41–50 of 142 posts
>The reason for this likely elevated status is because we can now say that anamensis and afarensis actually overlapped in time. This seems to be the rule, rather than the other exception, at least in human evolution. Erectus overlapped with more modern archaics, for example. Habilis overlapped with afarensis. A lot of these are more about the semantics than the substance. Words like "species" get tricky, when you're…
The concept of species is a construct of language.
Yes, but if you look at it that way, to humans, almost everything except direct experience, is a construct of language. What's the point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We basically have common ancestors with all animals, but: * We are way closer to a bird than to an amoeba, so our shared ancestors with birds are closer in time than our shared ancestors with amoebas. * We are way closer to a cat than to a bird, so our shared ancestors with cats are closer in time than our shared ancestors with birds. * We are way closer to an ape than to a cat, so our shared ancestors with apes are…
so? That still doesn't make an ape my ancestor. Or are you saying that every specie I see is ending up being a human? Or is it only when a specie has been 'a good boy'? I am a software developer, dealing with logic all day. This idea is flawed all over. Because we don't know how and why Earth and the ecosystem were created doesn't mean we have to come up with some theory because we need one. Especially not build upon…
No scientist argues this. Nor does any scientist argue that humans evolved from modern apes.
If you're arguing in good faith, an introductory text on microbial evolution is where you'll find approachable answers. They're on human time scales and adequately describes the multi-path mechanism by which mutation and natural selection lead to speciation and evolution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We basically have common ancestors with all animals, but: * We are way closer to a bird than to an amoeba, so our shared ancestors with birds are closer in time than our shared ancestors with amoebas. * We are way closer to a cat than to a bird, so our shared ancestors with cats are closer in time than our shared ancestors with birds. * We are way closer to an ape than to a cat, so our shared ancestors with apes are…
'Closeness' (whatever you mean by that) doesn't really imply ancestry without some hefty presuppositions.
Of course it does. It doesn't prove ancestry. But genetic similarity implies proximate shared ancestry.
We can take microbes (or fruit flies), subject them to stress, let the survivors reproduce, and watch the genotypes branch into a diverse population. We can then take the observed path of genetic variation and compare it to the relative closeness of the population at the end of the experiment. That's one way we validate the statistical techniques used to relate genetic similarity to probable ancestry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We basically have common ancestors with all animals, but: * We are way closer to a bird than to an amoeba, so our shared ancestors with birds are closer in time than our shared ancestors with amoebas. * We are way closer to a cat than to a bird, so our shared ancestors with cats are closer in time than our shared ancestors with birds. * We are way closer to an ape than to a cat, so our shared ancestors with apes are…
so? That still doesn't make an ape my ancestor. Or are you saying that every specie I see is ending up being a human? Or is it only when a specie has been 'a good boy'? I am a software developer, dealing with logic all day. This idea is flawed all over. Because we don't know how and why Earth and the ecosystem were created doesn't mean we have to come up with some theory because we need one. Especially not build upon…
That would leave you without any empirical sciences, because there has always something we do not know. When Newtonian mechanics where the best we had, they were incomplete, but they are still extremely useful even now that we know they are incomplete. All empirical sciences are essentially some theory that fits the empirical evidenc, but never completely and perfectly.
In my post I'm assuming acceptance of what is commonly accepted in the theory of evolution. If you don't accept that, there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.
"There's a whole bunch of land, let's dig... [throws dart at map] here."
How do {archaeologists?, paleoanthropologists?} even know where to look for these things? "There's a whole bunch of land, let's dig... [throws dart at map] here."
How do {archaeologists?, paleoanthropologists?} even know where to look for these things? "There's a whole bunch of land, let's dig... [throws dart at map] here."
How do {archaeologists?, paleoanthropologists?} even know where to look for these things? "There's a whole bunch of land, let's dig... [throws dart at map] here."