contemporaries.

In particular, she said in the team's report that the fossils' "unique pattern
of facial and dental morphology" probably reflected the fact that the species
occupied a new habitat and ate different foods than the afarensis.

From about 2.5 million years onward, until the extinction of Neanderthals about
28,000 years ago, there were always two or more species of hominid in
existence.

For two decades, afarensis stood alone as the earliest hominid species. Then
Dr. White in 1994 discovered fossils in Ethiopia that are thought to be 4.4
million years old and have been named Ardipithecus ramidus; details of the
fossils remain scant. A year later, Dr. Leakey identified the earliest known
australopithecine, the four-million-year-old anamensis.
The new discovery shows that the hominid diversity that was apparent from 2.5
million years on is now extended much earlier."
==
Neanderthal relatives
It is a matter of systematic semantics whether Neandertals are considered
human or not. If our ancestors Homo erectus are human, then so are
Neandertals.
If human applies to all and only Homo sapiens, then they are not, but
thats just a matter of definitions.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1999 May 11;96(10):5581-5
DNA sequence of the mitochondrial hypervariable region II from
the Neandertal type specimen.
Krings M, Geisert H, Schmitz RW, Krainitzki H, Paabo S
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22,
D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
The DNA sequence of the second hypervariable region of the mitochondrial
control region of the Neandertal type specimen, found in 1856 in central
Europe, has been determined from 92 clones derived from eight overlapping
amplifications performed from four independent extracts. When the
reconstructed sequence is analyzed together with the previously determined
DNA sequence from the first hypervariable region, the Neandertal mtDNA is
found to fall outside a phylogenetic tree relating the mtDNAs of contemporary
humans. The date of divergence between the mtDNAs of the Neandertal and
contemporary humans is estimated to 465,000 years before the present, with
confidence limits of 317,000 and 741,000 years. Taken together, the results
support the concept that the Neandertal mtDNA evolved separately from that
of modern humans for a substantial amount of time and lends no support to
the idea that they contributed mtDNA to contemporary modern humans.
Clark GA. Neandertal genetics. Science. 1997 Aug 22;277(5329):1024-5.
Cooper A, et al. Neandertal genetics. Science. 1997 Aug 22;277(5329):1021-4.
Krings M, et al. Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans.
Cell. 1997 Jul 11;90(1):19-30.
See also Dec 1979 Scientific American,
==


Water: An Astrobiologist's Pointing Dog
The most likely places for extraterrestrial life to develop are in spots where
liquid water once existed. Scientists are using water to point the wayto where
life may hide.
In research about life on Earth, scientists seek sources for the building
blocks of life, the carbon-based chemistry that makes up every living thing.
Today, we find the ingredients for life (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen,
and so forth) everywhere on our planet. All the basic elements that make up
trees, flowers, birds, bacteria and us are abundantly available on the surface
of the Earth.
But where did the organic compounds that are the basis of life arise? Were they
part of the original planet? Did they form slowly in shallow pools and oceans
as the Earth cooled? Did they arrive from space? These questions have occupied
scientists seriously for more than 50 years.
Today, there is strong evidence that comets delivered these molecules after the
Earth had formed. Can we obtain samples of these early materials? You might not
think so, as the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago. But each time
a comet swings by the Sun, we are seeing a miles-wide sample of that nebula.
Using that data, some researchers are trying to simulate the early Solar System
n the lab.
SETI Institute scientists Dr. Max Bernstein and Dr. Jason Dworkin work at NASA
Ames Research Center in cooperation with Dr. Lou Allamandola and Dr. Scott
Sandford in the Astrochemistry Laboratory. Together, the team builds
interstellar clouds in simulation chambers at very low temperatures and
pressures like those in the outer regions of the solar nebula. They work with
chemicals we know are present in comets to learn how complex organic materials
form in icy bodies like comets. Their experiments have produced complex organic
compounds like those we find in the debris of comets, the meteorites. When
added to water, some of these materials form tiny (10 micron diameter)
capsule-like droplets similar to cell membranes (photo of droplets). Extracts
of organics from some meteorites also form these capsule-like droplets when
added to water. This intriguing result points to the possibility that comets
and meteorites could have salted the Earth with organic materials that were a
springboard for life.
Couldn't take the heat
There was a time in the early history of our planet when it was a molten globe,
too hot for liquid water, too hot for the complex organics of life, and too hot
o hold an atmospherenot a good place to live. Any organic substances that fell
into that inferno would have been quickly destroyed.
As the Earth cooled, it began to hang onto an atmosphere of carbon dioxide and
nitrogen, the volcanic exhalations of the planet and debris of comets striking
the planet. Shallow oceans formed, condensing from water vapor spewed out by
volcanoes and from water arriving as giant snowballs from spacecometswhich
bombarded all the planets of the early
solar system. Just look at the geologically frozen surfaces of the Moon or
Mercury to see the evidence of this early bombardment; craters cover every inch
of them. There is little evidence of the early cometary strikes on Earth
because its surface is recycled as the continents move about, collide, sink and
risethe plate tectonics we sometimes feel as earthquakes and see as active
volcanoes.
But these organic compounds would have been safe in the smaller colder clumps
of matter left over from the original nebula, such as comets.
Comets are some of the oldest bodies in our solar system, falling toward the
Sun from the distant reaches of the original solar nebula. From ground-based,
airborne, and space-based observatories we know that comets are big dirty,
loosely formed snowballs, made of water, carbon dioxide (dry ice), ammonia, and
dust. (See "Building a Comet")The dust contains lots of complex organics. As
the Earth sweeps up the debris left behind by the comets, we see it burn high
in our atmosphere as meteors or "shooting stars." Some survive to crash land as
meteoritesan estimated 1,000 to 10,000 tons of dust and rock land on Earth
each day from space. These are samples of the early solar nebula.
Add water and stir
A well-known experiment shows what might have happened after Earth had cooled
enough for water to remain liquid, and was re-seeded with complex molecules.
In 1953, Dr. Stanley Miller and Dr. Harold Urey at the University of Chicago
conducted an experiment to see if the basic building blocks of lifeamino acids
and sugarscould be formed from the basic chemicals they believed were readily
available on the early Earth: methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and water. They
built a closed system that cycled the chemistry between liquid and gas phases,
and added energya sparkto mimic lightning. After some time passed, many
compounds formed, including some of the amino acids found in our cells. This
experiment catapulted them to world fame, and created the new scientific field
of exobiology, the study of life beyond Earth, because it appeared that the
basic building blocks of life could arise from inorganic materials, water, and
energy. More simply, given the right stuff and the right conditions, planets
can make the primordial soup where the chemistry of life can form. And,
scientists reasoned, it could happen elsewhere. More recently, NASA has coined
the term, astrobiology to encompass the study of life beyond Earth.
Internationally, this field of study is also known as bioastronomy. Regardless
of the term, all encompass astronomy, biology, chemistry, physics, geosciences,
and space sciences in learning about life beyond Earth.
The Miller-Urey experiment did not provide an entirely satisfactory answer to
the question of "Where did the building blocks of life arise?" Today,
scientists are seeking evidence that these building blocks of life may have
arrived from space. In other words, the basics for life came from elsewherenot
as walking, talking gray humanoids, but as tiny bits of organic material
delivered by comets and meteorites. Astronomers have identified many kinds of
organic moleculescarbon compoundsin the space between the stars, floating
about in clouds of gas, or bound up in small particles of dust. These sorts of
materials form new stars and their planetary systems. Similar material formed
the early solar nebula, and when our Sun and planets condensed from that cloud
of dust and gas, some organics were already present. But the molten condition
of early Earth would have broken up complex molecules, so Miller and Urey
started with simple chemistry. Today, the next generation of scientists are
considering that the organics could have arrived later (when the Earth had
cooled a bit). They could have arrived as comets and meteorites that rained
down water for oceans, carbon dioxide for the atmosphere, and organics to
contribute to the origin of life.
Like the Miller-Urey experiment, the Astrochemistry Laboratory results are only
suggestive; they point to a cosmic source for some of the building blocks of
life. Bernstein, Allamandola, and Sandford described their research in
Scientific American and rightly concluded,
Of course, a huge gap still yawns between even the most complex organic
compounds and the genetic code, metabolism and self-replication that are
crucial to the definition of life. But given their omnipresence, if organic
molecules from space had something to do with life here, that means they
wereand always areavailable to help with the development of life elsewhere.
"Life's Far Flung Raw Materials"
(http://www.sciam.com/1999/0799issue/0799bernstein.html
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_compounds_011018.html
==
Raman light detects organic compounds.
Wdowiak used Raman spectroscopy to detect 2 billion-year-old fossilized
bacteria in rock.
==
Extinctions
Jun 13, 2003 - A team of researchers from Louisiana State University have
uncovered a connection between a meteor strike and a mass extinction that
happened 380 million years ago called the middle Devonian event. It happened at
a time when small plants, wingless insects and spiders inhabited the land, and
everything else lived in the sea - 40% of all life disappeared from the fossil
records. They found evidence of the strike by measuring the magnetic signature
of layers of rock. When a large asteroid hits the Earth, it distributes a layer
of dust around the entire planet - if a strata of rock has the same magnetic
signature in different parts of planet, it's evidence of a strike.

References
Name, A.B.Impact ejecta layer from the mid-Devonian: possible connection to
global mass extinctions. Science, 300, 1734 - 1737, (2003).
==
World's Oldest Fossil Hominids Discovered In Kenya
Another archaeological challenge that points towards the existence of more
ancient human life in the Great Rift Valley, emerged Monday following the
announcement of an historic discovery of six million years old fossil hominids
in Kenya's Baringo district.
The fossils, excavated from the deep ravines of Kapsomin of Baringo district
the Great eastern Rift Valley, consists of pieces of jaws with teeth,
isolated upper and lower teeth, arm and leg bones and a finger bone from
three localities near the village of Rondinin.
Archaeologists exhibited fossils dating back to six million years ago.
This major discovery of exceptionally ancient hominids brings to the fore,
suggestions that human beings must have started living here more than five
million years ago.Previously, the earliest claimed hominids, were discovered at
Aramis, Ethiopia, aged about 4.5 million years.
During follow-up surveys and surface screening, other hominid fossils werefound
by expedition members, not only at Kapsomin,but also at Kapcheberek and Aragai,
bringing to five the number of hominid individuals represented in the
collection.
Describing the Rift Valley area as a treasure trove waiting to be exploited,
Valley) has a total of 180 known archaeological sites and yet none has been
worked on.
Both teams independently arrived at an age of six million years for the Lukeino
Formation, based on the ages of lava flows, which underlie and overlie the
fossiliferous beds.
As such, the Kapsomin hominids are by far the oldest known anywhere in the
world.
The Kapsomin fossils, the scientists said, and those from other sites in the
Lukeino Formation, are sufficiently complete that after a detailed study by
palaeontologists, they will yield a great deal of information about the
earliest stages of pre-human origins, including details about posture and
locomotion as well as broad dietary categories.
Preliminary studies of the arm and finger bones reveal that the Kapsomin
hominid was an agile tree climber, whereas its leg bones indicate that when it
was on the ground it walked on two legs.
The teeth indicate that the species probably subsisted on hard skinned fruits
among other foods, the incisors being broad and robust, while the cheek teeth
have thick enamel.
The canines are smaller compared with those of apes, but are larger than those
of modern humans.
The three femur bones in the collection have been chewed, indicating that the
individuals to which they belonged probably fell prey to a large carnivore.
The finds portray a different morphology and postulates that lava could have
buried them up over the cliff.
The Rift Valley is home to dozens of inactive volcanic mountains and cliffs.
At the same sites, the remains of gazelles, other antelopes and small colobus
monkeys were found to be common.
He said the vast area covering 45 by 50 kilometres could be home to older human
generations and that it is rich in fossils because of the lava, which gives the
area a geo-chemical environment favourable for the preservation of fossils.
==
The Aug 2000 issue of Scientific American had a major article on early humans
leaving Africa millions of years ago.
==
ANTHROPOLOGY:
DNA From an Extinct Human
Patricia Kahn and Ann Gibbons Science 1997 July 11; 277: 176-178. (in Research
News)

A Hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible
Ancestor to Neandertals and Modern Humans
J. M. Bermudez de Castro, J. L. Arsuaga, E. Carbonell, A.
Rosas, I. Martinez, and M. Mosquera Science 1997 May 30; 276:
1392-1395. (in Reports)

Paleoanthropology: A New Face for Human Ancestors
Ann Gibbons Science 1997 May 30; 276: 1331-1333. (in Research News)

PALEOBIOLOGY:
A Fruitful Scoop for Ancient DNA
Erik Stokstad Science 1998 July 17; 281: 319b (in News of the Week)

Paleoanthropology: Did Neandertals Lose an Evolutionary "Arms" Race?
Ann Gibbons Science 1996 June 14; 272: 1586-1587. (in Research News)
==
Alan R. Templeton
"Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective,"
in American Anthropologist (fall of 1998)
Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a
form inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA,
paternally inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from
both sexes. His results showed that 85 percent of genetic
variation in the human DNA was due to individual variation. A
mere 15 percent could be traced to what could be interpreted as
"racial" differences.

"The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to
recognize race in other species," Templeton says. "In many
other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation
two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even
recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically
homogenous species we know of. There's lots of genetic
variation in humanity, but it's basically at the individual
level. The between-population variation is very, very minor."
==
Neanderthal man or Neanderthal man, type of early human, existing
125,000-35,000 years ago and generally considered a subspecies of Homo
sapiens (see human evolution), whose fossil remains were first found
(1856) in Neanderthal, W Germany. The Neanderthals' middle Paleolithic
culture (see Stone Age) included stone tools, fire, burial, and cave
shelters. The so-called classic Neanderthals were robust and had a
large, thick skull, a sloping forehead, a chinless jaw, and a brain
somewhat larger than that of modern humans; they stood slightly over 5
ft (152 cm).
==
Encyclopaedia Britannicas information: [39]

Species Avg. cap. of # of fossil Age
examples

Smaller
Australopithecus 440 6 2,000,000-4,000,000 years
Robustus

Australopithecus 519 4 1,800,000 years

Javanese Homo erectus 883 7 1,500,000-300,000 years
Chinese (Peking)

H. erectus 1043 5 (same as above)

H. Sapiens 1450 7
==
If Humans were Built to Last\ by S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce A.Carnes, and
Robert N. Butler, in _Scientific American_ Vol. 284, No. 3
(March 2001) p. 50-55. Pp. 52-53 are specifically focused on this topic.
body add shorter stature (lower center of gravity), additional ribs (hold
internal organs better) thicker bones (esp. femur & tibia, but also
vertebral centra), larger hamstring muscle, additional check valves in
veins in legs, larger leg muscles and additional fat (cushioning and also
helping prevent demineralisation), thicker knee cartilage, larger cervical
vertebrae (and associated stronger nuchal muscles).
I would personally add a reduced, less sharply curved coccyx, larger feet,
stronger back and abdominal muscles, wider clavicle (holding shoulders
farther apart to decrease slouching, which weakens back muscles), expanded
angle of the sciatic notch, or perhaps enclosure of the notch into a
sciatic foramen (so our feet and legs don't fall asleep so readily when
we sit) and perhaps a re-positioning of the foramen magnum to compensate
for the forward-leaning posture.
==
"mitochondrial Eve"
The mtEve is not the mother of us all, merely the mother
of us all through the unbroken female line. There were presumably many (in
the thousands) of other females in the same population as mtEve, and we
are all descended from many of them. These females undoubtably had a
certain amount of diversity in their mitochondrial genomes too, and this
diversity was reflected in their descendants for thousands of years. Only
gradually were mitochondrial lines dropped from the population until
finally only one was left. Finding an extinct mitochondrial haplotype that
isn't descended from mtEve is no surprise; it's to be expected from
coalescent theory, on which the whole mtEve thing is based.
==
Axelrod "The Evolution of Cooperation"

Brace, C. Loring, The Stages of Human Evolution, 5th edition, 1995
(Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall), 371 pp

British Museum (Natural History), Mans Place in Evolution, second ed.,
1991 (Natural History Museum Publications):

Guilaine, Jean (ed.), Prehistory: The World of Early Man, 1986 (New
York, NY: Facts on File, Inc.):

Dorling Kindersley, London, Eyewitness Guides series, Early People:

The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, Fossil and Gene Records Explored
by Michael Brass Publish America (2002), pp. 220, ISBN 1-59129-385-5.

Lewin, Roger, Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction, 1993
(Blackwell Scientific Publications):

Lewin, Roger, In the Age of Mankind, 1988 (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Books):

Reader, J. Missing Links: The Hunt for Earliest Man, 1981 (Boston, MA:
Little, Brown):

Stuckey, Richard and Johnson, Kirk, The Prehistoric Journey,
1995(Boulder, CO: Roberts Rinehart Publishing Co.)

Tattersall, Ian, The Human Odyssey: Four Million Years of Human
Evolution, 1993 (New York: Prentice Hall):

Wolpoff, Milford, Human Evolution

Tattersall, Ian, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know
About Human Evolution, 1995 (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Campbell, Bernard Human Evolution (3rd edition) (Aldine, 1985) --
College text

Ciochon, Russell L. & John G. Fleagle The Human Evolution Source Book
(Prentice Hall, 1993) -- Reprints of scientific papers

Dennett, Daniel C. Darwins Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings
of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1995) -- Evolution and its implications

Foley, Robert (1987) Another Unique Species: Patterns in Human
Evolutionary Ecology (John Wiley & Sons) -- College text

Gamble, Clive (1994) Timewalkers: The Prehistory of Global Colonization
(Harvard University Press) -- Archeology and human dispersal

Johanson, Donald C. & Maitland Edey (1981) Lucy: The Beginnings of
Humankind (Simon & Schuster) -- History of fieldwork at Hadar and of
Australopithecus afarensis

Johanson, Donald C. & James Shreeve (1989) Lucys Child: The Discovery
of a Human Ancestor (William Morrow) -- Fieldwork at Olduvai Gorge and
fossil discoveries of the 1980s

Johanson, Donald C. & Kevin OFarrell (1990) Journey from the Dawn:
Life with the Worlds First Family (Villard) -- Fiction, but with
explicit explanations of scientific basis

Johanson, Donald C., Lenora Johanson, & Blake Edgar (1994) Ancestors:
In Search of Human Origins (Villard) -- Companion book to the NOVA
series

Jones, Steve, Robert Martin, & David Pilbeam (1992)The Cambridge
Encyclopedia of Human Evolution(Cambridge University Press) (1994
paperback edition) -- Short essays on a wide range of topics relevant to
human evolution

Klein, Richard G. (1989) The Human Career: Human Biological and
Cultural Origins (University of Chicago Press) -- College text; best
single source on the human fossil record

Leakey, Richard & Roger Lewin (1992) Origins Reconsidered (Doubleday)
(1994 paperback) -- Fieldwork at Lake Turkana and overview of human
evolution

Lewin, Roger (1988) In the Age of Mankind (Smithsonian Books) --
Beautifully illustrated, wide-ranging in topics

Lewin, Roger (1993) Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction (3rd
edition) (Blackwell Scientific Publications) -- College text; god
introduction to recent research

Lewin, Roger (1993) The Origin of Modern Humans (Scientific American
Library) -- Reviews recent evidence and controversies, for a general
audience

Morell, Virginia (1995) Ancestral Passions (Simon & Schuster) -- Joint
biography of the Leakey family; research in East Africa

Reader, John (1988) Missing Links: The Hunt for Earliest Man (2nd
edition) (Penguin) -- Popular history of major discoveries

Schick, Kathy D. & Nicholas Toth (1993) Making Silent Stones Speak:
Human Evolution and the Dawn of Technology (Simon & Schuster) --
Archeological perspective on development of human behavior

Shreeve, James (1995) The Neandertal Enigma: Solving the Mystery of
Modern Human Origins (William Morrow) -- Review of current viewpoints on
Neandertals and human evolution

Stringer, Christopher & Clive Gamble (1993) In Search of the
Neanderthals: Solving the Puzzle of Human Origins (Thames and Hudson) --
Comprehensive discussion of Neandertals and their place in human
evolution

Tattersall, Ian (1993) The Human Odyssey: Four Million Years of Human
Evolution (Prentice-Hall) -- Well-illustrated; based on the American
Museum of Natural Historys Hall of Human Biology and Evolution

Tattersall, Ian (1995) The Fossil Trail (Oxford University Press) --
Overview of human evolution and history of the field for a general
audience

Tattersall, Ian, Eric Delson & John Van Couvering (1988) Encyclopedia
of Human Evolution and Prehistory (Garland) -- Just what the title
suggests

Trinkaus, Erik & Pat Shipman (1993) The Neandertals: Changing the Image
of Mankind (Alfred A. Knopf) -- Popular history of fossil discoveries
and of Neandertals in human evolution

Fisher, Helen, Anatomy of Love, 1992 and The Sex Contract

Darlington, C.D., Evolution for Naturalists (NY, John Wiley, 1980)

Dose, Prof. Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More Questions than
Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (v. 13, no. 4, 1988)
Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg University,
Germany.

Dawkins, Richard, "The Necessity of Darwinism," New Scientist, V. ,94,
Apr. 15, 1982, p. 130.
==
Cro-Magnon, early modern human beings, representatives of Homo sapiens
sapiens, who lived in western and southern Europe during the last glacial age.
The physical characteristics that distinguish the Cro-Magnons from the
Neandertals are a high forehead and a well-defined chin. Artifacts attributed
to the earliest period of Cro-Magnon culture,the Upper Paleolithic Aurignacian,
demonstrate clearly that they had mastered the art of fashioning many useful
instruments from stone, bone and ivory. The Cro-Magnons wore fitted clothes and
decorated their bodies with jewelry and ornaments of shell and bone. A number
of colored paintings left on the walls of caves (see Cave Dwellers) is further
evidence of their complex culture. Cro-Magnons appear to be the ancestors of
the living peoples of southern and western Europe. The name Cro-Magnon is
derived from a rock shelter of that name in the Dordogne Department in
southwestern France, where skeletal remains were discovered in 1868.
==

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piltdown.html "In 1953 Piltdown
was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an
orangutan jaw. Well before then, Piltdown had become a puzzling anomaly
when compared to all other hominid fossils, and the scientific community
was relieved to be able to forget about it.

As time went on, the case for Piltdown man being real became weaker and
weaker; from http://www.tiac.net/users/cri/piltdown.html "In the period
1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by
and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil
hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again.
The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a
mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly;
some prominent authors did not even bother to list it."
==
Researchers in Kenya and the United States unveiled the jaws, teeth and bones
of several individuals belonging to the new pre-human species. Apparently, it
was a species that combined ape-like facial features, such as primitive jaws
and ears. They had large canine teeth. But they have other characteristics that
are more like human beings, like an upright posture.
The new discovery allegedly pushes back the earliest date when human
ancestors are known to have walked upright on two legs by a half a million
years. This new fossil is called Australopithecus anamensis. There is an older
one called ramidus that is supposedly 4.4 million years old. But
Australopithecus anamensis falls between ramidus, which is the oldest, and
Australopithecines afarensis , which you know as Lucy.
In 1932, there was another fossil found in India that was different. This was
named ramapithecus, 9 to 14 million years old. It consisted of several teeth
and jaw fragments, and because the incisors and canine teeth of this creature,
although ape-like, are smaller than those of modern apes. Ramapithecus is no
longer considered an ancestor to humans, but to orangutans.
==
The oldest known anthropoid postcranial fossils and the early evolution of
higher primate. The middle Eocene primate family Eosimiidae, which is known
from sites in central and eastern China and Myanmar, is central to
efforts to reconstruct the origin and early evolution of anthropoid or
higher primates (monkeys, apes and humans). Previous knowledge of
eosimiid anatomy has been restricted to the dentition and an isolated
petrosal bone, and this limited anatomical information has led to conflicting
interpretations of early anthropoid phylogeny. Here we describe foot bones
of Eosimias from the same middle Eocene sites in China that yield abundant
dental remains of this primate. Tarsals of Eosimias show derived anatomical
traits that are otherwise restricted to living and fossil anthropoids. These
new fossils substantiate the anthropoid status of Eosimias and clarify the
phylogenetic position of anthropoids with respect to other major primate
clades. Early anthropoids possessed a mosaic of primitive and derived traits
in their postcranial skeletons, reflecting their derivation from haplorhine
ancestors that retained many prosimian-like features.
==
Neo-Darwinism: the reworking of evolutionary theory in the light of discoveries
about genetics as a result of the work of Fisher, Haldane, Sewall Wright, and
evolutionary forces: natural selection, genetic drift, gene flow, and mutation.
Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (1997)
"The modern theory of evolution is the basis of biological science. This theory
is often called neo-Darwinism: 'Darwinism' since it uses Darwin's idea of
natural selection, and 'neo' (new) because it incorporates a theory of
heredity, worked out since Darwin's time."
==
"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of
years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent
(that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no
particular reason to doubt it." Behe, M. (1996) "Darwin's Black Box" p. 5
==
September 15, 2000
Fossils dating back 460 million years show that plants may have had friendly
allies, in the form of fungi, helping them make the move to land from the
sea. Virtually all green land plants have partnerships with fungi today.
Threadlike fungi grow in and around the roots of plants, helping them absorb
minerals and water. But what happened when plants first left the water for
the land hundreds of millions of years ago is less clear. Scientists were
examining shale taken from a road cut. Etching them with
acid, they found tiny structures that looked like fossilized fungal spores.
Further examination turned up imprints of the threadlike hairs of fungi.
This dates fungi to the same time that land plants first started appearing.
They may have soon started working together. The presence of both
organisms at the same time suggests that there could have been such an
interaction, and that organisms even then were interdependent. Its evidence
that this fungal group was already present when the evolution of the land
plants was at a very early stage. No evidence has been found that these
early, tiny fungi were living in the roots of plants. They only found the
fungi. They didnt show an association of the plants and fungi at the time.
But studies done of fossils that date to 60 million years later suggest
that plants and fungi had teamed up by then. The study suggests that fungi
had already evolved on land when plants first moved there, and were ready
to form their alliance. The fungi found in the Wisconsin shale looked like
those in the the modern-day Glomus genus. It is not apparent what the
fungi evolved from. The fossils were found in a shale marine setting.
Its not quite clear if they were growing on land or in the seas, but
the similarity to present-day fungi suggests they were growing on the
land. Fungi as a kingdom are much older than plants. No one is sure what
they evolved from. The first land plants were very simple organisms,
much like modern day liverworts. Just as animals have become more complex,
plants developed complicated systems as the eons passed. They also teamed
up with other species such as bacteria, which help legumes such as beans
and peas fix nitrogen -- an important nutrient for plants.
==
Scientists put one species of bacteria into a test tube. In 5 days, this one
strain had evolved into different forms, one living at the top of the
solution, one in the middle, one at the bottom ('Sciencenow' August 29, 1997)

In 'Nature', 394, 69 (1998), P B Rainey and M Travisno describe an experiment
using P. Fluorescens where similar work was done. The conclusion they reached
was that these results demonstrate that the elementary processes of mutation
and natural selection alone are sufficient to promote rapid proliferation of
new designs and support the theory that trade offs in competitive ability
drive adaptive radiation.
==
Arnone MI, Davidson EH (1997) The hardwiring of development: organization
and function of genomic regulatory systems. Development 124(10):1851-1864

Dickinson, WJ (1988) On the architecture of regulatory systems: evolutionary
insights and implications. BioEssays 8:204-208.
==
There are examples of non-hard-shelled trilobites in earlier
fossil layers and copious numbers of hard-shelled trilobites in later layers.
==
Single base substitutions in humans are estimated to occur between
1 x 10^-9 and 1 x 10^-8 nucleotides per gamete per generation,
which means that any gamete is likely to have several. Mutations within a
given gene will occur more frequently (between 1 x 10^-4 and 1 x 10^-6),
depending on the size (in bases) of the gene. Different types of mutation
have different rates.
==
Cohen, A.S., 1982. Paleoenvironments of root casts from the Koobi Fora
Formation, Kenya. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v.52, no.2, p.401-414.

Jones, B.; Renaut, R.W; Rosen, M.R.; and Klyyen, L., 1998. Primary
siliceous rhizoliths from Loop Point Road hot springs, North Island, New
Zealand. Journal of Sedimentary Research, v.68, no.1,p.115-123.
==
Humans belong to the Suborder Anthropoidea, and so do the old world monkeys
(Cercopithecidae). The lemurs, on the other hand, belong to the
Suborder Prosimii and appear to be a side branch not directly related to
the Anthropoidea.
Jan. 2000 Scientific American
==
BIOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF MODERN MAN
Kingdom - Animal
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Mammalia
Order - Primate
Family - Homindae
Genus-Homo
Species-sapiens
Race-sapiens
-----
Rose & Bown (1984) analyzed over 600 specimens of primates collected from
a 700-meter-thick sequence representing approximately 4 million years of
the Eocene. They found smooth transitions between Teilhardina americana and
Tetonoides tenuiculus, and also beween Tetonius homunculus and Pseudotetonius
ambiguus.
Plesiadapids: Gingerich (summarized in 1976, 1977) found smooth transitions
in plesiadapid primates linking four genera together: Pronothodectes,
Nannodectes, two lineages of Plesiadapis, and Platychoerops. In summary:
Pronothodectes matthewi changed to become Pro. jepi, which split into
Nannodectes intermedius and Plesiadapis praecursor. N. intermedius was the
first member of a gradually changing lineage that pass
More primates: Parapithecus (early Oligocene), Propliopithecus,
Aegyptopithecus (early Oligocene, Egypt), Aegyptopithecus (early-mid
Oligocene, Egypt), Proconsul africanus (early Miocene, Kenya.)
Transition Fossils in primates: Palaechthon, Purgatorius (middle Paleocene),
Cantius (early Eocene) , Pelycodus & related species (early Eocene)
==
Epochs of the Tertiary period
Paleocene
Eocene
Oligocene
Miocene
Pliocene
==
Although the Orgueil meteorite, named after the French town near where
it fell in 1864, had been analyzed decades ago, Bada and his colleagues
conducted a new study using sophisticated techniques and instruments
aimed at detecting trace levels of amino acids. Amino acids are the
fundamental components of proteins and are synthesized in living cells.
After obtaining a pristine piece of the interior portion of Orgueil, the
researchers found that it contained a relatively simple mixture of amino
acids, consisting primarily of glycine and beta-alanine. They also
analyzed the sample's carbon isotope concentration and found that the
amino acids were not derived from earthly contamination.
We found that the amino acids in Orgueil are abiotic. They were formed
without the help of biology, only chemical reactions, said co-author
Botta. We think these amino acids were synthesized in space.
The research team then compared their results with three other
meteorites: Murchison and Murray, which have been studied extensively,
and Ivuna, a meteorite that fell in Tanzania, Africa, in 1938 that had
not been analyzed for amino acids.
The research team broke the meteorites down into two classes. The
Murchison and Murray meteorites were placed in a category containing a
complex mix of amino acids made up of more than 70 different types of
amino acids. Orgueil and Ivuna, however, were categorized with a much
simpler composition made up primarily of just two amino acids.
Based on the unique amino acid composition within Orgueil, the
researchers were able to deduce information about the meteorite's past.
Murchison and Murray are widely believed to be pieces of an asteroid,
as are virtually all meteorites scientists have studied. However the
paper suggests Orgueil and Ivuna show evidence that they are likely
derived from a comet. The amino acid signatures within Orgueil and
Ivuna suggest that these compounds were likely synthesized from
components such as hydrogen cyanide, which have been recently observed
in the comets Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake.
This suggested to us that what we may be seeing in Orgueil and Ivuna
are the products of reactions that once took place in the nucleus of
a comet,said Bada.
If it's true, this would be the first time that a meteorite from the
nucleus of a comet has been identified, said co-author Glavin. There
is really a lot we don't understand about the chemistry of a comet
nucleus and this would be our first insight.
Thus, the paper suggests, the amino acids that helped generate life on
Earth may have been delivered by meteorites that were derived from the
remnants of comets.
==
http://archaeology.about.com/education/archaeology/library/weekly/
aa111598.htm
Somewhere between 50,000 and 150,000 years ago, anatomically modern
humans--Homo sapiens--appeared in Africa. Every single human being alive
today is descended from this single population--and there is hardly any
argument about that. At the time we are speaking, Homo sapiens wasnt the
only species occupying the earth. Depending on which paleoanthropologist you
speak to, there was at least one and perhaps several others
(Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo rhodesiensis). There is some
evidence, in a couple of places, that at least Neanderthals, modern humans
and even Homo erectus shared our planet as recently as 40,000 years ago.
The tricky part is we dont really know the details for how these other
species fit into our own evolutionary history. Did they impart some genetic
material to us or not? That remains to be seen.

What we do know is that sometime after the appearance of modern Homo
sapiens, some of us began to leave Africa and colonize the rest of the
planet. As we spread out over the earth, little bands of us became
geographically isolated, and began to adapt, as humans do, to their
surroundings. Little isolated bands, together adapting to their geographic
surroundings and in isolation from the rest of the population, began to
develop regional patterns of physical appearance, and it is at this point
that races, that is, different characteristics began to be expressed.
Changes in skin color, nose shape, limb length and overall body proportions
occurred partly as a reaction to latitudinal differences in temperature,
aridity, and amount of solar radiation. It is these characteristics that
determine the races of our species; paleoanthropologists prefer to express
it as geographical variation, and that seems like a pretty good way to
look at it. Generally, and I mean generally, the four major geographic
variations are Mongoloid (generally considered northeastern Asia),
Australoid (Australia and perhaps southeast Asia), Caucasoid (western Asia,
Europe and northern Africa), and Negroid or African (sub-Saharan Africa).
Bear in mind that these are broad patterns only and that both physical
traits and genes vary more within these geographical groups than they do
between them.
What geneticists are beginning to believe is that the founder population
of all of the Native Americans, and indeed most of the peoples of the
Pacific Basin, are descendants of a group of individuals who lived in
Mongolia some 20,000-30,000 years ago, individuals who looked very much
like the Paleoindians of the New World. And that the characteristics that we
recognize as Native American or Asian developed after the migration
into the American continent and away from the Mongolian basin.
==
Cro-Magnon are bigger than modern mans. Their cranial capacity was between
1600-1700 ccms. Modern humans is 1450 ccms. Also Homo sapiens sapiens
brain capacity actually went down suddenly around 10,500 BCE.Fishman, MC and
KR Chien (1997) Fashioning the vertebrate heart: earliest embryonic
decisions. Development 124(11):2099-2117. _Evolution of the Brain_ by John
C. Eccles (1989).
-----
Terrence Deacon (_The Symbolic Species_)
Evolutionary Psychology by Buss
Paul Erbrich, "On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a
Particular Function," Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 34 (1985), pp. 53-80
Robert F. Weaver, "ATGC: A Simple Code of Four Parts Spells Out Life,"
National Geographic, Vol. 166, No. 6 (December 1984)
[Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, "The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication,"
Scientific American, Vol. 259, No. 2 (August 1988)
Ashley Montagu, Human Heredity (NYC: The New American Library, 1963)
[Michael Polanyi, "Life's Irreducible Structure," Science, Vol. 160,
No. 3834 (June 21, 1968)
Harold F. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution (Princeton, New Jersey:
P.S. Moorhead and M.M. Kaplan, editors, Mathematical Challenges to the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution(Philadelphia: Wistar Institute,1967).
D.E. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Genetics of Spontaneous Generation,"
Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen, The Mystery of
Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (New York: Philosophical Library
1984) (Very complete and detailed / quantifies the information content in DNA
and protein / includes the important work of Ilya Prigogine).
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html hominid fossils
==
Prominent Hominid Fossils
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens
========
For A. Anamensis (~ 4.2 million years B. P.) we have leg bones, arm bones,
teeth, and parts of a jaw -- altogether, fossils from 21 individuals.
For A. Ramidus (~ 4.4 million years B. P.) we have the remains of 17
individuals, inclduing skull fragments, teeth, arm bones, and part of a
childs lower jaw. For A. Afarensis (~3.5 million years B. P.), we have
large portions of a skull.
Check out the July 25 1996 issue of Nature, where an article by
Kappelman et al. discuss their recent find of Ankarapithecus meteai,
an ape from the Miocene. They have nearly a complete skull.
==
New fossils boost understanding of primate evolution
A baboon-sized ape that lived in East Africa about 15 million years ago may
have been among the first primates to leave the treetops and live on the
ground, a key step in the evolutionary path that theoretically led eventually
to humans. The fossilized partial skeleton of the animal is distinctly
different from other ancient apes, prompting researcher Steve Ward and his
colleagues to identify it as the only member of a new ape genus they call
Equatorius.
Hand, finger, arm and shoulder bones show strong evidence that Equatorius
spent a lot of time on the ground. This is the first time that we see
evidence of that in the fossil record of apes.This is a very important
finding in understanding the evolutionary steps leading eventually to modern
primates that spend almost no time in trees and are able to walk upright.
Equatorius is not thought to be a direct ancestor of humans or of modern
apes, Ward said.
The animal probably was an evolutionary dead end, a species that disappeared
after about 1 1/2 million years, but it provides important evidence of a
poorly understood era that Ward calls the golden age of ape evolution.
There was a large group of primitive apes that appeared in East Africa
sometime before 23 million years ago, said Ward. They exploded in an
evolutionary sense into many, many genera and species.
Equatorius was a late representative of that era and was probably among the
first to abandon the tree top home of earlier apes species.
Ape species around 10 to 14 million years ago moved from Africa into Europe
and Asia where they initially thrived, but eventually most became extinct.
The remains of Equatorius were found in 1993 by a fossil hunter who
discovered a single tooth projecting from a solid rock wall in the Tugen
Hills of north central Kenya. Careful excavation of the site uncovered a
jaw with more teeth, along with bones from the spine, arms, shoulders,
wrists, fingers and hand.
The specimen is the most complete ape skeleton yet found from a critical era
of ape evolution. Equatorius was about the size of an adult male baboon. Its
arms and legs were of about equal length. Powerful gripping hands and feet
suggest that although it spent much of its life on the ground, it was also
adept at tree-climbing.
At first it was thought the Equatorius specimen belonged in the genus of
another ancient ape called Kenyapithecus. There are only small collections of
fossils for this genus and experts thought it contained two species,
K. wickeri and K. Africanus. The sparse fossils from the two species were
a mixed bag and garbled the signals we were getting from the bones about
that era of ape evolution. But he said a comparison of the more complete
skeleton of Equatorius makes it clear that K. Africanus really belongs in
the new genus of Equatorius. By recognizing Equatorius for what it is, it
helps us to understand a lot about the early ape evolution. It is now clear
that Equatorius is more primitive and preceded K. Wickeri in evolutionary
history by 1 to 1 1/2 million years.
==
TI Early Homo and associated artefacts from Asia.
AU Wanpo-H; Ciochon-R; Yumin-G; Larick-R; Qiren-F; Schwarcz-H; Yonge-C;
De-Vos-J; Rink-W SO Nature (London) 378(6554): 275-278 PY 1995
AB THE site of Longgupo Cave was discovered in 1984 and excavated in
1985-1988 by the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology
(Beijing) and the Chongqing National Museum (Sichuan Province). Important
finds include very archaic hominid dental fragments, Gigantopithecus teeth
and primitive stone tools. Palaeomagnetic analysis and the presence of
Ailuropoda microta (pygmy giant panda) suggested that the hominid-bearing
levels dated to the earliest Pleistocene. In 1992, joint Chinese-American-
Canadian geochronological research corroborated the age using electron spin
resonance (ESR) analysis. We report here that the hominid dentition and
stone tools from Longgupo Cave are comparable in age and morphology with
early representatives of the genus Homo (H. habilis and H. ergaster) and
the Oldowan technology in East Africa. The Longgupo dentition is demonstrably
more primitive than that seen in Asian Homo erectus. Longgupos diverse and
well preserved Plio-Pleistocene fauna of 116 species provide a sensitive
contextual base for interpreting the early arrival of the genus Homo in Asia.
And this one also reports very early Asian humans:
Gigantipithicus weighed over 600 pounds, and was the largest ape that ever
existed.
TI Age of the earliest known hominids in Java, Indonesia.
AU Swisher-C-C-III; Curtis-G-H; Jacob-T; Getty-A-G; Suprijo-A; Widiasmoro
SO Science (Washington D C) 263(5150): 1118-1121 PY 1994
AB 4-0Ar/39Ar laser-incremental heating of hornblende separated from pumice
recovered at two hominid sites in Java, Indonesia, has yielded well-defined
plateaus with weighted mean ages of 1.81 +- 0.04 and 1.66 +- 0.04 million
years ago (Ma). The hominid fossils, a juvenile calvaria of Pithecanthropus
and a partial face and cranial fragments of Meganthropus, commonly
considered part of the Asian Homo erectus hypodigm, are at least 0.6
million years older than fossils referred to as Homo erectus (OH-9) from
Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania, and comparable in age with the oldest Koobi Fora
Homo cf. erectus (Homoergaster) in Kenya. These ages lend further credence
to the view that Homo erectus may have evolved outside of Africa. If the
ancestor of Homo erectusventured out of Africa before 1.8 Ma, the dispersal
would have predated the advent of the Acheulean culture at 1.4 Ma, possibly
explaining the absence of these characteristic stone cleavers and hand axes
in East Asia.
The following are relevant:
TI The ancient population of Eurasia. AU Senut-B
SOBulletins et Memoires de la Societe dAnthropologie de Paris 6(1-2):
111-112. PY1994 (1995) LAFrench
DE NOTE; HOMO ERECTUS; HOMO ERGASTER; HOMO HABILIS; HOMO RUDOLFENSIS;
MANDIBLE; DENTITION; MORPHOLOGY;RADIOMETRIC AGE; LOWER PLEISTOCENE

TI Out of Africa again...and again?
AU Tattersall-I SO Scientific American 276(4): 60-67 PY 1997
DE JOURNAL ARTICLE; AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS; HOMO ERGASTER;
AUSTRALOPITHECUS ANAMENSIS; HOMO SAPIENS; HOMO ERECTUS; HUMAN; FOSSIL;
LUCY; ANTHROPOLOGY; EVOLUTION; MIGRATION; AFRICA; ETHIOPIAN REGION

And now some stuff to show that the Lucy-type fossils are older than your
asian ones...

TI Early hominid fossils from Africa.
AU Leakey-M; Walker-A
SO Scientific American 276(6): 74-79
PY 1997
DE JOURNAL ARTICLE; AUSTRALOPITHECUS ANAMENSIS; AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFRICANUS;
AUSTRALOPITHECUS ROBUSTUS; AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS; AUSTRALOPITHECUS
BAHRELGHAZALI; HOMO; FOSSIL; MANDIBLE; TIBIA;HUMERUS; PLIOCENE;
PLEISTOCENE; BIPEDALISM; COMPARATIVE MORPHOLOGY; PALEOBIOLOGY;
ANTHROPOLOGY; EVOLUTION; DENTAL AND ORAL SYSTEM; SKELETAL SYSTEM; TURKANA
BASIN; ETHIOPIA; KENYA; ETHIOPIAN REGION
TI Digging up the family bones. AU Edgar-B SO Bioscience 45(10): 659-662
PY 1995
DE JOURNAL ARTICLE; AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS; AUSTRALOPITHECUS RAMIDUS;
HUMAN; FOSSIL; PLEISTOCENE;PALEOANTHROPOLOGY; PALEOBIOLOGY; AFRICA;
ETHIOPIAN REGION
The following sounds interesting as possibly an extremely early Lucy
relative:
TI Anatomy and age of the Lothagam mandible. AU HILL-A; WARD-S; BROWN-B
SO JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION 22(6): 439-451 PY 1992
AB New anatomical data strengthen the allocation of the Lothagam mandible
to the family Hominidae, most similar among known hominids to
Australopithecus afarensis. New biostratigraphic analyses of Lothagam
Suidae, coupled with data from the Tugen Hills succession, suggest that
then Lothagam hominid is older than 5.6 Ma, and is therefore the earliest
known member of this taxon.
TI Hominid-pongid distinctiveness in the Miocene-Pliocene fossil record:
The Lothagam mandible. AU KRAMER-A
SO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 70(4): 457-474 PY 1986
AB The Lothagam mandibular fragment, found in 1967 west of Lake Turkana,
Kenya, has been dated to 5.5 million years ago. This date is significant
because it may lie within the suggested time range during which the hominid
and pongid clades diverged. Because of its fragmentary condition and great
age, this specimen has run the gamut of taxonomic assignations, from
ramapithecine to pongid to hominid. These three nomenclatural categories
serve as the basis for three hypotheses tested in this study.[SNIP] Metric
and morphological comparisons demonstrate Lothagams affinity to A.
afarensis in sharing derived, hominid states in such features as the mental
foramen vertical position, the ascending ramus origin, the breadth of the
alveolar margin, the reduction of the hypoconulid, the dimensions of the
M-1 and the dimensions of the mandibular corpus. It is suggested that the
dental/gnathic features enumerated in this study can be employed to
distinguish ancestral hominid from pongid in future Mio/Pliocene
paleontological discoveries.
------
There are 232 specimens of Australipithicus afarensis, the species Lucy
belongs to. The 232 specimens belong to at least 16 individuals. And dont
forget that there are 7 other species of the genus Austalipithicus.
==
Evidence for Evolution: A Summary

1.The pattern of taxonomy. There is one and only one nested heirarchy into
which all organisms naturally fall. Evolution predicts this pattern. On the
other hand, if creation had occurred, there would be no reason to expect it.
Some creationists say that anything can be organized heirarchically, but this
is not true. Try it with music, for example.

2.Biogeography. The more difficult it is to get from one place to another,
and the longer the two places have been separated (by continental drift or
the submersion of a land bridge, e.g.), the more different are the organisms
in the two places. For example, almost all of the mammals native to Australia
are marsupials rather than placentals, which agrees with the fact (known from
the fossil record and geology) that placental mammals arose after Antarctica
and Australia were separated from South America.

3.Transitional fossils. See www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
Note in particular the excellent series of fossils showing the evolution of
mammals from reptiles. These are two different classes, just below phyla in
the taxonomical heirarchy. Also note that many predictions of evolution were
found to be true after the fact. Darwin predicted that new fossil species,
transitional between ape and man, would be found in places where apes live
today. They were found. Evolutionists predicted that someday a transitional
whale fossil would be found. Today we have several. No theory of creation
can predict anything about the fossil record. Or rather, predictions of
creationists were found to be false.

All reptiles have roughly four bones on both sides of the lower jawbone,
whereas all mammals have a single bone, the dentary. The mammalian lower
jaw bone or dentary forms a joint with the squamosal bone of the skull,
whereas in reptiles the joint is between the articular bone and the quadrate
bone of the skull. Several "mammal-like" fossil reptiles, notably
Diarthrognathus, Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium, are said to have had both
types of jaw join on the way to becoming mammals. But no skulls have been
found that show the dentary actually in contact with the squamosal.
Furthermore, all of these fossil reptiles have a powerful reptilian jaw joint.

4.The order of the fossil record. In general, as you go back in time, the
flora and fauna get gradually less and less similar to those of today. Also,
the fossils start with bacteria, followed by one-celled eukaryotes, then
simple metazoans. The complexity of the most complex organism alive at any
given time tends to increase. Although this need not be strictly the case in
order for evolution to be true -- e.g., the most complex organisms could
become extinct, and its possible for a lineage to become less complex and
then get more complex -- evolution does imply that every complex organism
must have simpler ancestors.

5.Vestigial structures. For example, the presence of rudimentary leg bones in
whales is explained by the fact that they evolved from animals that had legs.
Fossil whales with legs are found in Egypt.

6.Homologous structures with different functions. For example, the pandas
thumb is similar to a bone in the wrist of its closest relatives. No theory
of creation Ive ever heard explains this odd fact. But evolutionary theory
says that a structure can change its function over time.

7.If species were individually created by an omnipotent and omniscient
designer, we would expect to see no obvious imperfections in their design,
but we do ( www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html).

8.There are many possible mosaic organisms (combining non-superficial
features of not-closely-related species) that would be anomalous under
evolutionary theory, but we never observe any such anomalies. Why, for
example, do no animals have chlorophyll?

9.Whenever new features are discovered, such as DNA sequences in different
species, they always fit into the same heirarchical pattern of taxonomical
classification, just as evolution predicts. This is especially telling when
there is good reason to believe that the features have no function, such as
non-coding regions of DNA (www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molecular-genetics.html).

10.Observed speciation. While some creationists discount this as mere
micro-evolution, it is nevertheless an argument in favor of macro-evolution.
There is no known mechanism that would limit the amount of change possible,
starting from a relatively generic and simple organism. (It may be true,
however, that at some point a lineage is commited to a given body plan. But
just because a dolphin cant evolve into an elm tree is no reason to think
that they cant have a common ancestor.)

11.We have a plausible mechanism for evolution: mutation plus natural
selection. Similar mechanisms (genetic algorithms and genetic programming)
are also useful in developing complex computer programs.

12.Gorillas and chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes while humans have 23. But
staining patterns show that two of the ape chromosomes appear to have fused
to make one of ours. This has been confirmed by the discovery of the remains
of a centromere and two end-to-end telomeres in the human chromosome, exactly
where they would be if a fusion occurred.
(http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html)
13.The more we find out about how organisms work, the more evolution makes
sense. If creation were true, we would expect to run into new reasons to
think evolution is false. This has not been the case. See, for example,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#exons-shuffle, which
explains how a functional subunit of one protein can get copied and end up as
a useful part of a completely different protein.
==
All the present data suggests we have a 2.6-million solar mass black hole
in our own Milky Way, but its about as quiescent as they get.
==
One of the Asian flying squirrels has been observed to drop from a branch and
vigorously flap its forelegs and land on a branch several meters away and a
meter higher than its takeoff. This is powered flight. Extremely clumsy
powered flight and presumably possible only for short distances, but probably
useful on occasion. If confirmed by further observations, this would provide an
observed mechanism for the original development of powered flight from gliding.
natural-selection processes been observed occuring in nature (and documented)?
==
A single line of descent, or lineage, may persist
for long reaches of geologic time. As small changes
accumulate over periods of millions of years within
one lineage, the descendant populations may eventually
be recognised as a species distinct from the antecedent
populations. The persistent accumulation of small
changes within a lineage has been termed *phyletic
gradualism*, and the transformation of a lineage over
time has been termed *anagenesis*.
Hence, a new species can also arise by the splitting or
branching of a lineage. The splitting of one phyletic
lineage into two or more lines is termed *cladogenesis*.
But, here again, the splitting is conceived of as
proceeding slowly and gradually, with the two branching
lineages progressively diverging, without significant
reduction in population size. Thus, paleontologists
tend to view lineage splitting in terms of gradual
morphological divergence. Viewed as a slow process,
of the phyletic model.
According to phyletic gradualism, a lineage consists
of a graded series of intermediate forms connecting
ancestral and descendant organisms.
- E. Peter Volpe, Understanding Evolution (5th Ed.), p. 236

"What is a species?". We can
recognize species, and agree on what they are, when our survey is limited
to a small region of space and time. When we try to extend definitions to
cover millions of years and thousands of miles, we often have difficulties.

However, to Gould, phyletic gradualism is used in contrast to punctuated
equilibria as two proposed patterns of speciation. Both feature unbroken
lineages with graded series of intermediates. The difference is in the
timing and rates of change. Phyletic gradualism (probably a strawman)
assumes rates of change are constant over time. Punctuated equilibria
assumes rates of change are very low most of the time and very high (in
geological terms) during speciation events.
Cladogenesis refers to a lineage splitting into two or more
lineages, each of which contains at least one species. If a
population is all one species a time T1, and all one species
(but not the same species) at time T2 a million years later,
that is speciation through anagenesis. If the population at T2
consists of two or more species, that is cladogenesis.
Anagenesis does indeed refer to the "genesis" of a
new species, but it is a species that results from
the gradual transformation of a single lineage, a
single line of descent, rather than from a "branching"
of one lineage into two.
Since cladogenesis is the norm in evolution, it's not possible
to say that any transitional form is the ancestor of any later
form -- it might be (often can be said with some certainty to
be) a distant uncle or aunt rather than a great-to-the-nth
grandparent. But intermediates (or transitionals) COULD be
direct ancestors; in any case, they have SOMETHING to do with
ancestor-descendant relationships -- they share the same
ancestors (and many of the same features) as the actual
ancestors of later species.
"Conventional anagenetic change [e.i., anagenesis] may occur
within populations, but most reported cases are dubious, and I
do not believe that this mode accounts for much in the total
pattern of evolution. Valid cases tend to add a rib, a bump, or
a millimeter over millions of years - and such changes simply
do not add extrapolate to the evolutionary patterns that
historians of life are charged to explain."
- Stephen Jay Gould

==
"Evolution is history: it is simply defined as change through time."
- Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution
Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan p. xxiii
==
A Minimal Genome
The smallest known genome of an independently replicating cell contains 480
protein-coding genes, and new evidence suggests only 265 to 350 of these
genes are essential under laboratory growth conditions.
==
They have made a complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
PAO1, an opportunistic pathogen
==
Wisdom teeth are also a good example of a vestigal structure. In our
primate ancestors they were functional molars, important for the
grinding up of tough vegetable material. In modern humans, on the other hand,
they generally do not emerge properly and frequently impact,
leading to serious infection and discomfort.
==
KNM-ER 1470 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.html) is usually
attributed to Homo habilis. Its brain size is 750-775 cc, slightly larger
than even the largest of gorillas, and much larger than any other apes. It
doesnt look like an apes skull either; it has a nice rounded braincase
and no large crests such as are found on gorilla skulls
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/gorilla.html). On the other hand, it
certainly isnt a Homo sapiens skull. Its brain size is at the extreme,
extreme lower end of the H. sapiens range, and there are many other
differences between it and sapiens such as huge teeth roots, a broad flat
face, a lot of post-orbital constriction (narrowing of the skull behind the
eyeballs, visible from above). It is a fascinating mixture of Homo and
Australopithecus features:

The endocranial capacity and the morphology of the calvaria [braincase]
are characters that suggest inclusion within the genus Homo, but the
maxilla [upper jaw] and facial region are unlike those of any known form
of hominid. (Leakey 1973)

KNM-ER 1470, like other early Homo specimens, shows many morphological
characteristics in common with gracile australopithecines that are not
shared with later specimens of the genus Homo (Cronin et al. 1981)

Ignoring cranial capacity, the overall shape of the specimen and that
huge face grafted onto the braincase were undeniably australopithecine.
(Walker and Shipman 1996)
==
Gibbons, A, 1992. Sorting the hominoid bone pile. Science, 156:176
Dr Meave Leakey, Richard Leakeys wife, recently announced that an ape-like
fossil maxilla with four teeth, discovered in Kenya some time ago, had
recently been related to between 24 and 27 Ma This redating would place this
fossil in the hominoid gap.
White, T.D., Suwa, G. and Asfaw, B., 1994. Australopithecus ramidus a new
species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia: Nature, 371:306-312.
White, T. D., Suwa, G. and Asfaw, B., 1995. Corrigendum: Australopithecus
ramidus new species of early hominid from Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature, 375:88.
WoldeGabriel, G., White, T. D., Suwa, G., Renne, P., de Heinzelin, J.,
Hart, W. K. and Helken, G., 1994. Ecological and temporal placement of early
Pliocene hominids at Aramis, Ethiopia. Nature, 371:330-333.
Kappelman, 3. and Beagle, 3., 1995. Age of early hominids. Nature,
376:558-559
Wood, B., 1994. The oldest hominid yet. Nature, 371:280.
Fischman, 3., 1994. Putting our oldest ancestors in their proper place.
Science, 265:2011.
Lawrence, M., 1985. Significance of enamel-thickness in hominoid evolution,
Nature, 314:260-263.
Grine, F., 1991 Variability in enamel thickness and structure among molar
tooth classes in Homo sapiens. American journal of Physical Anthropology,
Supplement 14, p. 85.
Gee, H., 1995. Uprooting the human family tree. Nature, 373:15.
Leutenegger W., 1985. Pan paniscus. Science; 228:982.
Zihlman, A., 1992. The promiscuous primate. Nature, 359:786.
New Scientist, 15 November, 1984, p. 45.
Science 83, June 1983, p. 45.
Science News, 123 (March 19, 1983):92.
Ward, C., 1992. Book review. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
90(3): 387.
Wood, 13., 198?. Four legs good, two legs better Nature, 363:587.
Leakey, R. and Lewin R., 1992. Origins Reconsidered, Doubleday, New York
Wood, 13., 1991 Origin and evolution of the genus Homo. Nature, 355:783-790
Wolpoff, M., 1992. Book Review. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
89(3): 401
Wieland, 0,1994. New evidence: only people ever walked really upright.
CEN Tech. J, 8(2): 127-128.
Shipman, P., 1994. Those ears were made for walking. New Scientist,
143(1936):26-29.
Spoor, F., Wood B. and Zonneveld, F., 1994. Implications of early hominid
labyrinthine morphology for evolution of human bipedal locomotion.
Nature, 369:645-648
Johanson, D. Masao, K, Eck, G., White T., Walter, R., Kimbel, W., Asfaw,
13., Manega, P.,
Ndessokia, P. and Suwa, G., 1987. New partial skeleton of Homo habilis
from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Nature, 327:205-209.
Rightmire, G. P., 1990. The Evolution of Homo erectus, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge,
Kennedy, K., 1992. Book Review. American Journal of Physical Anthropology,
89(2):272.
Hedges, S. B., Kumar S., Tamura, and Stoneking, M., 1992. Human origins
and analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences. Science, 255:737-739.
Putman, J. J., 1988. The search for modern humans. National Geographic,
174(4):463.
Howells, W. W., 1980. Homo erectus - who, when and where: a survey.
Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 23, Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York
==
Martin Brasier and Duncan McIlroy have published a paper in the _Journal of
the Geological_Society of London_, Neonereites uniserialis from c. 600 MYr
old rocks in western Scotland and the emergence of animals. This documents
apparent metazoan trace fossils from rocks about 50 million years older than
the oldest previous metazoan trace fossils. According to the 13th December
1997 issue of New Sciencist.There were no real animal fossils, but fossil
excrement indicating the existence of gut; found on the island Aslay.

An example of how evolutionists are willing to conform to the evidence.
Before the announcement of OH 62 in a 1987 edition of Nature, it was the
popular notion that when adequate postcranial remains came to light of Homo
habilis, theyd be transitional between Australopithecus and Homo erectus.
The paleoanthropological community was in for a big surprise when OH 62
turned up, discovered by Donald Johansons team at Olduvai Gorge the previous
year. This individual exhibited a more ape-like humerofemoral index than
A. afarensis and prompted a redrawing of our human evolutionary family tree.
Its crania bore remarkable resemblance to Stw 53, OH 24, and ER 3735, so it
was definitely Homo habilis.

Of course there are others, e.g., Lucy (AL 288-1), the Nariokotome Boy
(WT 15000), etc.
==
Scientific American Jan 2000 has a major article on human ancestry.
---
Lawrence Hendersons 1913 account from
his classic The Fitness of the Environment.

On Methuselahs Trail : Living Fossils and the Great Extinctions
by Peter Douglas Ward
==
Rice history
Cultivated rices belong to two species, O. sativa and O. glaberrima. Of the
two, O. sativa is by far the more widely utilized. O. sativa is a complex group
composed of two forms endemic to Africa but not cultivated, and a third from,
O. rufipogon, having distinctive partitions into South Asian, Chinese, New
Guinean, Australian, and American forms. The subdivision of O. sativa into
these seven forms began long ago and came about largely as a result of major
tectonic events and worldwide climatic changes.
It is postulated, based on measurements by electrophoresis, that the Australian
form of O. sativa began to diverge from the main forms about 15 million years
ago. At that time, during the Miocene, the Asian portion of Gondwanaland
collided with the Australia/New Guinea portion, creating a land bridge
across which O. sativa migrated. Once the
blocks separated, the Australian form was free to follow an evolutionary
path somewhat different from that followed by the O. sativa on the mainland.
Divergence between the South Asian and Chinese forms, the ancestors of what are
commonly referred to today as indica and japonica (or sinica)types, is believed
to have commenced 2-3 million years ago.At that time, migration of fauna across
the proto-Himalaya was still possible, and with the animals went wild rice. The
climate was suitable for rice even in what today is Central Asia, and north
China had almost ideal conditions.
==
special creation.
Each species is a unique creation unrelated to all others, and created by
God in Eden about 4000 BC.
==
The fossil record as incomplete as it is, is still consistent with common
descent and it disproves the idea of special creation.
The fossil record (admittedly incomplete) shows there were organisms in the
past that arent here today and organisms today that werent present in the
past. Either there were many creation events throughout history or new
organisms have evolved from old ones.
The fossil record also shows for some species a very clear and almost
continuous record of changes between an earlier
species and a later one. Gould has written about this.
==
Replication origins are specific DNA sequences that are sites of replication
initiation. Such sites, like the similar non-coding DNA sequences involved in
gene regulation, centromere formation, telomere formation, etc., are, in fact,
under selective control and are not considered junk, if you define junk as
DNA where sequence does not specify function.Such non-coding but important DNA
sequences cannot be considered as junk because their sequence is under
selective constraint. Nonetheless, there is still around 80-90% of the human
(and most other mammals) genome that is not included in any of these sequences
and which exhibit no selective constraint on their sequence. These sequences
can be considered as junk precisely because they show no sequence constraint
(the information content of true junk DNA is irrelevant). [I will leave
aside the possibility that some of this DNA may play a structural role
with no sequence constraint. Such a role may merely require a certain
maximum and minimum size, but that size may be quite flexible.] These
junk sequences can often be experimentally deleted or have nucleotides
altered to any other nucleotide with no observable selective effect on
any phenotype. The problem is that using such a definition of junk
(DNA whose sequence specificity is crucial to its function) also means
that a significant number of nucleotides *within* coding sequences can
be considered junk by the definition, since they have no sequence
constraint either. And worse, some of them show intermedite
junkiness, where some sequence changes are freely permitted and others
are not. So most of the time, coding sequences are arbitrarily
considered as non-junk despite having some degree of junkiness.
==
Historically there were several competing evolutionary theories :
Lamarkian evolution vs. Darwinian evolution. Lamark assumed that acquired
characteristics could be inherited. Darwin assumed they were not. Research
shows that Darwin was correct (it is not obvious). So it was a *prediction*,
and one which has been verified.
==
It is often impossible to pinpoint the exact originating ancestral species in
the species-to-species events, but only the larger group of species that share
the common features that the ancestral species might be expected
to have. This group may include the exact originating species, or given
the exigencies of fossilization, only some of the close cousins. In
short, the evidence often only allows one to narrow the suspects down to
the group of individuals with the right features at the right time and
you cant be sure whether the true culprit is among the ones meeting the
criteria that are currently not there (new fossil species are found
quite regularly, so it is clear that we dont have all the possible suspects).
==
What is a transitional fossil?
The term transitional fossil is used at least two different ways on
talk.origins, often leading to muddled and stalemated arguments. I call these
two meanings the general lineage and the species-to-species transition:
General lineage:
This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a
very different younger group.Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils
that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a
span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious
morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils
occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. Usually there are
still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events
are preserved.Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly
ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be cousins or uncles
rather than parents). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the
actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the
next-oldest and next-youngest links.The major point of these general lineages
is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times,
and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible.
General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and
make up the bulk of this FAQ. Species-to-species transition: This is a set of
numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another.
Its a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event,
usually covering less than a million years.These species-to-species transitions
are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the
population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is
typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes,
these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the
speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an
apparently sudden change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen
over a very wide geological area. Many species-to-species transitions are
known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups
tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the
general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous
species-to-species transitions from the mammals.
Transitions to New Higher Taxa
As youll see throughout this FAQ, both types of transitions often result in a
new higher taxon (a new genus, family, order, etc.) from a species belonging
to a different, older taxon. There is nothing magical about this. The first
members of the new group are not bizarre, chimeric animals; they are simply a
new, slightly different species, barely different from the parent species.
Eventually they give rise to a more different species, which in turn gives rise
to a still more different species, and so on, until the descendents are
radically different from the original parent stock. For example, the Order
Perissodactyla (horses, etc.) and the Order Cetacea (whales) can both be
traced back to early Eocene animals that looked only marginally different from
each other, and didnt look at all like horses or whales. (They looked rather
like small, dumb foxes with raccoon-like feet and simple teeth.) But over the
following tens of millions of years, the descendents of those animals became
more and more different, and now we call them two different orders.
==
The evolution of metatheory. A theory does not have to explain
_everything_, it only has to explain important features of reality in a
compelling way. Copernicus theory that the sun is in the center of
the universe, with the earth moving around it didnt explain the exact
positions of the planets much better than the theory of Ptolemy; Copernicus
still used compound circles.

What Copernicus did do was explain the gross motions better. Venus and
Mercury stay close to the sun; Mars and Jupiter range across the sky,
and sometimes move backwards. In Ptolemys system these observations
are just phenomena, accomodated by adjusting the sizes and rates of
motion of his circles. In Copernicuss model _both_ of these phenomena
fall out of the placement of Mercury and Venus inside the orbit of the
earth, Mars and Jupiter outside. It remained only for Kepler to
substitute ellipses for circles. (A bit oversimplified here, but it
doesnt affect the main point.)

In the same way, evolution, the notion that life forms of today are
descended from those of yesterday, sometimes with modification, explains
a wide range of things that creationism has to treat as arbitrary
decisions of an Intelligent Designer.

For example, when a four-legged animal runs it thrusts with its hind
legs, flies through the air for a distance, then lands on its front
legs. The hind legs are attached to the skeleton by ball-and-socket
joints, which give maximum transfer of thrust. The front legs are
attached by muscle and tendons, to take up the jolt of landing.

Humans have exactly the same anatomy, although we have a very different
mode of running. We thrust with the hind limbs, to be sure, although
upright posture means that the muscles are not stretched as much as they
are in a quadruped. A muscle is sronger when it is stretched, so with
upright posture the leg muscles are not as strong as they could be.
This is why a sprinter crouches at the start of a race: the crouched
position gives more strength, thus more thrust. Unfortunately one has
to stand up very soon; it you try to run crouched you fall on your face.

We land on the same limbs we thrust with, however. And the knee is not
designed to withstand that sort of punishment, as every runner knows.

Removing the fore limbs, the arms, from locomotion meant that they could
rotate outward to give a greater range of movement. This meant, though,
that the shoulders became wider than the head. A four-legged animal can
lie comfortably on its side, because its shoulders are about as wide as
its head. Humans are the only animal that needs a pillow.

There are lots more examples of why humans are not as well designed as other
animals, and particularly why upright posture is a bad deal overall.
==
Making RNA: The Ingredients Wont Keep
Matthew Levy and Stanley L. Miller, The stability of the RNA bases:
Implications for the origin of life,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95 (1998): pp.79337938.

Imagine trying to bake a loaf of bread--only the ingredients keep spoiling,or
simply disappearing, before you can get them all together long enough for the
bread to rise (not to mention make it into the oven). A highly analogous
situation exists with the chemical precursors to the biomolecule RNA, thought
by many to be the first self-replicating entity.For a compound to be used in
the first living organism, observe Levy and Miller (Biochemistry, UC-San
Diego), It needs to be sufficiently stable so that the balance between
synthesis and degradation does not result in vanishingly small concentrations.
The precursors to RNA, however--the nucleobases adenine (A), uracil (U),
guanine (G), and cytosine (C)--dont hang around for long at the temperatures
postulated in the popular hot origin-of-life scenarios, where life arose,
perhaps near deep-sea thermal vents, at temperatures between 80 and 100
degrees centigrade. Levy and Miller heated samples of A, U, G, C, and then
determined their rates of decomposition. They found that the rapid rates of
hydrolysis [destruction by water] of the nucleobases A, U, G, C and T
[thymine] at temperatures much above 0 degrees C would present a major
problem in the accumulation of these presumed essential compounds on the
early Earth (p. 7933). Levy and Miller suggest that research should be
directed instead at the possibility of a low-temperature origin of life,
especially in light of other stability problems, including the stability
of ribose, the decomposition of nucleosides, and the hydrolysis of the
phosphodiester bonds of RNA. Similar stability considerations would apply
to any alternative pre-RNA backbone, e.g., peptide nucleic acids
(p. 7937).
==
So, what is the birth pattern in Homo erectus? It is human. Shipman and
Walker (1989,p. 388-389) point out that the adult Homo erectus cranial
capacity was 950 cc. If they followed the ape-like pattern of doubling
their brain size after birth, they would need to be born with a brain size
of around 400 cc. Following the discovery of a nearly complete Homo
erectus skeleton, the approximate size the erectus birth canal is known.
A head with a 400 cc brain is 10 cm too big to fit through the birth canal.
Estimates place the maximum fetal brain size able to fit through the
erectus birth canal at just 231 cc (Walker and Shipman, 1996, p. 226-227).
Homo erectus had a human pattern of birth and must have endured similar pain
in childbirth.

References

Campbell,Bernard, 1974. Human Evolution, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing).
Fagan,Brian M. 1990. The Journey From Eden, (London: Thames and Hudson)
Falk, Dean, 1992 Braindance,(New York: Henry Holt and Co.)
Johanson, Donald and James Shreeve, 1989, Lucys Child, (New York:
William Morrow).
Larick, Roy and Russell L. Ciochon, 1996, The African Emergence and
Early Asian Dispersals of the Genus
Homo.American Scientists, 84(Nov/Dec, 1996).
Ruff, Christopher B., 1993, Climatic Adaptation and Hominid Evolution:
The Thermoregulatory Imperative,
Evolutionary Anthropology, 2:2, p. 53-60,
Shipman, P. and A. Walker, 1989. The Costs of Becoming a Predator,
Journal of Human Evolution, 18, 373-392.
Walker, Alan and Pat Shipman, 1996, The Wisdom of the Bones,
(New York: Alfred Knopf).
Zihlman, Adrienne L. and B. A. Cohn, 1986, Responses of Hominid
Skin to the Savanna, South African Journal of
Science, 82:2, p. 307-308.
==
Chance is neither a causal nor functional description of anything. It is an
epistemological claim, a claim of ignorance of mechanisms, and as
such does not tell how nature is constrained by structure or behavior.
==
Stephen Jay Gould (1991), one of the best known evolutionary thinkers, poses
a problem for evolutionary psychologists such as Buss et al (May 1998) -- in
spite of his status as an evolutionary theorist, he argues that human
psychology links not to past evolutionary adaptions but the coopting of
previously evolved functions to do new things -- exaptation. Moreover, he
links our expanded brain with this: The human brain, is par excellence, the
chief exemplar of exaptation (Gould, 1991, p. 55), and exaptations of the
brain must greatly exceed adaptation by orders of magnitude (Gould, 1991,
p. 57). Examples of such exaptations, he suggests, are language, religion,
fine arts, writing and reading.
Buss et al observe he fails to document this exaptation-brain link for any of
these examples, as he does not demonstration (i), any special design for the
hypothesised function, (ii) later coopted functionality, and (iii), a
distinct original adaptational functionality (p. 546). Gould, however, is
not a neuroscientist. In this commentary, I show that something so far
unmentioned in this debate -- neural plasticity -- strongly links the brain,
exaptation and human psychology.
Neural plasticity concerns the property of neural circuitry to potentially
acquire (given appropriate training) nearly any function (OLeary, Schlaggar
& Tuttle, 1994). For example, the connections between the eye, the lateral
geniculate nucleus and primary visual cortex might suggest that neural
circuits in the latter have been wired by evolution for sight. But no: in the
blind they process hearing (Kujala, Alho, Paavilainen, Summala, & Naatanen,
1992) and braille reading (Cohen, Ceilnik, Pascual-Leone et al., 1997.
Conversely, neural circuits in the somatosensory cortex that might be
expected to lack the ability to process vision can do this when retinal
inputs are surgically directed to them (Roe, Pallas, Kwon & Sur, 1991).
Neural plasticity is an important adaptation. Like other tissue plasticities,
such as osteogenic plasticity, its adaptive advantage probably links to fine
tuning development. Thus, for example, the number of neural circuits in the
right primary motor cortex devoted to the left hand cannot be evolutionary
known in advance of an individual making a special demand for left hand
skills such as required for piano playing. However, due to neural plasticity,
neural circuits can assign themselves: as a result the brain area dealing
with the left hand is larger in pianists than in nonpianists, an expansion
that directly correlates with increased left hand dexterity (Amunts, Schlaug,
Jancke et al., 1997). Likewise, for neural circuits devoted to the right
index (reading) finger tip of Braille readers: the area devoted to this
finger is increased compared to that for their nonreading one and the right
one of non Braille readers (Pascual-Leone & Torres, 1993). Neural plasticity
would seem prima facia to be an important adaptation of the brain.
At least for the human brain, it is also an important exaptation. Gould links
the human brain with exaptation with its massive expansion. Deacon (1990) has
shown that this expansion happened selectively in the parietal, temporal and
prefrontal association cerebral cortex areas not the primary ones. As a
result, the human brain acquired numerous neural circuits that are not
closely tied to specific sensory or motor functions and so open (through the
flexibility offered by neural plasticity) to acquire noninnate skills linked
to such things as tools and communication. This was an important development:
these skills not only enabled artifacts and language but came to be acquired
directly or indirectly from others (Skoyles, 1987). Because of this such
noninnate skills were transmitted across generations, and thus resulted in
early humans developing the rudiments of a material and symbolic culture.
This increased the biological fitness of humans as simple hunter-gatherers --
the state of our hominid ancestors for over two million years. Recently,
neural plasticity, in a period too short for natural selection to have
operated, has been coopted for another important function: enabling brains
evolved for life in simple hunter-gatherer bands to live in agricultural and
hi-tech complex societies. Of the many exaptations this required, one of the
most obvious is the acquisition of biologically novel skills linked to
technology and notational systems such as reading, mathematics and computer
programming (Skoyles, 1997).
Both the earlier and this more recent exaptation fulfil Buss et als
requirements. Such skills are (i) coopted from a previously evolved trait
(neural plasticity) that was naturally selected for one function
(developmental fine tuning) that (ii) shifted to another (enabling neural
circuit to do noninnate skills) that (iii) offers distinct advantages (such
as being able to read these arguments). In conclusion, evolution shaped human
minds -- but this did so by giving us a brain specialised at acquiring
noninnate skills -- something that paradoxically has limited considerably
the role of evolution in psychology.

References.

Amunts, K., Schlaug, G., Jancke, L., Steinmetz, H., Schleicher, A.,
Darbringhaus, A & Ziles, K. (1997). Motor cortex and hand motor skills:
Structural compliance in the human brain. Human Brain Mapping, 5, 206-25.

Cohen, L. G., Ceilnik, P., Pascual-Leone, A., Corwell, L., Dambrosla, J.,
Honda, M., Sadato, N., Gerloff, C., Catal, M. D. & Hallett, M.
(1997). Functional relevance of cross- modal plasticity in blind humans.
Nature, 389, 180-183.

Deacon, T. (1990). Rethinking mammalian brain evolution. American Zoologist,
30, 629-705.

Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool for evolutionary psychology.
Journal of Social Issues, 47, 43-65.

Kujala, T., Alho, K. Paavilainen, P., Summala, H. & Naatanen, R. (1992).
Neural plasticity in processing of sound location by the early blind: An
event-related potential study. Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology, 84, 467- 472.

OLeary, D. D., Schlaggar, B. L. & Tuttle, R. (1994). Specification of
neocortical areas and thalamocortical connections. Annual Review of
Neuroscience, 17, 419-439.

Pascual-Leone, A. & Torres, F. (1993). Plasticity of the sensorimotor cortex
representation of the reading finger in Braille readers. Brain, 116,
39-52.

Roe, A., Pallas, S., Kwon, Y. & Sur, M. (1991). Visual projections routed to
the auditory pathway in Ferrets: Receptive fields of visual neurons in
primary auditory cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 12, 3651-3664.

Skoyles. J. R. (1997). Evolutions missing link: A hypothesis upon neural
plasticity, prefrontal working memory and the origins of modern
cognition. Medical Hypothesis, 48, 499-509.
==
The Science reference is Gannon PJ, et al. Asymmetry of Chimpanzee
Planum Temporale: Humanlike Pattern of Wernickes Brain Language Area
Homolog. Science. 1998 Jan 9; 279(5348): 220-222.
The Planum Temporale is in Wernickes area, in the Temporal Cortex.
This area is thought to control language comprehension in humans. So
the ability to understand complex communication goes back 6-8 million
years. Language production is controled by Broccas area in the motor
cortex of the left cerebral hemisphere. Casts of fossil hominid skulls
suggests that this area has been present for more than 2 million
years, wheteher this represents the presence of a spoken language is
uncertain.
They have some kind of communication system that might be more
complex than we have heretofore thought, said Ralph Holloway, professor
of anthropology at Columbia and co-author of the Science paper. He believes
chimps may converse using a sophisticated array of facial, body and hand
gestures, perhaps augmented with grunting or other vocalizations.
end quote
There is quite good evidence that Chimps and Bonobos (a Gracile chimp,
previously thought to be a sub-species, but now awarded full species
recognition) do use guestures, as well as vocalisations to
communicate. There is a growing body of research that Chimps and
Bonobos have quite complex communicication skills. Chimps and Bonobos
have a wide variety of gestures, and a more limited series of sounds
which seem to have specific meanings. Furthermore Chimpanzee troops
have been observed to attack rival chimpanee troops and go on hunting
expeditions in ways which imply forethought, planning and
communication. (Chimpanzees are also tool users, and teach their
children how to make and use tools, but this is through a
watch me mechanism, rather than more sophisticated communication)
Several Chimpanzees and Bonobos have been taught language, using sign
language (Nim) or symbols (Kanzi). There is good evidence, especially
from Kanzi, that this is true learning, rather than a conditioned
response, and that the Chimps understand the language. Whether Chimps
and Bonobos actually possess grammar is still controversial, but they
certainly possessthe ability to accquire language.
Some good books on Chimps and Bonobos.
Kanzi : The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh
Demonic Males : Apes and the Origins of Human Violence R. Wrangham,
Dale Peterson, 1997.
==
Abiogenesis
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=550898599
Biopoiesis
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/0/0,5716,81416+1+79272,00.html
Book of life: Chapter one
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid%5F545000/545008.stm
Is life just genes?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_556000/556958.stm
Scientists look for molecular meaning of life
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_556000/556984.stm
Scientific Discussions of Evolution for the Pope and His Scientists
http://entropy.me.usouthal.edu/harbinger/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
The Origin of Cellular life
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/issue1.htm
Understanding how the first cells emerged
http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/ns-uht032900.html
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news_223236.html
Let there be life
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins.html

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Genetics/Mendel__Gregor__1823_1884_/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/dawkinschallenge.htm
==
Pope John Paul II, in a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has
stated that the theory of evolution is more than a hypothesis and that it
must be taken seriously by Christians (Vatican Information Service, October
23, 1996). The Pontifical Academy's annual meeting, being held at the
Vatican October 22-26, is dedicated to the theme \The Origin and Early
Evolution of Life: Reflection on Science at the Dawn of the Third Millennium.
==
There is the common IIRC galactosyl-4 transferase pseudogene in most
primates and homo. It no longer codes for any protein.
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan99.html
Change in chromosome number and evolution.
==
Riechert, S. E. and R. F. Hall. 2000. Local population success in
heterogeneous habitats: reciprocal transplant experiments completed on
a desert spider. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13: 1-10.

Susans work of over 30 years studying the Arizona funnel-web spiders
habits resulted in the observation of two distinct species
from parent populations due in part to the recession of the forests
boundary with the desert.
==
Paleobiologist J. William Schopf shows in his new book, Cradle of Life: The
Discovery of Earths Earliest Fossils (Princeton University Press).
Cradle of Life recounts the discovery over the last three decades of a
vast, ancient fossil record, unknown and thought to be unknowable. This
immense fossil record fills in gaping holes in our knowledge of the earliest
85 percent of the history of life on Earth, and changes our understanding
of how evolution works.
Everyone had expected early organisms would be smaller, simpler, perhaps
less varied, but they were universally thought to have evolved in the same
way and at the same pace as later life, Schopf writes. This turned out not
to be true. That evolution itself evolved is a new insight.
The pivotal point in evolutions own evolution turned out to be the advent
of sex about 1.1 billion years ago. The origin of sex caused monumental
change. Sex increased variation within species, diversity among species,
and the speed of evolution and genesis of new species -- and brought not
only the rise of organisms specially honed to particular settings, but
because of this specialization, the first appearance of life-destroying
mass extinctions.
The first organisms to engage in sexual activity were single-cell floating
plankton. They started to appear about 1.1 billion years ago with a porelike
mechanism that permits the release of sex cells into the environment. Before
this time, organisms reproduced by asexual division, as do human body cells.
Data from the fossil record clearly show that there appeared many new types
of species at about 1.1 billion years ago, evidently when sexual activity
first began.
The start of sexuality, Schopf says, had an enormous effect on the worlds
biodiversity. The pre-sex world was monotonous, dull, more or less static,
but every organism born from sexual reproduction contains a genetic mix that
never existed before.
==
One of the main differences between the african apes (Pan & Gorilla) and
humans (Homo sapiens) is a fusion of 2 chromosome pairs. 2n=48--2n=46.
Many other things happened, which show up in banding experiments.
Check out the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (1992), p. 298-302.
==
The Middle Pleistocene site of Sima de los Huesos in Sierra de Atapuerca,
Spain, has yielded around 2,500 fossils from at least 33 different hominid
individuals. These have been dated at more than 200,000 years ago and have
been classified as ancestors of Neanderthals. An almost complete human male
pelvis (labelled Pelvis 1) has been found, which we associate with two
fragmentary femora. Pelvis 1 is robust and very broad with a very long
superior pubic ramus, marked iliac flare, and a long femoral neck. This
pattern is probably the primitive condition from which modern humans
departed. We estimate the body mass of this individual at 95kg or more.
Using the cranial capacities of three specimens from Sima de los Huesos, the
encephalization quotients are substantially smaller than in Neanderthals and
modern humans
==
The limited and sequential duration of these kinds in the fossil record
clearly speaks against a created kinds explanation. You really must look
all the way back into the entire primate fossil record, beginning with
the plesiadapids, and see how primates appear through time. The first
primates of modern aspect, or the euprimates, can be reasonably derived from
a paromomyid plesiadapid like Purgatorius, or something very close to
plesiadapids, if not that group directly. It can be demonstrated that
anthropoid primates are derived from Eocene euprimates.

While the precise identification of the intermediate group between the
Miocene apes and the hominoids is not clear at this point, it by no means
negates the connection between them. The truly critical point for the demise
of creationism is that no hominoid existed in the fossil record *prior* to
the existence of anthropoids, no anthropoids existed *prior* to the adapids
or omomyids, and these two euprimate groups did not exist *prior* to the
plesiadapids.
==
In hominids alone, by 1976, over 200 Neandertal fossils were classified,
100 homo erectus, etc. A 1976 estimate gave a figure of approximately 4000
hominid individuals alone.
==
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~lmf7/
The earliest known lion ancestor is a form like Panthera gombaszoegensis from
early Pleistocene (about 1.5 million years old) deposits at Olduvai Gorge in
East Africa. It had both lion- and tiger-like characters. Primitive lions
(Panthera leo fossilis) dispersed in the Old World about 500,000 years ago,
in harmony with changing climate and the spread of steppe-like terrain, to
which lions were well adapted. Panthera youngi, with similarities to both
cave and American lions, appeared in north-eastern China (Choukoutien) some
350,000 years ago or less. Probably it links Panthera leo fossilis and the
spelaea group (cave lions of Eurasia and America) the other category being
the leo group including the modern lions of southern Asia and Africa.
==
Why did God make all those other not quite humans? Was he
practicing? Which of the seven days were they created on?
How come the other primitive hominids are not mentioned in the
Bible?
==
Conventional crops are the result of a process of genetic engineering that
started 8,000 years ago, when our Neolithic ancestors first became farmers.
During that period, cultivated species have become separated from their
wild ancestors, often by assimilating genes from other species in a
random and uncontrolled manner.
==
Peter and Rosemary Grant and their colleagues have painstakingly
monitored finch populations on Daphne Major in the Galapagos. You may
even have read the book The Beak of the Finch which describes their
work. The observed rapid changes in finch populations over a period of
years which encompassed drastic environmental fluctuations (prolonged
drought, El Nino, etc).
==
(1) Evolution, as a process, is observed. It is a known phenomenon. As
is speciation.
(2) Mechanisms for evolution have been observed, on a genetic level
(mutation, linking, copying errors, selection, etc.) and a phenomenological
level (ie; isolate a group and change environment). These and their
implications (ie, what mechanisms matter the most when, how long does it
take to effect a species change, etc) are bein explored and are part of
Evolutionary Theory. Ie; how does evolution work?
(3) There is the proposal that evolutionary processes explain current
biodiversity. Some might call this *particular* theory in the evolutionary
family of knowledge as Theory of Common Descent. Predictions made about
the relationships of extant critters to one another, physically and
genetically confirm this theory, as does the record of previous life on
earth found in the fossil record; all show the relationships expected from
this scenario.
(4) There is also the sum of the knowledge gained from (3) that
comprises our current understanding of the History of Life. This is also,
technically, a set of theories (x descended from w, w descended from v ...).

1, 2, and 3 are *confirmed*, all tests that would falsify it have failed
to do so; the evidence that these are representative of the situation here
on Earth is so strong as to be overwhelming and considered *factual*.
The discovery of a rogue mammilian fossil would *only* call into
question the particular subset of (4) that describes our understanding of
how *mammals* came onto the scene. It has nothing to do with evolution in
general. If you want to falsify *evolution*, youd have to focus your
efforts on invalidating the observations and conclusions of 1-3.

==
Jurmain, Robert with Harry Nelson, Lynn Kilgore, and Wenda Trevathan,
Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Belmont, CA, 1997.

In the introduction to Chapter 17 it says:

A major difficulty in accurately assessing finds is that a number of
fossils from Europe-as well as Africa, China, and Java- display BOTH
(emphasis not mine) H. erectus and H. sapiens features.
These particular forms, possibly representing some of the earliest
members of our species, fall into the latter half of the Middle Pleistocene,
from about 400,000 to 130,000 years ago, and are often referred to as
archaic H. sapiens. The designation H. sapiens is used because the
appearance of some derived sapiens traits suggests that these hominids are
transitional forms. In most cases, these early archaic H. sapiens also
retain some H. erectus features mixed with those derived features that
distinguish them as H. sapiens. However, as they do not possess the full
suite of derived characteristics diagnostic of anatomically modern H.
sapiens, we classify them as archaic forms of our species. In general we see
in several different areas of the Old World through time a morphological
trend from groups with more obvious H. erectus features to later populations
displaying more diagnostic H. sapiens features.

You will note they werent that specific on which features were seen in
the populations, this is because they were very mixed. At the same time
there were fossil with some H. eructus features, but others absent of those
particular features but having OTHER H. erectus features. These features I
guess would be brow size, brain size, face size, teeth etc. Of these 4 they
would have say 2 or 3, but not all would have the same two or three
features. See what Im trying to say? (note those numbers are just
completely made up to convey my point)
To put it another way there are no specific set of features that make
one fossil an archaic H. sapiens. As my teacher put it: What makes one an
archaic H. sapiens is simply that it was found in that above designated time
period. The line is drawn by time for it is too arbitrary to draw it any
other way. You will never see an archaic H. sapiens in a time period other
than the above, because by definition that is what makes it NOT an archaic
H. Sapiens.
In fact, in the whole line of hominids, the one between H. erectus and
H. sapiens is the MOST complete/filled of them all.
-----
At the Waters Edge_ by Carl Zimmer is a fascinating account of
whale (as well as the fish/amphibian) transition.
==
http://www.kheper.auz.com/gaia/Cenozoic/Tertiary.htm
Tertiary Period
Epoch Start(millions of years) Duration(millions of years)
Paleocene 65 8.5
Eocene 56.5 21.1
Oligocene 35.4 12.1
Miocene 23.3 17.9
Pliocene 5.2 3.56
--
Quaternary Period 1.64 1.64
Pleistocene
Recent

==
Genetics, Speciation, and the Founder Principle
by Luther Val Giddings, Kenneth Y. Kaneshiro, Wyatt W. Anderson (Editor)
(June 1989) Oxford Univ Press; ISBN: 0195043154

Alberts B, Bray D, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Watson JD. 1994. Molecular
Biology of the Cell (3rd edition). Garland Publishing, Inc. New York

Ballard WW. 1976. Problems of gastrulation: real and verbal. Bioscience
(26): 36-9

Ballard WW. 1981. Morphogenetic movements and fate maps of vertebrates.
Amer. Zoo. (21): 391-9

Ballard WW. 1964. Comparative Anatomy and Embryology. The Ronald Press
Company. New York

Gerhart J and Kirschner M. 1997. Cells, Embryos, and Evolution: Toward a
Cellular and Developmental Understanding of Phenotypic Variation and
Evolutionary Adaptability. Blackwell Science. Malden, Massachusetts

Gould SJ. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetss

Hall BK. 1997. Phylotypic stage or phantom: is there a highly conserved
embryonic stage in vertebrates. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (12): 461-3

Mayr E. 1997. This is Biology: the Science of the Living World. The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachusetts

Mayr E. 1994. Recapitulation reinterpreted: the somatic program.
The Quarterly Review of Biology (69): 223-232

Muller W. 1997. Developmental Biology. Springer. New York

Raff RA. 1996. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution
of Animal Form. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago

Richardson MK, Allen SP, Wright GM, Raynaud A and Hanken J. 1998.
Somite number and vertebrate evolution. Development (125): 151-160

Richardson MK, Minelli A, Coates M, Hanken J. 1998. Phylotypic
stage theory. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (13): 158

TI: Recent advances in understanding of the evolution and maintenance
of sex
AU: Hurst, LD; Peck, JR
SO: Trends in Ecology & Evolution [TRENDS ECOL. EVOL.], vol. 11,
no. 2, pp. 46-52, 1996

==
Geologic dating of a layer of volcanic ash confirms that a hominid
species discovered in Kenya was walking on two feet by 4 million years ago,
more than 100,000 years earlier than the previous record-holder.
Anthropologists led by Meave Leakey of the National Museum of Kenya
announced in 1995 the discovery of Australopithecus anamensis, a primitive
hominid that lived in Kenya more than 4 million years ago.
At that time, the researchers said they believed A. anamensis ambled
upright, but the crucial evidenceaa leg boneawas found in a higher, and
therefore younger, layer of sediment.
Some questioned whether that particular fossil bone might actually be of a
kinsman of Lucy, the famous small, female hominid whose fossilized
skeleton was found in 1974. Lucys species, Australopithecus afarensis, is
known to have walked upright and may have appeared as early as 3.9 million
years ago. Writing in todays issue of the journal Nature, the researchers
report that a layer of ash above where the leg bone was found dates to
4.07 million years ago. It basically traps those bones as being old as
well, says Craig Feibel, a professor of anthropology and geology at
Rutgers University in New Jersey and a member of the Leakey team.
To date the volcanic ash, the researchers focused on pieces of fluffy
lava known as pumice. Embedded within the pumice were crystals of the
mineral feldspar, which in turn contains bits of unstable, radioactive
potassium. Measuring how much of the potassium has decayed into the element
argon tells the age of the crystals.
The researchers also report on 38 additional fossils theyve found in
northern Kenya, including a baby tooth, a wrist bone and pieces of a jaw.
According to University of Missouri anthropologist Carol Ward, another
of the researchers, males were probably smallaunder 5 feet, 120 to
150 poundsaand females were even smaller, as tiny as 3-feet high and 60
pounds. The bones tell a mixed story. The wrist is more like a chimpanzees
Like Lucy, the leg bone is almost like a modern humans, while the baby
tooth is more primitive than Lucys. The jaw and teeth are very ape-like
with parallel tooth rows, unlike human jaws where the teeth widen as you go
back. The more evidence we get, Ward says, the more it looks like an
evolutionary, intermediate between an ape-like creature and Lucy.
The teeth have a thick outer coating of enamel, indicating they ate hard
fruits, and are smaller than a chimpanzees.
A. anamensis, therefore, was a very unusual animalaa sort of hybrid between
older, ape-like ancestors and modern humans. It had human-like limbs,
ape-like jaws and teeth, and a small brain. Where it fits in the primate
family tree and whether its a direct ancestor of modern-day humans remains
unclear. Hominids may have stood up even earlier than Australopithecus
anamensis. Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid found in Ethiopia, dates to
4.4 million years ago. There are hints that A. ramidus walked as well, but
anthropologists led by Tim White of University of California, Berkeley,
say they still need a couple more years of analysis before drawing any
conclusions.
---
Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your
theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why
dont we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or
in the fossil record, or both?

Because most speciation was allopatric. That is, speciation occurs in a small,
geographically isolated population. That is what punctuated equilibrium is
all about, showing that the fossil record is consistent with allopatric
speciation being the predominant form. The billions of transitionals occurs
if the predominant form of speciation is sympatric, where the entire
population is transformed over time. But such a process would not produce
diversity. For some examples and further reference on transitionals, I refer
you to Cuffey, R.J in Science and Creationsim, pp 255-281. He has 10 pages
of primary references. You can also look up the following references:

1. Williamson, PG, Paleontological documentation of speciation in Cenozoic
molluscs from Turkana basin. Nature 293:437-443, 1981. Excellent study of
gradual evolution is an extremely fine fossil record.
2. A trilobite odyssey. Niles Eldredge and Michelle J. Eldredge. Natural
History 81:53-59, 1972. A discussion of gradual evolution of trilobites
in one small area and then migration and replacement over a wide area. Is
lay discussion of punctuated equilibria, and does not overthrow Darwinian
gradual change of form. Describes transitionals.
3. Unscrambling Time in the Fossil Record Science vol 274, pg 1842, Dec 13,
1996. The primary article is by GA Goodfriend and SJ Gould Paleontology and
Chronolgy of Two evolutionary Transitions by Hybridization in the Bahamian
Land Snail Cerion, pgs 1894-1897.
5. PR Sheldon, Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites.
Nature 330: 561-563, 1987. Rigourous biometric study of the pygidial ribs
of 3458 specimens of 8 generic lineages in 7 stratgraphic layers covering
about 3 million years. Gradual evolution where at any given time the
population was intermediate between the samples before it and after it.
==
What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever
assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in
a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an
intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude
that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesnt the vast
information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an
intelligent source?

Because William Dembski, and I Der, has shown the cumulative selection
increases information.
Dembski << 1Suppose that an organism in reproducing generates N offspring,
and that of these N offspring M (1 M N) succeed in reproducing. The amount of
information introduced through selection is then -log2(M/N). Let me stress
that this formula is not an case of misplaced mathematical exactness. This
formula holds universally and is non-mysterious.
Take a simple non-biological example. If I am sitting at a radio transmitter,
and can transmit only zeros and ones, then every time I transmit a zero or
one, I choose between two possibilities, selecting precisely one of them.
Here N equals 2 and M equals 1. The information -log2(M/N) thus equals
-log2(1/2) = 1, i.e., 1 bit of information n is introduced
every time I transmit a zero or one. This is of course as things should be.

So, lets do some calculations on Dembskis equation looking at these numbers.

1. In a population, there are 4 offspring born but selection eliminates 3
and only one reproduces. So we have N = 4 and M = 1. -log(2) (M/N) = -log(2)
(1/4) = -(-2) = 2. We have gained 2 bits of information in this generation.
Selection does increase information.
2. Lets take a more radical example. An antibiotic kills 95% of the
population. So we have 5 bacteria that can reproduce out of 100. N = 100,
M =5. -log(2) (5/100) = -log(2) (.05) =-(-4.3) = 4.3. Now information has
increased 4.3 bits. The more severe the selection, the greater the increase
in information. Not exactly what Dembski said.
3. Lets take a less severe example. A selection pressure such that of 100
individuals, 99 survive to reproduce. -log(2) (99/100) = -log(2) (.99) =
- (-0.01) = 0.01. So now we have only an increase of 0.01 bits in this
one generation due to selection. But remember, selection is cumulative.
Take this over 1,000 generations and we have an increase of 10 bits. Now,
Nilsson and Pelger have estimated, using conservative parameters, that it
would take 364,000 generations to evolve an eye. D-E Nilsson and S Pelger,
A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings
of the Royal Society of London, B. 256: 53-58, 1994. Taking that over our
calculations shows that the eye represents an increase of 3,640 bits of
information.
Finally, note that selection must result in an increase of information by
Dembskis equation. Any fraction always has a negative logarithm. With the
negative sign in front of the logarithm (-log) that means that the value for
information must be positive as long as selection is operative. The only way
to get loss of information is for the number of individuals that reproduce
(M) to be greater than the number born (N). This is obviously not possible.
==
These are fossils of tree trunks that penetrate several layers of sediment
which according to accepted geological literature were deposited slowly over
long periods of time. However, the tree trunks would have decayed unless the
sedimentation had occurred rapidly.
These are in Yellowstone Park. You can find a fuller treatment in Strahler,
Sceince and Earth History pp 221-222. Actually, part of the lie here is
accepted geological literature doesnt require slowly over long periods of
time. Volcanoes erupted in the past. Streams flooded. Etc. After the
Mt. Saint Helens eruption, the same geologist, William Fritz, that studied
the Yellowstone trees, wrote These observations support the conclusion that
mudflows and streams of the same variety [as at Mt. Saint Helens] transported
and deposited tumps that are preserved in a vertical position in the Eocene
Lamar River Formation.

Of course, what your creationist authors failed to note was that the
Yellowstone formation has several forests piled one on top of another.
J. Lawrence Kulp, a geochemist and member of the American Scientific
Affiliation (a Christian group) wrote: In Yellowstone Park there is a
straigraphic section of 2000 feet exposed which shows 18 successive petrified
forests. Each forest grew to maturity before it was wiped out with a lava
flow. THe lava had to be weathered into soil before the next forest could
even start. Further this is only a small section of straigraphic column in
this area. It would be most difficult for flood geology to account for these
facts.
==
Where has macro evolution ever been observed? Whats the mechanism for
getting new complexity such as new vital organs?

Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes
whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by
artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.
==
How did sexual reproduction evolve?
Paramecium and amoebas engage in sexual reproduction. If you really want
to learn more about it, read the following references:
1. C Zimmer The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) Amoeba
Dictyostelium is single celled, but forms multicelled organism with
differentiation when food supplies are low. Sexually reproduces sometimes,
forms a cyst, and then asexually divides with the new genetic material. Also
forms an eye of sorts from individual cells that act as lenses. Cells act
and use same proteins as phagocytes in immune system.
2. DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular
Differentiation. Reviewed by G Bell in Development: Volvox. Science 282:
248, Oct. 9, 1998. Volvox (an algae) is a model system of multicellularity.
Has fewer than 20 cells and only two types: soma and germ cells. Has
single celled relatives, notably Chlamydomonas.
3. Evolution of Sex. Science 281: 1979-2010, Sept. 25, 1998. A series of
8 review articles discussing the topic.
==
In the case of evolution, we have fossils going back about 40-65 million
years ago (all the way back to the Eocene), and from there up. Granted,
there are gaps, but considering that weve been looking for only about a
hundred years, what can you expect. It took longer than that for us to
learn how to make tools, and then it took about 100,00 years before we got
much past that. So, youve got small insectivores in the Eocene. In the
Oligocene, you have larger mammals, including some early primates
(demonstrate characteristics: have post-orbital bar, have grasping hands,
etc). By the Miocene, we have fully functional primates, including the
dryopiths, ramapiths, and pliopiths. Its generally assumed (I think) that
australopiths came out of ramapiths (they show the next step, and
ramapiths were the largest of the Miocene hominoids). So, now youve got
about 7 species of australopiths, including the robust australopithecines,
which were most likely an evolutionary dead-end. Next, weve got the homo
line, starting with homo habilis, at about 2.5 million years ago. he
first tool-makers/users, we think, since theyve been found with stone
tools intermixed. Then, youve got your homo erectus, the species that
scientists are convinced, now, that we came from. These fellows were
almost exactly like us post-cranially, and only had slightly more massive
bones. Their skulls show a large cranial volume, around 900-1100 ccs.
Thats pretty large, for a non-human. Anyway, on a side track, then,
theres neanderthalensis, which was just recently determined through DNA
testing to not be our ancestor. Finally, therere the specimens of early
homo sapiens, archaic homo sapiens, which still show brow ridges and
exhibit a skull volume almost equal to ours (it should be noted that
Neanderthals had an average skull volume GREATER than ours, but they were
bigger all around, too, so this may not have made much difference). And,
last but not least, you have anatomically modern homo sapiens, like
Cro-Magnon man, from about 40,000 years ago to the present.
Now, Ill grant that there are gaps: most notably in the areas between the
ape-human split (although its been postulated that australopithecus ramidus
might be that ancestor), and in the area between erectus and homo sapiens
(Im not sure about that one, but Im pretty sure theres a gap there.
A rather big jump from erectus to sapiens, if there isnt). So, weve got a
wonderful track from the mid-Miocene hominoids all the way to us, with gaps
in a few places, but rest assured that these will eventually be filled with
the proper species, since weve really had only enough time to scratch the
surface of hominid evolution.
==
_Australopithecus africanus_
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg
This species lived about 2.5 million years ago and had a brain only
about 450 cubic centimeters. It's clearly not human; see how the
upper jaw sticks out very far in front, like a chimp's face? But we
also know that this species walked upright like we do. In fact, from
the neck down, A. africanus looked a lot like a small, slight human,
but from the neck up, it looked a lot like a chimpanzee.
To me, this seems to satisfy your request for a creature that was
\half ape and half human or 70% ape and 30% human and so on.
Now take a look at a _Homo habilis_ skull.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.html
Notice how the face juts out forward, although not as much as in _A.
africanus_. Also note that thr brain of _H. habilis_ is about 590
CCs, which is larger than in any modern ape, but the face still looks
very \ape-like.\ _H. habilis_ also walked upright like us.
So if _A. africanus_ is
50% human (body) and 50% ape (head), then H. habilis is closer to
60/40, since its head looked more similar to ours and less similar to
a chimp's than the head of _A. africanus_, but its face still looks
very chimp-like.
Now take a look at _Homo ergaster_ (sometimes called _Homo erectus_) at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.html
This skull was about 850 CCs, nearly twice the size of _A. africanus_,
and the face is much flatter. This species also walked upright, and
from the neck down it was nearly indistinguishable from a modern human
(see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html ).
Like modern humans, this species also made tools out of stone, and
probably other materials. In addition, this species was the first of
the hominids to live all throughout Africa and also in Asia and Europe.
You can clearly see from the skull that the face is much flatter and
more human-like than any of the ones you saw above, although the brain
was still smaller than that of normal humans of today.
We don't start seeing modern brain size until a bit later
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/petralona.jpg
is an image of one of the earliest representatives of our own species.
Note how it looks an awful ot like the _H. ergaster_ above, but has
smaller eyebrow ridges above its eyes. Its face is more or less
modern in appearance, although the back of the skull still protrudes
rearwards farther than is common among us, just like _H. ergaster's_ did.
So there is a clear trend in these fossils; brain size increases, the
lower face becomes flatter and more \human-like\ and the eyebrow
ridges decline in size. These changes are pretty subtle, and they
form a relatively smooth gradient from one to the next, which suggests
that the earliest form gradually changed into later and later (more
and more human-like) forms.
This gradient is real; that's beyond question. The populations really
did change in form as time passed. _Why_ they changed is a different matter.
==
The immediate ancestors of all Homo sapiens were creatures called Homo
erectus. We know them only from their tools and their bones, but their
skeletons looked almost exactly like ours. There's a picture of one at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000.html
You'll notice right away, I'm sure, that below the neck, this person looked
more or less like anyone alive today, but from the neck up,
there are a few minor differences. For example, in the skull, the brain
case is a bit smaller than ours, the eyebrows stick out more, the face is
longer from top to bottom, and the teeth are a bit bigger and stick out
more. H. erectus also had a more sloped forehead than we have, and so
the eyes are a bit closer to the top of the skull. All of these traits are
outside of the range of the same traits in modern people, but not by much.
In other words, there was only a slight physical change in the head from
our last ancestors to us, and most of this was related in some way to the
increase in the size of the brain.
==
Two hominids, of roughly the same era, died in ancient Africa. Arm and leg
bones of one individual probably less than 5 feet tall survived to the
present, but no teeth or skull. For the other one, pieces of the skull
fossilized, but not the rest of the skeleton. All that can be said for
certain is that the three hominids were at the same place at almost the
same time. Scientists cant say yet whether the skull belongs to the same
species as the leg and arm bones, or which type of hominid pounded open
the antelope bone. Still, these tidbits are the first significant clues of
the hominids that lived in eastern Africa during the epoch when apelike
creatures evolved into the predecessors of modern-day humans.
It is our best candidate yet for a direct ancestor[from this time period],
says Owen Lovejoy, a professor of biomedical sciences at Kent State
University in Ohio and one of the researchers. Now that its there at
2.5 million, we,re faced with this animal that is at the right place at the
right time to be a lineal ancestor of modern man. The discoveries,
uncovered by an international team of 40 scientists, are reported in two
articles in Fridays issue of the journal Science.
Before 3 million years ago, a string of apelike creatures culminated in the
upright-walking Australopithecus afarensis, the best known of which is
the Lucy skeleton. The earliest members of our genus, Homo, emerge
about 2 million years ago. In the intervening 1 million years, the
story of human evolution is fuzzy. A changing climate thinned the forests
where the apelike creatures lived, spurring a burst of evolution as animals
adapted to life on the expanding savannahs. You go into this period with,
in essence, bipedal big-toothed chimps and come out with meat-eating,
large-brained hominids, says Tim White, the University of California,
Berkeley, anthropologist who co-lead the research. That,s a big change in a
relatively short time. Wed really like to know more about what happened
there. One branch of the hominid family known as robust australopithecines
evolved huge teeth to chew on the tough plants of the plains. Theyre
clearly not ancestors of Homo, and eventually died out. A more promising
candidate for human ancestry is Australopithecus africanus with its more
human-looking face. But that species, first appearing around 2.8 million
years ago, has only been found in South Africa, far away from the
birthplace of the earliest Homo in East Africa. Many anthropologists
expected fossils of A. africanus would eventually show up in the East
African sediments as well. Not What They Were Looking For Instead, they
found A. garhi, a species name assigned to the newly described skull.
In the local language, garhi means surprise. The skull of A. garhi looks
very different from A. africanus, surprisingly primitive with a protruding
apelike face. The garhi is very much a scaled-up afarensis, White says,
except its brain doesn,t scale up. The braincase of A. garhi is only
27 cubic inches, less than a third of the 85-cubic-inch braincase of humans.
The arm and leg bones of the second hominid are also surprising. Compared
with the earlier Lucy, the thigh bone has lengthened to more humanlike
proportions, but the upper arm retained a long, apelike appearance.
The mangled antelope bone found with the hominid shows the hominids of
Ethiopia, probably scavengers, not hunters, had added high-nutrition marrow
to their diets. Many anthropologists hypothesize that this change of diet
spurred the development of stone technology and the evolution of larger,
presumably more intelligent, brains. You as a bipedal hominid, you,ve
sacrificed your ability to move around very quickly, White says. And
you,re going out to very open habitats where there are big predators,
saber-toothed cats, hyenas, and not only are you going out there, youre
going out there to compete with these animals for the food resources. You
have a very good chance of ending up as food yourself. Thats the strong
selective pressure. That could, of course, drive evolution very rapidly.
The simplest interpretation of the data is that the second fossil and
the hominid who smashed the antelope bone were also A. garhi. But White
says theres not enough evidence to say that interpretation is the correct
one. It will also take some time and more fossils to determine A. garhi,s
place in the family tree. It may be a direct ancestor of humans, and
A. africanus is a dead-end branch. Or vice versa. Or maybe both are dead
ends and the true ancestor remains undiscovered. For George Washington
University anthropologist Bernard Wood, the discovery fits in with his
expectations that several different species evolved, a series of
experiments, in response to the changing environment.
Many of us actually dont think it was a surprise, Wood says. We ought
to throw away the notion that every time we find a new sort of hominid that
it must be on the line leading to modern humans What we,re looking at is
not an evolutionary ladder; it,s an evolutionary bush. A. garhi is for
now just another branch on that bush, one that just may be a root of all
humanity.
The genus Australopithecus includes humanity,s oldest known direct
ancestors, dating back around 3 million years. These short, hairy folks ran
around Africa, much wetter and forested at the time, eating plants and
making the first crude tools. There are two known species, Australopithecus
Africanus and an earlier cousin, Australopithecus Afarensis.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/hominid990422.html link
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/hominid980506.html

http://www.freeyellow.com/members4/geologylinks/vertebrate.html
------------------
See Time Magazine Dec 2, 1996 or the June 1997 Scientific American
Nov. 1985 and Feb 1997 National Geographic for details.
Read Time Magazine Oct.11, 1993 for article on origin of life

==
http://www.anatomy.usyd.edu.au/danny/anthropology/sci.anthropology.
paleo/archive/
==
A Middle Jurassic mammal from Madagascar
NATURE
The lower molars of tribosphenic mammals (marsupials, placentals and their
extinct allies) are marked, primitively, by a basined heel (talonid) acting
as the mortar to the pestle of a large inner cusp (protocone) on the opposing
upper teeth. Here we report the earliest tribosphenic mammal found so far,
three lower teeth in a jaw fragment from Middle Jurassic (Bathonian, 167
2Myr) sediments of northwest Madagascar. This specimen extends the
stratigraphic range of the Tribosphenida by some 25 million years, more than
doubling the age of the oldest mammal known from Madagascar, and representing
only the second pre-Plio/Pleistocene terrestrial mammal known from the
island.
Although it indicates a more ancient diversification of the Triposphenida
than previously thought, this find fails to confirm molecular-clock-based
models proposing a Middle Jurassic divergence of marsupials and placentals.
In addition, it offers a glimpse of mammal evolution on the southern
continents during the Middlethrough Late Jurassic, countering the prevailing
view of a northern origin for tribosphenic mammals.
==

National Geographic Jan. 1975 Exploring the Mind of Ice Age Man
Cave man art and culture.
==
If the rate of destruction (hydrolysis) is slower than the rate of
synthesis, one builds up levels of the more complex material. If the
rates of destruction and synthesis balance, one will have a steady state
level of complex material. Only if the rate of destruction is faster
than the rate of synthesis will there be very little (although some
traces would exist) of the unstable intermediate present.

For example, the rate of obtaining important enzymatic activities (like
ligase and polynucleotide kinase activities) in RNA molecules 50 nt long
is about 1/10^14 to 1/10^17 for randomly synthesized sequences (it is
technically easier to measure this with ribozymes than with protein
enzymes). That means, that if an Avagadros number (a mole) of RNA of
50 nt length is randomly synthesized, it will certainly have *all* the
above enzymatic activities (and probably at least a million molecules of
most of them). A millimole of molecules is not a huge amount to
generate in some particular chemically active environment on a planet
the size of the earth.
I point this out precisely because it need not have been the case.
Randomly synthesized nucleotides of 50 length have the potential to make
4^50 (about 10^30) different molecules. If only one of these molecules
could have the desired enzymatic activity, that would mean that we would
need about a million moles of 50 nt long RNA molecules to produce the
one enzymatically active one.
==
Scientists changed the scales on a chickens foot (technically,
theyre scutes) into a feather by changing one gene.
Zou, Hongyan and Lee Niswander. 1996. Requirement for BMP Signaling in
Interdigital Apoptosis and Scale Formation. Science 272: 738-741
==
Cat Evolution
The lineage which gave rise to the Felidae (Cats) appears in the Eocene.
These were the miacids (family Miacidae). The miacids were small and
cat-like in general shape, about the size of modern house cats, with
short, stout legs and plantigrade feet (flat on the ground from heel to
toes). The auditory bullae were not ossified, suggesting that hearing was
not especially acute. A complete skeleton is known from the middle Eocene of
Germany, _Paroodectes_ . The miacids gave rise to the two
main lines of carnivores: the arctoids (dogs, raccoons, bears, and weasels)
and the aeluroids (civets, cats, and hyenas). By the early Oligocene there
are fossils which are clearly distinguishable as primitive felids (earlier
aeluroid material is not distinguishable at the family level, theyre just
aeluroids).

Smilodons(Sabre toothed tigers) were NOT sub-species of tigers.
They were of their own genus, the Machairodontinae
The smaller American scimitar cats of the genus homotherium, (only about 500
lbs). Both genera went extinct about 11,000 years ago.

Cats, genus Smilodonae, Homotheriae, Pantherae, and Acinonychinae
==
Are all Australian goannas related to each other and all other varanids?
Are all varanids related to each other and all other lizards?
Are all lizards related to each other and all other squamata?
Are all squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs?
Are all lepidosaurs related to each other and all other anapsids?
Are all anapsids related to each other and all other tetrapods?
==
S. Africans report key find of ape-man skeleton
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (CNN) -- In a find called momentous, researchers
said they had discovered the first complete skeleton of a human ancestor
dating back more than 3 million years. The 4-foot-tall (1.22 meter) fossil,
estimated to be 3.6 million years old, could provide long sought-after
clues to human evolution. It was discovered at Sterkfontein on the outskirts
of Johannesburg, which was also the site of the discovery of South Africas
first hominid, or ape-man, skull in 1924. Clue to the missing linkJust
one bone would be exciting but this is apparently the whole skeleton
-- the secret to knowing how the creature functioned. of researchers from
South Africas University of the Witwatersrand (Wits). He told a news
conference that the discovery was probably the most momentous find ever
made in Africa, and said it would aid the search for the missing link in
mans evolution from ape to human. Past finds of ape-man fossils, including
the oldest hominid bones, found in East Africa, have only been partial
skulls or skeletons. Were getting down nearer to the critical
parting of the ways between apes and us -- perhaps 5 to 7 million years,
Tobias said. Mislabled bones led to find The discovery followed three years
of work after Wits researcher Ron Clarke chanced on ankle and foot bones
while looking in a box incorrectly labeled animal bones. Clarke realized
the bones belonged to the Australopithecus, a hominid which had both human
and ape features. Following up on the find, Clarke and his team discovered
the remaining bones in foot bones were found. Much of the skeleton remains
embedded in fossil rock at Sterkfontein. Clarke said the complete
significance of the skeleton would not emerge until after it had been
unearthed from a 15-meter-deep limestone shaft. But what we do already
know is that it will reveal a very great deal about the anatomy and evolution
of an early ape- man, Clarke said. Preliminary evidence shows that the
ape-man not only walked upright, but was also a tree climber, he said.
Clarkes assistants, Nkwane Molefe and Stephen Motsumi, described how they
had spent a year in the dark, wet cavern chipping away at the limestone
after finding a few bones discarded by limestone workers. Clarkes findings
appeared Wednesday in the South African Journal of Science and were due to
be published Thursday in the journal Nature. He said there were signs of
further hominid fossils at Sterkfontein, which the South African government
has nominated to become a World Heritage site.
==
Weve been observing nature scientifically for about 300 years. In plants,
speciation has actually been achieved experimentally in the
laboratory. (_Raphanobrassica_).
This was done by duplicating the hypothesized mechanism of hybridization
followed by polyploidy. This was reported in 1928 (Karpechenko, _Z. ind.Abst.
Vererb.l. 48:1) and has been repeated. It had been observed earlier
(Muller, 1925, _Am. Natur._59: 346) but in that case it occured
spontaneously in the cultivated hybrid _Primula kewensis_, not as a
result of deliberate experimental manipulation.

The development of reproductive isolation (speciation by the most
restrictive definition) has been observed in laboratory colonies of
true flies (Diptera) repeatedly (Ringo, at al., 1985, _ Am. Natur.126:
642-661;
Cohan & Hoffman, 1986, _Genetics_ 114: 145-163 ; and references therein).

Raphanus sativus (18 chromosomes) x Brassica oleracea (18
chromosomes) - sterile hybrides (18 chromosomes).
Mistake during the formation of gametes lead some hybrids to have
diploid gametes. hybride (diploid gametes) x hybride (diploid gamete) -
Raphanobrassica Karpechenkoi (36 chromosomes) R. K. is interfertile but
cant breed with R. S. or B.O.- its a distinct species

Most biologists that speciation is largely due to genetic drift in
isolated populations.

speciation is the divergence of two populations of a single
interbreeding biological species to the point that they are essentially
separate breeding systems. This most commonly occurs, IMHO, in peripheral
isolates. this is only the most common case, not the only one. There is
good evidence for the development of host races in parasites, for instance,
though this could be argued as a special form of geographic isolation. But
speciation can also, apparently, occur in geographically sympatic
populations which become isolated in particular divergent habitats which
occur as a fine scale mosaic, or where there are multiple sharply defined
breeding seasons with very little movement of individuals between seasons.
This is for animals. In plants there are additional mechanisms, such as
hybidization, followed by the isolation of some of the hybrids by
polyploidy. But even in plants the most commmon mechanism seems to be the
isolation of peripheral populations. Of course, there is an entire spectrum
ranging from small peripheral isolates to the equal division of a species
range, but again, the isolation of a small peripheral population is much
more frequent.

The test of speciation, of course, is the occurence of sympatry, the
existence of both putative species in the same area without losing their
existence as distinct breeding systems. This can occur without absolute
reproductive isolation. (Obviously, it _has_ occured in the case of
absolute isolation) One mechanism which allows this is the lesser fitness of
hybrids relative to the parent taxa. There are many other situations which
can allow this. And adequate separation is also fuzzy. There are all
possible gradations from taxa which are clearly not exchanging significant
genetic material, despite occasional or even frequent interbreeding to cases
where the two original populations are clearly merging.

Mayr, Ernst. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.

Mayr 1982 _The Growth of Biological Thought
---
Rat evolution
Prior to the voyages of exploration, rats did not live on the Island of
Mauritius. Some of the rats, deserted the first ships that landed there.
Today, the rats of Mauritius have a chromosome count and type that is
unique. Nowhere else in the world do we find rats with this chromosomal
arrangement. Yosida et al write:
There are many researchers who have studied the chromosomes of the black
rats from several locations of the world, but none has observed in them the
karyotype characterized by the Robertsonian fission as seen in the
Mauritius type. (T.H. Yosida, et al, 1979, p. 59)

Yosida, T.H., et al, 1979, Mauritius Type Black Rats with Peculiar
Karyotypes Derived from Robertsonian Fission of Small Metacentrics,
Chromosoma, 75: 51-62
==
Scientific American, Sept. 1978, p. 75, an article about
Chemical Evolution and the origin of Life

Role of Gene Interactions in Hybrid Speciation: Evidence from Ancient
and Experimental Hybrids, Rieseberg et al., Science, 272, May of 1996.

Eigen M. (1994). Selection and the origin of information. Int Rev
Neurobiol , 37, 35-46; discussion 47-50.

Eigen M. (1993 Dec 15). The origin of genetic information: viruses as
models. Gene , 135, 37-47.

Varetto L. (1998 Jul 27). Studying artificial life with a molecular
automaton J Theor Biol , 193, 257-85.
==
In a geological moment near the beginning of the Cambrian,
nearly all modern phyla made their first appearance, along
with an even greater array of anatomical experiments that did
not survive very long thereafter. The 500 million subsequent years
have produced no new phyla, only twists and turns upon established
designs. _Wonderful Life_; p. 64

There is evidence for pre-Cambrian-explosion,
non-Seilacher-style-Vendozoa, non-cnidarian metazoan animals in the
Precambrian. That was true when Gould wrote his book, and evidence is
even more convincing of that interpretation now. It is not accurate to
say the invertebrate phyla involved in the Cambrian explosion appear out
of no where. Their origin is cryptic, but there are candidates for
ancestors for at least some of them.
==
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
In the northeastern United States, for example, are found two species of tree
frogs, Hyla versicolor and Hyla chrysoscelis. The two are absolutely
identical in appearence, and the only way to distinguish them in the field is
by their slightly differing mating calls. One of these species is a
polyploid of the other, that is, it developed from the other species when
a chromosomal abnormality left some individuals with twice the normal number
of chromosomes. (Polyploidy is a very common means of plants to produce new
species--in fact, most domesticated food plants like wheat and rye are
polyploids--but is comparitively rare among animals.) There is no doubt that
the two frogs share an ancestor/descendent relationship, and that one
evolved from the other through polyploidy.
==
The first anticoagulant poisons, which work by knocking out the bloods
clotting mechanism, were introduced in the 1950s. They accumulate in a
rodents body until a lethal dose is reached and the animal dies of internal
bleeding. But most rats are now resistant to first-generation anticoagulants
such as warfarin. Many are also resistant to the second-generation poisons
such as difenacoum and bromadialone, which are more toxic. These chemicals
also stay in the body longer, making it more likely that rodents will
accumulate enough of these chemicals to poison predators.
==
Although he did emphasize the ape-like features of the skullcap, Dubois
did not say it came from a giant gibbon. He always believed that it was an
intermediate between ape and human (correctly), and that the skullcap and
thigh bone belonged to the same creature (probably incorrect). Java Man
is still recognized as a member of Homo erectus by all competent modern
scientists (and as an ape by almost all creationists).
--------
But speciation can also, apparently, occur in geographically sympatic
populations which become isolated in particular divergent habitats which
occur as a fine scale mosaic, or where there are multiple sharply defined
breeding seasons with very little movement of individuals between seasons.
This is for animals. In plants there are additional mechanisms, such as
hybidization, followed by the isolation of some of the hybrids by
polyploidy. But even in plants the most commmon mechanism seems to be the
isolation of peripheral populations. Of course, there is an entire spectrum
ranging from small peripheral isolates to the equal division of a species
range, but again, the isolation of a small peripheral population is much
more frequent.
The test of speciation, of course, is the occurence of sympatry, the
existence of both putative species in the same area without losing their
existence as distinct breeding systems. This can occur without absolute
reproductive isolation. (Obviously, it _has_ occured in the case of
absolute isolation) One mechanism which allows this is the lesser fitness of
hybrids relative to the parent taxa. There are many other situations which
can allow this. And adequate separation is also fuzzy. There are all
possible gradations from taxa which are clearly not exchanging significant
genetic material, despite occasional or even frequent interbreeding to cases
where the two original populations are clearly merging.

Mayr, Ernst. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.

Mayr, Ernst. 1970. Populations, species, and evolution: an abridgment of
Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press. [This is still in print]

Endler, John A., and Daniel Otte. 1989. Speciation and its consequences.
Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates.

Gibbons, Ann. 1996. Speciation: The Species Problem. Science:1501-1510.
Nice review of current positions
==
Stephen Jay Gould asked:
In the whalebone whale
.... why should the fetus of a whale make teeth in its mothers
womb only to resorb them later and live a life sifting krill on a
whalebone filter, unless its ancestors had functional teeth and
these teeth survive as a remnant during a stage when they do no
harm?
==
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html
Mass Extinction Underway
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html
The Sixth Extinction
Hopeful Monsters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
==
Mutation efects in protein sequences.
dum-de-dum-de-dum-bind-dum-de-dum-snip-dum-de-dum-de-dum-move left one
amino acid-dum-de-dum

Mutations in the dum-de-dum sections will not be fatal to the enzyme,
and new specificities could eveolve here, where as those in the
function sections are more critical (bind, snip, move). Even then, a
single mutation (snip to snap) may not affect function. A real world
example is trypsin, where a single amino acid substitution in the
active site changes it to chymotrypsin. This _is_ oversimplifying
(Ive ignored tertiary structure), but its nowhere near the wild
inaccuracy of the spell-checker fallacy.

Just to add two more examples, changing a single amino acid changes a
lactate dehydrogenase to a malate dehydrogenase ( 1988, Wilks, et. al.
Science 242:1541-1544).

Five amino acid changes switches the wild-type _E. coli_ isocitrate
dehydrogenase - ICDH - which ordinarily uses NADP as a co-factor (the
natural ICDHs that use NADP as a co-factor are cytoplasmic and are used
to, among other things, reduce food to fat and synthesize certain amino
acids) into one that uses NAD as a co-factor (natural ones are involved
in membrane-associated ATP synthesis, as in mitochondria). The switch
was such that the original enzyme, which used 7 x 10^3 NADP for each NAD
used, now was 10^6-fold more likely to use NAD. A few secondary aa
changes further improved affinity for NAD.

The reverse switch of an NAD-using enzyme to an NADP-prefered one
required replacement of a 7 aa sharp turn with a 13 aa helix-loop (with
a specified arg at one position) plus four other aa changes. The switch
increased affinity for NADP by 10^4 fold. The enzyme was twice as
active as the w.t. enzyme. Perhaps not surprisingly, the former switch
(from NADP to NAD using) has happened several times in evolutionary
history. The latter switch (NAD to NADP) never has AFAWK. (see Dean,
A.M. 1998 American Scientist 86:26-37).

Most proteins dont need specific amino acids in all positions, its
generally enough for them to be acidic, basic, neutral or lipophillic.In
some proteins you can substitute up to 50% of amino acids this way. Some
other amino acids can be replaced by almost any one of them.
==
Paleontologists know where to dig for fossils because
geologists can predict that certain kinds of fossils can be found in
certain kinds of strata. A creation scientist would predict that fossils
would be all jumbled together (because of the flood) or that all the
fossils would appear all at once in the same geological strata (reflecting
the creation event). These two things are not seen in reality.
==
A major cause of point mutation is simply error in the replication
process. Another major source of point mutation in mammals is
spontaneous deamination of methylcytosines. A major source of
chromosomal rearrangements (and deletions/insertions) is errors in
recombination. Another major source of insertion is transposition.
==
Experimental Testing of Theories of an Early RNA World
by Andrew D. Ellington
http://biotech.chem.indiana.edu/pages/RNA.html
==
Complexity : The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos by
M. Mitchell Waldrop Paperback (September 1993) Touchstone Books;
ISBN: 0671872346
==
_A Short History of Planet Earth_; J.D. MacDougall;

Fedonkin, M.A. and Waggoner, B.M., 1997 (August 28). The Late Precambrian
fossil _Kimberella_ is a mollusc-like bilaterian organism. Nature
==
Precambrian earth
Glaring white ice 300 feet deep covered all the oceans. Temperatures
dropped to minus-20 degrees. The land was barren, dry, frigid, lifeless.
That was the Earth 750 million years ago in what may have been the planets
coldest and longest ice age. But it may also have been a vital period in the
evolution of plants, animals and eventually even people, a researcher says.
Chemical and isotopic analysis of rocks laid down along the coast of an
island that later became part of Africa shows that, between 750 and 570
million years ago, the Earth went through at least four deep ice ages, each
lasting millions of years, Hoffman said. Continents, said Hoffman, probably
were in a dry, cold soak. Once the seas froze over, there was no more
evaporation, he said. There was no more snow or rain. Glaciers on land
disappeared. Continents became like dry and lifeless rocks in frozen seas.
The ancient ice ages ended when carbon dioxide, belched from volcanoes,
became concentrated enough in the atmosphere - about 350 times the
present concentration - to create a super greenhouse effect. The carbon
dioxide trapped enough solar heat to melt the frozen oceans and to break
the ice age. The Earth went through this cycle repeatedly as the continents
drifted apart, Hoffman said. But such severe ice ages are unlikely to happen
again for two reasons: the sun is about 7% hotter, and higher life forms
continuously cycle carbon back into the atmosphere, maintaining a gas
blanket that warms the planet.
==
Magazines
Genetics, Gene, Molecular and General Genetics, and Heredity)
------
Gray wolves are still interfertile with dogs.
-----
The Moral Animal : Why We Are the Way We Are : The New Science of
Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Vintage, 1994),
==

Living things seem to be complex systems far from equilibrium. That is, they
seem far more organized and structured than the environments they inhabit.
They maintain this organization by a constant influx of energy from the
environment. At the same time, they remain distinct from the environment,
occupying a discrete spatial location. They obtain energy from the
environment to maintain their structure and their individual integrity.
Without such active maintenance, entropy would take hold and the organism
would lose its organization and, ultimately, its discrete location in space.
We have a common word that stands for a catastrophic failure in active
maintenance -- it is death.
We can, perhaps, narrow down the requirements for life by pointing out
another property of living things -- the ability to reproduce, and to evolve.
Living organisms devote a great deal of energy to perpetuating their kind.
Conventionally, there is a genetic connection between parent and offspring.
Evolution by Darwinian natural selection could be a universal consequence of
the inheritance of features, combined with their propensity to vary, and the
tendency for reproduction to outstrip available resources.
==
We have plenty of intermediates in the dino to bird transition.
See:
Scientific American March 2003
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/earlybird697.html
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/20/bird.dinosaur/
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/missing_link_ties_birds.htm
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html
http://www.bulletin.ac.cn/ACTION/2002040302.htm
---
How about Horses:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/firstCM.htm
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/eohippus_hyrax.html
---
How about whales:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html#whale-legs
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/whaleorigins.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/fl/direpuppy/mindblocks.html
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.n.mkg.html
http://www.cosmiverse.com/news/science/science05090201.html
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/whales/allabout/Evol.shtml
==
Sugar in Space
Scientists have discovered glycolaldehyde, a molecular cousin to table sugar,
in an interstellar molecular cloud.
June 20, 2000 -- The prospects for life in the Universe just got sweeter, with
the first discovery of a simple sugar molecule in space. The discovery of
glycolaldehyde in a giant cloud of gas and dust near the center of our own
Milky Way Galaxy was made by scientists using the National Science Foundations
12 Meter Telescope, a radio telescope on Kitt Peak, Arizona.
The discovery of this sugar molecule in a cloud from which new stars are
forming means it is increasingly likely that the chemical precursors to life
are formed in such clouds long before planets develop around the stars.
This discovery may be an important key to understanding the formation of
life on the early Earth. Conditions in interstellar clouds may, in some cases,
mimic the conditions on the early Earth, so studying the chemistry of
interstellar clouds may help scientists understand how bio-molecules formed
early in our planets history. In addition, some scientists have suggested that
Earth could have been seeded with complex molecules by passing comets, made
of material from the interstellar cloud that condensed to form the Solar
System.
Glycolaldehyde, an 8-atom molecule composed of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, can
combine with other molecules to form the more-complex sugars Ribose and
Glucose.
Ribose is a building block of nucleic acids such as RNA and DNA, which carry
the genetic code of living organisms. Glucose is the sugar found in fruits.
Glycolaldehyde contains exactly the same atoms, though in a different molecular
structure, as methyl formate and acetic acid, both of which were detected
previously in interstellar clouds. Glycolaldehyde is a simpler molecular cousin
to table sugar. Glycolaldehyde is the only member of the sugar family yet
detected in interstellar clouds. The structure of glycolaldehyde is contained
in both Ribose and Glucose. Ribose sugars make up the backbone of the
ribonucleic acid (RNA) molecule which is involved in protein synthesis in
living cells. Glucose, the most common sugar, occurs in plant saps and fruits.
The sugar molecule was detected in a large cloud of gas and dust some
26,000 light-years away, near the center of our Galaxy. Such clouds, often
many light-years across, are the material from which new stars are formed.
Though very rarefied by Earth standards, these interstellar clouds are the
sites of complex chemical reactions that occur over hundreds of thousands or
millions of years. So far, about 120 different molecules have been discovered
iand only a few molecules with eight or more atoms have been found in
interstellar clouds. Finding glycolaldehyde in one of these interstellar
clouds means that such molecules can be formed even in very rarefied
conditions. We dont yet understand how it could be formed there. A
combination of more astronomical observations and theoretical chemistry
work will be required to resolve the mystery of how this molecule is
formed in space. This discovery inspires renewed efforts to find even more
kinds of molecules, so that, with a better idea of the total picture,
scientists may be able to deduce the details of the prebiotic chemistry
taking place in interstellar clouds. The discovery was made by detecting
faint radio emission from the sugar molecules in the interstellar cloud.
Molecules rotate end-for-end, and as they change from one rotational
energy state to another, they emit radio waves at precise frequencies.
The family of radio frequencies emitted by a particular molecule forms
a unique fingerprint that scientists can use to identify that molecule.
The scientists identified glycolaldehyde by detecting six frequencies
of radio emission in what is termed the millimeter-wavelength region of
the electromagnetic spectrum -- a region between more-familiar microwaves and
infrared radiation. The giant molecular cloud, known as Sagittarius B2
(North), as seen by the NSFs Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in
New Mexico. This is the cloud in which scientists using the 12 Meter
Telescope detected the simple sugar molecule glycolaldehyde.
==
Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences(argumentum ad consequentiam):
Definition:
The author points to the disagreeable consequences of
holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is
false.

Example:
(i) You cant agree that evolution is true, because if it were,
then we would be no better than monkeys and apes.
(ii) You must believe in God, for otherwise life would have
no meaning. (Perhaps, but it is equally possible that since
life has no meaning that God does not exist.)

Proof:
Identify the consequences to and argue that what we want to
be the case does not affect what is in fact the case.
==
Evolution, Science, and Society: a white paper on behalf of the field of
evolutionary biology
http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/execsumm.html
The origin of
life on the earth. Scientific American. 271(4):76-83, 1994 Oct

An American Scientist article on origin of life by C. de Duve:
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html

http://www.enews.com/magazines/discover/magtxt/110195-7.html
http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/big3/origins/origins.html
==
Populations are constantly throwing off isolated founder populations
which in turn may merge back into the main population, may go on to
speciate, or may simply go extinct. Within founder populations both
drift and selection operate at higher rates than they do in large
populations. Moreover the average genetic constitution of founder
populations usually differs significantly from the average genetic
constitution of the parent population for statistical reasons. In
consequence morphological change is a mixture of random change and
adaptive change.

==
Permian extinction
The catastrophe of 245 million years ago was the most deadly
disaster on record. At the end of the Permian geological period, 96
percent of all species of marine animals were annihilated, and reefs and
seabeds were scoured to sterility. On land, all of the large mammal-like
reptiles perished. According to one gradualist theory, the assembly of the
supercontinent of Pangaea, accompanied by a fall in sea level, was
responsible.
When living things recovered, certain mammal-like reptiles called
lystrosaurs browsed untroubled by competitors and predators. During the
next 10 million years many new animals evolved challenging the incumbents.
The first modern corals appeared, the coiled, jet-propelled mollusks
called ammonites rose to prominence, and superpredators in the sea took
the form of fish-like reptiles, ichthyosaurs more than ten meters long.
Novel amphibians of the modern frog-like kind ventured on to the land.
Bennettitales sported the first flowers luring insects to do the work of
fertilization. A third wave of comparatively small mammal-like reptiles,
the cynodonts, filled vacancies left by their annihilated predecessors,
but when a huge rock hit Quebec (216 million years ago) it was the last
straw for the mammals, here come the dinos! and the rest is history!
Most orders of insects survived the Permian. Seven orders went extinct in
the Permian; three others went extinct between then and now.

The extant orders with fossils which predate the Permian are: Collembola,
Diplura, Archaeognatha, Zygetoma, Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Odonata
(dragonflies), Plecoptera, Orthoptera (grasshoppers), Blattaria
(cockroaches), Psocoptera, Hemiptera, Thysanoptera, Coleoptera (beetles),
Raphidoptera, Neuroptera, Trichoptera, and Mecoptera.

The orders whose fossil record post-date the Permian are: Diptera (flies),
Siphonaptera (fleas), Lepidoptera (moths), Hymenoptera (wasps),
Megaloptera, Strepsiptera, Phthiraptera, Isoptera (termites), Mantodea,
Dermaptera (earwigs), Phasmida, Embiidina, Zoraptera, Grylloblattaria, and
Protura. (The last three have no fossils whatsoever.) Probably several
of these orders extend back into the Permian (or earlier), but left no
fossil record there which we have found.
True flies are one of the few common orders that only appear after the
Paleozoic era. They evolved from four-winged
insects and only became very successful after halteres had evolved.
==
Brian Goodwin, _How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of
Complexity_ (1994), viii-ix.]
==
Carroll (1997:388,
Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution) summarizes the evidence on
mass extinctions thusly:

The only period in which worldwide mass extinction certainly had a profound
effect on the evolution of vertebrates was at the end of the Cretaceous, ....
The great number of extinctions that have been tabulated at other times can
largely be attributed either to gaps in the fossil record, or to periods of
rapid evolution during which there was extensive turnover in species as a
result of replacement of ancestral lineages by their own descendants.

On the other hand, detailed studies of individual faunas at local and
continental scales show many episodes of significant reduction in taxonomic
diversity that are attributale to changes in climate or the immigration of
large numbers of taxa from other geographical regions (e.g. Stehli and
Webb,1985a; Benton 1991; Janis 1993; Prothero 1994; McCune 1996). Extinctions
of this scale, however, are of the nature that ... do not require forces
beyond those envisioned by Darwin.
==
Opabinia and Anomalocaris have apomorphies which suggest that they share common
ancestor with Arthropods because they have jointed limbs and segmentation. In
addition further apomorphies suggest that they, together with some other forms,
represent a clade within the Arthropoda which has gone extinct.
==
Many models have attempted to account for the explosive evolution of
several hundred species within these lakes. Here we report a case of
surprisingly large genetic divergence among populations of the endemic
Tropheus lineage of Lake Tanganyika. This lineage of six species contains
twice as much genetic variation as the entire morphologically highly
diverse cichlid assemblage of Lake Malawi and six times more variation
than the Lake Victoria species flock. Although it is highly variable in
coloration, this group of species and its closest relatives have not
undergone appreciable morphological change.
==
Sequence comparison gives a high degree of similarity, such that only
between 1 and 2% of the genetic material differs between humans and
chimpanzees. Chimps have 48 chromosomes, humans have 46 The
difference is hypothesized to have come about due to a centric fusion event
==
Actually, evolution completely destroys the Christian message. Previously I
said that it destroys theistic religion, but Im going to focus on Christian
religion here. Christianity says that man was created: Adam, the first human.
It also says that man fell and the fall (sin nature) spread to all humanity.
Because of this universal problem, there is need of a universal solution,
Christs atoning death. Evolution says that there was no first man,
therefore there could be no universal problem that spread to the whole human
race by one man (and woman). So the central message to Christianity is that
man has a universal problem inherited from the first man and woman. Without
this, there really is no Christianity. And trust me, there is no good reason
to be a Christian if you dont believe this, its too much trouble.
==
Human ancestors and close relatives
Australopithecines (Southern Apes)
Various species in Africa from 5 to 1 mya
Homo habilis (Handy man)
Africa: 2 to 1.5 mya
Homo erectus (Erect man)
Africa, East Asia, South East Asia: 1.8 mya to 100,000 ya
Homo sapiens
Archaic forms from 400,000 ya, modern forms from 200,000 ya. Africa, Asia,
Europe.
Australopithecines
The Sites and Fossils
East Africa
East African rift valley system (1,200 miles long) associated with mountain
building, faulting and vulcanism over last few million years. Earth movement
mean sediments get exposed (Plio-Pleistocene 4 to 1 mya), and volcanic
activity causes layers of volcanic ash (tuffs) which can be dated
(potassium argon, or fission tracks) accurately.
Middle Awash
Now very important site called Aramis: Australopithecus ramidus, 4.4 mya.
Though there is argument about whether this animal has enough derived
features to be an australopithecine (need post-crania to be sure, and
post-crania needs to be found in close context with cranial material to
confirm species).
Laetoli
3.75 to 3.5 mya. Most famous for the Laetoli footprints: thousands of
footprints of over 20 different species including hominins. One set of
hominin tracks are of 2-3 individuals in a trail more than 25 m long -
bipedal walking such as this is considered to be characteristic of hominins
Hadar
Very many fossils and artefacts. Fossils from 3.9 to 3 mya. Most famous is
Lucy (Afar Locality (AL) 288-1), a 40% complete skeleton (one of only 2
hominin skeletons earlier than 100,000 yr). AL 333 is a group of over 13
individuals including 4 infants: a catastrophic assemblage perhaps.
Omo
Very thick continuous sequence (0.5 mile thick). 2.9 to 1 mya. Very rich
fauna, so useful for biostratigraphic dating, but fossil hominins restricted
to teeth and bone fragments.
East Turkana
Possibly the richest site. Approx. 1.8 mya, though there are some much older
beds (3.3 mya).
Complete skulls, jaws and post-crania.
West Turkana
West side of Lake Turcana. 2 very famous finds: an almost complete, 1.6 mya
Homo erectus adolescent (see later) and the so called black skull,
a 2.4 mya robust australopithecine skull that is still causing problems
with classification!
Olduvai Gorge
Mini Grand Canyon. 2 mya to present, providing an excellent sequence of
fossils and artefacts, including the original robust australopithecine
cranium.
South Africa
Unlike the East African deposits, the South African ones are all cave
deposits - piles of mineralized sediment that has fallen into caves. They
are not currently datable to any great accuracy, and the ages are usually
inferred by looking at the faunal context of the fossil and comparing it to
faunal remains from better dated sites. However, they have produced many
fossils, including some good post-cranial material (including pelvis:
important for investigating bipedalism)
Taung Limestone mine which produced the Taung Child in the 1920s. Before
this, it was always thought that the earliest humans would be discovered in
Europe, or perhaps the Far East.Consequently, it took quite a while before
this discovery was accepted for what it was.
Sterkfontein, Kromdrai & Swartkrans
Another set of caves in SA. (Sterkfontein was another commercial lime works).
Makapansgat
Another cave...
The Species
A. ramidus
Not too much to say about this one. It appears to be more primitive than the
others. Theres some argument as to whether it is a hominid. Its
discoverers would have us believe that it is the best human ancestor.
Some good cranial material, but no post-crania. 4.4 mya.
A. afarensis
Best fossils from Laetoli and Hadar, including Lucy, and in 1992, a
reasonably complete cranium. Primitive teeth (large canines, parallel tooth
rows); small brain (no bigger than chimp <500 cm3); clearly bipedal
Perhaps as much as 4.5 mya, but only certain after 4 mya.Possible extreme
sexual dimorphism, or maybe 2 contemporaneous species.
A. robustus, A. aethiopicus, A. boisei (robust austrlopithecines)
2.5 mya. Earliest is WT-17000 (West Turkana) A. aethiopicus. Small brained
(410 cm3), teeth diverge at rear (primitive traits), but also has derived,
robust australopithecine traits: broad face; large palate; large back teeth.
Intermediate between A. afarensis and the other robusts? 2 mya A. boisei
from East Africa - nutcracker man - very robust; huge back teeth; very
broad face
(Zinjanthropus). Also A. robustus from South Africa - similar date. Possibly
a tool user. Have tools from South Africa, but there was a sympatric,
contemporaneous Homo habilis which may have made the tools.
Note: some authors put these animals into a separate genus Paranthropus.
A. africanus (gracile australopithecines)
South African only. Although not much difference in overall body size
compared to robusts, has much smaller face. Has smaller molars, but larger
canines and incisors than the robusts, though still larger than modern
humans. Thought to be linked to a very different diet.
Homo
Homo habilis (early Homo) Possibly as old as 2.4 mya. Certainly appears to
be found alongside robust australopithecines for at least 1 my. Has a bigger
brain (600 - 800 cm3) and different dental proportions. Found both in East
and South Africa. Again there is dispute as to whether there are 2 species,
or if there is sexual dimorphism. KNM-ER 1470
H. rudolfensis or just male H. habilis?
Homo erectus Also referred to as the Homo erectus people because we are very
worried about this classification! This is a group that covers many of the
original early hominin finds (Pithecanthropus for Java; Sinanthropus for
China; Heidelbergensis perhaps). The East African finds are accurately dated
to 1.6 to 1.8 mya. The Javanese ones may be as old. The possible European
finds (including last years Boxgrove Man) may be as early as 0.5
mya. This suggests a very early migration out of Africa. Much bigger brain
(750 - 1250 cm3) Larger body (cf. Nariokotome boy), though still probably
sexually dimorphic. Adults probably 6 feet tall. Heavy build too.
Distinctive cranial shape: thick bone (esp. Asian forms); large brow ridges
(supra-orbital tori);nuchal torus Keeling on top of skull Teeth very like
humans, but with slightly larger teeth in early forms, and shovel shaped
incisors.Used fire and stone tools
Java
6 sites with some recent controversial reassessment of dates suggesting
(if true) that the migrations must have been very much earlier.
Peking
Originally Dragons Teeth used in Chinese medicine. Several sites. Managed
to lose quite a few fossils when they were being moved before WW2 to keep
them from the Japanese. Africa
Fossil sites in East and South Africa have revealed H. erectus. However,
there are also sites in North Africa, in Algeria and Morocco. However, not
all these remains are necessarily H. erectus - they might be whats termed
as archaic Homo sapiens.
Europe
Early finds in the Levant (perhaps over 1mya), and newer finds in Northern
Europe(France, Germany and England).However these may be archaic sapiens too.
==
A partial skull from Biache-Saint-Vaast in France is smaller in cranial
capacity than most Neanderthals but is distinctly like them in morphology.
It has an attributed date of 190 000 to 150 000 BP. The oldest Neanderthals
of classic form are reputedly from Ehringsdorf in Germany and Saccopastore
in Italy c. 130/110 000 BP but, typically, there is uncertainty - there are
some much older dates in the Biache range. Seems though that 120,000 BP is
the safe bet.
==
Taxonomy is about how you subdivide life, nomenclature is about how you apply
the names to those subdivisions).
==
This (addition of new genetic materiel) has been observed in two species
of fruit flies (Drosophila yacuba and D. teissieri). I dont think the exact
function of this new gene (jingwei gene) is known yet, but it has been shown
that this new gene is retained by natural selection in the population in
which it appears.
Source: Long, M. and C.H. Langley. 1993. Natural selection and the
origin of jingwei, a chimeric processed pseudogene in Drosophila.
Science 260:91-95
--------
In the cases of polyploidy, we can say that we have addition of ADN.
One can argue that it is the same information, only copied 2, 3 or x
times, but if there is a mutation, the information changes, i.e between
the original species and the new one there is addition of new ADN. Check
Raphanobrassica Karpechenkoi for a good example of this kind of process.
==
In Charles Darwin theory of evolution, there are many questions to
which there are no appropriate answers.

A If the new emerging organisms were better and were continuously
selected from previous group of organisms, it would lead to the
extinction of the group of organisms from which it emerges, thereby
destroying its former simpler forms and leading to the emergence of
a single superior and developed organism with all simpler and lesser
developed organisms becoming extinct.

This does not follow. Why not evolution to exploit a different
niche, removing the population from competition with it's ancestors ?

Q However, this is not true, and
in our environment, we see the simple organisms surviving and
coexisting along with more complex and developed organisms.

Which shows the fallacy of assuming that complexity necessarily
relates to being "better" in evolutionary terms.

Q If by natural selection, the best are selected and propagate, then
why is there diversity among individuals of a species, i.e. why not
only the best within the species are selected to survive. In fact we
will not find any two individuals of a species identical.

A Because there is no absolute "best" and because of that diversity is
needed. Lack of diversity creates vulnerabilities.

Q People ask, if organisms evolve into better and superior species and
individuals than the previous species and individuals, and if humans
evolved from monkeys, then why do we still see the monkeys. Also why
did the intermediate or early forms of humans disappear whereas we
still see the monkeys and gorillas?

A Perhaps because monkeys and gorillas occupy different ecological
niches and either never competed with more human species or were
better enough in those niches that they "won".

Q If by evolution superior beings are evolved, then why do humans get
killed by a bite from a cobra, get overpowered by wolves, get
crushed by a python, cannot confront a lion, or get killed by
anthrax micro organism?

A Because evolution does not produce that sort of superiority.

Q If big changes in organisms like new features are achieved by very
slow and gradual accumulation, how does an individual in a species
with a minute change stand out from others in the species and go
towards increasing the new change, if the change itself is very
minute and will contribute very little towards its survival.

A By weight of statistics. Only a small advantage is needed in the long term.

Q With a new and useful feature, the selection of an individual from a
group, would be more justified if all the individuals of the group
were identical i.e. there is no diversity in the group.

A Why would that be ? An advantage is an advantage.

Q But there is
diversity in all species and for any individual in the group there
will be some in the group with better features and some with lesser
features than itself.

A If those features offer a better advantage in the same direction then
those are the ones more likely to spread. If they offer different
advantages then they can meet and combine in any species which shares
genetic material.

Q Thus if an individual gets a small new useful
feature, how will it stand out from others in the group and go
towards increasing the new change if there are others in the group
which have better features than itself?

A See above.

Q Millions of years ago, when life started to appear on earth and
various life forms began to occupy the different areas of the
environment, if the organisms became better by competing for the
same resources, then how were they able to expand and occupy the
different ecological areas. For example how did an organism living
on the ground evolve into a bird and start flying if it only
competed with fellow organisms for resources on the ground?

A Moving to a vacant niche and exploiting resources for which there is
no competition is such an obvious evolutionary advantage that I have
to ask how you failed to consider it. That's a real example of
superiority in the sense that applies to evolution.

Q There has been evidence that some of the species of fish have been
living for millions of years. Why have they not evolved into better
and superior creatures? Are they the perfect creatures?

A Just very good at what they do

Q In the theory of evolution by natural selection, saying that
organisms with better genes are selected, could be justified if all
organism are of the same age (or in similar age as compared to their
life span i.e. all organisms are fully matured, or all organisms are
of 50% maturity size or all organisms are of 60% over the maturity
age). However in reality the organisms which normally get eliminated
are the young, which are the underdeveloped, or the aged, which are
the weak.

A You are missing an important point going back to Darwin. Every
species reproduces more young than are needed to maintain the
population - even allowing for predation and disease. That is a
major part of the evolutionary pressure (the other part is in
producing those young). It does not matter that the young die more
frequently than adult - a trait that helps more young to survive will
be favoured. And in most species the aged have little or nothing
left to contribute in evolutionary terms, so their loss is not even
important.
--
==
Frans De Waal and Frans Lanting, BONOBO The Forgotten Ape,
University of California Press, Berkley, Los Angeles, London,
1997, 210 pages (including photographs) $27.97.

Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among
Apes. Harper and Row, New York, 1983.

Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society'' Scientific
American 272(4):82- 88, March 1995
==
C.H. Waddington, _Biology For the Modern World_
(1962), 108.]In all animals and plants, each gene
changes occasionally, and the great majority of these changes are
harmful. This damage is the price that has to be paid in order
that sometimes a useful new gene may be produced.
==
Eldredge (Eldredge N, Cracraft J.
: 1980. Phylogenetic patterns and the evolutionary process: method and
: theory in comparative biology. Columbia university press, New York
Smith, R. and Kitching, J., 1997. Sedimentology and vertebrate taphonomy
of the _Tritylodon_ Acme Zone: a reworked paleosol in the Lower Jurassic
Elliot Formation, Karoo Supergroup, South Africa. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, v.131, p.29-50.
==
Conodonts, foramifera and similar micro-fossils show very clear patterns of
morphological change. Since they are very finely arranged in the strata,
consistently across thousands of miles.
==
The Neandertal Enigma, by James Shreeve
The Neandertals, by Trinkaus and Shipman
http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~ecolevol/execsumm.html

For a broader view of all of human evolution,
The Fossil Trail, by Ian Tattersall
irc.salamander.com no work
http://www.prognosis.com/dream/artjohnm.htm
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/math/FermatsLastTheorem.html
http://www.brainstorm.net/

http://www.highfiber.com/~dfbeck/CESE/Viewpoint/Vlinks.html cre/evol *
www.angelfire.com/biz/GospelDirectory//index.html prayer
==
Although only different in 2% of DNA sequences been humans and chimps, the
differences that do exist exert a strong enough influence on development such
that almost every bone is identifiable as chimp or human. In contrast frogs
that look quite similar morphologically can differ in a much higher % of
their DNA sequences because they diverged in the more distant past. DNA
divergence reflects time since speciation in a much more direct fashion than
morphology does.
==
Tax. Rank | Cat | Mt. Lion | Cheetah | Dog |
__________________________________________________________________
Species | F. Catus | F. Concolor | A. Jubatus | C.familiaris |
Genus | Felis | Felis | Acinonyx | Canis |
Family | Felidae | Felidae | Felidae | Canidae |
Order | Carnivora | Carnivora | Carnivora | Carnivora |
Class | Mammalia | Mammalia | Mammalia | Mammalia |
Subphylum | Vertebrata | Vertebrata | Vertebrata | Vertebrata |
Phylum | Chordata | Chordata | Chordata | Chordata |
==
A newly discoved amphibian fossil was a lot smaller and looked like a
salamander with a big head and feet when it lived by a lake near what is now
Edinburgh, Scotland, some 333 million years ago. In Thursdays issue of the
journal Nature, Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University in England revealed
the creature and her name for it: Eucritta melanolimnetes. Loosely
translated from the Greek and a bit of American slang, thats creature from
the black lagoon. (Eucritta combines eu, which is an ancient Greek word
for truth or goodness, and the all-American critter.) The find
includes a nearly complete skeleton measuring about 8 inches from nose to
pelvis; its missing the tail. Clack said the creature apparently grew longer
judging by another recovered skull, but she doesnt know how long.The
finding sheds light on the evolution of tetrapods, backboned animals that
have four limbs with fingers and toes or are descended from such creatures.
Two groups of tetrapods are alive today. One includes mammals, turtles, birds
and lizards.The other includes frogs and salamanders. The newfound creature
combines traits from both living groups, indicating it lived around the time
he two groups split in evolutionary history, Clack said. Scientists have
disagreed on when that split happened. The new finding suggests it occurred
maybe 340 million years ago, which falls between the dates suggested before.
==
The more recent classification schemes now make the birds a sub group of
the Reptilia, so you might say that birds _are_ reptiles...
What were Protarcheopteryx and Caudipteryx [apparently small
dinosaurs that didnt fly but also had feathers]?

A cladist, Chiappe, is assigning direct ancestry of ornithurine birds to
the enantiornithine birds and he is also assigning direct ancestry of
enantiornithine birds to Archaeopteryx. However, take a look at Hou et al.s
cladogram. They use synapomorphies to map relationships and they argue that
Archaeopteryx + Confuciusornis + Enantiornithes is the sister group to
Ornithurae according to the most (stringently) parsimonious distribution of
the characters.
==
The Genesis story was completely discredited for geological reasons by 1830.
By that time it had been established that (a) the Earth was ancient, (b) that
there was no Noachian flood, and (c) that the biota of Earth had changed
drastically over time. Darwin and Wallace did not invent the theory of
evolution - if any one person should be given credit for proposing the first
serious theory of evolution it is Lamarck in 1800. Darwin and Wallace
developed the first fully articulated theory of evolution, including common
descent, evolution by variation and natural selection, diversification by
geographic isolation, and extensive supporting evidence. Darwin and Wallace
did not invent the theory of evolution - if any one person should be given
credit for proposing the first serious theory of evolution it is Lamarck in
1800. Darwin and Wallace developed the first fully articulated theory of
evolution, including common descent, evolution by variation and natural
selection, diversification by geographic isolation, and extensive supporting
evidence. Of course. See, for example, Mayrs discussion in _The Growth of
Biological Thought_, p607-620, the original paper by Filipchenko who
introduced the terms. Simpson, Rensch, Eldredge, Gould,and Mayr all regularly
use the terms with much the same sense as that given in the talk.origins FAQ.
The terms have been used with some variability. Thus Mayr says (TGBT p620)
Macroevolution has been defined in various ways: evolution above the
species level, evolution of the higher taxa, or evolution as studied by
paleontologists and comparative anatomists.
For examples of usage see _The Evolutionary Synthesis_, collected papers
edited by Mayr and Provine.
Although there is some variation in definitions, the essential point is
that microevolution and macroevolution, as they are used, distinguish between
evolution in the sense of population genetics (evolution within
populations) and the evolution of taxa.
==
Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence Quoted: Mar 13 1993
19:45:18 By: Barbara Brasfield
...these animals had brains of typical lower vertebrate size...since
their endocasts were all very near the volume of these expected brain
sizes and since the endocasts present maximum limits on their brain
sizes, the mammal-like reptiles, in short, were reptilian and not
mammalian with repect to the evolution of their brains...There are few
suggestions of mammalian features in the brains of the mammal-like
reptiles...The forebrain, to the extent that its position is
identifiable, was of reptilian size and shape. This was not the case the
the earliest known fossil mammal...The earliest mammal for which there
is reasonable evidence, Triconodon of the Upper Jurassic period, was
apparently already at or near the level of living primitive mammals
such as the insectivores of the Virginia opposum. It was certainly lager
brained than its reptilian ancestors of comparable size. (Evolution of
the Brain and Intelligence)
==
Eldredge and Goulds original paper on the topic of punctuated equilibrium
discuss the bridged gap contained therein. It involved trilobites.
There was an ancestral population that was widely distributed, and then
suddenly there was another species that appeared with it all over the
place. In one small quarry, Eldredge and Gould found one of those
sequences showing the transition (speciation) of the new population from
the ancestral one. Outside of that quarry, the derived species appeared
suddenly; within, gradually.
==
LIFE
Websters Dictionary:
An organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth,
reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
-------
Form and Transformation: Generative and Relational Principles in Biology, by
Gerry Webster and Brian Goodwin. Cambridge UP, 1996.
==
EVOLUTION
First you make observations: Example the fossil record
Second you present a hypothesis to explain those observations, Example:
Evolution.
Third you devise tests for your hypothesis and make more observations:
If life evolves should see the following things;
A; Systematic change in life through time -- Yep we see it.
B: Ability of modern forms to change -- Yep we see it.
C: There must be some method for traits to be passed on to
offspring --- yep there is.
D: There must be some mechanism to cause animals to evolve;
Several possibilities exist From Natural Selection to Random
mutational change. Any one or combination of which may be true. Select one
and see how it fits the observations an additional tests.
If the observations from the tests dont fit then discard the hypothesis
and find a new one. In our example, the tests were positive, With further
tests and observations, it became a theory.
==

Charles Darwin.
A: He was raised in a creationist society and graduated minister of
Christ College.
B: There is no evidence that Darwin did not believe the current
theory of immutability of the species when he set sail on the
Beagle.
C: There is evidence that he had some contact with evolutionary
thought. He was aware of Lamarcks hypothesis of acquired
characteristics, but he knew it to be thoroughly discredited.
There is no indication that he was aware of or read the poem
The Temple of Nature by his grandfather, which did not provide
anything beyond the thought that life changes.
D: Darwins notebooks, of which he was a meticulous note taker on
his ideas and thoughts, do not mention any idea of evolution
until well after the Beagle Voyage, which provided him with his
main data.
E: The only data that Darwin lacked, was a mechanism by which
characteristics are inherited. He knew from observation and
experiment that they were, he just did not know how.
==
Creationists and many others make the fatal mistake of saying that
because our knowledge of a process is not perfect, we must abandon our
hypotheses and theories and look to the Bible for answers, since there
are none of these maddening contradictions in the Bible. But science
says that one should hold on to a theory as long as it is the best
explanation that fits the facts. Evolution isnt something that Darwin
just dreamed up on a lark one day to make Christians angry. And the
Devil didnt make him do it either!
==
Evolution as Fact and Theory, Discover, May 1981
==
Books on evolution
Tattersall I.: The fossil trail: how we know what we think we know about
human evolution, Oxford,NY:Oxford University Press, 1995.

Tattersall I.: The human odyssey: four million years of human evolution,
New
York:Prentice Hall, 1993. (based on the Hall of Human Biology and Evolution
at the American Museum of Natural History)

Trinkaus E. and Shipman P.: The neandertals: changing the image of mankind,
New York:Alfred E. Knopf, 1992. (an excellent history of thought about the
Neandertals)

Reader J.: Missing links: the hunt for earliest man,
Boston,MA:Little,Brown,
1981. (a good history of paleoanthropology, with many excellent
pictures; there is also a later (1988?) edition)

Weaver K.F.: The search for our ancestors. National Geographic
168(5):560-623, 1985.
==

Frank Poirier states in _Understanding Human Evolution_; 3rd Ed.:
==
The fish-to-amphibian transition is demonstrated by Eusthenopteron (a late
Devonian fish) and Icthyostega (a late Devonian amphibian)

The fish/amphibian transition is a rather well documented transitional
sequence. Here are some references.

Carroll, R. 1989 Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, New
York: Freedman Press.
Colbert, 1969 Evolution of the Vertebrates, New York: Wiley
Press. p.71-78
Edwards, J. 1977 The evolution of terrestrial locomotion, IN
M. hecht, et. al., eds Major Patterns in Vertebrate
Evolution, New York: Plenum Press.
Panchen, A. 1980 The Terrestrial Environment and the Origin of
Land Vertebrates, New York: Academic Press.
Radinsky, L. 1988 The Evolution of Vertebrate Design, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press., pp. 77-94.
Romer,A. 1966 Vertebrate Paleontology, Chicago, University of
Chicago Press., p. 72-74, 86-88, 90.
Romer, 1968 Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.,p.71-72
==
Gould Darwin
--------------------------------- -------------------------------------
We [Eldredge and I] hold that With animals and plants that
most evolution is concentrated propogate rapidly and do not wander
in events of speciation, the much, there is reason to suspect...
separation and splitting off of that their varieties are at first
an isolated population from a local; and that such local
persisting ancestral stock. varieties do not spread widely and
supplant their parent forms until
they have been mofied and perfected
to some considerable degree.
==
Stephen Jay Gould co-worker Niles Eldredge _Fossils the evolution &
extinction of species_ (1991),
==
NEW SPECIES
There is an insect called the North American Lacewing. It divided into two
species, differing in only a few genes, They live in the same region but
the mating cycles do not overlap. The original species is called Chrysopa
carnea and the new species is called Chrysopa downesi. Reference FROM SO
SIMPLE A BEGINNING by Phillip Whitefield Macmillan page 80.
The creation of a new species from a pre-existing species generally requires
thousands of years, so over a lifetime a single human usually can witness
only a tiny part of the speciation process. Yet even that glimpse of
evolution at work powerfully confirms our ideas about the history and
mechanisms of evolution. For example, many closely related species have been
identified that split from a common ancestor very recently in evolutionary
terms. An example is provided by the North American lacewings Chrysoperla
carnea and Chrysoperla downesi. The former lives in deciduous woodlands and
is pale green in summer and brown in winter. The latter lives among
evergreen conifers and is dark green all year round. The two species are
genetically and morphologically very similar. Yet they occupy different
habitats and breed at different times of the year and so are reproductively
isolated from each other.
---
The new species of bacteria is _Helacyton
gartleri_. See Van Valen, L.M. & Maiorana, V.C., 1991, HeLa, a new
microbial species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
----
When humans were still a hunting gathering communities with small
independent groups savaging for their daily needs livestock were of no
use. Around 15,000 years ago people came together and formed villages. With
the denser population came the need for more food. Farming wasn1t enough.
These early horticulturist trapped wild beast and started interbreeding these
with the rest of the herd (so to speak) and in doing so charged what they had
captured. You may ask 3what proof do we have?2 That1s a Fair enough
question. In the early villages such as Catal Huyuk the people had no use
for the bones and bodies of the livestock slaughtered and created super
dumps of bones with the oldest being the deepest buried. Wouldn1t you
know that for the first several thousand years deep these sites show bone
structures similar to but not exactly alike as the livestock today, but
as we dig deeper into the pits we find that the livestock is not livestock
at all, it1s wild game domesticated. Smaller version of long horn cattle
that looked like wild buffalo of Africa, very small goats, pygmy pigs that
are like the small boar of the southwest. These animals and many others all
changed into different subspecies in less then 15,000 years to give us
the livestock we have now. So what was the livestock in the beginning? There
wasnt any. Livestock is a product of genetic engineering.
----
Definitions:
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR cant deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
==
Aristotle as a philospher, not a scientist. He reasoned -- correctly,
as it happened -that dophins are more related to land mammals than
fish, as they breathe air, bear live young and are warm-blooded.

Something vaguely like evolution appears in the Greek tradition, with
Empedocles' views (with superficially resemble selection), and
Anaxagoros. But generally the first actual evolutionary account of which
anyone could be familiar enough to disagree with was that of Pierre
Maupertuis in the 17th century
==
A new species of mosquito was discovered and is called Culex Pipiens and was
discoverd by scientists from Queen Mary and Westfield College of London
University. Dr Nichols Said Such rapid evolution is unusual but not unheard
of given the conditions faced by the mosquitos. The new species has different
feeding behaviour, diet and sex life. It was discovered underground in train
tunnels in England. Different lines also show different strains of the
mosquito. They find it difficult to move from tunnel to tunnel or out into
the stations via escelator and lift shafts due to the wind caused by trains
in the tunnels. For instance a Northern Line insect is differs from a
Victoria Line insect.
------
The stages of metamorphasis are homologous to instars in nometamorphic
insects. Instars are those stages that occur when an insect molts.
Caterpillars molt to become pupae, and pupae molt to become imagos. A
caterpillar can actually molt many times and become several forms of instars
before becoming a pupae. Most nommetamorphic insects go through small
changes from nymph to adult during molts. The larval stage is a highly
developed nymph. The larval (caterpillar) form is an extremely specialized
nymph. One insect with what is considered an incomplete metamorphisis
is the May fly. There, the comparison of pupae and instar is very
apparent. Termites have highly differentiated nymph forms, yound instars.
My reference is old: Robert Hegner, and Karl Stiles, College Zoology,
(Macmillan, NY, 1951).
-----
Richard de M. Studdert developed (Studderts) theory
(in his book Selection, The Stress Theory of Evolution, Exposition
University, ISBN 0-682-49927-7). The book is about how stress (caused by
stressors) directs and hastens evolution.
==
One of the most common cases in parts of the US involves the hybridization
of domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and coyote (Canis latrans).
==
Examples of speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/nat3.htm

The evolution guidebook is at
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/
http://slashdot.org/
Human ancestors and close relatives
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/sts5.jpg
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1813.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/1470.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/3733.gif
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/15000_side.gif
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol1.html
==
The Banana-eating moths of Hawaii New species.
There are several species of moths of the genus Hedylepta in Hawaii which
feed exclusively on banana plants. Their mouth parts are specialized for
this diet alone. All other species of this genus feed on other plants.
Bananas were introduced to the islands by Polynesians only about 1000 years
ago. Each of these species is limited to the mountain forests of only one or
two islands. It would seem that this genus has produced several new species
to exploit the new food source and that these species are so young that they
havent yet had time to spread far beyond their origins.

The best example that I can give you is the butterfly, the genus of butterfly
known as Hedylypta. Hedylypta is a genus of butterfly that feeds on
various plants. Its endemic to the Hawaiian Islands, which means its only
found there. And there turn out to be two species of Hedylypta with
mouthparts that only allow them to feed on bananas. Now why is that
significant? It is significant because bananas are not native to the Hawaiian
Islands. They were introduced about 1,000 years ago by the Polynesians--
we know this from the written records of the Hawaiian Kingdom-- and
what that means is that by mutation and natural selection, these two species
have emerged on the Hawaiian Islands within the last 1,000 years.
The point not to miss above is, the animals can eat only bananas. Without
bananas available, the butterflies can not exist.

Heres another. In the November 7th or November 14th issue of Science
magazine, a number of investigators wanted to test the Darwinian
hypothesis that you folks say is never tested, and the way in which they
did this was to take the receptor protein for the human growth hormone--
its a receptor to which the human growth hormone fits in precisely-- and
they did it a terrible genetic disservice. They mutated-- they cut out an
essential amino acid right in the middle of the receptor, called tryptophan.
With that gone, just like that mousetrap, it wouldnt have been expected
to work. They then allowed a natural selectoin process to take place to see
whether the cells under their own observation could matate the receptor
gene sufficiently to bind the receptor, and after seven generations, lo and
behold, there it was. It illustrates beautifully the ability of natural
selection to respond to mutations in proteins to co-evolve.
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html and
http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences/ensatina.htm
http://www.scar.utoronto.ca/~thompson/course/Speciation/
http://lycoris.s.chiba-u.ac.jp/lycoris/study/island/island.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/sympatric_speciation.html
http://www.bcu.ubc.ca/~whitlock/QGPG/Speciation/Lecture.html
http://www.otago.ac.nz/Zoology/genetics/weta.html
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/2811.html
http://netec.mcc.ac.uk/WoPEc/data/Papers/wopiasawpIR97072.html
==
A bird by definition only [Aves is now defined as all descendants of the
last common ancestor of Archy and modern birds]. It is also a reptile and a
dinosaur, according to those very same classifications.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/genera/archaeopteryx.html
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/taxa/avialae.html
http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/jdp.htm#archie
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
Birds are within Reptilia, according to modern classifications.
Archaeopteryx is basically just a little dinosaur with feathers. [It also
turns out feathers werent restricted to Aves within Dinosauria.]
We dont know what the lungs were like in Archy and in the related groups of
dinos and early birds, but the skeletal evidence indicates that they too had
birdlike air sacs connected with the lungs.

Sinornithosaurus,
One of the several known non-avian dinos with feathers or feather-like
coverings:
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/genera/sinornithosaurus.html

Others include Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Protarchaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/genera/caudipteryx.html
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/genera/beipiaosaurus.html
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/genera/protarchaeopteryx.html
http://dinosaur.umbc.edu/genera/sinosauropteryx.html

They do have fossils of early whale pelvises and
hind limbs

http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Ambulocet.html
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/Locomotion.htm
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/rhulbert/whale_morph.htm#pelvis
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/Anat/whaleorigins.htm
http://x60.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622189367
http://www2.gasou.edu/facstaff/rhulbert/whale_morph.htm

Whale pelvises became greatly reduced and
vestigial, along with the hind limbs. Whales stopped using the hind limbs
in locomotion as the big tail took over. There are fossils of intermediate
stages in hind limb and pelvis reduction in early whales.

Basilosaurus. There are numerous
remains of whole Basilosaurus skeletons, including hind limbs.

http://www.intersurf.com/~heinrich/Basilosaurus1.html
http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/BasilandDor.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_piths.html

mesohippus,
MacFadden, Bruce J. Fossil horses : systematics, paleobiology, and evolution
of the family equidae Cambridge [England] ; New York : Cambridge University
Press, 1994. ?

http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/horse_valid.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses.html
http://www.onthenet.com.au/~stear/horse_evolution.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html
http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/prob.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr98.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html#ABIOGENESIS
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/complexity.html#thermo
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
==
section of the talk.origins Age of the Earth FAQ:
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#constant
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isocolinear

References are provided in the relevant FAQs. In particular, the
key reference for your change to decay rate argument is:

Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates
in Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science 22, pp. 165-202.

The referenced article contains (1) a theoretical discussion on
potential change to decay rates (restrictions based on the known
physics of radioactive decay) as well as (2) a detailed list of
references to experiments which attempted to obtain and measure
a change to rates of decay.
The upshot/summary is: (1) minor changes to decay rates of some
isotopes have been observed, but not any of the isotopes relevant
to geological dating; and (2) theoretical considerations pretty
much rule out any noticeable change (more than a percent or two)
under anything resembling conditions that would be found on or in
the Earth.
==
Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the ICR cant deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.
==
The trick here is to realise that evolution is not a posited event. Nobody
said, so far as we know, that humanity would evolve on Earth.
That is what a posited event would be. Predicting something would happen
ahead of time, and then having it happen. _After_ the event, the chance
that said event occured is 100%. It is too late to place your bets after the
cosmic croupier spins the wheel.
==
There is no evidence that runs counter to the observed fact of evolution.
Lies, ignorance and religion do not pose a threat to the scientific
study of evolution.Evidence opposed to evolution should be presented; it is
just that there is none.
==
Evolution is simply the change in allele frequency over time and is
usually used to referred to the theories of common descent and natural
selection as well (which is a derivative of evolutionary theory).
Evolution is one of the most supported theories in all of science. There is
literally mountains of evidence spanning molecular biology, genetics,
paleotology, geology, and biology. It is so well accepted in scientifc
communities that it is perverse to dispute - there is just too much
evidence supporting it.
In science, something is often both a fact and a theory. A
scientific theory (such as the Heliocentric Theory, General Relativity,
Quantum Mechanics, etc.) is a hypothesis and a model for the
explantion of something in the natural world, that is so supported by
evidence that it is no longer contested. It is in many respects the
same thing as a fact. Of course this differs dramatically from the
colloquial and legal uses of the word theory.
==
The genome changes slightly every time it copies itself in cellular
reproduction do to slight errors. For the most part these errors are
corrected for or in the vast majority of cases, they are irrelevant.
Occasionally, the genetic information in an egg or a sperm cell is
changed slightly through a variety of natural processes (radiation,
copying error, etc.) resulting in a slightly different genetic
structure in the genes that are still turned on. In post embryotic
development the majority of genes are turned off so mutations have no
effect, but in the first cells, most of the genes are on allowing for
the expression of mutations. Some of these mutations are harmful, some
are beneficial, some are both beneficial and harmful depending upon the
environment (like the Sickle cell gene), but again the vast majority
are neutral. The combination of this random change and the
environments selection of this mutated cell is what adds information
to the genome.
==
Without a scientific theory of creation, you have no alternative to
evolution. Evolution is in the position of being the simplest
scientific explanation most congruent and consistent with the evidence
we currently have. For it to be displaced, you must have a better
scientific theory that is more consistent and congruent with the
evidence. Excluding, of course, those explanations that are
nonexplanations, but merely a theological Goddidit that could be
consistent with anything found in nature. The latter may be even true,
but is not science.
==
Then theyve got to hide the paucity of transitional forms.
No, they dont. There are millions of transitional forms. Perhaps
you need to get a good paleontology book and look them up.
Name one that the scientific community is in overwhelming consensus
is a transitional form.
This is of course a creationist strawman. The scientific community
views all species on the evolutionary tree, with the noted exception of
those that died out completely without descendant species, as
transitional forms. Pretty much every fossil found falls under the
category of a transitional form.
==
April 1981 Scientific American THE ORIGIN OF GENETIC INFORMATION
about self-organizing RNA systems.
==
Vermeij, Geerat J. Evolution and escalation: an ecological history of
life. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987.
==
Mosquin, T., 1967. Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium
(Onaagraceae), Evolution 21:713-719

Steven M. Stanley, 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41 ISBN 0-7167-1092-7

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts,
Harvard University Press. p. 348

Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids
and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages
1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism,
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution,
phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of
Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric,
speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of
duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of
diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45,
Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated
introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume
88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and
adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi
superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for
rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution.
V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes).
Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event?
(response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357.
P26(1) May 7, 1992.
Abstract:

Analysis of contact between two chromosomal races of house mice in
northern Italy show that natural selection will produce alleles that bar
interracial matings if the resulting offspring are unfit hybrids. This is
an important exception to the general rule that intermixing races will not
tend to become separate species because the constant sharing of genes
minimizes the genetic diversity requisite for speciation.

Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in
Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May,
1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in
the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal
of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to
forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.
Abstract:

The climatic and geographic history of the Pleistocene and Holocene
periods modified the distribution of the bird population in the South
American forests. Forest birds are found dispersed in the Yungas and
Paranese areas with only minimal infiltration of the Chaco woodland,
indicating an atmospheric change during the interglacial periods. In the
Chaco lowlands, the interactions between non-forest birds reveal the
existence of presence of a forest belt along the Bermejo and Pilcomayo
rivers.

Kondrashov, Alexey S.. Jablonka, Eva. Lamb, Marion J.. Species and
speciation. (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992).
Nature. V356. P752(1) April 30, 1992.
Abstract:

J.A. Coyne wrongly asserted that neodarwinism includes allopatric
evolution but not sympatric evolution. Allopatric evolution occurs among
geographically isolated populations, whereas sympatric evolution occurs
within one species entire population. Both are neodarwinian since each
results from natural selection of genetic variation. Also, Coyne failed to
recognize that the molecular models used to illustrate how genetic changes
bring on speciation are most useful when researchers acknowledge that both
inherited epigenetic and genetic changes affect speciation.

Spooner, David M.. Sytsma, Kenneth J.. Smith, James F.. A molecular
reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium.
Evolution. V45. P757(8) May, 1991.

Orr, H. Allen. Is single-gene speciation possible?. Evolution. V45.
P764(6) May, 1991.

Miller, Julie Ann. Pathogens and speciation. (Research Update).
BioScience. V40. P714(1) Nov, 1990.

Barton, N.H. Hewitt, G.M. Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones; many
species are divided into a mosaic of genetically distinct populations,
separated by narrow zones of hybridization. Studies of hybrid zones allow
us to quantify the genetic differences responsible for speciation, to
measure the diffusion of genes between diverging taxa, and to understand
the spread of alternative adaptations. (includes related information)
Nature. V341. P497(7) Oct 12, 1989.

Wright, Karen. A breed apart; finicky flies lend credence to a theory of
speciation. Scientific American. V260. P22(2) Feb, 1989.

Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila.
Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

Feder, Jeffrey L. Bush, Guy L. A field test of differential host-plant
usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies
(Diptera: Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of
speciation. Evolution. V43. P1813(7) Dec, 1989.

Soltis, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Allopolyploid speciation in
Tragopogon: insights from chloroplast DNA. The American Journal of Botany.
V76. P1119(6) August, 1989.

Coyne, J.A. Barton, N.H. What do we know about speciation?. Nature. V331.
P485(2) Feb 11, 1988.

Barton, N.H. Jones, J.S. Mallet, J. No barriers to speciation.
(morphological evolution). Nature. V336. P13(2) Nov 3, 1988.

Kaneshiro, Kenneth Y. Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual
selection appears to play an important role. BioScience. V38. P258(6)
April, 1988.
==
There is an octopus that eats crabs. The crabs are heavily armoured. Heres
how the octopus gets its meal: First it pins down the crab so that it cant do
it any damage with its pincer. Then it selects a spot on the crabs shell above
its heart. It then, using its tongue, which has teeth on it, rasps away at the
shell. After 45 minutes it breaks through. Then it, using its second tongue,
which has a sharp point, drills down into the crabs heart. Once dead the
octopus can then dismember the crab and eat it.
==
Homologue: The same organ in different animals under every variety of
form and function
Analogue: A part or organ in one animal which has the same function as
another part in a different animal.
[Ref Panchen 1992, 65.]
==
The Jurassic frog _Vieraella_ is morphologically very similar to some modern
forms. Does this mean that some frogs have undergone little if any evolution
in the last 180 million years? No it doesnt. When one looks at the genome
of frogs, one finds more variation in the group than in all of the mammals
combined. Frogs have more variation that that between bats and whales and
yet their morphology is much more conserved than mammals. Pakicetus to
Ambulocetus natans to Rhodocetus to Basilosaurus isis in the evolution of
whales from mesonychid predecessors.
Thewissen, J.G.M. and Fish, F.E., 1997. Locomotor evolution in the earliest
cetaceans: functional model, modern analogues, and paleontological evidence.
Paleobiology, v.23, no.4, p.482-490. In that publication, the authors
refer to the muskrat as a pelvic paddler, in which most of the
propulsion is derived from the paddling of the hind feet, so it does
not
sound like the tail is involved much, although many aquatic mammals
have
different swimming modes (e.g., the river otter -- somewhat analogous
to
different gaits in terrestrial animals), so maybe the tail is used
sometimes in other modes. Anyway, the paper includes references to
other
literature on the subject that are no doubt more detailed. These
include:

Fish, F., 1982b. Function of the compressed tail of surface swimming
muskrats (_Ondatra_zibethicus_). Journal of Mammalogy, v.63, p.591-597.

Fish, F., 1984. Mechanics, power output and efficiency of the swimming
muskrat (_Ondatra_zibethicus_). Journal of Experimental Biology,
v.110, p.183-201.
==
http://fp.bio.utk.edu/darwin/
Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma
Biologists have known for at least a century that whales are descended
from land-living mammals, because whales are definitely mammals, with
milk, 3 middle ear bones, and other features that are diagnostic of mammals,
and we know that the earliest mammals were terrestrial and evolved from
terrestrial reptiles. Molecular evidence and some anatomical features
indicated that whales are related to hoofed mammals, particularly to the
group that includes pigs and cows. Until recently, the earliest known fossil
whales were fully aquatic animals, whale-like in every respect. Within the
last few years, that situation has changed. The artist has put some flesh on
the bones in this picture, but the bones show intermediates, such as
Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus, that were structurally like this condylarth,
a member of the group that gave rise to hoofed mammals. These animals
had partly functional hind legs and could move on land rather like seals,
but they also propelled themselves as whales do, by moving the tail up
and down. A somewhat later form was Basilosaurus, a fully aquatic early
whale. Specimens of Basilosaurus have now been found with legs that
were structurally complete, but too small to function.
I mentioned that we know that mammals evolved from reptiles. This is
beautifully documented by intermediate fossils. Here are a few of the many
intermediates that show the stepwise evolution of mammals from synapsid
reptiles over the course of about 80 million years. In the skull alone, these
fossil forms show stepwise changes in the evolution of the brain case; in the
secondary palate, which separates the mouth cavity of mammals from the
respiratory passage, but which is lacking in reptiles; the transition from
simple, single-cusped teeth to the complex teeth of mammals, with multiple
cusps on the molars and premolars; and especially the evolution of the lower
jaw. In reptiles, this consisted of several bones, one of which, the
articular, formed the joint with the quadrate bone of the skull. In the
transitional forms, the dentary bone of the lower jaw became bigger and
bigger, the other lower jaw bones became smaller and looser, and the dentary
formed a second joint with the skull, articulating with the squamosal bone.
Finally, the dentary/squamosal became the new joint, and the articular and
quadrate bones became detached and modified into the hammer and anvil bones
of the middle ear, where they serve for sound transmission. This
transformation of these bones can be seen, repeated today, in the embryos of
primitive mammals such as opossums. But the fossil record is only one source
of evidence, and by no means the most important one, for evolution. We have
observed evolution occurring before our eyes - mostly rather small changes
to be sure, but at rates that if sustained for a few thousand years would
produce major transformations equal to what we see in the fossil record.
We have seen a major crisis in health care develop because organisms that
cause malaria, tuberculosis, gonorrrhea, AIDS, and other diseases evolve
resistance to antibiotics. We have seen almost 400 species of insect pests
evolve resistance to chemical insecticides, and evolve the ability to attack
strains of crops that had been bred for insect resistance. We have documented
changes within a few decades in the diet of several insects, such as the
apple maggot, which didnt attack apples until about a century ago. We have
seen evolutionary change in the life histories of codling moths and other
insects, in the direction that bird species migrate, and in the skeletal
dimensions and coloration of birds such as the house sparrow. We have seen
plants adapt to herbicides and toxic soils, and have seen new species of
plants arise. Finally, the molecular revolution in biology has furnished us
with mountains of information that not only attests to the history of
evolution, but also sheds ever more light on evolutionary processes. From
the similarity of DNA sequences among different species, we obtain entirely
new data on their phylogenetic relationships. Here, for example, is a small
excerpt from some DNA sequence data, showing how the phylogeny of 4 species
can be inferred. Notice that the DNA sequences range from about 96% to more
than 98% identical. These species happen to be human (1), chimpanzee (2),
gorilla (3), and orangutan (4). The data imply that humans are most closely
related to chimpanzees and least closely related to orangutans among the
great apes. Here, from the same DNA study, is a phylogeny of a broader range
of primates: it portrays the same relationships as those we infer from
anatomy and from the DNA sequences of other genes. That is, independent
sources of information point to the same answer -- a consilience of evidence
that throughout science is taken as one of the strongest indications that the
hypothesis is true. The particular significance of this study is that the
DNA sequence is a pseudogene: a formerly functional gene that has been
silenced and serves no function at all. The similarities between humans and
chimpanzees in this DNA sequence are due to mutations that occurred since
these species separated from their common ancestor -- mutations that have
no effect whatever on the organism, since the gene is inoperative.

B isis has hooves as did its ancestor Pakicetus. Pakicetus lacks the ability
to flood its sinuses with blood...necessary for deep diving...a feature
which Isis has. The predicted transitional stage Ambulocetus had strong
legs & could move both on land and in water.

==
Order is above Family, and the suborder Archaeoceti (fossil whales which show
a progression of features leading to suborder Mysticeti and suborder
Odontoceti, both of Order Cetacea) are clearly ancestral to modern whales.
The early members of suborder Archaeoceti are four-limbed, while the later
members have fins and small hindlimbs.
==
BIOLOGY:
Developing a New View of Evolution
Elizabeth Pennisi and Wade Roush
Science 1997 July 4; 277: 34-37. (in Special News Report)

DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY:
Possible New Roles for HOX Genes
Steven Dickman
Science 1997 December 12; 278: 1882-1883. (in Research News)
==
Mitsuru Shimamura, Hiroshi Yasue, Kazuhiko Ohshima, Hideaki Abe, Hidehiro
Kato, Toshiya Kishiro, Mutsuo Goto, Isao Munechika, and Norihiro Okada,
1997 (Aug. 14). Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a
clade with even-toed ungulates. Nature, v.388, p.666-670.
==
Actually, one of the best examples of a transitional sequence, discovered by
two snail species, in fine gradations, occurs in a sedimentary layer that
covers only about 1,000 years. Because this is so rapid, in geological
terms, the transition is what Gould refers to as a punctuation. I.e., it is
extremely fortuitous that the transition was captured in such a fleeting
time period. Most times such rapid transitions are lost in the sedimentary
record.
==
There are about 60 genera and 3000 described species of Drosophilidae
(fruit fly).
There are 39,000 species of spiders known
There are 25,000 species of grasshoppers.
There are 9,000 species of sponges.
==
Evolution is a process by which populations of organisms change their
inherited characteristics over time. The Fact of evolution includes
allele frequency changes in a population, speciation, and common
descent. It is a fact because it has been observed. The Theory of
Evolution, which explains the FoE includes imperfect reproduction,
neutral drift, and differential reproductive success as mechanisms.
Evolution biology studies the FoE and modifies the ToE.

The Darwins theory of evolution, which includes evolution, natural
selection and common descent, was formulated based on a variety of
observations. These included the structure of taxonomy, the geographical
distribution of some plants and animals (especially on the Galapogos
islands), details of animal development, observations from selective
breeding and observations from geology included the inferred age of the
earth and fossils remains.
After the theory was formulated, new evidence confirmed major portions
of Darwins theory. The evidence also dispelled some portions of it. The
most important disproven portions of Darwins theory are, blending
inheritance and the inheritance of acquired characteristics -- both
overturned by Mendelian genetics.
(The inheritance of acquired characteristics was first postulated by
Lamarck. Darwin did not include this as a mechanism of evolution in the
first edition of his book. In one of the later editions (the 3rd?), he
added it.)
Subsequent fossil evidence bolstered the theory tremendously. The first
big find after Origins was published was _Archaeopteryx_, which showed
both reptilian and avian (bird) characters.
Most of our genome is the product of gene duplication.
There was a piece in Science a few years ago by Walter Gilbert and
others, reporting on efforts to identify the number of different
protein folding domains or motifs. The estimate was about fifty.
Nature prefers discovery to invention.
In science, undetectable agents are not recognized. Undetectable agents
could be behind every theory in science. This possibility is worthless
information. Science requires only that theories be consistent with
observations. Darwins theory fits all the known facts.
But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the
postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny
solutions are the proof of evolutionary paths that a sensible God would never
tread but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce.
No one understood this better than Darwin. Ernst Mayr has shown how Darwin,
in defending evolution, consistently turned to organic parts and geographic
distributions that make the least sense. Which brings me to the giant panda
and its thumb. --Stephen Jay Gould (The Pandas Thumb)
The gap between modern cold- and warm-blooded vertebrates is neatly filled by
intermediate fossil forms. Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is known from fewer
than half a dozen specimens, but one of them has a well-preserved brain cast.
This intermediate form with feathers and reptilian teeth had a brain that
plots right in the middle of the unfilled area between modern reptiles and
birds.
==
Plant-like traits associated with metabolism of Trypanosoma parasites
Veronique Hannaert, Emma Saavedra, Francis Duffieux, Jean-Pierre Szikora,
Daniel J. Rigden, Paul A. M. Michels, and Fred R. Opperdoes
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
vol. 100 no. 3 (February 4, 2003), pages 1067-1071
The data suggest that kinetoplastids and euglenoids acquired plastids by
endosymbiosis before their divergence and that the former lineage
subsequently lost the organelle but retained numerous genes.6
==
Paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the
so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint - one composed of the
old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the
other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that
matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest
human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright
stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any apes of the same body size
but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?
==
Designers are not forced to create an artificial ancestory for their
products and do all their designing only by modifying parts in the ancestory.
Designers can mix and match. Designers can come up with whole new systems
out of thin air. Evolution cant do that. Thus a system which only has
features that look evolved can be said to appear not designed. We cannot
prove there was no design involved, but there is no evidence for a design.

The oldest synapsids had jaws with several bones, and later
ones (e.g. Diarthrognathus) had the same bones with a dual role in the
jaw and in the ear, and why later synapsids, such as all mammals, have
the same bones in the ear only.
==
When biologists write about the Shannon-Weaver information content of the
genome, or of protein sequences, etc, they do so by making the structure
relative to random sequences of nucleotides or proteins. The choice of
protocol determines the information content. I believe that this is also
true of classifications of taxa. How informative a classification is
depends on what the probability of that classification is - a Bayesian
measure of likelihood.
==
The classic living example of an early chordate (notochord but no vertebrae)
is Amphioxus. The new discoveries of Pikaia and Yunnanozoon show that things
like Amphioxus are old enough to be the real ancestors of all vertebrates -
as predicted by evolutionary theory.
==
All evolutionary processes have selective, innovative, and conservative
mechanisms. The innovative mechanism of evolution, mutation/variation, is
favored through the selective process, natural selection, and the
conservative process, simply passing down through DNA, keeps the beneficial
changes that arent selected out.
==
If you look at human DNA statistically, most of it is repetitive DNA that
doesnt code for protein. Some of it is found in other mammals and some is
specific to our species, suggesting that it turns over fairly fast. Another
kind of non-coding region is called a psudogene. Its recognizably similar
to a known gene but doesnt have the proper start sequences and is riddled
with mutations. These are thought to be do to inactivated duplicates of
normal genes or to retroviruses that incorporated into the genome and
couldnt get out again. Some of them carry along normal mammalian genes that
get incorporated in an inactive form. Some of the pseudogenes we share with
apes, suggesting that theyre very old. One of these codes for vitamin C.
The gene for ascorbic acid synthesis is defective in all the great apes,
including humans). Then there are introns. Most of our genes dont have
the part that codes for protein in a continuous string. Theyre broken up
by non-coding regions. The DNA is transcribed to RNA and the extra pieces
(called introns) are spliced out of the RNA in the nucleus. The final
edited version, messenger RNA goes out into the ribosomes to make protein.
The splicing process allows for alternate splicing of different stretches of
RNA. The functional analogy in programming would be software modules. There
is only a crude error correction, with very little backup. When DNA
replicates, the replication machinery buttons an extra molecule of the energy
source ATP to check one time that the copying was accurate. For most genes,
we have two copies. But on the X chromosome, males only have one copy, and
females inactivate one of their two copies. But the inactivation isnt
perfect and they may inactivate different copies in different cells, so they
have some protection. The clotting factor for hemophilia, Factor VIII, is on
the X chromosome, some males have one copy only. And its a million DNA
bases long, so its very prone to get a bad mutation. Its so big that
theres an entire gene within one of its introns. By contrast, there are
back-up functional copies for some genes. Some developmental genes are
difficult to study because if you knock one out, the animal has enough
effect off the other copy that the result is normal development.
By contrast, bacteria have small genomes in which almost all the DNA codes
for proteins. Apparently the competitive conditions under which they grow
give an advantage to using all the DNA for code. None of this immediately
suggests intelligent design. Some of the concepts of human designers provide
interesting ways of thinking about it. One is the idea of a trade-off.
Very DNA repair mechanisms demand energy. They should be more of an
advantage to long-lived organisms whose offspring have a good chance of
survival. And that is what we see. But that aspect of design is just as
well explained by evolution as by intelligent design. It looks different to
different people, obviously, but one view is that DNA replication is like a
clever early idea (the code) which was frozen because so many other
aspects of metabolism were organized around it, on top of which there is a
baroque arrangement of ad hoc patches, hacks, kludges, and hasty repairs.
All cases where there is evidence observable in the present indicate that
biological and biochemical systems can and do evolve by mechanisms which
flow naturally from observable biological principles acting without apparent
intelligent direction.
==
Any eucaryote has more or less junk DNA. Some are parsimonious, with
few introns and little non-coding sequence (yeast, Arapodopsis thalania
among plants, Drosophila). Others are extravagently wasteful and
junky (ferns, mammals). Bacteria are truely parsimonious.
==
http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/index.htm
http://www.bbc.peachnet.edu/academic_svcs/art_science/chambers/pol101/
sci_meth.htm
http://www.scientificmethod.com/i_7.htm
http://www.bbc.peachnet.edu/academic_svcs/art_science/chambers/pol101/
theory.htm
==
A more philosophically deep and biologically informed discussion can be
found in most editions of _Cladism_ or _Systematic Biology_
==
Are zebrafish, dogfish, clownfish or catfish transitionals between fish
and mammals?
==
Paleontologists have studied rocks all around the world and all through the
Earths geology. Grass does not show up until well after dinosaurs are
extinct, as macrofossils or as pollen. Grass pollen is pretty distinctive,
and would be hard to miss. Grass evolution didnt really take off until the
Miocene or so.

TI The earliest remains of grasses in the fossil record.
AU CREPET-W-L; FELDMAN-G-D
SO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY 78(7): 1010-1014
PY 1991
AB New fossils provide the earliest unequivocal evidence of grasses.
Spikelets and inflorescence fragments with included pollen from
Paleocene/EoceneWilcox Formation in western Tennessee (USA) have a suite
of diagnostic characters that limits their affinities to Poaceae.
Associated vegetative remains are also suggestive of grasses, but are
not well enough preserved for an unequivocal identification. These
fossils indicate a minimal time of origin for the family, are consistent
with an Upper Cretaceous origin of Poaceae, and suggest that as in
wind-pollinated Hamamelididae, wind pollination evolved in grasses or
persisted in the grass lineage (if a wind-pollinated grass sister group
is presumed) in dry tropical environments.

The grasses [Poaceae or Gramineae] is one of the largest plant families;
with, IIRC, with more than 6 subfamilies, many tribes and several hundred of
genera and several thousand species.
==
The meaning of random is not predictable except by means of statistical
distributions. In evolutionary theory, it implies that mutations are not
directed by the needs of the organism.
-------
Scientists studied a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the
simplest known organism. The organism's genetic code is about 580,000 letters
long and spells out 480 protein-producing genes plus 37 "species" of RNA. After
"knocking out" various protein-coding genes, the scientists have estimated that
265 to 350 of this bacterium's genes are "essential" for the organism to live
and reproduce under laboratory conditions.
==
Gene duplication is important because it is a way to get new genes. Once
a gene has been duplicated one copy can change while the other remains
the same. For some genes, such as regulatory genes, a small change in the
gene will havea large effect on the organism. Almost all of the time these
changes will be very harmful; mutations in these genes are what most people
think of when they hear the word mutation. As you might expect these genes
change very little. They are said to be conserved.
==
The deposits at El Fayum in Egypt contain fossils of anthropoid and
pre-anthropoid primates from the Oligocene and Miocene. These fossils
consist of fairly young individuals who seem to have died when they failed
in their attempts to leap a gap between trees over a fast running river
surrounded by a gallery forest. The fell to their deaths into the river and
were quickly buried in the river mud.
==
Sci_Am published an article that addressed this question (The Birth of
Complex Cells, April 1996, pg. 50). Briefly, the author (Christian de
Duve) suggests a sequence which I will describe in a bit. But, to answer at
least part of your question here, according to this article, there are
eukaryotic cells that lack mitochondria. The author points out that these
cells could have sprung from stock that never incorporated mitochondria or
stock that lost its mitochondria at some point in the past. He also indicates
that there is a debate as to whether or not this happened more than once or
if one cell successfully incorporated mitochondria and gave rise to all the
mitochondrial eukaryotic cells extant today (which, as I understand it, is
the majority opinion). Finally, he indicates that mitochondria precursor
organisms were not likely the first to be incorporated within eukaryotic
cells but rather it was a precursor organism to peroxisomes organelles which
are as widely distributed as mitochondria. At least one objection stands to
this possibility as peroxisome have not contain independent genetic systems.
He argues that, being more primative than mitochondria and plastids, they
have lost there DNA (which means did the nuclear DNA of the host cell take
on the protein encoding requirements that the lost DNA took with it?). The
sequence of events he offers is as follows: Prokarotic cells loose their
cell wall leaving only a membrane. Ribosomes line the inner surface of the
membrane and produce digestive enzymes that are released into the surrounding
environment. The resultant nutrients are absorded thru the cell membrane.
The cell membrane becomes convoluted, allowing a larger surface area of the
cell for absorbing greater amounts of nutrients from the surrounding
environment. Continued folding of the membrane produces pockets within the
organism. These pockets in turn contain a quantity of the surrounding
environment and digestive enzymes not only break down the material outside
the cell, but inside as well. DNA, up to this point, remains attached to
the outer cell membrane. Once pockets of this membrane start to pinch off
inside the cell, the DNA strand migrates to the center by virtue of being
attached to one of the pieces of membrane. Cells are now proficient at
engulfing surrounding bits of their environment and bringing them in for
digestion. Skeletal elements form that allow for increased ability to flex
the outer membrane and allows the cellto move material about inside the cell.
Ribosomes are no longer needed to line the outer membrane as food is
obtained and brought into the cell while enzymes are delivered to the
digestive sacs by way of expanding internal compartments. DNA is increasing
in quantity and some of these compartments flatten to form a layer that
surround the DNA. Eventually, a primative phagocyte (eating cell) forms
via this process that includes flagella for movement within the enviroment,
a true nucleus formed by the fusion of the various enveloping compartments\
described in the last step, and the development of increasingly complex and
specialized structures such as the golgi apparatus. The author suggests the
appearance of organelles within these phagocytic cells resulted from the
absorption of certain free existing prokaryotic cells. The specific order
he suggests is that peroxisome precursor cells were incorporated first
followed by the precursor mitochondria cells and finally plastids.
==
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) German evolutionist
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan97.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-debates.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
==
There is a microorganism that reproduces sexually, and yet the DNA for the
male and female versions are identical. However, the male and female
versions are so different that for many years biologists had no idea that
they were even close to the same species. Anyway, the determination of male
and female is made because of environmental factors which each cause the
organism to interpret its DNA differently. This does show that the same set
of genes can code for radically different organisms depending on the way the
organism interprets them. Turtles and alligators develop into male or female
according to incubation temperature of the eggs.
==
Dinosaur extinction
Over the past few decades, the rise and fall of the dinosaurs has captured
the imagination of the public and the scientific community alike. While it is
clear that the impact of a large asteroid straddling the coastline of what is
the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico some 65 million years ago, may have wiped
out these magnificent reptiles, the debate still rages as to precisely how
they met their demise.
Many scenarios have been suggested, including a kind of nuclear winter in
which enormous quantities of dust were ejected into the stratosphere,
circling the globe and blotting out sunlight for weeks or months. But not
everyone agrees that such a successful biological lineage as the dinosaurs
could have been obliterated in this way. Scientists have worked out the
events that occasioned themselves immediately after the KT impact.
In a recent paper communicated in Ecology Letters, they explain that the
levels of nitrogen and sulphur oxides produced during the impact event would
have all but destroyed the ozone layer, thereby doubling the levels of lethal
UV radiation incident on the earths surface. This deluge of ionising
radiation would have put additional stresses on the biosphere already
stretched to the extreme by the impact. What is even more remarkable
though, is that significant sulphate deposits are only found over 1 percent
of the earths surface, rendering the KT extinction event particularly
lethal for the dinosaurs, but not for our kind - the small, furry,
milk-suckling mammals.
==
A mutation in the genome of single or perhaps a few individual specimens gave
those with this mutation a reproductive advantage once the new environment
(i.e. one with the antibiotic) was in place. Prior to the change in the
environment the mutation, like the vast majority of mutations, was neutral to
the survival of the specimen. After the introduction of the antibiotics,
however, there the few specimens with the mutation had such an advantage that
they were the only ones to survive to reproduce.Therefore after a generation or
two, there was a substantial change in the allele frequency (the definition of
evolution, by the way) of the bacteria population.
==
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are
abundant between larger groups.
Gould, S.J. (1983) Evolution as Fact and Theory, reprinted in _Hens
Teeth and Horses Toes_, pp. 253-262. This was originally published
in _Discover_ magazine, May 1981.
--------
[Q.] What is the purpose of talk.origins?
[A.] The purpose of talk.origins is to provide a forum for
discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins.
See the talk.origins Welcome FAQ, the Archive welcome file and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-welcome.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/welcome.html
Talk.Origins Archives Must-Read FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

Dont you have to be an atheist to accept evolution?
No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution
as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/interpretations.html

Isnt evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology?
No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as
any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that
rely on philosophy are misguided. See the Evolution and Philosophy
FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html


[Q.] I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?
[A.] Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of
a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological
evolution also refers to the common descent of all living organisms
from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution --
genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is
also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the
mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact
and a theory.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

[Q.] If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil
record? Shouldnt there be more transitional fossils?
[A.] Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation
occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of
time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record.
Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant.
[U.]
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Hominids FAQ and the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

[Q.] No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you
know its true?
[A.] Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

[Q.] Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear?
[A.] Speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

[Q.] Doesnt the perfection of the human body prove Creation?
[A.] No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal
characteristics.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of
chance occurrence. Doesnt that make evolution wildly improbable?
Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also
a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ
and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html
the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance

[Q.] Doesnt evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all,
order cannot come from disorder.
[A.] Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order
emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and
embryos develop, etc.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo

[Q.] Didnt Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?
[A.] The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant.
A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is
supported by the facts, not according to who believes it.
[U.] http://www.ediacara.org/hope.html

Where can I learn more about evolution?
You might start with the talk.origins FAQs. If, however, you
want a thorough understanding of evolution, a library would be a more
appropriate place to look. The following FAQs provide some good
references: the Creation/Evolution Reading List, the Introduction to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html
Evolutionary Biology FAQ, the What is Evolution? FAQ, and the
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
Talk.Origins Archives Evolution FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

[Q.] How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says its
young.
[A.] According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known
to be approximately 4.55 billion years old. Most young-earth
arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully
selected and often erroneous data points.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-youngearth.html

[Q.] But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-
contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions
are wrong?
[A.] Isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred,
while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical
observations support the notion that decay rates are constant.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

[Q.] I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that
light from galaxies billions of light years away might not be billions
of years old. Is this true?
[A.] Barry Setterfields hypothesis of a decaying speed of light was based
on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which
were taken hundreds of years ago.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

[Q.] If the Earth is so old, doesnt that mean the Earths decaying
magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time?
[A.] No. The Earths magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity
and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planets
history.
[U.] http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html

Isnt the fossil record a result of the global flood described
in the Book of Genesis?
No. A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils
observed in the geological record. This was recognized even prior to
the proposal of evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Flood FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archives Flood Geology FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers?
They have natural explanations: tree-roots that grew into
soft, underlying layers of clay, and fossils found in inclined strata.
They can also be observed forming in modern environments. See the
Polystrate Fossils FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html

What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur
footprints?
The man-tracks of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas
were not man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and
others were human carvings. See the FAQ on the Texas Dinosaur/Man
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
Track Controversy.

Didnt they find Noahs Ark? I saw something on TV about this.

The producers of Americas 1993 CBS television show, The
Incredible Discovery of Noahs Ark, were hoaxed. Other ark discovery
claims have not been substantiated. See the FAQ on Sun Pictures and
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax.html

The odds against a simple cell coming into being without
divine intervention are staggering.
And irrelevant. Scientists dont claim that cells came into
being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved
from more primitive precursors. See the Interim Abiogenesis FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html


Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they
be wrong?
The quality of an argument is not determined by the
credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known
creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many
creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of
context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Credentials FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archives Creationism FAQs.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didnt he show that Earth has
experienced a lot of major catastrophes?
No, he simply claimed that certain written legends must have
described real events. See the Talk.Origins Archives Catastrophism
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html
FAQs and the Velikovsky FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-velikovsky.html

Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution
debate?
Contact the National Center for Science Education, or see the
http://www.NatCenSciEd.org/
Talk.Origins Archive and its Other links page. Also see the
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html
talk.origins Book Recommendations FAQ and the Creation/Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html
Organizations and Periodicals FAQ.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/organizations.html
==
Male mules are sterile due to Haldane's Rule, i.e., where one sex of a
hybrid is fertile, the other sterile, it is the heterogametic sex that
is sterile. This is true even of hybrids between species that don't
have chromosomal differences such as house cat and bobcat. If the
difference in chromosome number were the only problem, female mules
would still be about half as fertile as either donkeys or horses.
Female mules are poorly fertile because there are considerable
differences in the gene arrangements on the chromosomes of horses and
donkeys in addition to the difference in chromosome number and the
liklihood of meiosis producing an egg carrying exactly one full
complement of genes is very small. There was a Scientific American
article on mules back in the 70's in which it was claimed that a
female mules eggs contained either all horse chromosomes or all donkey
chromosomes so that a cross back to a stallion would produce horses
and mules whereas a cross back to a donkey would produce donkeys and
mules.

Przewalski horse ....
http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/prz.html

Some authorities believe the Przewalski is a direct ancestor of the modern day
domesticated horse. Others contend this is not possible as the Przewalski is a
different species having sixty-six chromosomes while the domestic horse carries
sixty-four. It is possible to cross the Przewalski with the domestic horse, and
the resulting hybrid is fertile; however this offspring has sixty-five
chromosomes. When crossed again to the domestic horse, the new generation
returns to sixty-four chromosomes and little influence of the Przewalski horse
is evident.
==
In the tropical rain forest, there are 23 plants which are specialized to
give ants a place to live in their leaves. Each plant species has a specific
ant species associated with it.
==
Although it is called a crab, it is neither a decopod or crustacean, rather
horseshoe crabs are grouped in their own class (Merostomata), which is more
closely related to the arachnids.
==
A copying error in just one gene, where CAC appears instead of CTC,
causes sickle cell anemia. This causes immunity to malaria.
---
Crow, James F., Ionizing Radiation and Evolution, Scientific American, vol.
201 (September 1959), pp. 138-160. Crow was Chairman of Medical Genetics
at the University of Wisconsin.

Hulse, Frederick S., The Human Species (New York: Random House, 1971)

Information Theory and Molecular Biology
Hubert P. Yockey, pp 319-323

[1] Tateno, Y. and Tajima, X. (1986).
Statistical properties of molecular tree construction
methods under the neutral mutation model.
Journal of Molecular Evolution 23, 354-61.

[2] Meyer, T.E., Cusanovich, M.A. & Kamen, M.D. (1986)
Evidence against use of bacterial amino acid sequence
data for construction of all-inclusive phylogenetic trees.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
83, 217-20.

[3] Holmquist, R. & Jukes, T.H. (1981)
The current status of REH theory.
Journal of Molecular Evolution 18, 47-59.
(cf. Meyer et al., 1986)
==
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/102098sci-chimps.html
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/evobio/evc/argresp/sequence.html
http://lummi.stanford.edu/class/anthro276/WWW/EvAnth.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/hopefulmonsters.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060984031/

<http://dir.yahoo.com/Arts/Humanities/Philosophy/Philosophers/
William_of_Ockham__1280__1347__/
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/:/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://philosophy.wisc.edu/simplicity/
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/~donpaul/diversions/occams_2.html
==
Fruit flies and mice - separated by nearly 700 million years of evolution -
share the same timekeeping proteins. Once again science has shown us how
closely related is all life on Earth.
==
There are currently six kingdoms of
cellular organisms
1. Archaeobacteria--sulfur synthesizing
prokaryotic cells.
2. Monera--All other bacteria (prokaryotic
cells)
3. Protists--one celled and colonial eukaryotic
organisms
4. Plants--multicellular photosyhesizing
eukaryotes.
5. Fungi--eukaryotes which feed off of other
organisms but do not move around or possess
sense organs or differentiated tissue
6. Animals--organisms which feed off other
organisms and have different types of tissue
in their bodies.
To these may be added the Edicacaran
ventobionts, possibly a seventh kingdom of
living things.
==
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html
SELF-REPLICATION: Even Peptides do it

They show that a certain amino-acid peptide can autocatalyse its
own synthesis. The design of this replicator was based on a
protein found in nature. They ask: Do these results reflect a
rare chemical quirk in the repertoire of peptides and
polypeptides, or might they hint at a route to self-reproducing
molecular systems... In other words, theyre talking about
abiogenesis! They are cautious: ...at this stage, we cannot know,
but the way is now open to investigate. Such a molecular system
would collectively catalyse its own formation from food sources
that could probably be generated by a Urey-Miller experiment.
They ask: Can such systems evolve to neighbouring autocatalytic
systems while retaining catalytic closure, and could current
life have evolved from one?

Recall that any free-living cell, prokaryote or eukaryote, is in
fact a collectively autocatalytic system--virtually no molecule,
including DNA, catalyses its own formation and thats why
abiogenesis is (was?) such a puzzle. They close the abstract
this way: Because a variety of polymers and small molecules can
catalyse such reactions, these results may prove seminal: the
creation or spontaneous formation of simple or collectively
autocatalytic sets may occur far more readily than we thought.
Given the emerging field of molecular diversity, with
its capacity to synthesize high-diversity DNA, RNA and peptide
libraries, these questions are now open to detailed scrutiny.
If this proves so, weve solved abiogenesis and can assume its
common enough to have occured on other planets.
==
Evolutionary theory concerns the mechanisms for change in allele
frequencies in populations over time; and has been used with enormous
success to explain a wealth of facts ranging from the development
of widely diverse forms of life from common ancestors, to extremely
subtle differences between organisms in different environment
==
according to a CNN poll 1997, 57% of Americans dont believe the
earth orbits the sun.
==
We have many samples of DNA to examine, and its susceptible to rigorous
statistical analysis. The patterns of similarity suggest that many genes
are very ancient. The classic example is an enzyme used for basic energy
metabolism, cytochrome c. Humans and wheat plants have the same gene, and
if you examine the gene from many different organisms, the pattern of changes
is consistent with a single original copy, with a tree-like branching
whenever there was a neutral mutation. The tree derived from the cytochrome
c DNA is the same as the tree derived from study of fossils.
Its also the same as the tree from every other gene thats been analyzed.
If we look at the same gene in 50 species and derive the tree, one can get an
idea of the likelihood by considering the number of possible binary trees
with 50 terminal branches. As a computer scientist, you know better than I
how to calculate this, but I believe its a very large number. Its
reasonable to wonder about a designer using similar designs in many
organisms, but not expected that a designer would introduce these
random neutral mutations that have no effect on function. Most of the
sequences are public information and are accessible on data bases.
Anyone can check the validity of the data and the standard interpretation.
==
The sister species of a stem species is perhaps more closely related to it
than any of its descendants, but this sister species is by definition
excluded from the clade and the classification. Hence Hennigs arbitrary
principle of monophyly *arbitrarily exclude* sister species from
classifcations. Further if a stem species continues to live after it has
given rise to a new higher taxon, by definition this species becomes
paraphyletic and must then be removed from the classification, leading Mayr
and Ashlock to call such removal destructive, impractical and scientifically
untenable. Paraphyletic taxa are the natural consequence of budding, an
evolutionary process in which new taxa are formed from a species that
continues to thrive unchanged by the budding event. 50 years of research on
evolution shows that budding is by far the most common way in which new taxa
originate, more common than the cladistic assumption of splitting, in which
the ancestral species become extinct when new daughter species are born.
But since paraphyletic taxa are anathema to cladistic dogma, a paraphyletic
species must be *arbitrarily excluded from cladistic classifications.
Traditional classifications, however, do not look upon paraphyletic taxa as
evil entities; paraphyletic taxa and sister species thus become part of the
classification instead of being artificially and arbitrarily excluded.
==
Defeating Darwinism by Phillip E. Johnson fundie
==
http://207.102.62.65:80/~randallg/capella/evoldiag.jpg fossil skulls
==
The largest mammals in the Late Cretaceous were more the size of a large
house cat or a fox.
==
Zeldovich, Yakob B. and Grishchuk, L. P. Structure and Future of the
NewUniverse, in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 207
(1984), pp. 23P-28P
Vilenkin, Alexander. Birth of Inflationary Universes, in Physical Review D,
27(1983). pp. 2848-2855.
Vilenkin, Alexander. Quantum Creation of Universes, in Physical Review D, 3
0 (1984). pp.509-511.
Hartle, James B. and Hawking, Steven W. Wave Function of the Universe,
in Physical Review D, 28(1983), pp.2960-2975.
==
Empedocles (ca 490-430 BC) not only believed in spontaneous generation of
life forms but also suggested that the processes of natural selection
(i.e., the survival of the fittest) were in operation throughout all of
nature. And Aristotle (ca 384-322 BC) suggested that nature operated and
continued to exist through its own set of laws, and that these laws of
operation were independent of supernatural forces.4 This release of nature
from the capricious control of higher powers was all that was needed for the
roots of modern science to develop. It was also Aristotle who proposed the
concept of fixity of species. This concept, incorporated into Christian
thought by Augustine (ca AD 354-430), would later become a major factor in
discrediting the Genesis account of the origin of life.

In 550BC Anaximander of Miletus taught that life generated from sea slime.
Anaximander came to this conclusion from his observation of nearby puddles.
One day empty and the next, full of creatures. He concluded that life must
come from puddles of water. In 450 BC Empedocles believed that natural
selection determined which creatures survived and which didnt.
==
Abiogenesis
Ab`i*o*gene*sis (#), n. [Gr. priv. + life + , origin, birth.] (Biol.) The
supposed origination of living organisms from lifeless matter; such genesis
as does not involve the action of living parents; spontaneous generation;
-- called also abiogeny, and opposed to biogenesis. I shall call the . . .
doctrine that living matter may be produced by not living matter, the
hypothesis of abiogenesis. Huxley, 1870.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
==
Creationists are small-minded, malevolent, not very bright and cant
get their science right - definitely made in Gods image.
==
Simon Conway Morriss Crucible of Creation, about the Cambrian period.
==
For example, groups flourished throughout the Paleozoic era, trilobites,
brachiopods, orthocone amminoties, in the wide epiric seas that covered the
continents for that vast expanse of time. When the continents coalesced in
the Permean there was a drastic disruption of those conditions, the shallow
continental shelfs became very restrictive and many lines that had prospered
either went extinct or were nearly totally decimated. The cause of this great
extinction was due to contintal drift, plate tectonics, and not directly to
evolutionary processes, it caused the criteria for evolutionary success to
change drastically. What had been a formula for success, with all its
specialized variations, eg. brachiopods, suddenly became a formula for doom.
We have the mass kills in the fossil record and the extinctions of these
groupsto show for that.
==
Science is a methodology for studying the repeatable qualities of public
observations. This methodology includes the building of productive models,
the rigourous slicing of those models with the razor, and the subjection of
those models to public scrutiny.
==
This is what we call the argument from incredulity - I dont understand
something, so it must be miraculous! Its also called God of the Gaps -
something is miraculous until the gaps in our knowledge of the process are
evolutionary history of several organismal lineages; that we cant specify
every little step in all of them is not cause to suspend an understanding of
the process as a whole.
==
http://www.evolutionpages.com/microraptor%20gui.htm 4 legged feathered dino
==
DOW invests maybe $100M and hundreds of PhDs and thousands of labor hours
inventing a pesticide. In a few seasons, _Helothis virescens_ has designed
itself to be resistant to it. Does that mean moths are better designers
than humans are?
==
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created
incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Changing Man, Science, vol. 155, no. 3761 (January
27, 1967), pp. 409-415.p. 409
Evolution is a process which has produced life from non-life, which has
brought forth man from an animal, and which may conceivably continue doing
remarkable things in the future. In giving rise to man, the evolutionary
process has, apparently for the first and only time in the history of the
Cosmos, become conscious of itself.
==
There was a false story that Darwin recanted on his death bed.
Darwin would have had no motive to recant. Before the great naturalist died
in 1882, he had the satisfaction of knowing that the Church of England and
several other Christian denominations had declared there to be no conflict
between his theory and the churchs teachings. Indeed, Darwin, an
evolutionist to the end, was laid to rest in the hallowed ground of
Westminster Abbey.
==
Charles Darwin Desmond and Moore biography,
Peter Bowlers _The Non-Darwinian Revolution_
Romers _Vertebrate Paleontology_
Carrolls Vertebrate Paleontology. It is of about
the same scale as Romers work, and is much more up to date. Lots of
people have problems with Carrolls classifications -- theyre largely
gradistic, but its an excellent reference source.Bentons Vertebrate
Paleontology is a little more recent, and takes more of a cladistic
approach. However, it isnt as comprehensive as Carrolls.
==
We are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the
concept of evolution to man and the other primates beyond serious dispute.
- Pontifical Academy of Science, Vatican City, 1983
==
Clarksons Invertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution
==
Nebraska Man was an error based on one worn tooth.Hesperopithecus turned
out to be the tooth of a peccary (member of the Tayassuidae, the
predominently New World suinan family), not a pig (member of the Suidae,
mostly found in the Old World). It was corrected by finds of the true nature
of the tooth within 3 years.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly
discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was
realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig(peccary)
called
Prosthennops.
==
There is an underlying, natural mutation rate everytime a cell reproduces.
These mutations carry much lower rates of sterility than the artificially
induced mutations due to radiation.
==
Randolph Nesse, George Williams) Why We Get Sick: The New Science of
Darwinian Medicine
==
Archaeopteris is an extinct plant which is of botanical interest for two
reasons. It was the main component of the earliest forests until its
extinction around the Devonian/Carboniferous boundary, and phylogenetically,
it is the free-sporing taxon that shares the most characteristics with the
seed plants. Here we describe the largest group of anatomically preserved
Archaeopteris remains ever found, from the Famennian marine beds of
south-eastern Morocco, and provide the first evidence that, in terms of
development and branching strategies, these 370-million-year-old plants were
the earliest known modern trees. This modernization involved the evolution
of four characteristics: a lateral branching syndrome similar to the
axillary branching of early seed plants; adventitious latent primordia
similar to those produced by living trees, which eventually develop into
roots on stem cuttings; nodal zones as important sites for the subsequent
development of lateral organs; and wood anatomy strategies that minimize
the mechanical stresses caused by perennial branch growth.
==
Example of favorable mutation
In the paper Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants,
(J. Bacteriol. [1952] 63:399-406) Joshua and Esther M. Lederberg started
with cultures derived from Escherichia coli strain K-12. K-12 was isolated
in a pure culture and is sensitive to both streptomycin and phage T-1 (FWIW
- You can write to the E. coli Genetic Stock Center and get your hands on
the K-12 strain). After several generations in liquid and agar media they
could isolate mutants from the population that were streptomycin or phage
resistant. They even discussed the frequencies at which spontaneous
resistant mutants arose in cultures. So like Luria/Delbruck did in their
fluctuation experiment (Luria started with E. coli strain B -- also
sensitive), the Lederbergs also started with an isolated strain that was
demonstrated to be sensitive to the antibiotic and T-1 phage.
-----
Niles Eldredges _Marcoevolutionary Dynamics_
==
Lamarck, in the early 1800s, suggested a form of evolution known as the theory
of acquired characteristics. Giraffes were originally short-necked. They
would stretch up into the trees to try and reach the higher leaves.
Because the giraffes stretched their necks, young giraffe were born
with longer necks. Over time, giraffes became the long-necked
variety we know today. Natural selection replaced this model.
==
Evolution does not claim that the major differences we see between the
groupings we call families (only species has some biological reality -
all other levels of classification are artificial constructs based on
degrees of similarity and, to a lesser extent, points of divergence in
a pattern of descent) occured instantaneously, changing one family to
another. Evolution attributes the current existence of families to an
ancestral speciation. That speciation is a genetically irreversible event
and the two groupings no longer exchange genetic information. Further
speciations can lead to more and more changes, with one grouping perhaps
retaining more of the ancestral features (and varying around those
features) and that other grouping entering a new environment and losing
some ancestral features and gaining features better suited to its new
environment. For example, bears and racoons. If one could actually
experimentally produce bears from racoons in ones lifetime, it would
actually be a refutation of evolution as we know it. Bears and racoons
certainly share many features. There also exist genera that have some
intermediate characteristics (greater and lesser pandas).
==
Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)
The facts stand that today, I can begin with a culture of E. coli started
from say, a single, nalidixic acid sensitive cell and isolate resistant
mutants from its progeny. Even you could do it. Likewise, if you wish, you
could repeat the Luria/Delbruck fluctuation experiment (ca. 1943) to
isolate streptomycin-resistant bacteria that will arise from mutations.
And isolating novel mutants is not limited to drug resistance. For example,
Ive taken my Salmonella strain SK2979, grown it on L-aspartate as the
nitrogen source, and watched two successive waves of mutants develop. The
first wave of mutation(s) permitted much faster growth on aspartate
(see my J Mol Bio paper (1996) 259:589-607 - Strain SK3072). The
second wave (secondary mutation) permitted growth on asparate as the sole
nitrogen _and_ carbon source. Thats something my original strain, SK2979
simply couldnt do. Ive also seen similar events (waves of mutations)
arise in chemostats
that Ive run. This is classical microbiology and microbial genetics.For
textbooks try:
_The Microbial World_, or _Microbiology: Principles and Applications_.
==
Nigeli, suggested that Mendel study hawkweeds [Hieracium sp.], which
unfortunately have the [unknown at the time] devastating problem for
Mendels research of being loaded with cryptic asexually reproducing forms
[i.e., much like dandelions], polyploids, etc. Mendel instead studied
peas, which were ideal for his studies.
==
The Cambrian explosion
It lasted between 15 and 40 million years and it was preceded by
3 billion years of Precambrian, a good portion of which contains life.
=
Alan Walkers The Wisdom of the Bones for a good basic discussion of
fossil hominids and skeletal structure.
==
AT LEAST ON THE SURFACE, the hominid brain started reorganizing itself away
from the ape standard more than two million years ago. Thats the
conclusion of Dean Falk; she studies the imprint that the brain leaves on
the inside of skulls. The blood vessels and the cortical infoldings can
often be seen, and each species has its own characteristic pattern. The
australopithecines have an apelike pattern of folds -- then, at two million
years, one starts to see a more humanlike pattern develop in the
==
An international team of researchers have found evidence that what is now
Lake Victoria [Africa] was a dry, grassy plain just 12,000 years ago. The
discovery means that the 300 unique fish species that have been documented
in the lake must have evolved in the very short interval since the current
lake began to form, a geological instant ago.
==
Ostracoderms are found all over the world (fossilized)...acanthodians,
placoderms, etc....These fish lived in every aquatic habitat now occupied
by teleosts (streams, rivers, lakes, tidal pools, benthic regions, pelagic
zones, etc.).Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution p. 603 shows a
few genera of teleosts in the Pholidophoriformes, existing
in the Upper Triassic.
==
What does design add to the solution. What statement about life
is improved in its explanitory/predictive power because it calls upon
design? If you cant answer that, you dont have a scientific model.
==
Any species with variation in its gene pool is in transition between
past and future forms. If you lived amongst the Australopithecines you
wouldnt recognize them as transitional either, although in the end
that seems to have been their fate. Darwins Theory is that over a long
period of time, the accumulation of a number of adaptive variations will
eventually become so marked that the organisms so possessed will no longer
be of the same species as that which began the process. The event of
speciation can only be seen to have occurred in retrospect, and even then
we cannot pinpoint the moment when it occurred. In a sense, speciation
occurs only through the removal of intermediates.
--------
Transitional Fossils between Amphibian and Reptile:
Proterogyrinus -- existed during the late Mississippian period.
Amphibian Traits: amphibian skull, teeth, and ankle, also has fish skull
hinge
Reptilian Traits: vertebrae, pelvis, humerus, and digits
Limnoscelis, Tseajaia -- late Carboniferous
Additional Reptilian Traits: braincase, jaw muscle, expanded neural arch
Hylonomus, Paleothyris -- early Pennsylvanian
Mostly reptilian, but still with a amphibian-like skull and vertebrae and
teeth that are between reptile-like and amphibian like.

Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution.
W.H. Freeman & Co., New York.

Benton, M.J. 1990. Vertebrate Palaeontology: biology and evolution.
Unwin Hyman, London.
==
Barnard, T. 1963. Evolution in certain biocharacters of selected Jurassic
Lagenidae. In: Evolutionary Trends in Foraminifera (G.H.R. von
Koenigswald, ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
The fossil sequence described shows transitional fossils. There are over
100 or so sequences that show fine grained transitions in speciation.
==
At the end of the Permian Period was a mass extinction, the most severe in
Earths history, that killed 95% of all life 225 million years ago.
Its cause is unknown presently.
Chicxulub is home to a crater more than 120 miles wide that could have been
formed by a blast with the explosive power of 100 to 300 megatons of TNT.
The theory holds that the asteroid crash created a huge explosion that cast
enough dust and rock into the atmosphere to block out the sun, turning the
Earth cold and inhospitable to all but the hardiest organisms. About 75% of
all species became extinct.
==
Pritchard (1994, Herpetol. Rev. 25[3]:105-110) observes,

If one starts with the real data about the past, i.e., the fossils rather
than the SUPPOSITIONS, one will come up with models such as the Punctuated
Equilibrium model of evolution of Eldredge and Gould (1972), and will also
show more than casual respect for the concept of contingency--the purely
accidental, unpredictable events of mutation, of selection, of chance, that
happened to have occurred (but that would never have occurred again), that
ultimately led to the modern fauna. One will find little evidence for the
cladistic model. One will also inevitably form the view that speciation
must most commonly occur in small populations, isolated by chance events
in remote places where the selective forces are very different from those
to which the species as a whole is subject. Most such populations will
quickly go extinct; but a few, by dint of happy and appropriate mutations
and not a little luck, will adapt to their new environment, and will
speciate rapidly, with the founder stock remaining unchanged. We would
have to use the same taxonomic designation for this founder stock before
and after the splitoff occurred, since no difference can be detected.
On the other hand, the offshoot stock, easily distinguished by many
characters, should obviously have taxonomic recognition. But this is
not acceptable under the Rules of Cladistics.
==
Neandertal Genetics
Alan Cooper, Hendrik N. Poinar, Svante Pbo, J. Radovi, A.
DebEnath, Miguel Caparros, Cecilio Barroso-Ruiz, Jaume Bertranpetit,
Christina Nielsen-Marsh, Robert E. M. Hedges, Bryan Sykes;, and G. A.
Clark; Science 1997 August 22; 277: 1021b-1025b. (in Letters)

ANTHROPOLOGY:
DNA From an Extinct Human
Patricia Kahn and Ann Gibbons Science 1997 July 11; 277:
176-178. (in Research News)

A Hominid from the Lower Pleistocene of Atapuerca, Spain: Possible
Ancestor to Neandertals and Modern Humans
J. M. Bermdez de Castro, J. L. Arsuaga, E. Carbonell, A.
Rosas, I. MartInez, and M. Mosquera Science 1997 May 30; 276:
1392-1395. (in Reports)

Paleoanthropology: A New Face for Human Ancestors
Ann Gibbons Science 1997 May 30; 276: 1331-1333. (in Research News)

BREAKTHROUGH OF THE YEAR:
The Runners-Up Science 1997 December 19; 278: 2039-2042. (in News)

PALEOBIOLOGY:
A Fruitful Scoop for Ancient DNA
Erik Stokstad Science 1998 July 17; 281: 319b (in News of the Week)

Paleoanthropology: Did Neandertals Lose an Evolutionary Arms Race?
Ann Gibbons Science 1996 June 14; 272: 1586-1587. (in Research News)
==
I can give irrefutable examples which would immediately falsify the
scientific theory of evolution.
1) The discovery that species have not changed through time would
falsify evolution. (dogs cats and people fossils in Precambrian strata
would be a big start if you could find it.)
2) A scientifically sound observation of special creation of
a new kind would falsify evolution.
==
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates
==
Creationism, a religious belief, has withstood no testing. Whereas
scientists will tell you exactly what would falsify evolution (for example,
routinely discovering horse skeletons mixed in with triolobite fossils in
the Cambrian strata), creationists never volunteer what set of
circumstances, if true, would count against their idea that all species
emerged at one time. Since creationism is not assailable, not vulnerable to
experiment, it is not science.
If Biblical Creation is true and evolution is false,then God has misled us
all, specifically building the universe from the atoms up to make it look
like evolution exists in order to entrap everyone with an inquiring mind. I
would not like to believe in such a God.
Scientific laws are descriptions what things do, theories are attempts
to answer why in terms of something better understood. It is possible to
formulate a law of evolution. It would simply be the observation that
species evolve over time. Natural selection is a theory that attempts to
explain the law.
==
Journal of Molecular Evolution has articles on the processes leading to
life on earth.
William Martin and Miklos Muller. The hydrogen hypothesis for the first
eukaryote. Nature. 392: 37-41 (5 March 1998). Gives the Margulis
theory of mitochondrial symbiotic origins a makeover.
==
Heres the definition of the Second Law of Thermodynamics taken straight
from my Physics textbook: It is possible to completely convert work
(bulk, ordered kinetic energy) into heat (random, disordered kinetic
energy), but not vice versa.

The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.
First Law Definition:- This law is also known as the Law of Conservation of
Matter/Matter. Energy cannot by itself be created or destroyed. Some matter
may be changed
from one form into another, but the total amount remains unchanged. An
example for this is an atomic bomb exploding, some matter may be changed
into energy, but in all, the sum total of mass/energy stays in existence.

Second Law Defintion:- This law is also called the Law of Increasing Entropy.
In a closed system, energy tends to become less available.
==
Species that move into lightless environments eventually lose their vision.
Birds that move to environments without predators eventually lose their flight
Animals that move into enviroments without predators eventually lose their
instinctual fear of much of anything.
==
The Creator Beyond Time and Space by M. Eastman and Chuck Missler.
Creationist
==
Melendez-Hevia, E., Waddell, T.G. and Montero, F. (1994)
Optimization of Metabolism: The Evolution of Metabolic Pathways
Toward Simplicity Through the Game of the Pentose Phosphate
Cycle. J. theor. Biol. 166, 201-220.
==
The only nonhuman primates ever found in the United States became extinct
about 20 million years ago.
==
Molecular Evolution (chapter on Thermodynamics of Self Assembly: an
Empirical Example Relating to the Entropy and Evolution), J.R. Jungck;
The Science of Evolution, W. Stransfield, 1977;
In the Beginning, W. Brown, 1989.

"The First Men" by Brown
==
Evolution is by its very nature a theory.
It is both a fact and a theory.
In the American vernacular, theory often means imperfect fact -
part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to
theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist
argument: evolution is only a theory and intense debate now rages
about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact,
and scientists cant even make up their minds about the theory, then
what confidence can we have in it?
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and
theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of
increasing certainty.
Facts are the worlds data. Theories are structures of ideas that
explain and interpret facts. Facts dont go away when scientists
debate rival theories to explain them. Einsteins theory of
gravitation replaced Newtons in this century, but apples didnt
suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans
evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwins
proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, fact doesnt mean absolute certainty; there aint no
such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of
logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and
achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical
world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though
creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of
argument that they themselves favor). In science fact can only
mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent. I suppose that apples might start to
rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in
physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact
and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always
acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the
mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin
continually emphasized the difference between his two great and
separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and
proposing a theory - natural selection - to explain the mechanism of
evolution.
-- Stephen J. Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory; Discover, May 1981
==
G.Wetter: Dialectical Materialism 1973 A survey of
philosophy in the old Soviet Union.
Joravski : The Lysenko Affair, 1986 A pretty comprehensive work.
Z. Medvedev: The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko, Written by a
participant in some of the disputes.
==
Similarity of genetic code
Chimp Bonobo
99.3%

Human Chimp or bonobo
98.4%

Gorilla Human, chimp, or bonobo
97.7%

Orang utan Gorilla, human, chimp, or bonobo
96.4%

Gibbon or siamang Great apes
95%
==
In northern Egypt, the development of Neolithic life can be traced at
Merimdeh and in the Fayum (5000-4000 BC); there and elsewhere in the north
the pervasive northern culture emerged, characterized by monochrome pottery
using incised and applied decoration.The earliest Neolithic phases of
southern Egypt are not yet identified, but two cultures existed there by
c.4000 the Tasian, influenced by the north, and the Badarian, which
originated in the eastern desert
==
Nature, vol. 358, no. 6381 p.59, Marine transgressions and the evolution
of Cretaceous dinosaurs.


==
1) Beta-globin. Partial sequence of exon 1, amino acids 11-14
The DNA codons are given here to show how the nucleotide sequence
may evolve 0 of the amino acid sequence.
Single letter amino acid code shown above DNA sequence.

V T A L human, chimp, gorilla (the gorilla and human
GTT ACT GCC CTG beta-globin genes differ at only one amino acid)

V T T L macaque
GTC ACC ACC CTG

V T A L colobus
GTT ACC GCC CTG

V T A L tarsier, European hare, Australian rabbit
GTC ACT GCC CTG

V C A L galago
GTT TGT GCC CTG

V T S L lemur
GTC ACC TCT CTG

V T G L goat
GTC ACC GGC TTG

2) Collagen IV, partial amino acid sequence of alpha 4 chain.

V K A D F E F human

V R P D L Q F bovine

V N P D L Q F mouse

Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1991, Vol 166, (12) pp 7469-7480
Journal of Cell Biology, 1994, Vol 127 (3) pp 879-891
==
title: The Evolutionary Biology of Plants by: Karl J. Niklas publisher:
The University of Chicago Press 1997 other: 449 pages, bibliography, index
==
The sickle cell gene IS BENIFICIAL when present in the heterozygous
condition. It confers higher survival of and resistance to malaria.
It is fairly common around the Mediterranean Sea in all races.
==
Natural selection occurs mainly at the level of individuals and less often
at the genetic level (transposons/segregation distortion alleles). Group
selection can only occur under restricted conditions; it is unlikely most
populations meet these restrictions.
==
Since creationism is a religion, it belongs in a church, not a school.
Whatever so-called science creationism claims to explain, in the end it
is based on theistic mythology. Take away the religious base and all that
is left is the error-laden and disproven pseudo-science. Do you believe in
astrology, too? That has about as much of a scientific base as creationism.
==
Michael Behe has a new book (Darwins Black Box)
Q. What is IC?

A. IC means irreducible complexity which is defined via circular definitions
such that parts, system, and function are defined in such a way that each part
of a system is required to effect the function.
Here's how an IC system can evolve: Consider a system, say a blood clotting
system, in a primitive state, consisting of one chemical we will call 'A'.
A performs it's task reasonably well. Now a mutation occurs which produces
a catalyst, B, which helps A perform it's task more efficiently. We now have
a system where A and B work together to perform a task, but if we took away
B the system would still work (but not as well). Now a mutation occurs and
A becomes C, a new chemical which works even better with B. However, C will
not work *without* B. This C+B system works better than A+B, so by natural
selection it may come to be 'fixed' (that is, the only system present in
the population). C+B is an irreducably complex system by the above definition.
C+B evolved.
This is a very simple example, but it does show that IC systems can evolve,
and, in fact, there are cases where evolution will naturally produce an IC
system.
==
There has been discussion as the evolution of multicellularity and how many
times this has occurred. The number of independent occurrences amongst
living taxa (of the order of a dozen to a score, IIRC) is a lower bound on
the number of actual occurrences.
==
False radiometric date.
The lava sample which tested very old was submarine pillow basalt from
the 1801 eruption and was being used as a control to determine the
reliability of K-Ar dating with regards to this particular kind of
formation. All it showed is that this dating process does not work with
this type of lava.
----------
Kolb and Turner, The Early Universe, (Frontiers in Physics
Lecture Note Series, Addison Wesley, 1990).

A nontechnical one is:
Particle Physics in the Cosmos, R. Carrigan and W. Trower (Eds),
(Readings from Scientific American Magazine, 1989).
------
If the universe were easy to understand, it would work differently and we
would not be here.
--------
The area from east to south Africa where most fossil hominids have
been found is small, and founder populations of additional hominid
speces might have occurred in the vast areas of western, central and
north Africa that have not yet been explored. (Indeed, australopithecine
fossils 3.5-3.0 million years old have very recently been discovered in
Chad, in central Africa.) Literally dozens of allospecies of _ramidus_,
_afarensis_, _robustus_, _habilis_, and _erectus_ could have lived in
unexplored parts of Africa. The suddeness of some of the transition
in the fossil record could be explained by budding. This means that
the new descendant type originated somewhere in a peripherally isolated
population and established contact with the parental species only after
it had completed its genetic restructuring. The chance that we will
ever discover the location of such an isolate is rather slight.
_This is Biology_; Mayr, p. 234
When only a few hominid fossils were known, it was easy to classify
them into species: _afarensis_, _africanus_, _habilis_, _erectus_,
and _sapiens_. Each of these names represented between 0.25 and 1.5
million years. In recent years numerous finds are either intermediate
in time between typical specimens or from different geographical regions,
hence not quite typical either. They usually show a good deal of mosaic
evolution: some of their characters are those of their ancestors, some
are those of the later descendants, while the rest are intermediate.
Mayr, p. 235.

==
We dont develop gills at any time, but we do develop the common embryonic
precursors of gills, cartilaginous bars and membranous bulges.
==
Of all the mammals only guinea pigs and primates (including human beings)
must have vitamin C in their diet. All the others have the biochemical
machinery to make their own. This in itself suggests that the ancestral
mammal had the vitamin C synthesis capability, but that the ancestral guinea
pig and the ancestral primate lost that ability and passed that defect to its
ancestors.
The story becomes even more interest ing when the powerful methods of
molecular biology are used. It is possible to develop a DNA probe that
uniquely recognizes the key gene that allows for vitamin C synthesis in
animals that do make their own. When this probe is used to study the DNA of
guinea pigs and human be ings, the vitamin C gene is found. Further analysis
shows that this gene is a pseudogene, i.e., it looks like a real gene, but
it is not expressed due to a mutation in the gene itself or in the region of
DNA that controls the expression of that gene.
R. Raffs Shape of Life and Embryos, Genes, and Evolution
Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution.
[Theodosius Dobzhansky, _Heredity and the Nature of Man_ (1964), 118.]
Darwins theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence,
and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.
[Richard Dawkins, The Necessity of Darwinism, _New Scientist_
Dawkins new book _Unweaving the Rainbow_
(15 April 1982), 130. Cited in Alan Hayward, _Creation and Evolution_
(1985), 2.]Charles Darwin died 100 years ago this year, and yet the science
of evolutionary biology is more robust, more vigorous, and more stimulating
than ever before.... One remarkable conclusion from the great volume of
diverse research activity of
recent times is that the core of evolutionary biology, as shaped by Darwins
own ideas, has been shown to be sound again and again.[Ernst Mayr,
introduction to Roger Lewins _Thread of Life: The Smithsonian Looks at
Evolution_ (1982). Mayr is at Harvard U.s Museum of Comparative Zoology.]
==
http://www.chemistry.ucsc.edu/Projects/origins1.html origin of life.
[1] Larralde R, Robertson MP, and Miller SL. (1995). Rates of
decomposition of ribose and other sugars: implications for chemical
evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 92, 8158-60.
[2] Schwartz AW. (1997). Speculation on the RNA Precursor Problem J
Theor Biol , 187, 523-7.
[3]Schwartz AW. (1997). Prebiotic evolution: selecting for
homochirality before RNA. Curr Biol , 7, R477-9.
Babinec P, and Krempasky J. (1994 Aug). Synergetic mechanisms of
chiral symmetry breaking in prebiotic evolution. Gen Physiol Biophys ,
13, 267-73.
[4] Ertem G, and Ferris JP. (1996). Synthesis of RNA oligomers on
heterogeneous templates. Nature , 379, 238-40.
Bohler C, Nielsen PE, and Orgel LE. (1995). Template switching
between PNA and RNA oligonucleotides. Nature , 376, 578-81.
[5]Ding PZ, Kawamura K, and Ferris JP. (1996). Oligomerization of
uridine phosphorimidazolides on montmorillonite: a model for the
prebiotic synthesis of RNA on minerals. Orig Life Evol Biosph , 26,
151-71.
[6]Baumann U, and Oro J. (1993). Three stages in the evolution of the
genetic code. Biosystems , 29, 133-41.
==
Mollusca-Cephalopoda-Coleoidea-Octopodiformes-Octopoda-Incirrata-
Octopodidae-Octopus.

Octopoda; technically, a member of the genus _Octopus_, a
large group of widely distributed, shallow-water mollusks.
==
The base pairs used in DNA Adenine(A), Thymine(T),Cytosone(C), and Guanine(G).
DNA can self replicate and also can make RNA by the fact that the base
pairs will only attach to their complement A to T and C to G.
A always bind to T because there are two hydrogen bond linkages, while C
always binds to G because there are three hydrogen bond linkages.
==
Ayala, Francisco J., Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of
Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhansky: 1900-1975,i Journal of Heredity, vol. 68,
(January/February 1977), pp. 3-10.
==
Evolution is fact. Species are not fixed but developed out of other species.
==
The human hemoglobin zeta-chain molecule is made up of 140 amino acids. We
share 138 of them with chimpanzees! For a comparison, we share 4 with the
Western Painted Turtle, and 12 with the Mouse.
==
There never was a theory known as social Darwinism except in the minds and
writings of critics. Spencer was terminally confused about evolution, ethics
and social polity, but what he founded was a reworking of much older views that
owe nothing to Darwin.Robert Bannisters 1979 book on Social Darwinism
explodes the myth.
Social Darwinism : Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (American
==
Evolution is by its very nature a theory.
No, evolution is a a fact, and there is a theory to explain the fact.
That puts it far ahead of creationism since creationism isnt a fact, and
it lacks a theory. There is no way to prove once and for all that evolution
is the truth just as I cannot prove 100% that Creation is the truth.
Science doesnt try to prove (except in the sense of test) anything.
However, it does disprove, and creationism has already been disproven. So
far, evolution hasnt been disproveded by any scienve observation.
==
Some extinctions were in fact much more extensive than the K-T event.
250 million years ago, at the boundary between the Permian and
Triassic periods, 75% of all genera and 95% of all oceanic species
went extinct rather abruptly. In fact, life on Earth was almost wiped
out. This again suggests a global catastrophe. Other mass extinctions
took place 360 and 435 million years ago, and lesser extinctions have
speckled geological history.
==
There is a self-replicating peptide already known. It is 32 amino acids
long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE The probablilty of
generating this in successive random trials is much higher than the standard
creationist generating carboxypeptidase scenario.
[Lee et al, Nature, 1996, 382, 6591, pg 525-8]
==
If humans do not share a common amnion bearing ancestor with the reptiles,
then why do a small proportion of us bear a small diverticulum (Meckels) in
the intestine? This is a vestige of the yolk sac, something which humans
(to the best of my knowledge) have very little use for. Our inner ear
ossicles are homologues to the PTQ, Meckels cartilage, and hyomandibular
cartilages that allow sharks to take a big chunk out of prey. As von Baer
stressed, common structrures occur early in onogeny, then later on
divergence occurs. Instead of taking chunks out of sea lions, we humans need
to hear, so the PTQ, Meckels cartilage, and hyomandibular gave rise to our
incus, malleus and stapes. BTW the PTQ, Meckels cartilage and hyomandibular
can be traced back to the first and second pharyngeal arches. The PTQ and
Meckels arose from the epibranchial and ceratobranchial of the first arch,
and the hyomandibular arose from the epibranchial of arch two. This takes
us back to VON BAERS LAW !The spiracle that allows stingrays to feed along
a muddy bottom, is not far removed from that auditory tube that equalizes
the pressure in our ears when we are landing at the airport.
==
About evolution
Baldwin, J. M. Imitation: A Chapter in the Natural History of Consciousness,
Mind. London, Jan.,1894. Citations from earlier papers will be found in this
article and in the next reference.
Baldwin, J. M. Mental Development in the Child and the Race, 1st. ed. April,
1895a; 2nd. ed., Oct.,1895. Macmillan & Co.
Baldwin, J. M. Consciousness and Evolution. Science (August 23, 1895b).
Reprinted in the American Naturalist (April, 1896a).
Baldwin, J. M. Heredity and Instinct (I). Science (March 20, 1896b).
Discussion before N. Y. Acad. of Sci., Jan. 31, 1896 (1896c).
Baldwin, J. M. Heredity and Instinct (II). Science (April 10, 1896d).
Baldwin, J. M. Physical and Social Heredity. American Naturalist (May,
1896e).
Baldwin, J. M. Consciousness and Evolution. Psychol. Review (May, 1896f).
Discussion before Amer. Psychol. Association, Dec. 28, 1895.
==
Bacteria mating.
Typically it is only the F plasmid which is transferred and absolutely
zero of the bacterial chomosome. Occasionally, the F plasmid becomes
integrated into the bacterial chromosme because there are identical
insertion sequences (transposable elements) on both the plasmid and the
bacterial chromosome. When the F episome is in the integrated state it
will replicate along with the bacterial chromosme by fission (fission is
the only way the bacteria genome reproduces itself). Those bacteria
with an integrated F factor is called an Hfr (for high frequency
transfer of bacterial information relative to a normal population of F
containing cells where only a small fraction of cells are in the Hfr
state). Only the Hfrs in a population can actually transfer bacterial
information from one bacterial cell to another. But they rarely
transfer the F plasmid information *in toto*. Actually what happens is
that the integrated F tries to transfer itself just like a
non-integrated F would, but it is hooked into the bacterial chromosome,
so it has to transfer all of that before completing its own transfer.
Thus F episome information is usually not transferred.
The reason this is called sex is simply because it was the first
evidence (seen in an F population, the true Hfr nature of the process
was a later finding) that bacteria could exchange information. It was
only later that this process was seen to be a modified infectious
process rather than sex as that is defined in eucaryotes, and the name
stuck. Bacteria remain haploid and do not undergo reciprocal sexual
Conjugation in paramecium *is* sex exactly as defined in other
eucaryotes (meiosis, gamete exchange, fusion of gametes into a single
genome, the whole nine yards). The only difference is that, as a single
cell organism, the terms sperm and egg are meaningless, and you have a
truely reciprocal exchange of haploid nuclei instead. I have not a clue
as to why you think the spread of parasites has anything to do with it,
since human (and other eucaryotic) sexual mechanisms has more than its
own share of accompanying parasites (from crabs to AIDS). BTW, yeast
have true eucaryotic sex as well. Think about that the next time you
quaff a brew... (as W.C. Fields is reputed to have said about a glass of
==
Chemical reactions do not take place entirely at random. Some reactions
are more likely than others. Second, later reactions are not independent of
earlier reactions (in other words, the earlier reactions affect the
probability of later reactions).
==
Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will
yield _13_ out of 20 amino acids. With other plausible prebiotic
conditions you can get 17 of the 20. You can do this in several
plausible early earth atmospheres. CO2/hydrogen and nitrogen will do
the trick (yeild is a bit lower though).
The yield in the orginal experiment after two weeks
was 5%, this may not sound much, but this is actually staggeringly
high, and stunned the chemistry world at the time.
The abiotically produced amino acids could be polymerised into simple
peptides, some with catalytic properties. The tar is not such a
problem as many of the compounds in the tar _help_ with
polymerization. Many of the polymerization schemes use drying and
redisolving compunds of the shoreline of beaches and lagoons, where
tar interference is minimal.
Since the first prebiotic experiments a wide variety of biological
molecules have been synthesised from several plausible prebiotic
atmospheres (even worst case scenarios), including nucleotides, ribose
sugars and pantetheine. There has even been successfull abiotic
synthesis of high energy phosphate compounds.
Miller, S. L. Which Organic Compounds Could have Occurred on the
PrebioticEarth?, in Evolution of Catalytic Function (Cold Spring
Harbor Symposium onQuantitative Biology, Vol. 52, 1987), pp. 17-27.

Robertson, M. P. & Miller, S. L. Prebiotic Synthesis of
5-SubstitutedUracils: A Bridge Between the RNA World and the
DNA/Protein World, Science 268, 702-705 (1995)

de Graaf RM. Visscher J. Schwartz AW. A plausibly prebiotic synthesis
of phosphonic acids. Nature. 378(6556):474-7, 1995

There is also a special Scientific American issue on the orign of
life, Orgel LE. The origin of life on the earth. Scientific American.
271(4):76-83, 1994 Oct
http://www.gene.com/ae/WN/NM/miller.html
http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/cdeduve.html
==
Astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler: DeLey^83 estimates
from experimental evidence that only some 10 to 20 per cent of the
amino acids comprising an enzyme are immutable for enzyme activity.
The other amino acids can be changed by random mutations without
changing the biochemical effect of the enzyme. This means that if we
take the average gene to have 1800 nucleotide bases-- the standard
estimate^72,83--then 180 to 360 nucleotide bases are immutable for
each gene.[_The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, John D. Barrow
and Frank J. Tipler (1986, reissued in new covers in 1996),
565. 83: J. DeLay, Evol. Biol. 2:103 (1968). 72: Dobzhansky, Ayala,
Stebbins, Valentine, _Evolution_ (1977), 87.]

I meet many people who are offended by evolution.... Only nine percent
of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that human
beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural
processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine
intervention along the way.[Carl Sagan, _Demon Haunted World: Science
as a Candle in the Dark_ (1996), 327. Cited in Phillip E. Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds_ (1997), 47.]
Steps in the evolutionary process can range from point mutations (each is
one step and the effects can range from small to large), to duplication
(one step), to translocational or transpositional rearrangement of protein
motifs (onestep), to horizontal transfer of information as in mitochondria
or plasmids (one step). To get significant change one can make a multitude
of changes each with small effect or one can make a few changes each with
larger effect or (more likely) one can have larger effects initially that
are later fine tuned by smaller effects.In general, the more complex the
pattern the longer the message describing it. In the limit of complexity
when there is no discernable pattern, that is, when the sequence is
aperiodic one must specify each symbol in turn indefinitely. Such a
message is just as long as the sequence it describes. This idea does not
depend on the origin of a sequence. We now realize that the sequences
with the longest algorithms have the largest entropy [this isnt a reference
to thermodynamic entropy] and are the most complex. Therefore they also
have the largest information content. A random sequence is the most
complex of all since we cannot predict its future behavior on the basis
of past performance.[Hubert P. Yockey, A Calculation of the
Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory, _Journal
of Theoretical Biology_ 67:382, 383 (1977). Yockey is with the Army
Pulse Radiation Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA.]

[Hubert P. Yockey, An Application of Information Theory to the
Central Dogma and the Sequence Hypothesis, _Journal of Theoretical
Biology_ 46:374 (1974).] When these ideas are applied to consideration
of the origin of life we realize that we need an explanation not of the
generation of order but rather of complexity. Crystals are ordered;
informational biomolecules are aperiodic as Schroedinger (1955) has
said and therefore are complex. A pursuit of the generation of order
will end in crystallography not in biology.[Yockey, _J. of Theoretical
Biology_ 67:383 (1977). E. Schroedinger, _What is Life?_ (1955).]

Now the concept of _specified_ complexity is introduced. The vast
majority of the sequences in the ensemble of all sequences of length
_N_, of letters of a written language have no assigned meaning or
specificity. The same is true of sequences of digits zero through nine
and of musical notes. However, embedded in the ensemble of all such
sequences are, say, a play by Sophocles, the lost works of Aristotle,
the numbers [pie] and e. The ensemble of all musical notes contains
Beethovens Fifth Symphony. It also contains... forms of random noise.
By the same token the protein sequences of length _N_, which carry
specificity, are embedded in the ensemble of all amino acids sequences
of length _N_. Those sequences which carry specificity are a tiny
fraction of the ensemble.[Yockey, _J. of Theoretical Biology_ 46:371
(1974).] The DNA recombination systems of E. coli include a former viral
system.
==
These are the Earths oldest fossils? They are the minutely preserved cells
of organisms called cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) preserved in a kind of
silica called chert, from rocks near the north-west coast of Western
Australia that were deposited around 3,465 million years ago. Fossil-bearing
rocks of such antiquity are rare in the extreme --
==
Nature 368:845 (1994), and Percival Davis,
Dean Kenyon, academic editor Charles Thaxton, _Of Pandas and People: The
Central Question of Biological Origins_ (1989), 101, whose photo came
from Alfred Romer, _Vertebrate Paleontology_ (1966). The most
sophisticated (I should really say glossy) of creationist texts, _Of
Pandas and People_....[Gould, _Natural History_ (May 1994), 10.] For
those following along, the thing looks carnivorous looking at its teeth,
and looks like a dog skeleton. The skull is more heavily boned,
however, and doesnt look much like a dogs skull. The _Nature_ caption
reads in part, .... the early Eocene mesonychid _Pachyaena
ossifraga_... representing the land mammal group thought to be ancestral
to whales.

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA This is the largest and most diverse order of hoofed
herbivorous mammals, containing the pigs, peccaries, hippopotamuses,
camels, deer, antelope, cattle, sheep, and goats. [_Macmillan
Illustrated Animal Encyclopedia_ (1984), 128.] Are you really telling
me that pigs, peccaries, hippopotamuses, camels, deer, antelope, cattle,
sheep, goats, and whales developed from one animal??

Reference: Robert L. Carroll, _Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution_.
Published in 1988 by W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.
ISBN 0-716-71822-7.

==
W.A. Bonner, Origins of Life 21:59111, 1991; cited in C.F. Chuba, a
A Left-handed solar system, Nature

A. Amariglio and H. Amariglio in Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,
eds. R. Buvet and C. Ponnamperuma (1971), North-Holland Publishing Co.,
Amsterdam-London.

J Brooks and G Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems,
Academic Press, London and New York, 1973.

Bonobo : The Forgotten Ape F. B. M. De Waal, et al 1997
Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans
and Other Animals, 1996, Harvard University Press, Cambridge; ISBN
0-674-35660-8.
Frans de Waal, Peacemaking among primates (Harvard University Press,
1989).
Frans de Waal, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Harper
and Row, New York (1983). Frans B. M. de Waal, ``Bonobo sex and society
Scientific American 272(4):82- 88 (March 1995)
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~wcalvin/refs.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021212/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/
----

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Taxonomy/wgetorg?id=9604
[click on go to parent a few times...]
<http://skarstein.ibg.uit.no/frode/phyl.html [a primate phylogeny]
http://www.umanitoba.ca/anthropology/courses/121/taxonomy.html
http://citd.scar.utoronto.ca/ANTAO1/A01Readings/16.html
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/chpr5.htm [this still
uses the obsolete Pongidae]
==
Levin (1978) p. 255 mentions that fossils have been found in the
3.1 billion year old Precambrian Fig Tree Series. Fossils have been found in
3.5 billion year old rocks.
Levin, H.L., 1978, The Earth through Time, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.
-----------
J. Bjorkman, I. Nagaev, O. G. Berg, D. Hughes, D. I. Andersson
Most types of antibiotic resistance impose a biological cost on bacterial
fitness. These costs can be compensated, usually without loss of resistance,
by second-site mutations during the evolution of the resistant bacteria in an
experimental host or in a laboratory medium. Different fitness-compensating
mutations were selected depending on whether the bacteria evolved through
serial passage in mice or in a laboratory medium. This difference in mutation
spectra was caused by either a growth condition-specific formation or
selection of the compensated mutants. These results suggest that
bacterial evolution to reduce the costs of antibiotic resistance can take
different trajectories within and outside a host.
==
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about
evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is
possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a
cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now
you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with
evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another
equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.
Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not
always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things
invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.
The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature
tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from,
why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes cant
have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get
around this by claiming that the information carried by living things
lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the
2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.
Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and
lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in
nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In
any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you
are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If
order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of
thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a
misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a
clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws
in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only
small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak).
For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or
shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents.
Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six
fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of
evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example,
maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more
offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be
observed today. They obviously dont violate any physical laws.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
------------------
What PE postulates is that large scale s organisms in a
relatively stable environment remain largely unchanged. Change, rather
occurs in small, marginal populations that have been isolated from the main
population, mostly through being driven, by population pressure into
marginal territories.

These small populations, now being subjected to a whole new set of
environmental pressures begin to undergo changes in response to those
pressures. Such conditions produce rapid change over relatively few
generations -- in geological terms. Since this new population is inevitably
going to be better adapted to what was previously marginal territory, it
will tend spread through this new territory, producing the stable large
population, with still other species, potentially, arising as the new stable
population pushes into new marginal territories. This is consistent with the
kind of new species that we observe currently on isolated islands. These are
clearly separate species, clearly related to other, similar and still-living
species with which they can no longer interbreed, and have clearly changed,
and often changed in very specific ways, in response to their new
environment. And it also, very clearly, happens fast.
And so we have, in PE, a theory that is consistent with the fossil record as
it is, and that is confirmed by contemporary observations of rapid change in
marginal populations, and that, further, has the advantage of invoking no
new mechanisms to account for the existence of life as it currently is.
==
Transitionals
---
An excellent but little-known transitional fossil is Traidobatrachus
(formerly known as Protobatrachus), which dates from the Triassic era about
200 million years ago. The Triadobatrachus fossil is a perfect transition
from the Labrynthodont amphibians to the modern frogs.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/
==
One fossilized fish is of the species Mioplosus labracoides, from the
late Early Eocene Fossil Lake sediments of the Green River
Formation (Wyoming, USA). It was apparently trapped in sediment and buried
while part-way through swallowing another fish. Another fossil shows a fish
which has already eaten its meal, but has not yet had a chance to digest
==
Study of the comparative anatomy of the various air breathing fishes and
their closest relatives.

Graham, J. 1997. Air-breathing fishes. Evolution, diversity and
adaptation. Academic Press, San Diego, etc.
It has sections on transitions to lungs and
respiratory gas bladders, pp. 68-69 on the origin and phylogeny of the
vertebrate lung, pp. 256-263 on fish air breathing and the evolution of
tetrapods. It covers the several other groups of modern living fish with
various air-breathing adaptations.
Thomson, K. S. 1993. The origin of the tetrapods. Amer. J. Sci. 293A:
33-62.It should cover dipnoans and their relationships with tetrapods].

7] Osteolepiforms to Pandericthyiids to early tetrapods:

Daeschler, E. B., & N. Shubin. 1998. Fish with fingers? Nature 391
[8 Jan. 1998]: 133. [A Late Devonian (ca. 370 mya) fossil from a
rhizodontid sarcopterygian, with more elaborate distal skeleton than
in all previously known ones: an array of eight distally facing and
jointed preaxial radials that are superficially similar in number and
configuration to the digits of early tetrapods. Nice photo &
diagrams. It seems to fit rather nicely into the morphological gap
between say, Eusthenopteron pectoral fins and Acanthostega hands.

Thomson, K. S. 1993. The origin of the tetrapods. Amer. J. Sci. 293A:
33-62. [havent seen this one myself, but should cover dipnoans and
their relationships with tetrapods].

TI: The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik:
postcranial anatomy,basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of
skeletal evolution.
AU: Coates-M-I
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH EARTH SCIENCES
87(3): 363-421, illustr. PY: 1996.

TI: Rapid braincase evolution between Panderichthys and the earliest
tetrapods.
AU: Ahlberg-P-E; Clack-J-A; Luksevics-E
SO: NATURE (LONDON) 381(6577), 2 May 1996: 61-64, illustr.
PY: 1996

TI: Romers gap: tetrapod origins and terrestriality.
AU: Coates-M-I; Clack-J-A
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C
SCIENCES DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE MINERALOGIE 17(1-4)
1995: 373-388, illustr. PY: 1995

TI: Acanthostega gunnari, a primitive, aquatic tetrapod?
AU: Clack-J-A; Coates-M-I
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C
SCIENCES
DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE MINERALOGIE 17(1-4)
1995: 359-372. PY: 1995

TI: Problems of the phylogenetic analysis of Paleozoic choanates. AU:
Carroll-R-L
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C
SCIENCES DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE MINERALOGIE
17(1-4) 1995: 389-445, illustr. PY: 1995

TI: Cranial ribs in Devonian lungfishes and the origin of dipnoan
air-breathing. AU: Long-J-A
SO: MEMOIR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALASIAN PALAEONTOLOGISTS 15 1993:
199-209, illustr. PY: 1993

TI: Rhipidistians, dipnoans, and tetrapods.
AU: Chang-M-M
SO: Schultze, H.-P. & Trueb, L. [Eds]. Origins of the higher groups of
tetrapods: controversy and consensus. Comstock Publishing Associates,
Ithaca & London. 1991: i-xii, 1-724. Chapter pagination: 3-28,
illustr. PY: 1991

Graham, J. 1997. Air-breathing fishes. Evolution, diversity and
adaptation. Academic Press, San Diego, etc. It has sections on
transitions to lungs and respiratory gas bladders, p. 68-69 on the
origin and phylogeny of the vertebrate lung, pp. 256-263 on fish air
breathing and the evolution of tetrapods.

Heres another one, before panderichthyids and osteolepiforms.

Zhu Min and Schultze, H.-P., 1997. The oldest sarcopterygian fish.
Lethaia, v.30, p.293-304.

The study of basal sarcopterygians is crucial to an understanding of
the relationships and interrelationships of sarcopterygians,
including their relationship to tetrapods. The new material from
Quijing, Yunnan, southwestern China, represents the oldest known
sarcopterygian fish and extends the record of sarcpoterygians to the
Late Silurian, or about 410 Ma. The new form is close to
_Youngolepis_ and _Powichthys_ at the base of the Crossopterygii.
Similarities among the lower jaws of onychodonts, porolepiforms,
_Youngolepis_, _Powichthys_ and the new form support a position
of the onychodonts within the Crossopterygii. Four characters in
the character matrix of Cloutier & Ahlberg (1996, in Stiassny et al:
Interrelationships of Fishes, Academic Press) are reviewed, and
sarcopterygian interrelationships are studied on the basis of their
data with minor modifications. The new scheme of sarcopterygian
interrelationships differs markedly from Cloutier and Ahlbergs
scheme. Neither actinistians nor onychodonts are situated at the base
of Sarcopterygii, but within the Crosspterygii. _Youngolepis_ and
_Powichthys_ are at the base of the Crosspterygii, instead of being
the sister group of dipnoans plus _Diabolepis_.

Translating: this thing is quite close to the common ancestor of
Dipnoi (think lungfish) and Crosspterygii (think lobe-finned
fish), but falls close to the base, both temporally and
phylogenetically, of the latter. Incidentally, the diagram at the end
of the paper shows how the Rhizodontida (the fish with fingers
mentioned below) fit into the story, in a generalized sense. Two new gaps!

|7] Osteolepiforms to Pandericthyiids to early tetrapods:
|Daeschler, E. B., & N. Shubin. 1998. Fish with fingers? Nature 391 [8
|Jan. 1998]: 133. [A Late Devonian (ca. 370 mya) fossil from a
rhizodontid sarcopterygian, with more elaborate distal skeleton than

[A Late Devonian (ca. 370 mya) fossil from a rhizodontid
sarcopterygian, with more elaborate distal skeleton than in all
previously known ones: an array of eight distally facing and jointed
preaxial radials that are superficially similar in number and
configuration to the digits of early tetrapods. Nice photo &
diagrams. It seems to fit nicely into the morphological gap between
say, Eusthenopteron pectoral fins and Acanthostega hands.

And some related references:

Thomson, K. S. 1993. The origin of the tetrapods. Amer. J. Sci. 293A: 33-62.

TI: The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik:
postcranial anatomy,basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of
skeletal evolution.
AU: Coates-M-I
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH EARTH SCIENCES
87(3): 363-421, illustr. PY: 1996.

TI: Acanthostega gunnari, a primitive, aquatic tetrapod?
AU: Clack-J-A; Coates-M-I
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C SCIENCES DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE MINERALOGIE
17(1-4) 1995: 359-372. PY: 1995

TI: Rhipidistians, dipnoans, and tetrapods.
AU: Chang-M-M
SO: Schultze, H.-P. & Trueb, L. [Eds]. Origins of the higher groups of
tetrapods: controversy and consensus. Comstock Publishing Associates,
Ithaca & London. 1991: i-xii, 1-724. Chapter pagination: 3-28,
illustr. PY: 1991

TI: The Devonian tetrapod Acanthostega gunnari Jarvik:
postcranial anatomy,basal tetrapod interrelationships and patterns of
skeletal evolution.
AU: Coates-M-I
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH EARTH SCIENCES
87(3): 363-421, illustr. PY: 1996.

TI: Rapid braincase evolution between Panderichthys and the earliest
tetrapods.
AU: Ahlberg-P-E; Clack-J-A; Luksevics-E
SO: NATURE (LONDON) 381(6577), 2 May 1996: 61-64, illustr. PY: 1996

TI: Romers gap: tetrapod origins and terrestriality.
AU: Coates-M-I; Clack-J-A
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C SCIENCES DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE
MINERALOGIE 17(1-4) 1995: 373-388, illustr. PY: 1995

TI: Acanthostega gunnari, a primitive, aquatic tetrapod?
AU: Clack-J-A; Coates-M-I
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C SCIENCES DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE
MINERALOGIE 17(1-4) 1995: 359-372. PY: 1995

TI: Problems of the phylogenetic analysis of Paleozoic choanates. AU:
Carroll-R-L
SO: BULLETIN DU MUSEUM NATIONAL DHISTOIRE NATURELLE
SECTION C SCIENCES DE LA TERRE PALEONTOLOGIE GEOLOGIE
MINERALOGIE 17(1-4) 1995: 389-445, illustr. PY: 1995

TI: Cranial ribs in Devonian lungfishes and the origin of dipnoan
air-breathing.
AU: Long-J-A SO: MEMOIR OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALASIAN
PALAEONTOLOGISTS 15 1993: 199-209, illustr. PY: 1993

TI: Rhipidistians, dipnoans, and tetrapods.
AU: Chang-M-M
SO: Schultze, H.-P. & Trueb, L. [Eds]. Origins of the higher groups of
tetrapods: controversy and consensus. Comstock Publishing Associates,
Ithaca & London. 1991: i-xii, 1-724. Chapter pagination: 3-28,
illustr. PY: 1991

AU: AHLBERG-E
SO: ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY 103(3): 241-288
PY: 1991LA: English
AB: The anatomy of the axial skeleton, median fins and skull of the
fossil group Porolepiformes (Osteichthyes: Sarcopterygii) is
reviewed, and descriptions by previous authors are modified in the
light of new evidence. [...snip...] A cladistic analysis based on 54
characters places the Porolepiformes as sister-group of a
clade Powichthys + Youngolepis + Diabolepis + Dipnoi. The
postcranial skeletons of porolepiforms and early lungfishes are very
similar, and the skulls of Powichthys, Youngolepis and Diabolepis can
be interpreted as forming a transformation series between
porolepiform and dipnoan cranial morphologies. Lungfishes thus
appear to be derived from rhipidistian ancestors. The
porolepiform-lungfish clade is the sister group of another clade
containing tetrapods, panderichthyids,
osteolepiforms and rhizodonts. Onychodonts and coelacanths are joining
unresolved sister groups of the other sarcopterygians. This cladogram
is compared with those of other authors, and possible explanations for
the differences are discussed. An outline classification of the
Sarcopterygii is proposed.
==
There are fossils of early pterygote insects with primitive wings that are
different from those of all living ones. Some early ones show winglike lobes
extending from the pronotum as well as the outgrowths that form the two
posterior pairs of wings.
==
Forey, Peter L. History of the coelacanth fishes. 1st ed. London; New
York: Chapman & Hall, 1998.
==
Actinistians are now known from the Palaeocene of Denmark (questionably,
however) and the Miocene of Israel. The 65 Ma coelacanth ghost lineage has
closed considerably (note also that latest K coelacanths were not known until
_Megalocoelacanthus_ was described by Schwimmer et al. in 1994).

TITLE Coelacanthid in Israels early Miocene? Latimeria tests Schaeffers
Theory.
AUTHORS Goldsmith-Naomi-F; Yanai-Inbar-Ilana
In: Fifty-seventh annual meeting, Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology; abstracts of papers.
SOURCE Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.17; 3, Suppl., Pages 49. 1997.

TITLE Giant fossil coelacanths of the Late Cretaceous in the
Eastern United States.
AUTHORS Schwimmer-David-R; Stewart-J-D; Williams-G-Dent
SOURCE Geology (Boulder).22; 6, Pages 503-506. 1994.

Forey, Peter L. History of the coelacanth fishes. 1st ed. London; New York:
Chapman &
Hall, 1998. ISBN:0412784807
==
Take a look at some pictures of Diaphanapterodea, which are primitive insects.

Some modern insects have no legs; in others, the front two legs
are vestigal; in others, the antennae are used like legs so the insect
mimics a spider. In some fossil insects, there are leg-like appendages
the length of the abdomen, and the maxillae and palps (mouthparts) are
very leg-like.
==
Ernst Mayr, Evolution, Scientific American 239: 47-55, Sept. 1978.
==
Scientists Discover a New Amino Acid
A tiny methane-producing microbe has revealed the existence of a new amino
acid, researchers report. The nonstandard amino acid, pyrrolysine, is encoded
in the RNA of bacteria-like members of the group Archaea. The findings suggest
that the genetic code may be more adaptable than previously believed.
==
Landscape Reveals Massive Lava Field Tied to Mass Extinction
The cause of the largest known mass extinction event, at the end of the Permian
period 250 million years ago, remains elusive. The leading candidates for the
chaos that killed close to 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of those
on land include dramatic fluctuations in climate or sea level, severe volcanism
or an impact with an asteroid or comet. Now findings published in the current
issue of the journal Science add further fuel to the debate. Scientists have
discovered that the surge of magma that occurred at the time of the Permian
extinction was at least twice as extensive as previously believed.
The giant outflow of magma produced the Siberian Traps, volcanic rocks located
in an area of Russia known as the Siberian platform. Scientists investigated
rocks removed from deep within a basin located nearly 1, 000 kilometers to the
west of the platform. After analyzing the chemical and physical
structure of these samples, the team determined that the rocks came from the
same source as did those in the Siberian Traps. The new findings suggest that
the Siberian Traps in fact covered almost 3.9 million square kilometers, an
area approximately half the size of Australia, over the course of hundreds of
would have added substantially to the volume of climate-changing gases
released into the atmosphere. Indeed, the team concludes that "the larger area
of volcanism strengthens the link between the volcanism and the end-Permian
mass extinction."

==
Crow, James F., Ionizing Radiation and Evolution, Scientific American, vol.
201 (September 1959), pp. 138-160. Crow was Chairman of Medical Genetics
at the University of Wisconsin. p. 138
The mutation rate affects not only the evolution of the human species
but also the life of the individual. Almost every mutation is harmful, and
it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to
increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral
problems for man.
p. 155
Of all the natural selection that occurs, only a small fraction leads to
any progressive or directional change. Most selection is devoted to
maintaining the status quo, to eliminating recurrent harmful mutations,
or to adjusting to transitory changes in the environment. Thus much
of the theory of natural selection must be a theory of statics rather
than dynamics.
p. 156
The process of mutation also produces ill-adapted types. The result
is a lowering of the average fitness of the population, the price that
asexual, as well as sexual, species pay for the privilege of evolution.
Intuition tells us that the effect of mutation on fitness should be
proportional to the mutation rate; Haldane has shown that the
reduction in fitness is, in fact, exactly equal to the mutation rate. p. 160
There can be little doubt that man would be better off if he had a
lower mutation-rate. I would argue, in our present ignorance, that
the ideal rate for the foreseeable future would in our present
ignorance, that the ideal rate for the foreseeable future would be zero.

The foreseeable future is an interesting comment. I wonder if a
parent in a malaria infested ecosystem feels that way about a
mutation that has their child expressing fetal hemoglobin. But
I cant blame someone from 40 years ago for being so short sighted.

Meanwhile, the homocentric perspective is a big clue to the
archaic nature of the comments. The science of biology
has come a long way.

Curtis, Howard J., Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process,
Science, vol. 141 (August 23, 1963), pp. 686-694.
p. 688

Certainly the vast majority of mutations must be deleterious.
Please note the language which reveals that this is speculation. Further
note that the date is from an era when the data just wasnt there.
This quote is rather well refuted by modern data.

It is suggested that the mutation rates for somatic cells are very much
higher than for gametic cells and that this circumstance insures the
death of the individual and the survival of the species.

Drake, John W., Environmental Mutagenic Hazards, Science, vol. 187
(February 14, 1975), pp. 503-14. Drake was Chairman of Committee 17 of the
Environmental Mutagen Society. p. 503
Most mutations producing effects large enough to be observed
are deleterious, although other mutations may produce little or no
consequence, and certain rare mutations may even be advantageous.

I wonder if you understand the bit about large enough to be observed.
As I suspect you dont, Ill cut my losses and stop here.

Martin, C. P., A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist,
vol. 41 (January 1953), pp. 100-106. Martin was at McGill University.
P. 337
It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes
of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental
natural mutation.

Wills, Christopher, Genetic Load, Scientific American, vol. 222
(March 1970), pp. 98-107. p. 98
Some mutations are beneficial, that is, the individual in whom they are
expressed is better able to adapt to a given set of environmental
circumstances. The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful
or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations
can be regarded as introducing a load, or genetic burden, into the pool. The
term genetic load was first used by the late H. J. Muller, who recognized
that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has
introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic
chemicals. p. 107 The most important actions that need to be taken,
however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those
already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is
harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations.
*******************************************************************************
END OF B14-Evolve-B1.txt