Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Some of Ann Gauger’s critics claim she says that humans are four million years old

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In “Humanly Speaking … Part 2” (Biologic Institute, July 5, 2012) Ann Gauger responds to a possible misunderstanding of her work in Science and Human Origins, Chapter 5:

here seems to be an idea on the part of some critics that my analysis in “Science and Human Origins” means that humans arose four million years ago. That is not the case.

In the book I said that we share four haplotypes with chimps, and between three and five haplotypes predate the putative split between our lineage and chimps, assuming common descent is true. How many haplotypes depends on how the tree is drawn, and where the estimated divergence time is placed.

Some have said mistakenly that this means the first humans must have appeared at four million years. I never said that and the data do not show that.

Figures: If the girl is making some sense, they have to make up something she didn’t say, so they don’t have to address what she did say. That’s life.

See also:

Science and Human Origins conclusion: It IS possible we came from just two parents

Adam and Eve could be real?: Genes’ introns and exons tell different stories here. Who to believe?

Adam and Eve possible?: Ayala’s contrary claim built in favourable assumptions

Breaking: Adam and Eve are scientifically possible

Comments
Clades are, by definition, an ancestral species and all of its descendant species.
Clades are formed via similarities- that is what is and isn't in a clade is determined by the number of shared characteristics: intro to cladistics
The basic idea behind cladistics is that members of a group share a common evolutionary history, and are "closely related," more so to members of the same group than to other organisms. These groups are recognized by sharing unique features which were not present in distant ancestors. These shared derived characteristics are called synapomorphies.
cladistics:
Cladistics can be distinguished from other taxonomic systems, such as phenetics, by its focus on shared derived characters (synapomorphies).
And also what is cladistics?
They are formed via descent with modification.
That is the assumption. However a common design explains the similarities and descent with modification still cannot explain the differences. And nothing about cladistics supports the premise of accumulations of random mutations.Joe
July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
@51. "[Clades] are formed via similarities." Uh... No. Clades are, by definition, an ancestral species and all of its descendant species. They are formed via descent with modification. Graphic representations of clades, i.e., cladograms (phylogenetic trees), are produced by assessing/analyzing the extent of shared unique features, be they morphological/physiological features or molecular sequences. The methods for producing cladograms have been tested on knowns and experimentally generated clades and found to be quite accurate, and the assumptions of these methods have also been tested (e.g. that mutations are heritable).SamHManning
July 14, 2012
July
07
Jul
14
14
2012
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
I'm not a critic, but rather a sceptick. Ann is AFK!Mung
July 13, 2012
July
07
Jul
13
13
2012
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Daniel- "Change the way you look at things at the things you look at change."- Wayne DyerJoe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
Joe, Thanks for the Mayr quote. It's a classic. If I'm following you correctly, using cladistic methods, evolutionists hypothesize a common ancestor for humans, chimps, and gorillas, whereas design theorists using the same methods hypothesize a common ancestral design for humans, chimps, and gorillas.Daniel King
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Joe,
And sorry, no one should take evolutionists seriously. Just look at what you are saying- we are the result of accumulations of genetic accidents that can’t even produce more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.
No one said you had to take it seriously. I just wish you took the time to answer some of my questions seriously like you expect me to answer yours. Oh well.Jerad
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
That is right Daniel- did you know that evolutionists took Linne's taxonomy and changed the names to make it look like evolution didit as opposed to a Creator?
One would expect a priori that such a complete change of the philosophical bias of classification would result in a radical change of classification, but this was by no means the case. There was hardly and change in method before and after Darwin, except that "archetype" was replaced by the common ancestor.-- Ernst Mayr
Joe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
Do you know how clades are formed? They are formed via similarities. And similarities are evidence for a common design. So instead of some hypothetical ancestral population as the divergence point, we would have a common design based on the number of similarities.
So you would have a hypothetical ancestral design instead of a hypothetical ancestral organism. It looks like different names for the same thing, if the same method yields the same result.Daniel King
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Similarities are also evidence for common descent.
Yes humans give rise to similar humans. Chimps gve rise to similar chimps. And sorry, no one should take evolutionists seriously. Just look at what you are saying- we are the result of accumulations of genetic accidents that can't even produce more than two new protein-to-protein binding sites.Joe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Joe, Similarities are also evidence for common descent. As is the geographic distribution of species.
How can one tell if a fossil generated any descendents? That is descendents that were a different species?
From the fossil, genetic, morphologic and biogeographic data.
So you have no intention of supporting your claims- got it.
If I thought you were really interested I would make another attempt. If you were really interested in dinosaur clades you would look one up. When I try and defend my position you just decry whatever I say. I don't have any evidence, etc. And you're very reluctant to answer questions. (Here's one: if there is extra programming in the cell as you've asserted and the whole thing is front loaded in some way then would there be lots and lots of transitional forms that did not form fossils?) (Here's another one: if ID is not anti-evolution, as you've said, then does ID agree with clades based on genetic sequencing?) So I'm not sure it's worth continuing the dialogue to be honest. Not when it feels like I'm just being mocked and not taken seriously.Jerad
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Danial King- Do you know how clades are formed? They are formed via similarities. And similarities are evidence for a common design. So instead of some hypothetical ancestral population as the divergence point, we would have a common design based on the number of similarities.Joe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
Jerad, How can one tell if a fossil generated any descendents? That is descendents that were a different species? So you have no intention of supporting your claims- got it.Joe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Joe,
How can one tell which is which? Based on whether or not they generated descendants clearly.
Earlier I asked you for a reference and you didn’t produce one. Why is that?
They're easy enough to find if you're really interested. I'm not sure you are so I'll leave it up to you.
Jerad
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
06:48 AM
6
06
48
AM
PDT
Jerad:
Clearly some fossils would be on tips and some would be on the branches.
How can one tell which is which? Earlier I asked you for a reference and you didn't produce one. Why is that?Joe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Daniel King- Linnean taxonomy is based on a common design- that is your worked example.Joe
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Joe:
Just take any existing cladogram and instead of common ancestor replace that with common archetype- for example all vertebrates have some commonality in their design.
That's not clear to me. Would you kindly work an example, as I requested?Daniel King
July 9, 2012
July
07
Jul
9
09
2012
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
Joe,
Put then wherever you want. My guess was they would be on the tips- their respective tips. Meaning the branches would still be bare and hypothetical.
Clearly some fossils would be on tips and some would be on the branches.
However, if you think about it, they should be inside of the clade on the branches- those missing ancestors the tips came from.
So . . .why did you guess they would be at the tips? I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Or if you're even taking this discussion seriously.
IOW if we put all the fossils and all the extant organisms on the tips there isn’t anything left for ancestors, hey.
Which is why we don't.Jerad
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Put then wherever you want. My guess was they would be on the tips- their respective tips. Meaning the branches would still be bare and hypothetical. However, if you think about it, they should be inside of the clade on the branches- those missing ancestors the tips came from. IOW if we put all the fossils and all the extant organisms on the tips there isn't anything left for ancestors, hey.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
Sorry, Joe, should fossils be tips in trees or not?wd400
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
07:26 PM
7
07
26
PM
PDT
Daniel King- In "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" Denton started a "Transportation" nested hierarchy which was based on common designs.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
wd400:
Joe, then why do you think fossils shouldn’t be on tips?
Do I also beat my wife? What am I thinking now? What flavour gum am I chewing? Trick question because I just usually throw in a small handful of different flavoured gumballs- but hey you knew that already I am sure.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Joe, then why do you think fossils shouldn't be on tips?wd400
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
Daniel King- Just take any existing cladogram and instead of common ancestor replace that with common archetype- for example all vertebrates have some commonality in their design.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
wd400:
Joe, the thing you seem to be forgetting is that most lineages go extinct.
Nope, I am not forgetting that.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT
Joe, the thing you seem to be forgetting is that most lineages go extinct. So fossils are unlikely to be ancestors of modern animals, rather than close cousins to those ancestors. In this way fossils should be thought of as tips on trees (just tips that don't make it to the modern day). The standard creationist apoplexy about this or that fossil not being ancestral is based on the same misunderstanding, the point in not that one fossil is an ancestor, but that we can infer what characters and ancestor was likely to have using a phylogentic framework. There is a nice illlustration of how extinction and speciation can balance to get "bushy" evolution narrowing down to sparse phylogeny here: http://web.uconn.edu/gogarten/wd400
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Joe claimed:
i can use the same criteria for determing a clade and use it to determine the common design.
That might be helpful. Would you care to work an example?Daniel King
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Jerad:
Guess you’d better argue with the people who invented and defined cladistics.
Just because someone can define cladistics doesn't mean it holds water. i can use the same criteria for determing a clade and use it to determine the common design.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Joe,
Reference please. Do they appear at the tips?
They can if they were the last of a line. Like some dinosaurs or Neanderthals. Google 'dinosaur clades' to see some examples.
Yes I know. However that does not make it so.
Guess you'd better argue with the people who invented and defined cladistics.
It is constructed using existing organisms at the tips and the number of shared characteristics determines the degree of relatedness.
More or less but using different kinds of 'characteristics' (morphology, computational phylogenetics or genetic sequencing) and/or different structures (node-based, branch-based, apomorphy-based) give you different kinds of cladograms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CladisticsJerad
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Jerad:
I wouldn’t say that fossilised life forms are assumed or hypothetical. They appear in clades.
Reference please. Do they appear at the tips?
Anyway the definition of a clade is all the descendant taxa of an ancestor taxon.
Yes I know. However that does not make it so.
It’s not defined by the existing organisms.
It is constructed using existing organisms at the tips and the number of shared characteristics determines the degree of relatedness.Joe
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Joe, I wouldn't say that fossilised life forms are assumed or hypothetical. They appear in clades. Anyway the definition of a clade is all the descendant taxa of an ancestor taxon. It's not defined by the existing organisms.Jerad
July 8, 2012
July
07
Jul
8
08
2012
10:44 AM
10
10
44
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply