Absolutely Nothing: Atheists on What They Know About What They Pretend to Discuss

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Tiassa, Nov 15, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,021
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evograms_02
    What are evograms?

    Evograms are diagrams that convey information about how a group of organisms and their particular features evolved. The figure below is an evogram. Evograms contain a lot of information, so they cannot be easily digested in a few seconds. However, they are worth understanding because they convey information from several different lines of evidence and are particularly useful in showing students the logic, strength, and testability of evolutionary hypotheses.

    The evogram below concerns the origin of terrestrial vertebrates. In a separate section we'll explain more details about this example. Here we just want to show you how evograms are organized.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    much more at link......
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,021
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
    The origin of birds:

    The discovery that birds evolved from small carnivorous dinosaurs of the Late Jurassic was made possible by recently discovered fossils from China, South America, and other countries, as well as by looking at old museum specimens from new perspectives and with new methods. The hunt for the ancestors of living birds began with a specimen of Archaeopteryx, the first known bird, discovered in the early 1860s. Like birds, it had feathers along its arms and tail, but unlike living birds, it also had teeth and a long bony tail. Furthermore, many of the bones in Archaeopteryx's hands, shoulder girdles, pelvis, and feet were distinct, not fused and reduced as they are in living birds. Based on these characteristics, Archaeopteryx was recognized as an intermediate between birds and reptiles; but which reptiles?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    more at link..............

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This fossil of Sinosauropteryx preserves evidence of hair-like feathers
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,021
    And finally.......
    https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
    The emergence of humans:

    The narratives of human evolution are oft-told and highly contentious. There are major disagreements in the field about whether human evolution is more like a branching tree or a crooked stick, depending partly on how many species one recognizes. Interpretations of almost every new find will be sure to find opposition among other experts. Disputes often center on diet and habitat, and whether a given animal could walk bipedally or was fully upright. What can we really tell about human evolution from our current understanding of the phylogenetic relations of hominids and the sequence of evolution of their traits?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    To begin with, let's take a step back. Although the evolution of hominid features is sometimes put in the framework of "apes vs. humans," the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals. A glance at the evogram shows why. The other apes — chimp, bonobo, gorilla, orangutan, gibbon — would not form a natural, monophyletic group (i.e., a group that includes all the descendants of a common ancestor) — if humans were excluded. Humans share many traits with other apes, and those other "apes" (i.e., non-human apes) don't have unique features that set them apart from humans. Humans have some features that are uniquely our own, but so do gorillas, chimps, and the rest. Hominid evolution should not be read as a march to human-ness (even if it often appears that way from narratives of human evolution). Students should be aware that there is not a dichotomy between humans and apes. Humans are a kind of ape.

    Virtually all systematists and taxonomists agree that we should only give names to monophyletic groups. However, this evogram shows that this guideline is not always followed. For an example, consider Australopithecus. On the evogram you can see a series of forms, from just after Ardipithecus to just before Homo in the branching order, that are all called Australopithecus. (Even Paranthropus is often considered an australopithecine.) But as these taxa appear on the evogram, "Australopithecus" is not a natural group, because it is not monophyletic: some forms, such as A. africanus, are found to be closer to humans than A. afarensis and others. Beyond afarensis, for example, all other Australopithecus and Homo share "enlarged cheek teeth and jaws," because they have a more recent common ancestor. Eventually, several of these forms will have to have new genus names if we want to name only monophyletic groups. Students should avoid thinking of "australopithecines" as a natural group with uniquely evolved traits that link its members together and set it apart from Homo. Instead they should focus on the pattern of shared traits among these species and the Homo clade, recognizing that each species in this lineage gains more and more features that are shared by Homo.

    In popular fiction and movies, the concept of the wild "ape-man" is often that of a tree-living, vine-swinging throwback like Tarzan. However, the pantheon of hominids is much richer than this, as the evogram shows with forms as different as Paranthropus and Ardipithecus shows. For example, imagine going back in time to the common ancestor of humans and chimps (including bonobos). What did that common ancestor look like? In the Origin of Species Darwin noted that the extinct common ancestor of two living forms should not be expected to look like a perfect intermediate between them. Rather, it could look more like one branch or the other branch, or something else entirely.

    Did the common ancestor of humans and chimps conform to the ape-man myth and live in the trees, swinging from vines? To answer this, we have to focus not only on anatomy but on behavior, and we have to do it in a phylogenetic context. Apes such as the gibbon and orangutan, which are more distantly related to humans, are largely arboreal (i.e., tree-living). The more closely related apes such as the gorilla and chimps are relatively terrestrial, although they can still climb trees. The feet of the first hominids have a considerable opposition of the big toe to the others but relatively flat feet, as arboreal apes generally do. But other features of their skeleton, such as the position of the foramen magnum underneath the skull, the vertically shortened and laterally flaring hips, and the larger head of the femur, suggest that they were not just mainly terrestrial but habitually bipedal, unlike their knuckle-walking relatives. Most evidence suggests that the hominid lineage retained some of the anatomical features related to arboreal life and quadrupedal gait even after it had evolved a more terrestrial lifestyle and a bipedal gait. There is no fossil record of these behaviors, but the balance of the available evidence supports the hypothesis that the hominid ancestor was terrestrial and bipedal.

    Much discussion in human paleontology surrounds the evolution of a bipedal, upright stance. When and why did this occur? One thing to keep in mind is that "bipedal" and "upright" are not equivalent terms. An animal can be bipedal without having a vertical backbone (think T. rex). It seems clear from the fossil record of hominids that habitual bipedality preceded the evolution of a recurved spine and upright stance. Other changes in the gait, such as how the relatively "splayed" gait of chimps evolved into the gait of humans, who put one foot directly in front of the other, involve studying the hip joint, the femur, and the foot. The famous Laetoli footprints attributed to Australopithecus afarensis are bipedal, but they are still relatively splayed compared to the tracks of living humans.

    Another extremely interesting feature in hominid evolution is the degree of sexual dimorphism (i.e., physical differences between the sexes) in different species. Sexual dimorphism is linked to features of sociality and mate competition in many sorts of animals. To understand the evolution of this feature in humans, which have relatively low sexual dimorphism, we need to consider the other apes, in which sexual dimorphism tends to be moderate to high (with exceptions). We don't have sufficient evidence about Sahelanthropus, Orrorin, and Ardipithecus to understand much about sex differences in these species, but we do know that A. afarensis had relatively high sexual dimorphism: the males were considerably larger than the females. The difference seems to have been less in A. africanus, Paranthropus, and most of the Homo lineage. The evolutionary explanation for A. afarensis' dimorphism is not entirely clear. The larger males may have used their size to attract females and/or repel rivals, which would fit with an explanation based on sexual selection. Or the males and females may have been differently sized because they played different roles in their groups, the males hunting and gathering and the females caring for the young. Darwin thought that this differentiation of the sexes may have played a critical role in human evolution, but we simply do not know much about the role of this feature in A. afarensis. Some, all, or none of these functions may have been in play.

    We do know that by the time the animals known as Homo evolved, they could make tools, and their hands were well suited for complex manipulations. These features were eventually accompanied by the reduction of the lower face, particularly the jaws and teeth, the recession of the brow, the enlargement of the brain, the evolution of a more erect posture, and the evolution of a limb more adapted for extended walking and running (along with the loss of arboreally oriented features). The evogram shows the hypothesized order of acquisition of these traits. Yet each of the Homo species was unique in its own way, so human evolution should not be seen as a simple linear progression of improvement toward our own present-day form.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,021
    extract from above scientific article......
    "the fact is that humans are apes, just as they are primates and mammals"

    Jan!!!You're a bloody Ape...get used to it!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,709
    There is one MAJOR dichotomy between humans and the other great apes. An evolutionary mutation which separated humans from our common ancestor and was the beginning of the homo sapiens branch.
    https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...-early-societies/a/where-did-humans-come-from

    If the above is correct, this human mutation must have occurred some time before 2.3 (above) million years ago and was the probable cause for the development of a larger, more complex brain than our non-mutated cousins.

    The mutation which is the undisputable mark of the emergence of homo sapiens is the fusion of two chromosomes in one of our hominid ancestors, resulting in the single larger human chromosome2 which marks a clear split of homo sapiens from the continued evolution of our non-mutated ancestor into the modern great apes.

    This is near absolute proof because only humans have one less chromosome pair (23) than our other great ape cousins (24). This the single unmistakable difference between our species.

    Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
    Introduction
    The Evidence

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Conclusion

    The evidence that human chromosome 2 is a fusion of two of the common ancestor's chromosomes is overwhelming.

    http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm[/quote]
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2020
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  9. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,117
    Is this your model in the sense that you created it or in the sense you have adopted it?

    Your reasoning is persuasive although my expressed concerns remain.

    Why have an inflationary epoch at all?

    What observations were drawn upon to first arrive at the hypothesis and when The Theory of Inflation was presented did it meet the requirements of a scientific theory?

    I am curious to know about falsifiability, observations and prediction.

    I could imagine that you find such an interpretation appealing but is there any parrallel to be inferred from the behaviour of water and the stuff we deal with in the inflationary epoch given the forces and structures involved in your water example it seems had yet to appear...but that would only be one aspect of concern it seems.

    Alex
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,117
    I see you are up for another severe crushing Jan I think you actually enjoy the experience given the many times you line yourself up and call out "crush me crush me crush me" figuratively speaking. No doubt as I read the latest posts I will witness yet another severe crushing.

    Alex
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,509
    Not assuming anything.

    Radioisotope dating is science, even if you don't understand it.
    Comparative anatomy is science, even if you don't understand it.
    Molecular clocks are science, even if you don't understand them.
    DNA sequencing is science, even if you don't understand it.

    All of them support cetacean evolution.
    Do you believe that nuclear submarines exist? Their existence is also supported by science that you likely don't understand. Are they just an elaborate idea, where results are made to fit the idea?
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,709
    I'm not sure. It is my own interpretation of bits and pieces I have read, but it undoubtedly has been proposed before I imagined it.
    Understandably, I have not sufficient knowledge to present proof other than a logical deduction of what I understand is "common knowledge" about the BB.
    OK. This is the crux of the matter.
    All known science of universal mathematical /physical laws and constants are based on the observed properties and mathematical functions of this universal spacetime fabric and geometry. But that all came after the birth our universe and does not say anything about the properties and potentials of the pre-BB condition. I am assuming that the pre-BB condition was a timeless purely permittive condition of pure potential, precisely because spacetime with its restrictive mathematical/physical properties had not formed yet.
    IOW, there was no restriction of any kind, including the spacetime restriction of "c". It was a timeless permittive condition of pure potential (David Bohm) (see continuation).

    AFAIK, there is no compelling reason why we should assign any mathematical limitations to the pre-BB condition. The limitations of "c" is a spacetime phenomonon. No spacetime, no "c".
    Therefore, there existed no mathematical restrictions preventing the initial instant from expanding at any speed generated by that first mega-quantum event releasing all the energy of our current universe. The evidence seems to confirm that, no? That is why we call it the inflationary epoch, apart from the subsequent spacetime expansion and all the values and functions associated with spacetime.
    My model is based on the assumption that prior to the BB there were no functional restrictions of any kind. All that came after the Inflationary epoch and the emergent self-ordering spacetime fabric, along with its mathematical properties and functions.
    I would argue that in view of the lack of any method of falsification, the logic might stand on its own merit? It does not invoke any magical interventions.
    That analogy was merely illustrative of known and testable emergent properties of the same constituent particles, arranged in different patterns. This analogy is actually used by Tegmark in his lecture about consciousness being a mathematical pattern.
    I used it only to illustrate the possible emergent spacetime patterns and their mathematical/physical properties after the inflationary epoch, but not necessarily before. Sufficient spacetime density to exhibit the emergence of the mathematical restriction of "c"
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2020
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,709
    continuation,
    "A great many people think they are thinking , when they are merely rearranging their prejudices" David Bohm.

    David Bohm and The Holographic Universe:
    His initial concept of an "Implicate order"
    https://futurism.com/david-bohm-and-the-holographic-universe

    Of course this is his concept of a post-BB universe. In another lecture he does address an intial state of "pure chaotic potential". I am not sure if that implies a pre-BB or a post-BB condition. Maybe the inflationary epoch?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2020
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,709
    We can actually learn a thing ot two from the Bonobo chimpanzee, the most peaceful of all the great apes.
     
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,546
    Or lump of mud, according to some

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,117
    I find your reply most curious but it seems you are not working with a specific model but with your general understanding...which is really what we all do if we are not Alan Guth.

    I suppose my point is that if we entertain the possibility of momentum and assume that creating space met no resistance we could reasonably expect there to be no slow down after the doubling was complete. Moreover one must wonder why the inflation epoch ended other than to fit the next part of the model. Change in temperature or indeed pressure one could think would not play any part in a change in the rate of inflation or indeed expansion given we are dealing with space and it's apparent creation...which raises an interesting aspect...is it that space is being created or was space somehow contained in that original state, that I will casually call the singularity, even though it is not well described that way.

    I was ready to answer the reply I expected ( don't ask a question unless you know the answer) but you presented nothing that I expected.

    I don't wish to appear dismissive however for now that is all I can do.

    There are many aspects of your reply that I could review and offer comment however I must encourage you to give the answer I expected.

    Please think about my question.

    As I recall, without looking to confirm my exact words, I asked why do we need the inflationary epoch...it is covered by the Theory of Inflation I believe a seemingly special theory somewhat separate from that which went before it...or from another approach...what was Alan Ruth about ...what was his motivation to work upon his theory...why did he develop his hypothesis?

    That maybe an unfounded assumption, well of course it is, but let's go with it...and when done we can assume that some fundamental restrictions would have been in place perhaps to manage the hypothesis relating to quantum foam.

    Lack of falsification indeed leaves us with mere logic and logic is not something that can readily agreed upon.

    But what I was seeking was your view as to the question I will now set out so as to be clear...can we call the Theory of Inflation a scientific theory?

    Does it meet the requirements of a scientific theory or is it something less than that?

    I am not a scientist but I would expect that a scientist would find anology just as useless as I do in matters where we can apply exact description.

    Anology is dangerous.
    Think... Big Bang..oh I get it says everyone...and imagine a explosion. Would you call any part of the big bang "a explosion".
    I haven't seen Tredmark but I think I may be disappointed if he resorts to anology.

    I think as a general observation what we must remember is when we try to glimpse those early events we do so moving well past observation and although we have CBR it does not take us past a point...and perhaps past that point we need to be more critical of the logic we employ.

    Alex
     
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,546
    Heard somewhere (QI I think) Tarzan could not swing on vines as vines grow from ground upwards

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,781
    People ridicule you incessantly in these threads - not sure it's worth it for some ''banter''. It would seem to the outsider looking in, that you hold out hope that your viewpoint will at least be ''heard.'' (which it isn't...at all, by this bunch)

    I just wondered if you were looking for something...more. But, fair enough. Banter, it is.
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,117
    Bohm argued that the empty space in the universe contained the whole of everything.

    I think he is close but I see just a little different...my statement, although clumbsy, which few can grasp can be the only realty ...through any point a part of everything passes, and there is not one point in the universe where such is not so.
    Alex
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,117
    Yes they have so much sex they are not burdened with the hang ups humans create for themselves.
    Alex
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,117
    Trust me you can.
    Alex
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,021
    Tarzan swings and Tarzan Falls,
    Then Jane grabs him by the balls,
    And Thats why he yells,
    AAAAAAAAAAAUUGGHHHHHHHHAAAAAAGGGGHHHAAAAAAAAAHHH
     
    Michael 345 likes this.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,021
    As well accepted as the BB was, there was still a couple of nagging unlexplained problems....homogenious and flatness of the observable universe, which Inflation seems to iron out.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page