|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| Porosity | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: New Estimate of Human/Chimp Split Raises Questions about Human Origins Research | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coyote Member  Posts: 3948 Joined: Member Rating: 9.5 |
New Statistical Model Moves Human Evolution Back Three Million [more] Years http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2010/11/101105124241.htm ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2010) — Evolutionary divergence of humans and chimpanzees likely occurred some 8 million years ago rather than the 5 million year estimate widely accepted by scientists, a new statistical model suggests. I am posting this as an example of how science works, and how it improves it's models (theories) step by step as new data are discovered and as new approaches are explored. Also, this illustrates the changes in our understanding of human evolution that are coming from the biological sciences. We no longer have to rely just on paleontology and fossils. But most importantly, we see that two independent lines of investigation are pointing in the same direction: what paleontology has shown us dimly, biological studies are showing us much more clearly. And it is likely that this trend will continue, and accelerate, in the future. I have no idea where this should be placed. Edited by Admin, : Change title. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 11271 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 9.6 |
I'm going to put this in Is It Science?, because in conjunction with past changes in this estimate it does raise questions about whether we're really improving our knowledge or are just continually changing our minds in line with the latest evidence. For instance, this is from Study moves chimp-human split to 4 million years ago in Reuters three years ago:
First the split was 5-7 million years ago (and who knows what it was before that), then it was 4 million years ago, then it was 5 million years ago, now it's 8 million years ago. Aren't these guys just making it up as they go along?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director Posts: 11271 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 9.6 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 835 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
That's one of the problems with science journalism. Science is a process -- and a messy one at that. But journalists need to report events. So they report on each new study as if the investigators had found the Holy Grail. In time, a consensus will probably emerge. More fossils will be found. Statistical models will be improved or abandoned. Molecular clocks will be better calibrated. Personally, I'd trust the fossils over the statistical models and molecular clocks. In the meantime, 4-8 million years ago is not such an imprecise estimate when measured on a geologic timescale.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr Jack Member  Posts: 3475 From: Leicester, England Joined: |
I'm baffled by the claim that 5 million years is "widely accepted by scientists". Even the recent dates suggested by DNA are 5-6 million years, and it's widely accepted that they're an underestimate especially as we have fossils dated to 6-7 million years that are thought to be in the clade containing us but not the clade containing chimps. And, well, new statistical model. Hmm... not exactly cast iron evidence is it? We'll see whether the techniques used stand the test of time.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
