Fossil Dating of Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimps

[T_aquaticus]

@Giltil

The fossil and archeological evidences don’t support this claim

You are wrong.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/ardipithecus/sarmiento-white-pelvis-exchange-2010.html

The Australopithecine pelvis is human-like. They had a mixture of basal ape and derived human features. You can see it for yourself.

The Homo species are no different, just more human. Homo erectus had a jaw that juts forward and a sloping forehead which are more like other apes than like humans.

[John_Harshman]

@scd

and its also true for many designed objects. for instance: a jeep is a “transitional form” between a car and a truck.

More evidence that you don’t understand what a nested hierarchy is.

@scd

no. as you can see with the felid case- we can get good idea in general. just not a perfect one.

If we try to make this claim coherent, it would appear to be that God originally created a felid “kind” with a single species, which later diverged into multiple species that retained the plesiomorphic ability to interbreed. But on what basis can you claim this? There are no hybrids between the genus Panthera and other cats, so why don’t you think they’re a separate kind? On what basis are clouded leopards not a kind all their own? Further, why couldn’t God have created multiple kinds that were able to interbreed with each other? Finally, since you seem to acknowledge that ability to interbreed can be lost, how can you assert that species that don’t interbreed belong to different kinds? Your criterion is indeed useless; beyond that, it has no justification.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Giltil

The fossil and archeological evidences don’t support this claim…

Please cite this evidence itself, then, not what anyone says about the evidence.

It’s fascinating that you and many others make only general claims about what the evidence supports but go into great detail in quoting rhetoric.

How do you explain that disparity, @Giltil?

[scd]

@T_aquaticus

As has been explained many times now, designed objects don’t fall into a nested hierarchy.

we are not talking now about nested hierarchy but about fossils. but since you already bring up that again, do you agree with me that we can get a nested hierarchy even under a wrong phylogeny? (for instance, a phylogeny which is base on morphology instead of genetic).

@T_aquaticus

You did say otherwise:

“basically any fossil cant be consider as transitional, since we cant prove these animals evolved from each other.”

this is true. even if we are talking about a direct ancestor (and some transitional fossils are probably are), we cant prove that those fossils represent species that evolved from each other. maybe i will reserve my words more next time, although i think it was just a general statement.

@T_aquaticus

Then I assess humans as being in the vertebrate kind

do you realy think human and a carp are the same kind?

@T_aquaticus

They are both in the eukaryote kind

so cat is a banana?

@John_Harshman

More evidence that you don’t understand what a nested hierarchy is.

see above.

@John_Harshman

But on what basis can you claim this? There are no hybrids between the genus Panthera and other cats, so why don’t you think they’re a separate kind?

have you heard about the pumapard?:

Pumapard

@John_Harshman

Finally, since you seem to acknowledge that ability to interbreed can be lost, how can you assert that species that don’t interbreed belong to different kinds?

we cant. but base on such studies, and base on genetic content, i think that we can know what the created kinds are, at least in most cases.

[John_Harshman]

@scd

see above.

Even more evidence.

@scd

have you heard about the pumapard?

That’s not on the figure you showed. What about the clouded leopard?

@scd

we cant. but base on such studies, and base on genetic content, i think that we can know what the created kinds are, at least in most cases.

The question, which you seem unable to answer, is why you think so. The evidence shows that there is only one kind.

[Faizal_Ali]

Honestly, folks. What the actual hell is the point?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Faizal_Ali

Honestly, folks. What the actual hell is the point?

Agreed. Closing comments.

If someone has something useful to contribute to the OP, send it to me and I will consider reopening. If you want to continue the Brockian Ultracricket you can start a new thread for it.

/fnord