The Evolution Chamber: Piltdown Man

[metis]

In my Intro to Anthro course, I used to bring in a Baptist pastor or deacon to give the "creationist viewpoint" even though I wasn't under any obligation to do so. Nor was it any way confrontational. After a few years, the deacon and I became quite good friends.

At the end of one session, he and I were talking and he thanked me for being open in allowing my students hear the other side. I thanked him for the compliment and told him that I would be more than willing to speak to his youth group about human evolution if he'd like. He smiled rather sheepishly, and said nothing.

Needless to say, I never was asked by him or the pastor to present the other side again when requested. For whatever reason, the deacon not only left his local church but the Baptist faith altogether according to one of the youths that I also had as a student, but I honestly don't know why. Hope I wasn't the cause, but I do doubt it.

 

[Audie]

In my Intro to Anthro course, I used to bring in a Baptist pastor or deacon to give the "creationist viewpoint" even though I wasn't under any obligation to do so. Nor was it any way confrontational. After a few years, the deacon and I became quite good friends.

At the end of one session, he and I were talking and he thanked me for being open in allowing my students hear the other side. I thanked him for the compliment and told him that I would be more than willing to speak to his youth group about human evolution if he'd like. He smiled rather sheepishly, and said nothing.

Needless to say, I never was asked by him or the pastor to present the other side again when requested. For whatever reason, the deacon not only left his local church but the Baptist faith altogether according to one of the youths that I also had as a student, but I honestly don't know why. Hope I wasn't the cause, but I do doubt it.

Why would you hope that?

 

[metis]

Why would you hope that?

Because I don't believe in undermining anyone's religious or humanistic faith as long as it doesn't hurt others.

 

[Audie]

Because I don't believe in undermining anyone's religious or humanistic faith as long as it doesn't hurt others.

A faith undermined by some reality is not much of a faith.

 

[metis]

A faith undermined by some reality is not much of a faith.

I'm not the one who determines what reality may be for someone else.

 

[Audie]

I'm not the one who determines what reality may be for someone else.

Fair enuf

 

[gnostic]

This isn't a science classroom.

True

 

[Jose Fly]

Just curious:

What would happen if some disingenuous creationist troll began pontificating and strutting around and no one paid it any attention?​

I'm not sure most of the members here have the discipline for that. As I've noted several times (and people are probably sick of hearing me say), the nature of this forum is both encouraging and problematic. Specifically, for every creationist that posts on this sub-forum, there are at least 15 "evolutionists" chomping at the bit to counter them.

That's encouraging because it reflects the status of the issue, i.e., creationism is little more than a fringe religious belief that's on the decline.

It's problematic because it allows the creationist to cherry pick which "evolutionists" they talk to and which ones they ignore. And as we've seen, as soon as one of us corners a creationist and/or gives them information they can't deal with, they just stop replying to that person and pick up with someone else.

We saw that in the "I've sacrificed my belief" thread where the creationist went on and on about us showing him an example of the evolution of a new breeding population. When I gave him a link, he refused to even click it and demanded a copy-n-paste. Then after I gave him the copy-n-paste he simply declared "I'm done with this discussion" and started up with other people (who, given that there aren't any other creationists around to talk to, were more than happy to go along).

In a more disciplined environment, folks would tell that creationist "I'm not talking to you until you address the information you requested and were provided". But here we are.......

 

[Audie]

Just say "CODE THREE" Maybe we can start a movement.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not sure most of the members here have the discipline for that.

guilty ...

 

[exchemist]

Both your parents were apes, so there is your answer.

But shouldn't you also be explaining to our misguided friend that he is comparing apples with oranges? Isn't it because these breeds of dogs are just variations within one subspecies of Canis lupus (which includes wolves as well), whereas the term "ape" describes a large family (superfamily?) of different species, of which Homo sapiens is one species and, say, an orang utan, or a gorilla, is another?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But shouldn't you also be explaining to our misguided friend that he is comparing apples with oranges? Isn't it because these breeds of dogs are just variations within one subspecies of Canis lupus (which includes wolves as well), whereas the term "ape" describes a large family (superfamily?) of different species, of which Homo sapiens is one species and, say, an orang utan, or a gorilla, is another?

Perhaps a comparison of coyotes, wolves, and Chihuahuas would be more apt.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps a comparison of coyotes, wolves, and Chihuahuas would be more apt.

My understanding is that grey wolves and dogs are actually the same species (all C lupus, in fact), and coyotes very little further distant: Wolfdog - Wikipedia., whereas modern man, orang utans and gorillas are fully distinct species, incapable of interbreeding.

The family level for dogs, analagous to the family "apes" would be Canidae: Canidae - Wikipedia, so the equivalent of man breeding with an orang utan might be the breeding of a dog or wolf with a fox, i.e both impossible.

If I have understand this correctly (it is not my speciality).

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

My understanding is that grey wolves and dogs are actually the same species (all C lupus, in fact), and coyotes very little further distant: Wolfdog - Wikipedia., whereas modern man, orang utans and gorillas are fully distinct species, incapable of interbreeding.

The family level for dogs, analagous to the family "apes" would be Canidae: Canidae - Wikipedia, so the equivalent of man breeding with an orang utan might be the breeding of a dog or wolf with a fox, i.e both impossible.

If I have understand this correctly (it is not my speciality).

Many are now classifying domestic dogs as Canis familiaris and wolves as Canis lupus. Also, cladistics has replaced Linnaean taxonomy in most of biology, but the old Linnaean terms do still hang around. Genus, Family, Order, etc. are very arbitrary which is why they are largely ignored now. As a comparison, there are thousands of species in the Drosophila genus that have way more genetic divergence than that seen in the Hominidae family.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My understanding is that grey wolves and dogs are actually the same species (all C lupus, in fact), and coyotes very little further distant: Wolfdog - Wikipedia., whereas modern man, orang utans and gorillas are fully distinct species, incapable of interbreeding.

The family level for dogs, analagous to the family "apes" would be Canidae: Canidae - Wikipedia, so the equivalent of man breeding with an orang utan might be the breeding of a dog or wolf with a fox, i.e both impossible.

If I have understand this correctly (it is not my speciality).

Yes, a better analogy could have been made with felids.

Felidae - Wikipedia

Still the idea is simple enough. And it may still be possible for man and chimp to interbreed through artificial means. There are strong rumors of the Russians trying to do so, though they did more work with orangutans from what I have read than chimps, which would be the worst candidate from all of the Great Apes. And no, I do not propose such experiments myself.

 

[exchemist]

Many are now classifying domestic dogs as Canis familiaris and wolves as Canis lupus. Also, cladistics has replaced Linnaean taxonomy in most of biology, but the old Linnaean terms do still hang around. Genus, Family, Order, etc. are very arbitrary which is why they are largely ignored now. As a comparison, there are thousands of species in the Drosophila genus that have way more genetic divergence than that seen in the Hominidae family.

Ah OK. But the fact we need to get across to Saxe-Coburg-Howsyerfather is that the genetic difference between other modern apes and man is a lot greater than between different dog breeds, so his analogy is faulty. (Sorry to labour this, but it might be useful to have this story straightened out, as I feel sure he is using a standard creo manual of bogus arguments, so we can expect this one to come up again. )

In the case of dogs, wolves etc, what would you consider would be the best shorthand classification, equivalent in diversity of species to "apes"?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Ah OK. But the fact we need to get across to Saxe-Coburg-Howsyerfather is that the genetic difference between other modern apes and man is a lot greater than between different dog breeds, so his analogy is faulty. (Sorry to labour this, but it might be useful to have this story straightened out, as I feel sure he is using a standard creo manual of bogus arguments, so we can expect this one to come up again. )

It is a difference of degree, not kind.

In the case of dogs, wolves etc, what would you consider would be the best shorthand classification, equivalent in diversity of species to "apes"?

The closest would probably be foxes and wolves.

"The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like genus Leptocyon whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174–5"
Canidae - Wikipedia

12 million years is about the same ball park as the common ancestor for Hominidae.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It is a difference of degree, not kind.



The closest would probably be foxes and wolves.

"The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like genus Leptocyon whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174–5"
Canidae - Wikipedia

12 million years is about the same ball park as the common ancestor for Hominidae.

Not wishing to be pedantic or difficult, but don't fox/canine hybrids occur?

 

[exchemist]

It is a difference of degree, not kind.



The closest would probably be foxes and wolves.

"The cat-like feliforms and dog-like caniforms emerged within the Carnivoramorpha 43 million years before present.[5] The caniforms included the fox-like genus Leptocyon whose various species existed from 34 million years before present before branching 11.9 million YBP into Vulpini (foxes) and Canini (canines).[6]:174–5"
Canidae - Wikipedia

12 million years is about the same ball park as the common ancestor for Hominidae.

Aha, yup that looks about right. I'll try to keep that in mind if the same attempt at an analogy crops up in future. (I have collected a few standard replies over the years for some of the standard creo try-ons.) Thanks.

 

[exchemist]

Not wishing to be pedantic or difficult, but don't fox/canine hybrids occur?

This article would suggest not, due to differing numbers of chromosomes: Canid hybrid - Wikipedia