Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
356 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, GDR, marc9000 (4 members, 352 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,896 Year: 21,932/19,786 Month: 495/1,834 Week: 495/315 Day: 91/82 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
Emotive
Junior Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-30-2015


Message 326 of 341 (748922)
01-31-2015 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Dr Adequate
09-28-2010 10:57 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
Wow! Dr Adequate really did blow my mind. His logical proof that there must have been an individual who was an ancestor to modern chimps/bonobos and humans AND had (at least) two children, one ancestral to only humans and the other ancestral to only chimps/bonobos is watertight. If we don't throw away common rules of logic, it must be true.

After reading the old discussions how the concept of the common ancestor is vague and hard to define, I thought how this relates to Neanderthals and Modern Humans. Am I correct in assuming that the answer to the question "when did Neanderthals and Modern Humans split?," the correct answer is about 70,000 years ago (which is roughly the time they did interbreed, there is genetic proof in the genomes of modern people) or one could argue that it never happened (they were the same species when Neanderthals went extinct, because they had recently interbreeded and modern humans are part-neanderthals)? BUT... in the hypothetical situation that that interbreeding never occurred, they would have split at least 500,000 years ago?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-28-2010 10:57 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by Percy, posted 01-31-2015 10:48 AM Emotive has responded
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 01-31-2015 1:28 PM Emotive has responded

  
Emotive
Junior Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-30-2015


Message 328 of 341 (748928)
01-31-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Percy
01-31-2015 10:48 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
Okay, maybe "split" is not the correct way to describe what I'm after. Clearly they had split when the Wikipedia estimate says (they were two distinct sets with different qualities and had not been in contact with each other for hundreds of thousands of years.)

But if we use "being able to interbreed (gametes are able to do so) and also interbreeding" as a definition of a species, this would make Neanderthals and us the same species when speciation is concerned. In that sense there was no split, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Percy, posted 01-31-2015 10:48 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Percy, posted 01-31-2015 12:20 PM Emotive has responded

  
Emotive
Junior Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-30-2015


Message 331 of 341 (748939)
01-31-2015 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tangle
01-31-2015 1:28 PM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
It is certainly very helpful in this type of conversations with creationists. I found it informative and well-written. Personally I knew that my third cousin can't be my grandfather's grandfather.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 01-31-2015 1:28 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Emotive
Junior Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-30-2015


Message 332 of 341 (748940)
01-31-2015 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 329 by Percy
01-31-2015 12:20 PM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
Yes, speciation and determining when it actually happened is a tricky question and what a species mean don't seem to have one unambigious answer. It's more or less a label we humans need to be able to discuss these things using abstract language. In a funny way it seems something instinctively understood and when you look closer, it's a very complicated question. Thanks for your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Percy, posted 01-31-2015 12:20 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Emotive
Junior Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-30-2015


Message 336 of 341 (786738)
06-26-2016 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law
08-17-2010 2:42 PM


Setting aside the point that was made ages ago in the first reply (humans are apes), my response is this:

If there is a common ancestor to Tram Law, Desmond tutu and Akira Kurosawa, has it been found? If not, should that call into question the existence of their common ancestor?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tram law, posted 08-17-2010 2:42 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Coyote, posted 06-26-2016 3:14 PM Emotive has responded
 Message 338 by RAZD, posted 06-26-2016 3:45 PM Emotive has not yet responded

  
Emotive
Junior Member (Idle past 903 days)
Posts: 11
Joined: 01-30-2015


Message 339 of 341 (786772)
06-27-2016 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Coyote
06-26-2016 3:14 PM


Yes, obviously specimens of Homo Sapiens have been found.

I was more thinking along lines it's an analogy to asking for a common ancestor species of all apes. Since my examples were single individuals, the common ancestor would also be a single individual. And it's just as clear to me that like we don't (not even creationists) doubt there is a common ancestor for modern humans, there's no reason to doubt there's an ancestral species to modern apes, whether it can be found and identified is irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Coyote, posted 06-26-2016 3:14 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by fastlane69, posted 09-14-2016 10:58 AM Emotive has not yet responded
 Message 341 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2016 12:30 PM Emotive 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