Unless Rupe and Sanford can come up with non-arbitrary characteristics to root separate trees then the single tree is the best answer.
5 Likes
Are you now clear that the answer is no? Their model does not appear to be based on data at all. Itâs just a cartoon with a surface resemblance to some published trees, meaning itâs graphically similar, not that it has a similar topology.
1 Like
Ahh yes of course, the hominin fossil record is so poor that creationists infamously canât agree even amongst themselves on which ones are human and which arenât.
3 Likes
Not really
This is incorrect. They spent the whole book to gather the evidences that support their model. I invite you to have a look to it.
It happens that they precisely did that.
I find it odd that between two models, the one best suited to make accurate predictions may not offer a better explanation than the other, even if the latter would be simpler.
Letâs see it.
2 Likes
I have a simpler question: what actual data set was the figure you posted based on? You should be able to present a data matrix and a description of an analysis of that matrix. (Note that this sort of thing traditionally is explained in figure captions, but isnât in the caption you show.) And why do they entirely ignore the molecular data?
What were those characteristics?
But it doesnât make accurate predictions. You can always improve the fit of a curve to current data by adding parameters, but that fit applies only to the data you already have. It wonât necessarily improve fit to future data.
4 Likes
They spent the whole book ignoring and/or misrepresenting the evidence while making up nonsense to support their âmodelâ.
5 Likes
Calling bs on that. Please describe these non-arbitrary characteristics.
4 Likes
Did you read the book?
If they only gather evidence to support their model, the book is pseudoscience.
1 Like
Iâve not read all of it, but enough of it to reach the conclusion. And Iâve talked to others that have read all of it, people with actual expertise in the field, and they are fairly convinced of the same. Even the picture you posted is sufficiently dishonest to disqualify them as reliable sources.
3 Likes
@thoughtful, someone is plagiarizing your material!
2 Likes
No. Nor does anyone here really want to spend money on creationist nonsense. Thatâs why weâre asking you to provide information, which you seem unwilling or unable to do.
2 Likes
I vaguely recall reading that each of us has about 3% Neanderthal in our genome, but when you look across the population, itâs actually around 60% of our genome. Does that ring any bells with anyone? I donât remember what source I read that in - it wasnât a creationist one.
Can you refer us to the paper?
2 Likes
In Contested Bones, the authors examine hominin bones relevant to human origin (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Australopithecus aferensis, Ardipithecus ramidus). And they find that all these bones belong to only two genera, the genus Australopithecus or the genus Homo, the bones of the first genus being clearly ape-like (Australopithecus aferensis, Ardipithecus ramidus) and those of the second clearly human-like (Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis). They also examine the bones which, according to some paleo-experts, could belong to transitional species (Homo habilis, Australopithecus sediba and Homo naledi) which could make the link between the two aforementioned generas. But from this examination, they conclude that Habilis and Sediba âare in fact a jumble of Homo and Australopithecus Bonesâ whereas Naledi was fully human. In other words, the fossil record doesnât provide clear evidence of a transitional bridge genus linking the Australopithecus and Homo genera. From all these elements, to the question "why canât the various hominin species be arranged into a coherent ape-to-man progression? », the authors propose it is simply because man did not evolve from any Australopithecus ape, or any other type of ape. Hence their alternative model depicted in the figure I posted.
Havenât heard that before. It sounds superficially odd, but I think thereâs some interpretation that can make sense of it.
I suppose what could be meant by a statement like that, is that the neanderthal pieces of the human genome can come from many different parts of the human genome, and if you were to add all those pieces of neanderthal DNA that come from different pieces of the human genome(pieces of which, in turn, is found in different human individuals) together, it would make up 60% of that individualâs entire genome? Thatâs my best guess.
1 Like
You are right and based on the 1000 genomes project it should be around 41% according to the presenter below:
Timestamp: 6:19
2 Likes
Which specimens did they look at to come to this conclusion? Which sites?
1 Like
Holy cow. I bet they have never even held casts of these specimens.
2 Likes