Hybrid Hypothesis Dead, Done, Stick A Fork In It....

[FarArcher]

No.  I quoted accurately.

 

You have to read the whole thing to find what I quoted.  Apparently.

 

Then, there's the panels on down in the article that explain the events that caused some consternation, and then you can follow up down in the references - just have a quick look at #2 if you're in a hurry.

 

I'm not the one who wanted to use this to make a point.  I'm just quoting what you wanted to use.

 

 

And for the record, the odd fusing of one pair of chromosomes is an infinite possibility in just one "man."  The odds of such a thing occurring are so small, it's almost immeasurable.

 

But.  This is where it gets worse.  The only way for us to have 46 chromosomes, and every one of the other hominids to have 48, is for this on in a million/billion "man" who happened to mystically fuse his chromosomes, and then he has to mate with another one-in-a-million/billion female who also just happened to mystically fuse her chromosomes - and then they have offspring.

 

Can you imagine the odds of the likely only two in the world even finding each other?  Surviving to puberty?  Then mating sufficiently to provide an entire new set of males and females with only 46 chromosomes?

 

What ARE the odds?

 

Quite an event.  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

No.  I quoted accurately.

 

You have to read the whole thing to find what I quoted.  Apparently.

 

It seems like you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. Also, if you actually read the whole article, you would have seen this:

 

Humans the non-apes: Until about 1960, taxonomists typically divided the superfamily Hominoidea into two families. The science community treated humans and their extinct relatives as the outgroup within the superfamily; that is, humans were considered as quite distant from kinship with the "apes". Humans were classified as the family Hominidae and were known as the "hominids". All other hominoids were known as "apes" and were referred to the family Pongidae.^[25]

 

In other words, even before the 1960's, humans were considered to be within the superfamily Hominoidea.

[Incorrigible1]

This is silly. A poster doesn't care for English words. Engages in anti-science. Hey, everyone is welcome to their opinion, silly as it might be. Maybe the world is 6K years old, too.

[Twist]

No.  I quoted accurately.

 

.......

.

Can you cite exactly what you quoted from the article, for both this instance and in the future?  Would be easier to follow what you are quoting and what you are stating as your own statement if they are put in quotation marks and a link to said article.

 

Thanks.  

[bipedalist]

The reduced number of chromosome argument is a nonstarter, for here is the take-home:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

I think the key issue to understand here is that chromosome number changes are typically going to represent nothing but reorganizations of the genes — the same genes are just being moved around to different filing cabinets. This has some consequences, of course — you increase the chances of losing some important file folders in the process, and making it more difficult to sort out important information — but it’s not as drastic as some seem to think, and chromosome numbers can change dramatically with no obvious effect on the phenotype of the organism. 

[ShadowBorn]

I agree there Fararcher and have no problem there and yet it did happen. But like you said we are not apes but humans, but we are related to apes in that we have a common ancestor. http://anthro.palomar.edu/primate/prim_8.htm But as humans we fall under our own branch and this spilt took place some 5 - 6 million yrs ago. where I am trying to go with this is how is it that we evolved at the same time these creatures have evolved and yet we have nothing of a fossil record of them. If they have human in them and have some other type of a creature, then they have evolve into a super man beast. This is where we should be sticking too, placing our focus on.

 

What we seen and what other have seen just did not just spawn out of no where yet they have features or should I say characteristics of humans. So how did they evolve if there are no fossil record of them? This why I am so in tune where I am at, and wanting to know so much about how we evolved. It took million of years to create mankind. Yet next to us we have been living with a freak of nature that has evaded us with out explanation.

 

It has to start with evolution in order for us to understand what we might be dealing with. Since we might be living with a living ancient fossil specimen that might very well be related to us. By the way being related to apes does not make us ape per Definition:

 

re·lat·ed

/rəˈlÄdÉ™d/

adjective

adjective: related

belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.
"sleeping sickness and related diseases"

synonyms: connected, interconnected, associated, linked, coupled, allied, affiliated, concomitant, corresponding, analogous, kindred, parallel, comparable, homologous, equivalent More

"related ideas"

•of the same family, kin, akin, kindred;
formalcognate, consanguineous

"are you two related?"

antonyms: unconnected, unrelated

•associated with the specified item or process, especially causally.
suffix: -related

"income-related benefits"

 

It just means that we are connected to a said group through a singular ancestor, But this does not make us apes. We are a sub species that some how was connected to apes out of Africa. So I do not agree that I am an ape but a Human being.

[ShadowBorn]

 

The reduced number of chromosome argument is a nonstarter, for here is the take-home:

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

I think the key issue to understand here is that chromosome number changes are typically going to represent nothing but reorganizations of the genes — the same genes are just being moved around to different filing cabinets. This has some consequences, of course — you increase the chances of losing some important file folders in the process, and making it more difficult to sort out important information — but it’s not as drastic as some seem to think, and chromosome numbers can change dramatically with no obvious effect on the phenotype of the organism. 

 

So adding or reducing chromosomes will have effect on the out come of their genes , which could cause consequences. Well this I can see, since if you look at the strands of DNA they are like execution files. When a set of programs are turned on these execution files are turned on, but what the article is saying is that the change has no effect at all. Is this right?

[ShadowBorn]

This is silly. A poster doesn't care for English words. Engages in anti-science. Hey, everyone is welcome to their opinion, silly as it might be. Maybe the world is 6K years old, too.

It is easy to attack the poster rather then the issue, when there is no anti science  going on , But science at it's best since this invites debate. Science is about learning and this is what we are doing. No arguing but learning things that have been on our minds but never have been said. This is what these creatures have done, they have brought out what we should have been debating in the first place.

 

If these creatures are a part of the evolutionary tree then we are getting to understand it. This is what will get us closer to the truth of them and what we need to do to get close to them. Other wise we are always going to be at a stand still. Science is going beyond understanding to understand what we do no not understand. These creature are them that we do not understand, even though some believe that they do not exist.

[Incorrigible1]

SB, I've a difficult time even responding.

[FarArcher]

 

No.  I quoted accurately.

 

You have to read the whole thing to find what I quoted.  Apparently.

 

It seems like you just don't want to admit that you're wrong. Also, if you actually read the whole article, you would have seen this:

 

Humans the non-apes: Until about 1960, taxonomists typically divided the superfamily Hominoidea into two families. The science community treated humans and their extinct relatives as the outgroup within the superfamily; that is, humans were considered as quite distant from kinship with the "apes". Humans were classified as the family Hominidae and were known as the "hominids". All other hominoids were known as "apes" and were referred to the family Pongidae.^[25]

 

In other words, even before the 1960's, humans were considered to be within the superfamily Hominoidea.

 

 

Geez, this is not that hard.  1.  I didn't link the article.  2.  I quoted from the article.  3.  Five paragraphs down is a good place to start.

 

"Recent evidence has changed our understanding of the relationships between the hominids, especially regarding the human lineage; and the traditionally used terms have become somewhat confused.  Competing approaches re methodology and terminology are found among current scientific sources."

 

Paragraph 6:  See if this isn't what I already quoted.

 

"Some, or - recently - all hominoids are called "apes," but the term is used broadly and has several senses within both popular and scientific settings.  "Ape" has been used as a synonym for monkey or for naming any primate with a humanlike appearance, particularly those without a tail  .  .  .  Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans, but more recently to mean all Hominoidea.  So "ape" - not to be confused with "great-ape" - now becomes another word for hominoid including humans."

 

And then I commented they keep changing the rules.  Keep flipping the terminology.  That's what the previous two paragraphs clearly indicate.  How is it so difficult to read these paragraphs and then not connect with what I claim, which is that terminology keeps changing?  And the logical assumption - they will change again?

 

Then I pointed out the Notes and References section near the bottom of the article.

 

Read them.  

 

2.  "Although Dawson is clear that he uses "apes" for Hominoidea, he also uses "great apes" in ways which excludes humans." (2005)

 

8.  "for example, 'all apes except humans are hairy."'  Dawkins 2005

 

18.  "Through careful study taxonomists today struggle to eliminate polypheletic and paraphyletic groups and taxons, reclassifying their members into appropriate monophyletic taxa."

 

So I stated that they keep moving the goal posts.  And they do.

[norseman]

This is silly. A poster doesn't care for English words. Engages in anti-science. Hey, everyone is welcome to their opinion, silly as it might be. Maybe the world is 6K years old, too.

It is easy to attack the poster rather then the issue, when there is no anti science  going on , But science at it's best since this invites debate. Science is about learning and this is what we are doing. No arguing but learning things that have been on our minds but never have been said. This is what these creatures have done, they have brought out what we should have been debating in the first place.

 

If these creatures are a part of the evolutionary tree then we are getting to understand it. This is what will get us closer to the truth of them and what we need to do to get close to them. Other wise we are always going to be at a stand still. Science is going beyond understanding to understand what we do no not understand. These creature are them that we do not understand, even though some believe that they do not exist.

We cannot debate in a scientific manner because you and far archer reject science concerning human evolution. Your reasoning as to why you reject it is "just because".

Therefore we are playing tennis with the net down. Your entitled to your opinion. But at this point saying Humans are not Apes is like saying the Earth is flat.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Humans are Apes just not visa versa.

[ShadowBorn]

We cannot debate in a scientific manner because you and far archer reject science concerning human evolution. Your reasoning as to why you reject it is "just because

How am I rejecting science when all I am saying is that Humans is a sub-species of apes and that ape chimps and Humans all had a common ancestor. Where is the rejection. If I am stating a truth that we as humans are a subspecies and by definition subspecies means :

 

sub·spe·cies

/ˈsəbˌspēSHēz,ˈsəbˌspēsēz/

noun

Biology

noun: subspecies; plural noun: subspecies; symbol: subsp.; symbol: ssp.; noun: sub-species; plural noun: sub-species

a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race. Subspecies are designated by a Latin trinomial, e.g., (in zoology) Ursus arctos horribilis or (in botany) Beta vulgaris subsp. crassa

 

" usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race " Now does this sound like we are ape or that we are just related to apes which should be the correct  interpretation.

[FarArcher]

This is silly. A poster doesn't care for English words. Engages in anti-science. Hey, everyone is welcome to their opinion, silly as it might be. Maybe the world is 6K years old, too.

 

I think it's just oversimplification by a group who are too lazy to get into details.  You have a group all given different scientific names, and then you have an all inclusive, language specific name applied to dissimilar organisms.  Why even bother to use other names for Hominoidea if we're not going to differentiate?

 

Everything else has 48 chromosomes, and only one has 46 chromosomes, but some are just too sorry to account for the one that's much, much different from all the rest.  Much easier to throw them all in the same bucket and use a general term.  99.9% of all species that have ever existed - are extinct.  

 

That's what I call science.  Oh.  That's right.  The first complete skulls found at Dmanisi, all significantly different, but all H. Erectus, will eliminate previously approved, sanitized, and published - but mistakenly misidentified species of H. ruldolfensis, H. ergaster, H. gautengensis, and even the big boy, H. habilis.  Come to find out - they're all H. erectus.

 

That's not what I call human evolution science.  That's what I call jumping to conclusions from a lack of sufficient knowledge and the rushing pursuit of fame.

 

And I'm supposed to rely on this stuff without question?

 

I'd have to be dumb as dumb can be.  Or ignorant.  Ignorance goes a long way.   

 

To rely on this "science" currently proposed under the broad heading "evolution," might as well believe the sun, stars, and planets revolve around the earth.

[Incorrigible1]

Science invites you to prove them wrong. Probably too much trouble for you, but they await your profound, sweeping, marvelous insights. Go for it. Or blather away. I've a guess which you'll choose.