[_ Old Earth _] Chimps and humans: How similar are we really?

[brother Paul]

Modern Humans can be traced back to the Cromags.

True but they were equal in all respects with modern humans

 

[brother Paul]

More Specificly it was most likely Homo Heidelbergensis, Then again no single ape evolved into Humans, it was a branch off of the parent group that would become genetically isolated.

Fine specifically WHICH parent group. Hiedelbergensis? I will address my concerns and we can discuss later...I have to run....

 

[Milk-Drops]

Fine specifically WHICH parent group. Hiedelbergensis? I will address my concerns and we can discuss later...I have to run....

Wow, now you want me to find you the specific 2 Heidelbergs? That is absurd due to how rare fossilization is to begin with. Right Now Hiedelberg fits right in the time slot before the rise of the Cromags. Paul stop moving the dang goal posts already.

 

[Barbarian]

Most likely, a number of different populations of archaic H. sapiens gave rise to Cro-magnons, who most likely gave rise to us. The fact that we don't know the first and last names of the man and the woman who were our last common ancestors is not the point. The point, is that genetics, fossil record, anatomy, biochemistry, and embyrology all confirm the fact that we evolved from other primates.

Recently, we go an important clue about which particular line gave rise to humans:

Turns out, some populations of A. afarensis were more human-like than first realized.

 

[brother Paul]

Wow, now you want me to find you the specific 2 Heidelbergs? That is absurd due to how rare fossilization is to begin with. Right Now Hiedelberg fits right in the time slot before the rise of the Cromags. Paul stop moving the dang goal posts already.

No! I did not say which of two out of the various that are called Heidelberg I asked which "APE" (smaller cranium, sagittal crest, simian shelf, longer pelvic girdle, etc,. in other words an "APE"), YOU brought it to families, then YOU brought it to Heidelberg....Cromags are homo-sapiens....I asked which APE?.

 

[brother Paul]

Nice artistically contrived images for imprinting....what exactly was it trying to say about the Lucy Ape? Or are YOU saying aferensis is the Ape we evolved from?

 

[brother Paul]

Nice artistically contrived images for imprinting....what exactly was it trying to say about the Lucy Ape? Or are YOU saying aferensis is the Ape we evolved from?

First and last names? Why imply I said something I did not? Are we getting ready to do the twist now? Predictable wouldn't you agree?

 

[Barbarian]

No! I did not say which of two out of the various that are called Heidelberg I asked which "APE" (smaller cranium, sagittal crest, simian shelf, longer pelvic girdle, etc,. in other words an "APE"), YOU brought it to families, then YOU brought it to Heidelberg....Cromags are homo-sapiens....I asked which APE?.

Anatomically modern humans don't have a simian shelf. All other apes, including H. sapiens neandertalis, do have it. Are Neandertals apes, and modern humans not apes?

Many apes don't have a sagital crest. Are all apes lacking a sagital crest, human? So A. africanus is human?
Au. africanus also lacks many features associated with consumption of hard foods; for example, Au. africanus lacks sagittal crests (crests along the midline of the skull where chewing muscles attach)
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/australopithecus-africanus-essay

Australopithecines have a short pelvic girdle. Are they apes or humans, in your system? As you know, hominins, including humans and apes, are a

 

[brother Paul]

Anatomically modern humans don't have a simian shelf. All other apes, including H. sapiens neandertalis, do have it. Are Neandertals apes, and modern humans not apes?

As cited before and asked for twice, out of the various Neanderthal mandible fossils I only see one with a slight shelf…can you show me more? It is possible this one may not be a N mandible at all, or perhaps it is a rare genetic anomaly (the excerption not establishing the rule)

Many apes don't have a sagital crest. Are all apes lacking a sagital crest, human? So A. africanus is human?

True, and no, and IMO no!

Are you presenting this as the ape from which we and chimps diverged?

Au. africanus also lacks many features associated with consumption of hard foods; for example, Au. africanus lacks sagittal crests (crests along the midline of the skull where chewing muscles attach)
http://www.becominghuman.org/node/australopithecus-africanus-essay

As I said…true…so is this the Ape you are presenting as the common ancestor?

Australopithecines have a short pelvic girdle. Are they apes or humans, in your system? As you know, hominins, including humans and apes, are a (????)

Apparently some unsuccessful varieties of Apes may have developed this but that does not make them human. And the man determined classification “Hominins” NOW includes apes, but they are not humans. But IS Australopithicene the Ape you are presenting as the point where we split off?

 

[Barbarian]

Nice artistically contrived images for imprinting....

You saw the drawing and missed the data? This is why it's so hard to get science communicated to creationists.

what exactly was it trying to say about the Lucy Ape?

So we don't have to worry about different informal definitions, let's use the scientific term "hominin" for all apes in the group including humans and Australopithecines.

[quoteOr are YOU saying aferensis is the Ape we evolved from?[/QUOTE]

Afarensis. And it would be astonishing if we were lucky enough to find the precise individual that led to humans. All we can say is that it was very close to the line that led to us. And this recent find shows that it was a lot closer than Lucy indicated.

 

[brother Paul]

I saw the data....

let's use the scientific term "hominin" for all apes in the group including humans and Australopithecines.

Let's not! Why use a conveniently altered meaning?

All we can say is that it was very close to the line that led to us.

That already being your belief that is all YOU can say...
Even then, close to the line is not even of the line...

Ok so the honest question of post 58 in response to post 57 cannot be answered...the truth is you do not know but are presuming...the reasoning is therefore "abductive" not really inductive (like you claim)...in abductive reasoning one "presumes" a fact from evidence they interpret to support it. We see this reasoning being applied in the way the populace is telling us what the data means in the alleged lineage areas of the genome.

 

[Barbarian]

I saw the data....

I don't think so. You showed no sign of understanding any of it.

Barbarian suggests:
let's use the scientific term "hominin" for all apes in the group including humans and Australopithecines.

Let's not! Why use a conveniently altered meaning?

As you learned, even the creationist who first proposed the modern taxonomic system admitted that humans should be classified with other apes.

Barbarian notes the evidence:
All we can say is that it was very close to the line that led to us.

That already being your belief that is all YOU can say...

The postmodernist dodge, again? As you know, genetic data clearly shows that humans are apes. That was predicted long before genetic data confirmed it. Subsequent fossil data also shows it, as does biochemical and embyrological data. All these validated predictions are compelling, but not nearly as compelling as the finding that we never see transitional forms where there shouldn't be any.

Ok so the honest question of post 58 in response to post 57 cannot be answered...

Which is like saying if you don't have a copy of the menu for the Last Supper, that means it never happened. C'mon. You're better than that.

.the reasoning is therefore "abductive" not really inductive (like you claim)..

That's a testable claim. Let's see how it holds up to reality...

Darwin, citing anatomical data, proposed that humans evolved from other apes, and it happened in Africa. Subsequent discoveries do indeed show that humans first appeared in Africa, and the large number of transitionals (would you like to see the anatomical data again?) confirm that humans are indeed evolved from other apes. The prediction was again verified by genetic studies showing that chimps and humans are more closely related in common descent than either is to any other organism. And we can check this by comparing organisms of known descent.

.in abductive reasoning one "presumes" a fact from evidence they interpret to support it.

You've confused science with creationism. YE creationist Kurt Wise honestly admits that no evidence would dissuade him from his pre-existing belief in the new doctrine of Genesis as literal history. On the other hand, as you see from the above example, Darwin made a testable hypothesis, which has since been verified by several independent lines of evidence. Nothing better illustrates induction.

 

[brother Paul]

genetic evidence only shows us we have many of the same genes that does not mean we are apes (there is the presumptive element)....I put you and the YECs in the same boat.

 

[Barbarian]

genetic evidence only shows us we have many of the same genes that does not mean we are apes (there is the presumptive element)

If there is such a thing as an ape, then we are apes. Because the genetic evidence shows that we and chimps have a common ancestor more recently than either has with any other organism, we fit together in a clade within the apes. And this idea is easily checked by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.

....I put you and the YECs in the same boat.

Some YECs (John Woodmorappe, for example) do admit the evolution of new species, genera, and families, so technically, that would admit the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor. However, they usually draw the line at humans for religious reasons.

And many other YECs (such as Kurt Wise) admit the evidence for this is there, but merely put more weight in their interpretation of Scripture.

 

[brother Paul]

Can you give us an example of this common Ape ancestor? Please show us some fossils...

 

[Barbarian]

Can you give us an example of this common Ape ancestor?

The common ancestor of apes was a forest-dwelling animal, and forest leave few fossils. But we have some...

DNA evidence has long suggested that apes and Old World monkeys diverged from a common ancestor between 25 million and 30 million years ago. But until now, no fossils older than 20 million years had been found.


The age of the new specimens extends the origin of apes and Old World monkeys into the Oligocene Epoch, which lasted from 34 million to 23 million years ago. Previously, only three primate species were known from the late Oligocene globally, Stevens said.
http://www.livescience.com/32029-oldest-monkey-fossil-found.html

Proconsul was a bit more evolved toward apes, and somewhat later:

Please show us some fossils...[/QUOTE]

 

[brother Paul]

The article reads, “Rukwapithecus fleaglei, an early member of the hominoids, the group containing the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and humans) and lesser apes (gibbons).”

First off, we got Zero DNA from these samples and thus actually have nothing to compare with other Apes or humans (thus can only say they are another unsuccessful variety but not that it led to or was parental in any way to either modern Apes or Humans.

Structurally we can comparatively determine this creature was definitely a monkey or an Ape (and either very young or very small) and in no way Human or even pre-human if we divorce ourselves from the hypothesis based presumption.

Take the term Rukwapithecus fleaglei. This totally made up classification leaves the gullible and the unaware saying “Wow! This must be what they say it is just look at its name!!!” The name is actually total fiction because they really do not know where this variation actually fits in or even if it is not an immature version of something more successful, much more recent (a couple of million years). In other words, it is trying to make it sound distinct, somehow related, and scientific!

Then comes the presumption….ready?

a) “An early member of the Hominoids” (a result in thinking because people wanting to make the hypothesis seem real grouped us all into one category…that is all….some would say “We are all apes” or “we are all Homo” this, or Homo that)

b) Followed by the comma…” the group containing the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and humans) and lesser apes (gibbons). Now please understand that I realize to you it is not a presumption but a given, but that assumption, that it is a given and this helps prove it, IS the Presumption (you pre-assume the truth value of this assessment) being that it is a “belief” that the premise is true (even though it has not been proved. Some others accept it as true unless proven false (an equally illogical position).

So NO DNA to compare. Structurally a monkey or young ape. An alleged timeline that makes it very very old! But that’s all. Nothing (zero, zilch, nada) that actually demonstrates a linear developmental relationship. Just one creature here another there, one living at one time another at another time…nothing more!

Finally “Stevens says”….and that proves what? Stevens assumption based conclusion might be incorrect. Is this an appeal to some irrelevant authority who holds the same popular opinion? This is meaningless to the world of truth…

 

[Barbarian]

Paul asks for fossil evidence a common ape ancestor:

Can you give us an example of this common Ape ancestor? Please show us some fossils...

The article reads, “Rukwapithecus fleaglei, an early member of the hominoids, the group containing the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and humans) and lesser apes (gibbons).”

(sound of goal posts being frantically repositioned)

First off, we got Zero DNA from these samples and thus actually have nothing to compare with other Apes or humans

Except anatomy, embryology, homology, etc. You asked for fossils, now you switch the story and want DNA. Would you like to see how DNA shows us the same things?

(thus can only say they are another unsuccessful variety

You think so? Show us how long that species lived, compared to ours. C'mon.

Structurally we can comparatively determine this creature was definitely a monkey or an Ape

They need your help then. This one is so close to the transition that it's a very difficult mixture of both. Determine for us whether it's an ape or a monkey, and give us your anatomical data by which you chose. That's not a rhetorical question. I'll ask again, if you forget.

Take the term Rukwapithecus fleaglei. This totally made up classification leaves the gullible and the unaware saying “Wow! This must be what they say it is just look at its name!!!”

What are you talking about? Do you think scientists are telling us that Basilosaurus is a lizard and a king? C'mon.

The name is actually total fiction because they really do not know where this variation actually fits in

So you say, and say that you can do it. Tell us about it, and your anatomical analysis that told you so.

or even if it is not an immature version of something

You don't think it's possible to know whether a primate is immature or not?

a) “An early member of the Hominoids”

"Hominoids" are human-like organisms, basically all the apes:

b) Followed by the comma…” the group containing the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and humans) and lesser apes (gibbons). Now please understand that I realize to you it is not a presumption but a given, but that assumption, that it is a given and this helps prove it, IS the Presumption (you pre-assume the truth value of this assessment) being that it is a “belief” that the premise is true (even though it has not been proved. Some others accept it as true unless proven false (an equally illogical position).

No, that that story won't fly, because the evidence shows that the apes are a taxonomic group based on common descent. As you learned even Linnaeus, who didn't want to so classify them, admitted that he had no reason not to do so, because the evidence all pointed to them as being a single group.

(Goal post shifting again)

So NO DNA to compare.

As you learned, the DNA evidence on living organisms shows that monkeys and apes have a common ancestor. Would you like me to show you again?

Structurally a monkey or young ape.

Young apes don't appear to be monkeys. They are anatomically quite distinct, and it's not hard to show that an ape is immature,based on skeletal factors.

An alleged timeline that makes it very very old! But that’s all. Nothing (zero, zilch, nada) that actually demonstrates a linear developmental relationship. Just one creature here another there, one living at one time another at another time…nothing more!

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia
(between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius (between the tree shrews and
the primates), and Proconsul (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic
series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series, the tetrapod series, the whale series, the various mammal series of the Cenozoic (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius
and Plesiadapus primate series, and the hominid series.
YE creationist Kurt Wise, Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

I highlighted in red, the relevant admissions as they apply to our discussion. Wise honestly admits that these many transitional theories are powerful evidence:


Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
(Same source)

However, Wise continues to believe that somehow, this will all be cleared up with more research:

There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.
(Same source)

Wise adheres to his interpretation of Scripture, and therefor believes that there must eventually be a way to explain these facts in a YE context. At present, as he points out, there is no way to do so.

 

[brother Paul]

I agree, YE's are at a loss....glad I am not a YEC...

This group of creationists like some evolutionists confuse their immovable suppositions with the reality that confronts them.

Just as I believe in creation, when I confront reality, I must separate from the suppositional conclusionism as to what the many claim these things mean,, I also believe in evolution and strive to separate things from the suppositional conclusionism as to what the many claim these things mean.

Whenever the pre-coneceved conclusion (the hypothesis) colors the interpretation of the data such separation is merited and IMO necessary to come to the more basic truth value. That then forms a basis from which we can learn more...(free of dogmas, redefinition of terms to which results in ambiguity, the reliance on the appeal to alleged authority, appeal to the popularized opinion, or consensus wherein history has taught is often a serious error, etc.), and so on....

So in this case, I agree you showed me A FOSSIL (which I appreciate and totally accept as genuine) but what you believe this implies is a separate issue. You imposed a hypothesis based interpretation making it appear to be what I asked for by taking my request out of context and making a "sound bite" out of it....YES I asked for a fossil but more clearly (in context of the preceding conversation) asked for a fossil of an APE from which we and chimps diverged.

Now though it appears that this creature came before both, that does not fit the criteria (unless we ASSUME the logical fallacy that because one thing exists at an earlier time it is then responsible for what comes after, which I do not)...

While Creation and Evolution can both be true, clearly SOME creationists and SOME evolutionists have a difficulty in separating the two. Can you?

 

[Barbarian]

I agree, YE's are at a loss....glad I am not a YEC...

This group of creationists like some evolutionists confuse their immovable suppositions with the reality that confronts them.

Just as I believe in creation, when I confront reality, I must separate from the suppositional conclusionism

Notice that Wise, a YE creationist, was able to get past the suppositional conclusionism of creationism, and accept what most creationists cannot; that there is strong evidence in the fossil record for evolution, including evolution of humans.

I also believe in evolution

I do not believe in evolution; I accept it because the evidence shows it to be true. I believe in God.

So in this case, I agree you showed me A FOSSIL (which I appreciate and totally accept as genuine) but what you believe this implies is a separate issue.

I will grant you that Kurt Wise, although a YE creationist, is also well-versed in paleontology. But he openly admits that this evidence is "strong evidence" for evolution. He also admits that the hominin series is strong evidence for human evolution.

You imposed a hypothesis based interpretation making it appear to be what I asked for by taking my request out of context and making a "sound bite" out of it....YES I asked for a fossil but more clearly (in context of the preceding conversation) asked for a fossil of an APE from which we and chimps diverged.[/quote]

That's not what you asked for. The two apes that currently are close in age and morphology to what would be expected for a last common ancestor of chimps and humans are Orrorin and Sahelanthropus. Both forest-dwelling, so complete skeletons are unlikely although we will likely find more parts, and thus have a better idea where they fit.

While Creation and Evolution can both be true, clearly SOME creationists and SOME evolutionists have a difficulty in separating the two. Can you?

Shouldn't be hard for anyone familiar with Genesis. Creation is God's work in making everything. Evolution is His work in creating the diversity of live we see. Some things, like the creation of the universe, and our immortal souls are done supernaturally. Other creation is done by nature, as He intended. Evolution is done naturally, and therefore can be investigated by science.