Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[painted wolf]

Not at all. You have 12 definitions on top of your basic definition to expalin your exceptions. Basically you have no definition at all because inablity to mate is not a sign of differing species at all.

you keep ignoring this part of the wiki discussion of species...

From wiki: Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity.

Organisms that are morphologically identical and genetically unable to breed are classed as cryptic species. What rot is that?

It's called speciation... I realize it's a difficult concept to actually understand.

Darls, in the world of common sense that is nonsense, no matter how you try to defend it. You have come up with all sorts of stupid definitions to mask and prop up your theory of evolution..to the point of stupidity.

The world of common sense, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Common sense is often fundamentally flawed.

What about this...Cohesion species: Most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. This is an expansion of the mate-recognition species concept to allow for post-mating isolation mechanisms; no matter whether populations can hybridize successfully, they are still distinct cohesion species if the amount of hybridization is insufficient to completely mix their respective

gene pools.

How about it? Again, you are looking at the process of speciation in action. It is difficult to understand if you don't have some sort of basis in scientific knowledge, but you are looking at two populations that are starting to evolve away from one another. Like you and your siblings.

This sounds more convoluted than the baramin definition.

Not really, it's just grounded in what is going on in the real world rather than an old book.

Your 2 models, and there are plenty more, show you and all your biologists do not have any clue. Either you can tell there is a LUCA or you cannot. If it is debateable and if your scientists are able to consider all the evidence and if it was so plain to see there would be one model and no credentialed reseacher would mess with it.

Again, you will see what you want and ignore the rest. I can't change that... you want the Bible to 100% literal and scientific evidence will have no impact on that.

Humans need to be an exception because of the mighty mess you have made of Homo by classing every variation of non human primate into the mix. Hence the major adjustment.

No, it is because you have an intrinsic need for Humans to be an exception.

Actually your whole taxonomic systemm is lacking, and bovid is just another example.

The day you can provide any scientific evidence to back that up I'll be willing to discuss it. Until then, I can only conclude that science doesn't matter one whit to you and you will simply ignore or spin whatever you want to keep your faith intact.

but once again: Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity.

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

This is not the definition I have proposed.

Here is what some of your well credentialed scientists have to say about your definition of species. Teletubbies do have more substance than your definition of species, after all.

Wiki - Species Problem.
Quotations on the species problem
"... I was much struck how entirely vague and arbitrary is the distinction between species and varieties" Darwin 1859 (p. 48)[44]
"No term is more difficult to define than "species," and on no point are zoologists more divided than as to what should be understood by this word". Nicholson (1872) p. 20[45]
"Of late, the futility of attempts to find a universally valid criterion for distinguishing species has come to be fairly generally, if reluctantly, recognized" Dobzhansky (1937) p. 310[14]
"The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956)[37]
"The species problem is the long-standing failure of biologists to agree on how we should identify species and how we should define the word 'species'." Hey (2001)[40]
"First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require - but cannot be settled by - empirical evidence." Pigliucci (2003)[17]
"An important aspect of any species definition whether in neontology or palaeontology is that any statement that particular individuals (or fragmentary specimens) belong to a certain species is an hypothesis (not a fact)"[46]

Are you going to call your own researchers idiots again?

What are you talking about?

You realize that every time you point out that species are difficult to demarcate, you're proving another argument in favor of ToE, right?

 

[newhope101]

What are you talking about?

You realize that every time you point out that species are difficult to demarcate, you're proving another argument in favor of ToE, right?

I know that scientists expected smooth transisition in the Homo line. This is not what they found.

So now a messy evolution is expected and that now supports Toe.

Scientists expected some similarities betwenn species but nowhere near the amount of similarity they have found. But now that they have found huge genetic similarities that also supports Toe.

Initially 99% similarity with chimps proved we were decended, now 95% similarity proves we are decended.

LUCA supported TOE. Now there is no LUCA and that still supports TOE.


Yep...I'd say if they find huge differences in chimp and human DNA that would still prove evolution. Basically whatever you find will prove or support Toe. Great science!

A little snippet you may enjoy:

DNA Chunks, Chimps And Humans: Marks Of Differences Between Human And Chimp Genomes
CNVs in humans and chimpanzees often occur in equivalent genomic locations: most lie in regions of the genomes, called segmental duplications, that are particularly 'fragile'. However, one in four of the 355 CNDs that the team found do not overlap with CNVs within either species - suggesting that they are variants that are 'fixed' in each species and might mark significant differences between human and chimpanzee genomes.
The project used DNA samples from 30 chimpanzees (29 from W Africa, one from E Africa): the chimpanzee reference was produced using DNA from Clint, the chimpanzee whose DNA was used for the genome sequence.
CNVs and CNDs were detected using a whole-genome tilepath of DNA clones spanning the human genome used previously to map human CNVs: this platform can reveal structural variants greater than around 10,000 base-pairs in size.

 

[newhope101]

you keep ignoring this part of the wiki discussion of species...

From wiki: Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity.

It's called speciation... I realize it's a difficult concept to actually understand.

The world of common sense, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Common sense is often fundamentally flawed.

How about it? Again, you are looking at the process of speciation in action. It is difficult to understand if you don't have some sort of basis in scientific knowledge, but you are looking at two populations that are starting to evolve away from one another. Like you and your siblings.

Not really, it's just grounded in what is going on in the real world rather than an old book.

Again, you will see what you want and ignore the rest. I can't change that... you want the Bible to 100% literal and scientific evidence will have no impact on that.


No, it is because you have an intrinsic need for Humans to be an exception.

The day you can provide any scientific evidence to back that up I'll be willing to discuss it. Until then, I can only conclude that science doesn't matter one whit to you and you will simply ignore or spin whatever you want to keep your faith intact.

but once again: Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity.

wa:do

What does 'high' means 90%, 95% or 99%? I think it means whatever you need it to mean. When chimps were supposed to be 99% similar that proved common decent. Now they are only 95%. Is that still similar? This is as vague as any other definition of species.

So according to your definition, mice and humans should be in the same family or genus or what?

CNNtech: Mice, men share 99 percent of genes
When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men.
Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.
"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."
Scientists say mice, humans and many other mammals descended from a common ancestor about the size of a small rat from 75 to 125 million years ago. That creature lived alongside the dinosaur. While mice and humans certainly don't look much the same these days, their genetic blueprints are startlingly similar.
What's even more astonishing, scientists say, is that 90 percent of genes associated with disease are identical in humans and mice. Because new generations of mice are born just weeks or months apart, and because medical experiments with humans are usually not done for ethical reasons, mice have become valuable research tools.
In the process of comparing the mouse and human genomes, researchers also discovered 1,200 new human genes

 

[newhope101]

..and these new proposed models still do not reflect there is no LUCA. Unfortunately, Benton states:"it can provide no enlightenment of real issues". That's too bad. When are they ever going to get it right? They never will becuase it is not true.

SCIENCE OBSERVER
Attacks on Taxonomy

Roger Harris
Most people view taxonomy as a rather dry field of science, so when an online auction to name a new species of Bolivian monkey brought the science of classification to the public's attention, taxonomists were surely delighted. Among the bidders was television celebrity Ellen DeGeneres—who lost to the winning bid of $650,000.
But the publicity did little to unite two camps engaged in a debate that threatens the very foundations of the nomenclatural edifice upon which all of modern taxonomy is built. The melee, reports of which are turning up in popular magazines, is between some scientists who want to implement the PhyloCode, a new method of naming taxonomic groups, and those who want to keep the existing system.
The PhyloCode would name and organize living things based on common ancestry and the branching of the evolutionary family tree. It is based explicitly on phylogeny, the evolutionary history of a species or higher taxonomic group.
Its proponents mean to replace the venerable system developed by Carl von Linné (Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778), the father of modern taxonomy, in the mid-1700s and used universally by scientists since then. Linnean classification organizes species in a hierarchical scheme based largely on similarities in their forms and other traits that usually, but not always, reflect evolutionary relationships.

Unlike the PhyloCode, Linnean taxonomy does not formally incorporate phylogeny. However, its ranks (species within genus, genus within family, family within class and so on) imply evolutionary relationships. The main drawback of the Linnean system is that groups must be named with suffixes that denote their rank in this hierarchy. For instance, all animal families end in -ae, as in Hominidae. Reclassification of an existing species or discovery of new one can lead to changes in rank and therefore require renaming whole suites of taxonomic groups—a cascade of renaming—even without any new information on those groups. The Phylo-Code solves this problem.
The core proposition of the PhyloCode is to abandon Linnean hierarchical ranks and recognize only species and clades. (A clade is a group of all the organisms that share a particular common ancestor.) The scheme does not dispense with hierarchical organization, as clades will be nested within one another according to phylogeny. The key advantage is that changes made in one part of a classification do not require altering other group names. The PhyloCode's use of common ancestry to establish taxonomic relationships—the practice called cladistics—has received greater impetus in recent years. Molecular data enable workers to determine relationships with greater certainty than using physical resemblances alone.
Although the clade concept is well defined, PhyloCode workers have not yet established rules for converting existing species names or for naming new species; at least a dozen proposed methods are on the table. Several involve retaining the binomial name (genus, species: Homo sapiens) but formatting it differently to distinguish from clade names, so that human beings might become homosapiens in the Hominid clade.
How would this system affect naming of new species? Robert Wallace, discoverer of the monkey whose naming rights were up for auction, and his team used Linnean rules. If the monkey's name is changed according to PhyloCode rules, it could end up quite different from what the winning bidder, an as-yet-unnamed commercial enterprise, had in mind. Perhaps callicebusmicrosoftii, or callicebuswalmartus?
Supporters say the PhyloCode is simple and will properly reflect evolutionary connections between species, thus promoting stability and clarity in nomenclature. Kevin de Queiroz, a research zoologist at the National Museum of Natural History and an early architect of the PhyloCode, says that, with the phylogenetic system, names of taxonomic groups "will make more sense from an evolutionary perspective."
But the PhyloCode is meeting resistance. Critics say that the Linnean system effectively organizes and conveys information about taxonomic categories at all levels of biological organization and that replacing this system does not justify redefining millions of species and higher taxonomic levels. If the PhyloCode is adopted, the change could mean reworking the names of 1.75 million species (and counting).
According to Michael Benton, chair of vertebrate palaeontology at the University of Bristol, the proposed changes for species names will require systematists to redefine all the species named so far. "This opens up endless vistas of fruitless time-wasting and bickering," Benton says, "and for no benefit whatsoever." He worries that the arguments will result in loss of funding and respect for taxonomy.
De Queiroz argues that much of the protest is overblown. "The system that we‘d like to replace is virtually unknown to the general public," he says. "We're not talking about replacing names; we are talking about replacing the rules governing those names."
Even if academic, the debate has implications. Implementing the Phylo-Code could profoundly affect global biodiversity catalogs.
One of these is the Catalogue of Life, a coordinated effort to categorize and document all life on Earth. In March, Catalogue of Life scientists announced they now have information for half a million species in their database. The work continues apace. Yet there's barely a nod to the PhyloCode in the relevant literature.
Paul Kirk, a biosystematist at CABI Bioscience, a nonprofit life-sciences research organization collaborating on the project, points to "friction between those who wish to represent life on earth in a 'PhyloCode' way and those who wish to follow the traditional Linnean hierarchy." Although the Catalogue of Life is "firmly based in the Linnean system," the project's participants are talking about how best to manage a possible merger of the systems.
Frank Bisby at the University of Reading, executive director of Species 2000, another Catalogue of Life partner, believes that cataloging efforts can readily incorporate whatever classification system is used by taxonomists. "We're not taking a precise position," he says. "We're asking the specialists to keep us up to date, and that means in one group of organisms we're using natural [Linnean] concepts, while in others we're using the modern [phylogenetic] systems.… There's no claim the database tree is perfect or accurate."
Paul Kirk observed that the two systems "should be able to run in parallel." But Benton is less sympathetic: "In understanding biodiversity, the PhyloCode merely introduces semantic debate; it can provide no enlightenment of real issues."
At the moment, the Linnean camp has the upper hand, with the weight of numbers and of history. But the PhyloCode is gathering support. Will Ellen DeGeneres get to name her monkey after all?—Roger Harris

 

[painted wolf]

What does 'high' means 90%, 95% or 99%? I think it means whatever you need it to mean. When chimps were supposed to be 99% similar that proved common decent. Now they are only 95%. Is that still similar? This is as vague as any other definition of species.

So according to your definition, mice and humans should be in the same family or genus or what?

Actually we are both in the same clade: Euarchontoglires


But this article is talking about genes.... we don't have the same copies of the gene, but we do have the same gene. I can see where you got confused... you need to know about genetics to get past the confusing language here. You will notice in the snippet you posted they clarify that only 80% are exact copies.

Significantly similar is within 1-2%... the higher the percentage of difference, the further they are related.
This is the exact same measure used to determine paternity and relationships under the law.

Under your system that makes god either 80% deceitful or lazy.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Paintedwolf ..you still did not define "HIGH" level of genetic similarity.​

Please see the article below. Also see Anthropology net "A human ancestor for the apes"​

Homeotic Evolution in the Mammalia: Diversification of Therian Axial Seriation and the Morphogenetic Basis ofHuman Origins​

Aaron G. Filler

These articles provide a more robust explanation of the Primate fossil evidence. As you can see in the chart on Anthropogy.net your taxonomic system does not apply in this primate model. However if you take the human line out, your current taxonomic system can still be used.​

The reason for my Primate exception in my definition is the incorrect taxonomic ranking of the lineage of this primate kind.

This paper is my evidence for the requirement of an exception to my definition of "kind". I believe the applied model to be more of a true representation of the primate 'kind' lineage. In which case...My exception is no longer required.​

No doubt there will be criticism. However for anyone else remember the above work is well accepted by the scientific community as evidence based. It is accepted by well credentialed researchers that have higher qualifications than anyone here on RF. These researchers are privy to the complete body of evidence and still accredit substance to this primate model and this work. They are not creationists, but are from the body of evolutionary researchers.​

Regardless of any forthcoming criticism, I have provided a scientific explanation as to why my definition of 'kind' requires such a dramatic exception in the subfamily homininae, when put into a comparative context with your taxonomic system. ​

.My definition of KIND stands.​

KIND - Plant, Animal and single celled organisms
All organisms that are of the same “kind” are:

1. Genetically compatible sufficiently to produce fertilization (Fusion/pollination).
And/Or
2. Genomically testable to be within the same taxonomic rank above Genus, eg "family" or "sub-family".

Compatability Bridging Concept (CBC) brings into the same kind any organism that bridges across compatability. Eg if a tiger and a lion can produce a fertilized ovum, and a lion and a cheetah can also, then it would not matter that the tiger and the cheetah are not genetically compatable nor that either was in a different taxon they would be of the same 'kind'.

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

This definition ascribes 'same kind' to any organisms that have maintained genetic similarity after undergoing adaptation changes within Kind, sufficiently that fertilization can still occur. Whether or not offspring is viable is irrelevant. Inability to mate is also irrelevant in describing 'same kind' if criteria 1 or 2 has been satisfied or if same kind is achieved after applying the CBC.

 

[painted wolf]

You will notice this paper and article says nothing to support creationism, quite the opposite it is fully supportive of evolution.

Perhaps your confusion comes from the authors choice of defining "human" based solely on the characteristic of bipedalism? I'm not sure why he chooses this single trait as his only criteria, but it makes for interesting reading.

For those actually interested in the science being discussed... this is more evidence in favor of the common ancestor of great apes being functionally bipedal in the trees, like the modern Orang... a subject I've discussed and supported previously on these forums. This further supports anatomical studies that show that Gorillas and Chimps independently evolved knuckle walking.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Quote Wolf: You will notice this paper and article says nothing to support creationism, quite the opposite it is fully supportive of evolution.

Perhaps your confusion comes from the authors choice of defining "human" based solely on the characteristic of bipedalism? I'm not sure why he chooses this single trait as his only criteria, but it makes for interesting reading.

For those actually interested in the science being discussed... this is more evidence in favor of the common ancestor of great apes being functionally bipedal in the trees, like the modern Orang... a subject I've discussed and supported previously on these forums. This further supports anatomical studies that show that Gorillas and Chimps independently evolved knuckle walking.

PaintedWolf..There is no confusion on my part. Unfortunately you are the one confused. Note please readers, I stated very clearly in my post, that the work I quoted was from researchers from within your body of evolutionary researchers. Yet another throw off to a ridiculous statement so you do not loose face on RF, PaintedWolf. It's too late.

Here it is again quoted from my post
"They are not creationists, but are from the body of evolutionary researchers." So you have purposely tried to deflect, misrepresent and intentionally misquote me. Your standing and credentials are not worth the paper they are written on Wolf. I think you are a pretender.

Yes, of course it is an evolutionary paper, Wolf. Thanks for verifying it as such.

You requested a basis for my exception within my definition of Kind, and I have provided one. Remember this is what this thread is about, primarily. I have provided a scientific paper that you yourself accept as evolutionary work. It is backed up by scientific research and evidence.. The paper identifies Homo Sapiens as leading directly from the branch that goes onto become chimps. Meaning there is no room for Genus according to the taxonoic ranking that evos currently identify with. This was the point to providing the evidence. This is why an exception is required...because your current primate model requires tinkering. With the paper I provided, and the ancestry in the correct positions, I do not require an exception.

For those actually interested in science I have provided an excellent piece of work that puts all your fossils that are not within the rank of homo sapiens into the ancestral line of chimps, prior to the braching of the homo line, so your fossils above homo sapiens are shared with chimps above the sapiens branching point. However that is not the point. The point is I have provided what you requested to explain my exception and still you are harping and offering convoluted twists to my post and evading the point.


I am happy to debate the evidence within this paper in relation to Homo sapiens on another thread.

However, I am here primarily to address definition of kind...your pet degradation of creationists.


Frankly from here on in, you are a liar and a hypocrite, Wolf, if you continue to say that creationists cannot define kind. Many before me have done so also. You, Wolf, with your rudeness and egotistical self glorifying posts have requested a definition with more scientific veracity than your own definition of species can provide. You have no intention of seeking a definition. Rather you use these threads as a means to self glorify yourself and a forum to attack and degrade creationists. Another tesimony to who you really are.


Now I am after you. You stated your definition re species. Here it is.
Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. It was meant to clarify your plethora of species definitions...remember!


Please define "high". This is my third request for clarity and you have evaded the request totally. In fact this definition you cited is yet another vague and useless term. You cannot define it. You will likely evade providing clarity bacause you already know the refutes to this vague and inconsistent definition that will be shot back at you.



In short and to the point I have provided an adequate definition of kind that stands up at least as good as your defintion of species, and possibly better.

..you have yet to define "high"...please attempt to do so, if you are able.

 

[painted wolf]

PaintedWolf..There is no confusion on my part. Unfortunately you are the one confused. Note please readers, I stated very clearly in my post, that the work I quoted was from researchers from within your body of evolutionary researchers. Yet another throw off to a ridiculous statement so you do not loose face on RF, PaintedWolf. It's too late.

You claimed it supported your point... it does not. There is no confusion.

Here it is again quoted from my post

"They are not creationists, but are from the body of evolutionary researchers." So you have purposely tried to deflect, misrepresent and intentionally misquote me. Your standing and credentials are not worth the paper they are written on Wolf. I think you are a pretender.

I never said they were creationists... just that there is no way (outside of fevered delusion) that you construe the writings to support your position.

I don't know where you keep getting these ideas... but it certainly isn't from reading and comprehending what has been posted.

You requested a basis for my exception within my definition of Kind, and I have provided one. Remember this is what this thread is about, primarily. I have provided a scientific paper that you yourself accept as evolutionary work. It is backed up by scientific research and evidence.. The paper identifies Homo Sapiens as leading directly from the branch that goes onto become chimps. Meaning there is no room for Genus according to the taxonoic ranking that evos currently identify with. This was the point to providing the evidence. This is why an exception is required...because your current primate model requires tinkering. With the paper I provided, and the ancestry in the correct positions, I do not require an exception.

If this is your justification, then it is amazing. How you can take a paper that provides genetic evidence for the unity of the Great Apes and twist it to support creationism is truly spectacular.
This paper says nothing about Homo sapiens leading directly to chimps... I can only presume that you are unable to distinguish between the authors use of the generic term "human" (where he clearly states that he calls anything ape that walks upright human) and our particular species of "human".

However that is not the point. The point is I have provided what you requested to explain my exception and still you are harping and offering convoluted twists to my post and evading the point.

I explained why your 'exception explanation' is convoluted and twisted interpretation of research you haven't bothered to try to understand.

I am happy to debate the evidence within this paper in relation to Homo sapiens on another thread.

of course you are.

However, I am here primarily to address definition of kind...your pet degradation of creationists.

again, of course you are.

Frankly from here on in, you are a liar and a hypocrite, Wolf, if you continue to say that creationists cannot define kind.

No I don't... I'm discussing your' definition of kind... I have been for a long time now.
If you want to continue to claim that I am despite the fact that anyone can actually read these forums, then by all means do so.

Many before me have done so also. You, Wolf, with your rudeness and egotistical self glorifying posts have requested a definition with more scientific veracity than your own definition of species can provide. You have no intention of seeking a definition. Rather you use these threads as a means to self glorify yourself and a forum to attack and degrade creationists. Another tesimony to who you really are.

What I really am is tired of you getting backed into a corner and then attacking me personally...
I'm sick of you posting snippets of science news stories that you clearly have not bothered to read or comprehend and claiming that they somehow mean the opposite of what they do...
I'm tired of responding to you and giving your posts feedback and critique and having you ignore it an claim that I never responded or can't refute you...
I'm no longer going to pay any attention to you and the fact that even after being refuted you refuse to stop posting the same falsehoods and misconceptions over and over...

Now I am after you. You stated your definition re species. Here it is.

Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. It was meant to clarify your plethora of species definitions...remember!


Please define "high". This is my third request for clarity and you have evaded the request totally. In fact this definition you cited is yet another vague and useless term. You cannot define it. You will likely evade providing clarity bacause you already know the refutes to this vague and inconsistent definition that will be shot back at you.

Actually I was trying to find a way to word it so that you would... hopefully.... understand it. I see now that this is hopeless and you will simply continue to think exactly what you want regardless of any actual information.

So here it goes:

enjoy.

wa:do



In short and to the point I have provided an adequate definition of kind that stands up at least as good as your defintion of species, and possibly better.

..you have yet to define "high"...please attempt to do so, if you are able. [/quote]

 

[newhope101]

Indeed it does address my exception. The article suggests that your taxonomic rankings are incorrect, which is the basis for my exception.

You can get as sick of me as much as you wish. You are the one that cannot stand to have anyone else have the last word.

You are very fanatical. Fancy asking for proof to back up a simple definition. This is only because you cannot find any other fault.

The diagram from Plus one "the Upright Ape: A new Origin of the Species", clearly shows Homo Sapiens branching straight from the chimp line. You are lying and anyone that has bothered to look up the info will know it. That is all that is important to me. You are not that important that you get the final word on definitions here.
Humanian Model of Human Evolution: AAPA (2008)

So Clunes how about it can you find any taxon where my definition does not apply.

 

[newhope101]

So it appears that no one can find a taxon where my definition does not apply.

So Clunes, Skwim, you have one definition of species now. You should be happy.

So you decided to paste in an equation as your explanation of 'high genetic simialrity'. The fixation index. What about a cryptic species? So if a mouse shares 99% of human genes somewhere in it's genome and a chimp only shares 95% maybe we evolved from mice!

We're done PaintedWolf. I hope everyone takes a look for themselves. That is the best evidence. I'll be able to post the diagram when I get my PC sorted.

Here is a forward by David Pilbeam about his book “The Upright Ape” based on the same work as quoted. As I reflected in my previous post, chimps and homo sapiens shared the same ancestors until H. Sapiens split, because the human line has been pushed back to Morotopithecus, 21 million years ago. All the non homo sapiens fossils are shared with chimps etc.

Human Origins Revolutionized
An Upright Ancestor for the Apes

The discovery of an ancient fossil in Moroto, Uganda from 21 million years ago was the first sign of a major flaw in our models of human evolution. It is almost identical to a modern human lumbar vertebra.
But it was just one fossil against a world full of scientific opinion that humans, with their upright bipedal walking did not emerge until the chimpanzee-human split 6 million years ago.
Then fossils of another upright bipedal ape - Oreopithecus - were found. Then another - Pierolapithecus. And then Sahelanthropus.
First there was one. Now there are four upright bipedal species of apes before the chimp-human split.
Paleoanthropology as a field has not yet come to grips with the revolutionary implications. The first "human" was probably Morotopithecus and probably lived 21 million years ago. The existing apes have a human ancestor.
For fifty years we have defined the first humans by the acquisition of upright bipedal posture in creatures like Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) who had brains like other apes. However, it now appears that based on this definition human history must reach back to the Miocene of 21 million years ago.​

 

[painted wolf]

I am so sick of your accusations of lying... the fact that you can't comprehend a simplified graph is not my problem.
So this graph is only including living species.... that is pretty common and only a total imbecile would confuse that with the idea that all fossil ape/hominid species suddenly stopped existing.

Here is the graph:

it is exactly the same any other cladeogram showing ape evolution. The fact that you can't grasp this simple concept is not my problem, nor does it make me a liar.

Here is a link to the article: A Human Ancestor for the Apes? « Anthropology.net

Here is the expert that you conveniently never include and ignore despite my pointing it out in hopes you would realize your mistake:

What defines a “human?” I have taken the position that it is a body plan (bauplan). Most of us have accepted that early Australopithecines whose brains and skulls were chimp-like, should be considered human and not ape.When you find a fossil such as Sahelanthropus that has a “chimp-like” skull from the point of view of its face and brain, but has the skull base of a human (and presumably upright bipedal post-cranial anatomy) – how can you tell from the fossil if it’s an ape or a human?

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

See. I knew you could reply without using crayons. But sorrowfully, as fond as you are of repeating your beloved 1 . . . 2 . . . Compatability [sic] . . . definition, it shall ever remain hopeless horse feathers. On par with the non-definition definitions of the pros.

And here's free-for-nothing: Examples DON'T constitute a definition.

You talk with forked and twisted tongue. My definition defines a set of criteria, try reading it again with your glasses on.


So all creationists behold, no matter if any definition you supply holds up, no matter if you supply supportive evidence the hypocrites here feel all they have to say is some variation of 'not good enough' ie horsefeathers, and they think they have won the day. If only life was truly that easy.

No dear, rather 'horsefeathers' indicates that you are unable to refute my definition using your usual tactics. That's good enough evidence for me that you all are peeved off immeasurably that I have come up with a definition you are unable to refute in any taxon. Good for me. You do not have to pat me on the back your sprooky refutes say it all.

I have supplied the works of 'The Upright Ape', which can argue at a much more precise level that any of you pretenders. The first "human" was probably Morotopithecus and probably lived 21 million years ago. This paper and supporting research concludes that apes such as chimps, gorillas etc shared a common ancestry with humans since bipedalism began 21 million years ago. The supporting papers speak to convincing evidence as to why current classifications and genomic data and recent fossil finds are in disarray and often conflictual. In fact the good old 'knuckle walkers' you like to shove in creationists faces evolved their knuckle walking indepedently of the human line. The paper offers its evidence. So much for all that garble of showing how their branch clinging hands turned into human hands. Bipedalism started 21 million years ago, if this is truly the start of what you call the human line. Now it appears to me that bipedalism is not an indication of becomming human at all. Just straw grabbing.

Would you like me to put up the forward from the paper? I shall if you deny it. So if you refute it you had best read it first.

The point to this research for my needs is to illustrate how the current taxonomic rankings cannot apply in the primate line. Hence the necessary exception in my definition.

So you can pretend all this is not happening out there. You can hide your head in your old text books and credentials but I have given you a solid definition of 'kind'. No one asked for a paper ready for publication in any scientific journal nor a definition of kind that shall win a Nobel prize. You cannot refute my definition and you are sooo peeved, and I love it!!!!

You are unable to refute it so have chosen to ridicule it without subtance. Perhaps I shall spend my time ridiculing your definitions. I have spent much time showing the inconsistencies in your definition of 'species'. I'll start with genus and family next.

Did you know that if I took a mouth swab of a horse, human and tiger and sent it to a genetics lab they would have no idea what animal they were looking at. unless I told them and they had a comparison.


Here's a little warm up about how vague and inconsistent your genus taxon is, just as vaugue and in much the same mess your species concept is in.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Wiki Genus: There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[3] According to these, a genus should fulfill three criteria to be descriptively useful:

1. monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together; So according to the Upright Ape paper, our genus homo includes chimps, gorillas, orangutangs and all the apes.
2. reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and How vague is this as a criteria?
3. distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers).Please explain how cryptic species fits in here?

Nomenclature

None of the Nomenclature Codes require such criteria for defining a genus, because these are concerned with the nomenclature rules, not with taxonomy. These regulate formal nomenclature, aiming for universal and stable scientific names.
..and nomenclature codes ...well now, they can make up their own rules.

 

[newhope101]

I am so sick of your accusations of lying... the fact that you can't comprehend a simplified graph is not my problem.
So this graph is only including living species.... that is pretty common and only a total imbecile would confuse that with the idea that all fossil ape/hominid species suddenly stopped existing.

Throw off again. I did not say that hominids suddenly stopped existing. I said they now exist above the homo sapiens split from chimps (see graph)and are SHARED with chimps and other apes. Again, you misquote me in an attempt to save face.

This graph is NOT including living species it is just speaking to the primate/human line. Can you see where Homo Sapiens branches off from the chimp line? What does that imply? Your homo sapien fossils are the ones represented by the homo sapiens line. Hominoidea(Apes and humans), share ancestry from 26 million years ago according to the paper. Homo erectus etc are not homo sapiens and therefore are placed prior to the chimps and Homo sapiens divergence point. That is what any imbacile should see.

Your fossils classed as homo erectus, homo erectus, habilis etc are now above the homo sapiens branch and shared with the chimps. Depending on whether or not you class neanderthalis in the homo sapiens taxon on not, neanderthal may be the only phase that related to sapiens. Your knckles walkers developed this trait independently of the human line. Any yet you say nothing has changed in this model.

Remember Homos began with bipedal walking and australepithecus, homo erectus or eragaster whatever etc according to your current data. The beginning of Humanity is now pushed back 26 million years. Human ancstors did not split from chimps but both have a human ancestor, and you say the the graph is 'prety common'. Well you are on your own if you do not think this is revolutionary thinking. Honestly PaintedWolf who do you think you are fooling?

Pilbeam Quote "Paleoanthropology as a field has not yet come to grips with the revolutionary implications. The first "human" was probably Morotopithecus and probably lived 21 million years ago. The existing apes have a human ancestor."

Here is the graph:

it is exactly the same any other cladeogram showing ape evolution. The fact that you can't grasp this simple concept is not my problem, nor does it make me a liar.

Here is a link to the article: A Human Ancestor for the Apes? « Anthropology.net

Here is the expert that you conveniently never include and ignore despite my pointing it out in hopes you would realize your mistake:


wa:do

Your link agrees with me. Why did you quote it. Here is a snip from it:

"Do we really need to consider turning everything upside down by considering the existence of a human ancestor for the apes? This suggestion definitely has the quality of blasphemy against religious doctrine. It just feels wrong and goes against our deeply held beliefs and understanding of the world.
However, this is exactly where the evidence leads.

It is certainly easier to assert that Morotopithecus was upright and hindlimb supported – based on spinal anatomy – than to prove it was primarily bipedal or a long distance walker. However, this is where the video showing the baby siamang learning to walk bipedally is relevant. Yes, you could argue that innate bipedalism evolved independently in parallel in hylobatids and hominines, but is also reasonable to consider that since this is so unusual, that it reflects descent from a common ancestor that had this feature. Essentially – an eight month old Morotopithecus baby would do the same thing that we see in the two descendant groups (hominines and hylobatids) – the baby would innately begin to walk bipedally as it’s primary locomotor pattern.
So – if the chimp-human split did take place 6 million years ago (as the molecular data suggests), then what do we do with Sahelanthropus which many believe was a full time upright biped but which lived 7 million years ago?
Sahelanthropus appears to be a human species that is representative of species in the line of ancestry to both the chimpanzees and hominines." end quote.

GET IT ???? NOT COMMON THINKING....


You have done nothing to show you did not lie and try to misrepresent me and the article. Rather you continue to say this research is 'common' thinking. Seriously desperate! Go back to ignoring me.

 

[painted wolf]

You are amazing.... He specifically states that his definition of "human" is "walks upright".... that makes Lucy "a human species".
He goes on to say that Sahelanthropus is, in his opinion a "human species" due to some evidence that it may have moved in a manner that was more upright.

You somehow make the jump from that to our species Homo sapiens being the ancestor of the apes. :bonk:

Just so you know who you are calling the same as Homo sapiens here is a picture of Sahelanthropus:

One last time... he is not saying that Homo sapiens is the ancestor of chimps... he is saying that the common ancestor of chimps and modern humans moved in a way more like we do than they do... which in his opinion makes it "human" as his definition of "human" is anything that walks upright.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Here are 2 graphs. The lower is current thinking out of Wiki. The top one is based on work by other researchers including Aaron G Fuller. As you all can plainly see, the upper graph sets homonini (tribe) at the branch point of chimpanzee and Homo Sapiens, unlike the common model. There is no room for the Genus "Homo". Rather the lineage goes from the tribe, Homonini, to the species "Homo Sapiens" This work is based on the book "The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species" and supporting research that I have previously quoted, including "Homeotic Evolution of the Mammals, Diversification of Therian Axial Seriation and a Morphogenic Basis for Human Origin".

Homo Habilis, Homo Heidebergensis, Homo florensiensis etc are shared ancestors with other non human primates. They are no longer displayed as Homo subspecies. Hence the need for an exception with this taxon. I do not feel that for a simple definition I should be required to provide supporting evidence for my one exception, but I have.

I believe we did not share ancestors at all. Rather what researchers have found are ancient non human primate fossils that adapted from the first kinds. Homo Sapiens appeared fully formed as human and this is why Homo Sapiens suddenly appear out of a shared ancestry.

My definition stands.

 

[newhope101]

You are amazing.... He specifically states that his definition of "human" is "walks upright".... that makes Lucy "a human species".
He goes on to say that Sahelanthropus is, in his opinion a "human species" due to some evidence that it may have moved in a manner that was more upright.

You somehow make the jump from that to our species Homo sapiens being the ancestor of the apes. :bonk:

Just so you know who you are calling the same as Homo sapiens here is a picture of Sahelanthropus:

One last time... he is not saying that Homo sapiens is the ancestor of chimps... he is saying that the common ancestor of chimps and modern humans moved in a way more like we do than they do... which in his opinion makes it "human" as his definition of "human" is anything that walks upright.

wa:do

PaintedWolf will you stop misquoting me. I did not say Homo sapiens were chimp ancestors. I spoke to SHARED SHARED SHARED ancestors and I quoted Homo erectus and Habilis. Will you stop misquoting me in a vain attempt to save face.

The first sign of humanity is meant to be upright walking which up until now started when the genus Homo branched off the chimp line. This is what I have already stated and your clarification is unnecessary. Now bipedal walking is put back 21 million years. Sahelanthropus is just one example from about 7 million years ago and was only a snip from your link. The work speaks to many other examples much further back in time.

Will you please stop misquoting me. I hope anyone dropping in goes back and confirms. You have already tried to pull the wool over everyones eyes by saying this new graph is 'common' primate evolution and dismissing it as nothing new. This is rubbish. It is quite controversial and has a solid basis for its assertations. The fossils of Erectus. florensiensism heidelbergensis etc are now NOT just human, HOMO, ancestors but are SHARED. To make it simpler - Erectus and the rest are also chimp ancestors, according to this research, that lived prior to homo sapiens branching off. Again, if you think this has always been the case for chimp evolution then you stand alone.

Backtracking and posting pages of side tracking evidence is not going to give you any more credence. The paper has quite enough evidence to uphold its claims. It does not need you for clarification.

 

[painted wolf]

I never said that calling anything bipedal "human" was common thinking... indeed I said it was very unusual. The general convention is to limit "human" to species within the genus Homo. But if you want to think Lucy is "human" that is fine with me.

However, the idea that the common ancestor of chimps and humans was not a knuckle walker but moved more upright in the trees like an Orang. Is hardly earth-shattering.

It may have been odd in 2007, but it's old hat in 2010.

Independent evolution of knuckle-walking in African apes shows that humans did not evolve from a knuckle-walking ancestor
Upright Walking Began 6 Million Years Ago, Thigh Bone Comparison Suggests
Bipedal Humans Came Down From The Trees, Not Up From The Ground

I realize you are not current on the information, but reading old articles can trick you into thinking you have found something "cutting edge" and "controversial" that you really haven't.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Post 187

The exception is Human Kind, who was created in Gods image. Humans are a kind equivalent to "Homo Sapiens".

Perhaps my confusion also comes from the fact that you don't seem to grasp the concept that the cladograms shown do not include extinct species... making your insistence that Homo sapiens come directly from Chimps confused at best.

Your two graphs are identical (they both leave out extinct species and match perfectly)... they do not conflict.

wa:do