Berger's bulldog speaks English? Yeah, riiight.

theropod wrote:

Those are not citations. Again, without citation all you are doing is asserting this is what was said. Cite the source of those quotes. Don't direct me to some wank creotard site either. I want you to back up your shit or withdraw it. More assertions without a credible source equals bullshit, and I think your posts are nothing but a stream of ass gravy. Prove me wrong.

RS

The links to the two quotes are provided below:

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... jjypf.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ver-found/

According to the BBC,

"Prof Lee Berger, told BBC News that he believed they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34192447

Dawkins had this mind image in his "Ancestors Tale", a book I can recommend if you want to learn about concepts of evolution:

Imagine a squirrel currently living and a human being currently alive. If you go back from the squirrel via the line of mothers and go back from the human via the line of mothers, the lines will meet at at some female animal that is an ancestor of both the squirrel and the human. Now we revive all the animals in that line and have them lined up holding hands. The squirrel holds hands with its mother. The squirrel mother holds hands with her mother and so on. At the end of the line, we have the human​'s grandmother holding hands with the human's mother who is holding hands with the human. If you walk along the line from one end to the other, two animals/people holding hands will always look very similar. You will not see any major change between neighbouring beings. Yet, on the one end of the line, there are squirrels, at the other end there are human beings.

From your first citation:

"We don't know how old these fossils are," Dr Berger said.

"My guess is that it is somewhere between 2 and 1 million years old," he said.

(Dr Curnoe not involved in the work).

No support for your assertion that Berger, or anyone else, "wanted" anything. This is speculation, and believe it or not scientists are allowed to do so in an interview for a new article.

From your second "citation":

Berger accepts the point (regarding the age of the fossils), and predicts there will be renewed interest in looking for that evidence by revisiting excavated archaeological sites with fresh eyes. “Gosh I’d love to be a young archaeologist right now,” he says.

It appears you yanked these quote right out of context. Here is what was actually written in your final so-called citation (which are all news reports).

The researchers who made the find have not been able to find out how long ago these creatures lived - but the scientist who led the team, Prof Lee Berger, told BBC News that he believed they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago.

Where does this indicate the lead author "wanted" the fossils to be that old? You stated this to be a fact. Nothing in the "citations" you provided supports this. In fact these articles directly counters your empty assertion. It clearly says the dating had not been established, but the scientist was clearly expressing what he thought might be the case. Also this is second hand information, and would not be allowed in a court of law. So, as I expected your empty assertion is based on quote mines, which is dishonest. If you cannot see what an utter failire your sources are in an attempt to support your assertions regarding Berger's "want" there is nothing left to say.

RS

Wortfish wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
You think speciation occurs in the space of a generation?

I'm just following Dawkins' logic that every species must produce offspring of the same species (plants excepting). If so, how and when does a new species arise?

If you don't understand this, you really have no business trying to discuss evolution with grown ups. Did you just hear about evolution for the first time five minutes before you decided to post in this thread? You can't have actually been thinking of the topic much longer than that without understanding this basic concept.

Wortfish wrote:I told you...at the top. It's blue when there is no tinge of red in it.

So if we go from top to bottom, where does it become red? At that same point it becomes blue when going bottom to top?

Dawkins has stated he doubted that any "pair of Homo erectus parents gazed down proudly at their Homo sapiens newborn." But if we accept that anatomically modern humans appeared around 200,000 years ago, then something like that must have happened.

Right. Just like how, in the image, every point is entirely red, or entirely blue, and never a bit of each. Is that how it looks to you? Then get tested for colour blindness.

theropod wrote:From your first citation:

"We don't know how old these fossils are," Dr Berger said.

"My guess is that it is somewhere between 2 and 1 million years old," he said.

(Dr Curnoe not involved in the work).

No support for your assertion that Berger, or anyone else, "wanted" anything. This is speculation, and believe it or not scientists are allowed to do so in an interview for a new article.

From your second "citation":

Berger accepts the point (regarding the age of the fossils), and predicts there will be renewed interest in looking for that evidence by revisiting excavated archaeological sites with fresh eyes. “Gosh I’d love to be a young archaeologist right now,” he says.

It appears you yanked these quote right out of context. Here is what was actually written in your final so-called citation (which are all news reports).

The researchers who made the find have not been able to find out how long ago these creatures lived - but the scientist who led the team, Prof Lee Berger, told BBC News that he believed they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago.

Where does this indicate the lead author "wanted" the fossils to be that old? You stated this to be a fact. Nothing in the "citations" you provided supports this. In fact these articles directly counters your empty assertion. It clearly says the dating had not been established, but the scientist was clearly expressing what he thought might be the case. Also this is second hand information, and would not be allowed in a court of law. So, as I expected your empty assertion is based on quote mines, which is dishonest. If you cannot see what an utter failire your sources are in an attempt to support your assertions regarding Berger's "want" there is nothing left to say.

RS

And it seems Lee Berger so badly wanted those fossils to be 3 million years old, that he's quite torn up about them turning out to be younger. He's now in hiding and hoping the whole thing will just go away. Look how sad he is. Some cruel reporters must have chased him down and forced him to speak on camera:

NineBerry wrote:Dawkins had this mind image in his "Ancestors Tale", a book I can recommend if you want to learn about concepts of evolution:

Imagine a squirrel currently living and a human being currently alive. If you go back from the squirrel via the line of mothers and go back from the human via the line of mothers, the lines will meet at at some female animal that is an ancestor of both the squirrel and the human. Now we revive all the animals in that line and have them lined up holding hands. The squirrel holds hands with its mother. The squirrel mother holds hands with her mother and so on. At the end of the line, we have the human​'s grandmother holding hands with the human's mother who is holding hands with the human. If you walk along the line from one end to the other, two animals/people holding hands will always look very similar. You will not see any major change between neighbouring beings. Yet, on the one end of the line, there are squirrels, at the other end there are human beings.

This is the so-called ultra-gradualist view of evolution. It is correct up to a point, but mutations in homeobox genes can have visible effects in a single generation - a "hopeful monster" might occasionally succeed (though they usually die young, due to a problem with gene teams not working well, when one gene does not fit in well with the others).
I suspect that many that don't die before birth get aborted by the hospital where they were born, with the agreement of the mother.

theropod wrote:
Where does this indicate the lead author "wanted" the fossils to be that old? You stated this to be a fact. Nothing in the "citations" you provided supports this. In fact these articles directly counters your empty assertion. It clearly says the dating had not been established, but the scientist was clearly expressing what he thought might be the case. Also this is second hand information, and would not be allowed in a court of law. So, as I expected your empty assertion is based on quote mines, which is dishonest. If you cannot see what an utter failire your sources are in an attempt to support your assertions regarding Berger's "want" there is nothing left to say.RS

He both believed and obviously wanted them to be up to 3 million years old. For his find to have evolutionary significance, an old age would have been necessary to confirm his assertion that naledi was at the root of the Homo genus. That would have turned it into a major discovery and he would have been covered in glory as the man who found the missing link between the australpiths and humans. But the young age only adds confusion and means that naledi cannot have been a human ancestor and South Africa was not the cradle of our species. He has been thwarted in his hyperbole whether he admits it or not.

NineBerry wrote:Dawkins had this mind image in his "Ancestors Tale", a book I can recommend if you want to learn about concepts of evolution:

Imagine a squirrel currently living and a human being currently alive. If you go back from the squirrel via the line of mothers and go back from the human via the line of mothers, the lines will meet at at some female animal that is an ancestor of both the squirrel and the human. Now we revive all the animals in that line and have them lined up holding hands. The squirrel holds hands with its mother. The squirrel mother holds hands with her mother and so on. At the end of the line, we have the human​'s grandmother holding hands with the human's mother who is holding hands with the human. If you walk along the line from one end to the other, two animals/people holding hands will always look very similar. You will not see any major change between neighbouring beings. Yet, on the one end of the line, there are squirrels, at the other end there are human beings.

OK. So you have two populations from the same species that begin to diverge. At some point in the divergence, there must come a point when the individuals of one population cannot interbreed with the individuals from the other population. Right? At that point we have two separate species. Right? Now the transition may be very gradual, but the point in time must come when a new generation finally break the "species barrier" and is different from the older generation. Speciation occurs then.

Shrunk wrote:
If you don't understand this, you really have no business trying to discuss evolution with grown ups. Did you just hear about evolution for the first time five minutes before you decided to post in this thread? You can't have actually been thinking of the topic much longer than that without understanding this basic concept.

Follow the logic. A member of a species can only have offpsring that are of the same species. That is what both Dawkins and the creationists believe. The problem for Dawkins is that, if it is true, then no species can transition to become a new species.If erectus only produces erectus offspring, then sapiens can never emerge.

DavidMcC wrote:
This is the so-called ultra-gradualist view of evolution. It is correct up to a point, but mutations in homeobox genes can have visible effects in a single generation - a "hopeful monster" might occasionally succeed (though they usually die young, due to a problem with gene teams not working well, when one gene does not fit in well with the others).

Whether the change is gradual and cumulative or sudden, once a threshold is crossed a new generation become members of a new species. If this did not occur, then new species could not emerge.

The concept of species is different between looking at species at a given point of time and looking at the history. When talking about species in history, the definition of species is even less clear. Small changes add up over time.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
This is the so-called ultra-gradualist view of evolution. It is correct up to a point, but mutations in homeobox genes can have visible effects in a single generation - a "hopeful monster" might occasionally succeed (though they usually die young, due to a problem with gene teams not working well, when one gene does not fit in well with the others).

Whether the change is gradual and cumulative or sudden, once a threshold is crossed a new generation become members of a new species. If this did not occur, then new species could not emerge.

The threshold moves as well. Say we have 1000 generations numbered from 1 to 1000. 2 are the children of 1. 3 are the children of 2 and so on.

Generation 50 may be able to procreate with generation 1 (except all from 1 would already be dead). Generation 100 would be able to procreate with generation 50, but not any longer with generation 1. Generation 150 would be able to procreate with generation 100 but nit with generation 50. And so on.

It's a bit like a program written for Windows 95 may still run on Windows 98, but not on Windows XP. but another program written for Windows 98 still runs on XP but doesn't run under 95.

NineBerry wrote:The concept of species is different between looking at species at a given point of time and looking at the history. When talking about species in history, the definition of species is even less clear. Small changes add up over time.

I repeat my point. If Dawkins is right that a species can only produce offspring of the same species, then speciation becomes impossible and creationism must be true by default. It doesn't matter if there are small changes within the species. Humans have evolved quite rapidly in the last 10,000 years in terms of skin and eye colour, bone density etc., but we are all of the same species and can successfully interbreed with each other despite our physical and geographical differences.

This is simply because being a member of a species is not an innate property of an animal but an artificial classification added later on by human beings.

I thought speciation occurred when organisms* became infertile or died, not when organisms became fertile or were born.

I'm not sure what this logic connected to births is supposed to be.

*Specifically the last inter-fertile individual linking two subpopulations of a species.

Wortfish wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
This is the so-called ultra-gradualist view of evolution. It is correct up to a point, but mutations in homeobox genes can have visible effects in a single generation - a "hopeful monster" might occasionally succeed (though they usually die young, due to a problem with gene teams not working well, when one gene does not fit in well with the others).

Whether the change is gradual and cumulative or sudden, once a threshold is crossed a new generation become members of a new species. If this did not occur, then new species could not emerge.

It wouldn't be a whole generation at once, Wortfish, because the changed genes do not suddenly pop up in an entire generation. Physical or reproductive separation is required, otherwise the genetic change in one individual or family gets swamped by the rest of the population. This is how non-isolated populations remain one species, even over evolutionarily long periods. (Having said that, isolation does not have to be geographical, it can be by mate preference.)

NineBerry wrote:This is simply because being a member of a species is not an innate property of an animal but an artificial classification added later on by human beings.

The term is certainly an over-simplification in general, due to such things as ring species, and the fact that often, non-interbreeding is not due to the genetic impossibility of it, but eg, physical separation or failure of sexual attraction, for whatever reason.

EDIT: In the long term, however, these effects often lead to genetic separation - ie, true speciation, but it may take many generations, especially with large animals. (Insects sometimes speciate very quickly, as illustrated by the huge number of beetle species.)

NineBerry wrote:
The threshold moves as well. Say we have 1000 generations numbered from 1 to 1000. 2 are the children of 1. 3 are the children of 2 and so on.

Generation 50 may be able to procreate with generation 1 (except all from 1 would already be dead). Generation 100 would be able to procreate with generation 50, but not any longer with generation 1. Generation 150 would be able to procreate with generation 100 but nit with generation 50. And so on.

It's a bit like a program written for Windows 95 may still run on Windows 98, but not on Windows XP. but another program written for Windows 98 still runs on XP but doesn't run under 95.

I get what you are saying about generational time. But the versions of windows are more like new species, rather than generations. The basic problem is if Species A only produces Species A offspring, then there is no generation in which Species B can appear. There has to be a tipping point where even a tiny change, building on previous changes, means that parents give birth to offspring that they cannot interbreed with (if they wanted to). Of course, they would still see the offpsring as their own species.