Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9077 total)
105 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, kjsimons, nwr, Tanypteryx (5 members, 100 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,088 Year: 5,200/6,534 Month: 43/577 Week: 31/80 Day: 18/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Common Ancestor?
Percy
Member
Posts: 20838
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 185 of 341 (620473)
06-17-2011 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Mazzy
06-16-2011 2:50 PM


Re: Shoes Fit Both Feet
Mazzy writes:

Creationists researchers are also able to provide evidence of creation, a deceent back to 2 individuals, and no common ancestor with any ape. It does not matter that this evidence is refuted by evo researchers as they refute each other all the time yet still manage to agree 'it all evolved'.

MtEve is 6,000yo
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/5657/369/

This doesn't have anything to do with the MRCA between humans and other apes like chimps and gorillas, but I believe you mentioned this as part of an argument that scientists are all over the place regarding human ancestry and really know very little concrete. While I was able to find that there are disagreements about how fast the molecular clock "ticks", I wasn't able to find anything indicating that conclusive evidence for any particular figure, such as your claimed 6000 years, had been uncovered.

I think many scientists would agree that there's insufficient basis for claiming any particular date for mitochrondrial Eve or Y-chromosome Adam. Certainly the Wikipedia article on Human mitochondrial molecular clock supports that view.

It would be fascinating if 6000 years ago as the time of the MRCA were nailed down as the correct figure, but realize that MRCA stands for the Most Recent Common Ancestor and not for When the Species First Appeared. In other words, no matter how long ago the MRCAs, they weren't the first humans.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Mazzy, posted 06-16-2011 2:50 PM Mazzy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2011 4:39 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20838
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 188 of 341 (620548)
06-17-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by bluescat48
06-17-2011 10:55 AM


Re: Shoes Fit Both Feet
bluescat48 writes:

It doesn't say that ardi isn't a hominid, just that there is not enough evidence to say yes or no...

I think you meant to say, "It doesn't say that Ardi isn't a possible human ancestor..." Ardi is most definitely a hominid.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by bluescat48, posted 06-17-2011 10:55 AM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Wounded King, posted 06-17-2011 6:58 PM Percy has seen this message
 Message 191 by bluescat48, posted 06-17-2011 11:08 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20838
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 327 of 341 (748926)
01-31-2015 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Emotive
01-31-2015 10:22 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
The more closely related are two species the more likely it is that they'll be able to interbreed. When two populations of the same species become isolated from one another (which is one way the Neanderthal species could have come about) then they will evolve independently and, of course, differently. The human ancestral population that migrated north from Africa evolved to become better adapted to more northern climates and to whatever else was unique in that environment, and the same was true of the human ancestral population in Africa. The more northern population evolved into the Neanderthals, the African population evolved into Homo sapiens.

The two populations never evolved far enough apart to become genetically isolated (unable to interbreed), so there would have been interbreeding wherever they came into contact with one another. This is true no matter when the split occurred, but the Wikipedia article on Neanderthals puts the split around 350,000-400,000 years ago.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Emotive, posted 01-31-2015 10:22 AM Emotive has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Emotive, posted 01-31-2015 11:20 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20838
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 329 of 341 (748935)
01-31-2015 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Emotive
01-31-2015 11:20 AM


Re: Ancestor in common; yes.
Species doesn't have one unambiguous definition. By the definition "can't interbreed" Neanderthals and humans are the same species. By the definition "can interbreed but not usually", Neanderthals and humans are different species, in the same way that tigers and lions are different species, as well as zebras and horses.

The label isn't important. Humans and Neanderthals could and did interbreed, but not a lot. Whether you want to call them the same species or not is just terminology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Emotive, posted 01-31-2015 11:20 AM Emotive has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Emotive, posted 01-31-2015 1:43 PM Percy has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022