Agentofallah , i saw u viewing this thread can u share your thought..... it been a while bro

nwabekeyi:
Overtime and based on need to adapt to the nutrition available, light exposure, positioning, need to walk instead of swimming etc amphibians evolved to reptiles, reptiles to birds, birds to primates and so on till we finally for to where we are. You will agree with me that, we still have most amphibians like some salamanders who still look like fishes, most amphibian offsprings and eggs cannot breath air.

Wait, what? Birds evolved to primates!?

vaxx:
Agentofallah , i saw u viewing this thread can u share your thought..... it been a while bro

Hi Vaxx the diviner. It has been a while. Got super busy with work. How spirit? By the way, have you read 'Children of Blood and Bones'? If not, do. If yes, I wonder what your take is on the portrayal of Yoruba divinity in the book. But let's not derail this thread. We can discuss it some other place.

AgentOfAllah:

Hi Vaxx the diviner. It has been a while. Got super busy with work. How spirit? By the way, have you read 'Children of Blood and Bones'? If not, do. If yes, I wonder what your take is on the portrayal of Yoruba divinity in the book. But let's not derail this thread. We can discuss it some other place.

That is a big qualification. i am still a student o. ''children of blood and bones''..... whaoo, i am going for it bro and i will let u know after reading...... Do not over work yourself o

SoundLock:
I'm only concerned about the evolution of man and how that fits into the narrative that we are being fed about evolution.

So my question is this: Why did it take homo sapiens so little time to evolve from homo erectus and how did this short period of evolution lead to drastic changes like a complete facial morphological configuration, the development of consciousness, the change in bone size and bone mass, the development of modulation, the shedding of hair along with the evolution of the mechanism of sweating etc. How did all this happen within a short period of time, remarkably so even while Homo-erectus still existed?

cc Nwabekeyi

homo erectus didn't evolve into homo sapiens over a short period of time, it took about more than 1.5million years

AgentOfAllah:

Wait, what? Birds evolved to primates!?

that's not a detailed line Sir, I was trying to make a short description in other to try to explain some other things to him but obviously, birds came before primates but it doesn't certainly mean birds evolved directly into primates

nwabekeyi:
vaxx, evolution is not the addition to genome, it can occur without any addition. I really wish to break this down to you but you are responding like you don't want me or I don't really know what I'm saying.

I get all your points but you don't really understand the intricacies of gene mutation in relationship to evolution.

For example, the first malaria parasite doesn't need to add anything to its genome to be able to resist malaria drugs, all it needs to do is either to slowly modify the genes responsible for the synthesis of some proteins by rearranging some of the nuclear bases then transfer those mutated genes to it's offspring afterwards. Those parasites who were unable to modify these genes will not survive, they will die.

The purpose of this illustration is to tell you that evolution is not dependent on genetic addition, it comes as a result of slight arrangement of a certain gene that could be as a result adapting to an environment or error during genetic replication or repair. To a malaria parasite, it has to adapt to the change in the chemical component of its environment as a result of the addition of a drug hence modifies some certain genes because it senses it as a danger.

Of course addition occurs, but that's mostly in prokaryotes in form of plasmids.

I am ignorant on the subject of evolution, so I may not be able to do this subject any kind of justice. However, since you've asked for my input, I am inclined to support Nwabekiyi's argument. From my own readings and understanding, I am not convinced that information must be added for mutation to occur.

nwabekeyi:
homo erectus didn't evolve into homo sapiens over a short period of time, it took about more than 1.5million years

The earliest homo sapiens fossils ever found are dated around 300,000 - 200,000 years. Homo-erectus in their characteristic form were around then, even well into 160,000 years ago, so how then did humans evolve all these features from them, when no transitory species exist? It's more like some Homo erectus species transformed into homo sapiens overnight, while the rest just remained the same.

Remember the features we are referring to: Total change of bone size and density; protrusion of the forehead; depression of defined brow ridges; complete change of the throat configuration; the evolution of speech; development of larger pre-frontal cortex; the disappearance of thick hair on the body; the evolution of sweating; the transformation of the walking pattern evidenced by change in feet shape; transformation of eye sockets; loss of nocturnal vision and the evolution of consciousness amongst more - All these features are unprecedented in the evolution of primates and they all occurred at the same time during the so-called evolution of man. Is this how evolution works?

AgentOfAllah:


I am ignorant on the subject of evolution, so I may not be able to do this subject any kind of justice. However, since you've asked for my input, I am inclined to support Nwabekiyi's argument. From my own readings and understanding, I am not convinced that information must be added for mutation to occur.

i have provide an article to back it up . i just do not make a claim. i study it too. and likewise as u said. i am also a student trying to learn. this article give an insight.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

nwabekeyi:
that's not a detailed line Sir, I was trying to make a short description in other to try to explain some other things to him but obviously, birds came before primates but it doesn't certainly mean birds evolved directly into primates

I doubt birds evolved into primates, directly or indirectly. As you see in the figure below, they belong to completely different branches of the tetrapod class.

Also, I don't think it is accurate that such a thing as "first human" exists, as you erroneously suggested. As tempting as it might be, it is not at all helpful to think of evolutionary stages as discrete. You'll just fall into all sorts chicken and egg problems that way. For instance, one might ask why the parents of the "first human" aren't human?


Courtesy: Nature

vaxx:
i have provide an article to back it up . i just do not make a claim. i study it too. and likewise as u said. i am also a student trying to learn. this article give an insight.

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/genemutation

I agree with the general definition in the link you provided. I am just not sure we understand addition of information in the same way. Mutation simply means alteration of something. Alteration can occur through a combination of several pathways, including addition, subtraction and rearrangement. I acknowledge that addition results in mutation, but in so far as the definition does not preclude that latter two pathways, I don't see where the problem is with Nwa's statement.

SoundLock:


The earliest homo sapiens fossils ever found are dated around 300,000 - 200,000 years. Homo-erectus in their characteristic form were around then, even well into 160,000 years ago, so how then did humans evolve all these features from them, when no transitory species exist? It's more like some Homo erectus species transformed into homo sapiens overnight, while the rest just remained the same.

Remember the features we are referring to: Total change of bone size and density; protrusion of the forehead; depression of defined brow ridges; complete change of the throat configuration; the evolution of speech; development of larger pre-frontal cortex; the disappearance of thick hair on the body; the evolution of sweating; the transformation of the walking pattern evidenced by change in feet shape; transformation of eye sockets; loss of nocturnal vision and the evolution of consciousness amongst more - All these features are unprecedented in the evolution of primates and they all occurred at the same time during the so-called evolution of man. Is this how evolution works?

Not my question but i find this interesting. i get Ur point. but not so in total as u mean . Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here and how it was observed, but i admit not in all. https://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one is yet to be observed either , such as a frog changing into a cow. but this is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be a very strong evidence against evolution.

AgentOfAllah:


I agree with the general definition in the link you provided. I am just not sure we understand addition of information in the same way. Mutation simply means alteration of something. Alteration can occur through a combination of several pathways, including addition, subtraction and rearrangement. I acknowledge that addition results in mutation, but in so far as the definition does not preclude that latter two pathways, I don't see where the problem is with Nwa's statement.

This is my claim in which NWA is challenging .

SoundLock:


The earliest homo sapiens fossils ever found are dated around 300,000 - 200,000 years. Homo-erectus in their characteristic form were around then, even well into 160,000 years ago, so how then did humans evolve all these features from them, when no transitory species exist? It's more like some Homo erectus species transformed into homo sapiens overnight, while the rest just remained the same.

Remember the features we are referring to: Total change of bone size and density; protrusion of the forehead; depression of defined brow ridges; complete change of the throat configuration; the evolution of speech; development of larger pre-frontal cortex; the disappearance of thick hair on the body; the evolution of sweating; the transformation of the walking pattern evidenced by change in feet shape; transformation of eye sockets; loss of nocturnal vision and the evolution of consciousness amongst more - All these features are unprecedented in the evolution of primates and they all occurred at the same time during the so-called evolutionn of man. Is this how evolution works?

the first homo erectus was said to be found in Asia About 1.8million years ago, the first homo sapien was found 195000 years ago.

AgentOfAllah:


I doubt birds evolved into primates, directly or indirectly. As you see in the figure below, they belong to completely different branches of the tetrapod class.

Also, I don't think it is accurate that such a thing as "first human" exists, as you erroneously suggested. As tempting as it might be, it is not at all helpful to think of evolutionary stages as discrete. You'll just fall into all sorts chicken and egg problems that way. For instance, one might ask why the parents of the "first human" aren't human?


Courtesy: Nature

OK noted, mistake on me

vaxx:
Not my question but i find this interesting. i get Ur point. but not so in total as u mean . Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. try and read from here and how it was observed, but i admit not in all. itwhttps://www.wired.com/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one is yet to be observed either , such as a frog changing into a cow. but this is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

I understand evolution and I agree that it occurs. I'm content with most of the scientific literature surrounding animal evolution up to homo-erectus. It's the literature that describes the evolution of man that I don't agree with. it's all just stupid conjecturing in my opinion. I think the evidence in respect to human evolution suggests that the evolution from homo erectus to homosapiens was either accelerated by forces we don't understand, or humans were created using the DNA of primates. But to claim that humans somehow evolved DIRECTLY from a primate that we hardly share any similarity with, is just preposterous.

SoundLock:


I understand evolution and I agree that it occurs. I'm content with most of the scientific literature surrounding animal evolution up to homo-erectus. It's the literature that describes the evolution of man that I don't agree with. it's all just stupid conjecturing in my opinion. I think the evidence in respect to human evolution suggests that the evolution from homo erectus to homosapiens was either accelerated by forces we don't understand, or humans were created using the DNA of primates. But to claim that humans somehow evolved DIRECTLY from a primate that we hardly share any similarity with, is just preposterous.

which primate in particular?

You don't have to be stupīd to get noticed. Since you know it all and have no questions, keep shut and move to the next thread or are you that petulant narcissist that thinks nairaland and its topics are all about you?

spartan117:

I've done my research about evolution theory, if I need to clarify anything Google is my friend. So what are you guys offering that I don't already know?

The op said that creationists think evolution takes place overnight and he based this entire thread in line with that discussion. But he is wrong common ss2 biology taught us about evolution theory, and Charles darwin made it very clear that evolution takes millions of years.

So you guys should tell the house something we don't already know since you wish to 'educate' us

nwabekeyi:
the first homo erectus was said to be found in Asia About 1.8million years ago, the first homo sapien was found 195000 years ago.

Exactly. But its widely believed that Homo erectus still existed alongside humans and went extinct around 143,000 years due to human dominance.

Even if we say that the last characteristic homo erectus walked the earth 1.8 million years before the first homo sapiens evolved (which isn't the case) where are the transitory fossils that indicate a gradual change? All we see are just entirely human and entirely homo erectus fossils.

Also, if I go with your presumption that all these features evolved within 1.8 million years, how then is it possible since it took about the same period of time for homo habilis to evolve into homo erectus and there was hardly any change in their features. Humans have existed for over 300,000 years, recent data suggest we've been around even longer. This is roughly about 1/5 of the time it took all the features I listed to have evolved and we haven't evolved any new features much less something of that transformational magnitude.

Evolution is a very slow process. The evolution of a new feature in a species is practically a miracle. Homo sapiens seemed to have evolved over 25 news features within a very short period of time(in evolutionary terms). This is what I don't get. How does a specie evolve an entirely new size and density of bone within the same period of time it was evolving a larger pre-frontal cortex, within the same period of time it was evolving speech, within the same period of time all it's facial features were changing, within the same period of time it was losing it's hair. This isn't an evolutionary transition, it's an accelerated transformation or more plausibly, an entirely new creation.

vaxx:
which primate in particular?

Homo-erectus. They are nothing like humans. They are stronger and much bigger. Their bones are denser and thicker. They are very much like the primates that preceded them than they are like humans. All other primates have the same facial morphology, regardless of the evolutionary time line between them. They all had large eye sockets that enabled nocturnal vision, prominent brow ridges, a neck that couldn't move like ours can, large nasal cavities, small prefrontal cortexes hence flat foreheads and loads of other features. Humans are very different.

SoundLock:


Exactly. But its widely believed that Homo erectus still existed alongside humans and went extinct around 143,000 years due to human dominance.

Even if we say that the last characteristic homo erectus walked the earth 1.8 million years before the first homo sapiens evolve (which isn't the case) where are the transitory fossils that indicate a gradual change? All we see are just entirely human and entirely homo erectus fossils.

Also, if I go with your presumption that all these features evolved within 1.8 million years, how then is it possible since it took about the same period of time for homo habilis to evolve into homo erectus and there was hardly any change in their features. I mean, humans have existed for over 300,000 years, recent data suggest we've been around even longer. This is roughly about 1/5 of the time it took all the features I listed to evolved and we haven't evolved any new features much less something of that transformational magnitude.

Evolution is a very slow process. The evolution of a new feature in a species is practically a miracle. Homo sapiens seemed to evolved over 25 news features within a very short period of time(in evolutionary terms). This is what I don't get. How does a specie evolve an entirely new size and density of bone within the same period of time it was evolving a larger pre-frontal cortex, within the same period of time it was evolving speech, swithin the same period of time all it's facial features were changing, within the same period of time it was losing it's hair. This isn't an evolutionary transition, it's an accelerated transformation or more plausibly, an entirely new creation.

civilization will bring fast evolutionary process, the depletion of forest reserves and disruption of the green house wll further lead emergence of rapid adaptative features. I won't be surprised if one tell me that humans will exhibit drasctic physical changes in few thousand years to come, faster than it has always been.

Rapid industrialization, deforestation and other human activities that has lead to increase change in the earth's atmosphere, Penetration of more radiation, decreased oxygen production, higher temperature etc will definitely lead to faster rate of evolution. Homo habalis that inhabited the iceage will not be able to survive our current environment if evolution hadn't occurred.

Remember, evolution is tightly linked to environmental change, the faster we contribute to change in environment, the faster we adapt to be able to survive in that environment, if we can't adapt, we will definitely go into extinction.

And don't forget that in this process of adapting, lot of human lives would have been lost, just the most adaptive genes will survive.

vaxx:
you need then to further study your biology textbook? as i said. there are evidence of mutations that cause the deletion, duplication or change of alleles, but never an addition. (For example, if the gene reads AATC, we have seen it change to ATC or AATCAATC or ATTC, but never AATCC.) Evolutionary theory depends on addition mutations and while they may exist in theory, they have never been observed.

you can not talk about evolution without mutation, it is like talking about a car without its particular brand.

Provide links to study please.

nwabekeyi:
civilization will bring fast evolutionary process, the depletion of forest reserves and disruption of the green house wll further lead emergence of rapid adaptative features. I won't be surprised if one tell me that humans will exhibit drasctic physical changes in few thousand years to come, faster than it has always been.

Rapid industrialization, deforestation and other human activities that has lead to increase change in the earth's atmosphere, Penetration of more radiation, decreased oxygen production, higher temperature etc will definitely lead to faster rate of evolution. Homo habalis that inhabited the iceage will not be able to survive our current environmental if evolution hadn't occurred.

Remember, evolution is tightly linked to environmental change, the faster we contribute to change in environment, the faster we adapt to be able to survive in that environment, if we can't adapt, we will definitely go into extinction.

And don't forget that in this process of adapting, lot of human lives would have been lost, just the most adaptive genes will survive.

Nothing here answers my question. You seem to just be making weak excuses.

Everything orthodox science tells us about the origin of man on earth pre-5000BC is shrouded in conjecturing disguised as fact, deliberate fudging of the data and subtle concealment of information.

Humans didn't evolve from Homo-erectus. I don't know how we were created or how we emerged. What I know is that there is a lot about our history that we don't know and instead of claiming to know let's just be open minded and stop making preposterous conjectures. Not too long ago, science believed humans evolved from Neanderthals, when they couldn't cope with the overwhelming evidence contradicting this notion, they changed the narrative to us evolving from Homo-Erectus. These people are just either confused or pushed by forces who have the true knowledge into lying.

SoundLock:


Nothing here answers my question. You seem to just be making weak excuses.

Everything orthodox science tells us about the origin of man on earth pre-5000BC is shrouded in conjecturing disguised as fact, deliberate fudging of information and subtle concealment of information.

Humans didn't evolve from Homo-erectus. I don't know how we were created or how we emerged. What I know is that there is a lot about our history that we don't know and instead of claiming to know let's just be open minded and stop making preposterous conjectures. Not too long ago, science believed humans evolved from Neanderthals, when they couldn't cope with the overwhelming evidence contradicting this notion, they changed the narrative to us evolving from Homo-Erectus. These people are just either confused or pushed by forces who have the true knowledge into lying.

science still believe that we evolved directly from homo heidelbergensis and not homo erectus.

Homo erectus were not the immediate pregnitors of humans. I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line and saying science is confused about evolution is like saying that astronomers who predicted several eclipses that actually happened were also confused.Homo heidelbergensis

nwabekeyi:
science still believe that we evolved directly from neanthertals and not homo erectus.

Homo erectus were not the immediate pregnitors of humans. I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line

For someone who created a thread to educate people about evolution, you seem to be very ignorant on the subject.

Even a kid in primary school knows that the currently literature on evolution states that humans evolved directly from homo erectus. I mean this is basic evolutionary history.

I'm very disappointed.

nwabekeyi:
science still believe that we evolved directly from neanthertals and not homo erectus.

Homo erectus were not the immediate pregnitors of humans. I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line and saying science is confused about evolution is like saying that astronomers who predicted several eclipses that actually happened were also confused.

Anatomically modern humans are thought to have evolved from Homo erectus between 300,000 and 200,000 years

Source wikipedia.

In fact the truthfully touted evolutionary jingle is that BOTH Neanderthals and modern humans evolved from the homo erectus and not what you are mis educating about

SoundLock:


For someone who created a thread to educate people about evolution, you seem to be very ignorant on the subject.

Even a kid in primary school knows that the currently literature on evolution claims that humans evolved directly from homo erectus. I mean this is basic evolutionary history.

I'm very disappointed.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-humans-evolve-from-neanderthals-if-they-lived-in-the-same-time-period

I foresaw this faux pas coming several miles away but was shouted down to keep quiet since I was not asking direct questions.

SoundLock:


Homo-erectus. They are nothing like humans. They are stronger and much bigger. Their bones are denser and thicker. They are very much like the primates that preceded them than they are like humans. All other primates have the same facial morphology, regardless of the evolutionary time line between them. They all had large eye sockets that enabled nocturnal vision, prominent brow ridges, a neck that couldn't move like ours can, large nasal cavities, small prefrontal cortexes hence flat foreheads and loads of other features. Humans are very different.

interesting,there are differences between anthropologists interpretation on how they interpret the evidence. Those anthropologists who think that H. homo eectus is a separate, distinct species would say that heidelbergensis is the direct ancestor of both H. sapiens and H. neanderthal (and possibly H. denisovan, too). The ancestor of H. heidelbergensis is H. ergaster/erectus found in (Africa).

Those anthropologists who look at the differences between the fossils of H. heidelbergensis do not view it as a separate species, but rather as a conglomeration of transitional individuals. The fossils in Africa link H. ergaster to H. sapiens. The H. heidelbergensis fossils in Europe are transitional between H. ergaster and H. neanderthal.

In either case, H. sapiens evolved from H. ergaster/H. erectus (Africa). The difference is whether there is an intermediate species — H. heidelbergensis — in the family tree. So H. ergaster would be our “father” or “grandfather” species.

Most anthropologists now view H. erectus in Java as a different species than H. ergaster. The evidence indicates that when members of H. ergaster migrated from Africa that one population in Northern China evolved to H. pekinsiensis (Peking Man) and another population in SE Asia evolved to H. erectus (Java Man) that was discoved in the island of java

http://www.efossils.org/species/homo-ergaster....

SoundLock:


For someone who created a thread to educate people about evolution, you seem to be very ignorant on the subject.

Even a kid in primary school knows that the currently literature on evolution claims that humans evolved directly from homo erectus. I mean this is basic evolutionary history.

I'm very disappointed.

https://www.quora.com/How-did-humans-evolve-from-neanderthals-if-they-lived-in-the-same-time-period

I don't need primary school knowledge to know evolution, this same primary school knowledge told us that sunrises in the east and sets in the west.

I still stand my ground that homo sapein didn't evolve directly from homo erectus, go back and read well and stop telling me a primary school rhyme.

Homo sapiens never evolved directly from homo erectus

nwabekeyi:
I really do not know where you got this information about changing evolutionary line and saying science is confused about evolution is like saying that astronomers who predicted several eclipses that actually happened were also confused.

Don't compare astronomy with evolutionary science surrounding the origin of man. Astronomy is couched in facts that can be repeatedly tested and replicated. Evolutionary science surrounding the evolution of man is just conjecturing; claims without compelling evidence and fudging of information to suit a historical narrative.

It's still the same scientists that are telling us that human civilization is only very recent when the evidence suggests that it's thousands of years older and far more advanced than we are made to believe.

There is a lot of knowledge that's kept from the population; knowledge that would shake the very grounds of our society and orthodox evolutionary and archeological science is being used as an instrument to conceal this knowledge.

Butterflyleo:


I foresaw this faux pas coming several miles away but was shouted down to keep quiet since I was not asking direct questions.

you are busy looking for error but got yourself into showing you ignorance, homo sapiens never directly evolved from homo erectus, drop your primary school knowledge and read further to know how Homo heidelbergensis played a role.

Lolz

budaatum:

Provide links to study please.

do not be lazy buda.....goggle gene mutation and read up