Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 12:03 PM
31 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Aussie, AZPaul3, Diomedes, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Stile (8 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,943 Year: 11,979/19,786 Month: 1,760/2,641 Week: 269/708 Day: 44/52 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 11 of 341 (582788)
09-23-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by barbara
09-23-2010 1:52 PM


Re: Which part is the actual difference?
Do you use base pairs, codons, genes, or proteins to determine what sets us apart from other forms of life?

Well, we're not apart from other forms of life, but if we're talking genomic comparisons then any of the above will do, though in most studies the differences cited are in base-pairs.

Edited by AZPaul3, : spelin, as usual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by barbara, posted 09-23-2010 1:52 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 15 of 341 (582857)
09-23-2010 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
09-23-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
There's no such thing as a common ancestor and the whole process of biological evolution precludes such a critter from having existed.

Oh. So you saying that my cousin in Massachusetts, My cousin in Florida and I do NOT have a common ancestor in Grandad?

So if common ancestors do not exist who was Grandad?

How did we come about? Special creation?

Isn't it true that every living thing has an ancestor from a few generations ago? And that ancestor had an ancestor from a few generations prior to that? How far back do you propose we go before we run out of ancestors? Then what came before that?

I'd bet that if we had the complete genealogies back far enough you and I could find a common ancestor between us. Got any French in your background?

So show me how the the Miacis line did not radiate into ursine, canine and feline lineages and is thus NOT the common ancestor for these groups.

Edited by AZPaul3, : expansion on the theme

Edited by AZPaul3, : Reorder paragraph

Edited by AZPaul3, : correction


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 5:03 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 7:49 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 9:39 AM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 192 by Scientist, posted 03-14-2013 1:32 AM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 17 of 341 (582900)
09-23-2010 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jon
09-23-2010 7:49 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
OK. So what are these two notions of "common ancestor" I used and how do they differ?

What is this third definition you are using, how does it differ from the one(s) I used and how would anyone have known this difference in context with your message?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 7:49 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 19 of 341 (582926)
09-23-2010 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Jon
09-23-2010 8:57 PM


Re: Definitions & Feel-good Science
there have been many descended lines from what we can agreeably consider Neanderthal to modern humans.

This is not what the thousands of professional (in your lexicon "pop-culture") anthropologists over the last decades say. And the latest genetic data (2010) says that H. Neanderthalensis was in fact a separate species from H. sapiens.

But this doesn't answer any of my questions about the definition of "common ancestor".

the answer to your question depends on where one wants to put the cut off for 'species'.

Put it where ever you like. My question remains. Was there no "ancestor" three, two, one generation(s) prior to this arbitrary line? If not then where did the first organism after this arbitrary line come from?

None of this obfuscation answers my questions:

What are these two notions of "common ancestor" I used and how do they differ?

What is this third definition you are using, how does it differ from the one(s) I used and how would anyone have known this difference in context with your message?

my firm (evidence-backed) belief that there have been many descended lines from what we can agreeably consider Neanderthal to modern humans.

Let me ask an additional set of questions:

What evidence? Since you disagree with copious amounts of archeological and genetic evidence by thousands of life-long experts over many decades, I assume this is pretty powerful stuff and you have published this evidence somewhere, yes?

Finally, what are your credentials in this field? Or any field?
You do have them, yes? Or are you just full of ...

yourself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 8:57 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 10:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 22 of 341 (582945)
09-24-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
09-23-2010 10:34 PM


Re: Definitions & Feel-good Science
I'll give your question the attention it deserves.

No, don't bother, Jon.

I think I have the answers to my last set of questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 09-23-2010 10:34 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 28 of 341 (583035)
09-24-2010 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jon
09-24-2010 9:39 AM


Re: Bad Definition = Bad Argument
First of all, Jon, "common ancestor" is not an analogy for some other concept. It is the direct concept itself. The concept of direct lineage.

Second, in the case of my family, we have a direct demonstrable link between the various later individuals and a single specific earlier individual from which we stem. That is our common ancestor.

Third, as we proceed deeper into time the specific information of exact genealogy, between say you and I, may be lost and the best we could hope for is to identify a population subset from which we both stem. European? French? Mediterranean coast? Marseille region? The "common ancestor" concept is as valid and meaningful in this instance as in the above and is not analogous to any other concept but is a concept of direct lineage, though, in this case, can only get as specific as to identify a sub-population, a founder population, of common origin.

When we get to bears, cats and dogs we find that the best we can get, the last direct link between these that can be identified, is not an individual or even as fine as a sub-population, but the more granular overall population of an early carnivore we call miacis about 60 million years ago. The concept still holds and is valid. Miacis is the founder population, the earliest "common ancestor," to these lineages.

This is the standard definition of "common ancestor" used in the field.

So what is your definition of "common ancestor"? And why would you choose a definition totally at odds with the standard in the field?

Are you trying to deny nested hierarchy, common descent?

Bad definition = bad argument

Edited by AZPaul3, : edits


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 9:39 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 12:40 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 30 of 341 (583043)
09-24-2010 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
09-24-2010 11:59 AM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
We, instead, have to eventually decide a cutoff, but doing so requires us to admit that our cutoff point is somewhat arbitrary and not necessarily representative of a true genetic and breeding relationship between the beasts in question.

What are you talking about? If this is your view of the use of "common ancestor" in the field it is a bad one.

Take any two species. Trace their lineages back to the species or genus where those lineages converge and, by definition, you have found the earliest common ancestor between the two. And, yes, this does indeed show the "true genetic and breeding relationship between the beasts in question."

Not when the 'common ancestor' being discussed is of the "idealised ... with no further genetic flow" type.

No such thing. This "definition" of "common ancestor" is strictly within your own head and is fallacious.

I just think it faulty to believe that there could be common parents to an entire species. Seems too Adam and Eve to me, even if we are talking about an entire generation of parents, rather than just two people.

Then stop thinking like that. This is not what the definition of "common ancestor" entails.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 11:59 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 12:50 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 33 of 341 (583050)
09-24-2010 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
09-24-2010 12:50 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
I said that just one sentence after. You're quote-mining now, and misrepresenting my position. I don't do dirty debating.

As the communicator I obviously did not make my intent clear to the receiver. I will attempt to do better.

When this is the meaning folk begin putting on to the term, it becomes necessary to point out that their notion of 'common ancestor' is a fantasized non-existent entity/species/generation.

A "common ancestor" of the "idealised ... with no further genetic flow" type does not exist. That you perceive this definition as the one being used in this thread is strictly within your own head and is fallacious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 12:50 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4259
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 35 of 341 (583061)
09-24-2010 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Jon
09-24-2010 12:40 PM


Re: Bad Definition = Bad Argument
There are three things being described here—all different, and only the first an example of direct lineage.

Wrong. They are all examples of direct lineage. The only difference is in the granularity of the result not in any difference in the concept.

If you think them representative subsets of a single cohesive concept, then describe that concept instead.

Message 30 Second paragraph.

Whether the comparison is between two individuals, two closely related sub-populations, two related species, two broadly separated species, makes no difference. Follow the lineages back until they converge. This is the most recent "common ancestor."

Edited by AZPaul3, : clarification

Edited by AZPaul3, : correction

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 09-24-2010 12:40 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019