Aegyptopithecus

[Earthling]

What are the links, if any, connecting the Egyptian Ape to man? A simple question requires only a simple answer.

 

[sayak83]

What are the links, if any, connecting the Egyptian Ape to man? A simple question requires only a simple answer.

The fossil evidence demonstrating evolutionary links from ancestral apes to man are documented in the series of posts I made in the thread below.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-science-of-human-evolution.191162/page-3#

A specific ancient ape cannot be unambiguously linked with modern humans by bones alone, just as its impossible to link you with your great great great grandfathers bones, by using bone evidence alone.

 

[Earthling]

The fossil evidence demonstrating evolutionary links from ancestral apes to man are documented in the series of posts I made in the thread below.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-science-of-human-evolution.191162/page-3#

A specific ancient ape cannot be unambiguously linked with modern humans by bones alone, just as its impossible to link you with your great great great grandfathers bones, by using bone evidence alone.

Agreed, then headlines like the following are irresponsible journalism or poor science?

“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)

“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)

“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)

 

[sayak83]

Agreed, then headlines like the following are irresponsible journalism or poor science?

“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)

“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)

“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)

Irresponsible journalism. Nothing like that is ever found in the actual published papers. At best there would be good evidential justification for classifying a fossil ape as belonging to a group of related sister species, from one of which us humans eventually evolved.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Agreed, then headlines like the following are irresponsible journalism or poor science?

“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)

“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)

“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)

Scientists don't write the headlines - journalists do. A news headline which accurately reflects the statements or findings of scientists is basically unheard of, even in magazines which are supposed to be about science. If you want to know what the actual scientists say, you're much better off ignoring the headlines and articles entirely and going straight to the sources.

 

[Jumi]

Agreed, then headlines like the following are irresponsible journalism or poor science?

Never take headlines or newspapers as science.

 

[Earthling]

Scientists don't write the headlines - journalists do. A news headline which accurately reflects the statements or findings of scientists is basically unheard of, even in magazines which are supposed to be about science. If you want to know what the actual scientists say, you're much better off ignoring the headlines and articles entirely and going straight to the sources.

Very good point, somewhat impractical advice, but certainly true - and the science minded atheist proclaiming evolution as fact? Should I ignore those?

 

[Earthling]

Irresponsible journalism. Nothing like that is ever found in the actual published papers. At best there would be good evidential justification for classifying a fossil ape as belonging to a group of related sister species, from one of which us humans eventually evolved.

We have accomplished so much so far. How can I put this. Let me think . . .

The only thing I could do is ask you to show me, but that would be expecting you to do what we have already established irresponsible journalism has already done. Can you demonstrate to be how a good evidential justification for classifying a fossil ape as belonging to a group of related sister species would or could have resulted in us humans eventually evolving would look like.

I've been showed pictures of a line of different primate skulls and told that was evolution. It's just a lineup of ape skulls. Perhaps what I'm asking is how do you verify, reproduce, peer review etc. such a thing. You're just looking at it and saying "Yup. Evolution."

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Very good point, somewhat impractical advice, but certainly true - and the science minded atheist proclaiming evolution as fact? Should I ignore those?

Not really. Evolution is a fact. You can still ignore them if they're annoying you, though.

 

[Earthling]

Not really. Evolution is a fact. You can still ignore them if they're annoying you, though.

But I gave actual headlines from the Time, The New York Times and Origins proclaiming the same thing and you said ignore them.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But I gave actual headlines from the Time, The New York Times and Origins proclaiming the same thing and you said ignore them.

No, you gave headlines that were about specific scientific discoveries, and I said ignore them in favour of what the actual science says. I didn't say "ignore all headlines that say anything". And they are not remotely proclaiming the same thing as "evolution is a fact".

 

[Kirran]

We have accomplished so much so far. How can I put this. Let me think . . .

The only thing I could do is ask you to show me, but that would be expecting you to do what we have already established irresponsible journalism has already done. Can you demonstrate to be how a good evidential justification for classifying a fossil ape as belonging to a group of related sister species would or could have resulted in us humans eventually evolving would look like.

I've been showed pictures of a line of different primate skulls and told that was evolution. It's just a lineup of ape skulls. Perhaps what I'm asking is how do you verify, reproduce, peer review etc. such a thing. You're just looking at it and saying "Yup. Evolution."

Carbon dating, and other dating methods, are helpful in this regard.

 

[Earthling]

Carbon dating, and other dating methods, are helpful in this regard.

In Uppsala, Sweden a conference consisting of radio-chemists, archaeologists and geologists was held in which they determined that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and radiocarbon testing is not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E. or before. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Radiocarbon Dating Wrong," January 18, 1976, p. C8

“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”
Science, "Radiocarbon Dating," by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624

 

[Kirran]

In Uppsala, Sweden a conference consisting of radio-chemists, archaeologists and geologists was held in which they determined that the rate of radioactive carbon formation in the atmosphere has not been consistent in the past and radiocarbon testing is not reliable in dating objects from about 2000 B.C.E. or before. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "Radiocarbon Dating Wrong," January 18, 1976, p. C8

“The research in the development of the dating technique consisted of two stages—dating of samples from the historical and the prehistorical epochs, respectively. Arnold and I had our first shock when our advisers informed us that history extended back only for 5000 years. . . . . You read statements to the effect that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately.”
Science, "Radiocarbon Dating," by W. F. Libby, March 3, 1961, p. 624

Your sources are a little out of date, friend.

They were written about 15-20 years before my parents met.

 

[Earthling]

No, you gave headlines that were about specific scientific discoveries, and I said ignore them in favour of what the actual science says. I didn't say "ignore all headlines that say anything". And they are not remotely proclaiming the same thing as "evolution is a fact".

I gave headlines from Time Magazine, the New York Times and Origins, stating that Aegyptopithecus was our ancestor. Were they wrong?

 

[Earthling]

Your sources are a little out of date, friend.

They were written about 15-20 years before my parents met.

LOL. Were they untrue then, and if not how have they changed?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I gave headlines from Time Magazine, the New York Times and Origins, stating that Aegyptopithecus was our ancestor. Were they wrong?

I have no idea, I haven't read the papers or what the scientists say. I suggest you read the papers rather than trust the headlines. Why are you asking a question I already addressed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed, then headlines like the following are irresponsible journalism or poor science?

“Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)

“Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)

“Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)

Why do you think that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

LOL. Were they untrue then, and if not how have they changed?

Well, for starters, it has been determined that radiocarbon dating is accurate for up to around 50,000 to 55,000 years (SOURCE: Explainer: what is radiocarbon dating and how does it work?), which is much longer than your sources assert. Secondly, radiocarbon dating is just one method of dating used by scientists. On objects older than 50,000 years, radiometric dating methods tend to be used (SOURCE: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave headlines from Time Magazine, the New York Times and Origins, stating that Aegyptopithecus was our ancestor. Were they wrong?

They were not 100% correct, but that does not mean they were wrong. Aegyptopithecus was a transitional species. That does not mean that it was necessarily ancestral.

Let me give an example. You may have some ancient family photos and one man in one of the photos could either be a great great grandfather or great great great uncle. He may not be "ancestral" but he is definitely " transitional ".