Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 116 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2017 6:27 PM
328 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 325 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,762 Year: 25,368/21,208 Month: 995/2,338 Week: 116/450 Day: 40/34 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
13Next
Author Topic:   A good summary of so called human evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 7190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 91 of 184 (808415)
05-10-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 2:54 PM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

No, three of you said that primates (chimps included) came from bats.

That's a flat out lie. I dare you to quote any of us saying that.

You must realise that your outlandish theories are laughable to say the least when you try and explain, how our ancestors are not our cousins and uncles, and relatives...

Perhaps your ancestors were cousins, but mine were not. In my family, my grandparents are my ancestors. My cousins are not. My cousins and I share a common ancestor in our grandparents, but my cousins are not my grandparents.

Do you seriously not understand this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 2:54 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 92 of 184 (808428)
05-10-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Davidjay
05-10-2017 2:54 PM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Taq writes:

You don't understand how your cousin is not your ancestor?

Perhaps inbreeding could be part of the problem.

No, three of you said that primates (chimps included) came from bats.

Nope, not true. Related in the way that bats (and all mammals) are related, the way cousins are related, but not ancestral the way your cousin is not ancestral (unless inbreeding).

So according to your wild unproven theory, bats are our common ancestor or are chimps also in there, or did they mate together upside down and produce right side up humans.

You must realise that your outlandish theories are laughable to say the least when you try and explain, how our ancestors are not our cousins and uncles, and relatives...

But thanks for the chuckle, but again I must ask you to expand your thoughts more than into one sentence. Expand, explain, how our ancestors are not our relatives. Or you can say, you made a rather large MISTAKE, and clarify your LARGE MISTAKE.

But do try and get those chimps back into a logical branch either before humans appeared or after, but surely not coupled together with bats. It clogs up your bel-fries....

So all of this garbage is based on false understanding of the difference between "related" and "ancestral" ... GIGO, spam in diarrhea out.

For your edification (a useless exercise in futility but what the hey):

The daughter populations are related, but neither is ancestral to the other, that role falls to the Common Ancestor Population.

Carrying this further:

All groups are related, but only "A" is ancestral to the others, "B" is ancestral to "C", "D", "E" and "F" while "C" is ancestral to "D" and "E" and "G" is only ancestral to "H" and "I" ... so

Bats could be "I" and people could be "D" and they would be related -- by descent from the common ancestor population "A" ... which is neither primate nor bat but some early mammalid.

So once again your preposterous puerile pontifications are shown to be nothing more than vapid ignorance and willful denial masquerading as valid content.

Now, let the spamming and ludicrous trolling replies commence, with no relevance to this information, because that is what losers do.

Enjoy

PS: the purpose of trolling is to disrupt the debate and deflect it to other topics, while spewing insults to encourage angry retorts. They "win" when they accomplish this goal, so any claims of "winning" while making posts of this type is essentially an admission of trolling.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Davidjay, posted 05-10-2017 2:54 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM RAZD has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 93 of 184 (808691)
05-12-2017 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by RAZD
05-10-2017 3:55 PM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
So where did humans come from ?

People stated previously we came from ****, and now try to say they or I, am lying.

So evolutionists try again and tell us where humans came from ? What branch did we come from ?

My threads get shut down because apparrently I dont answer questions, so do please respond.... as there are multitudes of you HERE posting.

Tell us where humans came from


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 05-10-2017 3:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:19 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 95 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2017 9:36 AM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2017 1:20 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2017 3:19 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2017 5:17 PM Davidjay has not yet responded
 Message 119 by Taq, posted 05-16-2017 1:00 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 94 of 184 (808692)
05-12-2017 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:15 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Psttt... notice the loophole that evolutionists snuck through saying there is a difference between cousins and ancestors.

When the original statement was relatives, as relatives includes parents and grandparents, and those with direct links to us.

Watch out evolutionists are tricky in their wording and semantics and branching. Read carefully as they twist and turn, and evade answering questions, like who was our ancestor ?

One minutes it a *** and the next minute they can;t decide, even after decades of digging in their holes and trying to artistically put together bones.


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 11:13 AM Davidjay has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 95 of 184 (808696)
05-12-2017 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:15 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 96 of 184 (808723)
05-12-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:19 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

When the original statement was relatives, as relatives includes parents and grandparents, and those with direct links to us.

The original statement meant relativies as in cousins.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:19 AM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 11:28 AM Taq has responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 97 of 184 (808728)
05-12-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
05-12-2017 11:13 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
No relatives means relatives and not merely cousins. You cant flip flop and change meanings and definitions.

So just tell us where we humans came from ?

If not from bats, as *** and *** and *** and **** suggested, do tell us where we came from...

Who are our forefathers, are grandparents, back and backwards in time.

For surely after all these decades one or some of you must know who are forefathers or original species was.

Maybe I shall ask if we can start a NEW TOPIC on this subject. But I would ask that evolutionists answer the question rather than hiding away in silence, and sulking saying nobody understands them and their wording.

Just simply tell us who are ancesters were ?

Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.


.
The Lord is the GREAT SCIENTIST as He created SCIENCE and ALL LAWS and ALL MATTER and of course ALL LIFE. God is the Great Architect, Designer and Mathematician. Evolutioon is not mathematical and says there is no DESIGN but that all things came about by sheer LUCK.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 11:13 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Taq, posted 05-12-2017 11:49 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7190
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 98 of 184 (808737)
05-12-2017 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 11:28 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
Davidjay writes:

No relatives means relatives and not merely cousins.

The posters meant cousins when they used the word relatives. What matters is what the posters were trying to communicate, not what you can twist their words to mean. Our position is that bats are our cousins, not our ancestors.

If all you have is semantics, then you lose.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 11:28 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 99 of 184 (808741)
05-12-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:15 AM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
So where did humans come from ?

People stated previously we came from ****, and now try to say they or I, am lying.

So evolutionists try again and tell us where humans came from ? What branch did we come from ?

Humans are apes that diverged from a common ancestor with Chimps, no bats in ape clades.

African apes (humans, Chimps, Gorillas) are called Homininae in scientific nomenclature:

Homininae descended from primates as follows:

quote:
Homininae
PRIMATES
|--Strepsirhini
`--Haplorhini
|--Tarsiiformes
`--Anthropoidea
|--Platyrrhini
`--Hominoidea
|--Hylobatidae
`--Hominidae
|--Ponginae
`--Homininae

On the website each level is hyperlinked, so you can check to see if bats (chirotera) are descended from any of them (they aren't).

Primates are descended from Eutheria as follows:

quote:
Eutheria
EUTHERIA
|--LAURASIATHERIA
| ?--Chiroptera
`--Euarchontaglires
|--ANAGALIDA (incl. Glires)
`--ARCHONTA
|--+--Scandentia
| `--Dermoptera
`--Primatomorpha
|==Plesiadapiformes
`--PRIMATES

Again, the website is hyperlinked on each level, so you can see that bats (Chiroptera) are listed near the top, that they are descendant from one of two branches under Eutheria, Laurasiatheria. You can also see that Primates are descended from the other branch, Euarchontaglires.

So the last common ancestor (parent) population shared by ancestors of bats and ancestors of people was Eutheria, the parent population of the whole clade of Eutherian Mammals.

I checked by clicking on the Chiroptera link and got the following:

quote:
Chiroptera
LAURASIATHERIA
|
`--CHIROPTERA

The Chiroptera clade on the paleos.com site is still under development so as a double check we can look at the whole dendrogram for Chiroptera (bats) from this site:

quote:
Higher-level Classification of Bats
Order Chiroptera
Megachiropteramorpha (unranked name)
Suborder Megachiroptera
Family Pteropodidae
Microchiropteramorpha (unranked name)
†Family Icaronycteridae
†Family Archaeonycteridae
Microchiropteraformes (unranked name)
†Family Palaeochiropterygidae
†Family Hassianycteridae
Suborder Microchiroptera
Superfamily Emballonuroidea
Family Emballonuridae
Subfamily Taphozoinae
Subfamily Emballonurinae
Infraorder Yinochiroptera
Superfamily Rhinopomatoidea
Family Craseonycteridae
Family Rhinopomatidae
Superfamily Rhinolophoidea
Family Nycteridae
Family Megadermatidae
Family Rhinolophidae
Subfamily Rhinolophinae
Subfamily Hipposiderinae
Infraorder Yangochiroptera
Superfamily Noctilionoidea
Family Mystacinidae
Family Phyllostomidae
Family Mormoopidae
Family Noctilionidae
Superfamily Nataloidea
Family Myzopodidae
Family Furipteridae
Family Thyropteridae
Family Natalidae
Superfamily Molossoidea
Family Antrozoidae
Family Molossidae
Subfamily Tomopeatinae
Subfamily Molossinae
Superfamily Vespertilionoidea
Family Vespertilionidae
Subfamily Vespertilioninae
Subfamily Miniopterinae
Subfamily Myotinae
Subfamily Murininae
Subfamily Kerivoulinae

† extinct


No primates in those clades. No primates descended from the original Chiroptera common ancestor population. Bats are not ancestral to humans.

Also see

quote:
wiki: Laurasiatheria

Laurasiatheria is a superorder of placental mammals that originated on the northern supercontinent of Laurasia 99 million years ago. The superorder includes shrews, pangolins, bats, whales, carnivorans, odd-toed and even-toed ungulates, among others.

Classification and phylogeny

Laurasiatheria was discovered on the basis of the similar gene sequences shared by the mammals belonging to it; no anatomical features have yet been found that unite the group. Laurasiatheria is a clade usually discussed without a Linnaean rank, but has been assigned the rank of cohort or magnorder, and superorder. The Laurasiatheria clade is based on DNA sequence analyses and retrotransposon presence/absence data. The name comes from the theory that these mammals evolved on the supercontinent of Laurasia, after it split from Gondwana when Pangaea broke up. It is a sister group to Euarchontoglires (or Supraprimates) ...


and

quote:
wiki: Euarchontoglires

Euarchontoglires (synonymous with Supraprimates) is a clade and a superorder of mammals, the living members of which belong to one of the five following groups: rodents, lagomorphs, treeshrews, colugos and primates.

The Euarchontoglires clade is based on DNA sequence analyses and retrotransposon markers that combine the clades Glires (Rodentia + Lagomorpha) and Euarchonta (Scandentia + Primates + Dermoptera).[citation needed] So far, few if any anatomical features that support Euarchontoglires have been recognized, nor does any strong evidence from anatomy support alternative hypotheses.


Bats and humans are related via ancestry from eutheria common ancestor but neither descended from the other.

The eutheria common ancestor was neither bat nor person. As you can see this is supported by consilient information on multiple websites.

My threads get shut down because apparrently I dont answer questions, so do please respond.... as there are multitudes of you HERE posting.

It's not just a matter of posting something to reply to questions, it is a matter of addressing the issues raised, providing evidence to back your assertions and presenting it in a rational logical format, not making or repeating bare assertions.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 11:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 100 of 184 (808760)
05-12-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:15 AM


No: Bats are our relatives but not our ancestors - Like cousins ...
To reprise what I said in Message 92 previously in this thread:

quote:
Carrying this further:

All groups are related, but only "A" is ancestral to the others, "B" is ancestral to "C", "D", "E" and "F" while "C" is ancestral to "D" and "E" and "G" is only ancestral to "H" and "I" ... so

Bats could be "I" and people could be "D" and they would be related -- by descent from the common ancestor population "A" ... which is neither primate nor bat but some early mammalid.


I can now put some names to those letters:

Bats are "I" and "G" is Laurasiatheria, the first Laurasiatheria was not a bat but a parent of what becomes bats.

while "A" is the first Eutheria mammals, neither bat nor primate (nor human).

"D" is humans, while "C" is primates. The first primates were not humans but parents of what becomes humans.

"B" is Euarchontaglires, the first Euarchontaglires were not primates but parents to what becomes primates.

"B" and "G" are sister clades, neither one descended from the other, they descended independently from Eutheria.

It's really quite simple.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 101 of 184 (808763)
05-12-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Davidjay
05-12-2017 9:15 AM


No: Bats are our relatives but not our ancestors -- just like distant cousins.
By the way, I want to commend you on a fairly decent post. To the point, a valid question (especially given some mixup between cousin and relative).

More like this eh?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Davidjay, posted 05-12-2017 9:15 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 102 of 184 (808986)
05-15-2017 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by RAZD
05-12-2017 1:20 PM


Re: Bats are our ancestors but not our relatives ? Evolutionary double speak
in Proposed New Topics 'Eurachondra is 'Missing LINK'. Message 1 Davidjay writes

quote:
After reseaching HERE, it seems that many evolutionists deem 'Eurachondra' as our ancestors.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ucing-the-treeshrews

And yet dont seem to acknowledge this great BREAKTHROUGH in science from their standpoint or according to their theory.

For its these tree shrews, that would be our MISSING LINK that connects us to the past. Forget a MISSING LINK within primates, but the missing link previous in our supposed human branching of the past til today, that connects us to all the other animals.

So lets allow evolutionists to have their moment in the Sun, and ask them about this great missing link connection that they say is scientific.

For bats are our cousins and apparrently not our ancestors, so lets consider treeshews. and our MISSING LINKS to our origins

Sincerely Yours

David


I see no reason why we cannot continue this current discussion of the history of human and bat evolution to include this new article on tree shrews and incorporate their position in the descent into the discussion.

The first question I would ask is why does Davidjay think this is (a) a problem to evolution or (b) something new.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 05-12-2017 1:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 05-15-2017 11:28 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 12:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6012
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(3)
Message 103 of 184 (808987)
05-15-2017 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
05-15-2017 11:22 AM


Re: Missing links
From Wiki:

quote:
The term "missing link" has been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution to refer to a perceived gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to a pre-evolutionary view of nature....

"Missing link" is still a popular term, well recognized by the public and often used in the popular media.[59] It is, however, avoided in the scientific press, as it relates to the concept of the great chain of being and to the notion of simple organisms being primitive versions of complex ones, both of which have been discarded in biology.[citation needed] In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions.[5][60]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 11:22 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 104 of 184 (809008)
05-15-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by RAZD
05-15-2017 11:22 AM


Cousins not ancestors, once again.
After reseaching HERE, it seems that many evolutionists deem 'Eurachondra' as our ancestors.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ucing-the-treeshrews

We'll start with the clade name being Euarchonta rather than Eurachondra, and then go with Euarchonta being combined with Glires to make a new superfamily, group called Euarchontoglires, due to their genetic similarities.

quote:
wiki: Euarchontoglires

Euarchontoglires (synonymous with Supraprimates) is a clade and a superorder of mammals, the living members of which belong to one of the five following groups: rodents, lagomorphs, treeshrews, colugos and primates.

The Euarchontoglires clade is based on DNA sequence analyses and retrotransposon markers that combine the clades Glires (Rodentia + Lagomorpha) and Euarchonta (Scandentia + Primates + Dermoptera).[citation needed] So far, few if any anatomical features that support Euarchontoglires have been recognized, nor does any strong evidence from anatomy support alternative hypotheses.


This is our basal clade common ancestor that we share with modern tree shrews (all those drawings in the article are modern tree shrews), which (like bats) are cousins rather than ancestors (or "missing links").

The page from paleos also can be reviewed:

quote:
Eutheria
EUTHERIA
|--LAURASIATHERIA
| ?--Chiroptera
`--Euarchontaglires
|--ANAGALIDA (incl. Glires)
`--ARCHONTA
|--+--Scandentia
| `--Dermoptera
`--Primatomorpha
|==Plesiadapiformes
`--PRIMATES

And Scandentia are the ancestors for the modern tree shrews, making Archonta our last common ancestors.

quote:
Scandentia (= Tupaioidea): Ptilocercus, tree shrews (Tupaia), Urogale. Squirrel-like omnivores of S and SE Asian forests & esp. Borneo & Philippines.

Range: from the Middle Eocene, possibly Paleocene.

Phylogeny: Archonta : Primatomorpha + (Dermoptera + * )

Characters: Long, narrow skull; dental formula: 2/3, 1/1, 3/3, 3/3; I 1&2 are caniniform; C1 reduced; d1-2 form tooth comb; upper molars with cutting surfaces & dilambdodont; lower molars basic tribosphenic form; snout long & pointed; vibrissae absent; some arboreal species have forward-facing eyes & may have binocular vision; orbits completely surrounded with bone; well-developed postorbital process joins zygomatic arch; zygomatic arch complete, with prominent fenestra; relatively large brain (esp. arboreal forms); auditory bulla complete, formed from entotympanic; tail long & heavily furred; pubic bones united in a long symphysis; digits 5/5; 1st digits point somewhat inward with some grasping ability; all digits have claws; scrotal testes; opportunistic foragers, both arboreal & terrestrial; ...


We can also look scandentia up in wiki

quote:
Treeshrew
(Redirected from Scandentia)

The treeshrews (or tree shrews or banxrings[2]) are small euarchont mammals native to the tropical forests of Southeast Asia. They make up the families Tupaiidae, the treeshrews, and Ptilocercidae, the pen-tailed treeshrew, and the entire order Scandentia. The 20 species are placed in five genera. Treeshrews have a higher brain to body mass ratio than any other mammal, including humans,[3] but high ratios are not uncommon for animals weighing less than a kilogram.

Though called 'treeshrews', and despite having previously been classified in Insectivora, they are not true shrews, and not all species live in trees. Among other things, treeshrews eat Rafflesia fruit.

Among orders of mammals, treeshrews are closely related to primates, and have been used as an alternative to primates in experimental studies of myopia, psychosocial stress, and hepatitis.[4]


In any event, calling tree shrews a "missing link" is making the same mistake made with bats.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : finished

Edited by RAZD, : more finished


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 11:22 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 3:01 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19074
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 105 of 184 (809032)
05-15-2017 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
05-15-2017 12:46 PM


Re: Cousins not ancestors, once again.
So I reread the Scientific American Article, Introducing the Treeshrews: They Don't All Live in Trees and They Aren't Close to Shrews, and nowhere in the article did it say that tree shrews were ancestral to primates (and hence to people), so Davidjay's continued assertion to this effect is making the same mistake he made with bats. It's the same pattern of claim and insinuation without any apparent acceptance of corrections.

For instance in Message 93 on the Science is Revealed Truth thread earlier today he posts:

Sorry Tangle, you seem to be tangled up again...

Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather.... all four of you said it, and finally answered what evolution believes in, as our common ancestor.

Do not switch back to a primate and confuse your branching....

So your silly chimps do not apply, they are primates, and that is a secondary mistake of yours or a theoretical branching of yours.

So come on evolutionists quite switching horses in mid stream or mid branch.

The "Treeshrews were suppose to be our primate ancestor, not a cousin or a brother, but a forefather." statement is clearly false and was never said by the article he refers to (but doesn't quote) nor any post in any of these threads. Repeating falsehoods aggressively and rejecting correct information is not debate.

What the article says about the descent of tree shrews:

quote:
Treeshrews: where in the placental family tree? Traditionally, treeshrews were regarded as members of Insectivora, this being due both to their highly superficial similarity to shrews, and to the idea that Insectivora should serve as a catch-all group for a poorly defined, amorphous group of placentals that lack the specialisations of other lineages. During the 1920s, Wilfred Le Gros Clark and Albertina Carlsson made it obvious that treeshrews share anatomical characters with Primates (Huxley had also noted this connection in 1872), and this eventually led to the proposal that they should be removed from Insectivora and placed within that group (Simpson 1945, Sargis 2004).

However, treeshrews are so different from classic primates – and so obviously outside the clade that includes all ‘true’ primates fossil and living – that the idea of distinct, ordinal status became increasingly popular from the 1960s onwards (Van Valen 1965, McKenna 1966, Szalay 1968). Today they are universally identified as the isolated group Scandentia*. Bony features used to unite Scandentia mostly concern details of braincase vasculature but fusion of the scaphoid and lunate in the wrist also appears distinctive (Silcox et al. 2005).

Current molecular consensus for euarchontans and kin.
Other phylogenetic hypotheses are available.

Treeshrews might not be part of Primates, but they do share anatomical characters (in the skeleton and in numerous organ systems) with primates as well as with the so-called flying lemurs (Dermoptera). The idea that they’re part of the placental group Euarchonta is therefore universally accepted… more or less (read on). Some molecular studies suggest an especially close relationship between treeshrews and flying lemurs (Murphy et al. 2001, Olson et al. 2005, Springer et al. 2007, Prasad et al. 2008, Asher et al. 2009). This hypothesis has become quite popular and the clade that contains the two has been termed Sundatheria (Olson et al. 2005) or Paraprimates (Springer et al. 2007). ‘Sundatheria’ refers to the idea that these mammals are strongly associated with Sundaland, the biogeographical region that incorporates Borneo, Sumatra, peninsula Malaysia and the adjacent continental shelf region that would have been exposed during times of low sea level. ...


It is hard to see how anyone doing even a cursory reading of the article could come to the conclusion that it says treeshrews are ancestral to humans, particularly when that picture show a clear and unambiguous cladogram with primates and Scandentia evolving separately from their Euarconta common ancestor.

Euarconta is neither Primate nor Scandentia, but ancestral to both.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-15-2017 12:46 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Davidjay, posted 05-16-2017 10:47 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017