How has our understanding of evolution developed since Darwin published On the Origin of Species?

>A guy wrote a really good and detailed post perfectly answering OP's question
>Easily verifiable upon doubt, even though undetailed sources such as Wikipedia
>"HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA you read bogus books!!!"
For fuck's sake.
And people still say that this board and Veeky Forums are the only smart boards on this God-forsaken website I was stupid enough to get hooked on.

What about every race but blacks having NEanderthal DNA?

>DNA isn’t so much a blue-print but some kind of baking recipe
>good post

can you be more pleb?

Can you be more menstrual over one point?

No, they didn’t struck bulls eye from miles away eyes closed. It’s not like Darwin and his contemporaries had no clue about taxonomy. Darwin himself traveled the whole world before he came up with his theory to study lots and lots and lots of species.

> we should have an abundance of evidence laying around

Are you seriously saying we don’t have an abundance of evidence laying around? How about, for example, the agreement between phylogenetic trees reconstructed from fossils and from genes?

Thanks. What’s really sad is, is that OP’s question is actually quite interesting, but obviously it’s bound to get drowned in replies by people who urgently feel the need to tell the whole world that they are scientifically illiterate, but their pastor told them that evolution is just a silly speculation, turning it into another boring evolution/creationism crapfest.

>evolution of humans
>sidetracks with trees

m9, we don't even have much records of history. Maybe Middle Ages never happened. We can't agree whether it is global warming, climate change or nothing at all.

How about you show me all the millions of fossils of humans/monkeys of different stages of evolution and divergence that need to be out there to even talk about a possible connection. That's right, we don't have those. No evidence -> claim dismissed.

>but muh microbial mutation

>slowpoke.png

Google search blacks having Neandertal dna and you should find articles from new science and such stating they do have some from migrations back several thousand years ago from eurasian populations.

>Maybe Middle Ages never happened.

And maybe Kennedy was shot by Jewish extraterrestrials from earth’s hollow core. Who knows?

Coincidence of the genetic tree of life and the pre-Darwin morphological tree of life. Checkmate, troll.

Knock off the sexist insults.

We know a lot about evolution. It is NOT hypothetical we have observed and quantified evolution. Macroevolution can be reproduced in experiments - horizontal gene transfer and genome duplication are on a very short time scale.

you're a dickhead, user posted good info. stop trolling/baiting.

No, atheists won't stop worshiping it as a golden calf.

Blacks like every other race, have neanderthal DNA. It's just a small percentage of the other things mixed in. Every race of homo sapiens have various mixtures of other homo species, some a little more so than others.

It's fairly interesting.

If I'm not mistaken, native Africans actually have DNA from an "unknown hominid relative." The blacks technically have some neanderthal DNA, but primarily due to mixing.

there is neanderthal in the yoruba and san. It makes me think either there's some inaccuracy somwhere or maybe that the theory is wrong altogether. The unknown hominid relative is probably heidelbergensis

More likely to be Rhodesiensis, it's African relative. There's also Idaltu, which I pictured there, but that my be just an ancestor....and then there's Naledi....

ha.
that's basically what i look like right now this second as a glanced down at my shiny [off] tablet docked right below my computer screen.
XD

You must have a hard time keeping the ladies off of ya, huh?

actually you'd be surprised.
I quickly recieved 20 likes ok okcupid when I joined, even though I admitted I was a short, hairy, mentally ill, on medical leave loser.

But I also put down that I care about reason, dialogue, and sharing food.
Bitches love fairness and sharing your food.
#socialevolution :D

Surprisingly, I can only get black girls. I mean usually they come to me, but still. Just think of me like this but with a bigger forehead, short brown hair, a bit less pudgy/spherical, and a bit of a neck beard/mustache combo. Oh, and big-ass earlobes too.

DONOT NECKBEARD.
Always shave neck hair, even if you're rocking a beard.
Bears are CHINHAIR not neck hair.

But I'm growing in the chin hair though. Also, the mustache is very scraggly at this point. Can I do sideburns and a goatee?
Also, what constitutes as the neck? I mean it as in directly below the chin.

a neckbeard is hair on the bottom of the chin that grows so long that it looks like it's growing from the neck. nobody ACTUALLY grows hair from their fucking neck.

I've seen hair grow in weird places and that certainly wouldn't be the weirdest.

DONOT NECKHAIR AND DONOT SCRAGGLY.
YOU GO OVER WITH BUZZ UNTIL U LEARN HOW 2 MAINTAIN NAO!

Actually there are a lot of neckbeards.
That's where the term originated.
Go to /pol/ to see beta cringe pics of said creatures.
It's actually a "popular look" of self-identified beta orbiters.
I was almost in that social class too, but not quite.

Are sideburns ok?

google.com/search?q=beta male&safe=off&biw=1280&bih=643&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijm6PhxJDNAhVO92MKHZ91C4sQ_AUIBigB#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=neckbeard

WHY IS SCI AND Veeky Forums AND THE WORLD ALWAYS NAIVE IS FUCK?
JUST GOOGLE SHIT BEFORE YOU SAY SOMETHING DOES OR DOESN'T/EXIST HAPPEN YOU FUCKING MORONS.

Kys, roastie.

No. The point is to look normal as fuck unless you are hot and then you can experiment conservatively then wildly.

I've been trying to get in shape recently. I think I actually managed to lose about ten pounds over the course of one to two weeks. Also, I wouldn't rank myself as basement-dweller fat, more like a lot of flabby loose skin and fat.

>since Darwin published On the Origin of Species
>over 150 years ago
wnat do you fckn think, user?

>our understanding of evolution
What do you mean by "our", Peasant?

Yes. We have since found out all of these facts:
- Darwin recanted on his deathbed
- All of the supposed hominid fossils were in fact either people or monkey bones
- DNA neither creates or deletes information

You have to remember that most people don't even know the definition of Evolution user. I could probably go and grab ten people off the street right now and maybe one of them would actually know what the word Evolution means, much less what the modern iteration of the theory is made up of or what has been discovered since The Origin of Species.

Also, this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Domesticated_Red_Fox

>Most of it remains hypothetical / speculative

you mean selective breeding? Like someone (e.g. this case humans) interfering with a species to change it? Are you implying some external God like force here?

See all these chemicals lying around? BAMM life. Abiogenesis.
See this unicellular organism here? BAMM. Now it is multicellular. Keep going, now we humans and sheit. Evolution dude.

Whose agenda is to make humans animals? I mean, some monkeys are smart, but they don't exactly have SEMs, rockets, ICs etc. We are clearly different. Why is it need to be the tree of life and not the forest of life? Hammer and nails all over again.

I mean, the only fact remains we are here and have no clue how. Pretending to have the answers and trying to shame anyone skeptic does not only have a chilling effect on moving the discussion forward, but unscientific af and a bit arrogant to boot.

it is the same boring and tiring dialogue with evolution skeptics or is this trolling?

>Whose agenda is to make humans animals?
you're a fucking idiot. Even without evolution, human are clearly animals.

What other biological category would you put them in? Plants? Bacteria?

fucktard

>we are here and have no clue how
there are TONS of clues and they all add up to a consistent well tested theory.

Of course, you can define criteria vague enough to group together humans and apes, or humans and insects. Defining motility and then basing your classification on it is not any better abstraction than saying Humans are in their own kingdom.

swiping all evidence on the contrary under the rug sure is consistent. lqb (you)

>Most of it remains hypothetical / speculative

>swiping all evidence on the contrary under the rug sure is consistent
if you could present actual evidence that refutes the base premise of evolution, you would win a fucking nobel price, you subhuman fucktard

>lqb
am I supposed to guess what your incoherent gibberish means?

fucktard

>Most of it remains hypothetical / speculative

Unlike the alternative theories, sorry I mean "holy truths"

>We don't seem to know the difference between an editorial "we"; an author's "we" and a patronizing "we", now do we?

>all evidence on the contrary
and what is this evidence you speak of?
Not just some opinions or manifest on how it all could not be true beacuse muh bible, muh morality and muh logic. I mean real solid stuff.
Could you, say, produce 3 rock solid pieces of evidence thta flat out contradict evolution.

I'll wait.

not unlike, that is the whole point, even if it is a false dichotomy here. Even if evolution is more credible model according to many taste, it is still obviously flawed and can't answer question including how humans, as we now are here - at least with a straight face. Sure, some of the observations are useful, but using the argument it is less wrong compared to alternative theories not makes it true. Fitting one size for all would be very convenient, but I'm afraid life is more complicated than handwaving away everything with muh random.

show me a reproducible experiment for abiogenesis and not a hypothesis, I will wait. The base case needs to be handled for a proof to worth anything.

now go ahead and define your TRUE EVOLUTION that needs not to deal with this little issue

>Most of it remains hypothetical / speculative

>show me a reproducible experiment for abiogenesis and not a hypothesis
Not him, but:

Evolution and abiogenesis are two completely different subjects.

Unsolved problems in biochemistry =/= evolution is wrong/impossible.

...

thanks complying, what is the earliest you can point me humans are developed from through evolution without abiogenesis that not leads to unexplainable forces?

>what is the earliest you can point me humans are developed from through evolution without abiogenesis that not leads to unexplainable forces?
Me no understand what question you say.

I still don't get how a human brain could have developed by itself, even if it had hundreds of millions of years to do so. It's just too darn complicated.

show me the earliest life form humans are developed from and then explain how that become 'life' in the first place. The process of evolution only works if the boundary conditions are met aka you have to explain the first life form with an argument that can not be applied to start the evolutionary chain elsewhere.

>Macroevolution

Fuck off

no one really knows, some people just pretend they have the answers

nice sidestepping.
You said "ALL the evidence"
I asked for three.
You provided none

you lose

>shows pic without any comment

creature is very well adapted to it's environment.
How is that evidence against evolution?

here, have some knowledge. But be careful, it can be quite a humbling experience.

scientificamerican.com/article/your-brain-evolved-from-bacteria/

>also this took me 5 seconds to google. If you would spend half as much time reading (pop)-science as you do trolling, you might actually learn something

>BOOM
>bacteria
>BOOM
>ion channels
>BOOM
>BOOM
>BOOM
>BOOM
>fish
>amphibians
>mammals
>BOOOOOM
>modern humans
And that, children, is how our brains evolved. Thank you so much user, I feel enlightened.

???
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell

I'm not sure what you mean apart from this.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocell
>is a self-organized, endogenously ordered, spherical collection of lipids proposed as a stepping-stone to the origin of life.
>proposed
>A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose
Not who you replied to but do you really think that this is what he was asking for? Some hypothesis?

I wonder where infographics evolved from, maybe they share a very distant ancestor with actual science

>babby can't into logic

I'm defeated user, you won

you need to read about the subject to understand it. The pic shows only a few key steps. I’m sure you can understand that.

The point of course is that brains evolved gradually. And that the human brain didn’t “evolve on its own”. There is no BOOM. The human brain is very complex, but it also has structures that we see in other mammals and also birds, reptiles, etc.

asking for an experiment as an answer is not great logic. it's actuallu a bit retared desu.
I think it's time you went back to

>Not who you replied to but do you really think that this is what he was asking for? Some hypothesis?
"Some hypothesis"? Are you serious? How else are going to approximate the earliest life forms? We have created protocell models in the lab to try to understand how early lifeforms reproduced and behaved, from metabolism to cell cycles. Do you expect us to make time machines and go back and show you a sample of the first life? We are getting closer, but this is an almost insurmountably difficult problem to solve. It remains unsolved for a reason. There's ongoing research, and eventually it will be explained.

Also, "hypotheses" explain very aptly how abiogenesis could have occurred. There is plenty of evidence to support our "hypotheses" as well. Check exploringorigins.org/protocells.html

Until you have a more explanatory alternative to our current hypottheses of abiogenesis, there's nothing you can do to discredit them. And these hypotheses are pretty damn robust to begin with, so good luck with that.

>you need to read about the subject to understand it.
I'm no expert but I have read quite a bit about the subject. Every single thing I've read uses phrases like "X years ago B developed from A".
There are two problems here:
1. No explanation is given as to where A came from
2. B itself is quite complicated and would almost certainly be of no use if it evolved gradually and in steps, again, no explanation is given as to exactly how B developed, it is just stated that it did.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to say evolution is wrong, I know there's heaps and heaps of evidence supporting the theory, I just don't like how some people throw the word "evolution" around like it's some sort of magic process.

are you serious? Presenting a hypothesis as a theory because a few signs and expects everybody to accept as blindly as you do?

actually checking out that website and seeing that is the citation of the wiki article does not really help

A book containing what we know about the development of each and every trait in biology would be a very long book. If you want details about the evolution of a particular structure, you should look that up specifically.

From the WIKI article
>A central question in evolution is how simple protocells first arose
If you can't explain the origin of the thing you're trying to use to explain how the first single celled organisms came to be, then what good is it?

you don't understand. See how you can leap over this slit in the ground? You can leap over the grand canyon the same way, you just have to chain together enough leaps.

1. A also developed from a predecessor
2. Most gradual change do represent a benefit.

>actually checking out that website and seeing that is the citation of the wiki article does not really help
You're an idiot. If you knew anything about the subject you'd know that this website was made by the Museum of Science and Massachusetts General Hospital, and is based on mainstream research theories on abiogenesis and proto cells, including work done by Jack Szostak's lab, a Nobel Prize winner. This isn't just a few signs pointing to a "hypothesis". Once again, if you don't know anything about the subject, don't comment on it.

You're not really saying anything. There have been many proposed explanations about the origin of life, some more accepted than others, that CAN explain it. It's just a matter of refining them and testing them. That's how science works. I'll say it once again, just because something remains unsolved, does NOT mean it is unsolvable. If your point is to discredit evolution because of the problem of abiogenesis, then propose an alternative. Also, evolution as a mechanism can be examined in later timelines (a lot after protocells, since very few fossils remain at that time). We do NOT need to know what the first life looked like to explain or describe evolutionary MECHANISMS whose role you deny in the formation of different species. Two different things right there.

Look back here.

My reply to that user was more than appropriate. His statement is equal to saying "Show me how the Big Bang and how the universe came to be". It cannot be done, it's in the past. The earliest life forms are GONE, poof, extinct. All we can do is APPROXIMATE what they looked like and how they gained organelles and evolved into the ancient microorganisms whose 3.5 billion years-old fossils we discovered. There is a distinct pathway and timeline of evolution thanks to fossils, but there are no fossils of the first life. The reason we "know" it's protocells is because it's by far the most explanatory and fitting model in biological science. And "explanatory" and "fitting" doesn't just mean relative to other hypotheses, it means that our theory is well-SUPPORTED, as in, has a lot of evidence backing it. We take the most well supported hypothesis and go from there. If you have another hypothesis, go ahead and express it. Otherwise, give it time, and you'll get your functioning proto cell eventually. unsolved =/= unsolvable.

no, the statement was exactly this: without abiogenesis you can't use evolution to explain life and its diversity, let alone humans.
You either need proof for abiogenesis which your source is not, no matter your appeal to authority and ad hominems. Or name some other force that can create life, which you did not provide

instead, you declared the fact that it is a hard problem to obtain evidence (which is my point exactly) supports your claim. No one stops you from creating life from chemicals in a lab, but unless you do, it is hypothetical at best whether it is possible

you are saying there are no evidence for abiogenesis, but because there is evidence for a completely different thing e.g. evolution ( as aptly pointed out)
, it is well supported. It is just stupid. Evolution as an induction needs abiogenesis (-like process) as its base case, otherwise it falls flat. You use hypothesis and theory interchangeably, but actually there is a big difference between the two

>implying that different skulls mean different intelligence.

>abiogenesis

RNA world

Also, which of these are the most like the "primitive" skulls?

To answer OP's question, it has evolved a lot, there are whole fields of medicine (vaccine science, epidemiology, etc.) based on it, as well as wildlife ecology and genetics. Genetics is probably the single biggest piece to nail the coffin shut on any doubt on evolution, since DNA contains within it an evolutionary record. Darwin was aware of very few of these things and probably be amazed at what we found out since then. What's cool is that his basic ideas about it are still just as true as they ever were. After over a century of people trying to prove it wrong no less. It's the single most tested theory in science, mainly because so many people take issue with it. I can't figure out why.

>not implying that at all.
The pic was simply to demonstrate that a large and complex brain CAN be the result of gradual change and adaptation.
As opposed to the BOOM-theory of this (you?) retard

Nah, that's not my way of screwing with people. I choose the more enjoyable route of "evilution is racis."

laughing at these trolls?/bible tards? describing evolutionary "leaps" as BOOM!

top kek

>If you can't explain the origin of the thing you're trying to use to explain how the first single celled organisms came to be, then what good is it?
Explaining everything else. Obviously.

>our understanding of evolution
What do you mean by "our" understanding,
Peasant?

he means this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosism#The_author.27s_.22we.22_or_pluralis_modestiae

>without abiogenesis you can't use evolution to explain life and its diversity, let alone humans.
This is categorically wrong, which is why I drew a line between evolutionary MECHANISMS and abiogenesis as the final piece of evolutionary HISTORY. We know about evolutionary mechanisms, we can describe them and predict their effect on the environment. Diversity of species? Explainable by evolutionary mechanisms, don't need no protocells to do that. See what I mean?

>No one stops you from creating life from chemicals in a lab, but unless you do, it is hypothetical at best whether it is possible
>hypothetical whether it is possible
Not really, unless you consider God's magic as the alternative. Scientists don't. This is a matter of perspective. You think the problem of abiogenesis is unsolvable, which is why you try to hang on to this specific problem to discredit evolution. But even then, evolutionary mechanisms are very apparent today, so you can't escape that.

>ad hominems
where?

>( as (You) (You) aptly pointed out)
I am the same person btw

>It is just stupid. Evolution as an induction needs abiogenesis (-like process) as its base case, otherwise it falls flat.
Look, I don't want to resort to saying "no u", but... no u. There is a big line between the two terms. There's a good reason they are different scientific subjects. Evolution includes natural selection, genetic drift, biodiversity, speciation, adaptive radiation and so on. All of which we have evidence for. It doesn't fall flat at all, and creationism cannot escape that. The first life form is the final piece of the puzzle, a puzzle that is nearly complete and makes sense already. Even if you think God might have made the first life form, you cannot deny that evolution is what all modern biodiversity came from. This is just an attempt from your side to discredit evolution as a whole using abiogenesis, but it simply doesn't make sense.