Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chimp Fossils. Lesson 2.
28 views
Skip to first unread message
JTEM
Apr 8, 2016, 4:15:09 PM4/8/16
to
Okay, imagine an ancient Greek villa.
It's nice.
Only problem is that it's located at the
base of some hills. And although I'm
sure it was quite nice when it was built,
with beautiful vistas, over the years
those hills were stripped barren (and
of their beauty) by a severe case of
deforestation.
Yuck.
And to make matters worse, now this villa
is Ground-Zero for all the water & mud
that comes sliding down those hills every
time it rains.
It happens, you know. You strip a hill of
it's vegetation and there's nothing to
hold on to the water. You're lucky if you're
not buried under mud slides...
Okay, so, 2 thousand years later and you
can dig here. At this villa. It's very well
preserved -- if there's any mosaics they're
going to be perfectly preserved, right? It's
just a floor covered over by mud. And anything
they dropped, anything that was buried; it's
all there, perfectly preserved.
You've got archaeology, and you've got context.
Right?
Anything you find there is associated with a
villa. And there's a good chance you can even
pinpoint an age, supplying you with another
whole data set!
Everything you find is associated with a
specific age, a specific place and a
specific environment (home/a villa)...
Okay, now the exact same villa, only someone
just built condos there. But it's all right,
they scooped up all the earth -- down to 10
or 20 feet -- to build a foundation, and they
left it all in a pile some distance down the
road... along with the dirt they scooped up
from 100 other places or more.
Fine. You can dig THERE, in that pile. All
the archaeology is still there -- PLUS
whatever archaeology was in all those other
places they scooped up & dumped here -- but
it's not as good as before.
Right?
Before you had context. And before everything
was well preserved. But here, well, here in
this pile, everything is broken! What was
a beautiful, intact mosaic floor is now a
jumble of pieces dug up, drove down the road
and dumped here. And it's mixed with dirt &
debris from other places... including their
mosaics.
No context.
Before you KNEW it came from a home, an upscale
home (a villa). You knew where, when & what. But
now it's a jumble, no context. You pull a piece
of pottery out of the big pile of dirt -- did
it come from a home? A shop? A temple? And is
the next item you find the same age as it, a
few centuries new... a thousand years older?
You have no idea. There's no context.
So obviously you want to find everything together,
in context, instead of a big jumble of smashed
up debris collected from EVERYWHERE and dumped
here...
Rivers tend to be very much like that big pile
of debris. Not always, but usually. And a river
delta, well, that IS the pile! The river is
dumping everything it carried to that point,
leaving it all there... silting up.
AND IT BREAKS THINGS!
The moving water decays the soft tissue and
then pull apart the skeleton... dragging
bones over rocks (scratching/breaking them)
before leaving them stuck in a bend of
deposited in that delta....
You find a lot of fossils in that kind of
environment, left my a river, but they're
not good fossils. They're not skeletons, not
usually. They're not even whole bones! It's
not usually your first choice for a fossil
bed. But...
But none of that matters. Not this time. You
don't need great fossils. Nope. Quality
doesn't matter here. You don't need context,
you don't need dating beyond a certain
generality (more than 5 million years old)...
you don't need a whole bone.
Anything will do.
If you can find a piece of Chimp bone, anything
that was once part of a chimp then you can
disprove an entire evolutionary model, and a
shelf load of "Molecular Dating," and lay down
another certainty for human evolution -- a
set point which all subsequent theories must
incorporate.
Significance: Staggering
Difficulty: Medium
Pay off: Incalculable
If paleoanthropology was a real science we
wouldn't even be having this discussion.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142397472481
J.LyonLayden
Apr 8, 2016, 4:40:02 PM4/8/16
to
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:15:09 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
>
> If you can find a piece of Chimp bone, anything
> that was once part of a chimp then you can
> disprove an entire evolutionary model, and a
> shelf load of "Molecular Dating," and lay down
> another certainty for human evolution -- a
> set point which all subsequent theories must
> incorporate.
>
> Significance: Staggering
> Difficulty: Medium
> Pay off: Incalculable
>
> If paleoanthropology was a real science we
> wouldn't even be having this discussion.
You've just convinced me that it IS a real science, considering that what you call "REAL" means proving the non-existence of things with evidence.
>
> If you can find a piece of Chimp bone, anything
> that was once part of a chimp then you can
> disprove an entire evolutionary model, and a
> shelf load of "Molecular Dating," and lay down
> another certainty for human evolution -- a
> set point which all subsequent theories must
> incorporate.
>
> Significance: Staggering
> Difficulty: Medium
> Pay off: Incalculable
>
> If paleoanthropology was a real science we
> wouldn't even be having this discussion.
You cannot prove a negative, at all.
And you seem to be saying that every animal as big as a chimp that led a riverside existence during the last 5 million years definitely and without a doubt left not only one fossil, but several.
This is not true at all.
Ask anyone with a degree in paleoanthrolpology, archeology, anthropology, or even zoology and they will tell you the same.
MOST SPECIES DO NOT LEAVE FOSSILS NO MATTER THE ENVIRONMENT.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142397472481
JTEM
Apr 8, 2016, 5:04:31 PM4/8/16
to
J.LyonLayden wrote:
> You've just convinced me that it IS a real science, considering that what you call "REAL" means proving the non-existence of things with evidence.
Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> You've just convinced me that it IS a real science, considering that what you call "REAL" means proving the non-existence of things with evidence.
years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
ago, after which both evolved.
Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
for by Theory-A.
Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
years ago or less, that can be associated with
likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
with Theory-B.
Done.
Like I said, if paleoanthropology was a real science
we wouldn't even be having this discussion...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142372398208
J.LyonLayden
Apr 8, 2016, 6:08:50 PM4/8/16
to
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 5:04:31 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > You've just convinced me that it IS a real science, considering that what you call "REAL" means proving the non-existence of things with evidence.
>
> Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
>
> Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
> ago, after which both evolved.
>
> Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
> for by Theory-A.
>
> Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
Ok I can easily show you were you went wrong.
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > You've just convinced me that it IS a real science, considering that what you call "REAL" means proving the non-existence of things with evidence.
>
> Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
>
> Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
> ago, after which both evolved.
>
> Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
> for by Theory-A.
>
> Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory Area.
Wala! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date for "homo" are you biased toward?
>
> Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> years ago or less, that can be associated with
> likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> with Theory-B.
Theory C- A population of gorilla-like primates with gorilla-like teeth evolved into bipedal ardis 6 million years ago with chimpy-human teeth. About 5 million years ago they'd driven the weaklings into the densest forests where fossils don't form. By 500 thousand years the weaklings had evolved into chimps, and were abundant and progressed enough to populate forested riversides and leave fossils.
I could come up with many more as equally likely.
Not enough data yet, pure and simple.
J.LyonLayden
Apr 8, 2016, 6:49:29 PM4/8/16
to
Sorry my voice rec sucks and I've somehow mistrained it:
Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory A.
Voila! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date for "homo" are you biased toward?
>
> Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> years ago or less, that can be associated with
> likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> with Theory-B.
What makes you think the ancestor of a chimp is a riverside animal?
Theory C- A population of gorilla-like primates with gorilla-like teeth evolved into bipedal ardis about 6 million years ago with chimpy-human teeth. About 5 million years ago they'd driven the weaklings of their species into the densest forests where fossils don't form. By 500 thousand years the weaklings had evolved into chimps, and were abundant and progressed enough to populate forested riversides and start leaving bones, one of which formed into a fossil.
Over the next 500k, hominids left a lot more fossils and bones because they were infinitely more abundant and widespread.
I could come up with a theory D,E, and F that is as equally likely.
There's not enough data yet, pure and simple.
>
> Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
Ok I can easily show you where you went wrong.
> Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory A.
Voila! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date for "homo" are you biased toward?
>
> Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> years ago or less, that can be associated with
> likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> with Theory-B.
What makes you think the ancestor of a chimp is a riverside animal?
Over the next 500k, hominids left a lot more fossils and bones because they were infinitely more abundant and widespread.
I could come up with a theory D,E, and F that is as equally likely.
There's not enough data yet, pure and simple.
JTEM
Apr 9, 2016, 12:26:10 AM4/9/16
to
J.LyonLayden wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> > years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
> >
> > Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
> > ago, after which both evolved.
> >
> > Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
> > for by Theory-A.
> >
> > Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
> Ok I can easily show you were you went wrong.
I didn't go wrong.
> Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory Area.
> Wala! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
This would still be falsified by the finding of a
5 million year plus old Chimp fossil.
> Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date for "homo"
> are you biased toward?
Homo *Is* human, but what I meant was the human line.
The human line and the Chimp line split.
> > Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> > existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> > years ago or less, that can be associated with
> > likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> > delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> > be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> > this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> > with Theory-B.
> What makes you think the ancestor of a chimp is a riverside animal?
It doesn't have to be.
> Theory C- A population of gorilla-like primates with gorilla-like teeth evolved into bipedal ardis 6 million years ago with chimpy-human teeth. About 5 million years ago they'd driven the weaklings into the densest forests where fossils don't form. By 500 thousand years the weaklings had evolved into chimps, and were abundant and progressed enough to populate forested riversides and leave fossils.
This would also be falsified by a 5-million-plus year
old Chimp fossil.
> I could come up with many more as equally likely.
And the test I propose would exclude any of them
that suggests a split more recent than, say, 5
million years old.
> Not enough data yet, pure and simple.
Actually, you can mindlessly find any name in a phone
book in 20 steps or less, as the phone book is
alphabetical. Let's take the name "Wilson."
#1. Open the phone book to the middle. Roughly
speaking, you're probably going to be on the tail
end of the 'M' names, with 'A' through 'L' on the
left and 'N' through 'Z' on the right. Wilson
follows 'M' alphabetically, so...
#2. Turn to the second half of the book and open
that halfway. You are now dealing with two quarters
of the book. You're probably on the letter 'T'.
Well 'W' follows 'T' so you want that last quarter...
#3. Open the last quarter of the book halfway
through. You're now dealing with two eighths,
and you're probably up to the letter 'W'.
Wilson begins with 'W'!
So now look at the second letter; does it come
before or after 'i' alphabetically? Well it
probably comes AFTER the letter 'i' so drop the
last eighth of the book, you don't need it.
#4. Go ahead and open that second-to-last eighth
of the book about halfway. You are now dealing
with 2/16ths of the book. You're probably on the
letter 'V' anyways, which comes before 'W' so we
overshot. You want the 1/16th on your right now.
#5. Open the 1/16th on your right about halfway.
{You get the picture}
Very quickly you can work through a database
containing millions of names (social security
numbers, etc) and find exactly the one you're
looking for. It's not always the fastest
method (You know "Anders" isn't halfway through
the book) but it's a sure-fire way, and it's
a safe way in that you avoid any sloppiness.
You can approach most tasks the same way.
Find a Chimp fossil that's more than 5 million
years old and you instantly wipe out every
theory that says the split happened less than
5 million years ago.
That's it. You eliminated most of the competing
theories.
THEN you can pick an older date, and try to
prove Chimps were around at that time. If
you succeed then you just moved the bar again.
Congratulation. Now pick a date even older and
try again... keep going until you fail.
If you do fail then work the other way: Pick
a date roughly between the last successful
date and your failed date...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142486795913
> JTEM wrote:
> > Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> > years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
> >
> > Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
> > ago, after which both evolved.
> >
> > Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
> > for by Theory-A.
> >
> > Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
> Ok I can easily show you were you went wrong.
> Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory Area.
> Wala! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
5 million year plus old Chimp fossil.
> Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date for "homo"
> are you biased toward?
The human line and the Chimp line split.
> > Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> > existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> > years ago or less, that can be associated with
> > likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> > delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> > be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> > this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> > with Theory-B.
> What makes you think the ancestor of a chimp is a riverside animal?
> Theory C- A population of gorilla-like primates with gorilla-like teeth evolved into bipedal ardis 6 million years ago with chimpy-human teeth. About 5 million years ago they'd driven the weaklings into the densest forests where fossils don't form. By 500 thousand years the weaklings had evolved into chimps, and were abundant and progressed enough to populate forested riversides and leave fossils.
old Chimp fossil.
> I could come up with many more as equally likely.
that suggests a split more recent than, say, 5
million years old.
> Not enough data yet, pure and simple.
book in 20 steps or less, as the phone book is
alphabetical. Let's take the name "Wilson."
#1. Open the phone book to the middle. Roughly
speaking, you're probably going to be on the tail
end of the 'M' names, with 'A' through 'L' on the
left and 'N' through 'Z' on the right. Wilson
follows 'M' alphabetically, so...
#2. Turn to the second half of the book and open
that halfway. You are now dealing with two quarters
of the book. You're probably on the letter 'T'.
Well 'W' follows 'T' so you want that last quarter...
#3. Open the last quarter of the book halfway
through. You're now dealing with two eighths,
and you're probably up to the letter 'W'.
Wilson begins with 'W'!
So now look at the second letter; does it come
before or after 'i' alphabetically? Well it
probably comes AFTER the letter 'i' so drop the
last eighth of the book, you don't need it.
#4. Go ahead and open that second-to-last eighth
of the book about halfway. You are now dealing
with 2/16ths of the book. You're probably on the
letter 'V' anyways, which comes before 'W' so we
overshot. You want the 1/16th on your right now.
#5. Open the 1/16th on your right about halfway.
{You get the picture}
Very quickly you can work through a database
containing millions of names (social security
numbers, etc) and find exactly the one you're
looking for. It's not always the fastest
method (You know "Anders" isn't halfway through
the book) but it's a sure-fire way, and it's
a safe way in that you avoid any sloppiness.
You can approach most tasks the same way.
Find a Chimp fossil that's more than 5 million
years old and you instantly wipe out every
theory that says the split happened less than
5 million years ago.
That's it. You eliminated most of the competing
theories.
THEN you can pick an older date, and try to
prove Chimps were around at that time. If
you succeed then you just moved the bar again.
Congratulation. Now pick a date even older and
try again... keep going until you fail.
If you do fail then work the other way: Pick
a date roughly between the last successful
date and your failed date...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142486795913
JTEM
Apr 9, 2016, 12:53:32 AM4/9/16
to
J.LyonLayden wrote:
> Ok I can easily show you where you went wrong.
> Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory A.
> Voila! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
This makes no sense.
> Ok I can easily show you where you went wrong.
> Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory A.
> Voila! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
500k is LESS THAN 4 million.
If a test proved that 4 million was too young,
by extension that means 500k is WAY too young!
> Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date
> for "homo" are you biased toward?
human line... the human line split from the
Chimp line.
> > Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> > existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> > years ago or less, that can be associated with
> > likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> > delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> > be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> > this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> > with Theory-B.
> What makes you think the ancestor of a chimp is a riverside animal?
Chimps.
> Theory C- A population of gorilla-like primates with gorilla-like teeth evolved into bipedal ardis about 6 million years ago with chimpy-human teeth. About 5 million years ago they'd driven the weaklings of their species into the densest forests where fossils don't form. By 500 thousand years the weaklings had evolved into chimps, and were abundant and progressed enough to populate forested riversides and start leaving bones, one of which formed into a fossil.
> Over the next 500k, hominids left a lot more fossils and bones because they were infinitely more abundant and widespread.
that can be right.
Why?
Because that's before the Quaternary Period, and
I have always seen the ice age -- the glacial
(slash) interglacial cycle as the engine pumping
out our evolution.
It's not that I think evolution didn't happen
before 3 million years ago, it's just that it
was slower. Evolution is mostly a response to
change, and it was the Quaternary Period which
forced significant climactic (environmental)
changes on our ancestors over & over again, at
fairly regular intervals.
Sure, Ardi & Austro both evolved BEFORE the
Quaternary, but I always suspected that they
were very closely related genetically, the
one being a micro evolutionary product of the
other... all the way to early habilis.
> I could come up with a theory D,E, and F that is as equally likely.
5 million years would be falsified by the
test I propose.
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142486795913
GruffbaneJoe
Apr 9, 2016, 10:16:42 AM4/9/16
to
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 12:26:10 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> > > years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
> > >
> > > Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
> > > ago, after which both evolved.
> > >
> > > Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
> > > for by Theory-A.
> > >
> > > Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
>
> > Ok I can easily show you were you went wrong.
>
> I didn't go wrong.
>
> > Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory Area.
> > Wala! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
>
> This would still be falsified by the finding of a
> 5 million year plus old Chimp fossil.
But we don't have one. Therefore your "version A" of reasoning tells us that chimps and HSS split right before we have Hss and chimp fossils; only 500 thousand years ago.
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > Theory-A: Chimps & humans split about 4 million
> > > years ago, or less, after which point both evolved.
> > >
> > > Theory-B: Chimps & humans split 6 to 9 million years
> > > ago, after which both evolved.
> > >
> > > Test: Find fossils of an age greater than allowed
> > > for by Theory-A.
> > >
> > > Theory-B would predict the finding of such fossils.
>
> > Ok I can easily show you were you went wrong.
>
> I didn't go wrong.
>
> > Let's replace that with 500,000 years for Theory Area.
> > Wala! Humans and apes split only 500,000 years ago.
>
> This would still be falsified by the finding of a
> 5 million year plus old Chimp fossil.
>
> > Or by "human" do you mean "homo" and what date for "homo"
> > are you biased toward?
>
> Homo *Is* human, but what I meant was the human line.
> The human line and the Chimp line split.
That's the problem.
It seems to me that no matter how you look at it, the human line diverged long before 500,000 years ago when we date the only chimp fossil.
Was it 700,000 years before the fossil? 2 million years? 3 Million?
We don't know because species don't always leave fossils.
The best estimate we have is from the genomic data, which seems to say between 3 and 5 million.
The "copying error" I mentioned in the other thread is another good test.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't even have the first 3.5 million year old copying error, which would make the split previous to 3.5 million years...and therefore the split was likely during the time of Ardi or the earliest Austros.
If it has the first copying error on that loci but not the second, it split off at the time of Austro.
I think the second copying error is part of the dawn of Homo, seeing as it coincides with 2.6 million year old Rudolphensis and the 2.8 million year old anomolous homo skull from Africa.
>
> > > Experiment: Identify the location of rivers that
> > > existed 5 to 6 million years ago, but not 4 million
> > > years ago or less, that can be associated with
> > > likely Chimp habitats, with a particular interest in
> > > delta regions. Dig for fossils. If any fossils can
> > > be convincingly identified as belonging to a Chimp
> > > this would exclude Theory-A while remaining consistent
> > > with Theory-B.
>
> > What makes you think the ancestor of a chimp is a riverside animal?
>
> It doesn't have to be.
>
> > Theory C- A population of gorilla-like primates with gorilla-like teeth evolved into bipedal ardis 6 million years ago with chimpy-human teeth. About 5 million years ago they'd driven the weaklings into the densest forests where fossils don't form. By 500 thousand years the weaklings had evolved into chimps, and were abundant and progressed enough to populate forested riversides and leave fossils.
>
> This would also be falsified by a 5-million-plus year
> old Chimp fossil.
>
> > I could come up with many more as equally likely.
>
> And the test I propose would exclude any of them
> that suggests a split more recent than, say, 5
> million years old.
I don't expect to, though. I'm not denying that at all.
After having this debate I'm making an educated guess of between 3.5 and 4.5 million, based on the copying error that occured 3.5 million years ago in only the "human" line, the genomic data that says 4 million years for the split, and the fossil record; chimp bones are more likely derived from Ardi than Austro, and their behavior is more similar too (Ardi didn't use butchering tools).
>
> That's it. You eliminated most of the competing
> theories.
>
> THEN you can pick an older date, and try to
> prove Chimps were around at that time. If
> you succeed then you just moved the bar again.
> Congratulation. Now pick a date even older and
> try again... keep going until you fail.
85% of endangered mammal species would not leave remains if modern scientists didn't preserve them, and some of those endangered species were once abundant and not endangered at all. They still didn't leave any fossils in their prime!
That says to me that there are a lot of Pleistocene mammals that we don't even know existed.
>
> If you do fail then work the other way: Pick
> a date roughly between the last successful
> date and your failed date...
Shoulkd we assume it evolved yeasterday because we can't find a fossil previous to that?
We might search for a hundred year in the right places and still not find a fossil, because like 85% of its fellow species it never even left one.
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142486795913
JTEM
Apr 10, 2016, 2:48:20 AM4/10/16
to
It's a numbers game. If I gave you a draw in a
1 in a million chance game to win a brand new
car you probably wouldn't get excited. But if
I gave you 10 million draws in a 1-in-a-million
game you'd probably be very confident about
winning that car.
Right?
...because the odds would heavily favor you
winning that new car.
Right?
The Chimp population for the year 1900 is currently
estimated to have been from 1 to 2 million. With
some 10% dying each year (and it was probably more
than that) we're talking about 100 to 200 thousand
remains... over, say, 3 million years... BILLIONS
of deceased Chimps.... HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS.
The usual odds for an animal becoming fossilized
are, what? Like 1-in-a-million.
Understand now?
GruffbaneJoe wrote:
> But we don't have one. Therefore your "version A" of reasoning tells us that chimps and HSS split right before we have Hss and chimp fossils; only 500 thousand years ago.
touch on two of them...
#1. The probability that Chimps arose less than
one million years ago is not zero. Another way
you might put it is that it is improbable but not
impossible.
#2. I wouldn't propose a test if I felt that the
test had been properly/thoroughly conducted. Your
response assumes otherwise.
> Well where does this "human" line begin? Ardi or Austro or Homo?
> That's the problem.
artificial concepts here anyways. We agree
that Homo is human, that the first Homo is
the first in the human line, and right now
that is conventionally understood to start
with habilis.
> It seems to me that no matter how you look at it
to dick fence on usenet I suffer an irresistible
urge to reach for a meat cleaver...
We are not making up terms on the fly. There is a
context here. If you are unfamiliar with the
definitions than perhaps you need to spend some
time Googling the subject instead of posting to
threads.
> the human line diverged long before 500,000 years ago when
> we date the only chimp fossil.
FIRST you ask where the human line begins, THEN
you respond as if you know...
> The best estimate we have is from the genomic data, which seems to say between 3 and 5 million.
molecular date, but even then leaving room
for more recent dates. We have mechanism to
explain away exaggerated molecular dates, but
nothing that could uniformly explain anti
aging...
> The "copying error" I mentioned in the other thread is another good test.
> I'm pretty sure it doesn't even have the first 3.5 million year old copying error, which would make the split previous to 3.5 million years...and therefore the split was likely during the time of Ardi or the earliest Austros.
multiple Austro populations. It could have occurred
in just one, or even amongst the fringes of one
population, only to much later be brought to the
forefront by some external event.
There's lots of models within a model.
> After having this debate I'm making an educated
> guess of between 3.5 and 4.5 million
routine. Though the numbers I'm used to seeing
are closer to +/- .4 instead of .5 million
years.
Now I just kind of automatically shave years
off of every such "Dating." A speciesization
event has always seemed to me to be something
that would normally take place rather rapidly,
within a small population, rather than the
slow, relentless march of accumulated errors
that most idiots want to believe in.
> I don't disagree with your theory I disagree
> with your method. It implies that if there's
> not a fossil then there' wasn't an animal and
> we know that isn't true.
to go with the evidence we have, instead of
quoting imaginary evidence.
It's very common to say that "Absence of evidence
is evidence of absence," and that is certainly
true. In theory. But in application that "Absence
of evidence" would be taken as "Evidence of
absence" by any court of law...
> 85% of endangered mammal species would not leave
> remains if modern scientists didn't preserve them
to quote "Facts" based on one even as you dismiss
the total absence of Chimp fossils as meaningless...
It's not the same world as the first million years
of Chimps would have seen. We humans changed everything.
> We might search for a hundred year in the right places and
> still not find a fossil
place...
New technologies are coming on line all the time. Way
back in the day, taking an intro to dinosaur paleontology
class, I remember predicting that in the future some
form of RADAR (X-Rays/etc) would take over digging. That,
we might even learn more from such methods as none of the
rock is lost. That, we might find things viewing them in
situ (encased in rock) that we've been missing all these
years...
-- --
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/142486973938
0 new messages