Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 5:27 AM
20 online now:
Dredge, PaulK (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,059 Year: 15,095/19,786 Month: 1,818/3,058 Week: 192/404 Day: 6/73 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
23NextFF
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1682
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 91 of 341 (583821)
09-29-2010 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Dr Jack
09-29-2010 5:31 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
Minor point: the line down from C crosses the line across from PC, it doesn't lead to H at all

So it does - it might have helped if I actually read the note next to the diagram! It would have made my explanation a lot simpler - PC@t3 is in Set B, and has two children - PC@t4 (in Set C) and ?@t4 (in Set H).

Edited by caffeine, : corrected quote tags


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2010 5:31 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 3005 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 92 of 341 (583832)
09-29-2010 8:56 AM


Questions, quests.
To answer partly to the OP, it is obvious that if science and research had all the answers, it would lose some of its own essence. It's not because we don't seem to find something that we can't keep on looking for it.

Now I find ERVs very interesting, but I guess people have already talked enough about them; I don't have the time to read all the posts.


Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 12:35 PM olivortex has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 93 of 341 (583875)
09-29-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by olivortex
09-29-2010 8:56 AM


Re: Questions, quests.
Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
________________________________________

|--------------- orangutans
---|
| |----------- gorillas
|---|
| |--- chimps
| |---|
|---| |--- bonobos
|
|------- humans
Dr A.
Did you use the Fitch parsimony method based on morphological analysis? If indeed, this is the case then you couldn’t add in the other species of human ape-like creatures in this diagram. There is no DNA evidence for all of them except Neanderthal and modern man. The molecular clock is unrealistic even for the ones you do have listed here. These models present hypothesis and in no way conclude that it is a fact.
Do you realize how many morphology differences there are in dog breeds in contrast to your analysis based on morphology similarities in primates? But yet a dog is still a dog and a human is still a primate. There is no consistent measure of understanding it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by olivortex, posted 09-29-2010 8:56 AM olivortex has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2010 2:11 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 94 of 341 (583904)
09-29-2010 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2010 4:04 AM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
Hi Dr,

Dr I have one of my stupid questions.

This is a beautiful chart.


|--------------- orangutans
---|
| |----------- gorillas
|---|
| |--- chimps
| |---|
|---| |--- bonobos
|
|------- humans

Why is there no names anyplace except at the finished product?

There is no creature at the start nor is there a creature at the different divisions.

If we do not know what was there, how can it be said that the conclusions are correct?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 4:04 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by DrJones*, posted 09-29-2010 2:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 97 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2010 2:12 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 95 of 341 (583918)
09-29-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by barbara
09-29-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Questions, quests.
Hi, Barbara.

barbara writes:

Did you use the Fitch parsimony method based on morphological analysis? If indeed, this is the case then you couldn’t add in the other species of human ape-like creatures in this diagram. There is no DNA evidence for all of them except Neanderthal and modern man. The molecular clock is unrealistic even for the ones you do have listed here. These models present hypothesis and in no way conclude that it is a fact.

DNA is not the only thing one can use, Barbara. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of tiny characteristics of bones that can be useful in determining whether a particular fossil is H. sapiens, H. erectus or a chimpanzee. For instance, chimpanzees have large canine teeth with huge, deep roots; and humans (H. sapiens, not the rest) have a chin (outward thickening of the jawbonw), whereas all the other hominids have a simian shelf (an inward thickening of the jawbone).

One can take many measurements and list many characteristics of skeletons, and input that into the same kind of parsimony analysis as used with DNA evidence, and yield nice trees just like the one Dr A made, and they can readily include fossil hominids in them.

Don't make the mistake of becoming an uncompromising modernist: molecules are not the only thing science can work with, and they're not the only things that can give useful results.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 12:35 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1915
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 96 of 341 (583919)
09-29-2010 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
09-29-2010 1:31 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
Why is there no names anyplace except at the finished product?

Because its not meant to represent the entire tree of primates, but just how the current species of apes split from each other.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 1:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 97 of 341 (583920)
09-29-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ICANT
09-29-2010 1:31 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
Why is there no names anyplace except at the finished product?

Because it's a cladogram of living species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 1:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 4:33 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 98 of 341 (583974)
09-29-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Dr Jack
09-29-2010 2:12 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
The human and mouse genome shows there is one difference in 14 genes on chromosome 16 are not human. Chromosome 21 in humans is not found in a mouse. All of the rest of the human genes are found in a mouse and most are grouped together and in the same order in both of them.

You can use a mouse as being as common ancestor if you wanted and use genetics as evidence. Would this be true?

The human skull diagram that shows all of the species of ape-like man up to modern human is not clear of what is being proven here.
You can take all breeds of dog's skulls and line them up and it will show various sizes in skulls, these are all living today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Dr Jack, posted 09-29-2010 2:12 PM Dr Jack has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2010 5:08 PM barbara has responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 925 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 99 of 341 (583992)
09-29-2010 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by barbara
09-29-2010 4:33 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
Hi, Barbara.

barbara writes:

You can use a mouse as being as common ancestor if you wanted and use genetics as evidence. Would this be true

No, you actually can't use a mouse as the common ancestor.

Evidence based on genomes and on anatomy would clearly show you that mice are not good candidates for the common ancestor of humans and apes, because there are dozens of other groups of animals that are much better.

-----

barbara writes:

The human skull diagram that shows all of the species of ape-like man up to modern human is not clear of what is being proven here.
You can take all breeds of dog's skulls and line them up and it will show various sizes in skulls, these are all living today.

But, dog breeds also all evolved out of a common stock, and we can sometimes trace the ancestry of breeds the same way we trace the ancestry of humans.


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 4:33 PM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 8:19 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 341 (583998)
09-29-2010 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by caffeine
09-29-2010 5:25 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
caffeine writes:

What I think [Jon] is discussing (correct me if I'm wrong!), is the idea that two populations may diverge, and then start to change such that they're recognisable as distinct populations, without genetic flow between them ceasing. So we'd have our protochimps and protohumans, still occasionally interbreeding for many, many generations even after recognisably seperating. This doesn't change the fact that the populations eventually do seperate completely with no further interbreeding, and there must at some point be the final ancestor who has both human and chimp descendants, but whose children do not.

This is roughly my argument, yes. Our 'final ancestor' though is not likely to be a single individual, but a group of individuals, which may be representative of one or the other of PH or PC or B; in fact, it is likely that the 'final ancestors' (or common ancestral genetic pool) contained all three types of individuals. And if we decide to settle on just the last contributing one of these, it is not going to be properly representative of the common ancestral pool. Unless we just want to call our common ancestor the last beast that contributed anything at all to each species—even if its children contributed more to one than to another (that is, more variation than was previously present in that population—not the same child, but different children who contributed solely to one species each)—, we have to accept that there is not likely to be a single form to the common ancestor, but that the common ancestral pool consisted of a large variety of beasts. The other option is to go way back to before the beginning of the speciation event, but then the question we must ask ourselves is whether or not such a population represents the most recent common ancestor. It would clearly be less recent than any of the others, but also clearly more ancestral.

The closer we get to the speciation (i.e., the more recent the ancestor is for which we are looking), the less homogeneous the common contributing populations become. At the point of speciation, we have to ask ourselves if we can really stick on a single beast form as representative of the common contributing ancestor, or concede that there are many forms of contributing ancestors—no one form will be solely representative of the ancestral group, so that the OP's question would be best asked in the plural. The more recent we get, the less contribution the ancestor found is likely to have given toward one species or the other. The more recent the ancestor, the less ancestral; the more ancestral the ancestor, the less recent—as a matter of probability.

I think this is reasonable to posit given the messy nature of evolution and speciation.

Jon


"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by caffeine, posted 09-29-2010 5:25 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 8:15 PM Jon has responded
 Message 109 by Dr Jack, posted 09-30-2010 5:17 AM Jon has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 101 of 341 (584015)
09-29-2010 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jon
09-29-2010 5:27 PM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
This sounds good but in order for this to happen these several beasts would have to be able to sexually reproduce offspring. Currently there is a couple that do this but their offspring is usually infertile.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 5:27 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:31 PM barbara has not yet responded

    
barbara
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 102 of 341 (584019)
09-29-2010 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Blue Jay
09-29-2010 5:08 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
The dog ancestry is a dead end. Apparently the specific breed ancestry was never documented.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Blue Jay, posted 09-29-2010 5:08 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:36 PM barbara has responded
 Message 108 by caffeine, posted 09-30-2010 4:22 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 341 (584023)
09-29-2010 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by barbara
09-29-2010 8:15 PM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
This sounds good but in order for this to happen these several beasts would have to be able to sexually reproduce offspring.

This is entirely plausible; the initiation of speciation does not instantly put an end to all breeding across the to-be-distinct species.

Jon


"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 8:15 PM barbara has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 341 (584025)
09-29-2010 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by barbara
09-29-2010 8:19 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
Apparently the specific breed ancestry was never documented.

LOL... Yes; it's too bad they didn't put to bark their mamas' names—it was a pun, get it . You don't seriously expect documentation of the evolutionary histories of modern-day species, do you?

Edited by Jon, : No reason given.


"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 8:19 PM barbara has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by barbara, posted 09-29-2010 9:03 PM Jon has responded

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 3029 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 105 of 341 (584032)
09-29-2010 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Jon
09-29-2010 8:36 PM


Re: Bad Analogies = Bad Science
I'm sorry I thought that all breeds of dogs was man's creation
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 8:36 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by anglagard, posted 09-29-2010 9:30 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Jon, posted 09-29-2010 9:33 PM barbara has not yet responded
 Message 110 by Blue Jay, posted 09-30-2010 9:55 AM barbara has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
23NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019