Evolution - Resource Thread

[neo-x]

Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise



Introduction excerpt:

Ardipithecus ramidus is an ancient hominin first discovered in 1994; over 110 specimens have been recovered from several different sites in the Afar rift of Ethiopia since that time. The 4.4 million year old creature was a tall, tree-climbing and bipedal fellow with a predominantly plant-based diet. They lived in a woodland environment and while they were certainly not fully human, neither did they exhibit climbing and walking strategies of modern chimpanzees or gorillas.

A. ramidus is tentatively believed to be ancestral to Australopithecus: but it is a million years older than Australopithecus afarensis (ca. 3.7 million years ago) and older than Australopithecus anamensis (3.9-4.2 million years ago). They were not tool makers—even Australopithecus didn't get into that until 2.5 mya, but Ardipithecus does have some traits carried on into Australopithecus.

But most surprisingly, A. ramidus walked upright on two legs while on the ground (called bipedal locomotion), and climbed on all fours along the branches of trees. That's surprising, because researchers had surmised that our ancestor would have more chimpanzee or gorilla-like characteristics—that it would spend most of its time swinging and hanging from tree branches.

Ardipithecus ramidus got a star treatment in Science magazine, with 11 separate articles written by nearly 50 scholars. This photos essay is a little taste of what was reported.

Sources and Further Information

White, Tim D., et al. 2009 Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326:75-86.

Please read the full article for more information.

[neo-x]

History of fossil record and their ages

[neo-x]

Beginning to 8000 B.C.

A great article on the arrival of modern man, with respect to geography, eras, ages, with dates and estimations and great insight into the homo group and their diversity across the land.

A short excerpt, please read the full article for context and details:

We must discuss now the mystery of where and when modern man appeared on the world scene. Although an upright, walking man called Homo erectus was wide spread in Asia, Africa and Europe some one-half million years ago, using fire and simple hand-axes and tools, the first fossils which appear to be those of a race more closely related to our modern races (Homo sapiens) have been found at Swanscombe in England and Steinheim in Germany. An apparent close "cousin" of these men and a variant of Homo sapiens, the Neandertahaler, lived during the last Ice Ages throughout Europe, North Africa, the Mid-east and apparently a few even in Asia, but this particular race for some reason did not survive. Nevertheless, the Neanderthal man was a skilled hunter, used fire, cooked food and buried his dead. Only 50% survived to age twenty and nine out of ten of those remaining died before their fortieth birthday. They were subject to rickets, something that may have resembled congenital syphilis and were probably cannibalistic. There is some evidence in the fossils of the Near East that some authorities interpret as indicating that modern man, in the sense of our own sub-species, Homo sapiens sapiens, evolved from or out of Neanderthal man around 35,000 to 40,000 years ago, but this is not the consensus. Most anthropologists assume that over several eons a new breed of man, which might be called the "Ur-race", spread out to populate the Eurasian land mass, replacing or extinguishing any pre-existing hominoids. A further development of this theory necessitates the assumption of the isolation of various groups behind geological barriers, each adopting and adapting to their separate environments and gradually differentiating into present day races. Thus, the stay-at-homes became the Caucasoids, those moving into Central Asia and northern China became the Mongoloids through adaptation to severe cold, while the groups moving into hot Africa became Negroids. But these are only theories and a few authorities would disagree. Chief among these, perhaps, is Dr. Carleton Coon of Harvard who believes in the multiple origins of the various races.

Modern man in Europe was initially represented by the Cro-Magnons - with large bones, high brows and powerful physiques, standing as high as six feet four inches, similar to some Europeans of today. Other representatives of modern Homo sapiens sapiens were also present at about this time, including one smaller and almost frail in comparison. This was Combe Capelle man, apparently related to the Mediterranean peoples of today...

[neo-x]

Genetically speaking -

[neo-x]

The Surprising Origins of Evolutionary Complexity

A great five page article that looks for complexity without Natural selection, its a good read and research.

In Brief
Conventional wisdom holds that complex structures evolve from simpler ones, step-by-step, through a gradual evolutionary process, with Darwinian selection favoring intermediate forms along the way.
But recently some scholars have proposed that complexity can arise by other means—as a side effect, for instance—even without natural selection to promote it.
Studies suggest that random mutations that individually have no effect on an organism can fuel the emergence of complexity in a process known as constructive neutral evolution.

LAB-RAISED fruit flies are more complex than wild ones because their sheltered environment allows even disadvantageous mutations to spread. This artist's conception contrasts typical wild fly anatomy (left) with representative mutations that arise in lab flies (right).
Image: Cherie Sinnen

[neo-x]

The Virtual Fossil Museum

Fossils across geological time presented in multiple contexts of geological history, the tree of life, paleobiology and evolution. The Virtual Fossil Museum is an educational resource providing an ever-growing extensive collection of fossil images.

All fossils you can see for free.

[neo-x]

Evolution in Action
Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Read the full article for some amazing info

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

[neo-x]

Evolution: What is life’s history on Earth?

A great resource site to learn about evolution.

[neo-x]

Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology
Darwinius masillae otherwise called 'Ida'

Ida is a 47 million year old, perfectly preserved primate recovered from the Messel Pit in Germany. Ida is the most complete early primate fossil ever found, and scientists believe that she could be one of our earliest ancestors. She is a remarkable link between the first primates and modern humans and despite having lived 47 million years ago, her features show striking similarities to our own.

Significance

Darwinius masillae represents the most complete fossil primate ever found, including both skeleton, soft body outline and contents of the digestive tract. Study of all these features allows a fairly complete reconstruction of life history, locomotion, and diet. Any future study of Eocene-Oligocene primates should benefit from information preserved in the Darwinius holotype. Of particular importance to phylogenetic studies, the absence of a toilet claw and a toothcomb demonstrates that Darwinius masillae is not simply a fossil lemur, but part of a larger group of primates, Adapoidea, representative of the early haplorhine diversification.

This is IDA's own site revealingthelink.com

[neo-x]

Overview of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Richard Lenski started an experiment more that 20 years ago in February 1988, every day since then he and his students have carried out the following procedures. By early 2008 45,000 generations of E. coli had been produced under rigorous laboratory conditions.

Abstract: The role of historical contingency in evolution has been much debated, but rarely tested. Twelve initially identical populations of Escherichia coli were founded in 1988 to investigate this issue. They have since evolved in a glucose-limited medium that also contains citrate, which E. coli cannot use as a carbon source under oxic conditions. No population evolved the capacity to exploit citrate for >30,000 generations, although each population tested billions of mutations. A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 X 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 X 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability. Thus, the evolution of this phenotype was contingent on the particular history of that population. More generally, we suggest that historical contingency is especially important when it facilitates the evolution of key innovations that are not easily evolved by gradual, cumulative selection.

If you want to read further, try this PDF:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.

[RickD]

Ardipithecus Ramidus - An Ancient Human Ancestor Surprise



Introduction excerpt:

Ardipithecus ramidus is an ancient hominin first discovered in 1994; over 110 specimens have been recovered from several different sites in the Afar rift of Ethiopia since that time. The 4.4 million year old creature was a tall, tree-climbing and bipedal fellow with a predominantly plant-based diet. They lived in a woodland environment and while they were certainly not fully human, neither did they exhibit climbing and walking strategies of modern chimpanzees or gorillas.

A. ramidus is tentatively believed to be ancestral to Australopithecus: but it is a million years older than Australopithecus afarensis (ca. 3.7 million years ago) and older than Australopithecus anamensis (3.9-4.2 million years ago). They were not tool makers—even Australopithecus didn't get into that until 2.5 mya, but Ardipithecus does have some traits carried on into Australopithecus.

But most surprisingly, A. ramidus walked upright on two legs while on the ground (called bipedal locomotion), and climbed on all fours along the branches of trees. That's surprising, because researchers had surmised that our ancestor would have more chimpanzee or gorilla-like characteristics—that it would spend most of its time swinging and hanging from tree branches.

Ardipithecus ramidus got a star treatment in Science magazine, with 11 separate articles written by nearly 50 scholars. This photos essay is a little taste of what was reported.

Sources and Further Information

White, Tim D., et al. 2009 Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326:75-86.

Please read the full article for more information.

From Reasons.org:
http://www.reasons.org/articles/ardi-ha ... -evolution

[RickD]

http://www.reasons.org/blogs/reflections/darwin-s-doubt

[neo-x]

Rick, this is a evolution resource thread, I would very much appreciate if you posted opposite sources elsewhere. I don't want the content being mixed, links to evolution resources only, please.

Also did you read the article on Ardi and then went to reasons.org or you straight went to reasons? Did you consider why scientists other than Fuz, do find Ardi a strong link in evolution?

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
Rick, this is a evolution resource thread, I would very much appreciate if you posted opposite sources elsewhere. I don't want the content being mixed, links to evolution resources only, please.

Sorry Neo, it ain't gonna happen. From your original post:

Seeing that many people have a twisted often wrong view of evolution, I am dedicating this entire thread on things about evolution, resources, review, sites, excerpts, blogs etc. This thread is not a discussion thread, while you may comment, any debate started should be in a new thread.

First, my two links are "things about evolution", and "review" the subject of evolution.

Keep in mind, you are posting in the forum of GodandScience.org, which is an OEC/Progressive Creationist website. You are free to post your beliefs and views on evolution here, but posting your belief that evolution is a fact, and people who don't believe in evolution as you believe, "have a twisted often wrong view of evolution" will not be brushed aside. In the same way, if a YEC came to this site and posted similar things about YEC, demanding that we adhere to his request that there be only his YEC references allowed in a thread, I'd say the same to him. Frankly, your insistence that what you believe about evolution, is a fact, reeks of the same stench that I have continually criticized Ken Ham for. Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana both know more about evolution than you and I do, and they don't believe it is quite the fact that you do. So, whether or not I or anyone else here understands evolution like you want us to, that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand evolution.

Also did you read the article on Ardi and then went to reasons.org or you straight went to reasons?

Yes, I read the article, and then wanted to post a reference for readers to compare.

Did you consider why scientists other than Fuz, do find Ardi a strong link in evolution?

Are you asking if I considered why Evolutionists believe Ardi is a strong link in evolution? I think you know the answer to that. Evolutionists believe man evolved from hominids, so they think Ardipithecus ramidus was not fully human. Whereas Fuz, Ross, et al. believe hominids were separate created creatures.

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
Rick, this is a evolution resource thread, I would very much appreciate if you posted opposite sources elsewhere. I don't want the content being mixed, links to evolution resources only, please.

Sorry Neo, it ain't gonna happen. From your original post:

Seeing that many people have a twisted often wrong view of evolution, I am dedicating this entire thread on things about evolution, resources, review, sites, excerpts, blogs etc. This thread is not a discussion thread, while you may comment, any debate started should be in a new thread.

First, my two links are "things about evolution", and "review" the subject of evolution.

Keep in mind, you are posting in the forum of GodandScience.org, which is an OEC/Progressive Creationist website. You are free to post your beliefs and views on evolution here, but posting your belief that evolution is a fact, and people who don't believe in evolution as you believe, "have a twisted often wrong view of evolution" will not be brushed aside. In the same way, if a YEC came to this site and posted similar things about YEC, demanding that we adhere to his request that there be only his YEC references allowed in a thread, I'd say the same to him. Frankly, your insistence that what you believe about evolution, is a fact, reeks of the same stench that I have continually criticized Ken Ham for. Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana both know more about evolution than you and I do, and they don't believe it is quite the fact that you do. So, whether or not I or anyone else here understands evolution like you want us to, that doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand evolution.

Also did you read the article on Ardi and then went to reasons.org or you straight went to reasons?

Yes, I read the article, and then wanted to post a reference for readers to compare.

Did you consider why scientists other than Fuz, do find Ardi a strong link in evolution?

Are you asking if I considered why Evolutionists believe Ardi is a strong link in evolution? I think you know the answer to that. Evolutionists believe man evolved from hominids, so they think Ardipithecus ramidus was not fully human. Whereas Fuz, Ross, et al. believe hominids were separate created creatures.

I think you are being needlessly defensive. I want this thread to be of science only not a creation science thread. You want to list your sources then do so in a thread which has those. I don't think I am not doing anything against the board rules. And honestly I am quite astonished that you would not respect my thread purpose. That was really a surprise for me, rick.

My op was not insulting if that's what you felt, but it does show that many people do have a twisted view of evolution. It shows when they talk about it. Not everyone ofcourse is not like that. But what i have said is a fact.

Appeal to authority won't work either. Fuz or ross may know more than you doesn't mean they are correct. Yecs or any other may know more too, doesn't mean they are correct either. Im not listing beliefs here, thats cold hard research and evidence you are rejecting to follow your beliefs.

If anything view evidence not your favorite pastor.