Fossil Dating of Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimps

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

No. They have the same data as everyone else.
They simply interpret them differently than most paleo-experts.

This is objectively false, as they have been shown to ignore most of the extant data.

[Michael_Okoko]

@Giltil

As you can see below, your self-confidence is unfounded

Man is an ape and no expert contests this.

https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/#:~:text=Humans%20are%20classified%20in%20the,the%20hominoids%20(Superfamily%20Hominoidea).

@Giltil

« No doubt about it, Australopithecines are like apes, and Homo group are like humans »
Leslie Aiello, Paleanthropologist of the University College London.

Citation?

Um the New Scientist article you linked doesn’t contradict what @Mercer said. If you think otherwise, highlight the relevant sections to to show so.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Are you saying that the fossil record allows for a convincing hypothesis for the origin of man, that there is a clear fossil trail supporting an ape-to-man progression?

We’re still apes, and still mammals, and actually animals too, and even eukaryotes. And the fossil record clearly and convincingly supports human evolution from non-human primate ancestors, yes.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

Are you saying that the fossil record allows for a convincing hypothesis for the origin of man, that there is a clear fossil trail supporting an ape-to-man progression?

Why aren’t fossils with a mixture of ape and human features convincing to you? What are these fossils missing that you would expect to see in a real transitional fossil?

[Faizal_Ali]

@T_aquaticus

Why aren’t fossils with a mixture of ape and human features convincing to you? What are these fossils missing that you would expect to see in a real transitional fossil?

I’d also like to hear, once and for all, an explanation for the existence of these transitional forms that is derived from the model of separate creation of humans by a god.

I have no great expectations of receiving one, to be clear.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@T_aquaticus

Why aren’t fossils with a mixture of ape and human features convincing to you?

You should read R&S book but the short answer is that such fossils probably don’t exist.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Faizal_Ali

I’d also like to hear, once and for all, an explanation for the existence of these transitional forms that is derived from the model of separate creation of humans by a god.

Yes an important point. There is no reason, a priori, why creationism would entail the existence of humans with traits that are significantly more reminiscent of extant apes, and appear to be more morphologically intermediate between them. We don’t see human beings among us today that look like any of these supposedly “fully human” fossils.

It is only evolution that predicts they should exist, while creationism is always merely trying to account for them after the fact of their discovery. Meanwhile creationism also has nothing but one long history of trying to argue either that there remain unfilled “gaps” in the fossil record, and/or that whenever a new obviously transitional fossil is found it somehow still isn’t transitional.

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

You should read R&S book but the short answer is that such fossils probably don’t exist.

I am asking you. Why aren’t fossils with a mixture of ape and human features convincing TO YOU??

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Faizal_Ali

I’d also like to hear, once and for all, an explanation for the existence of these transitional forms that is derived from the model of separate creation of humans by a god.

According to Rupe & Sanford, it is a mistake to think that « primitive » features mean « less evolved », as the discovery of Naledi has clearly shown. The question now arises as to how these primitive traits may have arisen if not by evolution from an ancient australopithecine lineage? The answer may have something to do with inbreeding within some extreme isolated population of Homo sapiens, which is known to result in « founder effects » and rapid degeneration. IOW, as stated by R&S, « all of the reputed Homo species that are assumed to have been almost human or evolutionary precursors to man, appear to simply be aberrant modern humans that lived in isolation »

@Faizal_Ali

I have no great expectations of receiving one, to be clear.

You were wrong to be pessimistic!

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

You should read R&S book but the short answer is that such fossils probably don’t exist.

Yah, except for all these:

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

[scd]

@Giltil

Are you saying that the fossil record allows for a convincing hypothesis for the origin of man, that there is a clear fossil trail supporting an ape-to-man progression?

we should remember the problematic homo naledi:

Homo naledi is only 250,000 years old – here’s why that matters

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

According to Rupe & Sanford, it is a mistake to think that « primitive » features mean « less evolved », as the discovery of Naledi has clearly shown.

In most situations, using the terminology “less/more evolved” is incorrect. The word you are looking for is “derived” or “modified”.

Next, why is it a mistake to think of H. naledi as being less derived?

@Giltil

The question now arises as to how these primitive traits may have arisen if not by evolution from an ancient australopithecine lineage?

The question is what features would a fossil need in order for YOU to accept a fossil as being evidence of evolution. At this point, we are getting the distinct impression that no evidence will change your mind because you are shielding a dogmatic religious belief.

[T_aquaticus]

@scd

we should remember the problematic homo naledi

Why are sister taxa problematic?

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

According to Rupe & Sanford, it is a mistake to think that « primitive » features mean « less evolved », as the discovery of Naledi has clearly shown. The question now arises as to how these primitive traits may have arisen if not by evolution from an ancient australopithecine lineage? The answer may have something to do with inbreeding within some extreme isolated population of Homo sapiens, which is known to result in « founder effects » and rapid degeneration. IOW, as stated by R&S, « all of the reputed Homo species that are assumed to have been almost human or evolutionary precursors to man, appear to simply be aberrant modern humans that lived in isolation »

Hee hee. No, really. What is your actual answer? I’m trying to have a serious discussion here.

[CrisprCAS9]

@Giltil

You should read R&S book but the short answer is that such fossils probably don’t exist.

Sounds like the short answer is that R&S are absolutely terrible at morphological analysis, if they think such fossils don’t exist.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Tim

Yes. Throw more explanatory variables at a statistical model, and you’ll get a better fit, even if those variables are irrelevant. Throw enough variables, even if all are irrelevant, and you can get a perfect fit.

A Statistical Haiku

Building a model
Too many variables
Use Akaike

[davecarlson]

@Dan_Eastwood

A Statistical Haiku

Building a model
Too many variables
Use Akaike

BIC, you heathen!

[Dan_Eastwood]

Not enough syllables.

If anyone is wondering, it’s pronounced A-ka-i-kay.

And it wasn’t all that long ago when the Bayesians were the heretics!

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

According to Rupe & Sanford, it is a mistake to think that « primitive » features mean « less evolved », as the discovery of Naledi has clearly shown.

You seem confused. Nobody says they mean “less evolved”.

@Giltil

The answer may have something to do with inbreeding within some extreme isolated population of Homo sapiens, which is known to result in « founder effects » and rapid degeneration.

There’s simply no reason to think founder effects or “rapid degeneration” (whatever that is even supposed to mean) should lead the existence of a population of hominids exhibiting transitional morphology.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@scd

we should remember the problematic homo naledi:

You can’t seem to let go of your ladder thinking. Evolution is a branching process of descent with modification. There is no requirement that two branching lines of descent can’t coexist. You’ll note that the world still contains bacteria even now 3800+ million years after their origin.