Regarding human evolution and evolution in general

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the scientific basis for human evolution, asserting that evolution is the only viable explanation for the biological phenomena observed. Participants clarify that while explicit evidence of human evolution may not exist in a linear form, substantial molecular and morphological evidence supports evolutionary theory. They emphasize that evolution is a demonstrable fact, despite the fragmented fossil record and the unknown direct ancestor of modern humans. The conversation also critiques the notion that only one mechanism can produce a species, highlighting laboratory-created species as counterexamples.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of evolutionary biology concepts
  • Familiarity with molecular and morphological evidence
  • Knowledge of the fossil record and its implications
  • Awareness of species creation in laboratory settings
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the molecular evidence supporting human evolution
  • Study the implications of the fossil record in evolutionary theory
  • Explore laboratory techniques for creating new species
  • Investigate the concept of species and mechanisms of speciation
USEFUL FOR

Students of evolutionary biology, researchers in genetics, and anyone interested in understanding the scientific foundations of human evolution and species development.

Vishera
Messages
72
Reaction score
1
I spoke to someone that said that the reason we know humans originated from evolution is because there is no other scientifically possible explanation. I originally thought the reason we knew humans originated from evolution because we had explicit evidence of human evolution. Although now that I look back at it, I doubt my knowledge because how is it possible for scientists to have explicit evidence without using a time machine, right?

Sorry for ignorance. I'd know like to know if this person is correct or wrong.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
I would say that the statement you have up there is correct with the exception that the wording should be changed to something like, evolution explained and predicted all of the observed biological phenomena within the scope of its applicability and no known scientific theory can achieve such a feat. It doesn't necessarily mean that something else won't come along some day, although we can reasonably claim that evolution will only be revised a bit in the details and will likely not be negated fully.

Regarding the evidence point, we don't have a snapshot of exactly evolution from homo (something or other) to Homo sapiens but we do have a large body of evidence (at the molecular/DNA level as well as morphological) which can only really be explained by using evolution. Getting away from humans, we can observe evolution in bacteria and other models and there is no reason to believe humans are/were not immune to this phenomenon.
 
Evolution is a demonstrable fact.
The direct/immediate ancestor of modern humans is unknown.
The fossil record is fragmented.
Without a complete lineage, we will never do better than "the most probable descent".
You need to think long and hard about what precisely would constitute "explicit evidence" of human evolution.
We have fossils of hominids which either were our direct ancestors or are related to them.
-=-=-=-
The person who made the claim is wrong. We have created what are essentially new species in the laboratory. Saying that there is only one mechanism to produce a species is nonsense. If I claimed that Aliens from Lyra took Neanderthal DNA and modified it and created the modern human genome, how would that not be scientifically possible? (Granted, there is no evidence for it, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
 
Vishera said:
I spoke to someone that said that the reason we know humans originated from evolution is because there is no other scientifically possible explanation. I originally thought the reason we knew humans originated from evolution because we had explicit evidence of human evolution. Although now that I look back at it, I doubt my knowledge because how is it possible for scientists to have explicit evidence without using a time machine, right?

Sorry for ignorance. I'd know like to know if this person is correct or wrong.

This is perhaps a better place to start -

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=543950
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
8K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
7K