|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2011 : 18:12:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by justintime
Like I said before.
1. There are plenty of believers in the monkey theory.
2. There are just as many believers in the Chimpanzee, human, ape theory.
3. Then there is Ardi a true complete fossil that just proves the above two theories cannot be true also. |
Ardi does nothing to disprove the idea that all apes evolved from monkey-like primates. Ardi does nothing to disprove the idea that all humans evolved from some ape-like creature.
Ardi only suggests that the last common ancestor of humans and chimps was less chimp-like than earlier thought. That's it. All three theories are alive and well, coexisting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/26/2011 : 18:24:38 [Permalink]
|
I saw a partial list of taxonomy terms on Wikipedia, but I had no idea there were that many. Most biological classifications zoologically have "super", "sub" or "infra" as a prefix. I noticed a couple of "Hyper" and "Parv" prefixes, too.
So what was Ardi intended to prove in the evolutionary chain? A lot of news stories tend to overhype evolutionary discoveries. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2011 : 06:47:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
We share a common ancestor with monkeys. That split occurred much farther back on the family tree. Ardi says nothing about that. |
Monkeys (new and old world) split/branched from the common ancestor some 38 million years ago. Ardi does not have to explain monkeys. Ardi explains the most important split between chimpanzees and humans (our closest cousins) around 6 million years ago. BTW modern humans are only 200,000 years old.
Originally posted by Kil
We share a common ancestor with all of the apes. Those splits occurred at various times leading to gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, and the last common ancestor that we shared was with chimpanzees. |
I presented the same graph on page 11. But it is obvious you did not get the connection because without a timeline to show Ardi between Chimpanzees (pan) and humans. The graph only shows the branching of the great apes and humans. But notably humans and chimpanzeees(Pan) branched towards the bottom of the tree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
That is the point Dr Lovejoy and Tim White are making. They place Ardi between chimpanzees and humans at the 4.4-4.7 million years timeline. The significance of Ardi is to show a human like hominid as the closest human ancestor.
In the picture below you can see Ardi is placed very close to our last common ancestor (CLCA). Notice the branching of Pan and humans as shown in both above and below graphs.
Originally posted by Kil
Ardi does not falsify our current family tree. Of course, it could be falsified. And there have been modifications in taxonomy over the years. We need a lot more fossils to get the complete picture. What Ardi does falsify is what we thought our last common ancestor looked like.
Edited a little.
|
What Ardi does is fill in the missing pieces and shows our last common ancestor was more human like. And, since we share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees (Pan). Their last common ancestor was also more human like. And since Gorillas and Chimpanzees also share a common ancestor. Their last common ancestor was also human like.
Now you know why it created quite a stir as a very significant discovery and why all those titles were used to describe Ardi in context to existing Evolution Theories.
1. Ardi fossil shows 'apes descended from humans' link: http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/44163-ardi-fossil-shows-apes-descended-from-humans
2. Man Did Not Evolve From Apes: Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy Helps Unveil Oldest Hominid Skeleton That Revises How We Think of Human Evolution. Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/man-did-not-evolve-from-apes-kent-state-university-professor-c-owen-lovejoy-helps-unveil-oldest-hominid-skeleton-that-revises-how-we-think-of-human-evolution-63099377.html
3. ARDI PROVES DARWIN WRONG Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su71DLLKuQ4
4. Title:Man Did Not Evolve From Apes Says Leading Anthropologist [HD] link:http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=707610096764 |
| Edited by - justintime on 10/27/2011 12:16:03 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2011 : 07:39:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by justintime
What Ardi does is fill in the missing pieces and shows our last common ancestor was more human like. And, since we share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees (Pan). Their last common ancestor was also more human like. And since Gorillas and Chimpanzees also share a common ancestor. Their last common ancestor was also human like.
Now you know why it created quite a stir as a very significant discovery and why all those titles were used to describe Ardi in context to existing Evolution Theories. |
Well, not "now you know"-- this is what we've been saying from the start. Good to see you've joined us.
Sigh. Except these headlines-- as you must certainly concede if you believe what you wrote above-- are sensationalistic. "Apes Descended from Humans!" is different than saying "The common ancestor of humans and chimps was almost certainly more human-like than previously assumed."
|
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2011 : 08:30:13 [Permalink]
|
justintime:
Now you know why it created quite a stir as a very significant discovery and why all those titles were used to describe Ardi in context to existing Evolution Theories. |
Well thanks for the education oh great one. Gosh. I sure needed you to sort this out. Funny though. I opened this thread about Ardi back in 2009:
4.4 million year old ancestor raises new questions
As for the videos and articles you link to, they once again do what the media does, and run with an idea that is not exactly what White, Lovejoy, and really, anyone working on Ardi is saying. I don't know why you keep posting them as some kind of evidence for something. Again, I ask you to Watch this video! It's how the media often gets it wrong.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2011 : 12:05:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
Now you know why it created quite a stir as a very significant discovery and why all those titles were used to describe Ardi in context to existing Evolution Theories. |
Well thanks for the education oh great one. Gosh. I sure needed you to sort this out. Funny though. I opened this thread about Ardi back in 2009:
4.4 million year old ancestor raises new questions
As for the videos and articles you link to, they once again do what the media does, and runs with an idea that is not exactly what White, Lovejoy et.all are saying. I don't know why you keep posting them as some kind of evidence for something. Again, I ask you to Watch this video! It's how the media often gets it wrong.
|
I am glad you raised Ardi here again. I posted Ardi on another forum right after reading about it in the papers 2009. But never generated any interest there either.
I watched the video and found the examples Ben uses are not necessarily the most effect ones to communicate his position. MMR Vaccine was original work published by Andrew Wakefield in the Lancet. It was not the fault of the media or poor journalistic standards that was behind the problem. It was a direct fraud perpetuated by Andrew Wakefiled. The Lancet later retracted the article.(Wiki) Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying dishonest falsification in the Lancet research, and is barred from practicing medicine in the UK.
There are many scientist caught for falsifying their research and yes lots of BAD SCIENCE. There isn't much the media can control nor can the media anticipate the public's reaction to a released piece of research. That is why reputable Scientific Journals have strict rules to ensure the material is peer reviewed and meets standards the Journal is willing to back and stake its reputation on. Sure even here the system is not perfect.
When your local papers attempts to release some interesting discovery. They provide the original source such as the Scientific Journal which released the papers and readers can pursue a more detailed account.
In the case of Dr Lovejoy. The Ardi discovery was covered by Discovery Channel, Dr Lovejoy gave personal interviews along with several of the members who participated in the research. There are several videos by Dr Lovejoy on every aspect of Ardi's discovery and in a language quite comprehensible to the general public with no dumbing down. I think it was a 11 part series, very detailed.
I like your honest exchanges and anyone can see you put in the research and effort to be as thorough as possible. You don't play word games or semantic gotchas.
If only you can learn to keep up with me, we might make a good team.
|
| Edited by - justintime on 10/27/2011 12:06:16 |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/27/2011 : 15:08:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
Now you know why it created quite a stir as a very significant discovery and why all those titles were used to describe Ardi in context to existing Evolution Theories. |
Well thanks for the education oh great one. Gosh. I sure needed you to sort this out. Funny though. I opened this thread about Ardi back in 2009:
4.4 million year old ancestor raises new questions
As for the videos and articles you link to, they once again do what the media does, and runs with an idea that is not exactly what White, Lovejoy et.all are saying. I don't know why you keep posting them as some kind of evidence for something. Again, I ask you to Watch this video! It's how the media often gets it wrong.
|
I finally got to reading your link.
4.4 million year old ancestor raises new questions
Here is your lean then on this.
Originally posted by Kil
We have thought that the chimp and the other great apes were a variation on some older ape species with a structurally similar body to the apes that we see today. What we now must wrap our heads around is that the great apes evolved as much as we have over the last 7 million years. It's now, for example, likely that knuckle walking is a rather modern adaptation in great apes, and we shouldn't expect to see it in our common ancestor. There is so much more here, and a lot of turns what we expected to see in a species close to our common ancestor on its head.
This all doesn't mean that Chimps are not our closest relatives anymore. What it means is that our common ancestor had many more hominid traits than what was ever imagined.
While Lucy told us a lot about the road our ancestors were on, origins still had to be inferd to a much greater degree than with Ardipithecus. What Ardipithecus does is bring us closer to our origins which no doubt brings inferences about what that common ancestor looked like into a range of predictions that can be made with a much greater degree of confidence. She is just stunning.
Ain't science grand?
|
|
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2012 : 16:42:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
justintime:
Now you know why it created quite a stir as a very significant discovery and why all those titles were used to describe Ardi in context to existing Evolution Theories. |
Well thanks for the education oh great one. Gosh. I sure needed you to sort this out. Funny though. I opened this thread about Ardi back in 2009:
4.4 million year old ancestor raises new questions
As for the videos and articles you link to, they once again do what the media does, and run with an idea that is not exactly what White, Lovejoy, and really, anyone working on Ardi is saying. I don't know why you keep posting them as some kind of evidence for something. Again, I ask you to Watch this video! It's how the media often gets it wrong. |
I would hold that thought Kil. You have yet to demonstrate you can handle print media. Your reading skills are so wooden your only adversaries are woodpeckers. But video media is different and even here you fail to grasp the media is the message because you are out of sync with modern technology. Mortise and butt joints can become an obsession.
|
|
|
 |
|
Evolution Questions
