Human brain result of 'extraordinarily fast' evolution

The Guardian (UK) ^ | Wednesday December 29, 2004 | Alok Jha, science correspondent

[hg23]

Interesting. I don't wish Hell on anybody but the most evil. I used to think that alot of Christians liked the thought of non-Christians being punished. This made me feel somewhat repelled by Christians. I think that misconception is what turns alot of other people off too. It made me somewhat of an anti-Christian bigot. I got to know Christians who were actually nice people and treated me well after my father died and my feelings changed. Then I realized most Christians were not like that. This is what lead to my conversion.

[G Larry]

Regarding your "destroyed fossil" theory, you might ask yourself why fossils of animals that followed the dinosaurs seem to be missing. (If evolution were to be believed.)

[VadeRetro]

In the large scale, the fossil record gets sparser as you go back, yes. For instance, it's very hard to find Precambrian sediments that haven't been squished to where they're more metamorphic than sedimentary and thus don't have any fossils.

Here's the striking thing about what the fossil record shows about radiations like early carnivores, the great-granddaddy of them all probably being the Miacids. Pick any modern line: dog, cat, bear, weasels, civets, etc. Trace it back in time through the fossils. The farther back you go, the less a specimen looks like the modern form and the more it looks like its contemporaries on the other lines. That is, you can see the divergence in reverse.

For that matter, when you get back to those miacids, they don't look that different from their contemporaries, the ancestors of the hoofed mammals (ungulates).

This paper explains fossil record and taxonomy issues wonderfully: Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record.

Moving further up the taxonomic hierarchy, the condylarths and primitive carnivores (creodonts, miacids) are very similar to each other in morphology (Fig. 9, 10), and some taxa have had their assignments to these orders changed. The Miacids in turn are very similar to the earliest representatives of the Families Canidae (dogs) and Mustelidae (weasels), both of Superfamily Arctoidea, and the Family Viverridae (civets) of the Superfamily Aeluroidea. As Romer (1966) states in Vertebrate Paleontology (p. 232), "Were we living at the beginning of the Oligocene, we should probably consider all these small carnivores as members of a single family." This statement also illustrates the point that the erection of a higher taxon is done in retrospect, after sufficient divergence has occurred to give particular traits significance.

Figure 10. Comparison of skulls of the early ungulates (condylarths) and carnivores. (A) The condylarth Phenacodus possessed large canines as well as cheek teeth partially adapted for herbivory. (B) The carnivore-like condylarth Mesonyx. The early Eocene creodonts (C) Oxyaena and (D) Sinopa were primitive carnivores apparently unrelated to any modern forms. (E) The Eocene Vulpavus is a representative of the miacids which probably was ancestral to all living carnivore groups. (From Vertebrate Paleontology by Alfred Sherwood Romer published by The University of Chicago Press, copyright © 1945, 1966 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. This material may be used and shared with the fair-use provisions of US copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that this entire notice, including copyright information, is carried and provided that the University of Chicago Press is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires both the consent of the authors and the University of Chicago Press.)

[PatrickHenry]

That site is now added to the ever-growing (and probably way too long) List-O-Links.

[VadeRetro]

... the ever-growing (and probably way too long) List-O-Links

... which may be found by clicking on PatrickHenry's user profile.

[VadeRetro]

Regarding your "destroyed fossil" theory, you might ask yourself why fossils of animals that followed the dinosaurs seem to be missing. (If evolution were to be believed.)

What is your source for this wild and vague claim, other than the obvious fact that there was a big extinction event and animals of any kind were scarce in many places until the survivors spread out?

[WildHorseCrash]

Just how does one gain this valuable (I assume) status???

By doing honest, peer-reviewed research in this area, for one.

[Elsie]

Asexual species evolve slower than granite,

 

(If this is true, how did the following ever happen???)

 

which is why the invention of sex about 800 million years ago sparked a notable speedup of evolution.

[Elsie]

Then I realized most Christians were not like that. This is what lead to my conversion.

Deception: the ONLY thing the Devil is good at!

[Elsie]

Ok...

How does one get to be a 'peer'?

[VadeRetro]

For reasons detailed in the rest of the post, "slower than granite" was a figure of speech. Anyway, sexual recombination means a species is a cloud of unique individuals, a situation giving natural selection far more from which to select.

[VadeRetro]

How does one get to be a 'peer'?

• Pee. (Hey, it's New Year's!)
• Be knighted by the Queen.
• Be summoned to a jury.

[PatrickHenry]

Very good. Or, be a peeping Tom.

[ExtremeUnction]

Yes the level of selection was Instant,. and it happened in the garden....

Yeah,,whatever..The "Garden." Fairy tales are for children. This site is for thinking adults. When I was in 1st grade we read about the garden. But every year after, the subject matter became more difficult, because it's too easy to stop at 1st grade.

[WildHorseCrash]

How does one get to be a 'peer'?

Roughly, by doing sufficient quality scientific work so as to not only demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the field of study, but also a demonstrated ability to objectively analyze the work of others pursuant to the rules of scientific inquiry.

[VadeRetro]

Or, be a peeping Tom.

Wouldn't that be a peerer?

[PatrickHenry]

Here's a bit of info, not all that much, on Nature's peer review process: publication policies. Click on number 8, "Referee policy." Also, in the left margin, click on "How to get published in Nature." Basically, the editor picks the peers. It says:

Most papers are sent to two or three referees, but some are sent to more or, occasionally, just to one. Referees are chosen for the following reasons:

* independence from the authors and their institutions
* ability to evaluate the technical aspects of the paper fully and fairly
* currently or recently assessing related submissions
* availability to assess the manuscript within the requested time.

I think that every publication has its own rules, but the concept of peer review is pretty much the same everywhere.

[VOA]

bump

[PatrickHenry]

Wouldn't that be a peerer?

Right. Unless it's a woman, in which case she'd be a peeress.

[G Larry]

Oh, I must have missed the evidence of a fossile record illustrate complete and clear lineage of all animals.
Please provide YOUR source for that.